On the recordJanuary 8, 2016
I think we are going down a rabbit trail here. I agree with Mr. Nadler. This bill is designed to protect victims. It is not intended to increase the burdens or the cost on the victim. It does require the trusts to publish the name and the basis of the claim of folks who claim trust so that they are not double-dipped and pay more than one claim for the same person. That is what we are trying to do here. As we start to get into the additional information, that is further down the road. That is not part of the disclosure requirements of the FACT Act. But once the litigation proceeds and we have determined that somebody has filed a claim and they are in another court, the further information requested would normally be part of that proceeding and then would fall under the Bankruptcy Code rules. The disclosures of the FACT Act requirements from the asbestos trust are very limited: name and the nature of the claim and where they were exposed. That is less information than you have to release when you file any sort of tort case in a State court. It is basically what we consider to be the bare minimum in order to allow defendants to sniff out the possibility of double-dipping and fraudulent claims. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
