H.Res. 403

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 403 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I think back to a time when I was a teenager and I came into the gallery, and I am convinced that I came in during a rule because the reading clerk was standing there, reading line after line after line of material I didn't understand at all, and I thought, Why in the world is line by line by line the legislation being read? Haven't the Members already looked at that legislation? Haven't they already had time to study it?

What I know now, Mr. Speaker, 3 years with the voting card of the people of the Seventh District of Georgia, is that the rule is the only piece of legislation in this entire body that has to be read word for word here on the floor of the House.

My colleague from Florida and I spend a lot of hours up there in the Rules Committee sorting those things out, but the rules matter. The process matters.

I will be able to confess to you, Mr. Speaker--and I think sometimes we get that process done a little better, sometimes we get that process not done quite so well, but today we have a rule that brings two very important pieces of legislation to the floor. This structured rule provides for H.R. 982, which is the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, the FACT Act; and it brings a closed rule for H.R. 2655, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I was just talking with a group about what the Rules Committee does, and I have talked about the importance of an open process and how closed rules don't give folks as much opportunity to express their views on the floor.

It is going to be a closed rule on the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, H.R. 2655, because for 11 days, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee solicited amendments from the entire body. It asked anyone who had any ideas about how to improve this legislation to submit those amendments so that we could consider them in the Rules Committee, and over that period of 11 days, Mr. Speaker, not one Member of this body offered any ideas about how to improve this bill. We would have liked to have made amendments in order for this bill, but none were submitted. So while we say this is a closed rule on H.R. 2655, it is only because no amendments were submitted to improve upon it.

Now on H.R. 982, the FACT Act, Mr. Speaker, we had five amendments submitted, all Democrat amendments. One was withdrawn. So there were only four that were in order for our meeting last night. One was confessed to actually just try to eliminate the effectiveness of the bill altogether. So we excluded that one because if folks don't like the bill, they can just vote ``no.'' They don't have to destroy the bill from within; they can just vote ``no'' on final passage. But all of the other amendments that were submitted we made in order. Now these are not amendments that I intend to support on the floor, Mr. Speaker, but I do think it is important that people's voices be heard.

So, again, three amendments are made in order. That is 75 percent of all the amendments that were submitted, and they are all amendments offered by my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. The Rules Committee thought it was important to make those amendments in order.

Now we will talk a lot, Mr. Speaker, in the debate that comes after the rule about the content of these bills. One deals with frivolous litigation and whether or not judges will be required to allow folks who had to defend against frivolous lawsuits to recover the costs of those suits.

Today, Mr. Speaker, if someone files a frivolous lawsuit against you, you can have that lawsuit tossed out, but you have to go back to the court a second time to recover all of the costs that it took you to have the frivolous lawsuit tossed out. It is a tremendous burden on small businesses in our Nation. This bill seeks to solve that.

The FACT Act, our asbestos litigation act, aims to provide some transparency to the asbestos trust funds. I don't know if you are familiar, Mr. Speaker, but when it was discovered all of the health damage done by asbestos, the lawsuits began immediately and would have driven every one of those companies that either used asbestos or produced asbestos into bankruptcy, leaving no money at all for victims who had health problems that they then sought compensation for.

So federally we created, within Federal bankruptcy courts, these asbestos trust funds that allowed these companies, these manufacturers of asbestos, these folks who utilized processes that included asbestos, to deposit money into a trust fund and not go out of business but to provide certainty that victims would be able to recover from those funds in the future.

There is some concern, Mr. Speaker, that the process, as it exists today, does not allow for folks to see who is getting those dollars and whether or not the victims who have the most urgent needs are receiving those dollars first. Our great concern, Mr. Speaker, is that when those trust funds are depleted, they are gone forever. As you know, asbestos- related illnesses often don't present themselves for years down the road, so we have a stewardship obligation to these trust funds to keep them protected for future claimants.

This bill requires a degree of transparency, a quarterly report from the trustees of these trust funds to see who is making claims on these funds, who is receiving claims out of these funds, again, just so we can be good stewards of those trust funds and ensure they are available for future years.

I don't sit on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, but I heard from the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee last night. I heard from the chairman of the full committee last night in the Rules Committee as we held a hearing on both of these bills. I am glad that we are able to bring them to the floor today, Mr. Speaker. Two bills, a structured rule. One rule is closed because no amendments were provided. The other bill is receiving 75 percent of all of the amendments that were submitted. Just one amendment was excluded by that rule.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I say to my friend that I absolutely share his passion for privacy protection. In fact, I had to leave a hearing we were having in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, Mr. Speaker, where we were looking at the ObamaCare Web site and talking to the chief information officers and the chief technology officers about how this Web site had gone live without having been fully vetted for security protections; talking about how, even as we sit here today, we have not fully run through those security processes.

I share the gentleman's concern. The gentleman is an attorney as well. I remember when I was in law school and they gave you access to the LexisNexis database when you showed up to law school. You could dial up anybody in the country. It is giving you a credit report and showing you Social Security numbers.

We really do have to have a national conversation, Mr. Speaker, about where we are headed. Those last four digits that were once my private knowledge are out there all over the Internet today. My birthday is broadcast everywhere on the Internet. My mother's maiden name is out there. All of those things that folks used to ask me to protect me have now become part of the public domain. And what the gentleman says about a need to focus on that and protect folks is absolutely right, and we absolutely need to do that.

There was only one amendment last night that was offered to deal with privacy. It was going to give a unique identifier to folks, instead of listing names, so that we could have the transparency to see if folks were trying to game the system and take opportunities away from future victims. That amendment was withdrawn. We didn't have an opportunity to talk about that.

But my great hope is that this bill will pass the House today and that we will be able to have a similar bill come out of the Senate. If regular order has a chance to prevail on Capitol Hill, conference committees will give us another chance to take a bite at that apple.

I think the gentleman brings up very real concerns; and, again, we will have an opportunity to talk about those today.

The gentleman says, Mr. Speaker, there are some bills that are just so bad, nobody wants to fix them. I want to say to the gentleman that I am sympathetic to that sentiment. There are a few that I could rattle off right now that are so bad, I wonder if it is even possible to fix them.

But the bill the gentleman was talking about was the bill to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, Mr. Speaker. When we had these penalties in place back for 10 years between 1983 and 1993, more than 70 percent of judges said that they utilized this procedure and that they awarded damages in frivolous lawsuits. Seventy percent of judges, Mr. Speaker, utilize this provision that we are trying to bring back into being to punish filers of frivolous lawsuits.

This is not a bill for Big Business, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that has been key voted by the National Federation of Independent Businesses. If you know NFIB--and I know most of my colleagues do--this is the trade association that represents the mom-and-pop shops, Mr. Speaker. These aren't the big, working-out-of-a-glass-building-downtown folks that you think are out to get the consumer. These are our friends and neighbors. These are folks who are employing our sons and daughters. These are folks who create most of the jobs in this country.

And they don't key vote a lot of bills, Mr. Speaker. You can go to their Web site--NFIB--and see the number of bills that they key vote. But they have picked this one out.

My colleague from Florida says that some people believe it is so bad that it can't be fixed. They have heard from lawyer association, after lawyer association, after lawyer association which says it doesn't like it, but we are hearing from the mom-and-pop shops which can't defend against it.

Understand, Mr. Speaker, that today, if a frivolous lawsuit is filed against you--and I don't mean ``frivolous'' because I think it is silly. There are lots of those out there. That is going to be a much higher number. I mean ``frivolous'' because the judge in the case says it has absolutely no merit on either the facts or the law. When the judge says it has no merit whatsoever, but you have had to pay to defend yourself against it, this bill says the fellow who filed it ought to make you whole.

Punitive damages are something we often hear about from the trial lawyer bar. This bill doesn't have punitive damages. This bill doesn't say, if you try to bankrupt the mom-and-pop company that is down the street from me, we are going to punish you. I think probably it should, but they didn't want to go that far. They said, if you are trying to destroy, with a frivolous lawsuit, the mom-and-pop company down the street, you have to make it whole. If a judge decides that your case has no merit--not a possibly of merit, but no merit--on either the facts or the law, the poor small business owner who is being harassed by that lawsuit should at least have the chance to be made whole at the end of that process. The National Federation of Independent Business-- small mom-and-pop shops--is who cares about this legislation.

