[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 202-222]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 1927.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaMalfa). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?

[[Page 203]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 581 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1927.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0915


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1927) to amend title 28, United States Code, to improve fairness 
in class action litigation, with Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in support of a bill that combines two important 
reforms, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and the Furthering 
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, or the FACT Act. Let me first explain 
why my colleagues should vote in favor of the Fairness in Class Action 
Litigation Act.
  Last year an independent research firm surveyed companies in 26 
countries and found that 80 percent of those that were subject to a 
class action lawsuit were U.S. companies, putting those U.S. companies 
at a distinct economic disadvantage when competing with companies 
worldwide.
  The problem of overbroad class actions doesn't just affect U.S. 
companies. It affects consumers in the United States who are forced 
into lawsuits they don't want to be in. How do we know that? We know 
that because the median rate at which consumer class action members 
take the compensation offered in a settlement is an incredibly low 
0.023 percent. That is right.
  Only the tiniest fraction of 1 percent of consumer class action 
members--less than 1 quarter of 1 percent--even bothers to claim the 
compensation awarded them. That is clear proof that vastly large 
numbers of class members are satisfied with the products they purchase, 
don't want compensation, and don't want to be lumped into a gigantic 
class action lawsuit.
  Just recently a California judicial decision reported that, in a 
class action consisting of over 230,000 people, only two of those 
230,000 wanted the coupons offered in the class action settlement. The 
judge in that case said that the case produced ``absolutely no benefit, 
really, to anybody.'' So where is all of the money going in these 
cases? To the lawyers who brought the lawsuits that hardly anyone 
wanted to be in.
  In another case, the district court had refused to certify the class 
because most of the class members had not experienced any problems with 
the product. But then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, 
holding that ``proof of the manifestation of a defect is not a 
prerequisite to class certification.''
  In yet another case, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
allowed the certification of an overbroad class action, it had to 
subsequently throw out the resulting settlement, stating, ``The 
district court approved a class action settlement that is inequitable, 
even scandalous,'' because the relatively few class members who were 
actually injured ended up claiming less than 2 percent of what the 
trial lawyers got the district judge to say was warranted based on the 
overbroad size of the class.
  Trial lawyers work the system today in the following way: They file 
lawsuits, for example, against a company that sells a washing machine. 
Some of those washing machines don't work the way they are supposed to, 
but most of them do. But the lawyers file a class action lawsuit that 
includes everyone who ever purchased a washing machine from the 
company, even the large number of people who are completely satisfied 
with their purchases.
  When trial lawyers lump injured, non-comparably injured, and non-
injured people into the same class action lawsuit, the limited 
resources of the parties are wastefully spent weeding through hundreds 
of thousands of class members in order to find those with actual or 
significant injuries. That is money that could have been spent 
compensating deserving victims.
  Sometimes, because judges don't separate the injured from the non-
injured in class actions early enough in the proceedings, they end up 
throwing out settlements because it turns out hardly any of the class 
members were harmed and didn't want compensation.
  Other times, when judges realize they have created an overbroad 
class, they justify their actions by coming up with novel theories to 
provide some compensation to people who are entirely satisfied with the 
product and who don't want compensation.
  Either way, the solution is to direct judges to determine as best 
they can early in the proceedings which proposed class members are 
significantly and comparably injured and which aren't and to treat them 
accordingly. That is fair to everyone.
  The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of 
evaluating like claims, not to provide a way for lawyers to 
artificially inflate the size of a class to extort a larger settlement 
value for themselves and, in the process, increase the prices of goods 
and services for everyone.
  Claims seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss 
should be grouped in classes in which those who are the most injured 
receive the most compensation. No one should be forced into a class 
action with other uninjured or minimally injured members only to see 
their own compensation reduced.
  The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act would simply make clear 
what currently should be clear to the Federal courts, namely, that 
uninjured class members are incompatible with rule 23(b)(3)'s current 
requirement that common claims predominate a class action.
  Here is the full text of the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, 
along with quotes from the Supreme Court that show how the bill's text 
codifies existing Supreme Court precedent:
  The bill simply provides that ``no Federal court shall certify any 
proposed class seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic 
loss unless the party seeking to maintain such a class action 
affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class member suffered the 
same type and scope of injury as the named class representative or 
representatives'' and that ``an order issued under rule 23(c)(1) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that certifies a class seeking 
monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss shall include a 
determination, based on a rigorous analysis of the evidence presented, 
that the requirement in subsection (a) of this section is satisfied.''
  That is it. One page. Fair rules. Common sense and wholly consistent 
with Supreme Court precedent. Please join me in supporting this bill on 
behalf of consumers everywhere.
  The FACT Act is also simple, fair reform we should all support.
  This legislation helps asbestos victims who must look to the 
bankruptcy process to seek redress for their or their loved ones' 
injuries. Too often, by the time asbestos victims assert claims for 
compensation, the bankruptcy trust formed for their benefit has been 
diluted by fraudulent claims, leaving these victims without their 
entitled recovery.
  Fraud is able to exist because of the excessive lack of transparency 
plaintiffs' firms have forced on the asbestos trust system. Under the 
current Bankruptcy Code, plaintiffs' firms essentially are granted a 
statutory veto right over debtors' chapter 11 plans that seek to 
restructure asbestos liabilities. Plaintiffs' firms have exploited this 
leverage to obtain trust rules that prevent information contained 
within the trust from seeing the light of day.

[[Page 204]]

  The predictable result has been a growing wave of claims and reports 
of fraud. The increase in fraudulent claims has caused many asbestos 
bankruptcy trusts to reduce recoveries paid to asbestos victims who 
emerge following the formation of trusts.
  The FACT Act, introduced by Congressman Farenthold, combats this 
fraud by introducing long-needed transparency into the system.
  First, it requires asbestos trusts to file quarterly reports on their 
public bankruptcy dockets. These reports will contain basic information 
about demands to the trusts and the bases for payments made by the 
trusts to claimants.
  Second, the FACT Act requires asbestos trusts to respond to 
information requests about claims asserted against and the bases for 
payments made by the asbestos trusts.
  These measures are carefully designed to increase transparency while 
providing claimants with sufficient privacy protection. To accomplish 
these goals, the bill leverages privacy protections contained elsewhere 
in the Bankruptcy Code and includes additional safeguards to preserve 
claimants' privacy.
  We cannot allow fraud to continue reducing recoveries for future 
asbestos victims.
  I thank Mr. Farenthold for introducing the FACT Act to combat fraud. 
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Members of the House, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1927, the 
so-called Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and Furthering 
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act.
  I oppose the legislation because it cleverly shields corporate 
wrongdoers by making it more difficult for those who have been harmed 
by their actions from obtaining justice and it allows these wrongdoers 
to further victimize their victims.
  Among H.R. 1927's many flaws is the fact that this legislation will 
have the effect of denying individuals access to justice and 
threatening victims of corporate wrongdoing, all in the name of 
protecting the powerful. Section 2 of H.R. 1927 will make it virtually 
impossible for victims of corporate wrongdoing to obtain relief through 
class actions in cases seeking monetary relief by requiring a party 
seeking class certification to show that every potential class member 
suffered the same type and scope of injury at the certification stage. 
Now, you know that is going to be difficult.
  We come to the realization that, as it is, class actions are very 
difficult to pursue. Under current procedure, the courts strictly limit 
the grounds on which a large group of plaintiffs may be certified as a 
class, including the requirements that their claims raise common and 
factual legal questions and that the class representative's claims are 
typical of those of the other class members.
  Rather than improving upon this class certification process, however, 
H.R. 1927 imposes requirements that are almost impossible to meet, 
effectively undermining the use of class actions.
  Finally, section 3 of H.R. 1927 gives asbestos defendants--the very 
entities whose products injured millions of Americans--new weapons with 
which to harm their victims.
  Section 3 requires a bankruptcy asbestos trust to report on the 
court's public case docket, which is then made available on the 
Internet, the name and exposure history of each asbestos victim who 
receives payment from such trust as well as the basis of any payment 
made to the victim.
  As a result, the confidential personal information of asbestos 
claimants, including their names and exposure histories, would be 
irretrievably released into the public domain. Just imagine what 
identity thieves and others, such as insurers, potential employers, 
lenders, and data collectors, could do with this sensitive information.
  Essentially, this bill revictimizes asbestos victims by exposing 
their private information to the public, information that has 
absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure. This 
explains why asbestos victims vigorously oppose this legislation, as it 
is an assault against their privacy interests.

                              {time}  0930

  So, in sum, H.R. 1927 is a seriously flawed bill that only benefits 
those who cause harm to others. Not surprisingly, the White House has 
appropriately issued a veto threat, stating that the administration 
``strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1927 because it would impair 
the enforcement of important Federal laws, constrain access to the 
courts, and needlessly threaten the privacy of asbestos victims.''
  For all these reasons, I urge that this House oppose H.R. 1927.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FACT Act. As 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and 
Antitrust Law, I have examined this piece of legislation for over the 
past year. We held hearings on the bill and solicited views from 
experts and victims alike. I heard many of the same concerns that we 
are hearing this morning. However, my own conclusion is that the FACT 
Act is a sound and necessary bill.
  By preventing fraudulent claims, the FACT Act protects asbestos 
victims and ensures the viability of the asbestos bankruptcy trust for 
the unknown victims yet to come. Claims that the bill hurts the victims 
are false. To the contrary, it would be a disservice to the victims 
themselves to permit certain bad actors to raid the trust funds and 
line their pockets in the process.
  As companies that used asbestos filed bankruptcy, the trust funds 
were created in recognition that victims must be compensated. Any 
measure that preserves these funds is clearly pro-victim.
  Some critics contend that the bill violates victim privacy by 
requiring the disclosure of certain information. We examined this 
specific issue during our hearings, and it could not be farther from 
the truth. This bill provides protections that are absent in State tort 
cases where court dockets and the personal information of plaintiffs 
are part of the public record. Section 2 of the FACT Act simply 
requires the claimant's name and a description of their exposure 
history. It then explicitly states that any disclosure does not include 
any confidential medical records or the claimant's Social Security 
number. It is important to note what might be missed here.
  The FACT Act amends the Bankruptcy Code. By doing this, it 
incorporates the existing privacy protections therein that permit the 
bankruptcy judge to issue protective orders when disclosure of 
information would create ``an undue risk of identity theft or other 
unlawful injury.'' This is a sound and pertinent piece of legislation.
  I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and my colleague from Texas 
(Mr. Farenthold) for bringing it to the floor. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, these bills are basically chamber of 
commerce week in the United States Congress. That is what we have come 
down to, is that the chambers of commerce who represent the large 
corporations who would be the defendants in these actions, by and 
large, and consist of the people that produce the asbestos, they are 
part of it too. It gives them an opportunity to not have to pay out 
damages to victims, victims where class actions are successful--but 
would make it more difficult to be successful--and people who have been 
victims of asbestos injuries, mesothelioma being the ultimate disease 
that kills people from exposure to asbestos.
  Now, on the other side of the chamber of commerce and my friends on 
the other side are people on this side and

[[Page 205]]

certain groups. I want to tell you who the folks are who are against 
the bill. The NAACP. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights, often called the conscience of the Congress. The American 
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Consumers Union. 
The American Bar Association--and we have heard about how lawyers are 
doing this and lawyers are doing that, lawyers are on both sides of the 
cases--the American Bar Association. Americans for Financial Reform. 
Public Citizen. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Morris Dees and 
company. The National Disability Rights Network. The Asbestos Disease 
Awareness Organization.
  The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is the voice of the 
victims, and they are against this. I have to be against it because I 
stand with the victims and for justice and what is fair for people who 
have been harmed by corporate wrongdoing.
  I rise to tell a personal story. One of my best friends was a man 
named Warren Zevon. He was a singer and songwriter. Somewhere along the 
line, he was exposed to asbestos, and he died in September of 2003 of 
mesothelioma. But for asbestos and him being exposed to it in some 
manner, he would be with us today and would have been with us for the 
last 12 years, giving us entertainment and songs and maybe songs about 
some of the things that have been going down here.
  One of his last songs was ``I Was in the House When the House Burned 
Down.'' Well, it wasn't this House, but it could have been this House. 
This House is the people's House, and it should be looking out for 
victims and people who should get compensation in courts.
  When we travel internationally, one of the things we find is that 
people revere our justice system. They look to America for justice and 
an open court system that they don't have in their own nations. These 
bills would close the door on justice and close the door on the courts, 
and that is not what America is about and that is not why we are 
respected internationally.
  I respectfully ask that we oppose these bills and vote ``no.'' 
Support the victims. Support justice.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1927, 
section 3, the so-called Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 
2015, which is actually the text of H.R. 526, the Furthering Asbestos 
Claim Transparency, or the FACT Act.
  It is a fact that the Koch brothers are probably sitting back at home 
with their fingers crossed watching these debates, hoping and feeling 
quite confident that this will pass because they know when it passes, 
it is going to help them.
  How does it help them? Well, they are the ones who manufactured or 
acquired the companies that manufactured the asbestos, this asbestos 
everybody knows now hurts people. So when people are hurt, they deserve 
to be able to go into a court of law and establish their claim and seek 
just compensation for their victimization by that company.
  What this legislation does is to put its ugly hand on the scale of 
justice in favor of the manufacturers of this dangerous product and, 
also, their insurance companies. It puts its ugly hand on that scale, 
weighs it down in favor of those companies. So all of them are looking 
upon us now, hoping that we do what they would like for us to do.
  Please know that not everybody is going to go along with this. There 
are some who stand with victims who deserve a day in court. They 
deserve, when they go to court, to not have to be subjected to the 
public release of their very private and sensitive information, their 
medical information. There should not be any kind of registry, like a 
gun registry, established.
  This is a registry--we should actually call it an asbestos death 
database--which would allow these insurance companies and producers, 
manufacturers of death, to have access to people's personal information 
so that they could use it against them when they file claims. That is 
what this bill is all about.
  I would ask that my colleagues understand the true purpose and vote 
``no'' on this act.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Farenthold), the chief sponsor of a portion of this 
legislation.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, it is my privilege to be here to speak on 
behalf of the FACT Act.
  Just a quick, oversimplified history of how the asbestos trusts came 
into being. The manufacturers of asbestos, when it became known that it 
was such a deadly product, realized that there weren't enough assets 
within the company to pay all the claims. So they availed themselves of 
the bankruptcy laws of this country. What the bankruptcy courts said 
was: Look, put all of your assets into a trust to pay off the victims 
and you can reorganize your company. That is how these trusts were 
created.
  So the companies are not going to be on the hook anymore. The ones 
that survived, reorganized, or were acquired have had their 
obligations, with respect to asbestos, discharged in bankruptcy. What 
they did to do this was they created these trusts to compensate future 
victims.
  So what is happening now is there are people who are gaming the 
system, multiple claims in State or Federal courts. They are going to 
these trusts saying: I was injured by asbestos, pay me. Which is what 
is supposed to happen. But you are only supposed to get compensated 
once for your asbestos injury. If you do multiple claims, you are 
taking money out of the system that would be available for future 
victims. Diseases like mesothelioma take years to manifest themselves.
  What the FACT Act does is require these trusts to publish a very 
small amount of information--the name of the person who is filing a 
claim, the basis of their claim--I was exposed to asbestos at XYZ 
location and developed mesothelioma--and it specifically protects their 
privacy by prohibiting the release of their Social Security number.
  The information that is required here is actually less information 
than I would be required to give if, say, Mr. Cohen hit me with his 
car. If I were hit by his car, I would have to disclose my name, the 
nature of my injury, and a lot more information to file a suit in State 
court. We are not asking for any more information than is normally 
disclosed in any sort of litigation.
  In fact, there are specific privacy protections in the Bankruptcy 
Code that are going to protect even further than you would in a State 
court. This bill was written to help those veterans who were exposed to 
asbestos and are not yet manifesting symptoms. It was designed to help 
all the victims who were exposed and are not yet manifesting symptoms.
  If we drain all the money out of these trusts, there is nothing that 
is going to be left to help the people who were injured later on in the 
process. So this is why I introduced the legislation, this is why I 
think it needs to pass, and this is why I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting it.
  I am also happy that this bill was combined with a great piece of 
legislation to get rid of some of the waste, fraud, and abuse that is 
happening within the system of class action lawsuits.
  I don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but my wife and I have probably 
got a half a dozen or so notices in the mail over the years for class 
actions. As a lawyer, I actually sit down and read them. It ends up 
most of the time that they are offering me a coupon or a gift 
certificate or something worth a couple of dollars while the 
plaintiff's attorney is getting millions of dollars.
  We need to get this system down to where those who are actually 
injured as a result of whatever has happened in the class action get 
adequate compensation and those folks who weren't injured or are happy 
with the product don't get anything because they haven't asked for 
anything, they don't want anything, and they weren't injured.

