Blake Farenthold

Mr. FARENTHOLD

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.

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 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.

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

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. 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. 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 belive 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.

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

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. 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.

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.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

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

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, the FACT Act requires increased transparency to combat fraud committed against the asbestos trusts. This amendment strikes the requirement that the asbestos trusts publish the very data that would be necessary to detect the fraud between the trusts and State court tort proceedings. In its place, the amendment calls for quarterly reports under the bill to publish only aggregate lists of demands received and aggregate lists of payments made by the trusts. Simple aggregation of information is not enough to allow defendants and State court parties and sister asbestos trusts to make meaningful inquiry into whether or not they are being defrauded. The amendment also removes the requirement that the asbestos trusts respond to information requests from parties subject to asbestos- related suits and imposes the cost of such requests on the inquiring parties. The cost-shifting element of this provision is significant. In fact, a GAO report found that one asbestos trust had to pay over $1 million to respond to a discovery request. Rather than have asbestos trust money used to comply with discovery requests, they should be preserved for the payment to the victims of asbestos-related illnesses. This amendment not only guts the transparency requirements and elements of the bill, it also removes meaningful cost-saving measures. In fact, the bill is carefully crafted to protect folks' privacy. Here is what happens: The legislation ensures that claimants' confidential medical records and full Social Security numbers will not be made public. Trust reports are also subject to the Bankruptcy Code's existing privacy protections. Section 107 of the code, for example, allows courts to protect any information that would present an undue risk of identity theft or injure a claimant if disclosed. Rule 9037 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court, would also apply to these public reports. The rule would allow the courts to require redactions of personal and private information. Finally, rule 9037 will allow the courts to limit or prohibit electronic access to the trust reports. Courts throughout the country already use these rules to protect the personal information of individuals who file claims during asbestos bankruptcies. For example, the court, in overseeing a Garlock bankruptcy, redacted trust claims information that was introduced into a hearing record and later released to the public. Other courts have required anyone reviewing bankruptcy claims to agree to strict protective ordinances. Witnesses at the House Committee on the Judiciary on the FACT Act have explained that the bill does not threaten asbestos victims' privacy and that asbestos claimants routinely disclose more information than the trust would be required to report in the course of tort litigation and bankruptcy proceedings. For these and other reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Nadler amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Chair, I think we are going down a rabbit trail here. I agree with Mr. Nadler. This bill is designed to protect victims. It is not intended to increase the burdens or the cost on the victim. It does require the trusts to publish the name and the basis of the claim of folks who claim trust so that they are not double-dipped and pay more than one claim for the same person. That is what we are trying to do here. As we start to get into the additional information, that is further down the road. That is not part of the disclosure requirements of the FACT Act. But once the litigation proceeds and we have determined that somebody has filed a claim and they are in another court, the further information requested would normally be part of that proceeding and then would fall under the Bankruptcy Code rules. The disclosures of the FACT Act requirements from the asbestos trust are very limited: name and the nature of the claim and where they were exposed. That is less information than you have to release when you file any sort of tort case in a State court. It is basically what we consider to be the bare minimum in order to allow defendants to sniff out the possibility of double-dipping and fraudulent claims. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I am stunned by how many people apparently have not read this 3-page bill. Nowhere in the bill does it say we are going to release addresses. Nowhere does it say we are going to release medical records. It is simply the name, the basis of the claim, and exposure. Furthermore, this is designed to protect victims, especially children. There needs to be money in these trusts for future claims. We want to help the children, not the plaintiffs' attorneys. This amendment is wholly unnecessary. If you look at rule 9037 of the Bankruptcy Code, by default, unless the court orders otherwise, information about a minor is restricted to only releasing, in any case, the last 4 digits of the Social Security number, the year of the individual's birth, the minor's initials, not the minor's name, and the last four digits of the financial account number. This motion to recommit is just a waste of time and it is unnecessary. It is already covered by the Bankruptcy Code. