Sheila Jackson Lee: “Again, my friends, this speaks to the idea that we are not focusing on the plaintiff. So the injured party is at a…”

“Again, my friends, this speaks to the idea that we are not focusing on the plaintiff. So the injured party is at a disadvantage. Let me say to my colleagues that this bill is unnecessary because, in a class action, you do not get the same amount of money. It just allows you to put together your resources to press forward your case. So if you are a poor farmer or if you are a poor waitress or you are someone driving a 1989 car and you are in a circumstance that puts you in a category where that car, even as old as it is, had some defect and you have no ability to press your case, you have the ability to press your case along with others. I am outraged to think that they would deny that. So my amendment says to the defendant: You need to put forward all the information that you are demanding of those individuals who are singularly unable to provide the kind of legal representation that they need. If transparency was the true goal of this bill, then, why doesn't the bill require settling defendants to reveal information important to public safety? The asbestos health crisis is the result of a massive corporate coverup. Trust information is already public. So let's make it a two-way street. Let me also include for the Record a letter and these words: ``Far from being even-handed, this bill allows defendants--and only defendants--to do an end-run around state rules of discovery that place limits on information-gathering.…”