the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 24. the nays are 195. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 223. the nays are 194. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house

a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the enate on november 13, 2013, at 11:24 a.m. that the senate passed senate 1499, senate 1512, senate 1557. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. for what purpose does the

gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that members may have five legislative days to include extraneous material on h.r. 982, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 403 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 982. the chair appoints the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 982 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend title 11 of the united states

code to require the public disclosure by trusts under section 524-g of such title, of quarterly reports that contain detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition of claims for injuries based on exposure of asbestos and furs. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for the first time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the committee will come to order. those with conversations will kindly take their conversations off the floor. those in the aisles will take their seats or their conversations off the floor.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: 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 one's injuries. unfortunately, on too frequent an occasion, by the time asbestos victims assert their claims for compensation, the bankruptcy trust formed for their benefit has been diluted by fraudulent claims, leaving these victims without their entitled recovery. the reason that fraud is allowed to exist within the asbestos trust system is the excessive lack of transparency created by plaintiff's firms. due to a provision in the bankruptcy code, plaintiff's firms are granted a statutory

veto right over a debtor's chapter 11 plan that seeks to restructure asbestos liability. plaintiff's firms have exploited this leverage to prevent information contained within the asbestos trust 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 trust. for example, the t.h. agriculture and nutrition asbestos trust cut its recovery rate from 100% to 70%, and the owen's corning trust sliced its recovery rate from 40% to 10%. the chair: those of you who have conversations, will you please take your conversations off the floor or take your seats?

i have a difficult time hearing the member. those are conversations will take their conversations off the floor and will take their seats. still asking those at the back of the chamber if they would take their seats or their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from virginia will continue. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. 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, quote, lies upon lies upon lies, end quote, 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 trust and payments made by the trust 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 claimant's 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 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, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. r. conyers: thank you. members of the house, we're simple ed with a very proposition today. what we have here is a piece of legislation that seeks to address a nonexistent problem and is strongly opposed by asbestos victims. the trusts charged withed a minute straighting -- administering compensation to victims and privacy advocates, consumer groups, labor organizations and legal

representatives of future claimants. i point out that i have one of the longest list of organizational opposition that i've seen in a long time. more than 11 organizations, starting with the asbestos cancer victims rights campaign, and then going to the asbestos disease awareness organization, the afl-cio, the united steelworkers, public citizen, the u.s. public interest research group, the environmental working group, the alliance for justice, the american association for justice, and many others. what we are doing here is really beginning this debate by asking who actually supports this bill and why are their

interests being put ahead of asbestos victims. to begin with, the disclosure requirements are an assault against asbestos victims' privacy interests. the bill mandates that the trusts publicly report information on the claimant that could include their name, address, work history, income, medical information, exposure history, as well as the basis of any payment that the trusts made to the claimant. given the fact that all this information would potentially be available on the internet, just imagine what insurance, potential employers, prospective lenders and data collectors could do with this private information. and so essentially what this

bill does is allow asbestos victims to be revictimized by exposing their health information to the public, including those who seek information for ill legal purposes. and so i ask all of the thoughtful members of this body to join me in strongly and vigorously opposing the measure before us today, and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield four minutes to the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, the chairman of the regulatory reform subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for four minutes. mr. bachus: thank you. i appreciate that, chairman. i have great respect for mr. conyers, he has been my chairman. he's now my ranking member.

i, too, see this as a very simple proposition that have a different point of view. i believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. can think that light expose things that need to be exposed. and that's really the essence of this bill. this bill is about transparency . how much revealing people are being paid in claims. america's a country that helps deserving people in their time of need. and for that reason when we had, really, tens of thousands of asbestos exposures, which caused serious injury and death, a trust fund was

specifically set up to compensate these individuals whose health had been harmed. however, as with almost any -- anything we establish, there are those who would take advantage of it. there are those who would commit fraud. there are those that would abuse it. and that's the case here. there have been inconsistent claims, trust fund money has been diverted from these victims and from future victims where it should properly go, to those with true -- to those people that were truly could demonstrate health needs and cause, instead it went in many cases to the undeserving. don't take my word for it. an article published by the "wall street journal" just this past march revealed that nearly half of all trusts have reduced payments to new victims at

least once since 2010. partly in an effort to preserve assets for future victims. the same article cited a number of disturbing examples of money being drained from the system by waste and fraud. it's not something we made up. leaving less to those who truly suffer. we have had judges appear and tell us about those problems. we have had others. for example, the article disclosed that after virtually no examination and no transparency, over $26,000 was awarded to a person who never existed. also found that 2,700 claimants to the manfield trust alone, just one of many trusts, couldn't have been older than 12 years of age at the time they said they were exposed to bestos in their industrial

job. the fact act would combat fraud through sunshine by increasing transparency and accountability in the system. in doing so, it strengthens the asbestos trust fund and system for present and future claimants. it would improve information sharing in the trust fund and process while fully respecting privacy. let me stress that, fully respecting privacy and protecting confidential medical information which is very important when personal health is involved. as we have said many times, sunshine is a disinfectant. i said at the start of the speech i'll say it now, this is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help asbestos victims get the compensation they need and deserve by protecting asbestos trust funds from fraud, waste, and abuse. let me close by saying, commending mr. farenthold from

