FACT- Here We Go Again

If we've learned one thing, it's this: the asbestos industry is incapable of doing the right thing. Their history speaks for itself.  A legacy of lying, poisoning, cheating, obfuscating and denying. Billions spent on covering up their crimes. Thousands  of preventable and premature deaths. Millions spent on lobbyists to change the laws to make it harder for victims to get to a jury. Nary a nickel invested in prevention or cure.

Every few years, the Asbestos industry gathers up their favorite politicians and prop up another bail out bill. The last one they called the FAIR act even though a six year old understood that the bill was anything but fair. The most recent effort is another fine tribute to George Orwell's dire warnings of the encroachment of "doublespeak" -- the FACT act (Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency). It's mission is to make it more difficult for asbestos cancer plaintiffs to get a fair trial with a chance for a full, honest and fair recovery. But, again, even a six year old understands that the only thing "transparent" about the FACT act is it's grotesque support of the abusers and abject criminalization of the abused.

Please read the article below posted by Susan Vento, whose husband Congressman Bruce Vento died from mesothelioma 15 years ago. (Susan has spoken out about this bill as far back as 2013.)  Bruce was one of the good guys. At the time, we advocated that Congress recognize Bruce's work by creating a mesothelioma research and treatment plan in his name. Congress, alas, looked the other way. Instead of launching an effort to cure asbestos cancer, they've instead chosen to spend the people's time ginning up embarrassing corporate bail out bills. 

Stay tuned. Like the Terminator, they're back, and they simply will not stop, unless we stop them. 
------------
Asbestos Victims to Congress: Stop Fast-Tracking Legislation That Would Violate Victims' Privacy  By Susan Vento, May 13, 2015

New Asbestos Bills Before Congress, but will Meaningful Legislature Finally be Passed?

A new bill has been introduced to congress this week which would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to re-consider a ban on asbestos, and many other toxic chemicals that have been found to cause cancer, developmental disorders, respiratory disorders, neurological disorders, and more. The Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act, is named after Alan Reinstein, who died in 2006 at the age of 66 from mesothelioma, and Trevor Schaefer, a brain cancer survivor who was diagnosed at the age of 13.

The bill would also protect states’ rights to evaluate within their own government whether or not to ban toxic and dangerous chemicals that industry backed representatives want grouped together under the more corporate friendly federal law.

The EPA attempted to ban most asbestos products in 1989, which would have prohibited the manufacture, import, processing or distribution of most asbestos containing products. However, a 1991 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected much of the rule, undoubtedly under pressure from industry funded representatives.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of the bill’s authors has been one of the most vocal outliers of chemical policy reform since efforts to fix the law began.  “Our citizens deserve nothing less than a bill that protects them – not chemical companies.”

Another bill, The Reducing Exposure to Asbestos Database Act, or READ Act, which was introduced last week in congress, seeks to establish an online database which would be administered by the EPA and detail products that contain asbestos, and where asbestos can be found. This is a direct response to the industry friendly bill, The Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act, (The FACT Act) which supporters claim is an attempt to protect future asbestos disease victims right to compensation, but is really an attempt to curtail and delay current victims right to compensation and further limit the liability companies face. Under the new law, people and companies that knowingly manufacture, process, distribute or sell products containing asbestos will be fined $10,000 a day if they fail to report to the EPA.

"Every year, far too many Americans and their families suffer the deadly consequences of asbestos exposure," says U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, (D-Ill), "The goal of this legislation is simple: Increase the transparency and accessibility of data informing the public about where asbestos is known to be present. This information will increase awareness, reduce exposure and help save lives."

Linda Reinstein, wife of deceased Alan Reinstein, president and CEO of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, said she strongly supports the READ Act. "Undoubtedly, the READ Act will save lives and dollars," she said in a statement. "One life lost from a preventable asbestos-caused disease is tragic, hundreds of thousands is unconscionable."

A lot of bills are floating around congress right now that contain the word asbestos. Some of these bills are straightforward, with the goal to protect citizens from the dangers of asbestos and hope to see this material finally banned in this country. Others are written under the guise of protecting citizens, but it’s clear if you read between the lines, and look at the track records and associates of the authors of said bills, that the goal is to protect the companies who knowingly exposed the good people of this country to the deadly material in the first place.

Asbestos Industry-Backed FACT Act Passed by House GOP’s—But Not Likely to Go Any Further

US News reports that on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 the House approved House Resolution 982, the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT Act) in a vote 221-199. The FACT Act is part of a national campaign being led by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and National Chamber of Commerce to limit compensation paid to asbestos victims and delay justice.

There is good news though. According to the article, the Democratic-controlled Senate has no plans to take up the bill, and the White House on Tuesday said President Barack Obama would veto it. “The bill’s mandatory reporting and disclosure requirements would threaten asbestos victims’ privacy when they seek payment for injuries from an asbestos bankruptcy trust,” the White House said in a statement of administration policy opposing the bill.

