[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 161 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7009-H7017]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2655, LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT
OF 2013, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 982, FURTHERING
ASBESTOS CLAIM TRANSPARENCY (FACT) ACT OF 2013
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 403 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 403
=========================== NOTE ===========================
November 13, 2013, on page H7009, the following appeared: H.
RES. 72
The online version should be corrected to read: H. RES. 403
========================= END NOTE =========================
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2655) to
amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
982) to amend title 11 of the United States Code to require
the public disclosure by trusts established under section
524(g) of such title, of quarterly reports that contain
detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition of
claims
[[Page H7010]]
for injuries based on exposure to asbestos; and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only 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 the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I think back to a time when I was a
teenager and I came into the gallery, and I am convinced that I came in
during a rule because the reading clerk was standing there, reading
line after line after line of material I didn't understand at all, and
I thought, Why in the world is line by line by line the legislation
being read? Haven't the Members already looked at that legislation?
Haven't they already had time to study it?
What I know now, Mr. Speaker, 3 years with the voting card of the
people of the Seventh District of Georgia, is that the rule is the only
piece of legislation in this entire body that has to be read word for
word here on the floor of the House.
My colleague from Florida and I spend a lot of hours up there in the
Rules Committee sorting those things out, but the rules matter. The
process matters.
I will be able to confess to you, Mr. Speaker--and I think sometimes
we get that process done a little better, sometimes we get that process
not done quite so well, but today we have a rule that brings two very
important pieces of legislation to the floor. This structured rule
provides for H.R. 982, which is the Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency Act, the FACT Act; and it brings a closed rule for H.R.
2655, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I was just talking with a group about
what the Rules Committee does, and I have talked about the importance
of an open process and how closed rules don't give folks as much
opportunity to express their views on the floor.
It is going to be a closed rule on the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act,
H.R. 2655, because for 11 days, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee
solicited amendments from the entire body. It asked anyone who had any
ideas about how to improve this legislation to submit those amendments
so that we could consider them in the Rules Committee, and over that
period of 11 days, Mr. Speaker, not one Member of this body offered any
ideas about how to improve this bill. We would have liked to have made
amendments in order for this bill, but none were submitted. So while we
say this is a closed rule on H.R. 2655, it is only because no
amendments were submitted to improve upon it.
Now on H.R. 982, the FACT Act, Mr. Speaker, we had five amendments
submitted, all Democrat amendments. One was withdrawn. So there were
only four that were in order for our meeting last night. One was
confessed to actually just try to eliminate the effectiveness of the
bill altogether. So we excluded that one because if folks don't like
the bill, they can just vote ``no.'' They don't have to destroy the
bill from within; they can just vote ``no'' on final passage. But all
of the other amendments that were submitted we made in order. Now these
are not amendments that I intend to support on the floor, Mr. Speaker,
but I do think it is important that people's voices be heard.
So, again, three amendments are made in order. That is 75 percent of
all the amendments that were submitted, and they are all amendments
offered by my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. The Rules
Committee thought it was important to make those amendments in order.
Now we will talk a lot, Mr. Speaker, in the debate that comes after
the rule about the content of these bills. One deals with frivolous
litigation and whether or not judges will be required to allow folks
who had to defend against frivolous lawsuits to recover the costs of
those suits.
Today, Mr. Speaker, if someone files a frivolous lawsuit against you,
you can have that lawsuit tossed out, but you have to go back to the
court a second time to recover all of the costs that it took you to
have the frivolous lawsuit tossed out. It is a tremendous burden on
small businesses in our Nation. This bill seeks to solve that.
The FACT Act, our asbestos litigation act, aims to provide some
transparency to the asbestos trust funds. I don't know if you are
familiar, Mr. Speaker, but when it was discovered all of the health
damage done by asbestos, the lawsuits began immediately and would have
driven every one of those companies that either used asbestos or
produced asbestos into bankruptcy, leaving no money at all for victims
who had health problems that they then sought compensation for.
So federally we created, within Federal bankruptcy courts, these
asbestos trust funds that allowed these companies, these manufacturers
of asbestos, these folks who utilized processes that included asbestos,
to deposit money into a trust fund and not go out of business but to
provide certainty that victims would be able to recover from those
funds in the future.
There is some concern, Mr. Speaker, that the process, as it exists
today, does not allow for folks to see who is getting those dollars and
whether or not the victims who have the most urgent needs are receiving
those dollars first. Our great concern, Mr. Speaker, is that when those
trust funds are depleted, they are gone forever. As you know, asbestos-
related illnesses often don't present themselves for years down the
road, so we have a stewardship obligation to these trust funds to keep
them protected for future claimants.
