Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I now ask for its second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, object to further proceeding on this matter.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, very briefly, I wish to comment on an event we are celebrating throughout the United States today and indeed throughout the world today. That is the fact that today is the 34th anniversary of Earth Day, an event that gives people the opportunity to celebrate the environmental accomplishments that have been made over the past three decades and, yes, to look ahead to see what progress can and should be made. What has been so apparent to me as I travel back to Tennessee and talk to people across Tennessee is the opportunity that this day and this focus gives communities to discuss, to participate, and clean up of projects--to participate in conservation projects all across Tennessee. And, thus, it is happening all across the country. Thousands of volunteers today, right now as we speak, are participating in an event--and the next few weeks will continue that discussion and that activity--all of which will serve to raise environmental awareness and improve the cities and towns and the environment in which we live. This year we have much to celebrate. The quality of our environment has dramatically improved over the past 30 years. Federal, State, and local efforts have enhanced our air and enhanced our water quality by reducing pollution. Major steps have been taken to clean up contaminated sites over the last 30 years and to protect our natural resources. Since 1970--a little over 30 years ago--aggregate emissions of harmful pollutants have decreased by 25 percent. And that has happened--this decreasing of the pollutants by 25 percent--at the same time our gross domestic product has increased 161 percent. Energy consumption has increased 42 percent. Tennessee is home to some of our Nation's most diverse natural areas. We have the Great Smoky Mountains in east Tennessee, a wonderful environment, a wonderful region, a wonderful space that I personally enjoy. I hike through it every year with my family--my wife Karyn and my three boys. It is our Nation's most visited National Park, the great Smoky Mountains National Park. It is home to more than 100,000 different, distinct species, hundreds of which are new to science. The park itself is one of the most biologically diverse, indeed, in the world. Tennesseans know how critically important it is to protect and to conserve our limited resource. In recognition of Earth Day, Tennesseans are volunteering all across the State, in National Parks, community cleanup projects, in wildlife refuges. A lot of the projects I mentioned are underway as I speak. In Nashville, thousands turned out to Centennial Park to learn about the Cumberland River and the region's water resources. Tennesseans are taking part in cleanup activities in the Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge which is in northwest Tennessee. In east Tennessee and Knoxville there is the Fifth Annual Earthfest which is themed ``What's In Your Water,'' to highlight water resources and quality issues in east Tennessee. Federal agencies, in cooperation with national and grassroots organizations, are working together to educate Americans about how they can participate in cleaning up their environment on a daily basis, what they can do as individuals, as communities, initiatives such as the ENERGY STAR Program, statewide recycling programs, and under the Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resources Conservation Service is teaching people how to be good stewards of our planet. Earth Day is, indeed, an opportunity to reflect our accomplishments today and think about how we can do more to improve the environment. The administration has proposed several new initiatives that will reduce air pollution, which will support conservation and environmental stewardship programs and address our Nation's limited water resources issues. We also are working with international partners to address global climate change and assist developing countries with environmental challenges such as deforestation and illegal logging. After more than 30 years, Earth Day has become an integral part of our Nation's environmental consciousness. No matter how you choose to celebrate Earth Day, you will be taking part in an international effort to preserve our natural resources and build a healthier tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will just add to the assistant Democratic leader's comments. There is a lot of work most people don't see. Certainly, you didn't see very much of it on the Senate floor over the last couple days. People have worked in a bipartisan way to pass a bipartisan bill. So I, too, congratulate the appropriate leaders on that bill.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is not invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 2290, the asbestos bill, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2329, a bill relating to victims' rights, which was introduced earlier today by Senators Kyl and Feinstein. I further ask that S. 2329 be held at the desk, that there be no amendments in order to the bill, and debate be limited to 2 hours, with 30 minutes each under the control of Senators Kyl, Hatch, Leahy, and Feinstein respectively. I further ask that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage without any intervening action or debate. I further ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. J. Res. 1 be vitiated.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow morning, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the asbestos bill and the motion to proceed to the asbestos bill. There will be an additional hour of debate prior to that vote on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed. I take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hatch and the many Members who have come to the floor to speak on the importance of this legislation. Indeed, both sides of the aisle have spoken to the critically important issue of an asbestos litigation system which is inefficient and, in many ways, run amok over its initial intention. This vote is the beginning of the process and not the end. I have made that clear, hopefully, in every public statement and in every statement with my colleagues, as we have worked to negotiate this bill over the last week. It began several weeks ago when we set out on this course of bringing this to a real focus. It is time to legislate on this important issue, and tomorrow's vote is an effort to work through many issues of the bill and to eventually produce an outcome. If we are unable to invoke cloture on the asbestos bill, we are going to proceed to the victims' rights bill under the previous consent agreement. There will be up to 2 hours for debate prior to vote on passage of the victims' rights bill that was introduced earlier by Senators Kyl and Feinstein. Therefore, Senators should expect at least two votes tomorrow. The first one will occur at approximately 11:30 in the morning on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the asbestos bill.