Again, folks are going to vote ``yes,'' and folks are going to vote ``no,'' but I

think it is important that we say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the purview, those things that are important. The gentleman from Florida says, hey, there are more important things we could be working on. I happen to agree with him. There really are important things that we need to have on the floor of this House, but if you are the small business owner who is about to lose your entire lifetime of work because someone has filed a frivolous lawsuit against you, I promise you there is no more important bill in your life than the one that is before us today.

I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend who talks about sequester that I think that is an important thing. I happen to be the Rules Committee designee to the Budget Committee, and I happen to be the chairman of the Republican Study Committee Budget and Spending Task Force. In fact, we are having a meeting with Maya MacGuineas on the Fix the Debt campaign next Monday afternoon to talk about what those options are for dealing with long-term problems. The Budget Committee right now is in conference with the Senate, trying to find a way to restore funding to discretionary spending programs that we all believe have been ham-handedly reduced. Instead, they are trying to find savings on which we can agree on those long-term mandatory spending programs that rarely, Mr. Speaker, have an opportunity to see aggressive oversight, to see the things that can improve them, to see the things that can preserve their long-term fiscal viability.

I would say, finally, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Florida that, as the designee to the Budget Committee and as the chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force, I don't believe it is the failure to raise the debt ceiling that threatens America's credit rating. I think it is out- of-control spending that threatens America's credit rating. It only takes a stroke of a pen here for us to raise the credit limit to infinity, but I promise you that that is not in the best interests of the American economy.

We all know we have spending challenges in this country. We all know that we have made promises to veterans, to seniors, to the infirm, to the poor that we don't have the money to keep. I think that is immoral. If you don't want to help somebody, then say you don't want to help somebody, but do not promise someone that you will be there for him in his time of need and pull the rug out from under him when he needs the promise to be fulfilled the most. We can do better. This body has done better.

In 1983, Republicans and Democrats came together and extended the fiscal lifetime of Social Security by not doing things that hurt seniors in that day but by doing things that raised the retirement age for me--I was 13 at the time--from 65 to 67. That is a pretty modest step that made a big impact in the life of the Social Security trust fund.

There are big issues that we need to discuss here on the floor. I hope we will bring those issues to the floor. Our committees in the House moved things in a responsible way, step by step, throughout the summer. We could use a little partnership from the other side of the Hill, but I hope we will focus on what we have before us here today, Mr. Speaker--an opportunity to make a difference for future victims who are applying to the trust fund and an opportunity to make a difference today for small businesses which are being victimized by frivolous litigation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my colleague that I very much appreciate her concern about the family members of veterans.

So often, we craft a one-size-fits-all solution in this body, and if you want to care for your loved one at home, there is very little help for you. Now, if you want to institutionalize your loved one--if you want to dump your loved one off on the State--then we have a program for you, but if you want to nurture your loved one but you just need a little help, if you want to keep your loved one by your side but you just can't do it alone, there are very few opportunities that you have within our Federal system today. One exception to that is the PACE program, which was championed by Bob Dole back in the day, that allows you to bridge some of the different Federal programs that are available to you and to utilize those within your home, within your family, rather than having to institutionalize your loved one.

I don't think there is a man or a woman in this body, Mr. Speaker, who does not both have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for our veterans but who also feels a debt of service to our veterans. I will point out that we always talk about the hyperpartisan U.S. House of Representatives. We moved our Veterans Affairs' spending bill in this House back on June 4. On June 4, we passed it in this House with only four Members voting ``no.'' Talk about things that bring you together, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to divide you. That is the kind of commitment that this institution has to our veterans.

I can't tell you why we haven't been able to get that signed into law. I know the Senate has not yet acted on that bill. I think it would be something that would bring them together, too, and I would recommend that to them, but of the 435 Members of this body, only four Members voted ``no'' on our bill to try to fulfill that commitment in order to make sure our veterans--our returning men and women--have the kinds of resources that not just they deserve but that we have committed to them.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to this body there are actually more that my friend from Florida and I agree on than what we disagree on. I might not say that at a townhall meeting back home, but I will say that to you here, because at its core we all share a vision of what this Nation can be, what this Nation should be; but we do get mired in the rhetoric.

It is interesting that we have a bill today that those folks who represent mom-and-pop businesses say is so important to them they are going to make sure that every single Member of this House knows that they are keeping score on this and they want a ``yes'' vote on that legislation. Yet we have other bills here that the trial lawyers are saying are so important to them that they are going to write letter after letter after letter saying this is not in the best interest of the country, we should move in a different direction.

I will tell you, those are exactly the kinds of bills that we ought to be working on. Now, are there bigger-picture bills out there? Absolutely there are. I would like to see a bill that solves Social Security forever, where we end this business about Social Security is going to go bankrupt, and once and for all we solve that issue so no senior is ever concerned about that again.

We don't have that bill on the floor today. We have an opportunity to stop frivolous lawsuits.

I would like to see a bill on the floor that balances the Federal budget. I am old fashioned that way, Mr. Speaker. I think if you want to spend it, you ought to raise it. If you don't want to raise it, then don't spend it.

But we don't have that bill on the floor today. We have a bill to make sure that trust funds intended to protect victims of a horrible, horrible perpetration by industry have an opportunity to collect what little money there is left from those businesses that perpetrated those harms. I think we should support that bill today.

Mr. Speaker, one step at a time we really can make a difference. I have been reading with great dismay that some of the colleagues that I was elected with 3 years ago have decided they

are not going to run for reelection. They have been here 3 years, and they have found that while they came here to make America a better place, while they came here to serve the men and women back home, while they came here to make sure their children grew up with the same freedoms and opportunities that they grew up with, they have decided that it might not be happening.

We can and we must do better. In fact, we had a committee hearing last night. My colleague from Florida (Mr. Webster) said, I think ``comprehensive'' ought to be a dirty word. Comprehensive ought to be a dirty word, because when I hear ``comprehensive,'' Mr. Speaker, what I hear is we are throwing everything in, and the kitchen sink, and I want you to pass all or nothing on the House floor.

It doesn't have to be that way. I promise you if you put together a 2,000-page bill, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be parts of it that my constituency does not believe are in the best interest of America. But if we pass bills 10 pages at a time, 20 pages at a time, maybe even 30 pages at a time, Mr. Speaker, if we move one idea at a time, we get a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote from both sides of the aisle, we send it to the Senate, we pass it in the Senate, and the President puts a signature on it, we can make a difference.

I believe that that momentum matters. I hope we get a ``yes'' vote on the rule. I hope we get a ``yes'' vote on these underlying bills. I hope we get bills coming out of the farm bill conference. I hope we get bills coming out of the budget conference. I hope we get bills coming out of the Water Resources and Reform Development Act conference. I hope we move these things before we begin to build that momentum.

We are at a stumbling place, Mr. Speaker. There is an impediment in our way. I read some White House sources this week that said they recognize that we have not come through on the promise of ``if you like your insurance, you can keep it.'' They were looking for solutions, but they weren't going to come to Congress to look for solutions. They were going to look for administrative solutions, and they were going to try to fix it on their own.

As we have heard on this floor many times, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land; ObamaCare is the law of the land. An administrative branch shouldn't just be able to unilaterally change the law of the land. The Constitution gives that responsibility to us. We have got to step up and take responsibility for those things that the Constitution invests in us, and article III courts are one of those things. We are taking that responsibility up today.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity not to be Republicans and Democrats, but to be representatives of Americans in the greatest body in this entire land, the closest to the American people--the U.S. House of Representatives. We have a chance to announce our position, the House position, and move that to the Senate and then, lo and bold, we have an opportunity to work with the Senate not to adopt a Republican position or a Democrat position, but a congressional opinion, an article I constitutional opinion that we then march down Pennsylvania Avenue and say to the Executive, be he or she a Republican or a Democrat, this is what the people have to say; we need your signature on that. They can say ``yes'' or ``no.''

We have set up these roadblocks, Mr. Speaker, where it is not House and Senate; it is Republican and Democrat. It does not serve this institution well. It does not serve America well.

I hope we are going to have bipartisan votes on these two bills today, Mr. Speaker. We are exercising a constitutional responsibility to direct the courts. We can vote ``yes,'' we can vote ``no,'' but it is not something that is peripheral to what we are about. It is something that is essential to the responsibilities that the Constitution has placed with us.

I promise my colleagues this institution will be a better institution if we pull out that rule book called the United States Constitution more often and start with those priorities that it has invested in us, not the priorities that some interest group has invested in us, not the priorities that the news media has invested in us, not the priorities that a Republican Party or a Democratic Party have invested in us, but the priorities the United States Constitution invests in us, we will restore the faith of the American people in this institution.

