S. 2290 would simplify the resolution of cases, not only, like the other bills, by specifying medical eligibility criteria, but also by establishing a schedule of benefits, a specific amount payable for each diagnostic category ranging from $20 thousand to $1 million (the latter for mesothelioma and some lung cancer cases). It would establish a fund through which all claims are paid, financed by assessments on defendant companies and their insurers. Each of the largest firms subject to assessment would be responsible for paying up to $25 million per year for 23 years. The assessments (including those of insurers) could total as much as $108 billion. In addition, Subsections 204(k) to (m) would authorize up to $10 billion more, if needed, via a contingent call to a "guaranteed payment account." The federal government is expressly excluded from any payment obligation.

Among the asbestos bills in the 108th Congress, S. 1125 has received the most attention. The Senate Judiciary Committee, along with representatives of all of the involved interests, put considerable effort into finding a consensus. While consensus was not achieved, significant concessions were made on all sides and S. 1125 was reported by a vote of 10-9 on July 30, 2003. S. 2290 is a substitute bill reflecting some further negotiations, including mediation by Edward Becker, former chief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals." The most contentious points still remaining primarily fall under the headings of funding adequacy, acceptability of the compensation schedule, basis for the diagnostic categories, and transitional issues. In what follows, this report describes how the bill would handle such matters and what objections have been raised. All of these points, among others, are addressed in the report of the committee."

A number of unknowns mean the bill's stated funding capacity of $114 billion, a substantial sum by any measure, may yet not suffice to pay all scheduled benefits. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated ultimate total costs of $123 billion.16 One of the central points of debate in committee was whether to establish an overall funding figure first or establish the benefit schedule first, the question being framed in terms of who deserved "certainty." On one side, it was argued that workers deserved certainty of payment because they would be giving up their right to sue and because previous bankruptcy resolution trusts had been inadequate. On the other side, business advocates argued that certainty for them (regarding the extent of their liability) was essential, it being the only reason they would consider giving up their right to defend themselves against what they see as tenuous claims in many cases.

__________________________________________

¹⁴See statement by Sen. Specter, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol 150 ( Mar. 23, 2004), pp. S2987-S2988.

¹⁵U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003, 108th Cong. V sess., S.Rept. 108-118 (Washington: GPO, 2003), 227 p. (hereafter cited as "Committee report").