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are in a unique situation, as you just heard explained quite well. This is a bill I very much want. It is a nonpartisan bill about which this body has spoken very loudly. I appreciate the leadership of my colleague from Nevada on this bill. We are very proud of the product we have produced. My whole intention of coming to the floor, which is the normal process, to appoint conferees, Republican and Democratic conferees, is to continue in an orderly fashion and bring the bill to completion so it is law, not just a bill. We passed it February 12. The House passed it on April 2. We passed two extensions of the previous highway bill already and the deadline for the next temporary extension will be next Friday. We will have to do it once again. I am working very hard so we can have a conference committee, and we can't have a conference committee until we have conferees. It is time to act on the highway bill. As the distinguished assistant Democratic leader said, over a million, and I would say 2 million, new jobs will be created by this bill. It is vital to our economy. It is vital to the Nation's infrastructure. Regular order would be for us to appoint conferees. We will continue to work, having heard the objection, in regular order which, in my mind, would accelerate passage of the bill. We will continue to work with the other side, although I am disappointed we cannot proceed with this regular order. But I am committed to the bill. The assistant Democratic leader is. Over 70 Members of this body are. So we will continue to work diligently in that regard.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a moment I will propound a unanimous consent request with respect to the highway bill, but first let me explain to everybody where we are. We passed our version of the bill in the Senate on February 12 by an overwhelming majority, 76 to 21. Subsequent to that, the House passed their bill, H.R. 3550, on April 2 by, again, an overwhelming majority of 357 to 65. That bill is now at the desk. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the House-passed highway bill, H.R. 3550; provided further that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1072, as passed, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill then be read a third time and passed; further, the Senate then insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair then be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with a ratio of 11 to 10.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m.; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired and the Journal of proceedings be approved to date; that following the time for the two leaders, the Senate begin a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with the first half of the time under the control of the majority leader or his designee, and the second half of the time under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; provided that following that 60-minute period the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2290, the asbestos bill; provided further, that there then be 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member and, following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate the consideration. I will move through, fairly quickly, some business that finishes up on today and explains what we will be doing tomorrow.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 624, 625, 626, 627, and nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Reid.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the final decision will be made over the course of the day. If agreement has been reached--I know as of late last night, actually up until 6 o'clock, the decision was made to file the cloture motion. Discussions were still underway. If an agreement has been reached that is mutually agreeable to both sides, we will not proceed with the cloture motion. But rather than comment on that definitively now, I would like to talk to the parties involved.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning, following the time set aside for the leaders, the Senate will begin a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes. Today the Republican side will control the first 30 minutes, to be followed by 30 minutes under the control of the other side of the aisle. Following morning business, the Senate will resume the motion to proceed to the asbestos bill. During the last 2 days Senators came to the floor and engaged in debate on the asbestos issue. I appreciate that. However, we should now proceed to the bill itself in order to work through various issues. Last night, in order to move forward with the bill, I filed a cloture motion on the motion to proceed. That cloture vote will occur tomorrow. Again, this procedural vote is to allow us to begin the process of deliberating and deciding on the issues surrounding the issue of asbestos. It is a beginning of the process. Therefore, I hope cloture will indeed be invoked tomorrow morning. In addition, Senators Kyl and Feinstein have been discussing the victims' rights constitutional amendment which is on the calendar. My hope is to consider that legislation following the asbestos bill. There was an objection to beginning that bill as well, and it became necessary to file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to that joint resolution. Depending on the outcome of the asbestos cloture vote, the cloture vote on the victims' rights amendment may also occur tomorrow. On both of these matters, the Senate should be able to deliberate on the underlying issues, and ultimately the Senate should work its will on each of these bills. We will continue to press for consideration of the asbestos legislation and the victims' rights amendment this week in order for the Senate to ultimately vote on these two important pieces of legislation. The leadership, Republican and Democratic, will continue to discuss among themselves the asbestos bill and the best way to proceed over the next several days. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

