Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, these bills are basically chamber of commerce week in the United States Congress. That is what we have come down to, is that the chambers of commerce who represent the large corporations who would be the defendants in these actions, by and large, and consist of the people that produce the asbestos, they are part of it too. It gives them an opportunity to not have to pay out damages to victims, victims where class actions are successful--but would make it more difficult to be successful--and people who have been victims of asbestos injuries, mesothelioma being the ultimate disease that kills people from exposure to asbestos.
Now, on the other side of the chamber of commerce and my friends on the other side are people on this side and certain groups. I want to tell you who the folks are who are against the bill. The NAACP. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, often called the conscience of the Congress. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Consumers Union. The American Bar Association--and we have heard about how lawyers are doing this and lawyers are doing that, lawyers are on both sides of the cases--the American Bar Association. Americans for Financial Reform. Public Citizen. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Morris Dees and company. The National Disability Rights Network. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization is the voice of the victims, and they are against this. I have to be against it because I stand with the victims and for justice and what is fair for people who have been harmed by corporate wrongdoing.
I rise to tell a personal story. One of my best friends was a man named Warren Zevon. He was a singer and songwriter. Somewhere along the line, he was exposed to asbestos, and he died in September of 2003 of mesothelioma. But for asbestos and him being exposed to it in some manner, he would be with us today and would have been with us for the last 12 years, giving us entertainment and songs and maybe songs about some of the things that have been going down here.
One of his last songs was ``I Was in the House When the House Burned Down.'' Well, it wasn't this House, but it could have been this House. This House is the people's House, and it should be looking out for victims and people who should get compensation in courts.
When we travel internationally, one of the things we find is that people revere our justice system. They look to America for justice and an open court system that they don't have in their own nations. These bills would close the door on justice and close the door on the courts, and that is not what America is about and that is not why we are respected internationally.
I respectfully ask that we oppose these bills and vote ``no.'' Support the victims. Support justice.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which was made in order, and which would make an exception to H.R. 1927's required showing for class certification for any claims brought by the victims of a terrorist attack against the attack's perpetrators.
We all agree that victims of terrorist attacks deserve justice, and they should have the fullest opportunity to obtain compensation for any injuries they have suffered because of such attacks.
Sadly, our history over the last generation has no shortage of examples of the kind of victims this amendment would help. From the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, to the downing of Pan Am 103 by Qadhafi's Libya, recourse to our courts has been one of the few ways that victims of terrorism have been given at least some opportunity to seek justice for the acts committed against their family members and them.
I know Chairman Goodlatte shares my concerns for these victims, and I applaud him for his successful efforts to create a compensation fund for those victims of state sponsors of terrorism who receive final court judgements against those state sponsors.
The program also compensates those held hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979.
In some of these cases, the victims, or their survivors, pursued class actions against the state sponsors of the terrorist act. Yet, under section 2 of H.R. 1927, these victims may not have had the opportunity to pursue a class action in the first place.
As noted during the general debate, section 2 adds the new requirement that a named plaintiff prove, as a condition of class certification, that every putative class member suffered the same ``scope'' of injury; not comparable, but the same scope.
This requirement can be read to preclude a class action where, for instance, one terrorism victim loses his legs, while another loses his arms as a result of some terrorist attack. Or maybe somebody isn't a direct victim of the terrorist attack, but hurt in the aftermath of the attack. In short, they did not suffer the same scope of injury.
I note that ``scope'' can mean the same thing as ``extent,'' as the bill introduced originally stated. Current rules, while requiring commonality of facts and law, does not require a showing of commonality in damages as a prerequisite for certifying a class action, as this ``scope of injury'' standard requires.
It is rare that two class members suffer the exact same scope of injury, and almost impossible to prove this at the certification stage.
Think about Boston. Some people lost a leg, some people lost a life, some people lost both legs. They couldn't be part of a class. The relevant inquiry is whether they allegedly both suffered injury as a result of the same alleged wrongful act by the defendant.
It is hard enough as it is to pursue class actions because of years of efforts by industry to make it more and more difficult. Sometimes, in these terrorist situations, it is a different type of defendant.
It is wrong to place the heightened burdens of H.R. 1927 on terrorism victims who seek justice for the acts committed against them. I would ask that this amendment be accepted by the other side because all it does is make exception for victims of terrorism, and we all share in our hope that victims of terror get justice and that we don't put any more hurdles in the way of them successfully completing the track of seeking justice for them and their heirs, ancestors who might have been killed in those attacks.
My amendment would offer them relief of these burdens, and I would hope the other side would accept it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask that the amendment be considered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, having seen the outcome of the last vote where there was one Member of the other side and four Members of this side, and the vote was given to the other side, I just think that it would be best for the process if I withdrew this amendment because I can see the writing on the wall. And I am going to withdraw the amendment and hope that maybe on the floor we will pass something that takes care of the victims of terror and see that they aren't deterred by this.
I would like to just mention my friend, Warren Zevon, again. He had a song called ``Lawyers, Guns and Money'' and the other side is certainly for two-thirds of that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source