[[Page 206]]



                              {time}  0945

  This will simplify the system. It will lower the cost, and it will 
make sure there is more money available for those who were actually 
injured.
  This is a great combination of bills, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from 19 
veterans organizations that are totally opposed to this bill.

                                                  January 7, 2015.
     Re Veterans Service Organizations oppose H.R. 1927, the 
         Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering 
         Asbestos Claims Transparency Act.

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Leader McCarthy, Leader Pelosi, and Whip 
     Hoyer: We, the undersigned Veterans Service Organizations, 
     oppose H.R. 1927, the ``Fairness in Class Action Litigation 
     and Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act of 2015.'' We 
     have continuously expressed our united opposition to this 
     legislation via written testimony to the House Judiciary 
     Committee, House Leadership, in-person meetings and phone 
     calls with members of Congress, and most recently, an op-ed 
     many of our legislative teams submitted to ``The Hill'', 
     entitled ``Farenthold has his facts wrong: The FACT Act hurts 
     Veterans''. It is extremely disappointing that even with our 
     combined opposition H.R. 1927 stands poised to be voted on 
     the House floor later this week.
       Veterans across the country disproportionately make up 
     those who are dying and afflicted with mesothelioma and other 
     asbestos related illnesses and injuries. Although veterans 
     represent only 8% of the nation's population, they comprise 
     30% of all known mesothelioma deaths.
       When our veterans and their family members file claims with 
     the asbestos bankruptcy trusts to receive compensation for 
     harm caused by asbestos companies, they submit personal, 
     highly sensitive information such as how and when they were 
     exposed to the deadly product, sensitive health information, 
     and more. H.R. 1927 would require asbestos trusts to publish 
     their sensitive information on a public database, and also 
     include how much money they received for their claim as well 
     as other private information. Forcing our veterans to 
     publicize their work histories, medical conditions, social 
     security numbers, and information about their children and 
     families is an offensive invasion of privacy to the men and 
     women who have honorably served, and it does nothing to 
     assure their adequate compensation or to prevent future 
     asbestos exposures and deaths.
       Additionally, H.R. 1927 helps asbestos companies add 
     significant time and delay paying trust claims to our 
     veterans and their families by putting burdensome and costly 
     reporting requirements on trusts, including those that 
     already exist. One must ask what is the real motivation for 
     this legislation brought forward by Representative 
     Farenthold? Rather than pursuing legislation to make it 
     easier and less burdensome for our veterans and their 
     families to get the compensation they so desperately need for 
     medical bills and end of life care, trusts will have to spend 
     time and resources complying with these additional and 
     unnecessary requirements at the expense of our veterans.
       H.R. 1927 is a bill that its supporters claim will help 
     asbestos victims, but the reality is that this bill only 
     helps companies and manufacturers who knowingly poisoned our 
     honorable men and women who have made sacrifices for our 
     country.
       We urgently ask on behalf of our members across the nation 
     that you oppose H.R. 1927.
       Please contact Hershel Gober, National Legislative 
     Director, Military Order of the Purple Heart with any 
     questions.
           Signed:
       Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women's Officers 
     Associated (AFWOA), American Veterans (AMVETS), Association 
     of the United States Navy (AUSN), Commissioned Officers 
     Association of the US Public Health Services, Fleet Reserve 
     Association (FRA), Jewish War Veterans of the USA (JWV), 
     Marine Corps Reserve Association (MCRA) Military Officers 
     Association of America (MOAA), Military Order of the Purple 
     Heart (MOPH), National Association of Uniformed Services 
     (NAUS), National Defense Council, Naval Enlisted Reserve 
     Association, The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA), United 
     States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, United 
     States Army Warrant Officers Association, Vietnam Veterans 
     Association (VVA).

  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chairman, the FACT Act, which is part of the 
underlying legislation, has been touted as an effort to promote 
transparency and address a supposedly systemic problem of fraud with 
asbestos trusts set up to pay settlements owed to victims of asbestos 
exposure, but this bill is a solution in search of a problem and places 
invasive demands on victims that violate their privacy and open them up 
to identity theft and other abuses while failing to require 
transparency from the companies that created this nationwide problem in 
the first place. The nonpartisan GAO found that 98 percent of trusts 
perform audits, and none of those audits uncovered fraud.
  While the bill's proponents claim that this is a measure to protect 
asbestos trusts for victims, it speaks volumes that not a single 
victims group supports this bill.
  For decades, asbestos companies knowingly put Americans at risk--
servicemembers, children, teachers, first responders, construction 
workers, and even those who work here in the Capitol--with a toxic 
product that kills close to 15,000 people every year. Today old 
structures across the country still contain asbestos and can pose 
serious health risks. Experts have referred to workers who perform 
repair work as the current third wave of victims.
  Given the nature of the asbestos threat, it is outrageous that the 
laws fail to require asbestos companies to disclose information when it 
comes to public health and safety and disappointing that this has 
become a partisan issue.
  In 1988, President Reagan signed into law the Asbestos Information 
Act, which required manufacturers of asbestos-containing products to 
report information about these products to the Environmental Protection 
Agency, but the Asbestos Information Act was just a one-time reporting 
requirement, and it predated the Internet.
  That is why, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green), I have introduced the Reducing Exposure to Asbestos 
Database Act, or the READ Act, which amends the Asbestos Information 
Act to require those who manufacture, import, or handle products 
containing asbestos to annually report information to the EPA about 
their products and any public location where they have been present in 
the past year. This information would be made publicly available 
online, helping Americans avoid exposure to asbestos and incentivizing 
the continued reduction of asbestos use in our Nation until it is 
finally eliminated once and for all. Unfortunately, when the READ Act 
was offered as an amendment to this bill, it was not ruled in order.
  Asbestos poses an ongoing threat to public health, and more 
transparency about this deadly product, not less, should be the norm.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. DelBENE. I urge my colleagues to oppose the FACT Act and join me 
in working to promote transparency that helps, rather than victimizes, 
those who have been facing heartbreaking consequences of asbestos 
exposure.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 14 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Michigan has 16\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, veterans are disproportionately affected by 
diseases caused by asbestos, and although veterans represent only 8 
percent of the Nation's population, they comprise almost one-third of 
all known mesothelioma deaths that have occurred in this country.
  Mesothelioma has an uncommonly long period of latency of 20 to 30 
years, which means that veterans exposed to asbestos who retired from 
Active Duty decades ago are getting sick today.
  Hundreds of Navy ships and military installations dating back to 
World War II were constructed with asbestos flooring, flooring tiles, 
ceiling tiles, and

[[Page 207]]

wall insulation. That means that hundreds of thousands of workers and 
sailors were unknowingly exposed to dangerous asbestos levels, and as a 
result many of those men and women contracted asbestos-related 
diseases.
  J. Patrick Little, the national commander of the Military Order of 
the Purple Heart, wrote to House leadership in direct opposition of 
this bill. He said: ``The FACT Act adds insult to injury for veterans 
and their families at a time when they are suffering from the 
devastating effects of asbestos exposure.''
  The FACT Act must be amended to protect veterans who were exposed to 
those dangerous minerals while serving their country. I tried to amend 
this bill twice to exempt asbestos trusts from having to file onerous 
reports to the bankruptcy courts if the claimant is a member of the 
Armed Forces, a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, and 
their families to avoid any potential delay in these individuals 
receiving their desired benefits in a timely manner; but the majority 
did not make this commonsense amendment in order because they are not 
prepared to defend this bill against the serious concerns raised by 
veterans, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, who say 
that the bill is unnecessary, unfair, and only benefits the asbestos 
industry rather than our veterans who proudly served their country and 
were unknowingly exposed to this deadly substance.
  In the absence of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote 
on the bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of 
our committee.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
from Michigan for yielding as well as for his steadfast leadership.
  This is a new year with a new Speaker and new promises of bipartisan 
cooperation, yet we are here today on the House floor doing the same 
exact thing.
  The asbestos industrial complex is responsible for unleashing 
mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other exotic diseases of mass 
destruction on thousands of unsuspecting Americans, many of whom have 
served this country in the military, and yet we are being asked today 
to support legislation that would shield the wrongdoers from liability.
  At the end of the day, if you think about the bill that has been 
presented to us, the claim has been made that it is about disclosure, 
but the wrongdoers aren't really being asked to disclose anything 
further.
  The claim has been made about this bill that it is about efficiency, 
yet there is not a scintilla of evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse.
  The claim has been made that this is about fairness, yet at the end 
of the day the practical effect of this legislation would be to prevent 
the victims from being able to achieve just compensation.
  At the end of the day, this is the same old approach: trying to find 
a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. This is a 
messaging bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate and will not be 
signed into law by the President.
  Instead of wasting the time and the treasure of the American taxpayer 
through their elected Representatives here in the House, why don't we 
just get back to doing the business of the American people?
  Vote ``no'' against this invidious legislation so we can do what the 
people have sent us to do here in the United States Congress.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott), a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1927, as it will bring 
transparency to the asbestos claims process. This is an important goal, 
as the secrecy that currently surrounds the process has led to abuse 
and, in turn, compromised the benefits for future victims.
  Those who oppose the bill have two arguments against passage. First, 
they suggest that there really is not a fraud problem. Well, when you 
leave the fox in charge of the henhouse, you typically end up with a 
problem.
  The facts are pretty clear. A lack of transparency has allowed some 
law firms and individuals to manipulate the claims process. This should 
not surprise anyone. When you allow one of the ultimate beneficiaries 
to structure the trusts, administer the claims, with no accountability 
or oversight, of course there will be abuse.
  Several policy studies, the GAO, and independent judges in at least 
10 different States have found questionable claims, fraud, and abuse. 
So to those who vote against this solution, I say you are choosing to 
enrich unethical lawyers and claimants at the expense of victims who 
have legitimate injuries, injuries for which they deserve compensation.
  The second argument against this bill is that it somehow compromises 
the privacy of claimants. Again, this is not true. The FACT Act has 
much stronger privacy protections than State court. Further, section 
107 and rule 9037 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure offer 
additional safeguards. The reporting requirements do not require the 
disclosure of Social Security numbers or medical records. The act 
requires the disclosure of less information than would be required if 
the claimant were to start a lawsuit in State court.
  A vote against this bill means you are okay with secrecy, you are not 
bothered by fraud or abuse, you don't mind allowing lawyers to use 
their positions as the architects of these trusts to line their own 
pockets, and you don't care about the victims who have legitimate 
claims of asbestos-related diseases.
  It is, in fact, a problem that people have made this a political 
issue. To those who have argued against this bill, I ask: Who will be 
there and what resources will be available to our veterans when 
fraudulent claims and multiple claims have exhausted these trusts?
  The rule contemplated in H.R. 1927 brings much-needed transparency to 
Bankruptcy Code section 524G.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the House Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, thank 
you for managing this legislation; and thank you, Mr. Conyers, for 
yielding the time.
  Many of us in cases dealing with making sure our cities work, 
sometimes we have a one-way street, and we gravitate toward the one-way 
street because we might be able to move faster down that one-way 
street. That is traffic flow.
  But when we talk about justice for people, a one-way street doesn't 
work because that means only one group of people can find justice at 
the courthouse--and that is what this legislation does. It is a one-way 
street. Only one group gets victory and justice because only one group 
is not required to be transparent. The other group has to be 
transparent. They can't get on the one-way street.
  I oppose this legislation because it requires the Federal class 
action to have each class member suffer the same type and same scope of 
injury as the named class. I heard it on the floor by one of our 
distinguished Members saying that it is the broken arm group. If you 
have got a broken arm, you are in the class; if you have a broken leg, 
you aren't, but it came about through the same incident. That is an 
unfair and impractical way of getting justice for the American people.
  The second reason I oppose this legislation is because it would 
invade the privacy of asbestos victims by requiring the posting of 
personal exposure and medical information online and erect new barriers 
to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos illness.
  Thousands of workers and family members have been exposed to, 
suffered, or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease. It is 
particularly

[[Page 208]]

outrageous that many of the major asbestos producers refuse to accept 
responsibility.