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 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I am delighted to have this discussion now because I think what the distinguished Democratic leader and Senator Sarbanes pointed out is that we have a problem. Whether the problem is one outlined--it may be in the bill. I don't know the specifics of that particular case and didn't hear the particular case. But the problem, and it goes on both sides of the aisle, is that we have an inequitable system today. It is not working. It is broken. We are falling down on process. The accusations of 10 minutes in my office, which I resent--I called the Democratic leader this morning. I knew he was at a meeting and I didn't get a call back from him. If the Democratic leader is going to make accusations that I haven't discussed this enough, let's discuss this today. I set aside this whole week and I set it aside starting in--the bill came out in July. I said shortly after that, specifically in November, we were going to do this in March. People, mainly from the other side of the aisle, came forward and said we needed more time. I said, OK, we will have more time. Then we went to the end of March and we said, OK, another month, or April. Here it is April. We can go back and look. I pointed out in my statement that I knew the Democratic leader and others were either present or present in part of it. We had over 20 meetings with staff on both sides of the aisle since the bill came out, going through this bill again and again and again. We can argue process throughout. My only objective is to make sure the patients with mesothelioma--and I have had the privilege to treat patients with mesothelioma. I have treated a lot of patients with mesothelioma, both as a surgeon in England and in this country, and it is a devastating disease, secondary in large part to asbestos. I treated thousands--if not thousands, over a thousand--of people with lung cancer, so I know lung cancer. I know it is devastating. I know what it does to the families. I know the tragedy. I know the causal factors. There are correlations. Some are causal factors. It is difficult in terms of what causes cancer, what doesn't. There are limitations to the science itself. That is something we need to debate and discuss and to build upon. That is one of the things that makes it hard, because you are projecting out and the science is not just perfect itself. But I will make almost a plea to the other side of the aisle: We have a week. The stakeholders, the people who are affected, the various constituents--they know because I said months ago that we were going to do this--are around this week. If it is an argument over whether I personally haven't spent enough time with either the Democratic leader or others, we will spend the time. The stakeholders are here. Senator Specter spent so much time and he has done a tremendous job. Senator Hatch has. And Democrats and Republicans. Why don't we take this week, which I set aside weeks ago and said we were going to have a week--let's put everybody in a room. There are rooms here in the Capitol right now--right now. Take some Democrats, take some Republicans, take mediators, take Judge Becker, take our staff--us. There are rooms right now. Again, I said starting yesterday we have 5 days to resolve the problem. In truth, each one of these issues--this particular bill people worked on 360 days. It was marked up in the committee before. It has been improved again with Democratic and Republican input. It can be improved more. I have told everyone from day one the modifications Senator Hatch, I, and others have made with input of labor and others are still not perfect, but until we bring it to the floor of the Senate or until right now, today, over the next 8 hours today, 12 hours tomorrow, 12 the next day, and 12 the next day, I am convinced we can resolve the differences. All this talk about being excluded from meetings or not, we have rooms in the Capitol; the ``person'' power is here. People are prepared to debate. As I said in my opening statement, nobody is stuck on particular clauses or amounts. I suggest--and that is a reason I called this morning, about 10 minutes before we started; I knew he was in the leadership meeting-- over the course of today we figure out a process by which we can come to resolution of the problem we all know exists, that we have bipartisan support on fixing, have some process outlined. I would say we start today because I said 2 weeks ago it would be this week, that we would take a week, so this is no surprise. I went through my statement. I was on the floor of the Senate November 22, March, April, the day before we left. I told everybody it would be this week. People are here--if they are not here, they can get here by tomorrow--to sit down and go through the issues. I respond to the Democratic leader's comments that we have a shot. We have a responsibility of addressing this issue. We only have 79 legislative days left. To put this off further is not going to be the way to do it. We need to start to put our heads together and put together a process to do that and fix the system we know has run amok.

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.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for Senators who are going to be here for morning business, it will probably be another 20 minutes or so, total time between the two leaders' time, before morning business begins. As I said in my opening comments, our intention is to go to asbestos and to bring to closure a very important piece of legislation that a lot of people across the aisle have worked on and are dedicated to addressing. I believe now is the time to do that. I want to briefly introduce my view of the current status of the asbestos litigation debate and how I think we can bring that debate to closure. This body--both sides of the aisle--has recognized that asbestos litigation has run amok. It is time to fix what has become an embarrassing, inadequate system that we have, the purpose of which is to compensate victims. The current system is broken. It fails to compensate victims fairly, while at the same time imposes huge costs on our economy and thus on jobs and job creation. We now have a choice, and it is a choice I very much think we should face right now, and that is to either leave the sick asbestos victims to suffer the vagaries of this system as it works today or put our very best work together to give them a better and more reliable and more secure system. There will be a lot of comments made over the course of the day and the week, but I think it is important to understand that we have made substantial progress, meaningful progress toward creating a better system. With all of this progress, it is now time to bring it to a focal point and bring it to closure. