[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H117-H123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1927, FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION 
                         LITIGATION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 581 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 581

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1927) to amend title 28, United States Code, 
     to improve fairness in class action litigation. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
     in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of

[[Page H118]]

     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, it 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 114-38. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Further proceedings on any question on a motion 
     relating to the disposition of the veto message and the bill, 
     H.R. 3762, may be postponed through the legislative day of 
     January 25, 2016, as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 581 currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward 
this rule today on behalf of the Committee on Rules. It is a structured 
rule that provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Given the House's schedule this month, the rule also provides that a 
vote on any motion relating to disposition of the veto message for 
reconciliation measure passed yesterday by the House may be postponed 
through January 25.
  Consistent with the vision of Speaker Ryan and Chairman Sessions, I 
am pleased that the robust majority of amendments submitted to the 
Committee on Rules were made in order. Of the 13 amendments submitted, 
10 amendments will be considered on the House floor.
  Yesterday the House Committee on Rules received testimony from the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, in addition to 
receiving amendment testimony from several Members.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania brought forward an important 
amendment regarding FDA-approved medical devices. Although his 
amendment was not germane to this particular piece of legislation, he 
is a champion for his constituents, and I appreciate the testimony that 
he shared with the committee. His constituent suffered unimaginable 
pain, heartbreak, and ultimately her child because of Essure. It is my 
understanding that the FDA will release their Essure safety review next 
month. Once we assess the FDA's findings and conclusion, I hope 
Congress will take any appropriate action needed to protect the health 
of women and their unborn babies.
  This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1927, the Fairness 
in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency 
Act of 2015, introduced by the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, Bob Goodlatte, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution and Civil Justice, Trent Franks.
  Subcommittee hearings were held on this legislation. It was also 
marked up and reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Although this 
bill went through regular order and enjoyed lively and meaningful 
discussion at the subcommittee and full committee levels, some 
misperceptions remain.
  This legislation provides a targeted solution to a targeted problem. 
The core issue it presents is whether the injury suffered by named 
plaintiffs in a class action suit matches the injuries suffered by the 
class. Additionally, and this is the point to clarify, the civil rights 
class actions such as Brown v. Board of Education would not--and I 
repeat, would not--be impacted by H.R. 1927.
  Let me be clear. This legislation does not kill class action. 
Virtually every time this body or the courts attempt to reform class 
action lawsuits after clear abuses, opponents claim the reforms, 
whatever they may be, will mean the demise of class action.
  When Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 
1995 to limit frivolous securities lawsuits, opponents claimed it would 
kill securities class action. It did not. In fact, President Clinton 
vetoed the legislation, Congress overrode the veto, and our legal 
system is the better for it.
  When Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act, CAFA, in 2005, 
opponents once again claimed that the passage would mean the end of 
class actions. CAFA had two targeted goals: reducing abusive forum 
shopping by plaintiffs and requiring greater Federal scrutiny 
procedures for the review of class action settlements in certain 
circumstances.
  You may recall an infamous Alabama class action involving Bank of 
Boston, where the attorneys' fees exceeded the relief to the class 
members, and the class members lost money paying attorneys for the 
victory. It doesn't sound like much of a victory. Yet at the time, the 
opponents of reform made virtually identical arguments against that 
legislation that they are making today against H.R. 1927. They are 
baseless and unsupported by history.

                              {time}  1245

  Researchers at the Federal Judicial Center conducted a study on the 
impact of CAFA and concluded that post-enactment there was an increase 
in the number of class actions filed in or removed to the Federal 
courts based on diversity jurisdiction, consistent with congressional 
intent.
  The class action is alive and well and is an important part of our 
legal system, and it will remain that way. Claims to the contrary are 
overused and inaccurate.
  H.R. 1927 is a targeted solution that says a Federal court may not 
certify a proposed class unless the party seeking the class action 
demonstrates through admissible evidentiary proof that each proposed 
class member suffered an injury of the same type and the extent of the 
injury of the named class representative or representatives.
  This requirement already exists in rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. Unfortunately, not all courts appropriately interpret 
and apply these standards. If my colleagues across the aisle disagree 
with rule 23 standards, then we can certainly debate the merits of that 
standard.
  But to claim that codifying an existing standard to ensure consistent 
and appropriate application by the courts will kill the class action 
and discourage victims from seeking redress is simply not supported by 
the facts.
  Class actions exist--and rightly so--to allow a group of individuals 
similarly harmed to seek monetary compensation for their injuries. 
Today, however, there are far too many cases in which a named plaintiff 
with an injury brings a lawsuit seeking to represent a class. No 
problem here. This is how the system was designed to work.
  The abuse of the system arises when the class includes countless 
others that have suffered no injury at all. These no-injury class 
actions are designed simply to exploit companies and achieve a quick 
payday because either no genuine injury has occurred yet or because it 
never will.