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Boy Scout Troop 3 in Corpus Christi, Texas, that is celebrating 100 years of Scouting. The Scouts is a wonderful organization for our youth. It teaches them new things. It helps them build self-esteem, learn teamwork, self- sufficiency, and the importance of helping others. From the beginning of Troop 3 in 1916, the Scouts have always been of service to our community and the country. During World War I, members of the troop sold war bonds. After the devastating 1919 hurricane, the Scouts of Troop 3, along with National Guard units, went door to door to compile an accurate list of casualties. The Scouts have contributed many hours of service throughout our community. During the hurricane, they did mosquito control and distributed foods and blankets. Today Troop 3 continues to be active in community service projects completed and many have benefited from the service projects completed by Eagle Scout candidates in the troop. On this upcoming 100th anniversary, Troop 3 can take pride in its traditions and contributions to our community. Troop 3 and the First United Methodist Church of Corpus Christi, Texas, are a great asset to our community, our State, and our country.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to honor the memory of the millions of babies that have been killed by abortion in the 43 years since the Supreme Court's poorly reasoned, and I wrote down here appalling, but I heard one of my colleagues use the word barbaric, and I think that is the right word, barbaric ruling in Roe v. Wade. There are those who argue that life begins at birth. They are wrong. Life begins at conception. Anyone who has seen a precious baby in the womb on a sonogram cannot help but agree with me on this. One of the most moving events of my life was when I went with my wife and saw the first sonogram picture of my first daughter, Morgan. I still have the videotape of that. A printout is in my memory box in Corpus Christi. It was one of the most moving experiences. You know, I know lots of Members of Congress, a lot of them are here today, and they feel the same way as I do, that human life is something special, something sacred, and it begins at conception. But, unfortunately, there are not enough of us to override a Presidential veto of the legislation like we passed in this House defunding Planned Parenthood. There are not enough of us to get a constitutional amendment to the States saying that life begins at conception. But we have got to continue to fight. It is our duty, it is our moral duty, to defend the unborn. It has been 43 years since Roe v. Wade. It is my prayer it is not another 43 years before America comes to its senses and respect for life, all life, becomes the law of the land again.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my sincere congratulations for the leadership of President Ma Ying-jeou of the ROC (Taiwan) in pursuing peace and prosperity of the region. The leaders of the two sides met in Singapore on November 7, which was the first such summit since 1949. President Ma elaborated on the ``1992 Consensus'' in his opening and closed door remarks, aiming to consolidate the common and critical foundation of the cross-Strait relations. The State Department expressed ``the United States welcomes the meeting between leaders on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and the historic improvement in cross- Strait relations in recent years''. Again, I would like to take this opportunity to applaud President Ma for his peaceful approach. Taiwan is indeed a beacon of democracy in East Asia.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 90 seconds. This bipartisan amendment would allow trucks with current weight exemptions to be allowed to continue to operate at those higher weight exemptions after certain segments of highways in Texas are reclassified and redesignate as Interstate 69. This language will not increase truck weights, nor will it allow for weight exemptions for new trucks. This is a narrow amendment that does not include new trucks. It only allows those that are currently operating to continue to operate. In the last omnibus, the State of Kentucky was able to include this exact language for their State whose industries were facing this exact problem. This amendment models Kentucky's language, except that it includes Texas highways. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add it is not just the forestry industry as well. Various farm and ranch, cotton industries, in certain areas, especially in south Texas, as U.S. Highways 77 and 281 are becoming Interstate 69, is making it very difficult for the very concrete trucks necessary to make improvements to those roads to travel on that road. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank Chairman Shuster for his work on this bill and his not opposing this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise because September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. Every year countless children are diagnosed with different cancers, altering their lives forever. Fourteen-year-old Kaitlyn Jankovsky of Corpus Christi was diagnosed last year with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Although her cancer and treatment have been a challenge, Kaitlyn has shown great tenacity in her fight against cancer. Our country should take inspiration from children like Kaitlyn and thousands of others living with cancer every day. It is why I have introduced H. Res. 102 to designate a day in September as National Pediatric Bone Cancer Awareness Day. Today we wish Kaitlyn and all the other children living with pediatric cancer well. Treatment and survival rates for pediatric bone cancer have remained virtually unchanged for a quarter of a century. For Kaitlyn and other children, let's start changing that.