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Hatch, has brought S. 1125, the FAIR Act, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, from its introduction through that Judiciary Committee, and a number of parties have participated in the various negotiations to get it to the floor. Now is the time to take very deliberate action--it is going to be difficult over the next several days to do that--and to finish the process and bring relief to victims and stop the devastating impact the current system is having on our economy. Although we have made real breakthroughs and we have moved forward through a lot of continued discussions among the various stakeholders and various Senators, a lot of which has occurred since Senator Hatch's work with the committee, there are still a lot of calls to delay and put things off until some indefinite time in the future. Since I have been involved, pretty much after it came out of committee, there have been calls for delay--we need another week or 4 days or month or 2 months or 3 months. Now we need to stop talking about it and actually do it. We need to fix the system, which we know--I think there is a general consensus--is broken; that it is unfair and it hurts the economy. It is a detriment to our economy. I have made it a leadership priority for the Senate to help resolve this issue. We have given parties, again and again, additional time to work out some of the issues. But now we need to take decisive action. As I said, there is wide agreement. If you look at the problem itself-- that the current system is a disaster for victims and for jobs and a disaster for the impact on the economy--we are pouring vast amounts of money into this defunct system. But as we pour money into it, the system is getting worse and worse. More than 700,000 individuals have filed claims and, right now, there are 300,000 claims out there pending--300,000 claims. We have spent $70 billion trying to resolve these claims. You must ask, with 300,000 claims out there and having spent $70 billion, what do we have to show for it today? Well, we have a system where sick victims of asbestos exposure have to wait in line with thousands of unimpaired claimants. We have the sick and people who have not been hurt at all, and they are all waiting. Sick victims wait too long for an award. The ones we need to focus on, the ones who are sick, now have to wait a long time. It is almost like a lottery system where few claimants--there are a few who get very large awards, but many get little, often based on simply where, for example, the claim was filed. The big winners are always the trial lawyers who have taken billions of dollars out of the system, which is money that should be going to the sick victims. As much as half of every dollar spent in the system goes to the trial lawyers and to other expenses. If we say there is $70 billion, we say half is not going to the victims, the people being hurt, not to the potential victims. Obviously, it is clear that system needs to be fixed. It is inequitable, a wasteful system, and nothing is being done to make it better. In fact, you can see it is getting worse. Future funds that should be preserved to compensate sick victims are simply being drained away by frivolous claims today. I keep hearing more and more of the large number of unimpaired claims that are filed based on questionable, so-called ``diagnoses'' that are obtained through these mass screenings. That process simply has to come to an end. As business after business has gone bankrupt paying these claims, sources of revenue to pay the claims are drying up. Already more than 70 companies have filed for bankruptcy after being flooded by asbestos claims. The companies that actually manufacture asbestos products have long been bankrupt. Today we have the lawyers zeroing in on new companies in order to keep funding their suits. Many of these companies have little to do with asbestos. Right now, 8,400 companies have been named in asbestos suits. That includes mom-and-pop companies all the way to Fortune 500 firms. That is 8,400 companies that have been named right now in asbestos suits. When companies collapse under this asbestos suit pressure, not only do resources for the sick victims dry up, for the people who have been affected physically by asbestos, but now there is a whole new class of victims that has been created. This new class of workers at these companies lose their jobs and lose not only current payments but also their retirement savings. Bankruptcies have affected 200,000 people who worked at bankrupt companies. Sixty thousand people lost their jobs, and these people will lose an estimated $50,000 in wages each because of the disruption. Workers also see retirement savings plummet when a company files for bankruptcy. In the end, the American economy suffers. That, of course, means the loss of new jobs and investment, as well as the loss of companies that are literally pulled under by these asbestos claims. If the current situation holds, it will cost as many as 400,000 new jobs that could be created in this time of economic recovery but will not be because of the failure to invest. So we have watched this deterioration and we have talked about it for all too long. Now we must act. So as we move forward, we need to move forward understanding there is bipartisan general agreement that the litigation challenge before us, which has run amok, must be cleaned up. Rationality and justice must be restored and we must get the compensation to those who need it. We must do it through a system that preserves jobs, preserves economic growth for current workers, and stewards funds for future claimants. Indeed, this body has been struggling with these issues for some time, and it has met with success despite the difficulty of reaching agreement in some very specific contentious areas. Chairman Hatch did yeoman's work in July getting S. 1125 through the committee. There were a whole range of successes worked out by the committee. Chairman Hatch led a major bipartisan solution on a linchpin issue of medical criteria; and without agreement on this issue, we simply would not have been able to move forward at all. This issue, over time, has proven very difficult, very controversial. I commend him for his leadership