Few think asbestos bill is dead

(03/24/06)

By Jeffrey Young

The advertising blitzes may have halted and the telephones quieted since the asbestos trust-fund bill was brought down in the Senate last week, but the special interests working all sides of the issue are not exhaling yet.

Before last Tuesdays vote, the bills lead sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) both indicated that the two-week floor debate on the measure represented a do-or-die moment for those seeking an alternative to the torts system for victims of asbestos exposure.

Lobbyists working to pass, change or kill the bill likewise treated those two weeks as possibly the final chance to act on asbestos litigation reform.

When the measures supporters fell short of the 60 votes they needed to overcome a budgetary point of order by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), the matter seemed settled for the year despite Specters defiant vow to revisit the legislation.

The point of order was sustained by a 58-41 vote after Frist switched his vote to nay for procedural reasons.

Advocates for those with an interest in the bill got a reminder late Friday afternoon, if they needed one, that the nettlesome asbestos-reform issue has not been so easily done away with.

In a written statement, Frist announced a plan to bring the bill back to the floor. His strategy to return to the measure seems to put the onus on Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter and ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to do what they have not been able to so far: secure solid promises from senators.

I have told Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy that 60 members must signify their commitment to support both the motion to waive the pending Budget Act point of order and end any filibuster of the bill, Frist said. Once that public assurance is given, I will look to schedule the bill at the earliest possible opportunity.

The bill would establish a $140 billion industry-financed fund that would replace the tort system as the source of compensation for people injured by asbestos exposure.

By setting aside floor time early in the year for the asbestos bill, Frist fulfilled a promise to Specter that had been delayed by the Senates response to last years Gulf Coast hurricanes and the drive to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Frists statement notes.

Frist has expended precious floor time during and busy legislative session in a risky midterm election year as well as considerable political capital in his efforts to help Specter advance a bill that never had uniform support within the GOP conference.

Nevertheless, a Senate Republican aide maintained that Specter would continue to enjoy the continued assistance of the GOP leadership in amassing public commitments from senators.

K Street sources from all sides of the debate emphasized that the measure continues to face formidable challenges, ranging from a paucity of floor time in the Senate to basic differences about the content of the bill itself.

These lobbyists also agreed that they could not afford to take their eyes off Specter, Frist and their allies. As John Paul Jones said, We have just begun to fight, Specter remarked in a written statement after last weeks vote.

The bill is not dead, said Tom OBrien, the chairman of the Coalition for Asbestos Reform, which is made up of small and medium-size businesses that oppose the trust fund.

Theres no denying this chairmans successes in the past year on many things, said one lobbyist who has worked on asbestos issues for years.

Theres sure to be a lot of lobbying back and forth, said former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), who opposes the bill. Armey has lobbied against the measure as co-chairman of the conservative group FreedomWorks. Armey also is employed by DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, which represents Equitas Ltd., an offshoot of the insurance giant Lloyds of London.

Asked when lobbyists working on asbestos could let down their guard this year, AFL-CIO Legislative Director Bill Samuel responded, Adjournment sine die.

In the meantime, everyones taking stock after the aggressive and expensive campaigns fought in recent weeks, Samuel said. Armey agreed: No one knows for sure whether the bill can come back.

We need to encourage the senators that voted correctly, Armey said. He suggested that the grassroots efforts of FreedomWorks members had been influential in cementing some opposition from Republican senators.

Fiscal conservatives and tort-reform advocates oppose the bill on the grounds that the trust fund could become insolvent, potentially leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for unpaid claims. Ensigns point of order was based on the same concern.

If the trust-fund bill were to be irretrievably defeated, the asbestos liability issue would remain on the radar screens of lawmakers and K Street. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) surprised some conservatives after the vote last week by seemingly opening the door to an older proposed model of asbestos litigation reform that would establish specific medical criteria for people who bring lawsuits.

Because of Durbins ties to the trial attorneys who opposed the trust fund, Armey remarked that his comments were a hopeful signal.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) have introduced medical-criteria proposals this Congress.