[[Page H119]]

  Class actions should be preserved as a tool for those harmed to 
receive compensation. H.R. 1927 will allow the courts to focus their 
resources on cases where injury has occurred and ensuring those 
responsible are held accountable.
  Not surprisingly, this commonsense approach is supported by the 
American people. A recent DRI National Poll on the Civil Justice System 
found that 78 percent of Americans would support a law requiring a 
person to show that they were actually harmed by a company's products, 
services, or policies to join a class action rather than just showing 
potential for harm.
  Further illustrating this body's commitment to do right by victims 
and ensure that they are compensated for their injuries, H.R. 1927 also 
contains the text of the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, or 
the FACT Act.
  The FACT Act is designed to reduce fraud in compensation claims for 
asbestos-related diseases so we can ensure that resources exist for 
true victims. Double-dipping is an all too common occurrence in 
asbestos claims, and for every dollar inappropriately given, it means 
$1 less for true victims who face mesothelioma and other asbestos-
related illnesses.
  True victims are often those to whom our country owes its greatest 
debt: our veterans. Veterans currently comprise 9 percent of the 
population; yet, they make up approximately 30 percent of asbestos 
victims. Veterans are uniquely positioned to benefit from the increased 
transparency that would result from the enactment of this bill.
  Many veterans groups support this legislation, including the American 
Military Society, Save our Veterans, the Veterans Resource list, and 
numerous other State and local veterans groups.
  Opponents of this bill also claim that it will negatively impact 
privacy rights for claimants. This is not true. The bill actually 
requires far less personal information than is currently required by 
State courts in their current disclosure forms.
  This legislation will reduce fraud in the asbestos trust system, 
which will ultimately protect and maximize assets available to 
compensate future asbestos victims, veterans or otherwise.
  I thank Chairman Goodlatte and his staff for their tireless work to 
bring forward these pro-victim reforms, and I am pleased we will have 
robust general and amendment debate on this important topic.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, which provides for 
consideration of H.R. 1927, called the Fairness in Class Action 
Litigation Act, which in practice will unfairly hamper large numbers of 
injured parties from effectively seeking redress in court, including 
civil rights, employment discrimination, consumer protection, and 
asbestos victim litigants.
  Let me put my bona fides on the table here. I have filed class 
actions, particularly in civil rights cases. Each of them were 
certified as class actions. They led to the desegregation of schools in 
the county that I am privileged to serve, the desegregation of juvenile 
detention facilities, and several others too numerous to mention.
  As a United States district court judge, I also had the privilege of 
presiding in cases where certification was sought for class actions. 
The great majority of those cases were not certified by me, largely for 
the reason that they did not meet the rigorous test that is already in 
place and that has been in place for nearly 40 years, with many changes 
having taken place over the years through the Federal process. That is 
what I would argue would be the best for us to do.
  First, this bill includes language that prohibits Federal courts from 
certifying that a group can file a class action lawsuit unless the 
group demonstrates by admissible evidentiary proof that each proposed 
class member suffered an injury of the same type and scope of the 
injury of the named class representative.
  A footnote right here. My read is that Brown v. Board of Education, 
the most significant school desegregation case in the history of this 
country, would not have qualified as a class action under this measure, 
as proposed.
  My friends in the majority claim that this measure is necessary to 
reduce fraud and exploitation in the class action system, maintaining 
that, under current rules, Federal courts have certified classes that 
include individuals who have not been injured, but have been forced 
into a class action lawsuit against their will.
  This claim and the legislation it inspired has been met by much 
opposition from a broad range of legal, civil rights, labor, consumer, 
and public interest groups, including the American Bar Association, the 
American Civil Liberties Union, AFSCME, NAACP, Consumer Federation of 
America, National Consumer Law Center, Public Citizen, Public Justice, 
and American Association for Justice, among a myriad of others.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the American Bar 
Association, Public Citizen, American Federation of Labor and Congress 
of Industrial Organizations, the Asbestos Disease Awareness 
Organization, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All of those 
organizations that I just identified are opposed to this legislation. 
Their language speaks for itself, for those who may peruse the 
Congressional Record.

