"We have to wait and see what happens and add it all up," said David Farmer, senior vice president of federal affairs for the Downers Grove, Ill.-based Alliance of American Insurers.

He noted that recent action by the Judiciary Committee has substantially increased the potential costs of the legislation.

Initially, S. 1125 would have established a $108 billion trust fund, with $45 billion coming from the insurance industry, to resolve asbestos-related claims. However, Mr. Farmer noted, the Committee adopted an amendment to the legislation aimed at assuring that the trust fund does not run out of money. That language could raise the price tag from $108 billion to $153 billion, with the industry likely responsible for half the increase, he said.

Earlier, Mr. Farmer added, the Committee agreed to ease some of the medical criteria for recovery. And currently, Mr. Farmer noted, the Committee is still struggling with the issue of the value of asbestos-related injury claims, with the possibility that the compensation levels currently in S. 1125 may also be increased.

The question, he said, is whether the final legislation will be economically viable.

Anne Sittmann, a representative of the Des Plaines, Ill.-based National Association of Independent Insurers, added that there needs to be certainty as to the industry's liability.

Without certainty, Ms. Sittmann said, it is hard to see that the bill makes sense.

It is important, she said, that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, wants to move the process forward, but these issues need to be addressed.

Gary Karr, a representative of the Washington-based American Insurance Association, added that certainty is important both for insurance companies and victims.

It is important, he said, that the compensation values for asbestos-related conditions be sensible and affordable. But it is too early to tell how the process will work out, Mr. Karr said.

There is still a lot of work to be done, he said. Mr. Karr said AIA is pleased that Sen. Hatch continues to push the process forward, and it is important to see what happens at the committee's next session, which is scheduled for July 10.

Mr. Farmer added that during consideration of S. 1125, Sen. Hatch cautioned committee members against making the bill so expensive that business groups would not support it.

Monte Ward, vice president of federal affairs for the Indianapolis-based National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said the current $153 billion price tag of S. 1125 is not suitable and would force many insurers and defendants to pay more than their fair share.

The amendment, he said, raises the possibility that insurers could have to pay into a never-ending trust fund.

The amendment, which was sponsored by Sens. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow the administrator of the fund to block an assessment reduction provision in S. 1125. Specifically, under Section 204 of the bill, the assessments against defendants used to finance the fund are gradually reduced. Beginning in the sixth year of the fund, and every three years thereafter, the assessments are reduced 10 percent.

But under the Kohl-Feinstein amendment, the administrator would have to certify that adequate funds are available to compensate existing and future claimants. If the administrator determines that adequate funds are not available, the assessments would not be reduced.

As for insurance companies, they would have to contribute the same additional amount as the defendants who are denied the assessment reduction.

Some estimates are that under the amendment, defendants and insurance companies could be hit with an additional $1 billion each, annually, in payments to the fund.

As for the still unresolved issue of the value of claims, it is possible that the fund's potential liability could increase substantially.

For example, under the current draft, those with a person with a "mixed cause" asbestos-related disorder would receive medical monitoring, but no compensation. However, under at least one proposal, this individual would receive a $35,000 award.

Similarly, the award for severe asbestos could go from $400,000 under the current draft to $850,000. The award for mesothelioma, the fatal asbestos-related cancer, could go from $750,000 to $1.1 million.

The issue of award value will be the focal point of the committee's July 10 session.