These two bills do that, Mr. Speaker. I encourage a strong ``yes'' vote on the rule that has made in order all of the amendments that were offered, save one. Let this body work its will. Support this rule. Support the underlying bill. Vote your conscience on the amendments to make the bills better if you want to, but let's get our constitutional responsibilities done.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 403, I call up the bill (H.R. 2655) to amend rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2655, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2655, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, would restore mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits filed in Federal Court.

Many Americans may not realize it, but today, under what is called rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no requirement that those who file frivolous lawsuits pay for the unjustified legal costs they impose on their victims. As a result, the current rule 11 goes largely unenforced. When there is no guarantee of compensation, the victims of frivolous lawsuits have little incentive to spend even more money to pursue additional litigation to have the case declared frivolous.

H.R. 2655 would finally provide light at the end of the tunnel for the victims of frivolous lawsuits by requiring sanctions against those who file them, sanctions that include paying their victims the full cost of their reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the rule 11 violation, including attorneys' fees.

The bill also strikes the current provision in rule 11 that allows lawyers to avoid sanctions by making frivolous claims and demands by simply withdrawing them within 21 days. This change eliminates the ``free pass'' lawyers now have to file frivolous lawsuits in Federal Court.

To be clear, under rule 11, a lawsuit is frivolous if it is presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation if it is not warranted by existing law or if the factual contentions have no evidentiary support. In other words, a lawsuit will only be found frivolous if it has no basis in law or fact.

Yet the current lack of mandatory sanctions leads to the regular filing of lawsuits that are clearly baseless. For example, in just the last year, a small business owner was sued for violations of Federal regulations in a parking lot that he doesn't own or lease. A woman had her car repossessed and then filed a $5 million Federal lawsuit for the half tank of gas she had left in the car.

A high school teacher sued a school district claiming it discriminated against her because she has a phobia--a fear of young children. Her case was dismissed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but that didn't prevent her from filing a Federal lawsuit.

These real yet absurd cases have real-life consequences for their victims who have to shell out thousands of dollars just to respond to frivolous pleadings, endure sleepless nights, and spend time away from their family, work, and customers. Let's not forget that the victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims.

Do any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that judges should have the discretion to deny damage awards to victims of legal wrongs proved in court? If not, why should judges have the discretion to deny damage awards to victims of frivolous lawsuits who prove in court that the case against them was frivolous?

It is difficult to see how a vote against the bill before us today could be interpreted as anything other than a denial that victims of frivolous lawsuits are indeed real victims. But indeed they are real victims, and they deserve to be guaranteed compensation when they prove the claims against them are frivolous in court.

Let's also remember that the victims of lawsuit abuse are not just those who are actually sued. Rather, we all suffer under a system in which innocent Americans everywhere live under the constant fear of a potentially bankrupting frivolous lawsuit.

As the former chairman of The Home Depot Company has written:

An unpredictable legal system casts a shadow over every

plan and investment. It is devastating for start-ups. The

cost of even one ill-timed abusive lawsuit can bankrupt a

growing company and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The prevalence of frivolous lawsuits is reflected in the absurd warning labels companies must place on their products to limit their liability. A 5-inch brass fishing lure with three hooks is labeled, ``Harmful if swallowed.'' A vanishing fabric marker with disappearing ink warns it should not be used as a writing instrument for signing checks or any legal documents. A label on a Scooter says, ``Warning: This product moves when used.'' A household iron contains the warning, ``Never iron clothes while they are being worn.'' And a cardboard sun shield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns, ``Do not drive with sun shade up.''

The potential for frivolous lawsuits are behind all these absurd warning labels which, while humorous in their own way, serve as a warning to us about what the world will increasingly look like if we don't make the rules more fair.

Today, absurd lawsuits can sometimes bring sanctions against those

who filed them; but even when they do, the current rules result in far too little compensation for the victims of the frivolous lawsuit.

In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama said:

I'm willing to look at other ideas to rein in frivolous

lawsuits.

Well, I hope the President has time to read this one-page bill and lend his support to a proposal that would significantly reduce the burden of frivolous litigation on innocent Americans.

I thank the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Lamar Smith, for introducing this simple, commonsense legislation that would do so much to prevent lawsuit abuse and restore Americans' confidence in the legal system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I did not think that, when I came down here today to debate this 1-page bill for Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, it would somehow get linked with the more than 2,000-page monstrosity popularly known, or unpopularly known, as ObamaCare, and told that somehow the promise that was made over and over and over again, that if you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it, was not the fault of the legislation itself, and the people making that promise, but was, rather, the fault of the insurance companies who have to deal with this more than 2,000-page monstrosity, and the more than 20,000 pages of regulations that have been written, and have to rewrite virtually every insurance policy for health care in America because of the mandates and the regulations that are in that legislation; and somehow, the more than 4 million Americans, almost all of whom are the little guys, as I have just heard referenced, that somehow this is the fault of the insurance companies who are doing what they have been required to do under the law, and that is to make changes in the law that necessitates changing all of their policies, that necessitates making sure that things that are mandated by the law are included in their coverage, whether the people who had the policies that they liked could afford these new changes or not.

So many, many Americans are forced, by this legislation, to seek new health insurance, in some cases, far more expensive, and they can't afford it. But somehow that is made out to be the fault of the insurance companies, not the people who wrote the law, voted for the law, and then are implementing the law in spite of promises that were made that cannot be kept, not by insurance companies who are abiding by the law, but by others.

Now, to compare that to this legislation, which is a 1-page modest bill, to ensure that people who are the victims of frivolous lawsuits and fraudulent lawsuits cannot have justice in our Federal judicial system, I think, is just plain wrong.

And the chart that has just been displayed regarding rule 11 filings during the 1983-1993 period, when there was an increase in the number of hearings related to rule 11, that is a spike for justice. That is a spike for the increased opportunity for people who have been subjected to some of the most outrageous lawsuits that were described by the gentleman from Texas, that were described in my opening remarks, and that is their opportunity to seek real justice.

That is what this bill is all about, reinstating a spike for justice for the little guy, for the small business person, the individual who finds himself subject to a lawsuit under some of the most ridiculous circumstances you can imagine and saying, you know what, my life has been turned upside down by this lawsuit. I am not getting sleep at night. I am having to spend thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys. I am having to do things to change the way I live my life, and it is all because of something that was frivolous and fraudulent, and now I am seeking to have some redress, some redress for that wrong that was done.

That is the very basic principle of the American jurisprudence system, that people, when they are harmed, have the right to go to court and seek redress of their grievances. And that is exactly what this provision in this law does under rule 11. It says that if the court finds that the lawsuit is frivolous, then there is a mandatory requirement that the individual who is the victim of that frivolous lawsuit should recover losses.

That is, indeed, what this legislation is all about, and I am proud to support it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, if that were the case, then I don't think the President would have unilaterally delayed for 1 year the employer mandate where the vast majority of Americans are.

Imagine if this bill had taken effect as originally planned, and all of the employers in America, looking at their insurance policies for their employees, were also having to tell their employees that they could no longer afford to provide insurance or they are going to provide a different plan, or the employee had to pay more money, or the employee was being put into the exchanges, all of those things would be significant, serious problems.

But we digress from the importance of this legislation right here, which is something that we can join together, in a bipartisan way, to see that we have justice in our judicial system when people are unfairly sued, unfairly subject to frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, what other sorts of legal claims should a victim be able to prove in court but be denied damages by the judge?

Well, you are in court. You have got a frivolous lawsuit. The court finds it is a frivolous lawsuit. You prove that you are the victim of that legal claim and you prove it in court, yet you can be denied damages by the judge.

What other legal remedy, what other legal claim would the gentleman cite other than frivolous lawsuits where that would be the case? Are there any others?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman to respond.

Well, I thank the gentleman for his comment.

And I would just point out that I practiced law during the time that the mandatory sanctions were in place in Federal court and found that it was a very good environment to do so. I was then elected to Congress and got here and found that, lo and behold, a small panel of judges changed that rule without looking at the evidence of a survey of Federal judges where 751 Federal judges found that an overwhelming majority believed--

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Federal judges found that an overwhelming majority of Federal judges believed, based on their experience under both a weaker and stronger rule 11, that a stronger rule 11 did not impede development of the law, 95 percent; the benefits of the rule outweighed any additional requirement of judicial time, 71.9 percent; the stronger version of rule 11 had a positive effect on litigation in the Federal courts, 81 percent; and the rule should be retained in its then current form. What we are attempting to reinstate into the law, 80.4 percent supported retaining the then-current mandatory sanctions under the law.

