Blake Farenthold

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, April 10th marks a very special day for the United States and Taiwan. It was on this day in 1979 that the Taiwan Relations Act was enacted as United States law that codifies the relationship between Taiwan and the United States. It outlines our relationship with Taiwan regarding trade, cultural exchanges, and security among other important areas. In addition to the Taiwan Relations Act, the Six Assurances also guides the relationship between the United States and Taiwan. In 1982, three years after the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act, the ``Six Assurances'' of the United States to Taiwan were given by then President Ronald Reagan. Both the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances have guided our relationship with Taiwan for more than 30 years. We celebrate the 38th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act by thanking Taiwan for its great friendship and its support as a beacon of democracy in East Asia. I also noticed that Chinese President Xi is visiting the United States. It is our hope that the upcoming Trump-Xi meeting is constructive as U.S. engagement of the PRC is important to the peace and stability of the region. It is also our hope and insistence that US-Taiwan relations and Taiwan's security and interests are not in any way compromised. We are so proud of Taiwan's accomplishments over these thirty-eight years and look forward to ever further strengthening our economic relations with Taiwan in the future.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, soldiers from south Texas were instrumental in the United States victory during World War I. With the 100th anniversary of World War I quickly approaching, I would like to take a minute to thank our veterans, especially Texas veterans, for protecting our country. In 1916, thousands of National Guardsmen were stationed along the Mexican border. When tensions began to calm, 3,500 soldiers were moved to Corpus Christi, where the city prepared a 200-acre site that later became Camp Scurry. By 1917, the camp was closed after the border remained quiet for nearly a year. Once the United States entered World War I, the camp was reactivated and became a training base for the 4th Field Artillery Regiment and the 5th Engineer Battalion. Through the draft, nearly 200,000 Texans served in the military during the war, and 450 Texas women worked as nurses. Today, now, we must remember the 5,000 Texans who died during the war, including seven Gold Star women nurses. Also, a special thank you to the Nueces County Historical Society for hosting the World War I Centennial Commemoration on April 6. Their work helps preserve our south Texas history. The Important Relationship Between the United States and Israel

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to highlight how important our relationship with Israel is, and how our ally in the Middle East is a huge asset to our Nation and the world. Israel is a beacon of democracy in a sea of turbulence. It is a success story of enterprising spirit and indomitable will. I was fortunate enough to visit Israel in 2011 and saw firsthand the high level of strategic cooperation between the United States and Israel militarily, businesswise, technologywise, and socially. Almost 32 years ago, the U.S. signed its first-ever free trade agreement with Israel, leading to almost $40 billion in trade annually. Israel makes up more than 40 percent of all investment in the United States from the Middle East and north Africa, and has companies listed on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange, more than any other country other than the United States and Canada. The ``Start-up Nation'' has given the world the USB flash drive, the first PC CPU, voice over IP phone system, and just recently, Intel acquired Israeli driver-assistance company, Mobileye, to help develop better autonomous vehicles. Israel's drip irrigation technology has helped millions around the world grow crops on land that otherwise would be barren, and Israeli doctors have made medical discoveries improving the lives of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of folks worldwide. The U.S. and Israeli militaries also maintain a high level of cooperation and support. Our two nations regularly hold joint exercises and work side by side in developing new technologies, including missile defense systems, weapons technologies, and more. Situated in an extremely hostile neighborhood, Israelis share a unique understanding of the threats posed by Islamic terror groups. Through cooperation, we are constantly monitoring and defeating new threats to both nations. I have been heartened to see the renewal in U.S.-Israeli relations since President Trump took office and hope to see them continue to flourish. I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 1697, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act; H.R. 1698, the Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act; and H. Res. 218, Recognizing the importance of the United States-Israel economic relationship and encouraging new areas of cooperation. While many around the world are eager to point fingers and attempt to delegitimize or destroy the State of Israel, it is important--now more than ever--that we stand strong with our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, under current practice, if a veteran or beneficiary is appointed a fiduciary by the VA, they are automatically labeled as mentally defective and added to the FBI's background check system which prohibits them from purchasing a firearm. This rule fails to identify which beneficiaries have a mental illness that make them a danger, instead instituting a blanket ban on anyone who needs help managing their benefits, and it discourages veterans who need help from seeking help. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act will prohibit the VA from considering a beneficiary just because they are assisted by a fiduciary as mentally defective without due process. Just because you have trouble managing your finances doesn't mean you are dangerously mentally ill. This discourages veterans who may need help from seeking help. We owe it to our veterans and to all Americans to protect the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and ensure that they are not taken away without due process. