Burns upset over late changes in asbestos measure

Judiciary committee adjourns without decision

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said Thursday he's disappointed over last-minute changes that would reduce Libby asbestos victims' coverage in a federal asbestos compensation bill.

And he's especially disturbed by a suggestion from Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., that providing special compensation for Libby victims is unconstitutional.

The Senate Judiciary Committee spent Thursday marking up the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005 - legislation to create a $140 billion trust fund for those suffering from asbestos-related diseases. The committee met into the evening hours and adjourned without passing the bill. It will reconvene after next week's congressional recess.

"The good news is that it gives us additional time to lobby for Libby," said Barrett Kaiser, a spokesman for Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. "There's still a lot of ball game left to play."

On April 13, Baucus persuaded bill sponsor Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., to add special provisions for Libby victims to the bill draft. Burns said he also worked closely with Specter throughout the drafting process, including provisions recognizing Libby's tremolite asbestos exposure from the now-defunct W.R. Grace vermiculite mine.

But by April 19, the Libby provision was altered - at the suggestion of bill sponsors who viewed the Libby fix as overcompensation - to exclude those exposed to asbestos who are not yet sick.

Burns said the provisions as they relate to Libby are insufficient and he voiced his concerns in a letter to Specter.

"I won't support a bill that doesn't include coverage for Libby claimants," Burns told Specter. "This bill has a lot of moving parts to it which were adequate in earlier drafts but as introduced recently and considered in the Judiciary Committee, they were very different."

Baucus has likewise said he will withdraw his support of the bill if Libby victims aren't fully compensated.

During the committee meeting, Feinstein offered an amendment to strike the Libby-specific language and extend rewards to those who have claims against companies that have been the subject of either criminal indictments or convictions. That proposal would significantly expand the class of individuals able to recover money.

Feinstein raised concerns that the Libby provision as written was unconstitutional. Her proposal wasn't considered by the committee, Kaiser said.

"The fate of the Libby provision is up in the air," Burns said. "The provision missed the mark when the bill was introduced, and as a result of the committee's action, it needs to be significantly redrafted."

Specter did commit to resolving the issue in a way that the Libby provision passes constitutional muster, Burns said.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com