Mr. Speaker, this is about seeking real justice, and the fact of the matter is that, just like a judge could not deny well-founded damages in a lawsuit brought by an individual under a valid legal claim of any other kind, they should not be able to have the discretion to deny any damages when a frivolous lawsuit is proven and the expenses of having to undertake the defense of that frivolous lawsuit are made. And

yet time after time after time today, people do not even bother to do it anymore because of the low, low, low record of granting damages in findings of frivolous lawsuits since it was made discretionary, and the mandatory provision should be reinstated in the law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, raised the important issue of civil rights. It is absolutely important. And I share his concern that individuals who believe that their civil rights have been infringed in any way have the opportunity to bring actions in Federal court as long as those actions are not frivolous or based upon fraud. In fact, looking back during the time when we had mandatory sanctions from 1983 to 1993, the Federal Judicial Center, in its study, found that the imposition rate of sanctions in civil rights cases was not out of line with that in any other type of case.

Now, we have not rested there. When the committee marked up this legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) offered a bipartisan amendment which was added to the bill at the very end. I said it was a one-page bill. I am actually slightly mistaken. It is a one-and-a-third-page bill. And the one-third page that was added reads this way:

Rule of Construction--Nothing in this Act or an amendment

made by this Act shall be construed to bar or impede the

assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies

under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights

laws, or under the Constitution of the United States.

So this measure is carefully crafted to make sure that we are not harming people's rights to seek legitimate redress of grievances in our courts. What it is designed to do is to eliminate frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits. And from the evidence of the survey of Federal judges who worked for 10 years under the rule that we would instate again with the passage of this legislation, the overwhelming majority of them said they would not change the rule, and it is unfortunate that a small committee chose to move forward to make that change notwithstanding.

I would add, too, that those who claim that this is not about the little guy are overlooking the fact that small businesses are affected by frivolous lawsuits all the time. And the National Federation of Independent Business, which bills itself as ``the voice of small business'' and which represents hundreds of thousands of small businesses all across America, endorses this legislation. In fact, they wrote to us and said that 84 percent of National Federation of Independent Business members agree that attorneys should face mandatory sanctions if they bring forth a frivolous lawsuit. The NFIB urges you to support final passage of H.R. 2655 and will consider it an NFIB key vote in the 113th Congress.

So in terms of the little guy--both the small business person and the individual--this legislation is designed to protect individuals against frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits. And, as I pointed out in my dialogue with another Member a little while ago, I don't believe anybody can come forward and give me any other example where a legal claim is validly brought in court and the victim is able to prove that wrong was perpetrated and prove that there are damages resulting from that wrong and yet be denied those damages by the judge. I challenge anybody to come forward and show me that.

So why, if you have a process that says under rule 11--which it did say at one time and would say again with the passage of this legislation--that you have a right to a process to show and establish that a lawsuit is frivolous, why after you have done that wouldn't it be mandatory that the process take one step further and assess the appropriate amount of damages that would be due and owing that victim of that abusive lawsuit that suffers in all the same ways that other people suffer when they are the victim of abusive actions of other kinds that result in actions being brought in court?

So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion because the base bill makes sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits in Federal court mandatory.

Under rule 11, a lawsuit is frivolous if it is presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation, if it is not warranted by existing law, or if the factual contentions have no evidentiary support. In other words, a lawsuit will only be found frivolous if it has no basis in law or fact. As soon as the judge finds that any claim of any kind is founded in law or fact, then no claim for damages because of a frivolous lawsuit would lie.

Who here thinks that lawyers should be able to avoid any penalty when the lawsuit they file is found by a Federal judge to have been simply filed to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation? Or, when the Federal judge finds that the lawsuit is not warranted by existing law or to have no evidentiary support?

If you think lawyers should be able to get off scot-free when they file those sorts of frivolous lawsuits, vote for this motion to recommit. If you agree with me that the victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims and that they have to shell out thousands of dollars, endure sleepless nights, and spend time away from their family, work, and customers just to respond to frivolous pleadings, then you must oppose this motion to recommit.

When Business Week wrote an extensive article on what the most effective legal reforms would be, it stated what is needed are ``penalties that sting.'' As Business Week recommended:

Give judges stronger tools to punish renegade lawyers.

Before 1993, it was mandatory for judges to impose sanctions

such as public censures, fines, or orders to pay for the

other side's legal expenses on lawyers who filed frivolous

lawsuits. Then the Civil Rules Advisory Committee, an obscure

branch of the courts, made penalties optional. This needs to

be reversed . . . by Congress.

H.R. 2655, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, would do just that.

The specific language of the motion to recommit means that it literally immunizes from sanctions frivolous civil rights claims. That doesn't further civil rights; that sets them back, because the only claims that sanctions could be issued on would be claims for which there is no basis in law or fact.

That does not advance the cause.

I would add that the language in the motion to recommit adds, ``shall not apply in the case of any action brought under, one, civil rights laws, and two, the Constitution.'' That second provision, the Constitution, means that the motion to recommit covers every single lawsuit brought in any United States court in the land and any Federal court, and so it goes well beyond what is the stated intent of the motion to recommit.

A better way to look at this is to look at what the Federal Judicial Center found in its study when it looked at the imposition of the mandatory sanctions under rule 11 that existed from 1983 to 1993. It found that the imposition rate of sanctions in civil rights cases was not out of line with that in any other type of cases.

Furthermore, when this bill was drafted for this Congress--a very narrowly drafted bill, just 1\1/3\ pages long--we added a rule of construction for specific protection for valid, legitimate civil rights lawsuits that are based in law or fact.

It says in the rule of construction, as I said earlier:

Nothing in this act or an amendment made by this act shall

be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of

new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or

local laws, including civil rights laws or under the

Constitution of the United States.

That is the proper way to protect civil rights litigation. Meritorious civil

litigation founded in law or in fact. That indeed is what the legislation does, and that is why the House should reject the motion to recommit and pass the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 982, currently under consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of a bill that will help those asbestos victims that must look to the bankruptcy process to seek redress for their or their loved ones' injuries. Unfortunately, on too frequent an occasion, by the time asbestos victims assert their claims for compensation, the bankruptcy trusts formed for their benefit have 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. Due to a provision in the Bankruptcy Code, plaintiffs' firms are essentially granted a statutory veto right over a debtor's chapter 11 plan that seeks to restructure asbestos liabilities. Plaintiffs' firms have exploited this leverage to prevent information contained within the asbestos trusts from seeing the light of day.

The predictable result from this reduced transparency has been a growing wave of claims and reports of fraud. The increase in claims has caused many asbestos trusts to reduce the recoveries paid to asbestos victims who emerge following the formation of the trusts. For example, the T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition asbestos trust cut its recovery rate from 100 percent to 70 percent, and the Owens Corning trust sliced its recovery rate from 40 percent to 10 percent.

In addition, instances of fraud within the asbestos trust system have been documented in news reports, State court cases, and testimony before the Judiciary Committee. The Wall Street Journal conducted an investigation into asbestos trusts where it found, among other things, that hundreds of plaintiffs filed claims against asbestos trusts asserting one injury while simultaneously asserting a completely different injury before the State courts.

Reports directly from many State courts are uncovering similar conduct. For example, in Ohio, one judge described a plaintiff's case as ``lies upon lies upon lies'' after discovering that the plaintiff received hundreds of thousands of dollars from various asbestos bankruptcy trusts while alleging in court that a single product caused his illness. In Virginia, a judge stated that a similar case over which he presided was the ``worst deception'' he had seen in his 22-year career.

The FACT Act, introduced by Congressman Farenthold, will combat this fraud by introducing long-needed transparency into the asbestos bankruptcy trust system. The FACT Act increases transparency through two simple measures. First, it requires the asbestos trusts to file quarterly reports on their public bankruptcy dockets. These reports will contain very basic information about demands to the trusts and payments made by the trusts to claimants. Second, the FACT Act requires asbestos trusts to respond to information requests about claims asserted against and payments made by the asbestos trusts.

These measures were carefully designed to increase transparency while providing claimants with sufficient privacy protection. To accomplish this goal, the bill leverages the privacy protections contained in the Bankruptcy Code and includes additional safeguards to preserve claimants' privacy.