                              {time}  1000

  I would make the argument that many of us knew a very dear friend, 
Congressman Bruce Vento. I understand his wife may be in the gallery.
  I think it is important that we think of the asbestos victims and 
their families who suffered from mesothelioma, as Congressman Vento 
did, and died.
  His wife requested an opportunity to testify so that the voices of 
their family members could be heard on this bill, but she was turned 
down. I will include that letter in the Record.
  In the last Congress, she and two other asbestos victims repeatedly 
requested to testify on the FACT Act, but they were turned down.

                                                  January 5, 2016.
     Re Asbestos Patients and Their Families Say ``Listen to 
         Us''--Oppose Section 3 of H.R. 1927, the So-Called ``FACT 
         Act''.

       Dear Representative: We write to express our strong 
     opposition to the misnamed ``Furthering Asbestos Claim 
     Transparency Act'' (the FACT Act), which has been 
     incorporated as Section 3 of H.R. 1927, the ``Fairness in 
     Class Action Litigation Act.'' Sponsors of the FACT Act claim 
     that the legislation will ``increase relief for victims of 
     asbestos.'' We are asbestos patients and family members of 
     loved ones who have died or presently suffer from the 
     wrongful and deceitful conduct of asbestos companies. We are 
     from states and districts across the United States. We are 
     Republicans and Democrats. We represent current and former 
     workers, veterans, police officers, firefighters, homemakers 
     and children. We have come together to express our 
     unquestioned opposition to this legislation and our utter 
     outrage that the House may pass it without even giving us--
     the ``Real People,'' not of Washington, but the actual 
     victims of asbestos exposures a chance to testify on the 
     record about the bill--even though supporters claim it is in 
     our interest!
       The fact is the so-called FACT Act is not in the interest 
     of asbestos victims. The bill, as it is designed to do, will 
     make it harder for victims to seek justice for their injuries 
     and suffering. It is in the interest of the companies that 
     are lobbying for it--the companies that used asbestos, 
     knowing that it was a deadly toxin, exposed their workers and 
     the public, and are now seeking to use Congress to shield 
     them from legal liability for their behavior. We are 
     horrified by this reality and we are going to do our best to 
     let all Americans know what is going on here.
       Many of us traveled to Washington, DC in February to watch 
     the hearing on the FACT Act. Our group's spokesperson, Susan 
     Vento, the widow of the late Congressman Bruce Vento who 
     passed away from mesothelioma in 2000, had requested an 
     opportunity to testify so that the voices of the people who 
     are most affected by this bill would be heard. But she was 
     turned down. In the last Congress, Sue and two other asbestos 
     victims repeatedly requested to testify on the FACT Act, but 
     they, too, were turned down each time. Tragically, one of 
     those victims passed away from asbestos disease. To date, not 
     one person who has been directly affected by the ravages of 
     asbestos disease has been permitted to testify about this 
     legislation. The bill's supporters claim to care about 
     victims, yet we have been treated with disrespect and neglect 
     every step of the way.
       There is really no mystery why supporters of the 
     legislation don't want to hear from us--it's because they 
     know that this legislation was never intended to benefit 
     victims. This legislation is being advanced at the request of 
     the companies that used asbestos and concealed the dangers 
     from their workers, employees and consumers, many of whom are 
     paying with their very lives due to these deadly exposures. 
     Now these companies are seeking to shield themselves from 
     responsibility under the guise of imposing ``transparency'' 
     on asbestos victims. Congress should not favor asbestos 
     wrongdoers over the interests of patients and families.
       The FACT Act would force victims seeking any compensation 
     from a private asbestos trust fund to reveal on a public web 
     site private information including the last four digits of 
     our Social Security numbers, and personal information about 
     our families and kids. This is offensive. The information on 
     this public registry could be used to deny employment, 
     credit, and health, life, and disability insurance. We are 
     also extremely concerned that victims would be more 
     vulnerable to cybercriminals, such as identity thieves, con 
     artists, and other types of predators.
       Glen Kopp, a partner with the law firm of Bracewell & 
     Giuliani and a leading authority in the area of privacy law, 
     recently reviewed the FACT Act and concluded that it presents 
     significant privacy concerns. (See ``Analysis: Identity Theft 
     Threatens Asbestos Victims Under Congressional Proposal,'' 
     Asbestos
     Nation, EWG Action Fund, http://www.asbestosnation.org/
analysis-identity-theft-for-asbestos-victims-looms-under-
congressional-proposal/)
       Mr. Kopp noted that the personal information of asbestos 
     patients and families that the FACT Act would make public is 
     precisely the type of information that is typically used by 
     identity thieves. That is why federal and state law 
     enforcement authorities recommend this type of information be 
     kept away from any form of public disclosure. And yet, the 
     FACT Act would require it to be placed on a public web site!
       While the legislation invades the privacy of asbestos 
     patients and families, it contains no requirements for 
     transparency from the asbestos industry, which concealed the 
     dangers of asbestos exposure for decades, causing one of the 
     worst public health crises in U.S. history, affecting not 
     just our families, but millions of American families, and 
     that still continues to this day.
       The FACT Act is completely one-sided. It requires so-called 
     transparency from asbestos victims but it allows asbestos 
     companies to continue to demand confidentiality of their 
     settlements and hide information about how and when they 
     exposed the public and their workers to asbestos. How can 
     asbestos companies claim they want transparency, after they 
     spent decades covering up the dangers of asbestos while we 
     and our family members were unknowingly exposed?
       We have heard that the FACT Act is needed because of an 
     epidemic of fraud against the asbestos trusts. But the 
     evidence doesn't support this claim. This bill treats us and 
     other asbestos victims like criminals rather than innocent 
     victims of corporate deceit.
       The signatories on this letter represent thousands of 
     people across the country who are suffering because of 
     asbestos exposure. We would like to be in Washington in 
     person to object to this mean-spirited and dangerous 
     legislation. But most of us can't travel because of our 
     illnesses. Others don't have the resources or the time to 
     come all the way to Washington. But each and every one of us 
     opposes any legislation that would make life more difficult 
     for asbestos victims. Asbestos victims and our families don't 
     have time on our side. Every day counts for us. Mesothelioma 
     victims are typically racing against the clock to ensure 
     their families aren't burdened with huge medical bills and 
     that they are taken care of. It's astonishing to us that, of 
     all the issues Congress could be addressing relating to 
     asbestos, you have chosen one that does nothing for victims, 
     but rather one that gives additional tools to the asbestos 
     industry to drag out these cases and escape accountability.
       We are the real people who matter in this debate, and yet 
     the supporters of the FACT Act would not allow any of us to 
     testify. We may have been shut out of the hearings, but we 
     will not be silenced. We are determined to stop any 
     legislation that places the interests of the asbestos 
     industry above the rights of innocent victims. The U.S. 
     Congress should honor all veterans and hard-working 
     Americans. Please vote no.
           Sincerely,
         Susan Vento, Widow of Rep. Bruce Vento (D-MN), 
           Mesothelioma Victim, Maplewood, Minnesota; Judy Van 
           Ness, Widow of Richard Van Ness, Veteran and 
           Mesothelioma Victim, Richmond, Virginia; Kim Beattie, 
           Niece of Jerry Fisher, beloved Uncle and Mesothelioma 
           Victim, West Branch, Iowa; Pam Wilson, Niece of Jerry 
           Fisher, beloved Uncle and Mesothelioma Victim, 
           Johnston, Iowa; Michael and Sharon Valach, Son and 
           Daughter-in-law of George Valach, Mesothelioma Victim, 
           Hiwassee, Virginia; Loring and Mary Jane Williams; Mary 
           Jane Williams is a Mesothelioma Patient, Springfield, 
           Ohio; Ginger and Jaffod Horton; Ginger Horton is a 
           Mesothelioma Patient, Fairview, North Carolina; Jill 
           Waite, Daughter of Bruce Waite, Deceased Mesothelioma 
           Victim, Ontario, Ohio; Latonyta Manuel, Widow of Andrew 
           Manuel Jr., Mesothelioma Victim, Canton, Michigan; 
           Courtney Davis, Daughter of Larry Davis, deceased, 
           because Congress never eliminated asbestos use, Durham, 
           North Carolina; Rachel Alice Shaneyfelt, Rachel is a 
           Mesothelioma Patient, Trussville, Alabama.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to listen to the families. I oppose this 
legislation, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 982, the so-called ``Fairness 
in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency 
Act of 2015.''
  I oppose this intrusive and burdensome legislation for two reasons.
  First, I oppose H.R. 1927 because it would prohibit a federal court 
from certifying a federal class action unless each class member has 
suffered the same type and same scope of injury as the named class 
representative.
  The practical effect of this requirement, if enacted, would be the 
effective immunization of corporate misconduct and fraud such as the 
Volkswagen ``cheat device'' scandal on CleanDiesel vehicles.
  For example, if H.R. 1927 were to become law, two families who were 
defrauded by Volkswagen would not be able to join together to bring a 
class action because they bought

[[Page 209]]

their cars at slightly different times or drove the cars in slightly 
different ways.
  This makes no sense unless the objective is to discourage ordinary 
Americans from obtaining relief for the injuries caused by the 
misconduct of large national corporations.
  The second reason I oppose this legislation is because it would 
invade the privacy of asbestos victims by requiring the posting of 
personal exposure and medical information online and erect new barriers 
to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos illnesses they 
contracted through no fault of their own and for which asbestos 
producers were legally responsible.
  We have witnessed decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, and, even 
after its hazards became widely known, the consequences of this 
dangerous product are visiting death, disease, and heartbreak on 
innocent victims and their families.
  Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have been exposed 
to, suffered from, or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung 
disease.
  And sadly, the toll continues to the present day.
  It is estimated that each year 10,000 people in the United States are 
expected to die from asbestos related diseases.
  This is an outrage--and to add to their misery--they have to deal 
with the onerous provisions of H.R. 1927.
  Time and time again, asbestos victims have faced huge obstacles, 
inconvenient barriers, and veiled but persistent resistance in 
receiving compensation for their injuries.
  It is important to note that asbestos litigation is the longest-
running mass tort litigation in the history of the United States.
  It is particularly outrageous that many of the major asbestos 
producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy 
in an attempt to limit their future liability.
  In 1994 Congress passed reasonably balanced legislation that allowed 
the asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy trusts to compensate 
asbestos victims and reorganize under the bankruptcy law.
  But these trusts lack adequate funding to provide just compensation; 
according to a 2010 RAND study, the median payment across the trusts is 
sufficient to compensate only 25% of the damages suffered by the 
claimant.
  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 original tortfeasors.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, better known as 
OSHA, noted two decades ago that: ``It was aware of no instance in 
which exposure to a toxic substance has more clearly demonstrated 
detrimental health effects on human than has asbestos exposure.''
  We see the harm that asbestos causes when it afflicts its victims--
ordinary Americans who simply went to work every day to support their 
families.
  And although the proponents of this legislation assert that it is 
intended to protect asbestos victims, it is interesting to note that 
not a single asbestos victim has come forth to express support for this 
legislation.
  As the widow of one of our former colleagues, the beloved Congressman 
Bruce Vento of Minnesota, who passed away from mesothelioma, has 
stated, this legislation ``does not do a single thing'' to help 
asbestos victims and their families.
  H.R. 1927 does not help and actually disturbs a reasonably well-
functioning asbestos victim compensation process.
  Entities facing overwhelming mass tort liability for causing asbestos 
injuries may, under certain circumstances, shed these liabilities and 
financially regain their stability in exchange for funding trusts 
established under Chapter II of the Bankruptcy Code to pay the claims 
of their victims, under certain circumstances.
  H.R. 1927, however, interferes with this longstanding process in two 
ways.
  First, the legislation would require these trusts to file a publicly 
available quarterly report with the bankruptcy court that includes 
personally identifiable information about claimants, including their 
names, exposure history, and basis for any payment made to them.
  Second, the bill requires the trusts to provide any information 
related to payment and demands for payment to any party to any action 
in law or equity concerning liability for asbestos exposure.
  It is particularly galling that many of the major asbestos producers 
refuse to accept responsibility and that most declared bankruptcy in an 
attempt to limit their future liability.
  How much more can we put on these poor victims?
  If you want information, go to their counsel, go to the courthouse.
  With more than 10,000 Americans suffocating every year from horrific 
asbestos diseases like mesothelioma, this House should be focused on 
ensuring justice for the victims and protecting the public health and 
safety instead of debating legislation designed to delay compensation 
and deny justice for dying asbestos victims.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this utterly intrusive 
legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his ongoing championing of the pledge we take every day: liberty and 
justice for all.
  Mr. Chairman, last year marked the 800th anniversary of the signing 
of the Magna Carta. Eight hundred years ago, this storied charter first 
laid out a basic right to justice as the foundation of a fair society.
  It was interesting to see in the observance of the 800th anniversary 
of the Magna Carta that they brought out 12 chairs to represent where 
the barons sat to make their case to King John. Those 12 chairs 
represent a trial by jury, 12 peers. Even under the King, the Magna 
Carta declared the lawful judgment by his peers. This much was owed the 
people.
  ``To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny, or delay right or 
justice.'' We pledge each day not justice for only the powerful and the 
wealthy, but liberty and justice for all.
  You can read what I said and much more about justice and the Magna 
Carta in the book ``1215: The Year of Magna Carta.'' It is pretty 
thrilling that 800 years ago, people knew that it was fundamental for 
the leverage to be with the people and that they had rights. The right 
to justice is part of the beating heart of America's democracy. It is 
the sword and shield against plutocracy and tyranny.
  Yet, today, with their class action bill, Republicans are trying to 
weaken that right, taking the justice that belongs to every American 
and handing it to the privileged few. It is about who has the leverage.
  Class actions are an indispensable tool for individuals to hold 
powerful interests and big corporations accountable for their misdeeds. 
Without the ability to band together, Americans who have endured grave 
injuries and egregious wrongs face a David and Goliath struggle for 
justice.
  Without class actions, the wealthy and powerful can divide and 
conquer their victims, burying families' pleas for fair remedy with the 
sheer weight of their money and resources. With this bill, Republicans 
are yet again helping the special interests flatten hardworking 
Americans.
  We see the same goal in play in the Republican provisions attacking 
asbestos victims that are folded into this bill. As was mentioned by 
our colleague, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, in her letter, Sue Vento, 
widow of our esteemed colleague, Bruce Vento, made a plea for them not 
to include this in this bill, but they did.
  These provisions claim to serve transparency. Indeed, the 
Republicans' effort to protect asbestos companies, intimidate asbestos 
victims, could not be clearer. They require absolutely no transparency 
on the part of the asbestos companies. Instead, they invade the privacy 
of thousands of Americans, many of them veterans and even children in 
schools.
  This isn't about somebody taking a job that has risks. This is about 
children going to school and being exposed to asbestos and their 
privacy being invaded.
  I am so pleased we will have a motion to recommit to address that 
later.
  It also makes them vulnerable to harm by disclosing personal 
information in the public domain.
  Over and over again, this Republican Congress works to stack the deck 
for the special interests against hardworking Americans. We see it in 
campaign finance, where Republicans will drown the voices of the 
American people in a tidal wave of unlimited special interest spending 
in our elections and

