The latest effort to get an U.S. asbestos trust fund bill passed has been stopped in its tracks. A vote in the U.S. Senate sustained an objection to the bill. This means the bill has been removed from further consideration until its impact is reassessed.
Sixty votes were needed to waive a budget point of order raised by Republican Senator John Ensign, who objected to the fund on the grounds that it could leave taxpayers on the hook for paying losses. Fifty-eight senators voted to waive the objection, while 41 voted against waiving it.
Insurance trade groups say they hope the latest setback does not ruin the chance of asbestos legislation being passed. "Our reaction is, although we are opposing the bill as it is currently drafted, we hope that the issue stays alive," says Julie Rochman, senior v.p. at the American Insurance Association, an industry lobby group. "While we don't like the current proposal, we would like Congress to enact meaningful reform."
The bill's sponsors – Republican Arlen Specter and Democrat Patrick Leahy – had said their bill would die if the vote went against it. But after the vote they said there was still hope. "We have just begun to fight," Specter said in a statement.
Specter says Democrat Senator Daniel Inouye was in favour of the bill but could not vote because his wife was sick. And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist changed his vote at the last minute to comply with Senate rules to have another vote on the issue. These two votes would have given the sixty votes required.
But insurers are not fond of the bill. Rochman says it would not give meaningful benefits to insurers. This is because asbestos-related claims could revert back to courts if the $140 billion trust fund runs out of money.
"An ideal trust fund would provide certainty and finality to all stakeholders," she says. "Unfortunately, through the process, a lot of certainty and finality has disappeared. So it is something far short of the trust fund ideal. There are all sorts of problems that could make it blow up, so it makes no sense for insurers."
Sixty votes were needed to waive a budget point of order raised by Republican Senator John Ensign, who objected to the fund on the grounds that it could leave taxpayers on the hook for paying losses. Fifty-eight senators voted to waive the objection, while 41 voted against waiving it.
Insurance trade groups say they hope the latest setback does not ruin the chance of asbestos legislation being passed. "Our reaction is, although we are opposing the bill as it is currently drafted, we hope that the issue stays alive," says Julie Rochman, senior v.p. at the American Insurance Association, an industry lobby group. "While we don't like the current proposal, we would like Congress to enact meaningful reform."
The bill's sponsors – Republican Arlen Specter and Democrat Patrick Leahy – had said their bill would die if the vote went against it. But after the vote they said there was still hope. "We have just begun to fight," Specter said in a statement.
Specter says Democrat Senator Daniel Inouye was in favour of the bill but could not vote because his wife was sick. And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist changed his vote at the last minute to comply with Senate rules to have another vote on the issue. These two votes would have given the sixty votes required.
But insurers are not fond of the bill. Rochman says it would not give meaningful benefits to insurers. This is because asbestos-related claims could revert back to courts if the $140 billion trust fund runs out of money.
"An ideal trust fund would provide certainty and finality to all stakeholders," she says. "Unfortunately, through the process, a lot of certainty and finality has disappeared. So it is something far short of the trust fund ideal. There are all sorts of problems that could make it blow up, so it makes no sense for insurers."