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since this bill was marked up in the last Congress, the very same plausibility standard used in this bill was adopted by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in which fraudulent joinder cases arise with the greatest frequency. Last Congress, Ranking Member Conyers said of the bill, it should simply pick one of the existing articulations in the fraudulent joinder standard and codify that into law. At the time, the plausibility approach was applied by some district courts, but just last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the same plausibility standard this bill contains in a case called International Energy. The Fifth Circuit stated: We must consider whether the plaintiff pleaded ``enough facts to state a claim to relieve that is plausible on its face.'' The plaintiff in that case petitioned for rehearing en banc, but the rehearing was denied, with not a single judge on the Fifth Circuit requesting a vote. In just the last year, district courts in the Fifth Circuit have issued more than 40 fraudulent joinder decisions without much difficulty and with the results that indicate just the sort of reasonable reform that would occur nationwide when we get this bill passed into law. So this is about making the system work and opening the door to the Federal courts so companies from foreign states are not unfairly, potentially disadvantaged. The other piece of this that is easy to neglect is the local defendant. I don't know if the gentleman across the aisle has ever been sued. I have friends who have been sued. It is an emotionally and financially devastating procedure. You have got to take time off from your life and business to defend it. You have got to hire a lawyer, which is incredibly expensive. This is to protect the innocent third parties and open the doors to the Federal courts and just make it fairer and easier. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not about protecting big corporations. This bill is about protecting the small-business owner or the employee who is fraudulently joined into a case who has to go out and hire his or her own lawyer. I remember something my law school professor once told me back in the day at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas, and it stuck in my mind ever since: When you get sued, you may be able to beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. It is expensive, it is emotionally draining, and it is time consuming. I have no problem at all, and this bill is not designed to protect corporations. It is designed to protect, just as its name states, innocent parties. These are people who are joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction. We are just changing the standard slightly to one adopted by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to make it much more fair to these innocent parties. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, in the gentleman from Georgia's example, this bill wouldn't apply at all. If my grandmother were assaulted in a nursing home, I would certainly sue the nursing home company. I would also join the person who actually did it who most likely definitely will be a resident of the State that the lawsuit was going in. There would clearly be a plausible cause of action against that tortfeasor. Mr. Chairman, I didn't practice personal injury law. I was an agriculture lawyer. But this would be an easy case for me to prove in his example. We are not trying to protect anybody who has done something wrong. We are trying to protect people who are joined into a lawsuit solely for the purpose of forum shopping. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this really is about trying to stop bringing phony cases in. You are bringing phony defendants in, and that is what we are trying to stop. We have got to be fair about this. It is not often that we have the opportunity to protect innocent local folks and businesses from costly and meritless lawsuits. This is an opportunity to rein in forum shopping and abuses by trial lawyers and hold them to a good faith standard in litigation. We can do that by passing a bill that is just a few pages long. That is the opportunity we have today. All this bill does--all this bill does--is say that innocent, local parties--mostly small businesses--can't be added to a lawsuit for forum shopping purposes, and it only prohibits this when there is no plausible case against these small businesses or the case against them isn't brought in good faith. Who could argue with that? Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be roundly opposed for the simple reason it doesn't protect any victims, but it also victimizes local parties in the types of cases covered by the amendment. The purpose of the underlying bill is to allow judges greater discretion to free innocent local parties--that is, innocent people and innocent small businesses--from lawsuits when those innocent local parties are dragged into a case solely because a plaintiff's attorney wants to do some forum shopping. These innocent local parties have, at most, an attenuated connection to the claims made by the trial lawyer against some national company a thousand miles away. These innocent local parties shouldn't have to suffer the time, expense, and emotional drain of a lawsuit when the plaintiff can't even come up with a plausible claim. The base bill protects these innocent local parties from being dragged into a lawsuit as a party just to keep the case in State court. Now, let's bring in this amendment, which denies the bill's protection to innocent local parties adjoined to a lawsuit simply because the legal allegations in the case fall into one arbitrary category and that one is in another. It is terribly unfair. This amendment would allow these things to happen to innocent people in the name of allowing trial lawyers to scuttle the hydraulic fracking industry through lawsuits. Innocent people are innocent people, and they should be protected against being dragged into lawsuits regardless of the nature of the case. This doesn't deny anybody access to the courts. It protects innocent parties from being dragged into a case for forum shopping. Every single