in bringing the resolution to this particular issue. That is just one of the many examples of issues that have been overcome. Chairman Hatch noted that as many as 50 changes were made at the urging of Democrats before--really between the bill's introduction and the time of markup--and there have been many ongoing discussions in the wake of that success. I also thank Members on the other side of the aisle. Senator Leahy has worked hard on this bill, and it simply would not have been possible to get as far as we have--even though we have a long way to go--without his work on the other side of the aisle, as well as the various stakeholders who have an interest in this bill. The commitment of many parties has created the momentum for change, for cleaning up the system, and the good faith that has led to a number of key breakthroughs that have been seen today and that I am confident will continue to make success possible. Following the committee markup, I became deeply involved in negotiations on S. 1125, working closely with Senator Daschle, as well as Chairman Hatch and Senators Leahy, Dodd and Carper, and others on both sides of the aisle. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, has been particularly instrumental working on key elements of the bill, so I wish to recognize him for that. Under S. 1125 and current agreements which are embodied in S. 2290, we will replace the current adversarial asbestos litigation system with a new streamlined no-fault system where sick victims will be compensated fairly and efficiently. A national trust fund will pay claimants, cutting out waste and providing certainty and rationality for claimants and for businesses. Most importantly, this system will end the bankruptcy spiral, therefore preserving future funding for victims who need it. S. 1125, as reported out of committee, represents an unprecedented achievement in forging consensus on issues like medical criteria that stalled previous attempts at similar legislation. Nonetheless, a number of issues were left open for further discussion, and additional concerns were raised that were not addressed by the committee. I identified these issues on the floor on November 22, 2003, and they include adequacy and security of funding, claims values, administration of the system, and protection of claimants from the risk of a funding shortfall. Since the bill was reported out of committee, various stakeholders and members from both parties have continued negotiations. There have been more than 20 meetings starting last July at which my staff and Senator Specter's staff have negotiated these issues with staff representing the minority. What has emerged from all these collective efforts is a proposal that retains the key elements of S. 1125, and includes some critical modifications that address concerns that were raised by stakeholders. Today's proposal embodies the best thinking on these issues and represents an aggressive yet feasible solution to the crisis. These negotiated agreements make it possible to bring a bill to the floor, and the bill is better for these changes, difficult as they were to hammer out. First, we had to make sure the system contained claims values that would fairly and adequately compensate victims. Second, we had to make sure funding was adequate--and that any risk of shortfalls rests on defendants and insurers, and not on claimants. The bill also provides the administrator with more flexibility to ensure that any short term bulges in claims can be accommodated. Third, we had to make sure the new system would be easy for claimants to use, and that it could be funded and up and running quickly. Fourth, the bill now contains a number of additional provisions requested by organized labor to protect the rights of claimants. I am also submitting an expanded description of these changes for the Record. The top priority of this bill is to compensate claimants, and under any analysis, more money reaches claimants under the bill than under today's flawed tort system. Even so, we know that we needed to reach a number that Democrats felt comfortable with, so S. 2290 raises claims values. We agreed to raise the claims values in order to get consensus even though the claims values in S. 1125 as reported represented a bipartisan proposal, and included some of the highest values found in similar Federal compensation programs. We raised the values even though S. 1125 already puts more money into the pockets of claimants than the current tort system, where more than half of the resources go into the pockets of attorneys and consultants. Under the revised bill, S. 2290, approximately $111.5 billion of the expected $114 billion in fund expenditures will be available for victims. Compare this with Tilinghast's actuarial study of the current system, where only $61 billion goes to plaintiffs and the rest to legal fees. Or the Milliman study, where they estimate as much as $92 billion could go to plaintiffs and the rest to legal fees. So the bill gets more money to victims than the leading studies estimate could go to them under the current system. What's more, S. 2290 actually gets this money to sick victims, whereas much of the money paid into the system today goes to unimpaired claimants. Under the current system, much of the compensation is drained away from the truly ill to fund these unimpaired mass lawsuits. Right now, the sickest victims, those with mesothelioma, are receiving only 17 to 20 percent of the funds in the system, with nonmalignant cases getting about 65 percent. The proposed bill would prioritize the sickest victims--over half of the funding would be directed to those with mesothelioma. Nonmalignant claimants would receive about 20 percent. The new system would also increase the share of funds that are directed to pay cancer claims from about 16 or 18 percent to 24 percent. Under S. 2290, funds are properly directed at the sickest victims. And the determination of the medical criteria that should be used is a result of the landmark bipartisan agreement made in Committee. S. 1125 also presents a substantially better means of obtaining compensation than through bankruptcy trusts. The trusts being created in bankruptcies today discriminate between present and future claims, and give preferential treatment to certain claimants, not because of their medical condition, but because they were first in line. Let me also point out that S. 1125 provides significantly more money than claimants could receive from bankruptcy trusts, many of which are paying pennies on the dollar. Johns-Manville pays 5 cents on the dollar, UNR 9 