texas, mr. matheson from utah for bringing this bipartisan legislation. and urge you to support them and others and bring this bill to the floor and pass it to increase accountability. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself a minute to thank my good friend, spencer bachus, distinguished member of the judiciary committee, for participating here on the floor with me. i want him to know that the privacy part of his remarks are point relevant at this because this bill allows the me, the disease, and all lated facts to be published,

can be picked up by the internet. so assurances of privacy are of little usefulness here. i'm so glad to know that mrs. sue vento, our colleague, former colleague, bruce's widow, is here with us in the gallery who has been working along with a strongly opposing h.r. 982. mr. speaker, i am proud now to recognize ted deutsch of florida, distinguished member of the committee, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. deutch: thank you. i thank my friend, mr. conyers. it's deeply troubling to me that today the house of representatives might vote to pass the so-called fact act

furthering asbestos claim transparency act. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill because it's not about transparency, it's not about accountability, it's absolutely not about justice. the fact act is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the rights of cancer victims and their families. that's the only way i can describe a piece of legislation that undermines the constitutional rights of asbestos victims and even threatens the privacy of victims and their families. the fact act does nothing to protect the rights of victims like again neeve -- again veeve ho was diagnosed with mesothio lema. and judy who lost her husband to an asbestos caused disease. the victims do not have a luxury of time. this brutal form of cancer is hard to detect until it has progressed significantly. all too often already compromised vital internal organs. despite the dire implications of this diagnosis, the fact act would place additional burdens

on victims and even delay court proceedings to the point a victim would -- would die before receiving any financial assistance through the asbestos trust fund. if anything, this body should be looking at ways to make it easier to identify legitimate asbestos victims and fast track their cases. instead we are doing the opposite. this legislation might as well have been written by the asbestos industry because it only provides these companies with new tools to evade justice and their responsibility to victims. even more incompre henceably, the fact act -- incompre henceably, the act -- fact act would require turning over information. for the families whose lives have already been torn apart by disease, this legislation would create an online website that lies victims' sensitive information including financial hisses -- histories and partial social security numbers. i implore my colleagues to recognize these families have been through enough. there is nothing we in this chamber can do to fill the void

that has been left in the hearts of so many americans who have lost loved ones due to exposure -- 15 seconds. mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman an additional one half minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. deutch: what we can do is ensure that we have a justice system that protects the rights of victims and puts the constitutional rights of our citizens ahead of special interests. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the fact act. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to recognize the author of the legislation, the gentleman from texas, mr. farnethole -- farenthold, for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. farenthold: quite frankly i'm personally offended by the claim that this bill is against victims. it's for the victims. it's preserving the asbestos trust for those yet undiscovered victims from

people who would defraud the system. all we are asking for in this bill -- it's 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. and we are asking that the expenditures would be listed of the trust in a method that people can check to make sure somebody isn't claiming twice for the same injury. 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 have been riddled with fraud. it even comes down to corpus christi, texas, a district i represent, where there were early cases where a federal judge, a clinton appointee, and a friend of mine ruled that

there were false bad trouble 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 he detailed medical information to be he released. we are asking for the basis of the claim. and that's pretty simple information. we are not asking for social security numbers. we are not asking for any financial information other than the amount that's being claimed. this is public record in any other lawsuit in the country. and it's not an invasion of privacy. it's a protection of the system that was set up to compensate victims of mesothelioma and other exposure diseases that don't manifest for years after the exposure. we've got to protect this for future generations. the fact act is a simple two-page bill, 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 can't file a claim in state court. it's to try to stop double dipping and fraud. unfortunately, when these were set up, there weren't enough safeguards in place. the run by plaintiffs attorneys to get percentage of compensation off of that. we are trying to get this taken care of. the plaintiffs' attorneys have big impact in creating and managing these trusts. we are just trying to get some simple oversight. mr. bachus put it well when he said 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 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's a bill to stop fraud, waste, and abuse. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the jackson lee from houston, texas, a member -- the

gentlelady from houston, texas, a member of the judiciary committee committee, sheila jackson lee, for three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman for yielding. with all the protests, i think there is nothing more than we can say that this is a very cruel decision to move forward this particular legislation. and it really implodes and violates the process of litigation between plaintiffs and defendants, petitioners, and those who are in opposition because we have a 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 provide 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 in the regular order of a court process, could be given.

this is intrusive legislation under the false guise of transparency. and in actuality would invade the privacy of abests to victims by requiring the posting of personal exposure, medical information online and erect new barriers to victims receiving compensation for their diseases. this he disease, this cancer-driven, this asbestos driven disease is a silent killer. for long times 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, even after it became wildly known, disease and deaths still persist because people work in it and do not know. so they have been forced to hire counsel merely to provide for their family or to provide for 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 or

lung disease and the toll continues. yet we have legislation like this that wants to clearly undermine the legal system, justice system, which means i go into a court i have a lawyer, there is someone who is opposed to my position, they have a lawyer, and we submit information under the basis of that litigation or that settlement or negotiation. why do americans have to be subjected to another abuse while they're dying? 982 is asking for information that can already be gotten. as i indicated, these individuals have suffered or died from asbestos-related cancer. it's estimated that 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 family and burden to ask them to give information about their sickness and other issues that are squarely within the realm of their counsel? call up their lawyer 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, to receiving compensation for their diseases. that's why they organize in the manner that they did, because they were dying, dying, dying and there was no response. may i have an additional 15 seconds? mr. conyers: 15 seconds. ms. jackson lee: it's galling that the many asbestos producers refuse to accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future ability. 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 yield back. oppose this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, may i ask how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 18 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 20 1/2 minutes remaining.

