Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act

POSTAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND ENHANCEMENT ACT -- (Senate - February 09, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I believe this is one of those situations where there is broad bipartisan consensus that we need to find a solution to this national crisis which not only affects people who are sick with asbestos-related diseases, including cancers, but also the companies that are in bankruptcy because they have been put underwater by the huge volume of claims from people who are not yet sick but who are worried the statute of limitations will run and bar them from bringing their claims in the future.

I am proud of the work the Judiciary Committee has done under Senator Specter's leadership to try to bring us this far. On many of the differences we have had, he has ably negotiated a resolution. Where we are today is much better than where we were a year ago.

There was a strategic decision made, as there had to be, whether to go with the trust fund approach or with a medical criteria approach. Frankly, the trust fund approach left the station, and everyone put their hopes and their work and effort into that approach. I am sorry to say that notwithstanding the hard work and effort which has gone into the bill, I still believe the trust fund is fundamentally flawed for reasons I have already talked about.

There are problems with regard to the allocation; that is, the long arm of Uncle Sam will reach out and send you a bill for a lot of money to pay into this fund. We have been told by a number of companies that in order to pay that bill, they will simply have to shut their doors and go out of business, put their employees on the streets, possibly causing pension funds to be jeopardized. People who have come to rely on the solvency of those companies and their ability to pay their retirees the benefits they have agreed to, we are told they would be seriously jeopardized by this trust fund as currently written.

Then there is the issue of, how do we know how much money should go into the trust fund? That has been a subject of a lot of negotiations, and $140 billion is where we are today. As we have heard before, there is a wild variation on estimates by very smart people as to how much the claims for this fund will total, ranging from $120 billion to $695 billion, which is the high number. Just having a predictable bill we can vote for with some confidence that we believe will actually work as intended is lacking.

Of course, there is the huge bureaucracy that will be created within the Department of Labor to administer this fund. We have no idea what that will look like, but it will be a new addition to the bureaucracy in Washington, DC. I can tell you, the last thing I want to do, coming from my State to the Senate, is to grow the size of the bureaucracy in Washington, DC, unless there is no other option. I do not want to do that.

Then there is the issue of the medical criteria, where here again the chairman had to negotiate carefully in order to keep his votes on the committee. But it is my contention that the medical criteria in the trust fund are way too loose--authorizing the payment of substantial funds under the claim to people who are not demonstrably sick from asbestos-related disease, thus further jeopardizing the solvency of the fund.

In response to my colleague, Senator Hatch of Utah, who expressed concern for the veterans who could benefit under the fund but who would not directly, anyway, benefit under a medical criteria approach,

I think it would be a cruel joke--a cruel joke--for our veterans, if we built their expectations up, that they were going to receive benefits under the trust fund, only to have it explode or go bankrupt in a year or two and dash those hopes to the ground.

So I am as concerned as anyone is about our veterans. But I certainly do not want to give anyone unrealistic hope or expectation that this is going to be a panacea, because of the concerns I have raised.

I would agree with the Democratic whip that we have only today seen a substitute for the underlying bill filed which totals almost 400 pages. While a number of us have been working on asbestos legislation for a long time, neither I nor my staff, I am confident, had a chance to read each and every one of those 393 pages, I believe it was, to determine what is in it and to determine whether there are amendments we need to file in response. Likewise, I would say, as to the 50-page bill we filed this morning, the amendment that contains the medical criteria approach, people are only now beginning to understand what their choices are.

Basically, what this amendment presents is a choice, either for a trust fund or an alternative medical criteria bill or, third, no bill at all, a continuation of the current crisis, about which I think we have a bipartisan consensus that it is a scandal and needs to be addressed.

So I believe the amendment does present a good alternative. But I would like to have a chance for my colleagues to look at it further. We have had a number of good discussions across the aisle. I have talked to a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and they said, well, they would like to keep the amendment alive. They want to vote against the motion to table, but they are not yet ready to vote for the amendment because they may want to try to negotiate and work out some minor differences so they can support it. I would like to have the opportunity to do that with them.

I would, by the way, point out, I guess as further evidence of what I am talking about--Senators reading the bill, coming to understand now they are not left with either the trust fund or nothing at all, that they have a third choice with the medical criteria bill--we have had two additional Senators come forward and ask to cosponsor it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Saxby Chambliss and Senator Mike Enzi be added as cosponsors to the Cornyn amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHAFEE). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I believe, given adequate time, there will be other Senators who will be interested in this alternative approach. Here again, I believe we are all committed to trying to find a solution. I hope we are because we know the status quo is a scandal. Here again, it is with great respect and admiration for the long and arduous effort put into this by the chairman that I hesitated even to offer this alternative. But I do believe that based on the merits, based on the choice it provides to the Members of the Senate, and based upon the need to have a little bit more time for Members of the Senate to understand what is in the amendment and to negotiate perhaps agreement so we can come back with some modification and an up-or-down vote on that, that I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to table, both on the merits and based on the need for more time for deliberation and adequate consideration.

I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

http://thomas.loc.gov/