                                     American Bar Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 2015.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte: On behalf of the American Bar 
     Association and its almost 400,000 members, I write to offer 
     our views as the Committee considers class action reform. I 
     understand that your Committee intends to mark up H.R. 1927, 
     the ``Fairness in Clam Action Litigation Act of 2015'' 
     tomorrow. The ABA has long recognized that we must continue 
     to improve our judicial system; however, we cannot support 
     legislation such as H.R. 1927, because it would unnecessarily 
     circumvent the Rules Enabling Act, make it more difficult for 
     large numbers of injured parties to efficiently seek redress 
     in court, and would place added burdens on an already 
     overloaded court system.
       This proposed legislation would circumvent the time-proven 
     process for amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
     established by Congress in the Rules Enabling Act. Rule 23 of 
     the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs determinations 
     whether class certification is appropriate. This rule was 
     adopted in 1966 and has been amended several times utilizing 
     the procedure established by Congress. The Judicial 
     Conference, the policymaking body for the courts, is 
     currently considering changes to Rule 23, and we recommend 
     allowing this process to continue. In addition, the Supreme 
     Court is poised to rule on cases where there are questions 
     surrounding class certification. For example, the Court 
     agreed to hear Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, where they will 
     determine whether a class can be certified when it contains 
     some members who have not been injured. We respectfully urge 
     you to allow these processes for examining and reshaping 
     procedural and evidentiary rules to work as Congress 
     intended.
       Currently, to proceed with a class action case, plaintiffs 
     must meet rigorous threshold standards. A 2008 study by the 
     Federal Judicial Center found that only 25 percent of 
     diversity actions filed as class actions resulted in class 
     certification motions, nine percent settled, and none went to 
     trial. These data show that current screening practices are 
     working. However, if the proponents of this legislation are 
     concerned about frivolous class action cases and believe that 
     screening can be even more effective through rule changes, 
     those changes should be proposed and considered utilizing the 
     current process set forth by Congress in the Rules Enabling 
     Act.
       In addition to circumventing the rulemaking process, the 
     proposed legislation would severely limit the ability of 
     victims who have suffered a legitimate harm to collectively 
     seek justice in a class action lawsuit. The proposed 
     legislation mandates that in order to be certified as a class 
     each individual member must prove he or she suffered an 
     injury of the same type and scope to the proposed named class 
     representative(s), and requires plaintiffs to show they 
     suffered bodily injury or property damage.
       We were pleased learn that a manager's amendment is 
     expected to be offered during tomorrow's markup that removes 
     the requirement that the alleged harm to the plaintiff 
     involved bodily injury or property damage. This improves the 
     bill, but the remaining requirement leaves a severe burden 
     for people who have suffered harm at the hands of large 
     institutions with vast resources, effectively barring them 
     from forming class actions. For example, in a recent class 
     action case against the Veterans Administration, several 
     veterans sued for a variety of grievances centered on delayed 
     claims. The requirement in this legislation

[[Page H120]]

     that plaintiffs suffer the same type of injuries might have 
     barred these litigants from forming a class because each 
     plaintiff suffered harms that were not the same.
       Class actions have been an efficient means of resolving 
     disputes. Making it harder to utilize class actions will add 
     to the burden of our court system by forcing aggrieved 
     parties to file suit in smaller groups, or individually.
       We appreciate the opportunity to provide our input and urge 
     you to keep these recommendations in mind as you continue to 
     debate class action reform legislation. If the ABA can 
     provide you or your staff with any additional information 
     regarding the ABA's views, or if we can be of further 
     assistance, please contact me or ABA Governmental Affairs 
     Legislative Counsel, David Eppstein.
           Sincerely,

                                             Thomas M. Susman,

                                                         Director,
     Governmental Affairs Office.
                                  ____



                                               Public Citizen,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2015.
     Re Oppose H.R. 26

