Date: 2016-01-08
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

The Air Force Sergeants Association. Vietnam Veterans Association. Jewish War Veterans of the USA. and others. these are the groups that are saying they are against this bill. The reason is because they are for the little guy. That is why they go to the battlefield and fight. I am standing here for the little guy. My amendment says let the big guys give you the same information and the little guys shouldnt even have to pay. if I might say. Let the big guys do it because they are the individuals who come and try to thwart the individuals. Madam Chair. let me express my appreciation to Chairman SESSIONS and Ranking Member SLAUGHTER for their leadership and for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order. Thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 1927. the "Fairness in Class Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015". The Jackson Lee Amendment #9 would provide a balanced approach to the bills disclosure requirements by applying the transparency rules in the bill equally to asbestos industry defendants. Specifically. this Amendment would require that an asbestos defendant seeking information from the trust about a plaintiff to first make available to the plaintiff and trust information about the median settlement amount paid by that defendant for claims settled or paid within 5 years of the date of the request. for the State in which the plaintiffs action was filed. Thus. in order for defendants to obtain the privileges of victim information disclosure as required in H.R. 1927. asbestos companies would also be required to report information about their asbestoscontaining products. Without the Jackson Lee Amendment. H.R. 1927 is onesided. If passed without this balance approach. H.R. 1927 maintains the rights of asbestos defendants to demand confidentiality of settlements and protects an asbestos defendants right to continue to hide the dangers of their asbestos products from asbestos victims and the American public. A typical asbestos defendant who settles a case in the tort system demands confidentiality as a condition of settlement in order to ensure that other victims cannot learn how much they paid or for which asbestos products the defendant is paying compensation. These same defendants now want the victims to disclose specific settlement amounts with the trusts. along with product exposure information and work history. that they do not themselves provide nor would have provided before the trusts were created. If transparency were the true goal of this bill. then why doesnt the bill require settling defendants to reveal information important to public safety and health? The asbestos health crisis is the result of a massive corporate coverup. For decades. asbestos companies knew about the dangers of asbestos and failed to warn or adequately protect workers and their families. Now. the same industry responsible for causing this crisis is asking Congress to protect them from liability. At the very least. this bill should require asbestos defendants to reveal information about their asbestos products. where they are in use. and how many Americans continue to be exposed to those products. Trust information is already public. Trusts already disclose far more information than solvent defendants do about their settlement practices and amountsthe settlement criteria used by a trust and the offer the trust will make if the criteria are met are publicly available in the Trust Distribution Procedures ("TDP") for that trust. Trusts also file annual reports with the Bankruptcy courts and publish lists of the products for which they have assumed responsibility. If asbestos victims are going to be forced to reveal private medical and work history information in a public forum. to the very industry that caused their harm. asbestos defendants should at least be required to reveal which of their products contain asbestos and how many people are being exposed. H.R. 1927 seeks to override state law regarding discovery and disclosure of information. State discovery rules currently govern disclosure of a trust claimants work and exposure history. The bills proponents offer no explanation as to why the bills potentially costly and burdensome information request provision is necessary or why Federal law should subvert state discovery processes. If such information is relevant to a state law claim. a defendant can seek and get that information according to the rules of a state court. What a defendant cannot do. and what this bill would allow. is for a defendant to engage in fishing expeditions for irrelevant information which has no use other than to delay a claim for as long as possible. Thus. H.R. 1927 must be amended to apply to defendants who should be required to reveal important information about their asbestoscontaining products. Lastly. let me add that the asbestos defendants would not be required to disclose trade secrets under this amendment. The asbestos defendants would only be required to disclose information about which of their products contain asbestos. where they are in use. and how many people are being exposed. The Jackson Lee Amendment would not force asbestos defendants to reveal industry trade secrets or place them at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. Instead. this amendment ensures transparency from both the asbestos victims and asbestos defendants since transparency is the stated goal of the bill. I urge my colleagues to Support the Jackson Lee Amendment. I ask for my amendment to be supported. I yield back the balance of my time.