[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15084-15085]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          THE ILL EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS LAWSUITS ON OUR ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Franks of Arizona). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, across our country, the state of our economy 
is the number one issue on people's minds. America's economy is reeling 
from a 3-year-old recession and the shock of September 11 and war 
jitters from Iraq. This Congress has acted to restore our homeland and 
national security. We have passed corporate reforms to stop the dot-com 
abuses that sparked our recession. Our Armed Forces have won a great 
battle in Iraq. But now, the latest news from our markets is somewhat 
encouraging. We bottomed out in the Dow Jones industrials at under 
7,500, and we are now back over 9,000. But still, the economy is 
sluggish. Why? Are there other issues weighing against new savings and 
investments?
  There are. There is one key issue that is casting a very dark cloud 
on America's economy, on our employment and, especially, our retirement 
savings. What is that issue? Lawsuits. Lawsuits. But not just any 
lawsuit. These are asbestos lawsuits.
  Tonight, over 900 stocks that form the heart of our retirement IRAs 
are depressed because of asbestos litigation. We have already 
bankrupted manufacturers of asbestos long ago. People poisoned by these 
companies collect only 5 cents on the dollar from the empty shelf of 
what once were large employers.
  In 1983, only 300 companies faced asbestos lawsuits from about 20,000 
plaintiffs. Despite asbestos largely leaving our economy, we now see 
750,000 plaintiffs suing over 8,000 employers. Sixty major employers 
have already closed their doors, and a third of those employers gave 
pink slips to their workers in just the last 2 years. With 8,000 
plaintiffs crowding into our courts, no one gets justice. People who 
are truly sick die waiting for their day in court and the health care 
that they need. Others who file a case wait in line, hoping to win the 
asbestos lottery for them and their personal injury lawyers.
  Our system of bankrupting employers and depressing the IRA savings of 
America could make some sense if those who are sick are compensated, 
but the data shows different. From 1980 to 2002, employers and insurers 
paid $70 billion in claims. Plaintiffs received only $28 billion out of 
the $70 billion paid. So where did the other $42 billion go? As the 
chart next to me shows, it went to personal injury lawyers and court 
costs. Not a penny of those funds went for hospital costs or to pay 
surviving relatives. Sixty percent of funds under the current system go 
to lawyers and court costs.
  Clearly, American justice can do better. We say, ``Justice delayed is 
justice denied.'' But justice is delayed here. We say, ``We built a 
system to make the injured whole,'' but the injured are not made whole 
here. Supreme Court Justices have decried our wayward system of 
asbestos justice. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg called on Congress to 
act. Justice David Souter said the system was an ``elephantine mass'' 
which defies customary judicial administration, and calls for national 
legislation.
  What happens if we do nothing? What happens if we leave well enough 
alone? According to the National Economic Research Associates and the 
Rand Institute, asbestos litigation costs 60,000 Americans their 
livelihoods. Without reform, Rand estimates 423,000 Americans will lose 
their jobs because of the expanding cloud of asbestos litigation. Never 
in the history of our economy have so many lost their incomes to so few 
who received so little for the benefit.
  Asbestos litigation reform may be the most important remaining 
economic reform legislation for this Congress to pass. Reform means 
saving half a million American jobs. Reform means lifting the value of 
millions of IRAs. Reform means paying victims and their families with 
the lion's share of awards, not personal injury lawyers.

[[Page 15085]]

And reform is needed now. Congress has several proposals before it.
  Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1114, the Asbestos Compensation 
Act of 2003, with 40 cosponsors, the largest number of asbestos reform 
cosponsors for any legislation in this Congress. My colleague, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), introduced H.R. 1285, the Asbestos 
Compensation Fair Act. Our Democratic colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley), introduced H.R. 1737. And in the Senate, 
Senator Nickles introduced S. 413. All eyes in Washington on this issue 
have now focused on Senator Hatch's bill, S. 1125, the Fairness in 
Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, or FAIR Act. It is scheduled for a 
markup in the Senate in 48 hours.
  This is the most important economic legislation for this Congress. 
And what do all of these bills do? They are based around core 
principles of American justice. One: that we seek to compensate the 
injured; two, that we bring about a rapid resolution of disputes; 
three, that decisions become final; and, four, that we administer 
justice uniformly. Our current system fails to meet any of these time-
honored values.
  The legislation Congress is considering would remove the myriad of 
cases from various courts in States to a new Federal court or office 
that would develop an expertise and uniform administration of 8,000 
lawsuits. Why do this? Let me give some examples.
  Robert York received an asbestos award from his State court. He was 
asymptomatic with lung scarring, and he got $1,200. He had to pay $600 
of it to his lawyer. Bill Sullivan was exposed to asbestos, with no 
symptoms, still got $350,000. Keith Ronnfeldt was exposed to asbestos 
and he got just $2,500, but, of course, had to pay $1,200 to his 
lawyer. Mrs. Keith Ronnfeldt was exposed, but she got just $750 and, of 
course, had to pay $375 to her lawyer. Ron Huber got asbestos-related 
illness and received an award of $14,000, but it is still pending 
appeal, and Ronald has not been paid. Meanwhile, James Curry, with 
asbestosis, won an award of $25 million; but once again, under appeal, 
he has not been paid.
  This is not justice. Victims are left to die, and plaintiffs with no 
symptoms are litigants in a system that only the lawyers win.
  We stand for a different principle. The major themes of reforms are 
to form a new Federal office or court to swiftly and surely compensate 
victims. But who pays?
  Under our reforms, current defendants, employers, and insurers pay, 
with some leeway for other defendants to be added. Without reform, Rand 
estimates, plaintiffs, uninsured and insured alike, will be awarded 
$200 billion, bankrupting dozens of employers and throwing 400,000 
Americans out of work.
  But remember, most award money goes to lawyers and court costs, not 
to plaintiffs. That means without reforms, $200 billion will be 
awarded, but only $80 billion will go to victims and uninsured 
plaintiffs.
  We argue for a better system. Rather than have only $80 billion paid 
to victims, we, for example, under Senator Hatch's reforms, would pay 
over $100 billion, 20 percent more, to the victims. Who loses? Under 
our reforms, only the lawyers would lose, but the victims would win; 
and so would the American economy.

                              {time}  1930

  So would the American economy.
  Without so many asbestos lawsuits filed by thousands on the chance of 
victory, we would remove a cloud of litigation from our economy's 
future. We would also follow another key principle, those injured 
should be the ones compensated best and first.
  Under the current system, plaintiffs with the fastest lawyer, suing 
the richest defendant, wins. The sickest plaintiff, suing a poor or 
bankrupt defendant, loses. That is wrong. Our reforms care for the 
sickest most, regardless of financial capacity of the defendant.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune identified these issues clearly in a 
masthead editorial printed yesterday. They correctly pointed out that 
the proposed privately funded $100 billion trust fund will be more than 
adequate to meet the needs of victims who currently only look like they 
will get $80 billion under the current misguided system.
  Mr. Speaker, if one's 401(k) looks like mine, it is really probably 
just a 201(k). This issue depresses the market and, therefore, the 
retirement savings for millions of Americans. I ask everyone to contact 
their representative or Senator and urge them, for the sake of their 
retirement savings, to pass asbestos liability reform. If we are to 
return to $10,000 on the Dow or even better, this reform must pass.
  In the next 48 hours, the Senate is scheduled to act and the House 
must soon follow. There is no economic issue more important, and 
therefore, this must move to the top of the to-do list for the United 
States Congress.

                          ____________________