A State court judge with 29 years of bench experience described the privacy protections within the FACT Act as far stronger than those afforded in State court, where asbestos plaintiffs often pursue parallel claims. The FACT Act also was deliberately structured to minimize the administrative impact on asbestos trusts. Indeed, according to testimony before the Judiciary Committee from an expert on asbestos litigation and the asbestos trusts, preparing the quarterly disclosure requirements would be ``very simple'' and would ``take minutes.''

The FACT Act strikes the appropriate balance between achieving the transparency necessary to reduce fraud in an efficient manner and providing claimants with sufficient privacy protections. We cannot allow fraud to continue reducing recoveries for future asbestos victims. The FACT Act is a simple, narrow measure that will shed much- needed sunshine on a shadowy system.

I thank Mr. Farenthold for introducing this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to vote for the FACT Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), the author of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the mischaracterization of this legislation as it is somehow imposing burdens on the victims of asbestos. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

First of all, the information disclosed under the FACT Act is very basic and is less information than would be disclosed during the normal course of a State court lawsuit, in which many asbestos bankruptcy claimants pursue simultaneous claims, but they don't tell the bankruptcy courts about that, so these trusts need to tell them that.

Secondly, the FACT Act includes strong privacy protections, including prohibiting the disclosure of confidential medical records and full Social Security numbers. To be clear, the FACT Act does not require asbestos trusts to require or to disclose asbestos victims' Social Security numbers.

The FACT Act also leverages existing privacy protections in the Bankruptcy Code to give the presiding bankruptcy judge broad discretion to prevent the disclosure of information that would result in identity theft or in any other unlawful activity. Indeed, a judge with 29 years of bench experience testified before the Judiciary Committee that the FACT Act provides more protection in terms of the confidentiality of asbestos claimants' records than the legal system is able to do.

By requiring the disclosure of basic information regarding claims submitted to the asbestos trusts, the FACT Act will facilitate a reduction in fraud that will allow future asbestos victims to maximize their recovery, but they will not be able to do that if we continue to have money taken from these trusts for duplicative claims, fraudulent claims, and claims without merit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the mischaracterization of the process followed in the Judiciary Committee.

The FACT Act and the problems it addresses have been the subject of three separate hearings: one before the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on September 9, 2011, on the issue generally, and two legislative hearings before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law--one during the 112th Congress and another this year on March 13.

The minority used these opportunities to call witnesses who were representatives from the asbestos plaintiffs' trial bar to voice their concerns with the bill. In fact, the minority called the same witness for two out of the three hearings. Now they claim that asbestos victims were never provided an opportunity to testify. The Judiciary Committee provided ample opportunities to include asbestos victims' views on the legislation on the record, and there are many letters and statements from asbestos victims in the record as a result. Additionally, the committee offered a special procedure to asbestos victims in order to provide an occasion for the victims to personally inform Members and staff of their views, which they refused.

It has become necessary to act with expediency and move this important legislation forward. Each day that passes is a day on which fraudulent claims can be prosecuted against the asbestos trusts, thereby reducing the recovery to legitimate asbestos victims. This legislation will benefit victims by reducing fraudulent claims and by ensuring that asbestos trusts provide the maximum recovery to future asbestos claimants.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

In reclaiming my time, that is not accurate. The claimants were offered a process by which they could come and speak to the members of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have the time.

The minority had the opportunity to have an asbestos victim testify if they wished to do so and chose instead to have a plaintiff's attorney who had already testified in a previous hearing do so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself to respond to the allegation that fraud has not been documented.

Fraud has been documented in news reports, State court cases, and testimony before the Judiciary Committee. The Wall Street Journal conducted an investigation that found thousands of disparately filed claims. Court documents in many States, including Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Virginia, attest to widespread fraud.

Additionally, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony over the course of three hearings during which witnesses repeatedly testified that fraud existed within the asbestos trust bankruptcy system. Keep in mind that the fraud reported to date has been in spite of the lack of disclosure that currently pervades this system. The increased transparency the FACT Act introduces will go a long way in uncovering previously undetected fraud and preserving assets for future asbestos victims.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to close. If the gentleman from Michigan is prepared to close as well, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of assertions have been made by the other side of the aisle with regard to the FACT Act. Let's make clear what we are talking about here.

This is a bill that in its totality doesn't cover two full pages of double-spaced type in legislative language. It simply requires that trusts that have been established to preserve the assets of companies that have gone bankrupt and have paid funds into these trusts, that future claims, future real, legitimate claims, will have resources available to them when it is a known fact and established by testimony before the Judiciary Committee and by investigations in a number of publications, including The Wall Street Journal, and by reports from various State courts in more than a half-dozen States, of fraud, duplicative claims.

These are what we are concerned about, and this is simply good legislative reform for protection of these assets for future availability. Otherwise, these trusts, which are already reducing the amount that they can pay to legitimate asbestos victims, will run out of money altogether before all of the legitimate claims have been addressed.

That's what the purpose of this legislation is. The opponents of the FACT Act have offered creative and far-ranging allegations against a measure that only seeks to introduce a modest amount of transparency into an opaque system. We know these allegations to be unfounded. The allegation that it hurts asbestos victims is unfounded. We know this because by increasing transparency and deterring fraud, the FACT Act helps asbestos victims by protecting trust funds for future claimants.

The allegation there is no widespread fraud is unfounded. We know this because there has been fraud documented in news reports, State court cases, and before the Judiciary Committee.

I urge my colleagues to reject the unfounded allegations offered today by critics of the FACT Act, and vote in support of this simple transparency measure.

I might add, this does not in any way delay the claim of anyone with a legitimate claim, either in State courts or in the bankruptcy courts. What it will do is it will root out those who are making duplicative claims, who are trying to double dip at the same time there are people with legitimate claims that will not have any money available to them because, as we know, and as was mentioned by many of the speakers here today, asbestos is a problem that has affected many, many Americans, and it is something that can be latent for a long period of time. We want to make sure that those victims who come along at the end of this process, who discover late in their lives that they also suffer from mesothelioma and related cancers, and other diseases caused by asbestos, have the opportunity to recover, not just those who want to abuse this system by hiding their claims and not allowing proper discovery of duplicative claims and fraudulent claims.

I urge my colleagues to support this well founded, good legal reform.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would exclude asbestos trusts that have in place internal audit systems from the requirements of the FACT Act.

There has not been any evidence presented to establish that trusts with internal reporting systems are free from fraud. On the contrary, a GAO report found that trust audit processes are designed to ensure compliance with internal trust procedures, not to remedy the fraud that the bill seeks to address. Simply put, internal audits will not be able to detect whether disparate claims are filed among several asbestos trusts or in the State courts.

Excluding certain asbestos trusts from the FACT Act would eliminate critical sources of information that can facilitate the reduction of fraud. Furthermore, the amendment would not address the problem presented by plaintiffs who assert inconsistent allegations between the State court tort system and the asbestos trusts. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I simply would reiterate that the fact of the matter is that when you don't know who future victims are going to be and you make a claim that somehow this is going to enrich businesses when, in fact, the businesses are bankrupt and they paid their money into a fund, that this is in the interest of determining what people who have not yet made claims have and in the interest of justice in making sure that people who have false claims or duplicative claims and are making claims to more than one trust for different claims about the same illness or claims in State court, as well as in the bankruptcy court, need to be uncovered. That is what this seeks to do. If some victims are doing that, that is not a defense to this legislation, to say we shouldn't have transparency in the providing of benefits to people who have truly been harmed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, one of the principal issues discussed over the course of three separate hearings before the Judiciary Committee was the existing impediments to information contained in the asbestos trusts.

In particular, these impediments include obstacles that asbestos trusts institute against the prosecution of valid State court subpoenas for trust information.

The FACT Act addresses these issues by requiring affirmative, minimal disclosures from asbestos trusts and allowing for access to additional information at the cost of the requesting party. The amendment does not address these underlying problems and instead places broad additional burdens on defendants seeking to prosecute discovery requests in State courts. Specifically, it requires defendants potentially to comply with a host of unrelated requests from unknown parties. These defendants include small businesses that played a very minor role, if any, in asbestos manufacturing, but are the last wave of companies in the plaintiffs' firms never-ending search for a solvent defendant.