     House of Representatives,
     Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Honorable Committee Members: On behalf of Public 
     Citizen's more than 350,000 members and supporters, we 
     strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 526, the Furthering Asbestos 
     Claim Transparency Act (FACT Act).
       The FACT Act invades the privacy of asbestos disease 
     victims and will have the effect of delaying compensation for 
     those suffering with lethal diseases like mesothelioma. 
     Congress should act to protect these victims instead of 
     opening the door for the asbestos industry to further escape 
     accountability for poisoning the public and exposing trust 
     claimants to scams, identity theft, and other privacy 
     violations.
       The dangerous product asbestos was once ubiquitous as 
     insulation and flame retardant in buildings, homes and 
     workplaces like naval vessels. The frightening reality is 
     that an unknown amount of the cancer-causing substance is 
     still present in our surroundings, but the asbestos industry 
     does not have to disclose where and when it was and is being 
     used.
       The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 
     roughly 3,000 people continue to die from mesothelioma and 
     asbestosis every year and some experts estimate the death 
     toll is as high as 12,000-15,000 people per year when other 
     types of asbestos-linked diseases and cancers are included.
       Instead of helping these victims, H.R. 526 would put 
     unworkable burdens on claims trusts. For example, the bill 
     would impose a requirement for trusts to respond to any and 
     all corporate defendants' information requests. Such a 
     requirement would have the effect of slowing or virtually 
     stopping the ability of trusts to provide compensation for 
     victims. Since patients diagnosed with fatal asbestos-caused 
     diseases like mesothelioma have very short expected 
     lifespans, a delay in justice could leave victims' next of 
     kin struggling to pay medical and funeral bills.
       The FACT Act does nothing to improve the lives of those 
     facing an asbestos death sentence through no fault of their 
     own. The bill instead adds insult to injury and inexcusably 
     invades the privacy of victims by requiring public disclosure 
     of personal claim information, including portions of their 
     social security numbers, opening the door to identity theft 
     and possible discrimination.
       Instead of the FACT Act's misguided push for 
     ``transparency'' via asbestos trust claim information 
     disclosures, an appropriate transparency standard would 
     ensure that workers and consumers have all the information 
     necessary to limit their potential exposure to the deadly 
     substance. Specifically, companies should publicly disclose 
     their activities related to the manufacture, processing, 
     distribution, sales, importation, transport or storage of 
     asbestos or asbestos-containing products. That's why Public 
     Citizen supports Sens. Durbin and Markey's and Reps. DelBene 
     and Green's Reducing Exposure to Asbestos Database Act (READ 
     Act, S. 700/H.R. 2030) which would create an information 
     portal for the public to learn about the many asbestos-
     containing products that are currently bought and sold in the 
     U.S.A.
       The real outrage is the double oppression of asbestos 
     victims, and the real need for transparency is disclosure of 
     past and ongoing asbestos exposures. Please oppose H.R. 526.
           Sincerely,
     Lisa Gilbert,
       Director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch division.
     Susan Harley,
       Deputy Director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch division.
                                  ____

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                  Washington, DC, January 5, 2016.
       Dear Representative: I am writing to express the strong 
     opposition of the AFL-CIO to H.R. 1927, the ``Fairness in 
     Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim 
     Transparency Act'' which is scheduled for consideration by 
     the House of Representatives this week. This bill 
     incorporates H.R. 526, the Furthering Asbestos Claim 
     Transparency Act (FACT Act), which would invade the privacy 
     of asbestos victims by posting personal exposure and medical 
     information online and create new barriers to victims 
     receiving compensation for their asbestos diseases. The AFL-
     CIO urges you to oppose this harmful bill.
       Decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, even after its 
     hazards were known, have resulted in a legacy of disease and 
     death. Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members 
     have suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung 
     disease, and the toll continues. Each year an estimated 
     10,000 people in the United States are expected to die from 
     asbestos related diseases.
       Asbestos victims have faced huge barriers and obstacles to 
     receiving compensation for their diseases. Major asbestos 
     producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared 
     bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability. In 
     1994 Congress passed special legislation that allowed the 
     asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy trusts to compensate 
     asbestos victims and reorganize under the bankruptcy law. But 
     these trusts don't have adequate funding to provide just 
     compensation, and according to a 2010 RAND study, the median 
     payment across the trusts is only 25 percent of the claim's 
     value. With compensation from these trusts so limited, 
     asbestos victims have sought redress from the manufacturers 
     of other asbestos products to which they were exposed.
       The AFL-CIO is well aware that the system for compensating 
     asbestos disease victims has had its share of problems, with 
     victims facing delays and inadequate compensation and too 
     much money being spent on defendant and plaintiff lawyers. We 
     have spent years of effort trying to seek solutions to make 
     the asbestos compensation system fairer and more effective. 
     But the FACT Act does nothing to improve compensation for 
     asbestos victims and would in fact make the situation even 
     worse. In our view, the bill is simply an effort by asbestos 
     manufacturers who are still subject to asbestos lawsuits to 
     avoid liability for diseases caused by exposure to their 
     products.
       The FACT Act would require personally identifiable exposure 
     histories and disease information for each asbestos victim 
     filing a claim with an asbestos trust, and related payment 
     information, to be posted on a public docket. This public 
     posting is an extreme invasion of privacy. It would give 
     unfettered access to employers, insurance companies, workers 
     compensation carriers and others who could use this 
     information for any purpose including blacklisting workers 
     from employment and fighting compensation claims.
       The bill would also require asbestos trusts to provide on 
     demand to asbestos defendants and litigants any information 
     related to payments made by and claims filed with the trusts. 
     This would place unnecessary and added burdens on the trusts 
     delaying much-needed compensation for asbestos victims. Such 
     a provision allows asbestos defendants to bypass the 
     established rules of discovery in the civil justice system, 
     and provides broad unrestricted access to personal 
     information with no limitations on its use.
       Congress should be helping the hundreds of thousands of 
     individuals who are suffering from disabling and deadly 
     asbestos diseases, not further victimizing them by invading 
     their privacy and subjecting them to potential blacklisting 
     and discrimination.
       The AFL-CIO strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 1927.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
     Director, Government Affairs Department.
                                  ____

