Asbestos justice

IGNORE ALL THAT CARPING you’ll hear from the (many) special interests. Everyone should be happy that Tuesday, after many long years of wrangling, the Senate finally agreed to at least debate a bipartisan bill that would create a $140-billion, privately financed trust fund for asbestos victims.

Next comes the hard part: getting the legislation passed. Congress has been considering the plight of asbestos victims -- who suffer from gruesome cancers and respiratory disease -- for 30 years, with little to show for its efforts. Since the 1970s, about 730,000 people have filed asbestos-related lawsuits, and defendants and insurance companies have paid out more than $70 billion in claims. But at least 300,000 victims are still waiting for compensation, and countless more don’t even know they’re sick yet.

When victims do manage to get relief in the courts, outcomes often aren’t ideal. A 2005 Rand Corp. report estimates that of each dollar spent on asbestos litigation, claimants received only 42 cents (the rest went to lawyers and to cover administrative costs). Meanwhile, more than 70 companies have gone bankrupt as a result of asbestos litigation. The enormity of the problem is clear.

Solutions, however, are another story. At least some on all sides of the issue -- insurance companies, businesses interests, labor organizations, trial lawyers, victims’ groups -- have agreed that a no-fault victims fund, fully financed by defendants, promises the most reasonable and fair compromise. But opponents have dug in their heels and their lobbying dollars (more than $8 million in the first half of 2005 alone, according to one estimate), tripping up all previous reform bills, most recently in 2004.

This year’s model was almost derailed for good on Tuesday when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who complained that the bill was “simply not ready for consideration,” threatened to choke off debate. Some conservative Republicans, meanwhile, worry that the program will bring unintended costs to the federal government if the government is forced to pay claims if the fund runs out. This concern was bolstered by a Congressional Budget Office estimate that the settlement could add $6.5 billion to the deficit between 2006 and 2015, not including debt service. If the fund does suffer shortfalls, victims should regain their right to pursue cases in court.

Scrapping the settlement fund, however imperfect it might be, would be a huge step backward for the cause of bipartisan government. That’s one reason the Bush administration’s support for this bill is so important. Another, of course, is that it offers the promise of genuine relief for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose quality of life is diminished by asbestos-related disease.