The burden this amendment imposes on a defendant is highly atypical, unnecessary, and would unduly impair a party's ability to assert a defense. The FACT Act, by contrast, provides transparency where previously it did not and provides defendants with the same access to information as plaintiffs. The legislation merely levels the playing field so all parties, including other asbestos trusts and State court judges, have access to the same information.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The FACT Act does not impose burdens on the victims of asbestos. It imposes a minimal disclosure requirement upon the trust, a disclosure requirement that will benefit both plaintiffs and defendants in various courts litigating asbestos claims.

Therefore, these new burdens that would be imposed by the defendant, which are substantial and onerous burdens, not the minimal informational disclosure that would help to identify duplicative claims in various courts, is a massive additional burden added to this legislation.

For that reason, I oppose the legislation, oppose the amendment, and urge my colleagues to join me opposing the amendment and supporting the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the FACT Act addresses a number of issues, including State court litigants' inability to obtain information from federally-supervised asbestos trusts and the general lack of disclosure that is allowing fraud to be committed against these trusts. The FACT Act addresses these problems by introducing transparency into the asbestos bankruptcy trust system.

The amendment dramatically undercuts the transparency provided under the bill by completely eliminating the quarterly reporting requirements. This removes an important and efficient disclosure component provided by the FACT Act and would eliminate sister asbestos trusts' access to information that is critical for the defense against fraudulent claims. Additionally, the amendment would place disclosure requirements on the State court party requesting information from the asbestos trusts. These disclosure requirements are unnecessary, unusual, and would severely constrain a party's availability to defend itself in State court litigation.

Plaintiffs and plaintiffs' firms already have the ability to gain access to the defendant's information through the traditional discovery process; however, it is the defendant's inability to gain access to information submitted to the asbestos trusts that has created an environment that is conducive to fraud. The FACT Act merely levels the playing field so all parties, including other asbestos trusts, State court litigants, and State court judges have access to this information and the same information.

I would point out that, when one brings a lawsuit seeking damages from another entity that they make a party to that lawsuit, they are not entitled to anonymity in doing so. The purpose of the complaint, the initial pleading filed in the lawsuit, is to disclose who it is that is seeking the damages and what damages they are seeking.

All we are asking for in this legislation is that trusts that have been entrusted with funds that are to be made available for the exclusive purpose of helping the victims of asbestos problems have the opportunity to have information that they would have if it were a normal plaintiff's filing in a lawsuit. That is what we seek to have disclosed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time in opposition to the amendment.

I just have to say that this amendment goes well beyond the scope of this legislation in terms of what it would do in terms of discovery in State courts and gathering various types of information that is already readily and easily discoverable in those proceedings, including, if necessary, in the bankruptcy court.

What it doesn't get at, and the FACT Act does, is information that is not otherwise available to all of the parties to all of those proceedings to determine whether there are duplicative claims, whether there are fraudulent claims, whether there are claims where one party is claiming to have the same disease caused by two different places of employment or having claimed the same disease caused by two different instrumentalities in two different places. That is what we need to know. That is why the FACT Act is necessary.

I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2655. I suggest that what we are doing here this afternoon will turn the clock back to a time when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discouraged civil rights cases, limited judicial discretion, and permitted satellite litigation to run wild. I repeat, we may turn the clock back to a time when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discouraged civil rights cases, limited judicial discretion, and permitted satellite litigation to run wild.

And here is how it accomplishes it, by undoing the 1993 amendments to rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by: one, restricting judicial discretion; two, requiring mandatory sanctions for even unintentional violations; and three, eliminating the current rule's 21- day safe harbor provision, which has been so beneficial to our Federal court system.

And so to put it as simply as possible, H.R. 2655 will have a disastrous impact on the administration of justice.

Now, how would this bill chill legitimate civil rights litigation?

Civil rights cases often concern novel issues which made them particularly susceptible to rule 11 before the 1993 amendments. I hope all the Members of this body appreciate how significant this is and the important history that was made during that earlier period of time.

For example, a 1991 Federal Judicial Center study found that the incidence of rule 11 motions was ``higher in civil rights cases than in some other types of cases.''

Another study showed that, while civil rights cases comprised about 11 percent of Federal cases filed, more than 22 percent of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases.

This legislation will also substantially increase the amount, cost, and intensity of civil litigation and create more grounds for unnecessary delay and harassment in the courtroom. Experts in civil procedure are virtually unanimous on this point.

By allowing rule 11 to be used as a tool to impose court costs on the other side, the 1983 version spawned a virtual cottage industry of rule 11 litigation. Each party had a financial incentive to tie up the other in rule 11 proceedings.

Professor Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell University has demonstrated that roughly one-third of all Federal lawsuits were burdened by satellite litigation during the period when this prior version of the rule was in effect. Attorneys had a double duty, he argued: ``one to try the case, and the other to try the opposing counsel.''

In recognition of these problems, the Judicial Conference amended the rule in 1993 to its present form. And so we should realize that we have the support and appreciate the constructive assistance of many of these organizations: the American Bar Association, the Alliance for Justice, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Consumers League, Public Citizen, and the United States Public Interest Research Group, among others.

In addition, the legislation is opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policymaking body for the judicial branch charged with proposing amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the careful, deliberate process outlined in the Rules Enabling Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the

Judicial Conference of the United States,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2013.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Conyers: We write to present the views

of the Judicial Conference Rules Committees on H.R. 2655, the

Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013.

As the current chairs of the Judicial Conference's

Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure (the

``Standing Rules Committee'') and the Advisory Committee on

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the ``Advisory

Committee''), we oppose H.R. 2655, which seeks to reduce

lawsuit abuse by amending Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The bill would reinstate a mandatory

sanctions provision of Rule 11 that was adopted in 1983 and

eliminated in 1993. The bill would also eliminate a provision

adopted in 1993 to allow a party to withdraw challenged

pleadings on a voluntary basis, without the costs and delay

to the challenging party of seeking and obtaining a court

order. The concerns we express are the same concerns

expressed by the Judicial Conference in 2004 and 2005, and by

the Standing Rules Committee and Advisory Committee in 2011,

when similar legislation was introduced.

We greatly appreciate, and share, the desire to improve the

civil justice system in our federal courts, including by

reducing frivolous filings. But legislation that would

restore the 1983 version of Rule 11 by undoing the 1993

amendments would create a ``cure'' far worse than the problem

it is meant to solve. Such legislation also contravenes the

longstanding Judicial Conference policy opposing direct

amendment of the federal rules by legislation instead of

through the careful, deliberate process Congress established

in the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2071-2077.

The 1993 changes followed years of examination and were

made on the Judicial Conference's strong recommendation, with

the Supreme Court's approval, and after congressional review.

The 1983 provision for mandatory sanctions was eliminated

because it did not provide meaningful relief from the

litigation behavior it was meant to address, and instead

generated wasteful satellite litigation that had little to do

with the merits of cases and that added to the time and costs

of litigation.

The 1983 version of Rule 11 required sanctions for every

violation of the rule. This mandatory sanctions provision

quickly became a tool of abuse in civil litigation. Seeking

to use mandatory sanctions to their advantage, aggressive

lawyers filed motions for Rule 11 sanctions in response to

virtually every filing in a civil case. Much time and money

was spent in Rule 11 battles that had everything to do with

strategic gamesmanship and little to do with underlying

claims. Rule 11 motions came to be met with counter-motions

that sought Rule 11 sanctions for making the original Rule 11

motion.

The 1983 version of Rule 11 spawned thousands of court

decisions unrelated to the merits of the cases, sowed discord

in the bar, and generated widespread criticism. As letters

from the Judicial Conference commenting on proposed

legislation similar to H.R. 2655 pointed out, some of the

serious problems caused by the 1983 amendments to Rule 11

included:

1. creating a significant incentive to file unmeritorious

Rule 11 motions by providing a greater possibility of

receiving money;

2. engendering potential conflicts of interest between

clients and their lawyers;

3. exacerbating tensions between lawyers; and

4. providing a disincentive to abandon or withdraw a

pleading or claim that lacked merit--thereby admitting error

and risking sanctions--even after determining that it no

longer was supportable in law or fact.

The 1993 amendments to Rule 11 were designed to remedy the

major problems with the rule, strike a fair balance between

competing interests, and allow parties and courts to focus on

the merits of the underlying cases rather than on Rule 11

motions. Since 1993, the rule has established a safe harbor,

providing a party 21 days within which to withdraw a

particular claim or defense before sanctions can be imposed.

