Asbestos victim fund OK’d

WASHINGTON – A Senate committee on Thursday approved long-stalled legislation to shield manufacturers and insurers from asbestos lawsuits. In exchange, people made ill by exposure to the substance once used in insulation and fireproofing material would have access to a $140 billion trust fund.

Despite the Senate Judiciary Committee’s action, lawmakers from both parties already were lining up to make changes to the bill or kill it entirely when it reaches the full Senate.

The trust fund would compensate people sickened by exposure to asbestos, a fibrous mineral commonly used in construction until the mid-1970s. Asbestos has tiny fibers that can cause cancer and other ailments when inhaled. The diseases often take decades to develop.

Supporters of the bill say liability costs are driving companies out of business and leaving people with little money for medical bills. A trust fund would speed money to them and protect companies from the prospect of being sued out of existence, supporters say.

The legislation includes a $400,000 minimum for victims of asbestos exposure in Libby, Mont., Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., announced. The legislation also includes a way for someone who lived in Libby and has a nonmalignant asbestos-related disease, but later became sicker, to apply to the fund for an $850,000 award.

“This is a huge, giant step forward for the folks in Libby who were poisoned at the hands of W.R. Grace,” Baucus said. “Now it’s time to wage a defensive campaign to get the Libby fix through the Senate and ultimately to President Bush.”

A legislative compromise has proved elusive. Trying to pull the bill in different directions are manufacturers, insurers, labor groups, trial lawyers and groups representing people with asbestos-related illnesses.

“Everybody wants a little more, but the final vote will turn on whether the bill is better than the current system,” said the committee chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a former committee chairman, advanced a bill in 2003 only to see it die in the full Senate. “We think it has a real shot, but there’s still going to have to be a lot of work on it,” said Hatch, R-Utah.

Several Republicans on the committee are planning to oppose the legislation in the full Senate. Their support in committee helped pass the measure by a 13-5 vote.

“As currently written, I could not support the bill on the floor if it does not change,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Added Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “It does need substantial work.”

Specter said, “We will do our best to make further accommodations and improve the bill.”

The committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, was hopeful.

“We have always realized that passing a bill of this scope and complexity is the legislative equivalent of steering a ship through a minefield during a hurricane,” Leahy said.

“This solid and bipartisan committee endorsement will help generate the momentum that will be needed to navigate through the difficult steps that still lie ahead,” he said.

But Democrats, including Sens. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Joseph Biden of Delaware, also are preparing to fight the bill. Those two voted against the legislation in committee along with Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Richard Durbin of Illinois.

“The mere fact that you spent a large amount of time on it doesn’t justify pre-empting people’s rights in court,” Feingold said.

The bill would require insurers and business groups to put $140 billion into a trust fund. Victims of asbestos-related illnesses would surrender their right to sue unless the fund runs out of money.

The legislation “still leaves insurers substantially exposed in the tort system, while simultaneously mandating that we pay tens of billions of dollars into the trust fund. That is wholly unacceptable,” said Leigh Ann Pusey, a senior vice president at the American Insurance Association.

John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, urged lawmakers to pass the bill. “Special interests must now yield to our shared national interest,” he said.