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 104th national day of the Republic of China, or ROC, which most of my fellow Americans know as Taiwan. Double Ten Day commemorates the Wuchang Uprising, the event that triggered a revolution that rippled from southern China and led to both the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty and the establishment of the ROC on January 1, 1912. With our country's entry into World War II, we joined forces with the ROC and the other Allies to defeat the Axis, and this year, our two countries have observed the 70th anniversary of the end of that war. In the decades that followed, our two countries stood together as we faced common enemies during the Cold War, and this unshakable relationship weathered the challenges posed by the change in our diplomatic relations from Taipei to Beijing. In recent decades, Taiwan has created a democracy that, since 1996, has conducted direct presidential elections every four years and witnessed the peaceful passage of power from one political party to another on two occasions, transforming into an example to other nations in the region and beyond that aspire to democracy. It is a regional and global economic force, and makes global contributions culturally in fields from art to fashion. Through our shared security partnership, Taiwan also contributes to the security of the Asia-Pacific, and is a humanitarian force around the globe. As a member of Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in wishing the people of Taiwan a Happy Double Ten Day, and in thanking Taiwan for its many contributions to the global community.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, during the recent Presidential debates Carly Fiorina called and dared President Obama and Hillary Clinton to watch these appalling videos. I realize we only have a few minutes left, but I want to dare Members on the other side to watch these videos, too. There are computers in the cloakroom where they can watch them. If they want to send one taxpayer dime to Planned Parenthood after watching it, shame on them. There are much better places to send it, like these community health centers created under President Obama's bill. There are lots of places women can go for health care, not just Planned Parenthood. Go watch the videos.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 758, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, commonly called LARA, sponsored by my good friend and colleague from Texas, Mr. Lamar Smith. The legal system in the United States needs to driven by justice, not by dollars. Right now, there are too many lawyers out there throwing their money at frivolous lawsuits to manipulate and abuse the system. No one should be able to abuse our system. It is simple to file a lawsuit, and you can cost the defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars on a frivolous claim going through discovery and going through all of the legal processes. That simply isn't right. LARA ensures that judges impose monetary sanctions against lawyers who file these frivolous lawsuits, including the costs of attorneys' fees incurred by their victims. It prevents bad lawyers from using the judicial system as a weapon and provides justice for those who have been abused by these attorneys. By passing LARA, these attorneys will no longer be able to exert power over their victims with these suits that are not based on facts or in law, but are merely intended to scare or extort money out of the victims. I remember when I was in law school in Congressman Smith's hometown of San Antonio, Texas, and one of the professors in one of my classes said something that has stuck with me for all these years about a lawsuit: You may be able to beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride. LARA helps with that. You are not going to be able to stop the emotional roller coaster ride the defendant and his family, his partners, his employees, his friends all go through as a result of the lawsuit that is frivolous, but you will be able to beat some of the cost of that ride by holding the attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits responsible for that. That is what we need to do. Frivolous lawsuits drain victims of their money and damage their reputations. Let's stop them before they start by putting the lawyers at risk for filing frivolous lawsuits. In many countries, there is a loser pay system. We are not proposing we go that far here in the United States, but we do want justice for those who are victims of clearly frivolous lawsuits, and this legislation will make sure that that happens. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, when I got on the plane to return from Texas yesterday, I felt like it was a done deal--the Iran deal was going to happen. But guess what. Conservatives in the House came together with a better idea, fueled by hundreds of folks out on the lawn when Senator Ted Cruz was speaking. We have come up with a solution that will at least possibly stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. It is the bill we have got coming up, which points out that the President has not met his requirement. The entire deal, together with the side agreements, puts the President and the banks and businesses that are doing business with Iran--and who might start to do that--on notice that they are potentially civilly and criminally liable. We are going to use the judicial branch of the government to help keep America safe. As I read on one of the signs on the lawn yesterday: What part of ``death to America'' do you not understand? The Iran deal is a bad deal, and it needs to be stopped, and we are fighting here in the House of Representatives to do that.