Editorial: Fly on the drywall in Congress

Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 | 12:31 p.m.

A bipartisan coalition of U.S. senators earlier this week defeated a measure that would have created an industry-financed fund for asbestos exposure victims and, advocates had hoped, ended asbestos-related lawsuits that have bankrupted nearly 80 companies.

The measure's opponents included Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., who said the $140 billion fund would have violated a congressional budget rule that caps spending after 2016. A Congressional Budget Office analysis predicted the fund would have run dry before all claims were paid, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

Large companies favored the bill because it cost less for them to pay into the fund than to fight individual lawsuits. Small companies feared they would be paying far more into the fund than they would ever spend on litigation. And insurers said the law wouldn't guarantee that no more lawsuits would be filed in the event the fund failed.

The measure failed to gain enough support to make it to the Senate floor for a vote. In the wake of its defeat, Ensign and other opponents pitched an alternative that would require victims to document their asbestos-related medical conditions before filing suit. Texas, Florida, Georgia and Ohio already have such requirements.

People seeking compensation for cancers and respiratory illnesses caused by asbestos should be able to show the connection - that's what the lawsuits accomplish. But the companies responsible for these materials should pay the damages. Taxpayers shouldn't be footing any of that bill, and victims should be entitled to seek compensation.