[[Page 210]]

completely resisting any opportunity to disclose. If you like 
transparency, you should love disclosure of where this money is coming 
from.
  We see it in the assault on labor, where Republicans would dismantle 
collective bargaining and undermine workers seeking a bigger paycheck, 
which they have long deserved.
  We see it in this bill on class actions, where Republicans would deny 
justice to millions of Americans. In the courts, in the workplace, in 
our environment, in our elections, the Republican Congress has 
strengthened powerful interests and weakened hardworking Americans.
  Our Founders pledged their lives, their liberty, their sacred honor, 
to establish a government of the many, not a government of the money. 
This is the people's House. Let us stand with the American people in 
opposing this appalling Republican bill.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, as we have been going through this 
debate, we have entered in the Record and had some discussions about 
the groups that oppose this bill. I did want to point out that there 
are quite a few organizations--veterans organizations included--that 
are in support of this bill.
  In fact, there is a pretty broad base of support: The 60 Plus 
Association; the Air Force Association, Department of Indiana; the 
American Military Society; the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and 
Industry; Arizona Manufacturers Council; the Civil Justice Association 
of California; Coalition for Common Sense; Cost of Freedom, Indiana 
Chapter; Florida Chamber of Commerce; Florida Justice Reform Institute; 
Georgia Chamber of Commerce; Hamilton County Veterans; Illinois Chamber 
of Commerce; Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York; the Louisiana 
Association of Business and Industry; the Michigan Chamber of Commerce; 
the Military Officers Association, Indianapolis Chapter; Missing in 
America Project of Indiana; National Association of Manufacturers; the 
National Black Chamber of Commerce; the New Jersey Civil Justice 
Institute; the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce; the Pennsylvania 
Chamber of Commerce and Business and Industry; the Reserve Officers 
Association Department of Indiana; Save Our Veterans; the South 
Carolina Civil Justice Coalition; the Taxpayers Protection Alliance; 
the Texas Civil Justice League; the Cost of Freedom, Inc., of Indiana; 
Texans for Lawsuit Reform; the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Veteran Resource List; the West 
Virginia Business and Industry Council; the West Virginia Chamber of 
Commerce; Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce; and, importantly, to me, 
as a Texan, the Texas Coalition of Veterans Organization, which is an 
umbrella group that represents more than 600,000 Texas veterans.
  This bill is absolutely pro-veteran. As was pointed out on the other 
side of the aisle, a very large percentage of folks exposed to asbestos 
are veterans compared to the general population. Under sovereign 
immunity, they have no one to turn to but these trusts and the 
manufacturers that created these trusts.
  So it is important that we have the FACT Act to preserve the 
resources in these trusts so that our veterans who are injured by 
asbestos and come down with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related 
diseases have resources to compensate them for their injury.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to ask my friend 
from Texas: Are there any asbestos victims organizations among that 
list that you recited?
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I don't know if any of them particularly are asbestos 
victims associations. But, again----
  Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, that is what I wanted to know, and 
the gentleman has told me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to add my voice to 
those speaking against this anticonsumer bill and to remind my 
colleagues, if I can, of what it is to be an American.
  One of the signal features of American citizenship is that we have 
rights. We have rights to property, to liberty, to our privacy. We have 
rights to be free of negligently inflicted injury and death. We have 
rights to be free of dangerous and defective products. We have rights 
that are enforced in court. These are rights that are respected.
  To the point Representative Cohen made, people around the world envy 
us for our rights, our Bill of Rights, our full spectrum of rights. 
People envy us all over the world for our individual rights. But these 
individual rights are no good unless you can go to court and enforce 
them.
  And make no mistake, Mr. Chair, the people who are bringing this bill 
and who are behind it are the ones who routinely get hauled into court 
to account for causing injuries and violations of American individual 
rights. They are the ones behind this bill.
  The bill is wrong. Cutting back on American individual rights is 
wrong, too. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1927.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), our former leader of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1927, the so-called 
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act.
  In 2013, in Butler v. Sears, Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit 
Court of Appeals spoke critically of the commonality in damages 
requirement found in this bill.
  He said that ``the fact that damages are not identical across all 
class members should not preclude class certification. Otherwise 
defendants would be able to escape liability for tortious harms of 
enormous aggregate magnitude but so widely distributed as not to be 
remediable in individual suits.'' The court found that such a 
requirement ``would drive a stake through the heart of the class action 
device.''
  Furthermore, Mr. Chair, the bill includes the so-called FACT Act, 
which would have a devastating impact on workers exposed to asbestos.
  In the last few decades, thousands of workers in my district have 
developed asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma because of asbestos 
exposure that occurred between the 1940s and 1970s.
  This exposure was inflicted upon many victims by corporations, such 
as one a New Jersey court found to have ``made a conscious, cold-
blooded business decision, in utter flagrant disregard of the rights of 
others, to take no protective or remedial action.''
  That is the kind of business that will benefit from the bill. The 
victims don't want it.
  In the letter the ranking member will be introducing, they point out 
that veterans represent 8 percent of the population, but 30 percent of 
the victims.
  That letter points out that the FACT Act would mandate unnecessary 
public disclosure of sensitive personal information and would increase 
the cost of litigation, thereby limiting the available pool of money to 
compensate the victims of those cold-blooded business decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would recognize that the asbestos 
victims have suffered too much already. Therefore, we should defeat 
this legislation.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee for yielding to me.
  I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The so-called 
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act is an attempt by the House 
majority to take

[[Page 211]]

away America's access to the courthouse and punish asbestos victims by 
requiring personal information be made public on the Internet.
  I am proud to represent the hardworking people in the 29th District 
of Texas. Our district is home to the Port of Houston and the largest 
petrochemical complex in the country. The people in Eastside Houston 
and Harris County are proud of the work they do in producing the oil 
and gas and chemicals that drive our Nation's economy. We also produce 
a lot of seafarers because we are the largest international port in the 
country.
  This inherently hazardous work needs to be done as safely as 
possible. Workers in Harris County and throughout our great country 
should not be exposed to known human carcinogens like asbestos. This is 
why I introduced, with my colleague, Representative Suzan DelBene, the 
Reducing Exposure to Asbestos Database, or READ Act, last year.
  This legislation would expand existing protections enacted under the 
Reagan administration that would create a public database with the 
location of asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the country.
  The READ Act would bring much-needed transparency to the known 
location of asbestos in our country, potentially saving thousands of 
Americans from asbestos-related illnesses, like lung cancer and 
mesothelioma, while helping industry reduce workers' exposure to this 
known carcinogen.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with America's working families and 
join me in voting against today's bill that unfairly punishes asbestos 
victims and denies the American people access to the justice they 
deserve.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Members of the House, this legislation is just the latest attempt to 
take power away from ordinary citizens and place it in the hands of the 
most powerful corporations and industries in this country.
  Whether it is by making it almost impossible for ordinary people to 
pursue their day in court through the important class action mechanism 
or threatening the privacy of asbestos victims, it is clear that H.R. 
1927 does not have the interest of ordinary people in mind.
  And it raises a broader question of who, rightfully, should hold 
power in a representative democracy like ours, politically 
unaccountable corporations, who seek only to maximize their own profit, 
or the people who are supposed to be sovereign. We say it is the 
people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to close.
  There have been a lot of arguments we have heard today for and 
against this bill, but I think the biggest argument for it is that it 
preserves precious and limited resources for those who were injured by 
asbestos and shuts down an avenue of waste, fraud, and abuse that is 
being exploited right now in the current system.
  There has also been a lot of talk about veterans. Folks have said the 
FACT Act hurts veterans. I say it helps veterans. As I pointed out 
earlier, veterans cannot pursue litigation against the United States 
Government because of sovereign immunity, so they have to rely solely 
on the bankruptcy claims process to get recovery. That is why a 
significant number of veterans groups, many of whom I list earlier, 
have written to the committee in support of the FACT Act.
  In fact, let me read you the words of John Brieden, a former national 
commander of the American Legion, in a letter he wrote to The Hill.

       The FACT Act, and its sunshine provision, is strongly 
     supported by veterans like myself who are dedicated to 
     preserving the rapidly diminishing congressionally 
     established asbestos trust fund for all servicemembers who 
     have been injured by a substance we now know to be dangerous 
     and even deadly.

  The best way to protect veterans and other asbestos victims from 
attorneys' double dipping is the FACT Act's requirement to disclose 
information about the trust fund claims. We have got to protect the 
privacy in here. That is why the FACT Act was specifically drafted to 
protect the privacy of those who claim.
  The text of the section of the bill that deals with asbestos trusts 
is only 1\1/2\ pages long, but a big part of that is dedicated to 
privacy. The disclosures are minimal. It is the name of the person, the 
type of their injury. It particularly prohibits the disclosure of the 
claimant's Social Security number. So protection is done.
  The settlement amounts, work history, and information about the 
veteran's children and family is simply not in the bill. Furthermore, 
confidential medical records and Social Security numbers disclosing 
that information is expressly prohibited under the bill.
  So, in summary, this legislation enacts two important reforms that 
will increase fairness in class action lawsuits and will introduce 
transparency into the asbestos trust system.
  Given that class action lawsuits involve more money and touch more 
Americans than any other litigation pending in our legal system, it is 
important we have a Federal class action system that benefits those 
that have been truly injured, and injured in comparable ways, and is 
fair to both plaintiffs and defendants.
  The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act would require that a 
class be composed of members with comparable injuries. The bill would, 
thereby, achieve a very important reform, clustering actually injured 
individuals or similarly injured class members in their own class.
  People who were injured deserve their own class action in which they 
present their uniquely powerful cases and get the large recoveries that 
they deserve.
  Under this legislation, uninjured or noncomparably injured people can 
still join class actions, but they must do so separately, without 
taking away from the potential recovery of those who are actually 
injured or more significantly injured.
  This legislation also seeks to introduce a modest amount of 
transparency into a very opaque asbestos bankruptcy system.
  The opponents to the FACT Act have offered creative and far-ranging 
allegations against the measure, but we know these allegations are 
unfounded. What we do know is the that there is widespread fraud and 
abuse in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system because it has been 
documented in news reports, State bankruptcy cases, and before the 
Judiciary Committee in numerous hearings on this issue.
  We also know that the FACT Act will introduce transparency to help 
curb this fraud, and it will help asbestos victims by protecting these 
trust funds for those future claimants who have not yet started to show 
symptoms.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the unfounded allegations offered 
against today's bill and vote in support of these simple, meaningful, 
commonsense reforms.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my opposition to the 
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015.
  On Monday of this week, the Justice Department filed a civil 
complaint against Volkswagen after discovering that Volkswagen 
manipulated over half a million diesel engines to circumvent our 
environmental standards. By the end of the week Republicans brought 
legislation to the floor that will make it exceedingly difficult for 
consumers harmed by deliberately deceitful corporations to file class 
action lawsuits. The problem that Republicans are pretending to solve 
with this bill does not exist, but the consequences of this bill are 
very real. If this bill passes it will limit the ability of consumers 
to have access to courts and prevent them from holding companies 
accountable.
  We have spent this week on policies that deprive Americans of their 
health care, deprive women of safe and secure healthcare, and protect 
corporations instead of protecting American citizens. If this week is a 
harbinger of the legislative agenda that Republicans have for 2016 then 
the people's House will fail to do the people's business.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.

[[Page 212]]

  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-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.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1927

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness in Class Action 
     Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 
     2015''

     SEC. 2. FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION.

       (a) In General.--No Federal court shall certify any 
     proposed class seeking monetary relief for personal injury or 
     economic loss unless the party seeking to maintain such a 
     class action affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed 
     class member suffered the same type and scope of injury as 
     the named class representative or representatives.
       (b) Certification Order.--An order issued under Rule 
     23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that 
     certifies a class seeking monetary relief for personal injury 
     or economic loss shall include a determination, based on a 
     rigorous analysis of the evidence presented, that the 
     requirement in subsection (a) of this section is satisfied.

     SEC. 3. FURTHERING ASBESTOS CLAIM TRANSPARENCY.