If the party fails to withdraw an allegedly frivolous claim

or defense within the 21 days, a court may impose sanctions,

including assessing reasonable attorney fees. The 1983

version of Rule 11 authorized a court to sanction discovery-

related abuse under Rule 11, Rule 26(g), or Rule 37, which

created confusion. Under the 1993 amendments to Rule 11,

sanctioning of discovery-related abuse is limited to Rules 26

and 37, which provide for sanctions that include awards of

reasonable attorney fees.

The 1993 amendments to Rule 11 culminated a long, critical

examination of the rule begun four years earlier. The

Advisory Committee reviewed a significant number of empirical

studies of the 1983 version of Rule 11, including three

separate studies conducted by the Federal Judicial Center in

1985, 1988, and 1991, a Third Circuit Task Force report on

Rule 11 in 1989, and a New York State Bar Committee report in

1987.

After reviewing the literature and empirical studies of

problems caused by the 1983 amendments to Rule 11, the

Advisory Committee issued in 1990 a preliminary call for

general comment on the operation and effect of the rule. The

response was substantial and

clearly called for a change in the rule. The Advisory

Committee concluded that the cost-shifting in Rule 11 created

an incentive for too many unnecessary Rule 11 motions.

Amendments to Rule 11 were drafted by the Advisory Committee,

approved by the Standing Rules Committee, and approved by the

Judicial Conference. The Supreme Court promulgated and

transmitted the amendments to Congress in May 1993 after

extensive scrutiny and debate by the bench, bar, and public

in accordance with the Rules Enabling Act process.

Experience with the amended rule since 1993 has

demonstrated a marked decline in Rule 11 satellite litigation

without any noticeable increase in frivolous filings. In June

1995, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a survey of 1,130

lawyers and 148 judges on the effects of the 1993 Rule 11

amendments. About 580 attorneys and 120 judges responded. The

Center found general satisfaction with the amended rule. It

also found that a majority of the judges and lawyers did not

favor a provision that would require mandatory sanctions when

the rule is violated.

In 2005, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed federal trial

judges to get a clearer picture of how the revised Rule 11

was operating. A copy of the study is enclosed. The study

showed that judges on the front lines--those who must contend

with frivolous litigation and apply Rule 11--strongly believe

that the current rule works well. The study's findings

include the following highlights:

More than 80 percent of the 278 district judges surveyed

indicated that ``Rule 11 is needed and it is just right as it

now stands'';

87 percent prefer the existing Rule 11 to the 1983 version

or the version proposed by legislation (e.g., H.R. 4571 (the

Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004) or H.R. 420 (the Lawsuit

Abuse Reduction Act of 2005));

85 percent strongly or moderately support Rule 11's safe

harbor provisions;

91 percent oppose the proposed requirement that sanctions

be imposed for every Rule 11 violation;

84 percent disagree with the proposition that an award of

attorney fees should be mandatory for every Rule 11

violation;

85 percent believe that the amount of groundless civil

litigation has not grown since the promulgation of the 1993

rule (for judges commissioned before 1992) or since their

first year as a federal district judge (for judges

commissioned after January 1, 1992), with 12 percent noting

that such litigation has not been a problem, 19 percent

noting that such litigation decreased during their tenure on

the federal bench, and 54 percent noting that such litigation

has remained relatively constant; and

72 percent believe that addressing sanctions for discovery

abuse in Rules 26(g) and 37 is better than in Rule 11.

The findings of the Federal Judicial Center underscore the

judiciary's united opposition to legislation amending Rule

11. Lawyers share this view. In 2005, the American Bar

Association issued a resolution opposing a proposed bill

similar to H.R. 2655.

Minimizing frivolous filings is, of course, vital. But

there is no need to reinstate the 1983 version of Rule 11 to

work toward this goal. Judges have many tools available to

respond to, and deter, frivolous pleadings. Those tools

include 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e), which requires courts to

dismiss cases brought in forma pauperis that the court

determines are frivolous or malicious or fail to state a

claim, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A, which requires courts to

dismiss prisoner complaints against governmental entities,

officers, or employees that are frivolous, malicious, or fail

to state a claim. Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes courts to dismiss

pleadings that fail to state a claim on which relief can be

granted. Section 1927 of Title 28 of the United States Code

authorizes sanctions against lawyers for ``unreasonably and

vexatiously'' multiplying the proceedings in any case. And

the present version of Rule 11 itself provides an effective,

balanced tool, without the problems and satellite litigation

the 1983 version created.

In May 2010, the Advisory Committee held a major conference

on civil litigation, examining the problems of costs and

delay--which encompass frivolous filings--and potential ways

to improve the system. The Conference encouraged, and

generated, a broad spectrum of criticisms by lawyers,

litigants (including businesses and governmental entities),

judges, and academics of the current approaches to federal

civil cases, including the rules, and proposals for change.

Conspicuous in their absence were any criticism of Rule 11 or

any proposal to restore the 1983 version of the rule. Three

years after the Conference, the Advisory Committee and

Standing Rules Committee have approved publication of rules

amendments designed to respond to suggestions made at the

Conference on new means of reducing cost and delay in civil

litigation and enhancing practical access to the federal

courts. These three years of intense work did not find any

reason to consider Rule 11 amendments.

Undoing the 1993 Rule 11 amendments would frustrate the

purpose and intent of the Rules Enabling Act. Congress

designed the Rules Enabling Act process in 1934 and reformed

it in 1988 to produce the best rules possible by ensuring

broad public participation and thorough review by the bench,

the bar, and the academy. The Act charges the judiciary with

the task of neutral, independent, and thorough analysis of

the rules and their operation. The Rules Committees are

dedicated to extensive study and analysis of the rules,

including empirical research, so that they can propose rules

that will best serve the American justice system and will not

produce unintended consequences. Experience has shown that

this process works well.

In summary, experience, research, and thoughtful

deliberation have shown that there is no need to reinstate

the 1983 version of Rule 11 that proved contentious and

costly to litigants and diverted so much time and energy of

the bar and bench. Doing so would add to, not improve, the

problems of costs and delay that we are working to address.

We urge you on behalf of the Rules Committees to not adopt

the proposed legislation amending Rule 11.

Thank you for considering the Rules Committees' views. We

look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that

our civil justice system is working well to fulfill its vital

role. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact

Benjamin Robinson, Deputy Rules Officer and Counsel, at 202-

502-1820.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey S. Sutton,

U.S. Circuit Judge, Chair, Committee on Rules of Practice

and Procedure.

David G. Campbell,

U.S. District Judge, Chair, Advisory Committee on Civil

Rules.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a

senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior active member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Ted Deutch, a very effective member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Ladies and gentlemen, as we see now, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act will turn back the clock to a time when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discouraged civil rights cases and permitted satellite litigation to run wild.

I want to point out, in closing, that this is now the second day this week that the House is considering legislation aimed at solving a nonexistent problem that has little or no chance of seeing the light of day in the other body and is solely aimed at limiting access to justice for victims of egregious harms.

Just as I asked yesterday, who actually supports this legislation? Why are we putting their interests ahead of victims'? And why are we engaged in this charade when there are real problems facing our Nation that our constituents are still waiting for us to address?

With just 13 legislative days left this year, we still haven't considered immigration reform. We haven't passed a budget. We haven't considered a single piece of legislation that will create jobs and put America back to work. So really, whose interest is this House concerned with today? I urge my colleagues, oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, with all of the protests, I think there is nothing more that we can say other than that it is a

very cruel decision to move forward this particular legislation. It really implodes and violates the process of litigation between plaintiffs and defendants, petitioners and those who are in opposition, because we have an infrastructure of a court system that allows those who participate in that court system to guide the evidence that is being presented under the representation of their counsel.

The Sixth Amendment provides for individuals to have a right to counsel, and what this legislation is trying to do is implode that relationship and ask for information that could be given in the regular order of a court process.

This is intrusive legislation under the false guise of transparency and, in actuality, 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 diseases.

This cancer-driven disease, this asbestos-driven disease, is a silent killer. For a long time, the victims don't even know that they are being impacted by asbestos that is causing cancer.

We have witnessed decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos; and even after its hazards became widely known, disease and death still persist because people work in it and they do not know. And so they have been forced to hire counsel merely to provide for their families or themselves in the waning hours and days of their life.

Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have been exposed, suffered, or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease; and the toll continues. And yet we have legislation like this that wants to clearly undermine the legal system, the justice system, which means I go into a court, I have a lawyer, there is someone opposed to my position, they have a lawyer, and we submit information under the basis of that litigation or that settlement or that negotiation.

