1、1 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 597 (1997).2 Id. at 628-629. In Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999), Justice Souter wrote for theCourt: “Like Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), this case is a class actionprompted by the elephantine mass of asbestos ca
2、ses, and our discussion in Amchem will suffice toshow how this litigation defies customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation.”3 There appears to be an inconsistency in two sections: 601(1) defines “asbestos claim” toexclude a “claim for benefits under a veterans benefits pro
3、gram,” whereas 701(d) provides thatthe bill would not affect the operation of any “veterans disability benefit program” (emphasisadded). Section 101(b) provides that the bill does not apply to any claim brought under a“veterans benefits program.”Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress
4、CRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20519Updated April 13, 2000Asbestos Compensation Act of 2000(name redacted)Legislative AttorneyAmerican Law DivisionSummaryThis report summarizes H.R. 1283, 106th Congress, the Asbestos CompensationAct of 2000, as ordered to be reported