       (a) Amendments to Title 11, United States Code.--Section 
     524(g) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(8) A trust described in paragraph (2) shall, subject to 
     section 107--
       ``(A) file with the bankruptcy court, not later than 60 
     days after the end of every quarter, a report that shall be 
     made available on the court's public docket and with respect 
     to such quarter--
       ``(i) describes each demand the trust received from, 
     including the name and exposure history of, a claimant and 
     the basis for any payment from the trust made to such 
     claimant; and
       ``(ii) does not include any confidential medical record or 
     the claimant's full social security number; and
       ``(B) upon written request, and subject to payment 
     (demanded at the option of the trust) for any reasonable cost 
     incurred by the trust to comply with such request, provide in 
     a timely manner any information related to payment from, and 
     demands for payment from, such trust, subject to appropriate 
     protective orders, to any party to any action in law or 
     equity if the subject of such action concerns liability for 
     asbestos exposure.''.
       (b) Effective Date; Application of Amendments.--
       (1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     this section and the amendments made by this section take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Application of amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall apply with respect to cases commenced under 
     title 11 of the United States Code before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
389. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
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.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 114-389.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Line 6 on the first page, strike ``No'' and insert ``Except 
     as provided in subsection (c), no''.
       After line 18 on the first page, insert the following:
       (c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect 
     to a claim for monetary relief brought against a perpetrator 
     of a terrorist attack by a victim of the attack.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 581, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which was 
made in order, and which would make an exception to H.R. 1927's 
required showing for class certification for any claims brought by the 
victims of a terrorist attack against the attack's perpetrators.
  We all agree that victims of terrorist attacks deserve justice, and 
they should have the fullest opportunity to obtain compensation for any 
injuries they have suffered because of such attacks.
  Sadly, our history over the last generation has no shortage of 
examples of the kind of victims this amendment would help. From the 
1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and the 1996 Khobar 
Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, to the downing of Pan Am 103 by 
Qadhafi's Libya, recourse to our courts has been one of the few ways 
that victims of terrorism have been given at least some opportunity to 
seek justice for the acts committed against their family members and 
them.
  I know Chairman Goodlatte shares my concerns for these victims, and I 
applaud him for his successful efforts to create a compensation fund 
for those victims of state sponsors of terrorism who receive final 
court judgements against those state sponsors.
  The program also compensates those held hostage in the U.S. Embassy 
in Iran in 1979.
  In some of these cases, the victims, or their survivors, pursued 
class actions against the state sponsors of the terrorist act. Yet, 
under section 2 of H.R. 1927, these victims may not have had the 
opportunity to pursue a class action in the first place.
  As noted during the general debate, section 2 adds the new 
requirement that a named plaintiff prove, as a condition of class 
certification, that every putative class member suffered the same 
``scope'' of injury; not comparable, but the same scope.
  This requirement can be read to preclude a class action where, for 
instance, one terrorism victim loses his legs, while another loses his 
arms as a result of some terrorist attack. Or maybe somebody isn't a 
direct victim of the terrorist attack, but hurt in the aftermath of the 
attack. In short, they did not suffer the same scope of injury.
  I note that ``scope'' can mean the same thing as ``extent,'' as the 
bill introduced originally stated. Current rules, while requiring 
commonality of facts and law, does not require a showing of commonality 
in damages as a prerequisite for certifying a class action, as this 
``scope of injury'' standard requires.
  It is rare that two class members suffer the exact same scope of 
injury, and almost impossible to prove this at the certification stage.
  Think about Boston. Some people lost a leg, some people lost a life, 
some people lost both legs. They couldn't be part of a class. The 
relevant inquiry is whether they allegedly both suffered injury as a 
result of the same alleged wrongful act by the defendant.
  It is hard enough as it is to pursue class actions because of years 
of efforts by industry to make it more and more difficult. Sometimes, 
in these terrorist situations, it is a different type of defendant.
  It is wrong to place the heightened burdens of H.R. 1927 on terrorism 
victims who seek justice for the acts committed against them. I would 
ask that this amendment be accepted by the other side because all it 
does is make exception for victims of terrorism, and we all share in 
our hope that victims of terror get justice and that we don't put any 
more hurdles in the way of them successfully completing the track of 
seeking justice for them and their heirs, ancestors who might have been 
killed in those attacks.
  My amendment would offer them relief of these burdens, and I would 
hope the other side would accept it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Cohen 100 percent that 
the victims of terrorism deserve compensation from those who 
perpetrated the acts of terror.

[[Page 213]]

  However, I oppose this amendment because it denies the victims of 
terrorism the protections that the bill would otherwise afford them. If 
this amendment is adopted, it would result in less compensation for the 
most deserving victims in class action lawsuits.
  Under the base bill, the most severely injured victims of terrorism 
would have their own day in court, and they would be compensated to the 
maximum extent because their entire class would consist of 
significantly injured members.
  Under the base bill, the most significantly injured will not have 
their compensation reduced by the cost of weeding out from the class 
the significantly less injured or uninjured.
  But if this amendment were adopted, huge numbers of uninjured or less 
significantly injured victims of terrorism would be allowed into the 
class and be able to siphon off for themselves the limited resources 
that may be available to compensate those most injured. That is not 
right and it is not fair, but that is what this amendment would allow.

                              {time}  1030

  To recap, the purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of 
evaluating similar claims, not to provide a means of artificially 
inflating the size of a class to extort a larger settlement value. 
Exempting a subset of money damage cases from the bill, as this 
amendment would do, would only serve to incentivize the creation of 
artificially large classes to extort larger or unfair settlements from 
innocent parties for the purpose of disproportionately awarding 
uninjured parties.
  Any claims seeking monetary relief for personal injuries or economic 
loss should be grouped into classes that are similar with the most 
injured receiving the most compensation. It is a fair principle that 
should be applied equally for the benefit of all, including terrorism 
victims. Why should victims of terrorism be subjected to a particularly 
unfair treatment by being allowed to be forced into a class action with 
other uninjured or marginally injured members, only to see their own 
compensation reduced? That does a disservice to those claimants, yet 
that is exactly what the amendment attempts to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 114-389.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask that the amendment be 
considered.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Line 6 on the first page, strike ``No'' and insert ``Except 
     as provided in subsection (c), no''.
       After line 18 on the first page, insert the following:
       (c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect 
     to a claim for monetary relief arising from a foreign-made 
     product.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 581, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, having seen the outcome of the last vote 
where there was one Member of the other side and four Members of this 
side, and the vote was given to the other side, I just think that it 
would be best for the process if I withdrew this amendment because I 
can see the writing on the wall. And I am going to withdraw the 
amendment and hope that maybe on the floor we will pass something that 
takes care of the victims of terror and see that they aren't deterred 
by this.
  I would like to just mention my friend, Warren Zevon, again. He had a 
song called ``Lawyers, Guns and Money'' and the other side is certainly 
for two-thirds of that.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 114-389.
  Mr. CONYERS. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Line 6 on the first page, strike ``No'' and insert ``Except 
     as provided in subsection (c), no''.
       After line 18 on the first page, insert the following:
       (c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect 
     to a claim for monetary relief under title VII of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 581, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which 
would exempt from section 2(a) of the bill any claim for monetary 
relief under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII 
prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, 
sex, religion, or national origin.
  During the subcommittee hearing on H.R. 1927 in the Judiciary 
Committee, I expressed concern about the effect the bill's original 
language would have on civil rights claims. In particular, I was 
concerned that the bill applied to all class actions and that it 
restrictively defined ``injury'' to mean the alleged impact of a 
defendant's action on a plaintiff's body or property. Although the bill 
was revised in committee to delete this narrow definition of ``injury'' 
from H.R. 1927 and to limit the bill's scope to class actions seeking 
monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss, I remain 
concerned that significant categories of civil rights cases could still 
be effectively precluded by this bill.
  Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases, cases that seek 
backpay and other monetary relief for economic loss resulting from an 
adverse employment decision, frequently pursue class actions because 
such employment cases tend to be the kind that are well-suited for 
class treatment. These cases often involve multiple victims who were 
subjected to the same discriminatory employment practice or policy. 
While damages awarded pursuant to a single plaintiff may not be large 
enough to deter the employer's alleged wrongdoing, aggregate damages 
awarded to plaintiffs as a result of a class action would have a 
deterrent effect.
  Unfortunately, the bill still requires class action plaintiffs to 
prove at the certification stage that every potential class member 
suffered the same type and same scope of injury, a requirement that is 
virtually impossible and cost prohibitive to meet. This onerous 
requirement would effectively deter employment discrimination 
plaintiffs from proceeding with any class actions.
  Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 already imposes 
significant constraints on the ability of plaintiffs to pursue class 
actions. Indeed, it was an employment discrimination case in Walmart v. 
Dukes that the Supreme Court gave what, in my view, was a cramped 
interpretation of rule 23's commonality requirement making it harder 
for employees claiming discrimination to proceed as a class.
  Because of my continuing concerns with the legislation's potential 
effects on this important category of civil rights cases, I urge the 
House to adopt my amendment.

[[Page 214]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
  First, the base bill only applies to proposed classes ``seeking 
monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss.'' Insofar as 
civil rights cases do not seek money damages, they are completely 
unaffected by the substitute and would proceed just as they do today. 
Indeed, Rule 23(b)(2) expressly provides for civil rights cases in 
which a class action can be certified when the defendant--and I am 
quoting the rule--``has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply 
generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or 
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as 
a whole.'' Injunctive relief and declaratory relief, of course, are not 
claims for monetary relief.
  Now, if money damages are sought by a proposed class, then of course 
they should be subject to the procedures in this bill. The purpose of a 
class action is to provide a fair means of evaluating like claims, not 
to provide a means for artificially inflating the size of a class to 
extort a larger settlement value. Exempting a subset of money damage 
cases from the bill, as this amendment would do, would serve only to 
incentivize the creation of artificially large classes to extort larger 
and unfair settlements for the purpose of disproportionately awarding 
uninjured plaintiffs.
  Any claims seeking monetary damages for personal injury or economic 
loss should be grouped in classes in which those who are most injured 
receive the most compensation. Why should certain civil rights 
claimants seeking money damages under one specific statute be subjected 
to a particularly unfair treatment by being allowed to be forced into a 
class action with other uninjured or minimally injured members, only to 
see their own compensation reduced? That does a disservice to those 
claimants. That is exactly what this amendment would do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 114-389.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Line 6 on the first page, strike ``No'' and insert ``Except 
     as provided in subsection (c), no''.
       After line 18 on the first page, insert the following:
       (c) Exception.--This section does not apply with respect to 
     a claim brought by a gun owner seeking monetary relief 
     involving the defective design or manufacturing of a firearm.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 581, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, we know the intentions behind the bill 
before us today, H.R. 1927, the so-called Fairness in Class Action 
Litigation Act. The goal of this bill isn't to protect consumers. The 
goal of this bill is to wipe out class action lawsuits and to deprive 
consumers of their ability to band their resources together to take 
large corporations to court for defective and, many times, dangerous 
products.
  We have heard from many of my colleagues already today about the 
problems this bill creates, and I agree that this is a bad bill. But it 
is a uniquely bad bill for one group in particular: gun owners. That is 
right, gun owners--law-abiding Americans exercising their Second 
Amendment rights who suffer injury or even death when gun manufacturers 
sell defective and ultrahazardous weapons.
  Every year, many gun owners and innocent bystanders are killed when a 
firearm discharges just at being set down on the ground, when a faulty 
safety leaves a child dead, when an experienced and safety-conscious 
gun owner is the victim of a deadly malfunction. Unique to consumer 
products, no Federal safety agency has the authority to issue a recall 
of a defectively manufactured firearm. Indeed, the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission has jurisdiction and oversight to ensure that more 
than 15,000 household and recreation products are safe for consumers.
  Thanks to years of hard work by the gun lobby, the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission is specifically prohibited from protecting consumers 
from defectively manufactured firearms. Moreover, the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has the authority to license 
gun manufacturers but does not have the authority to recall defectively 
manufactured firearms.
  Today, this bill's rigorous requirement for certifying a class would 
render gun owners even more powerless. Currently, gun owners' only 
recourse in these unfortunate events is our court system, and most 
people don't have the resources to go up against the massive titans of 
the gun industry.
  Let me give you an example of the kind of class action suit that 
would not exist under this legislation. In 2013, a class action was 
filed against Taurus in a U.S. District Court in my State of Florida. 
The claim involved a design defect in the semiautomatic pistol's 
trigger safety blade.
  Let me read you a news story from Alabama. You will hear about Judy 
Price, an experienced gun owner. She says she knows them all, how to 
handle them safely, and she speaks to people taking concealed-carry 
classes. Price said that no amount of gun knowledge could have saved 
her from what happened in 2009. Her concealed-carry holster fell to the 
floor as she was undressing. Then her Taurus pistol went off with a 
bullet going through her groin, through her stomach, and into her 
liver.
  ``I laid down on the floor. I looked up into his eyes, and I said, 
`Paul, I am going to die tonight. But I love you.'''
  Incredibly, she didn't die that night, although for about 9 days it 
was ``touch and go,'' she said.
  The lead plaintiff in this country was actually a sheriff from Iowa. 
Chris Carter, a sheriff's deputy in Scott County, was serving on 
narcotics detail and was pursuing a fleeing suspect. As he ran, his 
pistol fell from his holster, hitting the ground and discharging a 
bullet that struck a nearby vehicle. Luckily, it was unoccupied.
  Thanks to the ability to pursue a class action, this case was 
settled, and Taurus voluntarily recalled the pistols. Under this 
legislation, it is unlikely that gun owners wronged by bad actors in 
the gun manufacturing industry would have any recourse at all.
  I will give you one more example. The gun owner who took his 22 Colt 
single-action revolver with him fishing. When his gun fell out of his 
holster, it fired and lodged a bullet in his bladder. He lost the 
ability to have children.
  Under this bill, Federal courts would only be able to hear class 
action suits involving a group of people if they can prove that they 
have all ``suffered the same type and scope of injury'' as the named 
representatives. The family who lost a loved one to a bullet wound in 
the head due to a defective gun living in Florida would not be able to 
join with a gun owner shot in the knee in Oregon, would not be able to 
join together and seek justice even if the injuries were caused by the 
same defect in the same make and model of gun.

