Blake Farenthold

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 102, 103, and 104, I missed votes due to district business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, on January 28, President Ma Ying-jeou of the Republic of China (Taiwan) visited Taiping Island in the Nansha Islands ahead of the Lunar New Year to see the guards and medical staff stationed there. He unveiled ``the South China Sea Peace Initiative Road Map'' which could be applied as a reference to the parties concerned in the region. The content of the South China Sea Peace Initiative Road Map is stated as below: ``1. ``Yes'' to cooperation, ``no'' to confrontation: A cooperation and development mechanism that contributes to peace and prosperity in the South China Sea should first be established, and sovereignty disputes should be set aside for future resolution through peaceful means. 2. ``Yes'' to sharing, ``no'' to monopolizing: A cooperation and development mechanism should ensure equal participation and resource sharing among all parties concerned in the region in order to avoid undermining the rights and interests of any party. 3. ``Yes'' to pragmatism, ``no'' to intransigence: The initial focus should be on aspects which are beneficial to all parties concerned and on which consensus can be easily achieved; various cooperation items should be pragmatically and gradually promoted so as to avoid missing out on cooperation opportunities as a result of any party insisting on its position. The viable path consists of shelving disputes, integrated planning, and zonal development. The two essential elaborations are: First, all parties concerned in the region should be included in the consultation mechanism for this initiative so that they can engage in cooperation and negotiations on integrated planning for the South China Sea. Second, the cooperation and consultation mechanism proposed in this initiative should be a provisional arrangement of a practical nature, and should not undermine the position of any party concerned or jeopardize or hamper the reaching of a final agreement on the South China Sea.'' As a member of the Taiwan Congressional Caucus, I am glad to see that the national leader of Taiwan is willing to provide a peaceful approach to decrease the tension in this region.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, last weekend I attended the groundbreaking of the tallest cross in the Western Hemisphere and the second tallest cross in the world that is going to be built in Corpus Christi, Texas, my hometown, by the Abundant Life Fellowship under the leadership of Pastor Rick Milby. Wrought of five-eighths inch cold-rolled steel, the Corpus Christi cross will be visible for miles along Interstate 37 and to flights coming into and departing from the Corpus Christi International Airport. Standing at 210 feet tall, and possibly taller, depending on fund-raising success, the Corpus Christi cross will be the largest cross on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. Corpus Christi is the perfect setting for the tallest cross in the Western Hemisphere because Corpus Christi, translated from Latin, means ``the body of Christ.'' The cross, a symbol of hope, will be located directly across Interstate 37 from the Coastal Bend State Veterans Cemetery. What better location is there for a reminder that Christ died for our sins than next to the resting place of those who fought for our freedom. Good work, Pastor Milby, Abundant Life Fellowship, and everybody else in Corpus Christi supporting this project. God bless you all.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be removed as a cosponsor from both H.R. 1019 and H.R. 1401.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I don't know if any of them particularly are asbestos victims associations. But, again----

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 symptons. 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. 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. 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. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve 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. 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. 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. To recap, thed 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.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. FARENTHOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.