cents, Celotex 11.3 cents, and topping out at 15.5 cents is Eagle Picher. So while some claimants may appear to win big court cases, if the defendants are in bankruptcy, which many are, claimants will likely only get pennies on the dollar. In today's bankruptcy compensation system, the risk that a trust may be inadequate falls on the victims, and that is not fair. Unlike these bankruptcy funds, the claims values in S. 1125 will be 100 percent paid or victims will be able to return to the tort system. Despite these generous values in the bill as reported, organized labor and Democrats urged that the values were not high enough. So we have agreed to raise the values because it is so important to create consensus and move this bill forward. It is crucial that the fund has the faith and confidence of claimants, and that it can fulfill its mandate to compensate them. Funding must be adequate, it much be secure, and provisions must be made for any shortfall. And any risk must fall on defendants and insurers, not claimants. To ensure funding adequacy, the bill establishes a new overall funding framework, which makes available $114 billion for direct victim compensation. The funding provided is substantially more than what is estimated to reach victims if the current tort system is allowed to continue. Let me say a few words about how this relates to the overall funding structure that came out of committee. The mandatory funding in the bill as reported was $108 billion, which is similar to what S. 2290 offers. That funding proposal represented a very fair amount to solve the problem. The committee, however, went well beyond this benchmark during markup. The net effect of the committee modifications to S. 1125's financial structure was dramatic. S. 1125 as reported could have required businesses and insurers to provide compensation at up to two times the most credible estimates of total future plaintiffs' recoveries under the tort system. As a result, insurers almost uniformly withdrew their support for the act, calling it ``dangerously unaffordable'' and ``potentially worse then the existing system.'' In order to get the legislation back on track, I initiated a mediation process between insurers and defendant companies. We reached agreement whereby $114 billion would be made available for victims. To help ensure this funding is obtained, enforcement provisions of the bill were further strengthened. To address concerns that there will be early stress on funding, the revised schedule requires money from insurer participants to be infused in the first years, where it is expected that the highest demands will be placed on the Fund. To protect against any shortfalls, an additional $10 billion contingent funding is also available from defendants if necessary to pay claims in the out years of the fund's operation. Furthermore, the bill gives the administrator more time and more flexibility to deal with a short term bulge in claims, if necessary. Under the bill as reported, the fund could have unnecessarily sunsetted due to a short term liquidity problem if a large number of claims were filed at once. Alternative sunset provisions have been provided, and the borrowing authority has been expanded to increase the funds's liquidity. Sufficient funds will now be available to pay in full all claims found eligible before the fund sunsets, and any debt incurred by the fund will be paid by monies in the fund and not the United States Treasury. Finally, and critically, under S. 2290 the risk of underestimating the amount of funds needed will not fall on the victims, but on the defendants and their insurers. Historically, rates of asbestos victims' claims filing are uncertain and difficult to predict. Given the creation of the new compensable disease categories in S. 1125 and the streamlined no-fault administrative system, this problem is even more acute. But under the proposal, if future claims exceed estimates and the mandatory funding, including the contingency funding, is not enough the fund will end and victims will be able to seek compensation in the Federal courts. Ensuring that the risk of underestimation does not fall on the claimants was a linchpin in organized labor's proposals. There is, however, one particular risk to the fund that must be addressed, and that is the lack of predictability of claims by individuals, particularly smokers, who have occupational exposure, but not enough exposure to have caused asbestosis. S. 1125 is careful to provide the highest levels of compensation to claimants whose illness has the greatest causal connection to asbestos. It is not and cannot be a tobacco compensation bill. With that said, the bill sets out within the consensus medical criteria a level VII category, a new and untested category for lung cancer cases, that may end up compensating large numbers of individuals whose illnesses are not caused by asbestos, but by smoking. There are experts who believe the eligibility criteria for this category will reliably screen for asbestos-caused lung cancers. But we just don't have enough experience with these claims. With 87 percent of overall lung cancer cases caused by smoking, they could inundate and sabotage the fund. Accordingly, I want to put all Senators on notice that I intend to offer an amendment, after consultations with all interested parties, to provide a mechanism to protect the solvency of the fund if claims from level VII's dramatically exceed expected levels. At its heart, today's proposal represents a policy choice. On the one hand, we have the status quo, with its delays, failure to compensate victims, bankruptcies, litigation costs, wasteful transaction spending, and major negative impact on the economy. On the other hand, we have an opportunity to rationalize this broken system. It is true that there is some uncertainty in projecting future claims filing rates, but we are putting over $100 billion into the system. And any risk that this is not enough would fall back on defendants. There would be a reversion to the Federal tort system, and defendants would have to essentially pay twice--after staking over $100 billion they would still be subject to tort claims. And claimants would get their day in court. This bargain is a reasonable policy choice. Another fundamental way S. 1125 improves the current tort system is that it is more accessible and simpler for claimants to use. Organized labor, however, had expressed a concern that the administrative structure in S. 1125 as passed out of committee was too adversarial and cumbersome. This was a key concern for labor, so in order to address