                              {time}  1045

  This overly specific language would prevent gun owners from 
satisfying the

[[Page 215]]

bill's requirement that each member demonstrate the ``same type'' and 
``scope of injury.''
  It would remove the courts as the last remaining venue to ensure that 
gun manufacturers are held liable for selling defectively manufactured 
firearms.
  My amendment can fix this problem at least--at least--with respect to 
gun owners bringing claims for a defective design or manufacturing of a 
firearm.
  This bill's rigorous requirements for certifying a class would have 
prevented the lawsuits I mentioned and would keep any future class 
actions brought by gun owners against manufacturers for defectively 
manufactured items from moving forward. The manufacturers, in many 
cases, were well aware of the defects for many years, but it took a 
class action for them to finally do something about it.
  Today, you have the opportunity to choose to stand with sportsmen, 
with law-abiding citizens purchasing guns to protect their homes and 
families, and with law enforcement who are protecting our communities, 
or you can stand with the gun manufacturers when they put out defective 
products that put responsible gun owners at risk.
  I strongly urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I feel like I am caught in Groundhog 
Day. I am making the same argument again and again.
  The purpose of this bill is to make sure the most injured are the 
most compensated and not result in a dilution of those by bringing in 
massive amounts of people not similarly injured.
  I disagree with the gentleman's argument that it isn't a similar 
injury if you are shot in the leg or you are shot in the arm by a 
defective gun.
  Why should guns be treated differently than toasters? If your 
defective product injures somebody, you are responsible for it; but if 
your defective product doesn't injure somebody, you shouldn't be.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. I would agree with the gentleman that guns should be 
treated exactly the same way as toasters. I hope that the gentleman 
would consider working with me to ensure that the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission could recall defective guns just like they can recall 
defective toasters.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Reclaiming my time, we are dealing with the tort 
system right now and class action. I would be happy to have a 
conversation sometime in the future about consumer protection 
legislation.
  At this point, under the bill we are discussing, if you exempt guns, 
people injured by guns--truly injured by guns--will actually receive 
less compensation because they will be exempted, and the plaintiffs' 
attorneys will be able to build a big class where even if, in a worst-
case scenario, you could exhaust all of the resources of the gun 
company, you end up maybe with people getting a coupon for 20 percent 
off their next firearm as opposed to actual monetary damages, with the 
plaintiffs' attorney taking home millions.
  This bill is designed to make sure the most injured get the most 
money and those not injured do not. That is what we are trying to do 
here. Regardless of whatever exception you want to put for whatever 
industry, the bill generally works for all industries. That is the way 
it was designed.
  I urge everyone to oppose this amendment
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 114-389.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Line 6 on the first page, strike ``No'' and insert ``Except 
     as provided in subsection (c), no''.
       After line 18 on the first page, insert the following:
       (c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect 
     to causes of action arising under the Fair Housing Act (42 
     U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1691 et seq.).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 581, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt suits arising out 
of the Fair Housing Act or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
  I offer my amendment today, Mr. Chairman, out of a real concern about 
the consequences the bill will have on social justice issues. One of 
these issues that is very dear to me is the disparate access to 
financial products for African Americans. That is the reason that I, 
before I became a Member of Congress, created a credit union for my 
area in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
  We are still seeing discrimination in housing and auto financing and 
insurance products in my home district of Milwaukee. This is not 
something, Mr. Chairman, that happened in the good old days. We have 
witnessed discrimination in mortgage loans as recently as 2012.
  As a member of the Financial Services Committee, we have learned 
about the CFPB's role in cracking down on auto lenders who discriminate 
against minorities. Folks who have the same credit score, if your name 
is Rodriguez or Barack Obama Jones, suddenly your auto loan would be at 
a higher rate.
  Class actions are an important tool to fight back. For example, in 
Adkins v. Stanley, a class action suit was filed against Morgan Stanley 
for practices through a mortgage lender that had a significant impact 
against an entire African American community. In Detroit, Michigan, 
from where our distinguished ranking member hails, the practices led to 
filling these communities with high-risk subprime loans, leading up to 
the 2008 housing crisis. I would commend any of you to go to Detroit 
and see the result of that discrimination where entire communities have 
been eviscerated.
  Actions helped to uncover and fight back against auto finance lender 
practices that used these subjective criteria, whether your name was 
Rodriguez or Barack Obama Jones, to determine creditworthiness. This 
practice was found to have a disproportionate impact, charging these 
higher interest rates for minorities compared to White borrowers with 
the exact, similar credit ratings.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I once again make the same argument. 
Once we take out one specific claim or the other, we do away with the 
benefits to that group that this bill confers.
  This bill is pro-consumer by making sure the most injured receive the 
most compensation and that you don't artificially build up a class and 
dilute the award. It is the exact same argument I made on almost all of 
the previous amendments.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, that argument is not a good argument because 
when you think of the example of just, say, Morgan Stanley, if there 
was someone who, in Detroit, Michigan, lost their house through the 
subprime

[[Page 216]]

lending, that has as much impact on that person as the person next door 
who was underwater and couldn't sell their home and couldn't repair it 
because of the impact on their next-door neighbor.
  This notion that they have to be injured in exactly the same way 
really flies in the face of logic and, of course, flies in the face of 
justice.
  I would ask Members to adopt my amendment. It is common sense. It is 
just. There are so many cases against minorities, in particular, that 
would be adversely impacted through this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 114-389.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Line 6 on the first page, strike ``No'' and insert ``Except 
     as provided in subsection (c), no''.
       After line 18 on the first page, insert the following:
       (c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect 
     to any cause of action arising from a pay equity claim under 
     Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C 2000e et 
     seq.) or that portion of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 
     U.S.C. 206(d)) known as the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 581, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt pay equity 
lawsuits arising from title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the Equal 
Pay Act.
  Today, the wage gap for women is a very real experience, not only for 
those women, but for families in the United States workforce. According 
to the National Women's Law Center, the gender wage gap amounts to over 
$10,000 a year in median income.
  But this bill, H.R. 1927, takes away one of the only effective tools 
that women in the workplace have to narrow the wage gap. That is 
through class action suits filed under title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act or the Equal Pay Act. This bill would, to borrow Judge Posner's 
term, really drive a stake through the heart of the Equal Pay Act or 
the Civil Rights Act.
  This bill will make it harder to certify members of a class in pay 
equity cases because each detail relating to the type and scope of the 
damage is often unique to the woman who was injured. For example, a 
woman involved in a class could have a different type of job, different 
number of years working for a company, different wages, different 
benefits, and if the company is discriminating against all women, 
across all the job categories, they would not be certified as a class 
unless they made exactly the same pay, worked there exactly the same 
number of years, which, Mr. Chairman, is ludicrous.
  This bill would also make it harder for women in pay equity cases 
because, at the certification stage, women wouldn't have the same 
information about each other to know whether or not they could be in 
the same class.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, again, we get back to the argument, as 
you start to exempt certain groups or certain types of lawsuits, it 
creates the same situation we have now that we are trying to fix in 
that class where those mostly injured get the most compensation and 
those only marginally injured are compensated accordingly.
  I think part of where the other side has a little misunderstanding of 
the bill is I keep hearing the word ``exact.'' It is not the exact same 
injury. The bill requires that class members share the same scope of 
injury, which is intended to prevent certification of grossly overbroad 
class action lawsuits that include members with wildly varying injury.
  The dictionary and ordinary meaning of ``scope'' is the range of a 
relevant subject. Judges are certainly capable of determining relevant 
range of injuries that would make class members suitably typical of one 
another. I think this could happen in all cases and actually probably 
more so in these equal pay type of cases if the scope of the injury is 
being paid less.
  Again, I think common sense is going to dictate. As we have seen 
historically, the vast majority of the times our Federal Court systems 
get it right. There are few notable exceptions, but that is beyond the 
scope of this argument.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, this exception, 
to a great piece of legislation that is designed to make our class 
action system fair and make sure those who are the most injured are the 
most compensated.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague for that 
exhaustive explanation and definition of scope.
  Common sense just ain't common, so we cannot rely on common sense.
  I just want to say that the courts already require a plaintiff 
seeking class action certification to make substantial showings that 
they have, in fact, been injured. That is our argument, that they have 
to have the same scope and that we need to reserve the benefits for 
those at the top so that women who are discriminated against in a 
firm--we are only concerned with those women who are going to lose the 
most money because they didn't get a management position. We are not 
going to be concerned with the women who worked in the janitorial 
services and were discriminated against.
  I think that there is a smoking gun here when you hear our opponents 
make these furious arguments and regale us with definitions of scope, 
where the courts have already done that. If it ain't broke, don't fix 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I stand by the plain language of the 
statute, and the intent is to help victims and make the class action 
system fair. Exceptions will only weaken that.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  1100


       Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Maxine Waters of California

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
House Report 114-389.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       On the first page, line 6, strike ``No'' and insert 
     ``Except as provided in subsection (c), no''.
       On the first page, after line 18 insert the following:
       (c) Exception.--The requirements for a demonstration under 
     subsection (a) and the inclusion of a determination relating 
     to that requirement under subsection (b) do not apply with 
     respect to a claim against--
       (1) any institution or third party servicer that receives 
     or services funds under title IV

[[Page 217]]

     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.);
       (2) any institution that originates, services, or otherwise 
     administers qualified education loans (as defined in section 
     221 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); or
       (3) any institution providing a course of education 
     approved for purposes of chapter 33 of title 38, United 
     States Code.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 581, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
my amendment to H.R. 1927, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act.
  My amendment would protect students, servicemembers, and veterans who 
are seeking monetary relief from fraudulent institutions of higher 
education by exempting them from the onerous requirements for class 
certification outlined in the bill.
  H.R. 1927 requires Federal courts to certify a class only when all 
class members demonstrate they have suffered the same type and scope of 
injury. This additional requirement would be unduly burdensome to 
students, servicemembers, and veterans who have been fraudulently 
misled by the for-profit college industry.
  For example, recently the Department of Education conducted a joint 
investigation with California Attorney General Kamala Harris. They 
concluded that for-profit college Corinthian Colleges misrepresented 
its job placement rates to prospective and enrolled students.
  Specifically, the investigation found that, among other abuses, a 
Corinthian accounting program reported a job placement rate of 92 
percent of its graduates in accounting-related fields, but that, in 
reality, only 12 percent of the graduates of this program had secured 
jobs in accounting.
  For a separate business associate program, Corinthian reported a 95 
percent job placement rate, but the Department of Education determined 
that, in reality, only 14 percent of the program's graduates had jobs 
in the relevant field.
  It is clear that, with job placement rate errors of 80 and 81 percent 
respectively, students enrolled in both programs were intentionally and 
fraudulently misled by Corinthian Colleges.
  Yet, under H.R. 1927, these defrauded students arguably would not be 
able to form a class to seek relief because they have been injured by a 
mere 1 percent degree of difference or because they were lied to about 
job placement rates in different careers. This is totally illogical and 
unfair, and it defeats the purpose of the class action.
  As the example demonstrates, particularly in the context of higher 
education, H.R. 1927 essentially makes class certification impossible 
to achieve and, thus, impractical to pursue. The inability to bring 
forth class actions will selectively shield for-profit colleges from 
accountability and will significantly reduce access to our court system 
for deserving students and veterans.
  We only need to look further at Corinthian Colleges to understand the 
harm that ensues when these schools are left unaccountable. For 
decades, Corinthian Colleges defrauded its students by inflating job 
placement rates, by engaging in unfair marketing practices and illegal 
debt collection tactics, and by requiring students to take out private 
loans at high interest rates.
  According to the California attorney general, it likewise unlawfully 
used military seals in its advertising materials to lure an increasing 
number of our active servicemen and veterans. Worse yet, by including 
bans on class actions as a prerequisite to enrollment, Corinthian 
Colleges protected itself from liability while engaging in these awful 
predatory tactics.
  As a result of its decades of predatory conduct, Corinthian Colleges 
was finally forced to close its doors in April 2015, leaving thousands 
of students with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, with worthless 
degrees, and with no job opportunities to show for their time and hard 
work.
  Hundreds of veterans forfeited their GI benefits, which were earned 
on the battlefield in service to our country. One veteran of the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan told Politico that the months he had spent 
studying auto mechanics at a Corinthian school was wasted time because 
of the poor equipment and the training he received.
  In October, a Federal judge ruled that Corinthian Colleges was 
operating a predatory lending scheme and ordered the school to pay back 
$531 million in damages to all students who attended the network of 
colleges before it closed its doors.
  Yet, in reality, because the school has filed for bankruptcy, 
executives will walk away with millions while students and veterans 
will never see any of the money owed to them. Meanwhile, taxpayers will 
be expected to pick up the tab for this and any other future Corinthian 
judgments.
  The law already favors schools like Corinthian and other big 
corporations over classes of harmed consumers--as evidenced by the fact 
that students were unable to join together and prevail in a class 
action during Corinthian's prior decades of misconduct, and prior to 
its bankruptcy and collapse. Corinthian should have been forced to 
repay these students out of their own profits, and our service members 
and veterans should have had their G.I. benefits returned so those 
funds could be used at a competitive, high-achieving institution.
  Yet, today, we are considering advancing H.R. 1927, which will serve 
as an additional barrier to ensuring justice for these students, 
service members and veterans. My amendment would eliminate the hurdle 
that H.R. 1927 imposes on defrauded students, which would help ensure 
that the institutions of higher education would be on the hook for 
their fraud and unfair practices, and ensure that other for-profit 
institutions would be held accountable in the future.
  I would ask for support for my amendment. I am sure that my 
colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle would not want to go down 
in history as preventing these kinds of acts from being dealt with.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment for the same 
reason that I have opposed almost every amendment so far in that it 
exempts a certain class from the bill that is designed to help those 
who are most injured.
  First, the base bill only applies to classes that are seeking 
monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss. Insofar as 
education-related cases do not seek monetary damages, they are 
completely unaffected by the bill and would proceed just as they do 
today. If money damages are being sought, then, of course, they should 
be subject to the procedures in this bill.
  The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of 
evaluating like claims, not to provide a means of artificially 
inflating the size of a class to extort a larger settlement. The other 
side is continually saying that these groups or classes must be exactly 
the same. The language is of the same scope. The bill is designed to 
keep from grossly inflating the size of a class.
  The students of the college that the gentlewoman is citing were all 
in the same class and would appear to be similarly injured. I cannot 
predict what a court would do. I believe, under this bill, even without 
the gentlewoman's amendment, they would continue to be certified as a 
class because the scope of their injuries would be the same.
  It is not designed to make it exact. It is the same scope. And that 
is where we are trying to go. Claimants who are seeking monetary relief 
need to be grouped in classes in which the most injured receive the 
most compensation, but it doesn't have to be the exact same injury.
  I don't see any need for this amendment. I think it actually would 
unfairly hurt those folks from the college because they would not be 
subject to the protections of this bill in that an attorney could 
inflate the class to include folks, let's say, who didn't have as many 
damages and who were from