                                                  Asbestos Disease


                                       Awareness Organization,

                              Redondo Beach, CA, February 4, 2015.
     Re Opposition to the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency 
         Act of 2015 (H.R. 526)

     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: As both 
     a mesothelioma widow and the President and Co-Founder of the 
     Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, I respectfully write 
     to express my strong opposition to the Furthering Asbestos 
     Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015, H.R. 526.
       Asbestos is a known human carcinogen that causes deadly 
     cancerous diseases. Asbestos-related diseases kill at least 
     10,000 Americans every year. Yet, it remains a major public 
     health hazard that severely affects too many American 
     families. Notwithstanding these lethal exposures, the 2014 
     U.S. Geological Survey World Report confirmed that although 
     Asbestos has not been mined in the United States since 2002, 
     the U.S. continues to import Asbestos to ``meet manufacturing 
     needs.''
       These same manufacturing interests who for years hid the 
     dangers of their lethal Asbestos products, are now asking 
     Congress--under the guise of transparency--to impose new time 
     and cost-consuming requirements on the asbestos trusts, grant 
     asbestos defendants new rights to infringe upon victims' 
     privacy, and operate the trusts in a manner that will unduly 
     burden asbestos victims and their families, without 
     justification. I oppose the bill not only because it is both 
     fundamentally unfair and discriminatory toward asbestos 
     cancer victims, but because it is entirely one-sided, and 
     seeks absolutely nothing in the way of increased transparency 
     from the same industry that caused the largest man-made 
     disaster in human history, and covered it up for years.

[[Page H121]]

       There is no justification for exposing families to the 
     additional burdens set forth in H.R. 526. Information needed 
     to verify the health of the trusts is already publicly 
     available in a way that protects the privacy of the victims 
     of asbestos disease and their families. And trusts 
     established by asbestos companies undergoing reorganization 
     effectively compensate current and future asbestos victims 
     while allowing business operations to continue. Trusts are 
     designed to decrease litigation and costs, yet the proposed 
     reporting requirements contained in the FACT Act work 
     contrary to that very purpose. Instead, the FACT Act grants 
     asbestos companies the right to require from the trusts any 
     information they choose, at any time, and for practically any 
     reason. The resulting delay in compensation will gravely 
     impact patients' pursuit of medical care, negatively affects 
     all victims of asbestos exposure, and effectively limits the 
     justice they deserve. Accordingly, I am strongly opposed to 
     the FACT Act, which creates even greater burdens for patients 
     and families to overcome during an already extremely 
     difficult time.
       I am extremely disappointed that recent Congressional 
     legislative efforts have focused on ways to limit the 
     litigation designed to compensate victims, when the most 
     obvious way to limit the impact of asbestos exposure is 
     through increased public awareness of the dangers posed, and 
     prevention. Americans need legislation that will stop the 
     continued import of asbestos into our country, and prevent 
     the continued expanse of environmental and occupational 
     asbestos-related diseases. As consumers and workers, 
     Americans deserve transparency to prevent exposure to 
     asbestos, not to penalize victims.
       More than 30 Americans die each day from a preventable 
     asbestos-caused disease. On behalf of the American citizens, 
     we urge you to take the time to hear from the victims of 
     asbestos exposure and consider legislation that will protect 
     public health, not legislation designed only to delay and 
     deny justice for victims of asbestos exposure.
           Sincerely,