Why do Americans have to be subjected to another abuse while they are suffering and dying?

This is an abuse. H.R. 982 is asking for information that can already be gotten. As I indicated, these individuals have been exposed, suffered, or died from asbestos-related cancer. It is estimated that, each year, 10,000 people in the United States are expected to die from asbestos-related diseases. How much more of an outrage do we have to place on their families--and burdens--to ask them to give information about their sicknesses and other issues that are squarely within the realm of their counsel? Call up their lawyers and ask for it. This is an outrage that they have to deal with this onerous provision.

Time and again, asbestos victims have faced huge obstacles, inconvenient barriers, and veiled but persistent resistance to receiving compensation for their diseases. That is why they organized in the manner that they did. It is because they were dying, dying, dying, and there was no response.

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.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. How much more can we put on these poor victims? If you want information, go to their counsel. Go into the courthouse. They will provide it. Let's give them relief. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 982, the F.A.C.T. Act. This intrusive legislation which misuses the word ``transparency,'' 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 diseases.

We have witnessed decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, and, even after its hazards became widely known, disease and death still persist.

Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have been exposed to, suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease, and the toll continues. 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. 982.

Time and time again, asbestos victims have faced huge obstacles, inconvenient barriers, and veiled but persistent resistance to receiving compensation for their diseases and it is important to note that asbestos litigation is the longest-running mass tort litigation in the United States.

It is particularly galling 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 special legislation that allowed the asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy trusts to compensate asbestos victims and reorganize under the bankruptcy law.

But these trusts don't have adequate funding to provide just compensation, and according to a 2010 RAND study, the median payment across the trusts is only 25 percent of the claim's value. With compensation from these trusts so limited, asbestos victims have sought redress from the manufacturers of other asbestos products to which they were exposed--the 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 people become sick-- ordinary Americans who did extraordinary things to get this disease-- like go to work every day to support their families.

And although the proponents of this legislation assert that it is intended to protect asbestos victims, I have not heard of a single asbestos victim who has expressed support for the H.R. 982, the FACT Act.

As the widow of our former colleague Representative Bruce Vento (D- MN), who passed away from mesothelioma, stated H.R. 982 ``does not do a single thing'' to help asbestos victims and their families.

H.R. 982 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. 982, however, interferes with this longstanding process in two ways. The FACT Act would require these trusts to: (1) file a publicly available quarterly report with the bankruptcy court that would include personally identifying information about such claimants, including their names, exposure history, and basis for any payment made to them; and (2) provide any information related to payment from and demands for payment from such trust to any party to any action in law or equity concerning liability for asbestos exposure.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this utterly intrusive legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are here today for several reasons, and my friends on the other side of the aisle have their high calling and reasons of great merit that they argue, but I think we have a more devastating and prevailing reason that we are opposed to this legislation.

Frankly, as I indicated earlier in my remarks, there are thousands and thousands of asbestos victims who are suffering from lung disease or cancer. Many of them were diagnosed late. Many of them, unfortunately, have passed. Their families are still victims. They have lost everything that they have had in trying to treat them, and now we add what we are used to saying in the community: insult to injury.

We come with an enormously burdensome and unfair initiative. So today I rise to introduce an amendment that I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider because it is fair.

The amendment would apply the transparency rules that they are seeking from those victims who are barely receiving dollars out of a trust that is the final result of numbers of bankrupt companies. We are asking to equally apply these transparency rules to asbestos industry defendants by requiring asbestos companies to report information about the location of their asbestos-containing products; and the amendment, out of respect for trade secrets, will exempt that.

So today we are asking for transparency on both sides. H.R. 982 is one-sided in that it 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 the utmost confidentiality along with the right to file for bankruptcy as a condition of the settlement in order to ensure that other victims cannot learn how much they paid or for which asbestos products the defendant is paying compensation.

By no means do we want to help those who are hurting. We certainly don't want to give them a leg up by understanding what the process of compensation is.

These same defendants now, under this particular bill, want the victims to disclose specific settlement amounts with the trusts along with product exposure information and work history. How unfair is that? On my dying bed, I have to offer and find a basis of giving you a settlement, or my family has to give it to you in the midst of our crisis.

The asbestos health crisis is the result of a massive cover-up; therefore, we are asking today for simple fairness. If there is confidentiality on the defendant's part and they ask for information on those who are suffering, then I believe, minimally, defendants can give information about the location of the asbestos-containing products to ensure that our victims are not exposed any longer.

Furthermore, the trust information is already public, and I would ask why this bill is even necessary. And then the further point of controversy is that this bill seeks to override State law regarding discovery disclosure of information.

So I am asking my colleagues to be fair, to recognize the hurt and the pain, and to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which simply asks for those defendants, those companies, to give us the location of the asbestos-containing products.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee amendment which would require the Asbestos Industry to Report Information about Dangerous Asbestos Products.

What does the Amendment do?

The Amendment would apply the transparency rules in the bill equally to asbestos industry defendants by requiring asbestos companies to report information about the location of their asbestos-containing products. And the amendment includes a ``trade secrets'' exception.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

And the gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from

the great State of Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

I thank the distinguished gentleman for his important remarks.

Mr. Chairman, let me quickly say, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Ranking Member, you were superbly right. The plaintiffs in litigation have had their right of exchange of information. What our friends are trying to do on the other side of the aisle is to make the trusts, now, a courtroom where information is dragged out of the victim, but it is not asked for from the defendants, the ones who have filed for bankruptcy, the ones who have left the victims to suffer and to fend for themselves.

I ask my colleagues to make this fair and require the asbestos company to give us where the asbestos-remaining products are so that we can save lives. If there is transparency, if the FACT bill would be fair, they would then have information coming from both parties, not only the victims, the plaintiffs, but they would have it coming from the asbestos companies that have driven up the numbers of those suffering from lung disease and cancer.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, November 12, 2013.

Dear Representative: I am writing to express the strong

opposition of the AFL-CIO to H.R. 982, the ``Furthering

Asbestos Claim Transparency Act'' (FACT Act). This

legislation would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by

posting personal exposure and medical information online and

create new barriers to victims receiving compensation for

their asbestos diseases. The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose this

harmful bill.

Decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, even after its

hazards were known, have resulted in a legacy of disease and

death. Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members

have suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung

disease, and the toll continues. Each year an estimated

10,000 people in the United States are expected to die from

asbestos related diseases.

Asbestos victims have faced huge barriers and obstacles to

receiving compensation for their diseases. Major asbestos

producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared

bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability. In

1994 Congress passed special legislation that allowed the

asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy trusts to compensate

asbestos victims and reorganize under the bankruptcy law. But

these trusts don't have adequate funding to provide just

compensation, and according to a 2010 RAND study, the median

payment across the trusts is only 25 percent of the claim's

value. With compensation from these trusts so limited,

asbestos victims have sought redress from the manufacturers

of other asbestos products to which they were exposed.

The AFL-CIO is well aware that the system for compensating

asbestos disease victims has had its share of problems, with

victims facing delays and inadequate compensation and too

much money being spent on defendant and plaintiff lawyers. We

have spent years of effort trying to seek solutions to make

the asbestos compensation system fairer and more effective.

But H.R. 982 does nothing to improve compensation for

asbestos victims and would in fact make the situation even

worse. In our view, the bill is simply an effort by asbestos

manufacturers who still are subject to asbestos lawsuits to

avoid liability for diseases caused by exposure to their

products.

H.R. 982 would require personally identifiable exposure

histories and disease information for each asbestos victim

filing a claim with an asbestos trust, and related payment

information, to be posted on a public docket. This public

posting is an extreme invasion of privacy. It would give

unfettered access to employers, insurance companies, workers

compensation carriers and others who could use this

information for any purpose including blacklisting workers

from employment and fighting compensation claims.

The bill would also require asbestos trusts to provide on

demand to asbestos defendants and litigants any information

related to payments made by and claims filed with the trusts.

This would place unnecessary and added burdens on the trusts,

delaying much-needed compensation for asbestos victims. Such

a provision allows asbestos defendants to bypass the

established rules of discovery in the civil justice system,

and provides broad, unrestricted access to personal

information with no limitations on its use.

Congress should be helping the hundreds of thousands of

individuals who are suffering from disabling and deadly

asbestos diseases, not further victimizing them by invading

their privacy and subjecting them to potential blacklisting

and discrimination. The AFL-CIO strongly urges you to oppose

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.