News Coverage
Fix the asbestos bill
Published March 8, 2004
Asbestos, the "miracle fiber" that was used in everything from blow dryers to home insulation, is killing some 10,000 people each year and sickening many thousands more.
The illnesses and deaths will go on indefinitely because the United States has still not banned this deadly mineral. Asbestos can be found in car brakes, gardening products, construction materials and other products despite decades of irrefutable medical evidence of its peril, despite the availability of economical and practical alternatives. Cancer and the other diseases asbestos spawns can take 10, 20, even 50 years to appear.
The Senate is about to consider a bill that would finally ban the manufacture or importation of asbestos. It is high time America joins most of the world's other industrialized nations in a ban.
The knottier question is what to do about those who have been or will be harmed by asbestos, an army of people who need and deserve swift, fair compensation. On that question, the Senate bill is deeply flawed. If those provisions can't be redrafted, lawmakers should reject the bill and pass an asbestos ban separately.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), would create a government-sponsored trust fund to eliminate the tidal wave of asbestos lawsuits that have clogged courts, forced more than 60 companies into bankruptcy and delayed payments to victims for years.
The trust would be funded by yearly payments from asbestos and insurance companies. Proponents say it would provide relief for all asbestos sufferers -- miners, shipwrights and others who worked with asbestos, people who lived downwind from asbestos plants, even housewives who inhaled the dust as they laundered the clothes of their husbands who worked in the asbestos industry. All claims would have to be made to the fund; new asbestos lawsuits would be banned.
The bill offers a promising general blueprint for a more efficient and economical system to help asbestos victims. But it was drafted with a heavy dose of influence from business that has undermined that promise.
The total fund would be $114 billion, not nearly enough money to handle the 1.7 million-plus claims that are expected over the next three decades. The AFL-CIO calculates that at least $153 billion is needed, and even that may prove too little.
There also are problems with important details that will determine who is eligible. Although the language is still in flux, Democrats and victims' groups say medical criteria may be far too narrow, cutting out thousands of legitimate victims.
Any bill must also give the fund the flexibility to handle future changes. The history of asbestos litigation shows claims usually turn out to be far higher than expected. A safety mechanism must be in place to handle any additional load. Revisions must be allowed to the medical eligibility criteria in case science discovers new asbestos-related health conditions.
Sen. Patty Murray (D- Wash.) has worked harder than anyone in the Senate to get an asbestos ban. Hatch included the ban in the act because of her efforts. But Murray herself won't vote for it unless the overall bill is fixed.
That is what should happen if we are going to be fair to current and future victims of asbestos.