During the interim, critics from all sides are expected to try to find ways to adjust the legislation to meet their concerns.

The opposition brewing in the business community is reflected in a letter to Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, from James A. Anderson Jr., vice president of government relations with the Washington-based National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, a major business trade group.

In his letter, Mr. Anderson said NAW cannot support S. 1125 in its present form due to amendments that substantially added to the legislation's cost.

"As a result of this added cost, wholesaler-distributors, many of whom faced a larger out-of-pocket exposure to cost under S. 1125 as introduced than they do under the tort system, seem likely to be required to pay even more over the life of the program under the bill as reported by the committee," he wrote.

"Not only is this exceptionally unfair, there is no certainty as to how much NAW affiliated companies will be required to pay over the life of the program," Mr. Anderson said.

He said that if the legislation is to earn NAW's support, it must be reasonable in scope and cost, be essentially fair to all stakeholders, and provide certainty and finality.

But in a preliminary draft of the Judiciary Committee's report on S. 1125, the committee addressed the concerns of those who think the bill does not go far enough, but not the concerns of business and insurance groups that believe it is too expensive.

In the draft, the committee rebuts suggestions by labor groups that the funding will be inadequate to pay all asbestos victims, that victims may have to wait years for compensation and that if the fund does run out of money, victims will have no where to turn for compensation.

Regarding adequacy of the fund, the committee said that due to the substantial reduction in transaction costs, the projected size of the fund should be more than adequate to pay all claimants.

Moreover, there are a variety of mechanisms in the legislation to increase funding should the system need it, the committee said.

Since the draft is still preliminary, it is possible that language will be added to a later version that will address insurance industry and business concerns about what they see as runaway costs.

In addition, it is possible that members of the committee will file dissenting views that will be added to the report.

But industry lobbyists tell National Underwriter that they do not see how S. 1125 can advance in its present form given the serious concerns raised by so many different stakeholders.