[[Page 218]]

other colleges. I can think of a wide variety of hypotheticals here.
  The idea behind this bill is, regardless of the class, if you are the 
most injured, you should be the most compensated, and there is a lot of 
area in which the judges can determine what the scope of those injuries 
is.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 114-389.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Line 10 on the first page, strike ``and scope''.
       Line 8 on the first page, strike ``or economic loss''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 581, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, my amendment would remove the 
scope and economic loss language from the bill.
  Think of yourself as driving down a two-lane road, doing 55 miles an 
hour. It is nighttime or it could be daytime. Suddenly, you lose 
control of your car because your ignition switch cuts off the car and 
you lose control of your power steering and your brakes. There is an 
18-wheeler coming at you and you have no time to react. There is a 
crash and you, as the driver, are killed in the unfortunate accident.
  Let's assume that that has happened in numerous other cases. Perhaps 
the injuries were not as bad as a death. Perhaps someone just suffered 
a closed-head injury, a concussion, or perhaps a broken arm in the 
accident. Let's assume that both of those cars were made by the same 
manufacturer, had the same ignition switch, and a defect in that 
ignition switch caused the crashes.
  Now there are numbers of claimants who are wanting to get together 
and file a class action lawsuit because they know that the large 
company has an army of lawyers, all of whom will go to court against a 
single plaintiff to defeat the claim. These briefcase-toting, loafer-
wearing, silk-stocking lawyers, who are getting paid $900 an hour go to 
court, have helped the corporation hide the existence of the defect for 
many years, and there have been so many accidents that have occurred 
that singular plaintiffs who aggregate their claims and come together 
against that corporation have a better shot at winning the case than 
has just a single plaintiff who is going against an army of corporate 
lawyers.
  This legislation changes the rules. It tilts the scales in favor of 
the company by making the plaintiffs prove that they have suffered the 
same type and scope of injury as has the named class representative, 
and that is despite there being one common question of law in fact that 
permeates all of the cases. Why shouldn't they be allowed to bring that 
case together?
  This amendment would remove the scope and economic loss language of 
the bill so that it would not impede the ability of claimants to bring 
a class action lawsuit against a corporate wrongdoer. I would ask my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, this amendment should be defeated 
because it essentially guts the bill.
  The bill requires that class action members share the same scope of 
injury, which is intended to prevent the certification of grossly 
overbroad class action lawsuits that include members with wildly 
varying injuries.
  The ordinary meaning of scope in the dictionary is the range of a 
relevant subject. Judges are certainly capable of determining the 
relevant range of injuries that would make class members suitably 
typical of one another.

                              {time}  1115

  The base bill uses the word ``scope'' to make clear that all class 
members do not need to have suffered the same type of injury to the 
exact same extent, but they still must demonstrate they have suffered 
the same range of injuries as determined by the court.
  This amendment also strikes the term ``economic loss'' from the bill. 
The base bill defines the scope of class actions covered by the bill as 
those involving claims for monetary relief for personal injury or 
economic loss. Economic loss is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as 
``a monetary loss, such as lost wages or lost profits.'' In a products 
liability suit, the economic loss includes the cost of repair or 
replacement of defective property as well as commercial loss for the 
property's inadequate value and consequential loss of profits or use.
  These sorts of claims should also be covered under the bill because 
they are claims for monetary relief. Those with significantly greater 
claims for such relief should have their own day in court and the 
chance to obtain the most compensation for their economic loss.
  I am urging my colleagues to reject this gutting amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, that is exactly what I want to 
do, is to gut this legislation, because it guts the ability of asbestos 
victims to press class actions against the wrongdoing Koch brothers and 
other companies that manufacture that product.
  I want it to be known that there are veterans organizations that 
oppose this legislation: the Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force 
Women Officers Associated; American Veterans, AMVETS; the Association 
of the United States Navy; the Commissioned Officers Association of the 
U.S. Public Health Services; Fleet Reserve Association; the Jewish War 
Veterans of the USA; the Marine Corps Reserve Association; the Military 
Officers Association of America; the Military Order of the Purple 
Heart; the National Association of Uniformed Services; the National 
Defense Council; the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; the Retired 
Enlisted Association; the United States Coast Guard Chief Petty 
Officers Association; the United States Army Warrant Officers 
Association; the Vietnam Veterans Association; and on and on.
  I don't know what those veteran organizations that my friend named 
actually do. I don't know who they are. They certainly have names that 
appear to misrepresent whether or not they are in favor of the rights 
of servicemen and -women, but these organizations that I just named 
are.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this bill. The gentleman on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Johnson of 
Georgia, of course, indicated that it is his intent to gut the bill 
here.
  We need to defeat this amendment. Of course, Mr. Johnson is free to 
vote against the bill, although I believe that would be a mistake.
  I would urge my colleagues to not only oppose this amendment, but to 
support the underlying bill when we get to it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 219]]


  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 114-389.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 2, strike line 5 and all that follows 
     through line 2 on page 3, and insert the following:
       ``(8)(A) A trust described in paragraph (2) shall, subject 
     to subparagraph (B) and section 107, provide upon written 
     request and subject to payment (demanded at the option of the 
     trust) for any reasonable cost incurred by the trust to 
     comply with such request, to any party that is a defendant in 
     a pending court action relating to asbestos exposure, 
     information that is directly related to the plaintiff's claim 
     in that pending action.
       ``(B) A defendant requesting information under subparagraph 
     (A) shall first disclose to such plaintiff and such trust, 
     subject to an appropriate protective order the median 
     settlement amount paid by that defendant for claims settled 
     or paid within 5 years of the date of the request, by disease 
     category, for the State in which the plaintiff's action was 
     filed. No personally identifiable information shall be 
     included in any exchange of information under this 
     paragraph.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 581, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I think most of all that we have had a 
vigorous discussion on behalf of the American people. I hope they are 
listening.
  I hope my colleagues are listening because, as I listened to the 
debate myself, I heard a continuing theme: Let's bash the plaintiffs 
and those seeking justice and make sure we make our friends who want to 
eliminate costs, eliminate the road to justice, provide them with an 
opportunity to reconfigure the road that has the Lady Justice balanced 
scales as a symbol of this system.
  When I heard my colleague from Texas, a good friend, talk about costs 
and making sure that the individuals in the class are spread out so 
that they are limited in the ability to press their case, I got the 
answer. Again, I say that a one-way street to justice is unacceptable. 
There are too many people who died that I cannot stand on this floor 
and deny those who are sick and ailing or those who had in the 1950s 
thalidomide where babies were born with malformations because women 
took medicine that had not been tested.
  The Jackson Lee amendment would provide a balanced approach to the 
bill's disclosure requirements by applying transparency rules in the 
bill equally to the asbestos industry defendants. Specifically, this 
amendment will require that an asbestos defendant seeking information 
from the trusts about a plaintiff to first make available to the 
plaintiff and trust information about the median settlement amount paid 
by that defendant for claims settled or paid within 5 years of the date 
of the request for the State in which the plaintiff's actions were 
filed.
  The American Bar Association understands my point. Frankly, in their 
comments, they made the following statement that I think is important: 
``We oppose 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''--again, a one-way street--``and could place added burdens on 
the already overloaded court system.'' The ABA goes on to relate how 
this bill is a poor bill.
  I include their letter for the Record.

                                     American Bar Association,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2016.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of 
     the American Bar Association and its over 400,000 members, I 
     write to offer our views as the House considers class action 
     reform. I understand that you intend to bring up H.R. 1927, 
     the ``Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015,'' as 
     early as this week. The ABA has long recognized that we must 
     continue to improve our judicial system; however, we oppose 
     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 could place added burdens on an already 
     overloaded court system.
       This 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 recently heard 
     arguments in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo where it 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 traditional judicial 
     rulemaking process, the legislation would severely limit the 
     ability of victims who have suffered a legitimate harm to 
     seek justice collectively in a class action lawsuit. The 
     legislation mandates that no Federal court shall certify any 
     proposed class seeking monetary relief for personal injury or 
     economic loss unless the party affirmatively demonstrates 
     that each proposed class member suffered the same type and 
     scope of injury as the named class representative(s). This 
     requirement leaves a severe burden for people who have 
     suffered personal injury or economic loss at the hands of 
     large institutions with vast resources, effectively barring 
     them from forming class actions. For example, in a class 
     action against the Veterans Administration, several veterans 
     sued for a variety of grievances centered on delayed claims. 
     The requirement in this legislation 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.
       We were pleased that a manager's amendment offered in 
     Committee removed the requirement that the alleged harm to 
     the plaintiff involved bodily injury or property damage. This 
     improved the bill, but the remaining requirement leaves too 
     high a burden. Class actions have been an efficient means of 
     resolving disputes. Many of the legitimate complaints about 
     lawsuit abuses through class-action litigation have been 
     addressed through the evolution of class-action standards by 
     the courts themselves; others are currently being considered 
     by the Judicial Conference as part of the Rules Enabling Act 
     process. Making it harder for victims to utilize class 
     actions could 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 concerns 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.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Again, my friends, this speaks to the idea that we 
are not focusing on the plaintiff. So the injured party is at a 
disadvantage.
  Let me say to my colleagues that this bill is unnecessary because, in 
a class action, you do not get the same amount of money. It just allows 
you to put together your resources to press forward your case. So if 
you are a poor farmer or if you are a poor waitress or you are someone 
driving a 1989 car and

[[Page 220]]

you are in a circumstance that puts you in a category where that car, 
even as old as it is, had some defect and you have no ability to press 
your case, you have the ability to press your case along with others. I 
am outraged to think that they would deny that.
  So my amendment says to the defendant: You need to put forward all 
the information that you are demanding of those individuals who are 
singularly unable to provide the kind of legal representation that they 
need.
  If transparency was the true goal of this bill, then, why doesn't the 
bill require settling defendants to reveal information important to 
public safety? The asbestos health crisis is the result of a massive 
corporate coverup. Trust information is already public. So let's make 
it a two-way street.
  Let me also include for the Record a letter and these words: ``Far 
from being even-handed, this bill allows defendants--and only 
defendants--to do an end-run around state rules of discovery that place 
limits on information-gathering. The bill would tip the scales of 
justice in favor of asbestos defendants.''

                                                  January 6, 2016.
     Re Opposition to Section 3 of H.R. 1927, the Fairness in 
         Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim 
         Transparency Act of 2015