On Tuesday, Linda Reinstein, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) President/CEO and Co-Founder along with members of the Alliance for Justice, the American Association for Justice and the Asbestos Cancer Victims’ Rights Campaign, attended a House Staff briefing to oppose the bill and urge representatives to vote against the FACT Act.

This legislation is an invasion of privacy which seeks to require patients and their families to post personal financial information, information about their dependents and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers on a public website. The bill will not only limit justice received by victims, but will ultimately open them and their families up to potential identity theft.

It would also have claimants seek compensation through the asbestos trust system before going through their state court to seek damages against companies, some states already have this law in practice.

Supporters of the legislation claim that rampant fraud is occurring in the system, fraud for which they have no definitive proof. They say this fraud occurs when people file claims against one trust blaming it for their asbestos disease, then make the same claims to other trusts as well as to companies in court.

Mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases are not typically caused by a single exposure to asbestos. In almost all cases, the disease is caused by the cumulative effect of many, sometimes countless, exposures throughout a person’s lifetime. Accordingly, asbestos disease is almost always the result of exposures to a wide variety of asbestos products from a multitude of different manufacturers and suppliers. It has long since been established that these companies knew about the dangers of asbestos and kept it mum.

The asbestos company owners, such as the Koch brothers, who are behind the so-called FACT legislation, have distorted the facts in an effort to convince the public that persons claiming that their asbestos disease was caused by more than one manufacturer’s product are committing a fraud. In reality, it is the supporters of this legislation who are committing a fraud—a fraud which, not surprisingly, inures to the financial interests of asbestos companies at the expense of the financial and privacy interests of asbestos illness sufferers.

Here's what you can do to help right now:

Go to www.cancervictimsrights.org to connect with a community of people fighting this legislation and standing up for cancer victims.

Related links:

• Huffington Post Debunks Claims of Fraud by Supporters of the “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act”
• Susan Vento, Wife of Deceased Congressman and Mesothelioma Victim Bruce Vento, Expresses Her Strong Opposition to the So-Called “FACT Act”
• Wall Street Journal Continues to Side with Asbestos Companies on Allegations of Asbestos Trust Fraud

Susan Vento, Wife of Deceased Congressman and Mesothelioma Victim Bruce Vento, Expresses Her Strong Opposition to the So-Called “FACT Act”

Susan Vento lost her husband in October of 2000, just eight months after he had been diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Susan’s husband was Democratic Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota who served as a United States Representative for 24 years and devoted his work in the government to environmental and homeless causes. When he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, he began championing asbestos victims’ rights and was committed to raising awareness for mesothelioma and the urgent need for research funding.

Recently, Susan and many others whose lives have been turned upside down by asbestos disease were eager to offer testimony to lawmakers in opposition to House Resolution 982, the “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act”. They were told they would get the opportunity to do so, but instead Susan and the others were offered only a closed-door meeting with congressional staffers and were told they could offer written comments away from the press. This, of course, is a far cry from the public open hearing they were promised.

Undeterred, and intent to have her opinions and unique perspective on the legislation heard by lawmakers and the public, Susan authored an article that was published in the June 3, edition of Roll Call. The complete article can be seen here.

This isn’t the first time Susan has stood up for asbestos victim’s rights. In 2003 Susan took an active and vocal stance against legislation that attempted to create an industry-bankrolled trust fund to compensate sick workers and their families and would have taken away individual asbestos victims’ right to trial.

FACT Act sponsor Blake Farenthold repeatedly claims the purpose of the bill is to “avoid waste, fraud and abuse within the trust claim system in order to secure compensation for the ‘real’ victims of asbestos disease and not deplete the funds of the trusts for future victims.” Farenthold refers often to the Wall Street Journal’s ”investigative reporting” as if it had presented actual evidence of fraud, but as we discussed here, the so-called evidence falls far short.

Reading the transcript of the May 21, 2013 proceedings is angering. It is blatantly obvious and painfully clear that those in support of the bill are not defending the victims of asbestos disease, but are the hand puppets of corporate interests. It is important to remember that most of the “bankrupt asbestos companies” are still in business and, in many cases, very successful. The trusts were created under bankruptcy laws which allow companies to avoid liability for their dangerous products in exchange for partial payment to victims so that they can continue to operate as viable and profitable companies, as noted by consumer advocate Joan Claybrook in her refutation of the WSJ’s “investigative reporting” regarding the FACT Act.

In a letter to congress opposing HR 982, the Center for Justice and Democracy and the Alliance for Justice ask some very good questions. Wouldn’t a bill that is designed to increase transparency require equal disclosure of all settlement amounts by defendants as well? Shouldn’t this bill require asbestos defendants to disclose information about the history of exposures caused by their asbestos products?

Asbestos litigation is already an arduously painstaking process, the so-called transparency being sought by corporate-funded representatives is just the latest ploy to limit payouts and further prevent justice to suffering individuals. The legislation is one-sided, unfair and unnecessary.