This bill requires a degree of transparency, a quarterly report from
the trustees of these trust funds to see who is making claims on these
funds, who is receiving claims out of these funds, again, just so
we can be good stewards of those trust funds and ensure they are
available for future years.
I don't sit on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, but I heard from
the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee last night. I heard
from the chairman of the full committee last night in the Rules
Committee as we held a hearing on both of these bills. I am glad that
we are able to bring them to the floor today, Mr. Speaker. Two bills, a
structured rule. One rule is closed because no amendments were
provided. The other bill is receiving 75 percent of all of the
amendments that were submitted. Just one amendment was excluded by that
rule.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from Georgia for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman, and he was very clear
about, one, the process and, two, the basic substance of both measures
that are on the floor today. To a relative degree, I agree with much of
what he has said. I know that my friend from Georgia is an advocate of
an open process, and with all due respect to him and the
[[Page H7011]]
committee, structured rules--whether Members have offered suggestions
for change or not--are not open rules. However, in this particular
case, he is correct that of the five amendments that were offered by
Members of my party, three of them were made in order, and none were
offered on the first of the two measures.
Mr. Speaker, with only 15 days left in this session of the 113th
Congress, we are here yet again doing more of the same, which is
nothing. It has been reported that some among my friends across the
aisle have even joked that the House shouldn't be in session in
December at all.
Instead of addressing our Nation's serious immigration needs--and I
might add a footnote there. There is a substantial loss to our economic
undertakings by virtue of us failing to do the things that we can and
should do either comprehensively or step by step to deal with the
immigration circumstances of this great Nation. We could be passing
ENDA, as the Senate did last week, where we could end discrimination in
the workplace.
Or we could do something that all of us know needs to be done: we
could work on ending sequestration. I was at two meetings this morning,
one dealing with homelessness and the other dealing with the need for
food, and in each instance, the parties that were the experts cited how
sequestration has impacted their nonprofit organizations in trying to
assist the homeless and the needy as it pertains to food. So we could
be working on trying to stop this meat-ax approach that is set in
motion. Yet we find ourselves passing bills that won't do anything and
aren't going to go anywhere.
In fact, H.R. 2655, as my colleague has pointed out, no Member
offered any amendment to it. It is so bad that nobody even wanted to
fix it. The bill is nothing more than a partisan solution to a problem
that doesn't exist.
The American Bar Association, the preeminent bar association among
lawyers in every category in the United States of America, wrote the
following:
No serious problem has been brought to the Rules
Committee's attention. There is no need to reinstate the 1983
version of rule 11 that proved contentious and diverted so
much time and energy of the bar and bench.
The ABA continued that the bill ``is not based on an empirical
foundation, and the proposed amendments ignore lessons learned.''
{time} 1245
The proposed changes would ``impede the administration of justice by
encouraging additional litigation and increasing court costs and
delays.''
This bill not only prevents judges from calling balls and strikes; it
forces members of the bench to call balks on every pitch before the
ball can even reach the plate.
The Judicial Conference, the preeminent conference of the United
States courts in this country that is the body responsible for
proposing the necessary changes in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, asked Federal judges about these proposed changes. Eighty-
seven percent of the judges asked prefer the existing rule 11 to the
1983 version; 85 percent of them support the safe harbor provisions; 91
percent oppose mandatory sanctions for every rule 11 violation; 84
percent think that attorneys' fees should not be awarded for every rule
11 violation. And here is the big one: 85 percent believe the amount of
groundless litigation has not grown since promulgation of the 1993
rule.
These are men and women who face these issues on a daily basis. They
know better than most--and almost anyone in this House of
Representatives--and believe that rule 11 has plenty of teeth as is.
This bill would substitute the judgment of Congress for that of our
judges. When the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes the
changes in this bill, you would have to wonder who the bill is really
benefiting.
It is not just the judges who oppose this bill. There is a long list
of groups that include attorneys, consumer protection groups, civil
rights organizations, and public interest advocates, all in opposition
to this bill.
As late as this morning, I received an additional letter from the
National Employment Lawyers Association. In sum and substance, they
feel that they represent farms, fields, schools, factories, executive
offices, military services, hospitals, and many others; and they feel
that they are a unique voice in this category. They stand in opposition
because they think it will proliferate the amount of litigation that is
unnecessary in our overburdened courts as it is.