mr. goodlatte: i yield myself such time as i may consume to respond to the mischaracterization of this legislation as somehow imposing burdens on the victims of asbestos. it's quite the opposite quite in fact. first off, the information disclosed under the fact act is very basic and is less information that would be disclosed during the normal course of a state lawsuit where many asbestos bankruptcy claimants pursue simultaneous claims. secondly, but they don't tell the bankruptcy that, so the 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 -- nor 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 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 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 when 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. and i yield back -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from atlanta, georgia, hank johnson, three minutes, and indicate that his very deep concern for asbestos cancer victims. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 982, the so-called fact act. the fact act would require asbestos victims or -- excuse me -- would require asbestos trusts to publicly disclose extensive amounts of private information about asbestos victims on a public website. these quarterly reports would have to be -- they would have to describe each demand the trusts receive, including the name and exposure history of

the claimant and the basis for any payment from the trusts made to any such claimant. also require to be publicly disclosed by the trusts are the claimant's home address, work history, income, medical information and even the last four digits of the claimant's social security number. any person, including every crook in the world with internet access, could use this information for any and all licit purposes that criminal or mischievous person could be your neighbor, it could be your daughter's ex-boyfriend. you know the one you never barred him from coming to the house. it could be a co- -- it could be an employee on the job, somebody that's vying for your job. it could be anybody who wants to do harm to you or your family. it's a serious threat to

asbestos victims' security and privacy, and it is an unfair and unnecessary advantage bestowed upon the asbestos manufacturers. the truth of the matter is that such information is available to the court during the course of the litigation. federal or state rules of civil procedure allows a defendant to gain all relevant information about a claimant's exposure during the discovery process. moreover, a defendant's discovery request should never justify the publication of a plaintiff's entire medical history. yesterday, i offered an amendment that would have protected the privacy of asbestos victims and their families, but unfortunately republicans in the rules committee did not allow the house to consider my amendment today, and it's disappointing

that my republican colleagues who pretend that they support americans' rights to privacy are now willing to throw privacy rights under the bus while they stand with big asbestos as they begin victimize the victims by trampling on the privacy rights of those victims and their families. without adding important privacy safeguards, nothing would stop rampant identity theft or the misuse of a claimant victim's personal information, including that victim's entire medical history. why is it necessary for a claimant to have to give up their right to privacy just because they seek to recover damages arising from exposure to asbestos? 15 more seconds? mr. conyers: 30 more seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for additional 130ekds. mr. johnson: thank you. asbestos victims should retain the same privacy protections as

other patients as well as other people making claims for personal injury. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. i'd like to take a moment to address some of the claims that my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made. the fact act is simple. there's two pages of text to the fact act. there's no requirement of any action whatsoever by the victims of asbestos. the trusts are the only ones that are required to do something. and let me just read you exactly what the requirement is. it's simple. it doesn't include a broad release of personal information. it's very simple. a trust described in paragraph 2 subject to 107, file with the bankruptcy court not later than 60 days at the end of every quarter a report that shall be available on the court's public docket with respect to such

quarter. it describes each demand the trust has received from, including the name, exposure history of a claimant and the basis for any payment from the trust made to such claimant and does not include any confidential -- does not include any confidential medical record or the claimant's full social security number. all we're asking for in this bill is that the trusts let us know who they're paying the money to and what they're paying is for so we make sure that -- paying it for so we make sure that they don't double dip. i will indeed, yes, sir. mr. johnson: individually with that level of information that you just described. mr. farenthold: it gives you a name and part of their social security number. mr. johnson: ok, thank you. mr. farenthold: it's not their full social security number. it's not their full medical record. mr. johnson: if the gentleman

will yield? mr. farenthold: i will, indeed. mr. johnson: part of the medical file is in there, is that not correct? mr. farenthold: it's a limit -- mr. johnson: the gentleman is not correct. mr. farenthold: it's just the basis of the claim. it would be claiming mesothelioma from exposure at this location. it's that basic information that would allow other courts to determine that the person who is making the claim is not double dipping, is not -- has not already made that claim. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, distinguished member of the judiciary committee, steve cohen, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. there's one fact that's indisputable, and it's the procedure by which this particular bill came to the

floor. and that's a procedure whereby the majority had three witnesses, the minority had one , and none of the witnesses were victims. there are two major asbestos victims groups. they would be the people most interested in preserving the funds for victims. the asbestos disease awareness organization and the asbestos rights campaign. one is headed up by a former ember of this house's widow, mrs. vento. her husband died of mesothelioma. the fact is indisputablely they were not allowed to testify. if this bill indeed was for the victims, the victim should have had an opportunity to testify. the chairman of the subcommittee of which i am the ranking member valiantly tried to rectify that error, mr. bachus, and allow them to