one of the gentleman's cases will be heard in court. They will have their day in court and they will have justice based on the facts. This bill does not protect wrongdoing corporations. This bill protects people who are dragged into a lawsuit strictly for procedural purposes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get sucked into a debate of hydraulic fracking. Being from Texas, we might have a whole difference of opinion on that. But I do want to point out, with respect to this bill, it doesn't deny anyone access to courts, it doesn't deny anyone access to justice regardless of what claim. I don't think it is fair we take out one particular claim or not one particular claim. That seems to go against fundamental fairness as well. This bill is all about fairness. It is about fairness to keep people from being dragged into court solely because a plaintiff's attorney needs a local defendant to avoid diversity jurisdiction. I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment continues to victimize innocent local parties just because they happen to be in an insurance case. The underlying bill is designed to protect folks from being dragged into a lawsuit just to facilitate forum shopping by plaintiffs' attorneys. The purpose of this bill is to allow judges greater discretion to free these innocent local parties. They are the ones that are suffering as a result of this. This amendment denies the bill's protection to innocent local parties joined to a lawsuit simply because the legal allegations in the case fall into one arbitrary category rather than another, just like the previous amendment. It is terribly unfair. Innocent people are innocent people, and they should be protected from being dragged into a lawsuit regardless of the nature of the case. The rules we have developed in this great country to protect the innocent are rules of general application, such as the rules protecting people's rights to have their side of the story told and the rules protecting people from biased or inaccurate testimony. We should all be appalled by the suggestion that these general protections designed to protect innocent people from criminal liability should be suspended because the case is one of assault and battery or murder or somehow relates to insurance. It is the same kind of logic. Our country is rightfully proud of its principles providing due process and equal protection, but these concepts are meaningless if they are only selectively applied to some type of cases and not others. And for the same reason, we should all be outraged at the suggestion that the rules of fairness, designed to protect the innocent, should be suspended in civil law cases because a case involves one particular subject matter or another. But that is exactly what this misguided amendment does. This amendment would allow a plaintiff's lawyer to drag an individual insurance adjuster into a lawsuit even when the applicable State law makes it absolutely clear that only insurers, not individual people, are subject to bad faith claims. How does the sponsor explain this to a person like Jack Stout, why a lawyer pulled him into a bad faith lawsuit targeting State Farm? Mr. Stout was a local insurance agent who merely sold a policy to the plaintiff, met and spoke with the plaintiff once, and had nothing to do with processing the plaintiff's homeowner's insurance claim. A Federal District Court in Oklahoma found he was fraudulently joined and dismissed the claim against him, but under this amendment, the innocent person would have been stuck back in the lawsuit. What about a person like Douglas Bradley, where the plaintiff's lawyer named him as a defendant in a bad faith lawsuit against an insurer? In that case, the complaint included Mr. Bradley, an insurance agent, as a defendant in the caption of the case. It referred to defendant, singular, not defendants. Throughout the entire pleadings, it didn't even mention his name. A Federal District Court in Indiana dismissed this claim against him as fraudulently joined, but under this amendment, this innocent person would have been stuck back in the lawsuit. It is not fair, it is expensive, and it is emotionally draining to these innocent parties. For that reason, I urge opposition to the amendment and support of the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to address the fact that there have been numerous hearings on the FACT Act and the problems associated with it. There was one hearing before the Judiciary Committee on the Constitution on September 9, 2011. There were three legislative hearings before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law, one during the 112th Congress, one during the 113th Congress, and one during the 114th Congress. I am sure the gentleman's staff could have gotten him copies of those. I also point out that the minority used these opportunities to call witnesses that were representatives of the plaintiffs' asbestos trial bar. They called the attorneys to voice their concern about the bill, not the victims. In fact, the minority called the same witness for three out of the four hearings. Now they claim that asbestos victims were never provided an opportunity to testify. The Judiciary Committee has provided ample opportunity to include asbestos victims' views on the legislation in the record, and there are many letters and statements from victims in the record. In closing, I do want to say--going back to the class action part of this bill for a second only--that only the tiniest fraction of consumers in class actions bother to claim the compensation awarded them in the settlement. That is clear proof that the vastly large number of class members are satisfied with the products they have purchased, don't want compensation, and don't want to be lumped into a gigantic class action lawsuit. Federal judges are crying out for Congress to reform the class action system, which currently allows trial lawyers to fill classes with hundreds and thousands of meritorious claims and use those artificially inflated classes to force defendants to settle the case. As I recounted, class action settlements have left lawyers with millions of dollars while victims receive absolutely nothing or a coupon, at best. The bill prevents people from being forced into class actions with other uninjured or minimally injured members only to have the compensation of injured parties reduced. It requires that lawyer fees be limited to a reasonable percentage of the money injured victims actually receive. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I also want to talk a second about the FACT Act. We hear these stories about these corporations that did all of this wrong. Many of them are bankrupt, and the only money available to the victims are the money that has been set aside in these asbestos trust funds. When an unscrupulous attorney makes a claim against multiple trusts or files claims in Federal court and State court, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find out if that claim has already been made. The FACT Act makes that easily available while providing privacy necessary to protect the victims. The FACT Act is designed to protect the future victims and make sure there is money there for the children, for the veterans, for the hardworking Americans who are injured by asbestos but whose symptoms have not yet manifested. Sometimes these asbestos-related diseases take decades to show up, and there needs to be money there to take care of those folks. That is what this legislation is intending to do, not to protect corporations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that provides much-needed reform to the class action system and to the asbestos trust system. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials to H.R. 985.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, recently an independent research firm surveyed companies in 26 countries and found that 80 percent of those companies that were subject to class action lawsuits were U.S. companies, putting those U.S. companies at a distinct economic disadvantage when competing with companies worldwide. But the problem of overbroad class action 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 incredibly low. That would be 0.023 percent. That is two-hundredths of a percent. That is right, only the tiniest fraction of consumer class action members bother to claim the compensation awarded them in a settlement. 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 ginormous class action lawsuit. Federal judges are crying out for Congress to reform the class action lawsuit system, which currently allows trial lawyers to fill classes with hundreds and thousands of unmeritorious claims and use those artificially inflated claims to force defendants to settle the case. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has recognized that ``A court's decision to certify a class . . . places pressure on the defendant to settle even unmeritorious claims.'' Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, appointed by President Clinton, has explained that class certification ``is, in effect, the whole case.'' And as one appeals court judge, nominated by President Obama, wrote in his dissent in a recent class action case, ``The chief difficulty we confront in this case arises from the fact that some of the members of the class have not suffered the . . . injury upon which this entire case is predicated and that could constitute as many as 24,000 consumers who would have no valid claim against the defendants under the state laws even if the named plaintiffs win on the merits.'' He went on to chastise the other judges who allowed the class action to proceed, writing ``if the district court does not identify a culling method to ensure that the class, by judgment, includes only members who were actually injured, this court has no business simply hoping that one will work.'' The purpose of a class action is to provide a fair means of evaluating similar, meritorious claims, not to provide a way for lawyers to artificially inflate the size of a class to extort a larger settlement fee for themselves, siphoning money away from those actually injured, and increasing prices for everyone. Just look at an accounting of recent class action settlements. The SUBWAY food chain was sued in a class action because trial lawyers complained their foot-long subs weren't a full foot long. As part of the settlement, small amounts were paid to the 10 class representatives, but the millions of other class members received nothing; not a dime, not a sandwich. Meanwhile, the lawyers were awarded $520,000 in fees. The settlement was appealed, and during oral arguments Judge Diane Sykes remarked that ``A class action that seeks only worthless benefits for the class should be dismissed out of hand. That's what should have happened here. . . . This is a racket.'' The Coca-Cola Company was sued in a class action lawsuit involving Vitaminwater. Class members received zero dollars in the settlement. The lawyers were awarded $1.2 million in fees. In a case involving Facebook, the company agreed to settle the case by paying class counsel $3 million. Zero dollars were paid to class members. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the deal, but in a withering dissent, Judge Kleinfeld observed that ``Facebook users who had suffered damages . . . got no money, not a nickel, from the defendants. Class counsel, on the other hand, got millions.'' This bill includes several reforms. It prevents people from being forced into a class with other uninjured or minimally injured class members, only to have the compensation of injured parties reduced. It prevents trial lawyers from using incestuous, litigation-factory arrangements to gin up lawsuits. It requires courts to use objective criteria in determining who is injured in a class action and how compensation will actually reach the victims. It requires that injured victims get paid first, before the lawyers, and that lawyer fees be limited to a reasonable percentage of the money received by victims. It requires judges to itemize exactly who gets what in a class action settlement and who is paying and controlling the lawyers. It requires all the rules governing class action be followed, that expensive pretrial proceedings be put on hold while the court determines if the case can't meet class certification requirements, and allows appeals of those class certification orders so justice can be done faster. It ensures lawyers don't add plaintiffs just for forum shopping purposes, and it requires the verification of allegations in multidistrict pretrial