The court already has discretion to award sanctions, attorneys' fees,
and expenses. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2655 will create more hurdles with
which deep-pocketed businesses can drag out litigation that is already
too expensive and time consuming.
My friends across the aisle have produced a number of anecdotes in
support of this bill; but most of the cases cited are demand letters or
State law cases, neither of which are subject to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Furthermore, lawsuits are too complicated to explain with a quip of
carefully selected and characterized facts. Just because a particular
fact pattern is entertaining or seemingly silly does not mean the case
is without merit. Just because a case makes for a good headline doesn't
mean that real people weren't really injured.
The most famous example that I can think of is the woman who sued
McDonald's for her coffee being too hot. When you say it like that, it
sounds like you want coffee to be hot when you get it. But what is
skipped over when we say it that way is that the coffee caused third-
degree burns, and the lady had to be hospitalized for 8 days, received
skin grafts, and then 2 years of medical treatment. Well, that hot
coffee doesn't sound so silly when you look at it from that standpoint.
Speaking of bills opposed by the people they supposedly help, the
second portion of this rule, H.R. 982, the FACT Act, is ironically
titled because it was drafted without regard to any of the facts. There
is no evidence of systemic fraud or that systemic failures encourage
fraud. The GAO in its study was unable to identify endemic and overt
instances of fraud that would justify these kinds of changes.
Most of the information supporters seek is available through the
standard discovery process.
This bill seriously compromises the privacy of victims in order to
provide offenders with litigation shortcuts. Claims of wanting to
increase transparency are really laughable, since the offenders
involved in these suits are allowed to maintain their privacy. This
bill further victimizes people who have already been through so much.
Human error is not fraud. Isolated incidents are troubling, but fraud
prevention procedures are already in place and functioning adequately.
Asbestos victims oppose this bill. My friends across the aisle would
have known, if they had provided victims an opportunity; but they did
not provide that opportunity. I asked the chair of this committee last
evening whether or not the victims had been afforded an opportunity to
make a presentation. When I pointed out to him that staff had allowed
that they could have a private meeting, but they did not have an
opportunity to testify during the proceedings, he agreed with me.
That seems to be a favorite tactic of my Republican friends. They
have done this to asbestos victims, and they have done it to judges.
When it came to shutting down the government, they ignored the
overwhelming desire of hardworking and working-poor Americans. They
continued to ignore economists and the downgrading of our credit rating
over the debt ceiling. They disregard the science of climate change,
despite erratic, catastrophic weather patterns and rising sea levels.
I am sure that all of us recognize the most recent typhoon that has
devastated the Philippines. I am hopeful that we, along with others in
the world, will hasten to the rescue. America is always to be commended
for our efforts when tragedies strike other nations, and I would call
on other nations who have not done so to become adherent to the kind of
philosophy that we have. And I hope that we can help those in the
Philippines to recover rapidly.
If my friends continue to ignore the world as it is in favor of the
red-tinted paradise they believe it to be, they will have no one to
blame but themselves when the country decides it is time to ignore
them.
[[Page H7012]]
I wish to say one additional thing regarding the privacy concern.
Yesterday, I called Comcast Television. The Miami Heat, champions of
basketball for the last 2 years, were playing last night. So I thought
that I would order the NBA game last evening.
Well, lo and behold, last evening and this morning, before I left to
attend meetings, the Comcast system is down and it is not working. I
was told that I would get a phone call yesterday; and I didn't get any
phone call. So I called this morning and I was told I would get a phone
call today, but I missed the game last night. Incidentally, the Heat
won. I did see that in the paper this morning.
But I am concerned about the privacy measures because when I called
Comcast, after giving them my account number and after telling them who
I was and what my address was--and this is through three different
automatic systems--then the young man came over the telephone. And when
he came over the telephone after doing all of this--the account, my
name, where I live again--he then asked me for the last four digits of
my Social Security number.
The wife of a former colleague of ours who died of mesothelioma,
Bruce Vento, has written actively, along with others, for us to see how
this identity problem might persist if we pursue this course.
This bill would make the private information of asbestos poisoning
victims readily available on the Internet, and therein lies the
difference. Different now is that any information anybody needs is
already in the courthouse. And they can go to the courthouse and
achieve that information. But this is part of what we mean when we say
this bill ``re-victimizes'' asbestos victims all over again.
