[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 FAIRNESS IN ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 17, 2000

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, today I am in opposition of 
H.R. 1283, the Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act, which was 
recently reported out of the House Judiciary Committee. Before it comes 
to the House floor, I want to make clear my opposition to this bill 
that creates a windfall for the asbestos industry but denies fair 
compensation to tens of thousands of American workers and their 
families.
  Bailing out an industry that has caused harm to millions of 
Americans, is the ultimate slap in the face to the millions of victims 
affected by the deadly hazards of asbestos. Only because our court 
system provides accountability for these manufacturers was this deadly 
threat finally stopped. Now, it is no surprise that asbestos 
manufacturers want to use the Federal Government to override tort 
statutes in various States, which have brought them to law. Even more 
troubling, the bill will prohibit approximately 50 percent of injured 
asbestos victims from compensation due to new and unreasonable medical 
standards.
  Furthermore, punitive damages would be capped at three times 
compensatory damages if the victim goes through an administrative 
hearing. Most troubling, if the victim goes to court directly, punitive 
damages would be prohibited entirely.
  The bill forgets all scientific and health related research that has 
proven the link between asbestos exposure and lung disease. The bill 
creates a strict burden of proof for establishing that asbestos-induced 
diseases were caused by asbestos exposure. There is no need for this 
elevated burden of proof since the medical literature by the medical 
community supports the current substantial level of proof now required. 
It is estimated that under the bill, about one-half of all asbestos 
cancer cases now eligible for compensation would be thrown out. For the 
first time, asbestos lung cancer victims will need to prove that they 
have no smoking history; if a victim has smoked, they can be denied 
compensation despite the fact that in the courts this excuse has been 
repeatedly rejected.
  Lastly, the Republican Congress, that so heartily opposes bigger 
government creates a new federal bureaucracy with this bill. Instead of 
the 100 asbestos trials a year now moving through the courts, the bill 
proposes the creation of an entirely new Office of Asbestos 
Compensation to handle work that is Constitutionally under the purview 
of the Judiciary system.
  We should call this bill what it really is: an Asbestos Industry 
Preservation and Denial of Victims Act. It is one-sided, pro-defendant, 
and will throw victims out of court, for the sake of protecting a 
dangerous industry.

                          ____________________