The last time Congress made significant progress on legislation related to asbestos was 07. C ' is the year when the Senate passed the ban asbestos in America Act, 07.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has passed a version of the measure, and it was never enacted into law.
Six years later, members of the House seem to be in a hurry. They want to vote on legislation asbestos - now
Too bad their eyes on further asbestos claim Transparency (FACT) Act .. This is not the kind of legislative action mesothelioma community needs or deserves.
US Falling Behind
For people in the US who have been exposed to asbestos, there is little question of federal legislators could make better use of their time they than now. Instead of taking the FACT Act, Congress may consider legislation that makes a difference for the victims of asbestos. Ban asbestos in the United States and the development of a system for compensating people who developed illnesses due to asbestos life-changing are two measures that immediately come to mind.
As it happens, these are also two areas where we as a country are lagging behind other developed countries.
U.S. asbestos victims and their lawyers have urged Congress for decades to ban asbestos. By the 1970s, new laws have begun to scale back the use of asbestos. In 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule. It has banned most products containing asbestos. He was overthrown after a legal challenge in 1991.
Since then, Congress has had over two decades to add laws to tighten the use - or prohibit the use - of asbestos. But although 54 countries have banned asbestos, the United States remains one of the few major industrialized countries not to adopt a complete ban of the dangerous substance.
As a country. We also acknowledge with regard to compensation for victims of asbestos. In 06, Congress considered the fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act of 06. It would establish an office within the Ministry of Labour to handle injury claims for asbestos. He also set up procedures for compensating victims based on the severity of their injuries.
The bills never made if Congress. The legislators introduced and reintroduced versions of the bill in Congress several times, but not in recent years.
Internationally, the Welsh Government is considering legislation to help recover the costs of diseases related to asbestos companies and insurers. These costs are estimated at over £ 2 million ($ 3.1 million) per year. The bill would increase up to half of this amount would be used to pay for medical treatment in cases where legal liability is established. A vote on the bill was recently postponed to July
Meanwhile, US lawmakers are content to let the asbestos victims are turning to the courts to fight for their own compensation head - Sort of ..
victims Silencing?
legislators are seeking a legislative solution that could save the victims of asbestos worth going to court. Ironically, these days they seem to be listening to the rhetoric of asbestos defendants and others that demonize asbestos victims to exercise their rights to legal compensation for preventable injuries.
Where is the help of Congress to the people who are actually suffering, people who develop mesothelioma, lung cancer to asbestos and asbestosis? Why should they suffer in silence and without any influence behind?
Today, victims and their advocates should spend time and efforts opposing legislation as the FACT Act that put the rights of victims. They usually spend that time on the things that matter, like the asbestos ban. And it becomes more difficult for them to make their voices heard in opposition to the dubious legislation as the FACT Act.
When the Judicial Committee of the Chamber considered the FACT Act last year, it included public testimony of an advocate for victims' rights. Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the House on regulatory reform, commercial law and antitrust held another hearing on the bill earlier this year. But this year, the Subcommittee has not chosen to include the voices of victims.
Members of victims' rights campaign asbestos cancer have been promised that the Subcommittee to postpone a vote on the bill so that victims can testify at a public hearing. But that never happened. Instead, they were invited to submit written comments and to meet with lawmakers behind closed doors. In May, the full Judiciary Committee voted 17-14 to send the bill to a vote on the House floor.
Vento decries congressional action on the FACT Act
Susan Vento recently wrote this compelling account of the experience of the group and how the proposed disclosure of the FACT Act invade the privacy of victims. Her late husband, MP Bruce Vento of Minnesota died from pleural mesothelioma in 01. Roll Call , a leading news source for legislators and staff Hill, published its comment. Hopefully it will have some influence before the full House of Representatives considers the bill.
But it's hard to say. According to a statement supporting the ban of asbestos in America Act, signed by several working groups defending the rights of victims and the environment, "Americans die at the rate of one per hour of past use of asbestos and continuing contamination, it leaves behind. "
If recent legislative priorities are any indication, legislators are not human lives as convincing as the false allegations of the accused asbestos and advocates for reform of civil liability. Apparently, they think it is more important to book hearings to accusations that the victims of asbestos are ripping off bankruptcy trusts. This is a priority interesting because the victims only receive a median payment of 25 cents on the dollar, or as little as 1.1 percent of their claims, trusts
Until legislators listen, at least victims can be heard somewhere. In court. This morning Reuters reported that a New York Court of Appeals ruled in favor of disclosure.
An accused asbestos must make the disclosure this time. Georgia-Pacific is to allow a special master appointed by the court to inspect documents relating to a study the company commissioned on asbestos as a cause of cancer. The decision is a victory for many applicants who have filed asbestos claims against Georgia-Pacific.