                                              Linda Reinstein,

                                         President and Co-Founder,
     Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.
                                  ____

                                                    Military Order


                                          of the Purple Heart,

                                    Springfield, VA, July 8, 2015.
     Hon. John Conyers,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Conyers: As H.R. 526 ``FACT Act'' makes 
     it way through the legislative process, the Military Order of 
     the Purple Heart of the U.S.A. (MOPH) wishes to reiterate its 
     firm opposition to this bill.
       We are disappointed to see that our declaration of 
     opposition in February of this year has not stopped this bill 
     in its tracks. Have no doubt and make no mistake, the FACT 
     Act will have a very burdensome and detrimental effect on the 
     asbestos personal injury trust claims for veterans and their 
     families who have been exposed to this deadly product. The 
     Association of the United States Navy (AUSN) and American 
     Veterans (AMVETS) recognize this as well and recently joined 
     us in opposing this legislation.
       On May 14th during the full Judiciary Committee mark-up of 
     H.R. 526 ``FACT Act'', the legislation's author, 
     Representative Blake Farenthold shared with the committee a 
     list of eleven ``veterans organizations'' that support the 
     FACT Act. It needs to be noted that none of the groups 
     mentioned were a national veterans service organization such 
     as the MOPH. In fact, the majority of the groups listed by 
     the Representative are not recognized veterans service 
     organizations at all.
       The Military Order of the Purple Heart, of the U.S.A. is a 
     Congressionally chartered national veterans service 
     organization and is the only one that is exclusively made up 
     of combat wounded Purple Heart veterans. We carefully 
     consider each piece of veterans' related legislation to 
     assure it is either truly beneficial or truly negative for 
     veterans before we take an official position. We speak on 
     behalf of our 45,000 members across the nation, not just a 
     couple of hundred in a few states.
       H.R. 526 is bad for veterans. The MOPH has been, and will 
     continue to be, staunch advocates for our members and all 
     veterans of the United States Armed Forces. We continue to 
     oppose H.R. 526 and respectfully ask you to join us.
           Respectfully,
                                                J. Patrick Little,
                                               National Commander.

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the current screening 
practices for certifying which individuals may file a class action 
lawsuit are working. Currently, plaintiffs must meet, as I said 
earlier, rigorous threshold standards to proceed with a class action.
  In fact, a 2008 study by the Federal Judicial Center found that only 
25 percent of diversity actions filed as class actions resulted in 
class certification motions. In the cases I presided in, there were 
less than 25 percent. 9 percent settled and none went to trial.
  Why must we begin this new year with yet another piece of legislation 
that is a solution in search of a problem?
  In short, this ill-conceived and unneeded bill unnecessarily 
circumvents the Rules Enabling Act, the process established by the 
Congress to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, making it more 
difficult for large numbers of injured parties to effectively seek 
redress in court and would place additional burdens on an already 
overloaded court system.
  I should add that the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for 
the Federal courts of this country, is currently considering changes to 
rule 23, which governs determination of whether class certification is 
appropriate, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases where there 
are questions surrounding class certification, including Tyson Foods v. 
Bouaphakeo.
  It would behoove us to allow these processes for examining and 
revising procedural and evidentiary rules to work as Congress intended.
  The requirement in this bill that each proposed class member must 
prove he or she suffered an injury of the same type and scope of the 
injury of the named class representative effectively bars individuals 
who have suffered harm at the hands of large institutions with immense 
resources from forming class actions.
  I am also highly concerned that the injury language included in this 
bill will exclude from the courts entire categories of lawsuits, most 
significantly, victims of discriminatory practices or civil rights 
violations seeking redress.
  A commonsense reading of this provision, as I indicated, might well 
have excluded class actions such as Brown v. Board of Education. Brown 
served as a catalyst for the modern civil rights movement, ultimately 
leading to full equality for African Americans.
  Under this legislation, class action plaintiffs must effectively 
prove the merits of their case as a condition of class certification, 
making most class actions nearly impossible to pursue.
  A mechanism must exist to hold corporations and other entities 
accountable when they engage in systemic discrimination, unfair and 
deceptive practices, consumer fraud, and other wrongdoing that harms 
large numbers of people. This bill undermines this vital tool.
  Let me give you an example, which is the cases brought against airbag 
deception that are currently being litigated and that we see much of in 
the news. If we were to look at scope of injury, some people were 
killed, and some people received minor injuries. Some people who had 
those airbags did not receive injuries.
  But it seems logical to allow that all of the persons who had those 
automobiles should have an opportunity for corrective procedures, 
regardless of whether or not that was a wrongful death or whether or 
not there was an injury. The scope becomes nebulous when you look at it 
from the perspective of actual circumstances that we are confronted 
with sometimes in class actions.
  H.R. 1927 also includes a provision--and this troubles me deeply and 
should trouble everybody that is in Congress and in this Nation--that 
would delay the work of asbestos compensation trusts. Formerly, the 
Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, section 3 of this bill, 
will shield the asbestos industry from accountability while exposing 
trust claimants to scams, identity theft, and other privacy violations.
  This portion of the bill is similarly opposed by a number of groups 
that I have identified, including the Military Order of the Purple 
Heart, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and the 
Environmental Working Group, just to name a few.
  For instance, the bill requires trusts to respond to any and all 
corporate defendants' requests for information. Ladies and gentlemen, 
that could take years. By that time, many of the complainants may very 
well have died. And what troubles me a lot is that the trust fund is 
making money.
  It is similar to what automobile insurance companies do. When there 
is an automobile accident, if they think that there was harm 
perpetrated by their insured, they immediately establish a fund that 
would cover that liability. Then their lawyers go to work to not pay 
the claim at all and, next, to delay the claim.
  The longer they keep it away from an ultimate settlement, the more 
money the insurance company makes. And they make enough money sometimes