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The undersigned groups 
     strongly oppose Section 3 of H.R. 1927, the ``Fairness in 
     Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim 
     Transparency Act of 2015,'' formerly H.R. 526, the 
     ``Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act'' (FACT Act). 
     This bill will interfere with state legal systems without 
     justification, severely invade the privacy of asbestos 
     victims and their families, and delay and deny justice to 
     people suffering from lethal asbestos-related diseases. While 
     it may seem like an opportune time to legislate in the area 
     of asbestos litigation, this bill is extremely misguided. It 
     will do little more than harm dying victims (including many 
     former Navy shipyard workers), while advantaging the big 
     corporations responsible for compensating them.
       For decades, secrecy and deceit have been a way of business 
     for the asbestos industry, and this bill does absolutely 
     nothing to change that. This wholly unnecessary and one-sided 
     legislation is an affront to states' rights and unfair to 
     victims.
       Section 3 of H.R. 1927 has two primary provisions: 1) 
     requires asbestos trusts to disclose on public websites the 
     private, confidential information about every asbestos 
     claimant and their families, including past, current and 
     future claimants. The legislation does nothing to stop 
     asbestos defendants from continuing to demand secrecy when 
     they settle cases (as they routinely do), or force companies 
     to disclose any information to help a claimant with his or 
     her case. To this day, these companies refuse to make public 
     information about where asbestos is present, where it was 
     used, and where it is imported. This bill is an unfair and 
     unwarranted imposition on people who are likely to die 
     because the asbestos industry covered up the dangers of 
     asbestos for over 50 years and still insists on 
     confidentiality today. Moreover, the information that will go 
     on these public sites includes victims' names, addresses, 
     medical information, how much they received in compensation, 
     and the last four digits of their social security numbers. 
     This extreme invasion of privacy will make victims and their 
     families vulnerable to predators, con artists, and 
     unscrupulous businesses who will scour these sites for 
     information.
       2) It gives any defendant in any asbestos lawsuit the right 
     to demand any information about any asbestos victim from any 
     asbestos trust at any time for any reason. The trusts 
     themselves have already told the House Judiciary Subcommittee 
     on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law that such 
     a provision would place substantial burdens on them, 
     requiring them to spend tens of thousands of additional hours 
     per year trying to comply with this requirement. And because 
     the provision is unlimited, the costs of compliance for 
     trusts would be very high as well. Trusts are already 
     underfunded. A RAND study found that the median payment from 
     asbestos trusts to victims is 25 percent of the value of the 
     claim, and some payments are as low as 1.1 percent of the 
     claim's value.
       In addition to cost burdens, severe delays will result. As 
     explained by Caplin & Drysdale attorney Elihu Inselbuch in 
     his ``Responses to Questions for the Record'' following his 
     2013 subcommittee testimony: because trusts will be buried in 
     otherwise unnecessary paperwork seeking claimant information, 
     ``The bill would slow down or stop the process by which the 
     trusts review and pay claims, such that many victims would 
     die before receiving compensation, since victims of 
     mesothelioma typically only live for 4 to 18 months after 
     their diagnosis.'' In many cases, ``the delays in trust 
     payment will force dying plaintiffs, who are in desperate 
     need of funds, to settle for lower amounts with solvent 
     defendants . . . Delay is a weapon for asbestos defendants.''
       Finally, Mr. Inselbuch explained that, because this bill 
     does not require that the information demanded by defendants 
     be relevant to, or admissible in, any lawsuit, it is an 
     unwarranted and ``heavy-handed piece of federal interference 
     with the states' legal systems.''
       Far from being even-handed, this bill allows defendants--
     and only defendants--to do an end-run around state rules of 
     discovery that place limits on information-gathering. The 
     bill would tip the scales of justice in favor of asbestos 
     defendants by giving defendants access to information about 
     victims' settlements with asbestos trusts while allowing 
     defendants to continue hiding information about their 
     settlements with other victims. To level the playing field, 
     victims should be entitled to information from defendants 
     regarding previous settlement amounts and true transparency 
     about where the defendants' asbestos was used, manufactured, 
     and stored.
       As to the claim that this bill will ``prevent fraud,'' this 
     bill places new, burdensome requirements on regularly-audited 
     trusts. No one can find evidence of significant fraud in the 
     trust process. The U.S. Government Accountability Office 
     (GAO) studied the problem and did not identify one fraudulent 
     claim. As Mr. Inselbuch noted, ``[b]ecause the injured victim 
     was typically exposed to multiple asbestos products at 
     multiple job sites over a period of many years, he or she 
     must file different claims, with different trusts, with 
     different forms that request different information. The fact 
     that the exposure information submitted to one trust differs 
     from the exposure information submitted to another does not 
     mean it is `inconsistent'--and certainly not specious or 
     fraudulent.'' Similarly, with regard to charges that victims 
     ``double-dip,'' he explains, ``when an asbestos victim 
     recovers from each defendant whose product contributed to 
     their disease, that victim is in no way `double-dipping'; 
     rather they are recovering a portion of their damages from 
     each of the corporations who harmed them. In fact, each trust 
     is responsible for and pays for only its own share of the 
     damages.'' And as noted above, each trust usually can pay 
     only pennies on the dollar.
       Since at least the 1930's, asbestos companies and their 
     insurers have been denying responsibility for the millions of 
     deaths and illnesses caused by this deadly product. The 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 
     roughly 3,000 people continue to die from mesothelioma and 
     asbestosis every year. Other experts estimate the death toll 
     is as high as 15,000 people per year when other types of 
     asbestos-linked diseases and cancers are included. The 
     companies hid the dangers posed by asbestos exposure, lied 
     about what they knew, fought against liability for the harms 
     caused, tried to change the laws that held them responsible 
     and, to this day, fight against banning asbestos in the U.S. 
     The asbestos industry is not interested in transparency. This 
     legislation is nothing but another industry attempt to avoid 
     responsibility for the grave harms they have caused. We are 
     asking you to stand with veterans and other cancer victims of 
     the asbestos industry's wrongdoing and oppose H.R. 1927.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
         Alliance for Justice, Asbestos Disease Awareness 
           Organization, Center for Effective Government, Center 
           for Justice & Democracy, Connecticut Center for Patient 
           Safety, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, 
           Consumer Watchdog, EWG Action Fund, National Employment 
           Lawyers Association, National Association of Consumer 
           Advocates, National Consumers League, 
           OpenTheGovernment.org, Protect All Children's 
           Environment, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, one of the issues the FACT Act addresses 
is State court litigants' inability to obtain information from 
bankruptcy asbestos trusts. The FACT Act eliminates this problem by 
requiring minimal disclosures from asbestos trusts and allowing for 
access to additional information at the cost of the requesting party. 
It doesn't put a burden on the trusts.
  The amendment not only removes the minimal disclosure requirements, 
but it would replace additional disclosure requirements on parties who 
request information from the asbestos trust.

[[Page 221]]

  Over the course of four separate hearings before the Judiciary 
Committee the issue highlighted was the lack of disclosure by the 
asbestos bankruptcy trust, not private party litigants. There has been 
no record of plaintiffs encountering difficulties in obtaining 
information necessary to sue these businesses. In fact, the evidence is 
to the contrary. Go look at a plaintiff's attorney who specializes in 
asbestos litigation Web site and you see how they tout their access to 
information necessary to sue these companies.
  It is the parties, other than the plaintiffs, including other 
asbestos bankruptcy trusts, as well as State court judges, who have 
difficulty obtaining information from the asbestos bankruptcy trust 
system which has created an environment that is conducive to fraud and 
takes money out of those trusts that is needed for future victims. The 
FACT Act merely levels the playing field so all parties have access to 
the same information.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I vigorously disagree with my good 
friend from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) because it is very clear that the 
bill would tip the scales of justice in favor of asbestos defendants by 
giving defendants access to information about victim settlements with 
asbestos trusts while allowing the defendants to continue hiding 
information about their settlements.
  My amendment asks for the defendants to give the same information. No 
matter how much my good friend tries to redirect and suggest that this 
bill does not do that, it does.
  Might I also suggest that the other side offered the suggestion that 
there were groups like Save Our Veterans, The Cost of Freedom, Veterans 
Resource, that were representing the veterans community. Again, I would 
take issue with that representation. I insert into the Record a whole 
list that has been recounted by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson), my colleague.

                                                  January 7, 2015.
     Re Veterans Service Organization oppose H.R. 1927 the 
         ``Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering 
         Asbestos Claims Transparency Act''

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Leader McCarthy, Leader Pelosi, and Whip 
     Hoyer: We, the undersigned Veterans Service Organizations 
     oppose H.R. 1927 the ``Fairness in Class Action Litigation 
     and Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act of 2015.'' We 
     have continuously expressed our united opposition to this 
     legislation via written testimony to the House Judiciary 
     Committee, House Leadership, in-person meetings and phone 
     calls with members of Congress, and most recently, an op-ed 
     many of our legislative teams submitted to ``The Hill'', 
     entitled ``Farenthold has his facts wrong: The FACT Act hurts 
     Veterans''. It is extremely disappointing that even with our 
     combined opposition H.R. 1927 stands poised to be voted on 
     the House floor later this week.
       Veterans across the country disproportionately make up 
     those who are dying and afflicted with mesothelioma and other 
     asbestos related illnesses and injuries. Although veterans 
     represent only 8% of the nation's population, they comprise 
     30% of all known mesothelioma deaths.
       When our veterans and their family members file claims with 
     the asbestos bankruptcy trusts to receive compensation for 
     harm caused by asbestos companies, they submit personal, 
     highly sensitive information such as how and when they were 
     exposed to the deadly product, sensitive health information, 
     and more. H.R. 1927 would require asbestos trusts to publish 
     their sensitive information on a public database, and also 
     include how much money they received for their claim as well 
     as other private information. Forcing our veterans to 
     publicize their work histories, medical conditions, social 
     security numbers, and information about their children and 
     families is an offensive invasion of privacy to the men and 
     women who have honorably served, and it does nothing to 
     assure their adequate compensation or to prevent future 
     asbestos exposures and deaths.
       Additionally, H.R. 1927 helps asbestos companies add 
     significant time and delay paying trust claims to our 
     veterans and their families by putting burdensome and costly 
     reporting requirements on trusts, including those that 
     already exist. One must ask what is the real motivation for 
     this legislation brought forward by Representative 
     Farenthold? Rather than pursuing legislation to make it 
     easier and less burdensome for our veterans and their 
     families to get the compensation they so desperately need for 
     medical bills and end of life care, trusts will have to spend 
     time and resources complying with these additional and 
     unnecessary requirements at the expense of our veterans.
       H.R. 1927 is a bill that its supporters claim will help 
     asbestos victims, but the reality is that this bill only 
     helps companies and manufacturers who knowingly poisoned our 
     honorable men and women who have made sacrifices for our 
     country.
       We urgently ask on behalf of our members across the nation 
     that you oppose H.R. 1927.
       Please contact Hershel Gober, National Legislative 
     Director, Military Order of the Purple Heart at 
     [email protected] with any questions.
           Signed:
         Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women's 
           Officers Associated (AFWOA), American Veterans (AM 
           VETS), Association of the United States Navy (AUSN), 
           Commissioned Officers Association of the US Public 
           Health Services, Fleet Reserve Association (FRA), 
           Jewish War Veterans of the USA (JWV), Marine Corps 
           Reserve Association (MCRA), Military Officers 
           Association of America (MOAA), Military Order of the 
           Purple Heart (MOPH), National Association of Uniformed 
           Services (NAUS), National Defense Council, Naval 
           Enlisted Reserve Association, The Retired Enlisted 
           Association (TREA), United States Coast Guard Chief 
           Petty Officers Association, United States Army Warrant 
           Officers Association, Vietnam Veterans Association 
           (VVA).

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Air Force Sergeants Association, Vietnam 
Veterans Association, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, and others, these 
are the groups that are saying they are against this bill. The reason 
is because they are for the little guy. That is why they go to the 
battlefield and fight.
  I am standing here for the little guy. My amendment says let the big 
guys give you the same information and the little guys shouldn't even 
have to pay, if I might say. Let the big guys do it because they are 
the individuals who come and try to thwart the individuals.
  Madam Chair, let me express my appreciation to Chairman Sessions and 
Ranking Member Slaughter for their leadership and for making the 
Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  Thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 1927, 
the ``Fairness in Class Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claims 
Transparency Act of 2015''.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment #9 would provide a balanced approach to the 
bill's disclosure requirements by applying the transparency rules in 
the bill equally to asbestos industry defendants.
  Specifically, this Amendment would require that an asbestos defendant 
seeking information from the trust about a plaintiff to first make 
available to the plaintiff and trust information about the median 
settlement amount paid by that defendant for claims settled or paid 
within 5 years of the date of the request, for the State in which the 
plaintiffs action was filed.
  Thus, in order for defendants to obtain the privileges of victim 
information disclosure as required in H.R. 1927, asbestos companies 
would also be required to report information about their asbestos-
containing products.
  Without the Jackson Lee Amendment, H.R. 1927 is one-sided.
  If passed without this balanced approach, H.R. 1927 maintains the 
rights of asbestos defendants to demand confidentiality of settlements 
and protects an asbestos defendant's right to continue to hide the 
dangers of their asbestos products from asbestos victims and the 
American public.
  A typical asbestos defendant who settles a case in the tort system 
demands confidentiality as a condition of settlement in order to ensure 
that other victims cannot learn how much they paid or for which 
asbestos products the defendant is paying compensation.
  These same defendants now want the victims to disclose specific 
settlement amounts with the trusts, along with product exposure 
information and work history, that they do not themselves provide nor 
would have provided before the trusts were created.
  If transparency were the true goal of this bill, then why doesn't the 
bill require settling defendants to reveal information important to 
public safety and health?

[[Page 222]]

  The asbestos health crisis is the result of a massive corporate 
cover-up.
  For decades, asbestos companies knew about the dangers of asbestos 
and failed to warn or adequately protect workers and their families.
  Now, the same industry responsible for causing this crisis is asking 
Congress to protect them from liability.
  At the very least, this bill should require asbestos defendants to 
reveal information about their asbestos products, where they are in 
use, and how many Americans continue to be exposed to those products.
  Trust information is already public.
  Trusts already disclose far more information than solvent defendants 
do about their settlement practices and amounts--the settlement 
criteria used by a trust and the offer the trust will make if the 
criteria are met are publicly available in the Trust Distribution 
Procedures (``TDP'') for that trust.
  Trusts also file annual reports with the Bankruptcy courts and 
publish lists of the products for which they have assumed 
responsibility.
  If asbestos victims are going to be forced to reveal private medical 
and work history information in a public forum, to the very industry 
that caused their harm, asbestos defendants should at least be required 
to reveal which of their products contain asbestos and how many people 
are being exposed.
  H.R. 1927 seeks to override state law regarding discovery and 
disclosure of information.
  State discovery rules currently govern disclosure of a trust 
claimant's work and exposure history.
  The bill's proponents offer no explanation as to why the bill's 
potentially costly and burdensome information request provision is 
necessary or why Federal law should subvert state discovery processes.
  If such information is relevant to a state law claim, a defendant can 
seek and get that information according to the rules of a state court.
  What a defendant cannot do, and what this bill would allow, is for a 
defendant to engage in fishing expeditions for irrelevant information 
which has no use other than to delay a claim for as long as possible.
  Thus, H.R. 1927 must be amended to apply to defendants who should be 
required to reveal important information about their asbestos-
containing products.
  Lastly, let me add that the asbestos defendants would not be required 
to disclose trade secrets under this amendment.
  The asbestos defendants would only be required to disclose 
information about which of their products contain asbestos, where they 
are in use, and how many people are being exposed.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment would not force asbestos defendants to 
reveal industry trade secrets or place them at a competitive 
disadvantage in the marketplace.
  Instead, this amendment ensures transparency from both the asbestos 
victims and asbestos defendants since transparency is the stated goal 
of the bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
  I ask for my amendment to be supported.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chairman, with all due respect to the 
gentlewoman from Houston, who is my friend, the requirement of the FACT 
Act does not require that the settlement amount be disclosed. What it 
does require to be disclosed is the minimal amount of information that 
we believe is necessary to help prevent fraud, that is, the name of the 
claimant and the basis of exposure and the nature of the claim. It 
specifically protects all sorts of private information, in addition to 
the protections already built into the Bankruptcy Clause.
  I guess the veterans groups are divided on that. Ms. Jackson Lee 
listed out a group, and we have entered into the Record a list of 
veterans groups and other groups that support it.
  Of most interest to the gentlewoman from Texas should be the Texas 
Coalition of Veterans organization, which represents more than 600,000 
Texas veterans, supports this because they know that our young 
servicemen and -women that were exposed to asbestos and have not yet 
manifested the symptoms of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related 
diseases need to have these trusts in place so that there will be money 
to compensate them because they can't sue the Federal Government over 
sovereign immunity. This protects the veterans and makes sure there is 
money for future claimants.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1130

  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kline) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________