News Coverage
Leahy seeks $140b asbestos victim fund
Published March 14, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Senator Patrick J. Leahy gazes upon an eerie sight when he visits a cemetery in Barre, Vt.: a tombstone marking the grave of Patrick J. Leahy.
The buried man is Leahy's grandfather, Patrick James Leahy, who died at age 35 after contracting a respiratory disease from working in the nearby granite quarries.
Now the grandson, Patrick Joseph Leahy, is trying to strike one of the most unlikely political deals of the year. It is a homage to his grandfather: a $140 billion fund for victims of respiratory diseases caused by asbestos. Leahy's other grandfather also died of illness related to granite quarrying.
"I know what they go through," the Vermont Democrat said of the victims. Indeed, both products have been mined in Vermont, and both diseases are caused by airborne particles. "I can't divorce myself from it. I understand the suffering."
To get a deal, Leahy is adopting the view of the White House -- that a trust fund should be established instead of allowing cases to continue in court -- while taking on powerful groups such as environmentalists and trial lawyers that have been his allies.
But Leahy said he feels he has to act, and make some compromises, in order to help victims before they die. "Some of the people that come in and talk with us, they say, 'I'm going to be dead in six months, can't you move?'" Leahy said.
Now, Leahy finds himself at the center of the battle over the bill. Some environmentalists believe the proposed industry-financed fund is too small and doesn't reach out to all possible victims. "It is just outrageous that there is no real effort to find everyone who is hurt," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group.
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America, meanwhile, opposes the bill "in its current form," according to the group's spokesman, Carlton Carl.
"We are not intrinsically opposed to this concept, but if it is not fair to the victims -- my God, why would we want to pass something that simply is a big fat wet kiss for the asbestos industry and insurance industry?" Carl said.
Leahy said he is aware of the complaints, and he has made plenty of criticism himself, which is partly why a different bill with a smaller damage cap failed last year. But Leahy believes the asbestos legislation could show what two often-warring political parties can accomplish.
"This bill is an example of what happens if members of Congress really wants to legislate," Leahy said. "It is much easier to do symbolism than to do substance. Symbolism usually gets on the evening news, substance rarely does."
The bill would put a cap on potential damages to be paid by companies that produced or made products with asbestos fibers. Asbestos was widely used in products such as insulation and brake pads and, by some estimates, causes diseases that kill as many as 10,000 Americans per year. The fibers can cause or contribute to lung disease and cancer.
Congress must approve the fund because it limits the ability of people to sue for asbestos-related diseases in the future. Most of the approxmiately 600,000 asbestos claims now in the courts would be transfered into the national fund. A Rand Corp. study in 2002 said another 2.4 million claims could be filed. The study said asbestos suits had cost industry $54 billion through 2000 and could cost another $210 billion.
Jan Amundson, who chairs the Asbestos Alliance, which includes many companies facing lawsuits, said the group supports the legislation in hopes of bringing the uncertainty about court action to an end. She said 71 companies have already filed bankruptcy claims due to asbestos litigation.
"It provides some finality," she said of the bill. "They know what their exposure is going to be. Right now, you don't know how much you are going to pay out or for how long."
Backers of the bill said it would also provide a new source of money for people filing claims against bankrupt companies.
In negotiations over the bill last year, questions were raised about whether it would provide a benefit for Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton. Leahy has sparred with Cheney, who last year dismissed Leahy with a profanity on the Senate floor after the senator raised questions about US contracts given to Halliburton.
But a Halliburton spokeswoman said the company would get no benefit from the asbestos legislation because it recently has entered into a court agreement limiting its damages. Two months ago, two Halliburton subsidiaries agreed to pay $4.2 billion to settle 400,000 asbestos claims.
"Our settlement is done and resolved," Halliburton spokesman Wendy Hall said via e-mail.
Leahy has raised questions about whether Halliburton used the bankruptcy process to put a lid on damages, but he said in an interview earlier this week that Halliburton played no role in his current considerations. "I'm not looking at Halliburton," Leahy said. "I'm more interested in getting something that will help the victims."
Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, is in what he hopes is the final stage of negotiation with the committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter.
Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said in an interview that he is anxious for Leahy's support. "We need 60 votes," Specter said, alluding to the number necessary to stop a filibuster. Republicans control 55 seats.
"I've been talking to a lot of Democrats, a great many times with Senator Leahy," Specter said, counting 39 times he has met with Leahy on the issue, "and I think the aspect with his grandfather may make him drive extra hard."
Leahy and Specter appear close to a deal. Congressional aides said, for example, that Leahy has suggested a maximum individual award to be $1.1 million, while Specter has proposed $50,000 less.
The two are also discussing whether more money should go to people with mesothelioma -- a cancer whose only proven cause is asbestos -- and less should go to cigarette smokers whose cancer might have more to do with tobacco than asbestos. The two are also in discussions about what would happen if the fund runs out of money; one suggestion is to let claims revert to the courts if the fund goes broke. Specter also is pushing for a "rigorous" screening program to try to prevent fradulent claims, a primary concern of asbestos-related companies.
The asbestos legislation still could crumble; other senators could try to block it, and it must also win House approval. So as Leahy works on the bill, he thinks of his namesake grandfather, whom he never met, as well as his other grandfather, Peter Zambon, an Italian immigrant stonecutter who also was affected by a respiratory illness acquired through airborne particles at the granite quarries.
"When I was a youngster, I remember the poor man going in and out of the hospital and the suffering he went through when he died," Leahy said. "I have talked to a lot of the victims. I see the same thing. I see people who went to work, supporting their family, doing everything right, salt of the earth, and then given a death sentence."