Fund would aid asbestos victims

WASHINGTON -- Pushed by the White House and big insurers, the Senate is preparing to consider legislation that would create a $114 billion trust fund to compensate workers made sick by asbestos.

But while the bill will finally make it to the Senate floor after more than two years of hard negotiation, few expect it to pass.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who said he would bring up the asbestos bill by the end of this month, framed it as a job producer as well as a positive step for victims and industries cowering under the threat of constant lawsuits.

"You'll see asbestos litigation reform," Frist said. "The cost of doing business in this country is too high, unnecessarily, which makes us not as competitive as we should be."

Democrats, however, say the compensation isn't enough, and that the focus on asbestos has more to do with politics than policy. They note that it comes on the heels of votes attempting to limit medical malpractice awards and provide immunity to the owners of gun shops, bills popular with business interests and gun advocates that Republicans count on. Likewise, the asbestos bill is strongly backed by the Chamber of Commerce and other business interests.

The insurance industry, for example, has donated $13.9 million to candidates since 2003. Nearly 70 percent of the money has gone to Republicans.

On the other side, trial lawyers have also given generously to candidates, pouring $58 million into campaigns since 2003. Nearly 70 percent of those donations have gone to Democrats.

Because the forces pressing hardest for legislation continue to push in different directions, it makes it doubtful that the Senate will be able to break free from a history that has produced more conflict than progress.

"They didn't want to sit down at the table and negotiate a solution that was acceptable. It feels to me at this point that they want one more political shot," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said of Republicans.

"These issues are far too important. ... This should not be how do we get another political ad in November," she said. "It leaves me angry and very frustrated."

Murray scored a major victory last summer when the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, agreed to include in the compensation bill a ban on the use of asbestos-related products.

Although an asbestos ban was one of Murray's top legislative priorities, she said she would vote against the overall bill because she believes it severely shortchanges victims. The bill only covers people who worked in the asbestos industry or mines, leaving out spouses, children and other people who have gotten sick or died from indirect exposure.

And like many Democrats, Murray believes the $114 billion trust fund is too small. Insurance companies would finance the fund along with companies that mine asbestos or make products with it and have been sued. In return, the companies would escape the crushing weight of asbestos litigation. More than 600,000 cases have already been filed, forcing more than 60 companies to declare bankruptcy.

Murray and other critics insist the fund is too small to cover all the victims, its guidelines for who qualifies for payments are too restrictive and its proposed payments are too small. The bill calls for a top payment of $750,000 for the most serious diseases, with lesser amounts for less severe ailments. Any award would be reduced by the amount of health, life or disability insurance a person receives.

Critics say the fund will run dry long before many claims can be made. It can take 30 years or more for a person to get sick after being exposed to asbestos, experts say.

"I have deep concerns about a number of parts of the bill," Murray said yesterday. The biggest problem, she said, is that the fund "isn't adequate" to cover everybody who's likely to get sick.

"It also doesn't cover family members. Clearly family members are affected when somebody brings home asbestos fibers. And if this fund doesn't cover them, it's just a slap in the face to people everywhere," she said.

Hatch rejected two other provisions that Murray said are needed to minimize public exposure to asbestos. One provision would have established a national registry for mesothelioma, an always-fatal form of cancer caused only by asbestos. The other would have required the federal government to underwrite an aggressive public education campaign to alert people to the dangers posed by asbestos and how to avoid them.

In persuading Hatch to add the ban, Murray said keeping the cancer-causing mineral off the market would diminish potential future claims. Though it has been known for more than 40 years that asbestos can cause cancer, it is still used in such common products as brake shoes, roofing tile and fire-resistant clothing. Authorities estimate there are between 15 million and 35 million homes, schools and businesses that still contain asbestos-tainted insulation.

Asbestos is a proven carcinogen that enters the body through inhalation. Mesothelioma, which is caused by inhaling asbestos, kills at least 2,000 people each year.

P-I Washington correspondent Charles Pope can be reached at 202-263-6461 or charliepope@seattlepi.com