this concern, industry and labor representatives agreed under the auspices of Senator Specter and Judge Becker of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, to simplify the process. I commend Senator Specter for this leadership in that process, and thank Judge Becker for his expertise and commitment. Under the new proposal, claims processing will be moved from the Court of Federal Claims to an executive office situated in the Department of Labor. Now a single administrator will be responsible for both the claims handling and the management of the fund. The fund will benefit from the experience the Department of Labor has garnered from administering similar compensation programs over the past 90 years. The infrastructure already created under these programs will help with prompt program initiation. The claims application process will now be more user friendly, there are fewer levels of administrative review, and the claimant assistance program will be expanded. The new structure provides for advisory committees with expertise on a host of issues to advise the administrator, and allows for contracting with entities who have knowledge and experience with asbestos-related injuries and compensation programs to assist in the processing of claims. The new administrative structure also will help address concerns about how quickly funds will begin flowing to claimants--especially those with the most serious diseases, such as mesothelioma, who may only have a short time to live. The new administrative structure will help to ensure that the program is up and running quickly and managed efficiently to the benefit of claimants, including providing for interim regulations and interim authority to begin processing claims as soon as possible. The interim administrator may prioritize claims so that the victims with the most severe injuries, especially mesothelioma victims, have their claims processed first. Money will flow into the system faster, since S. 1125 now requires upfront funding from participants. Money from defendants will be available within 3 months from the date of enactment from certain defendant participants and within 6 months from the remaining defendant participants, which will be in addition to the monies received from the bankruptcy trusts. There also is authority to require upfront money from the insurer participants so that there is no delay in obtaining money from the insurers. As an additional protection against an influx of early claims, the bill also provides the administrator with expanded borrowing authority to ensure that there are sufficient funds available to initiate the program and to pay claims in short order. The borrowing would be 100 percent collateralized against the mandatory payments from participants in the Fund. These changes are designed to address concerns raised by Senator Feinstein in the committee's consideration of the bill. Senator Feinstein raised valid concerns that a delay in creation of the claims system would harm claimants. However, her amendment would have essentially left the current system in place for an indefinite amount of time and would allow credits for monies to be paid to the fund, having the unintended effect of perpetuating the status quo with its gross misallocation of payments to unimpaired claimants and its excessive attorney fees. Furthermore, it would have threatened the Fund itself, by diverting Fund assets to cover these unwarranted claims and fees. Given the improvements that have been made to the claims processing system, good public policy demands expedited termination of the broken system and commencement of payments to the most worthy claimants, as defined by the consensus medical criteria. Organized labor has an important role to play in protecting the interests of working people in the congressional debate. In addition to numerous concessions associated with the new administrative structure, representatives of organized labor aggressively advocated for a number of changes, which were adopted. These changes were aimed at ensuring that the program established under S. 1125 was the most fair to victims, as the intended beneficiaries of the program. S. 2290 now provides for medical monitoring reimbursement for costs of physical examinations as well as costs for x-rays and pulmonary function testing. S. 2290 explicitly extends the protections of HIPAA to ensure that claimants cannot be discriminated against for provision of health insurance solely as a result of filing a claim with the Fund. This bill also requires the use of presumptions for satisfying the exposure criteria for certain industries, occupations, and time periods. While I have outlined some major changes here, literally dozens of additional changes have been made to S. 1125 since the introduction of the bill. These changes clarify language and strengthen provisions to ensure that sick claimants are promptly and fairly compensated, that the burden and risk on claimants is reduced to the extent possible, and that participants can obtain certainty with respect to their asbestos liabilities as necessary to promote the creation of jobs and the economy. And it was recognized, as the bill was being considered by committee, that even as we are dealing with the aftermath of asbestos, the substance itself is still in limited use. The committee adopted Senator Murray's landmark asbestos ban, and this country's workers will be safer for it. It simply did not make sense to create a compensation system and continue to allow workers to be exposed. We also addressed the terrible situation in Libby, MT, where many workers and residents have become ill from asbestos and the manufacturer, W.R. Grace has filed for bankruptcy leaving victims with little recourse. S. 1125 contains special provisions so that Libby victims can readily gain compensation from the Fund. In addition, we must not forget this Nation's veterans. Veterans have been long overlooked when talking about the asbestos litigation crisis. Men and women who served in the Armed Forces were often exposed to significant amounts of asbestos while serving our country, particularly during World War II and while serving on ships. S. 1125 provides a better avenue, and may be the only avenue, for veterans to receive fair and prompt compensation, while still preserving the veterans' benefits that are currently available. We have set forth a rational system, offering a positive alternative to today's broken system. It is one of the largest, boldest compensation programs in this Nation's history. The choice here is not about the mechanics of the program, the