If an employer or identity thief wants to get the information in a
regular lawsuit, they have to physically now go to every courthouse in
the country and look through paper records. But with this bill, if
Alcee Hastings applies for a job at X Corporation, the manager at X can
search for my name on the Internet, learn that I got money from an
asbestos trust, and then decide, if he or she wanted, not to hire me
out of some misplaced fear that I am someone who just goes around suing
their employer. Or they could refuse to hire me because they fear I
will be sick a lot or drive up their group health insurance.
An identity thief could learn the last four digits of my Social
Security number. That is the same piece of information that I gave to
Comcast yesterday and that my bank and credit card companies use to
verify my identity during customer service calls.
What part of that do you not understand that, if you put it on the
Internet, then anybody can utilize it?
Risking employment discrimination and identity theft for asbestos
poisoning victims just because my colleagues on the other side want to
stick it to the trial lawyers seems awfully crass to me.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I say to my friend that I absolutely share his passion for privacy
protection. In fact, I had to leave a hearing we were having in the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, Mr. Speaker, where we
were looking at the ObamaCare Web site and talking to the chief
information officers and the chief technology officers about how this
Web site had gone live without having been fully vetted for security
protections; talking about how, even as we sit here today, we have not
fully run through those security processes.
I share the gentleman's concern. The gentleman is an attorney as
well. I remember when I was in law school and they gave you access to
the LexisNexis database when you showed up to law school. You could
dial up anybody in the country. It is giving you a credit report and
showing you Social Security numbers.
We really do have to have a national conversation, Mr. Speaker, about
where we are headed. Those last four digits that were once my private
knowledge are out there all over the Internet today. My birthday is
broadcast everywhere on the Internet. My mother's maiden name is out
there. All of those things that folks used to ask me to protect me have
now become part of the public domain. And what the gentleman says about
a need to focus on that and protect folks is absolutely right, and we
absolutely need to do that.
There was only one amendment last night that was offered to deal with
privacy. It was going to give a unique identifier to folks, instead of
listing names, so that we could have the transparency to see if folks
were trying to game the system and take opportunities away from future
victims. That amendment was withdrawn. We didn't have an opportunity to
talk about that.
But my great hope is that this bill will pass the House today and
that we will be able to have a similar bill come out of the Senate. If
regular order has a chance to prevail on Capitol Hill, conference
committees will give us another chance to take a bite at that apple.
I think the gentleman brings up very real concerns; and, again, we
will have an opportunity to talk about those today.
The gentleman says, Mr. Speaker, there are some bills that are just
so bad, nobody wants to fix them. I want to say to the gentleman that I
am sympathetic to that sentiment. There are a few that I could rattle
off right now that are so bad, I wonder if it is even possible to fix
them.
But the bill the gentleman was talking about was the bill to
eliminate frivolous lawsuits, Mr. Speaker. When we had these penalties
in place back for 10 years between 1983 and 1993, more than 70 percent
of judges said that they utilized this procedure and that they awarded
damages in frivolous lawsuits. Seventy percent of judges, Mr. Speaker,
utilize this provision that we are trying to bring back into being to
punish filers of frivolous lawsuits.
This is not a bill for Big Business, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that
has been key voted by the National Federation of Independent
Businesses. If you know NFIB--and I know most of my colleagues do--this
is the trade association that represents the mom-and-pop shops, Mr.
Speaker. These aren't the big, working-out-of-a-glass-building-downtown
folks that you think are out to get the consumer. These are our friends
and neighbors. These are folks who are employing our sons and
daughters. These are folks who create most of the jobs in this country.
And they don't key vote a lot of bills, Mr. Speaker. You can go to
their Web site--NFIB--and see the number of bills that they key vote.
But they have picked this one out.
{time} 1300
My colleague from Florida says that some people believe it is so bad
that it can't be fixed. They have heard from lawyer association, after
lawyer association, after lawyer association which says it doesn't like
it, but we are hearing from the mom-and-pop shops which can't defend
against it.
Understand, Mr. Speaker, that today, if a frivolous lawsuit is filed
against you--and I don't mean ``frivolous'' because I think it is
silly. There are lots of those out there. That is going to be a much
higher number. I mean ``frivolous'' because the judge in the case says
it has absolutely no merit on either the facts or the law. When the
judge says it has no merit whatsoever, but you have had to pay to
defend yourself against it, this bill says the fellow who filed it
ought to make you whole.
Punitive damages are something we often hear about from the trial
lawyer bar. This bill doesn't have punitive damages. This bill doesn't
say, if you try to bankrupt the mom-and-pop company that is down the
street from me, we are going to punish you. I think probably it should,
but they didn't want to go that far. They said, if you are trying to
destroy, with a frivolous lawsuit, the mom-and-pop company down the
street, you have to make it whole. If a judge decides that your case
has no merit--not a possibly of merit, but no merit--on either the
facts or the law, the poor small business owner who is being harassed
by that lawsuit should at least have the chance to be made whole at the
end of that process. The National Federation of Independent Business--
small mom-and-pop shops--is who cares about this legislation.