testify but was overruled, and the fact is the procedure that brought this bill to the floor was flawed and accordingly i submit the bill should be flawed because the victims should have had the opportunity to speak and if it's for the victims, it's for preserving funds, the people who are proponents shouldn't have been afraid of the victims' organizations going on record and giving testimony and testifying. so this whole proceeding today is conceived as an attack on the victims, not allowing the victims to speak and not allowing transparency in the hearing process. this is allegedly about transparency. it's not. it's about covering up and not allowing freedom of speech from the people who are most affected, who had loved ones die from mesothelioma. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i

yield myself such time as i may consume to -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: respond to the mischaracterization of the process followed in the judiciary committee. the fact act and the problems that 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 affairs, commercial and antitrust law. one during the 112th congress and another this year on march 13. the minority used these opportunities to call witnesses that were representatives from the asbestos plaintiff's 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 where fraudulent claims can be prosecuted against the asbestos trusts, flb reducing the re-- thereby reducing the recovery to legitimate asbestos victims. this legislation will benefit victims by reducing fraudulent claims and ensuring that asbestos trusts provide the maximum recovery to future asbestos claimants. be happy to. mr. cohen: can you explain why the victims were never allowed to testify on the record in this congress? never given an opportunity even though the subcommittee chairman valiantly and heroically tried to rectify

that? mr. goodlatte: reclaiming my time. that is not accurate. the claimants were offered a process where they could come and speak to the members of the committee. mr. chairman, i have the time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia controls the time. mr. goodlatte: and 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 previous hearings do so. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, -- mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from tennessee 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. we had one witness. the majority has three witnesses. ours had to try to explain the legal effects. the fact is, the proponents of the bill who claim it's for the victims should have the right to have the victims be there. the special procedure they had

was an in-camera hearing, not on the record. that's not right. you want to propose something for the victims, you give them an opportunity to testify on the record. and they all oppose the bill to a one. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished ranking member for his leadership. this bill represents an unjustified corporate giveaway, being built on the backs of hardworking individuals from all across this country who in many cases were unwittingly victimized by asbestos exposure. it is an unwarranted, unnecessary, unconscionable effort to betch -- to benefit

big business and the asbestos industrial complex. which in many instances has unleashed mesothelioma, lung cancer and other diseases of mass destruction on americans all across this country. who are hardworking and in most instances simply trying to make a living for themselves and for their families. now, it's being done allegedly to create greater transparency and in the name of litigation reform. yet the record reflects that there is no evidence of systemic sift maticvidence of waste or abuse, no evidence of stt attic overpayment to victims -- systematic overpayment to victims of asbestos exposure. this is wrong, it's shameful,

it's a bill that's dead on arrival in the senate and that's why i respectfully urge all of my colleagues to vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself one minute 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 disparately s of filed claims. court documents in many states, including delaware, louisiana, maryland, new york, ohio, oklahoma and virginia atoast widespread fraud. additionally the 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

inspite of the lack of disclosure -- has been in spite of the lack of disclosure that currently pervades this system. the increased transparency of the fact act introduces -- will go a long way in uncovering previously undetected fraud and preserving assets for future asbestos victims. and now it's my pleasure to recognize and yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the fact act. this bill aims to address a fraud problem and ensure that true asbestos victims obtain maximum recoveries for their injuries. my district is home to many asbestos lawsuits and currently a lack of transparency has led fraud in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system and diverted millions of dollars away from those who should have the ability to receive these

recoveries. this lack of transparency discourages the free flow of information, resulting in fraudulent claims that deplete funds that are intended for legitimate victims. this bill requires these trusts to file quarterly reports which include the claimants' names, basis for the claim, payments made and the basis behind those payments. it protects privacy by prohibiting disclosure of sensitive medical records and social security numbers. in order to help ensure future victims will have access to the they deserve, these problems cannot be allowed to continue. this is why i stand today in support of the fact act and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am pleased now to yield to the leader of the democratic caucus, ms. pelosi, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for a minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership

on so many issues. mr. speaker, as you know, the debates that we have on the floor of the house affect millions of americans, their families, senior citizens, veterans, students and children. we all bring stories of men and women and families from our districts, the challenges facing our neighbors, the urgent need to solve them. today we address an issue that takes the lives of thousands of americans each year, asbestos exposure. we do not have to look back only to our districts on this scourge. we only need to look into the lives of some who have served in this body. i'm very honored today, as i know some of my colleagues are as well, that susan dento, a wife of our former colleague, who served with such distinction in the congress, with some of us, some years ago, is with us. bruce vento was affected by

asbestos exposure. it took his life. i wish to place in the record susan vento's letter, without objection, mr. speaker. and just to say that in the letter susan says, during the consideration of this legislation in the judiciary committee, two other women who had been affected by the ravages of asbestos and i requested to have a chance to testify about how the legislation would affect people like us. our request was denied. to date no one -- a victim of asbestos exposure or affected family member has been allowed to be heard on this legislation. the only people who would be directly affected by this bill have been completely shut out of the process. it goes on to say, this so-called fact act, and this letter doesn't say the so-called, that's my characterization, the letter says, the fact act drastically