final dollar amount, or any individual provision. We can work those things out. The choice is whether to offer victims a better system than we have today, and at the same time rationalize the system to stop the havoc it is causing to jobs and the economy. Indeed, we have made major progress in getting this bill ready for the floor, especially considering the controversial issues involved. We've had literally dozens of stakeholder meetings. During this process, all of the issues have been visited and revisited. All parties have been heard, and all concerns have been heard. While such a sweeping bill will inevitably contain compromises that are not perfect in the eyes of each stakeholder, we have listened to all concerns and come up with the best solutions possible. I had hoped to bring the bill up for a vote before the last session ended. At that time, a lot of stakeholders felt that was premature. On November 22 of last year, I announced that I would wait, but that the bill would be considered by the end of March. Again on February 27 I made it clear that the bill would be brought up by the end of March. To continue the discussions among the stakeholders, I again extended this time to the week of April 19, and, thus, we are here. It is time to stop talking and bring these issues to resolution. We have waited long enough and worked to create consensus, and now we have significant support to wrap up the outstanding issues--challenging as they are--and hold a vote. There have been suggestions almost from the start that we need more time to come up with better answers. We have very few legislative days remaining, and as we feared, we are nearly out of time. Senator Hatch and I have consistently offered realistic scheduling and frankly have allowed too much delay already. Now we have run the clock out and we must act. Standing still is not an option, as the situation continues to deteriorate. Victims wait for unpredictable and inequitable compensation, companies continue to declare bankruptcy, and jobs and the economy suffer. For many Members, it will require courage and leadership to change the status quo, but I am calling on this body to give the American people a better system for compensating asbestos claimants. Inaction-- allowing the status quo--is in itself a choice that harms victims and American workers. I believe it is time to move forward by offering the changes I have described here in an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a detailed summary of the major changes in a section-by-section description be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 60 minutes. The first 30 minutes will be under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, and the final 30 minutes will be controlled by this side of the aisle. That hour of morning business will begin after leader time is used. Prior to the Easter break, I mentioned our intention to begin consideration of the asbestos legislation. I understand there will be objection from the other side of the aisle and, therefore, I will move to proceed to the asbestos measure. I do ask Members to come to the floor today to debate this motion. If we are unable to begin consideration of the bill, it may be necessary to file cloture on the motion to proceed. Discussions will be underway over the course of this morning across the aisle and among various interested Senators as to specific plans.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the morning business period today, the Senate begin consideration of Calendar No. 472, S. 2290, the asbestos bill.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is time for us to bring the asbestos bill to a floor vote and to bring it to discussion so we can continue the progress that needs to be made on this important bill. As I said earlier this morning, every day we do not act is a day victims are not receiving appropriate compensation for what they need and deserve. The bill we put forward provides a reasonable solution to the asbestos litigation crisis and has numerous consensus-building changes that have been added to the underlying bill, many made at the request of Democrats and representatives of organized labor. What has emerged is a collective effort to date on a proposal that comes from the original S. 1125 and has critical modifications that have been added on the counsel of stakeholders. As I said this morning, there will be a lot of constructive proposals put on the table through the amendment process from Senators on both sides of the aisle to further refine and improve this bill. I encourage this process. We have had numerous discussions throughout the day, solidly since this morning. I have had the opportunity to talk to the Democratic leader on several occasions discussing both options and how we can best bring this bill to appropriate closure. We will continue these conversations over the course of this evening and tomorrow. A lot of stakeholders are at the table discussing issues that are very important. Reference has been made to Judge Becker on numerous occasions and over the course of the day and in the statements this morning, and of the mutual respect both sides of the aisle have of the work he has done to date. I would like to continue those discussions tonight and tomorrow to see if there is some way we and the Democratic leadership can put a process in order where we can help mediate some of the differences we all know exist. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we need more time, and I respect that. In truth, we have made real progress, and we are getting real focus on a very important bill. We have been discussing and negotiating and changing and working on this bill for over a year now, and I believe all our colleagues are coming to the table in earnest at this point. We are going to be filing a cloture motion. The cloture vote will give everyone an opportunity to put their views on the record as we go forward and continue to work on this bill. Again, every day we do not reach an agreement on this bill is another day victims of asbestos litigation malfunction are suffering. Therefore, I believe working together we are going to be able to bring resolution. Having said that, we will be filing a cloture motion. Cloture Motion Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will continue discussions tonight and tomorrow. We will talk with the Democratic leadership as we go forward over the next several days. I am very hopeful we are going to work out a suitable and appropriate process to address these important issues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.