THE BILL IS A BAILOUT PACKAGE FOR ASBESTOS COMPANIES - Asbestos Bill Would Bail Out the Companies Who Knowingly Exposed their Employees; Bill Nets Corporations More than $20 Billion. According to a recent Public Citizen report, the asbestos bill would create a compensation system that would have the effect of reducing the asbestos liabilities of the very companies that knowingly exposed their employees to asbestos. The report concluded the bill would reduce the liability of the 10 large asbestos companies by more than $20 billion: "The total contributions on behalf of asbestos victims paid [into the trust fund] by 10 large asbestos firms, were they to complete their bankruptcy proceedings under current law, would drop from an estimated $25.9 billion to $5.6 billion if S. 852 becomes law. This represents a savings of $20.3 billion, or 78.5 percent, expressed in today's dollars. On an individual basis, asbestos companies would effectively see their total payments over the life of the fund decline by margins ranging from 40.5 percent to 100 percent." ["Federal Asbestos Legislation: And the Winners are…", Public Citizen, p.3, http://www.citizen.org/documents/master%20report.pdf]
THE ASBESTOS TRUST FUND CREATED BY THE BILL IS CRITICALLY FLAWED - Bates White Analysis Found that the Trust Fund Could Cost as Much as $695 Billion. An independent analysis by the Bates White consulting firm of the proposed $140 billion trust fund in S.852 will fail in its first three years. The study predicts that the proposed fund will be deluged by a minimum of claims totaling $300 billion. After the fund fails in the first three years, it will add $45 billion to the public debt. This is using a conservative estimate of claims. If higher levels of victims with lung and other cancers are compensated, if all of the other categories described above are not excluded, and more realistic claims estimates are used, the fund would total as high as $695 billion. [Bates White analysis of S. 852, 10/17/05,
- http://www.bateswhite.com/news/pdf/2005_Bates_White_study_on_FAIR_Act.pdf
- Senators Gregg and Conrad Raised Concerns About the Bill's "Potentially Serious Costs to Federal Taxpayers." In a November 14, 2005 letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Senators Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad raised concerns about how S.852 would impact taxpayers: "There are potentially serious costs to federal taxpayers from this legislation. S. 852 would create a national trust fund to compensate victims of asbestos exposures in lieu of those victims pursuing compensation through the tort system. The legislation was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 26, 2005. There remain, however, major unresolved questions about the budgetary impact of the bill." [Gregg/Conrad letter, 11/14/05, http://www.asbestostruth.org/news/2005-11-16_Gregg_Conrad.pdf]
- GAO Report Highlights Serious Problems With Existing Federal Compensation Programs. A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on existing federal compensation programs finds major problems in funding shortfalls and delays for victims that will likely befall the proposed asbestos trust fund. The GAO report warned that, "Policymakers must carefully consider the cost and precedent-setting implications of establishing any new federal compensation programs, particularly in light of the current federal deficit." The GAO surveyed the claims and financial history of four compensation programs through the end of fiscal year 2004. The programs reviewed were the Black Lung Program, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program (RECP), and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP). The GAO concluded that in all four programs:
- There have been far more claims than originally estimated for each program. In fact the Black Lung program has cost U.S. taxpayers at least $38 billion more than expected.
- Significant delays in completing claims for victims occurred in all four programs.
- It took at least two years for all four programs to become fully operational once enabling legislation was enacted.
- Programs have been expanded "to provide eligibility to additional categories of claimants, cover more medical conditions, or provide additional benefits." ["Federal Compensation Programs; Perspectives on Four Programs," The Government Accountability Office, November 2005]
|