erodes the decades of work bruce, that would be bruce vento, and so many of you have invested in helping those who could not help themselves. if this bill passes, it will be a serious setback for americans who expect their elected representatives to work on their behalf. instead of helping those who suffer from the diseases caused by asbestos, it will reward those who have perpetuated this disease. without objection, i wish to submit the full context of the letter in the record. the chair: the gentlelady's request is recovered -- is covered by general leave. ms. pelosi: i'd also like to talk about another of our colleagues who was affected by this. congresswoman carolyn mccarthy. carolyn mccarthy serves in this congress with us and she is a distinguished congresswoman from the state of new york. congresswoman mccarthy's father and brother were career

boilermakers. each night they brought home asbestos fibers in their clothes . over time, exposure to this asbestos affected congresswoman mccarthy herself and today she is battling asbestos-related lung cancer. her story is like the stories of countless americans across the country. it's up to us to strengthen the health of those suffering from exposure. it is up to us to act in their names, whether they suffer from cancer today or face the prospect of severe illness in the future. yet this republican measure we consider today does not meet this challenge. like far too many republican bills in this congress, this legislation only serves to make matters worse for the american people. so the called -- there it is again -- the so-called fact act actually harms the american

people. that is a fact. and hinders the ability of asbestos victims to obtain compensation. and how does it do this? this bill would deny cancer victims the assistance and simple justice they deserve. it would even delay compensation beyond the life of a person suffering from asbestos-related cancer and illnesses. it would invade the privacy of thousands of americans and it would pose a particularly detrimental impact on veterans of the united states armed forces. who have been disproportionately affected by asbestos. contrary to the claims of the bill's proponents, there is no need for this bill. state laws provide for adequate disclosure. there is no evidence of systemic fraud in the asbestos trust system. in short, this bill is unnecessary, it is mean spirited and will never become the law of the land. the republican majority has

little time left in the legislative calendar this year, just 13 days between now and december 31 according to the schedule they have given us, in that short window the house should focus on the most pressing challenges, priorities ike job creation, economic growth, comprehensive immigration reform or deficit reduction. instead our republican colleagues have chosen to waste time on another measure, another bill to nowhere. in the name of bruce vento and congresswoman mccarthy and the name of our friends, family members and constituents facing the daily challenges of asbestos exposure, let's work together on steps to strengthen the health of the american people, let's preserve the privacy and well-being of asbestos victims and all american families. we can do this by voting no on this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i

reserve the balance of my time. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentlelady from texas, mrs. bernice johnson, for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thanks to the ranking member . house to speak against resolution 982. this legislation requires an asbestos trust which was set up to manage a company's asbestos liability exposure to disclose names and personal information of any individual who is seeking compensation from such trust. the negative health effects associated with asbestos has been under investigation since the early 1900's'. premature death, lung cancer and

mesothelioma has known effects of asbestos exposure. while asbestos industry officials were aware of these negative health impacts since he 1930's, it wasn't until the 1970's that evidence emerged that the industry covered these dangers from the public -- concealed these dangers from the public. lawsuits resulted and in 1973 the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit upheld the first successful asbestos liability suit. today hundreds of thousands of claims have been filed, amounting to billions of dollars in damages. the key principle behind this legislation is to prevent duplicative and fraudulent claims from being filed against companies. however, there is zero evidence to support any allegation of endemic fraud in the filing of asbestos claims. in fact, in 2011, during the examination of asbestos trusts,

the government accountability office, the g.a.o., did not find any evidence of such fraud. make no mistake, this bill does nothing to enhance transparency and simply increases the burden on the victims who are seeking compensation for asbestos exposure and the related side effects. instead, the fact act simply makes it more difficult for asbestos victims to receive compensation for their injuries. the individuals who file asbestos claims do so in order to receive compensation to pay for medical bills, to make up for lost income when they are too sick to work. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to file my entire statement in the record. the chair: that's covered by general leave. johnson scrns johnson thank you. i yield back -- ms. johnson: thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm

eased now to give to mr. swalwell of california two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. swalwell: i thank you and the ranking member. i rise in strong opposition to the fact act. it's a fact that asbestos can be found in thousands of products and locations. it's a fact that asbestos is a deadly carcinogen which kills about 10,000 americans a year. it's a fact that trusts were set up so that victims could still be compensated, even when asbestos companies went bankrupt. it's also a fact that there's no evidence of systemic fraud or abuse in these asbestos trusts. it's a fact that h.r. 982 would put tremendous, new administrative burdens on these trusts. fact, the result of this bill would make it more difficult

for victims of asbestos exposure and their families to achieve justice. with all of these facts, the evidence is clear. the fact act is a fact in name only. and instead, what it claims to do is really a fiction. just another part of the majority's historic and ongoing hostility of victims and their attorneys who are trying to achieve justice through our courts. instead of working to make it easier for victims to be compensated, instead on working on a whole host of other problems facing the american people, we're targeting innocent asbestos victims who are merely trying to be compensated for a wrong done to them. i urge all of my colleagues to reject this misguided legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i think we're prepared to close if the gentleman from michigan as well, we would reserve

our time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i am prepared to close now. i think that the case has been victims the asbestos do not benefit from this bill, that there is no widespread fraud or abuse, that all of the victims and their organizations of asbestos are in fact strongly opposed to h.r. 982. and so are we. and so for that reason that i urge the members of the house to soundly refuse and reject this measure, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr.

chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: 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're talking about here. this is a bill that in its totality doesn't cover two full ges of double spaced type in legislative language. and it simply requires that trusts that will be established to preserve the assets of companies that have gone bankrupt and have paid funds into these trusts so that future claims, future real, legitimate claims will have resources available to them when it is a known fact and established by the testimony before the judiciary committee and by investigations in a number of publications including "the wall street

journal" and by reports in various state courts in more than a half dozen states of fraud, duplicative claims. these are what we're 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's no widespread fraud is unfounded. we know this because there's 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. and i might add, this does not in any way delay the claims of anyone with a legitimate claim, either in state courts or in the bankruptcy courts, but 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 relegitimate claims that won't have -- legitimate claims that won't have any money available to me. it was mentioned by people

today, asbestos is a problem that has affected many, many americans, and it is something that can be latened 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, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill is in

order except those printed in house report 113-264, each such amendment may be offered only in order printed in the report, may be offered by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it's now in order to consider number 1 printed in house report 113-264. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: mr. speaker, i seek recognition for i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-264 offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 403, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: my amendment ensures, mr. speaker, that h.r. 982 will not apply to trusts

that have an eternal claims audit -- internal claims audit program to ensure that the claims are valid and supported. proponents of h.r. 982 argue that its reporting and other information-sharing requirements are necessary in order to ensure that asbestos victims are not committing fraud by recovering money both from trusts and through the tort system, thereby, quote, double dipping, unquote. while proponents of the bill have yet to point to any evidence of endemic fraud thin the asbestos claims process, h.r. 982, if enacted, will impose unnecessary burdens d costs on trusts and expose information. exposure that their loved ones have offered suffered from. h.r. 982's additional information on trusts will raise costs significantly and oney used to pay these costs will mean less money to asbestos victims. this is particular problematic

in light of the fact that defendants can already obtain the information they want using existing discovery tools without undermining compensation for legitimate claims. the reporting requirement in h.r. 982 also raises privacy concerns. this provision requires a claimant's name and exposure history be made part of the bankruptcy court's public docket, meaning that anyone can access such information for any purpose, including purposes that have nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure. i recognize that the bill specifically prohibits trusts from making public any medical records or full social security numbers. although it does require the last four digits of the social security number to be used. i also recognize that limited additional privacy protection is under rule 107 of the bankruptcy code. nonetheless, these measures are insufficient to fully protect claimants' private sifment as noted by my colleagues, once out in public, any information can be used for any purpose. insurance, lenders, even those who seek to harm an asbestos

victims in some way can have access to this information without the victim's permission or knowledge. in light of these concerns and notwithstanding the lack of any evidence of systemic fraud, my amendment ensures that the extent the trust already has out res in place to ferret potential fraudulent claims. it should not have the risks proposed by h.r. 982's requirement. if in fact proponents of 982 are primarily concerned about potential fraud in the asbestos trust claims process, then they should have little trouble supporting this amendment that recognizes processes already in place to address fraud while addressing some of the concerns who oppose the bill. accordingly, i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. cohen: i reserve. the chair: who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. goodlatte: thank you, 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 g.a.o. 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 dess per ate claims are filed under asbestos trusts or in the state court. 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 system and the asbestos trusts. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i like to yield my time to the distinguished chairman, mr. conyers. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. how much time remains? the chair: you have two minutes, sir. mr. conyers: thank you very much. members of the house, the cohen amendment to limit the bill to asbestos trusts that do not have an internal fraud detection system is very appropriate, and that is because, according to the government accountability ffice who has studied this and filed a report, they have found that in every trust that had an existing internal quality control to detect fraud, there was no evidence of systematic

fraud found. and so i want to compliment the gentleman from tennessee for bringing this to our attention. e think that it makes it a better attempt at regulating and protecting the victims of asbestos, and so i am very pleased to support it and i hope that it becomes a part of the bill. i yield back the balance of my time and reserve. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas, the chief sponsor of the legislation, mr. farenthold. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. he has four minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment. it has -- the amendment has nothing to do with the problem we're trying to address. listen, all well-managed trusts, nonprofits and business should have an internal audit

procedure to detect fraud within that organization. what we're 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 trusts. so an auditor for one trust is going to have no idea what's going on in state courts 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 bill, 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 and yield ack the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee actually has one minute remaining if he wishes. mr. cohen: thank you. the gentleman from michigan mentions that this is a victims' rights bill, quote-unquote. but all the victims rights organizations are against it. there's something wrong, something smells and it's not denmark. i'm happy to yield. mr. farenthold: the point i'm trying to make is the existing victims have been compensated. there isn't an organization in place for people who don't know they have the disease. mr. cohen: sure there isn't because they're a group that's unknown, they don't know who they are. but the victims organizations are concerned about victims in the future. they've suffered, they want to help other people who are put in their position. they are reaching out in a benevolent manner.

