Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte.

Quite frankly, I am personally offended by the claim that this bill is against victims. It is for the victims. It is preserving the asbestos trusts for those yet undiscovered victims from people who would defraud the system.

This is a simple, short two-page bill. We are asking for no more information than you have to supply when you file a lawsuit in any court. We are asking for your name and the basis of your claim. We are asking that the expenditures be listed of the trust in a method that people can check to make sure somebody isn't claiming twice for the same injury so we don't have double dippers.

This is for the victims. We are going to try to stop unscrupulous attorneys and folks they rope in from filing false claims. We don't want to stop anybody who has a legitimate claim.

The asbestos trust has been riddled with fraud. It even comes down to Corpus Christi, Texas, the district I represent, where there were early cases where a Federal judge, Janis Jack, a Clinton-appointee and a friend of mine, ruled there was fraud with doctors. The courts are dealing with that.

We are trying to deal with multiple claims and bring simple transparency. We are not asking for detailed medical information to be released. We are just asking for the basis of the claim, and that is pretty simple information.

We are not asking for Social Security numbers. We are not asking for any financial information, other than the amount that is being claimed. This is public record in any other lawsuit in the country, and it is not an invasion of privacy. It is a protection of the system that was set up to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related exposure diseases that don't manifest for years after the exposure. We have got to protect this for future generations.

The FACT Act is a simple, two-page bill that leverages all the privacy protections already in the Bankruptcy Code and simply asks that we know who is getting what out of these trusts so they can't get them from multiple trusts for the same injury or they can't file a claim in State court. It is to try to stop double dipping and fraud.

Unfortunately, when they were set up, there weren't enough safeguards in place to run by plaintiffs' attorneys, who get percentages of compensation off of that. So we are trying to get this taken care of. The plaintiffs' attorneys have a big impact in creating and managing these trusts, and we are just trying to get some simple oversight.

Mr. Bachus put it quite well when he said that sunshine is the best disinfectant. We are asking to shine the light of day on these claims so we can protect future victims. We don't want to deny anybody who is a legitimate claimant what they are entitled to. We want to get them compensated and make sure there is enough money there for everyone.

This is a bill for the victims. It is a bill to stop fraud, waste, and abuse.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to address some claims that my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made.

The FACT Act is simple. There are two pages of text to the FACT Act. There is no requirement of any action whatsoever by the victims of asbestos. The trusts are the only ones that are required to do something. Let me just read to you exactly what the requirement is. It doesn't include a broad release of personal information. It is very simple:

A trust described in paragraph 2 shall, subject to section 107, file with the bankruptcy court not later than 60 days at the end of every quarter a report that shall be made available on the court's public docket with respect to such quarter. It describes each demand the trust has received from a claimant, including the name, exposure history of a claimant and the basis for any payment from the trust made to such claimant, and it does not include any confidential medical record or the claimant's full Social Security number.

All we are asking for in this bill is that the trusts let us know who they are paying the money to and what they are paying it for so we make sure people don't double dip so that there is plenty of money there for future claimants.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. How do you determine claimants individually with that level of information that you just described?

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It gives you their names and potentially a part of their Social Security numbers.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It is not their full Social Security numbers. It is not their confidential medical records. It is the basis of their claims.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Part of your medical record goes into that public file; is that not correct?

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It is a limited basis of the claim.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. So the gentleman is incorrect.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It is not part of the medical record. It is just the basis of the claim. It would be simply: claiming mesothelioma from exposure at ``this'' location. It is that basic information that would allow other courts to determine that the person who is making the claim is not double dipping, that he has not already made that claim.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to address. Listen, all well-managed trusts, nonprofits, and businesses should have an internal audit procedure to detect fraud within that organization.

What we are trying to combat with the FACT Act is fraud between organizations, where an unscrupulous attorney or claimant will file multiple claims with multiple trusts, or in State court and in Federal court, in bankruptcy court, and with the trust. So an

[Page: H7026]

auditor for one trust is going to have no idea what is going on in State court or in other trusts. This is a red herring to get us away from the purpose of this bill: to protect victims by preserving the funds that have been set aside to compensate victims from waste, fraud, and abuse.

This is a victims' rights bill that the proponent of this amendment, I believe, is trying to undermine with an amendment that would exempt most trusts because, as I said, any well-run organization ought to have internal and external audit procedures in place.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment that undermines the purpose of the bill and support the FACT Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The point I am trying to make is that the existing victims have been compensated, and I am glad they are compensated; but there isn't an organization in place for people who don't know they have the disease.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source