Again, folks are going to vote ``yes,'' and folks are going to vote
``no,'' but I
[[Page H7013]]
think it is important that we say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the
purview, those things that are important. The gentleman from Florida
says, hey, there are more important things we could be working on. I
happen to agree with him. There really are important things that we
need to have on the floor of this House, but if you are the small
business owner who is about to lose your entire lifetime of work
because someone has filed a frivolous lawsuit against you, I promise
you there is no more important bill in your life than the one that is
before us today.
I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend who talks about
sequester that I think that is an important thing. I happen to be the
Rules Committee designee to the Budget Committee, and I happen to be
the chairman of the Republican Study Committee Budget and Spending Task
Force. In fact, we are having a meeting with Maya MacGuineas on the Fix
the Debt campaign next Monday afternoon to talk about what those
options are for dealing with long-term problems. The Budget Committee
right now is in conference with the Senate, trying to find a way to
restore funding to discretionary spending programs that we all believe
have been ham-handedly reduced. Instead, they are trying to find
savings on which we can agree on those long-term mandatory spending
programs that rarely, Mr. Speaker, have an opportunity to see
aggressive oversight, to see the things that can improve them, to see
the things that can preserve their long-term fiscal viability.
I would say, finally, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Florida that, as
the designee to the Budget Committee and as the chairman of the Budget
and Spending Task Force, I don't believe it is the failure to raise the
debt ceiling that threatens America's credit rating. I think it is out-
of-control spending that threatens America's credit rating. It only
takes a stroke of a pen here for us to raise the credit limit to
infinity, but I promise you that that is not in the best interests of
the American economy.
We all know we have spending challenges in this country. We all know
that we have made promises to veterans, to seniors, to the infirm, to
the poor that we don't have the money to keep. I think that is immoral.
If you don't want to help somebody, then say you don't want to help
somebody, but do not promise someone that you will be there for him in
his time of need and pull the rug out from under him when he needs the
promise to be fulfilled the most. We can do better. This body has done
better.
In 1983, Republicans and Democrats came together and extended the
fiscal lifetime of Social Security by not doing things that hurt
seniors in that day but by doing things that raised the retirement age
for me--I was 13 at the time--from 65 to 67. That is a pretty modest
step that made a big impact in the life of the Social Security trust
fund.
There are big issues that we need to discuss here on the floor. I
hope we will bring those issues to the floor. Our committees in the
House moved things in a responsible way, step by step, throughout the
summer. We could use a little partnership from the other side of the
Hill, but I hope we will focus on what we have before us here today,
Mr. Speaker--an opportunity to make a difference for future victims who
are applying to the trust fund and an opportunity to make a difference
today for small businesses which are being victimized by frivolous
litigation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my
classmate, colleague, and good friend.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that asbestos exposure
has had on working men and women in this country because I represent an
area with several shipyards. In the last few decades, in my district
alone, several thousand local shipyard workers have developed
asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma from asbestos exposure that
occurred between the 1940s and the 1970s. Hundreds of these workers
have already died, and asbestos deaths and disabilities are continuing
due to the long latency period associated with the illness.
Now, I believe that we cannot consider legislation affecting victims
of asbestos exposure without remembering exactly who caused the
problem. Court findings show that companies made willful and malicious
decisions to expose their employees to asbestos. There are several
examples:
In one case in 1986, after hearing both sides, the New Jersey Supreme
Court declared:
It is, indeed, appalling to us that the company had so much
information on the hazards of asbestos workers as early as
the mid-1930s and that it not only failed to use that
information to protect the workers, but more egregiously, it
also attempted to withhold this information from the public;
A few years earlier, the Superior Court, Appellate Division of New
Jersey held in the same case:
The jury here was justified in concluding that both
defendants, fully appreciating the nature, extent, and
gravity of the risk, nevertheless made a conscious and cold-
blooded business decision, in utter and flagrant disregard to
the rights of others, to take no protective or remedial
action;
In 1999, the Florida Supreme Court found:
The clear and convincing evidence in this case revealed
that, for more than 30 years, the company concealed what it
knew about the dangers of asbestos. In fact, the company's
conduct was even worse than concealment; it also included
intentional and knowing misrepresentations concerning the
dangers of its asbestos-containing product.