mr. vento's widow and her organization and the other organizations are against it. they had no voice, the only voice they have is through representatives and they ask the representatives to vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia actually has two minutes remaining. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i simply would reiterate that the fact of the matter is, 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've paid their money into a fund, that this is in 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. and that's what this seeks to do. and 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. so, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. and yield back. the chair: all time having been yielded, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. goodlatte: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a record vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. it's now in order to consider

amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-264. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-264 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 403, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, this amendment would ensure that the transparency the bill the supporters demand from the asbestos industry will also be applied to the corporations that have inflicted so much daniel and so much suffering over the years. the amendment would require that a defendant seeking the information required by the bill must himself provide information about threats to the public safety or health. this information must be

provided to any other person or to any federal or state entity that has the authority to enforce the law regulating activity relating to such information. this would go a long way to addressing the long standing efforts by these corporations to conceal the facts surrounding their actions from the public from their victims and from government agencies charged with enforcing safety laws. too often cases are settled specifically in order to prevent evidence of wrong doing from becoming public. more importantly, because of the secrecy of these settlements, other people have been injured, they have no way of gaining important information about their exposure, the illnesses or the settled liability of the companies that made them sick. information about the concealment of wrong doing never becomes public and the people who have suffered have no way of knowing about the wrong doing that caused their suffering or its extent. governmental agencies that are charged with protecting the public health, whether in the workplace or in the home, are deprived of the information they need to enforce the laws that we

have enacted. if the sponsors of this legislation really mean what they say about the need for transparency and accountability, they will support this amendment. there has been too long a record over too many decades of concealment, disassembly and lawlessness and too many lives destroyed because of that illegal conduct for us to tolerate the continued coverup. this amendment will go a long way toward remedying that situation and toward correcting the unjust imbalance in the current system. without this amendment and the openness and clarity it would provide, this bill would favor only those who inflicted the harm and would give them yet another advantage over the victims. we should stand with the people whose lives have been destroyed, with the victims, not with the corporations whose illegal and immoral conduct harmed those lives. prevent a nt would

situation where as part of a settlement compensating a victim, it is agreed to keep key information relevant to the public health and safety secret. so that more people will be victimized. when such terms of the , ttlement are kept secret people will not know that they were harmed. any -- and government agencies may not learn facts necessary to exercise their responsibility to protect the public. at the very least, we should be evenhanded and demand of the wrong doctors the same transparency that this bill demands of their victims. a transparency which will enable other victims to understand the remedies and will enable government agencies to better enforce the law. unless you want to assist wrong doers in concealing their wrong doing, you should support this amendment. i urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. goodlatte: i rise to claim the time nopsition to the amendment. -- time in opposition to the amendment. one of the principle 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 waive of companies in the plaintiff -- wave of companies in the plaintiff firm's never-ending search for a some vent defendant.

the burden this 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 it previously 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 trust and state court judges, have access to the same information. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. nadler: i yield myself 30 seconds and then yield to the gentleman from michigan, the divisioned ranking member. in reply to the gentleman from virginia, the amendment refers asbestos trust, not a small business. so i don't know what he's talking about, about small business requirements being

imposed by this legislation. and by this amendment and the amendment deals with information that the trust must make available. it does not deal with the underlying burdens that the bill places on victims, which is what the gentleman was referring to. but this has nothing to do with small business. i now yield one 911 the distinguished ranking member -- one minute to the distinguished ranking member of the can he -- of the committee. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. nadler, for your very important amendment. as has been reported by the fth circuit in the first appellate opinion upholding the product liability against a manufacturer of asbestos -contained products, the government accountability office reported, quote, in the first -- in the course of the first

successful personal injury lawsuits against abc manufacturers, the plaintiffs -- plaintiff's attorney introduced evidence that these manufacturers had known but concealed information about the dangers of asbestos exposure or that such dangers were reasonably for seeble -- foreseeable. and in the nearly four decades since, litigation over personal injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos has resulted in hundreds of thousands of claims filed and billions of dollars of compensation paid. i urge support of the nadler amendment. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, if the time of the proponent of the amendment has expired, i'm prepared to close and yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york has 30 seconds remaining.

30 seconds. mr. nadler: and the gentleman from virginia? the chair: 3 1/2. mr. nadler: 3 1/2. you want to reserve now? i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. chairman, the underlying bill imposes burdens on victims ofasbestos poisoning because an unsubstantiated allegation that the trusts set up by the tort feesers, by the giant corporations that caused the problem, may be suffering some fraud although there's no specifics about that. the amendment simply says, if we're going to request information of the victims, we should request minimally that the tort feesers, that the representatives of the tort feesers, the trusts, tell us the information that will prevent further people from being harmed. and i urge the support of the

amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: 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 , fendants 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 would oppose the legislation, oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment and supporting the underlying legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for the amendment has expired. the motion is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider the amendment number 3 printed in how it's report 113--- in house report 113-264. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-264 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 403, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chairs i -- the chair

recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair very much. we're here today for several reasons and my friends on the other side of the aisle have their high calling and reasons f great merit that they argue, but i think we have a more devastating and prevailing reason that we're opposed to this legislation. frankly, as i indicated early 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 have still victims -- are still victims. they've lost everything that they've had in trying to treat them. and now we have what we are used to saying in the community, insult to injury. now we come with an enormously burdensome and unfair initiative . and 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're ecoing -- seeking from those victims who are barely receiving dollars out of a trust, that is the final results of numbers of bankrupt companies, we're asking to equally to 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, ill exempt that. so today we're asking for transparency on both sides. h.r. 982 is one-sided. it demands 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 a tort system demands the utmost confidentiality, along with the right to file for bankruptcy. as a condition of the settlement, it ought to ensure that other victims cannot learn how much they paid or 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. it is the result of a massive cover-up. therefore, we're asking today for a 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 no -- 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 of information. so i'm asking my colleagues to be fair, to recognize the hurt and the pain and to support the jackson lee amendment that would simply ask for those defendants, those companies to give us the location of their asbestos-containing products and with that i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. the fact act addresses a number

of issues including state court litigants' inability to obtain information from federally supervised asbestos trusts. 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 ability to defend itself in state court

litigation. plaintiffs and plaintiff's firms already are the ability to gain access to information through the traditionally discovery process. however, it's the inability to gain access to information submitted to the asbestos trusts that's 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's seeking the damages and what damages they are seeking. all we're 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 elping the victims of asbestos problems have the opportunity to have information that they would have if it were a normal plaintiff filing a lawsuit. that is what we seek to have disclosed. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to support the underlying bill and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: how much time? the chair: the gentlelady from texas controls 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: and the gentleman from virginia? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me yield to the gentleman from the great tate of michigan, the chairman

, 40 minutes -- 40 seconds, half a minute, 45 seconds. the chair: do i get to choose? ms. jackson lee: 45 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. conyers: thank you so much. wanted to comment on the inquiry of the gentlelady from texas in examining this measure to make it clear to us through place ndment that this of disclosure burdens on trusts and asbestos victims but not on the corporations, and that is what she seeks to deal with. this be s bill helps accomplished. and what is so critical about it is that we now have a balance -- a more balanced

approach that is currently in the bill. so please support the jackson lee amendment. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished gentleman for his important remarks. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: reserves. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you. may i ask unanimous consent to have the american federation of labor and congress of industrial organizations, legislative alert letter be submitted into the record? unanimous consent. the chair: it will be covered under general leave. ms. jackson lee: 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 victims but it is not asked for by the defendants, the ones who filed for bankruptcy, the ones who've 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 their asbestos-remaining products are so we can save lives. if there's transparency, if the bill would be fair, 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 number of those suffering from lung disease and cancer. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time in opposition to the amendment, and i gist 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 those proceedings to determine 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 instrumentalitys in two different places. that is what we need to know. that is why the fact act is necessary. i ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i'd like to have a recorded vote and the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion the question rise. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 982 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee had under consideration h.r. 982 and has come to no resolution thereon.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in

open secrets as well as the final vote tallies in each of those races and we found that there was a correlation. between the amount of money that was spent and the vote total by which the person won. >> when you look inside your piece, there are these charts with blue dots and red lines. can you explain this first one, the red dotted line is the most important part of this graphic, it shows the trend in all of the data. explain what happened here, what you're looking at. >> sure. so what you're looking at when you look at that graph is it is two axis. one axis is the margin of victory in the race. the number of actual votes that

the winner had over the person that came in second. compared to the amount they spent per vote. so one of the measures you can use to gauge the amount of money that was spent is comparing the total sum of spending and divide it by the number of votes and that gives you a cost per vote. so in 2012, for example, on average winning congress members spent $9.84 for each vote that they got. so what that graph actually shows is that as races became closer, once you got into races that were within a margin of five percent and points or 10 percent and points for the winner, the votes became more costly. in other words, they spent more money per vote in closer races. host: and what is the vote cost -- what if the vote cost less? what then was the result? guest: again, this is just a correlation. there are a lot of factors and a lot of coveats to go into place here but in general, in races, if you spent less money than -- then you were less likely to win. the next set of graphs down

shows there's a correlation to the extent of which you outspent your opponent and your margin of victory and there's a correlation there. the more you outspent your opponent, the more likely you were to win the race and in races where the person won by 20 percentage points or less, that was amplified. in closer races, the more you outspent your opponent, more likely you were to win. host: what if you were an incumbent? does that factor into this? guest: we looked at that as well. for the most part incumbents usually win. just looking at incumbents wouldn't have been terribly different than the rest of the data pool but we looked at the races in which the incumbent didn't win, in which the challenger was able to win the race. and what we found is that those challengers, almost all of them, also outraised the incumbent. there's a difference between the spending, how much the candidate spends on the race and how much they raise for it. we looked at what was raised in the case of the incumbents, because we thought that might be a better measure of energy and the amount of work that the candidate put in to the race.

so, again, there's that correlation. the more they raised, the more likely they were to win. host: what if you were in host: what if you were in a tight race? guest: the same effect. i don't mean to sound like a broken record but the relationship was between more money, more victory, more money, more votes chsm is sort of what we assume, right? this is what we wanted to do is look and see if there actually existed this correlation we all take for granted, and there is. it's not necessarily as strong as people assume but it exists. it is worth -- go ahead. host: what does all that mean, then. by saying, here's the data, it seems like an obvious question, more campaign cash will get you more votes. but having the day to to prove that, what do you think that means? guest: i think it means that -- that's a very good question.