Opening Statement

Introductory Remarks

     Before I begin my opening remarks, I first would like to congratulate our colleague, Tom Marino, on his new role as chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.  I look forward to working with him and hope that he will continue the spirit of collegiality that his predecessor, Spencer Bachus, exemplified during his tenure as chairman of this subcommittee.

     Secondly, I want to acknowledge today the presence of Sue Vento, the widow of our former colleague Representative Bruce Vento.  Bruce represented the fourth district of Minnesota for nearly 24 years until his death from mesothelioma, a form of cancer in the lining of the chest cavity that is often linked to exposure to asbestos fibers.  Many of us remember Bruce as a tireless champion of the American worker, the environment, and the homeless.  So, I am pleased that Mrs. Vento has chosen to continue his fight against those who do harm.  And, I also note that she is joined by a number of asbestos victims as well as family members who have lost relatives as a result of their exposure to asbestos.

     I understand that some of you are Republicans and some of you are Democrats and that you come from across the United States.  In spite of your suffering and personal loss, you are here today to help enlighten us about your concerns regarding this legislation.  You are all to be commended for your commitment and I ask that you stand so you can be recognized.

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
for the Hearing on H.R. 526, the “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015,”
Before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law

Wednesday, February 4, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building

     H.R. 526, the “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act,” or “FACT Act,” gives asbestos defendants new weapons with which to harm asbestos victims.

    To begin with, the bill imposes invasive disclosure requirements that would threaten asbestos victims’ privacy when they seek payment for injuries from an asbestos bankruptcy trust. The bill requires disclosure of claimants’ sensitive personal information – including their names and exposure histories – when they seek payment for injuries from these trusts. This means asbestos victims will be re-victimized by allowing this highly personal and sensitive health information to be irretrievably released into the public domain.

    Just imagine what insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, and data collectors could do with this private information. Worse yet, these asbestos victims would be more vulnerable to predators.  Although H.R. 526's supporters claim that it is intended to help victims of asbestos exposure, asbestos victims vigorously oppose H.R. 526.  In fact, I am not aware of a single victim who supports this bill.

     Another problem with this legislation is that it is fundamentally inequitable. While H.R. 526 requires these bankruptcy asbestos trusts to make certain disclosures, it imposes no comparable demands on asbestos defendants.  Remember, these are the very companies whose products killed or injured millions of Americans.  In fact, some manufacturers intentionally concealed information about the known risks of asbestos exposure and used every trick in the book to avoid liability.  They even fought the federal government’s efforts to ban its use. As a result, asbestos continued to be widely used in constructing our homes, offices, public schools and even this very building in which we are all gathered today.  But, now, these very same manufacturers want Congress to help them by passing H.R. 526, which effectively shifts some of the costs of discovery away from these defendants to asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

    And, finally, there is absolutely no evidence of endemic fraud warranting a measure as invasive as H.R. 526.  While today’s majority witnesses will claim that the asbestos trust system is rife with fraud, their assertion is meritless. And, that is not just my opinion.  The Government Accountability Office reported that there is no empirical evidence of such fraud with respect to the trusts’ claims processing system.  While not perfect, the trust system set up under Bankruptcy Code section 524(g) has generally proven to be beneficial – both to asbestos victims and to corporations facing mass tort liability for causing asbestos injuries. In exchange for agreeing to fund these trusts, companies are able to shed their massive asbestos tort liability and re-enter the business community on a competitive basis for the benefit of their creditors and those who they injured.  The trusts, in turn, owe a fiduciary duty to all beneficiaries to ensure that only proper claims are paid and that such payments are equitable given the universe of known and anticipated future claimants.

     In closing, I should note that several organizations share my concerns and strongly oppose H.R. 526, including –

• The Military Order of the Purple Heart;
• the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization;
• the AFL-CIO;
• Public Citizen, and
• the Environmental Working Group, among other organizations.

    In the last Congress, the Administration also expressed serious concerns about a nearly identical bill noting that its disclosure requirements “could be harmful to veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States, who have been disproportionately affected by asbestos.”

     In sum, H.R. 526 is a seriously flawed bill that only benefits those who caused injury.

     I thank our witnesses for joining us today and I yield back the balance of my time.