Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1927, section 3, the so-called Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015, which is actually the text of H.R. 526, the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency, or the FACT Act.

It is a fact that the Koch brothers are probably sitting back at home with their fingers crossed watching these debates, hoping and feeling quite confident that this will pass because they know when it passes, it is going to help them.

How does it help them? Well, they are the ones who manufactured or acquired the companies that manufactured the asbestos, this asbestos everybody knows now hurts people. So when people are hurt, they deserve to be able to go into a court of law and establish their claim and seek just compensation for their victimization by that company.

What this legislation does is to put its ugly hand on the scale of justice in favor of the manufacturers of this dangerous product and, also, their insurance companies. It puts its ugly hand on that scale, weighs it down in favor of those companies. So all of them are looking upon us now, hoping that we do what they would like for us to do.

Please know that not everybody is going to go along with this. There are some who stand with victims who deserve a day in court. They deserve, when they go to court, to not have to be subjected to the public release of their very private and sensitive information, their medical information. There should not be any kind of registry, like a gun registry, established.

This is a registry--we should actually call it an asbestos death database--which would allow these insurance companies and producers, manufacturers of death, to have access to people's personal information so that they could use it against them when they file claims. That is what this bill is all about.

I would ask that my colleagues understand the true purpose and vote ``no'' on this act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, my amendment would remove the scope and economic loss language from the bill.

Think of yourself as driving down a two-lane road, doing 55 miles an hour. It is nighttime or it could be daytime. Suddenly, you lose control of your car because your ignition switch cuts off the car and you lose control of your power steering and your brakes. There is an 18-wheeler coming at you and you have no time to react. There is a crash and you, as the driver, are killed in the unfortunate accident.

Let's assume that that has happened in numerous other cases. Perhaps the injuries were not as bad as a death. Perhaps someone just suffered a closed-head injury, a concussion, or perhaps a broken arm in the accident. Let's assume that both of those cars were made by the same manufacturer, had the same ignition switch, and a defect in that ignition switch caused the crashes.

Now there are numbers of claimants who are wanting to get together and file a class action lawsuit because they know that the large company has an army of lawyers, all of whom will go to court against a single plaintiff to defeat the claim. These briefcase-toting, loafer- wearing, silk-stocking lawyers, who are getting paid $900 an hour go to court, have helped the corporation hide the existence of the defect for many years, and there have been so many accidents that have occurred that singular plaintiffs who aggregate their claims and come together against that corporation have a better shot at winning the case than has just a single plaintiff who is going against an army of corporate lawyers.

This legislation changes the rules. It tilts the scales in favor of the company by making the plaintiffs prove that they have suffered the same type and scope of injury as has the named class representative, and that is despite there being one common question of law in fact that permeates all of the cases. Why shouldn't they be allowed to bring that case together?

This amendment would remove the scope and economic loss language of the bill so that it would not impede the ability of claimants to bring a class action lawsuit against a corporate wrongdoer. I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, that is exactly what I want to do, is to gut this legislation, because it guts the ability of asbestos victims to press class actions against the wrongdoing Koch brothers and other companies that manufacture that product.

I want it to be known that there are veterans organizations that oppose this legislation: the Air Force Sergeants Association; Air Force Women Officers Associated; American Veterans, AMVETS; the Association of the United States Navy; the Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Services; Fleet Reserve Association; the Jewish War Veterans of the USA; the Marine Corps Reserve Association; the Military Officers Association of America; the Military Order of the Purple Heart; the National Association of Uniformed Services; the National Defense Council; the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association; the Retired Enlisted Association; the United States Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association; the United States Army Warrant Officers Association; the Vietnam Veterans Association; and on and on.

I don't know what those veteran organizations that my friend named actually do. I don't know who they are. They certainly have names that appear to misrepresent whether or not they are in favor of the rights of servicemen and -women, but these organizations that I just named are.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source