[[Page H122]]

to pay the claim that they could have settled or paid the claim of the 
injured victim in the first place.

                              {time}  1300

  The measure also requires public disclosure of personal claim 
information, including portions of those with asbestos-related 
diseases' Social Security numbers.
  Interestingly, this legislation does not impose these same burdensome 
reporting requirements for the companies that exposed Americans to 
asbestos.
  Despite its promise, this bill does nothing to improve judicial 
efficiency or reduce fraud in the court system and, instead, severely 
hampers justice for victims of corporate wrongdoing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a good friend of mine.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today against another handout to corporate 
interests, this time needlessly limiting access to courts for American 
consumers and workers.
  The bill we would consider under this rule is the second blow in a 
one-two punch for American families. We kicked off 2016 by defunding 
Planned Parenthood and, effectively, repealing the Affordable Care Act.
  Now we are considering legislation that would limit class action 
lawsuits, and needlessly threaten the privacy of asbestos victims, as 
well as other victims of faulty product designs, negligence, and 
dangerous environmental occurrences.
  The end goal is obvious: enable corporations to avoid both blame and 
accountability when they have harmed consumers or knowingly exposed 
workers to toxic chemicals.
  I wish that I were more surprised, but I am not. The truth is clear 
in this bill. It is just the next step in Republican efforts to lift 
corporate interests above any level of scrutiny, endangering citizens 
and consumers in the process.
  Our courts are a cornerstone of justice for everyday Americans. We 
need to find ways to expand, not restrict, access to our legal system 
for victims.
  Class actions have cleaned up the environment after oil spills, 
banned cigarette ads aimed at children, and policed price-fixing on 
Wall Street, among many other things.
  Other nations allow big corporations to run amok, harming people 
through dangerous products, fraud, and dishonesty, virtually unchecked. 
But here in the United States of America, class action lawsuits are a 
vital tool that hold even the very powerful accountable for their 
malfeasance.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to get to work on policies for the American 
people, not against them, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1927.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), my good friend and former member of the Rules 
Committee; and we miss him.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the 114th Congress will be remembered as the 
Congress that tried and tried again to unravel the extraordinary and 
great achievements of that American President of a century ago, 
Theodore Roosevelt.
  President Roosevelt was a Republican. He believed in capitalism, he 
believed in profit, he believed in commerce. But he understood 
something that this Congress seems to forget: The axiom that power 
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, applies to Wall 
Street and to large corporations as much as it does to oligarchs and 
despots.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation does end any realistic opportunity for 
consumers who are hammered by corporate negligence or irresponsibility 
or outright deceit from joining together to get the justice they are 
entitled to by using the only practical means available to obtain it, 
the class action lawsuit.
  Instead, this legislation would deny class action status to all 
consumers affected by the exact same corporate misconduct--say, faulty 
brakes--unless they suffered the identical injury, a broken arm, but 
not a broken leg.
  In a case of current moment, of real corporate misconduct and actual 
deceit, Volkswagen lying about its emissions control and, really, 
fudging the numbers on its mileage, the 3,000 Vermonters and 11 million 
Americans would have to file individual suits unless each suffered the 
same exact economic loss.
  What is the justification for building this barrier to access to the 
courts? There is none.
  But the proponents of this legislation are advocating, idealistically 
and ideologically, the underpinning of so much other legislation for 
Americans who are seeking safety, who are seeking opportunity, who are 
seeking justice.
  Think about it. Repealing the ACA, Affordable Care Act, with no 
replacement for those 17 million Americans who are now covered; 
unraveling Dodd-Frank, leaving Wall Street to its old ways that led to 
the collapse of the economy in 2008; denying Puerto Rico, at the last 
minute, the option that every other municipality or State has if there 
is a credit situation to go into bankruptcy, all in service of hedge 
fund billionaire investors from Wall Street.
  Starving the FTC and the SEC of their budgets so that they are no 
longer able to provide protections to consumers and small investors 
that they are entitled to.
  Teddy Roosevelt, capitalist that he was, would never have stacked the 
deck so high against everyday Americans.
  You know, we are talking a lot in this country about income 
inequality that is real. We can debate the causes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WELCH. But the reality is we are building a structure of 
inequality, bill by bill, brick by brick. Denying class action access 
to the courts for everyday Americans injured by similar or the same 
corporate misconduct is to deny them a basic American right.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote against this legislation 
and stand up for access to justice.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Representatives cast its 62nd 
vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  That we began the second session of the 114th Congress in this manner 
sends the regrettable, but undeniable message that it may be a new 
year, and we may have a new Speaker, but we are dealing with the same 
old majority Congress, intent on advancing partisan measures with 
little chance of becoming law.
  H.R. 1927 will serve to close the courthouse doors to concerned and 
vulnerable citizens injured by large corporations.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that will 
close a glaring loophole in our gun laws, allowing suspected terrorists 
to legally buy firearms. This bill would bar the sale of firearms and 
explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Again, a lot can be said, and I am so glad for the coming to the 
floor later. This will be debated, amendments will be offered. The 
House is in regular order doing what the House is supposed to be doing.
  One thing that I would like to share is, as the previous speaker had 
talked about history--and I am currently, myself, reading a biography 
outtake on Theodore Roosevelt and his time in the Presidency and the 
things that he did--there is an amazing balance that he