proceedings, ensuring defendants receive due process while plaintiffs, not lawyers, get the benefits of any cost savings achieved by the multidistrict pretrial process. H.R. 985 also contains provisions to include much-needed transparency into the asbestos bankruptcy trust system. On too frequent an occasion, by the time asbestos victims assert their claims for compensation, the bankruptcy trust formed for their benefit has been diluted by fraudulent claims, leaving these victims without their entitled recovery. The reason that fraud is allowed to exist within the asbestos trust system is the excessive lack of transparency created by plaintiffs' firms. The predictable result of this reduced transparency has been a growing wave of claims and reports of fraud. This bill strikes the proper balance of transparency and preserving the dignity and medical privacy of asbestos victims while also minimizing the administrative impact on the asbestos trusts. This bill saves the money in these trusts, which is a limited amount of money, to make sure future claimants, many of whom are veterans, have the opportunity to seek and receive compensation for their injuries and prevent double-dipping and fraud. Please join me in supporting this bill on behalf of consumers and injured parties everywhere. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleague across the aisle that over the past several Congresses, we have had multiple hearings on class action reform and asbestos trust litigation, all of which are easily and publicly available. I further would like to go on to say this bill doesn't prevent any claim from being brought as a class action--zero, zip, none. All it does is maximize the recovery of the victims. Under this bill, a class action lawyer's fees are pegged to a reasonable percentage of the money actually received by the client under the settlement. What that will do is incentivize lawyers to make the maximum amount available to their clients, to seek the maximum recovery for their client. Under this bill, class action lawyers will no longer be able to agree to settlements that give them millions of dollars and get their clients absolutely nothing, or maybe a coupon, if they are lucky. Under this bill, a class action lawyer will get more in fees as long as they agree to a settlement that actually means that their clients, the actual plaintiffs, are getting a reasonable amount of money. Imagine that: incentivizing lawyers to do the best work for their clients. That is what this bill does. I would also like to talk for a second about the asbestos portion of this. I have to say that this is a little troubling for me. The disclosure requirements in the FACT Act portion of this bill requires less than would be required in a State court pleading for damages. It is the minimum amount of information necessary to make sure somebody isn't double-dipping. It specifically protects medical records and social security numbers. It is designed as a fraud prevention tool. The argument that this is designed to protect companies that manufactured asbestos is flawed. This is designed for the asbestos trust--companies that have gone bankrupt and set aside large amounts of money to be paid to the victims of asbestos. This protects the assets in those trusts, not the tortfeasor companies. We are making sure there is enough money in these trusts to pay future victims by stopping fraudulent claims today. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Clearly there are two groups of individuals who we are not fearful will commit fraud. It is our Nation's veterans and servicemembers. At the same time, there is no reason to distinguish between the disclosure obligation of veteran servicemembers and the disclosure obligations of ordinary citizens. This FACT Act provision is designed to protect veterans from fraud and make sure our future veterans who are exposed and other people who are exposed in their jobs to asbestos have the resources available because the company that actually made the asbestos is most likely bankrupt and out of business now. There are finite resources in these trusts, and we owe it to our servicemembers and to future victims of asbestosis or mesothelioma to make sure there is money there to take care of their medical bills and compensate them for the injuries. That is the purpose of the FACT Act portion of this bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am going to have to beg to differ with my colleague from across the aisle. Fraud has been documented in news reports, State court cases, and in testimony before the Judiciary Committee. The Wall Street Journal conducted an investigation that found thousands of dispiritedly filed claims. Court documents in many States, including Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Virginia, attest to widespread fraud. Most recently, a bankruptcy case in North Carolina uncovered a startling number of dispiritedly filed claims. Additionally, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony over the course of four hearings about the FACT Act, during which witnesses repeatedly testified that fraud existed within the asbestos trust bankruptcy situation. Keep in mind that the fraud reported today has been in spite of the lack of disclosure that exists. Consistent with other multimillion-dollar compensation programs, there is fraud occurring in the asbestos trust system, and the FACT Act will go a long way to uncovering that fraud. The FACT Act is designed to provide the minimum amount of transparency necessary to prevent this fraud while protecting the personal information of those victims of asbestos. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, the FACT Act is designed to require increased transparency to combat fraud committed against asbestos trusts. This amendment strikes the requirement that asbestos trusts publish the very data that is necessary to detect fraud between the trusts and State tort proceedings. In its place, this amendment calls for only a quarterly report with an aggregate list of demands received by the trusts. The simple aggregation of information is worthless in allowing parties to make a meaningful inquiry into whether or not they are being defrauded. This amendment guts the bill, and I urge opposition. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.