AsbestosAsbestos Legislation
Negotiations To Create National Asbestos Legislation Fail
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Efforts to create federal trust fund legislation that would compensate current and future asbestos claimants came to an end May 6 when the parties involved could not resolve differences over how large the proposed trust fund should be, sources told Mealey Publications.
The sources said efforts stalled May 5 over the claim projections for S.2290 and further stalled May 6 over what the associated claims values should be and, ultimately, what the overall cost would be to fund the trust. In the end, the sources said, the difference between what the business/insurance coalition was willing to contribute and what organized labor felt was adequate funding was too far apart.
The negotiations had been held since April 26 under the supervision of Chief Judge Emeritus Edward Becker of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, who acted as a mediator between stakeholders in an attempt to resolve differences over the funding and other problematic issues.
The failure of the negotiations came two weeks after the U.S. Senate on April 22 voted 50-47 to block a motion to proceed with floor debate on the proposed legislation. After the filibuster on the motion to proceed, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., announced then that he and Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., would continue the negotiations under Judge Becker in an attempt to find common ground.
During the recent discussions under Judge Becker, organized labor demanded funding similar to S.2290's predecessor, S.1125, which was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last July and proposed to fund the trust with $154 billion, including contingency. The sources said organized labor's final offer this week was $134 billion with a $15 billion contingency. The business/insurance coalition was willing to raise its contributions to $116 billion with a $12 billion contingency, the sources said.
Although negotiations on the trust fund legislation could arise again this year, the sources said it is highly unlikely. The partisanship of the Senate will make it very difficult to revive the bill, and the approach of the November presidential election will make it more difficult to get this legislation passed, the sources said.