[[Page H123]]

struck for, basically, common people and victims.
  I think that is exactly what we are doing here, because one of the 
things that the underlying bills do not do is they do not close the 
courthouse. They do not do the things that, if you look in history, as 
I pointed out in my opening statement, if you look at every time the 
Congress has taken up the class action issue, there has been the 
falling-of-the-sky phenomenon, that it is going to tear the courthouse 
down, nobody is going to get anything done.
  The actual truth is the class action has increased and efficiency was 
found. And for the true victims, they find their compensation.
  The courthouse that I have had the wonderful privilege of practicing 
in is a place where people find justice. It is not a place to be 
abused. It is not a place to sometimes take advantage of an open 
system. That is what we are doing here, and that is what I want people 
who read and understand this opportunity, because these are the same 
arguments that have been had before.
  But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come 
before this body, explore the differences between the Republican 
majority's vision for our country and that of this administration and 
those who share the President's view.
  The Republican majority is fighting for a legal system that is 
victim-focused; a legal system that supports our veterans and ensures 
that those injured have their day in court and receive compensation.
  A legal system full of fraud, abuse, and waste is a legal system ill-
equipped to provide justice to victims.
  The Republican majority is committed to making life better for all 
Americans. We have done that this week through reducing the regulatory 
burden on families and small businesses so we can jump-start our 
economy.
  We have done that this week by sending to the President's desk a bill 
that rescinds ObamaCare so that we can get to work on restoring a 
patient-centered healthcare system, such as the Empowering Patients 
First Act proposed by my colleague, Dr. Price.
  And let it be said, just as has been said over the centuries, doing 
the right thing over and over is still the right thing. And I believe 
if it is 62 times, it can be 62 more times, because this Congressman 
from the Ninth District of Georgia believes, as his constituents have 
found in the Ninth District, that ObamaCare is not for the people and 
needs to be gone and replaced with a patient-centered approach that we 
can do as a Republican majority.
  You see, we have also sent to the President's desk a measure to stop 
Planned Parenthood from destroying our next generation of men and women 
and directing those funds to organizations that provide mammograms and 
true women's health care.
  And we will continue to fight to keep our Nation safe from enemies, 
foreign and domestic, while preserving the sacred constitutional rights 
of all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 1927.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 581 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________