That is who we are talking about, and those are the types of
companies that will benefit from this legislation.
Now, any suggestion that people are getting paid more than once is
absolutely absurd. The fact of the matter is, because of the
bankruptcies, most of them are not getting anywhere close to what they
actually would have been awarded, and the bill before us does not help
those victims. It actually hurts them.
The bill is nothing but a scheme to delay the proceedings and to
allow the victims to get even less than they get now. Because of the
delay, many of the victims will die before they get to court. This
helps the guilty corporations that have inflicted this harm on innocent
victims because, if the plaintiffs die before they get to court, their
pain and suffering damages are extinguished. If you can delay cases
enough so that the plaintiffs will die before they get to trial, the
corporations will not only get to delay their payments, but when they
finally have to pay, they will have to pay much less.
These people are the ones who made those conscious and cold-blooded
business decisions. They are the ones who will benefit from the bill at
the expense of the innocent, hardworking victims. Regrettably, many of
those victims are our veterans because they were working on Navy ships.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose
the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous
question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R.
3383, which is my good friend Representative Esty's measure, the
Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013.
To discuss her bill, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
Ms. ESTY. Thank you to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, last week, when I was back in my district, I didn't hear
about asbestos. I didn't hear about rule 11 sanctions. I heard about
how harmful the government shutdown was, about the need to pass
comprehensive immigration reform and of the hope that this Congress
would focus on job-creating measures, but I also heard from folks in my
district about the costs they face in caring for their beloved family
members--veterans, who have proudly served our country.
[[Page H7014]]
Many of these veterans receive care at home, as they prefer, but some
families are simply not able to provide home care for financial or
other reasons. Now, these veterans could seek long-term institutional
care through the VA, but that is much more expensive. The VA's FY14
budget request estimates that long-term institutional care costs the VA
over $116,000 per veteran per year. Caregivers of the post-
9/11 victims are eligible for a stipend, which costs much less than the
cost of long-term care. More than 10,000 veteran caregivers and their
families have been helped so far, and that is a very good thing, but
there are more who should qualify. There are more veterans in need, and
we shouldn't leave them behind.
I introduced the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act, which
would expand the eligibility for veterans' caregiver benefits to family
caregivers of all veterans. According to the CBO, approximately 70,000
caregivers of pre-9/11 veterans could be eligible for this program, and
let's stop kidding ourselves into believing we are not already spending
more taxpayer dollars to provide care through other VA programs.
Let's work together on a solution for all of our veterans, some of
whom, in fact, were exposed to asbestos and suffer from mesothelioma. I
urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can
consider the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act in order to honor
our obligation to care for our veterans, an obligation which did not
end on Veterans Day.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say to my colleague that I very much appreciate her concern about
the family members of veterans.
So often, we craft a one-size-fits-all solution in this body, and if
you want to care for your loved one at home, there is very little help
for you. Now, if you want to institutionalize your loved one--if you
want to dump your loved one off on the State--then we have a program
for you, but if you want to nurture your loved one but you just need a
little help, if you want to keep your loved one by your side but you
just can't do it alone, there are very few opportunities that you have
within our Federal system today. One exception to that is the PACE
program, which was championed by Bob Dole back in the day, that allows
you to bridge some of the different Federal programs that are available
to you and to utilize those within your home, within your family,
rather than having to institutionalize your loved one.
I don't think there is a man or a woman in this body, Mr. Speaker,
who does not both have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration
for our veterans but who also feels a debt of service to our veterans.
I will point out that we always talk about the hyperpartisan U.S. House
of Representatives. We moved our Veterans Affairs' spending bill in
this House back on June 4. On June 4, we passed it in this House with
only four Members voting ``no.'' Talk about things that bring you
together, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to divide you. That is the kind of
commitment that this institution has to our veterans.
I can't tell you why we haven't been able to get that signed into
law. I know the Senate has not yet acted on that bill. I think it would
be something that would bring them together, too, and I would recommend
that to them, but of the 435 Members of this body, only four Members
voted ``no'' on our bill to try to fulfill that commitment in order to
make sure our veterans--our returning men and women--have the kinds of
resources that not just they deserve but that we have committed to
them.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague at
this time that I have no further speakers and that I am prepared to
close if he is prepared to close.
Mr. WOODALL. I am prepared to close.
{time} 1315
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I understand why we are here. I understand that my friends across the
aisle evidently don't mind wasting this body's time, their resources,
and money passing bills that are going to go nowhere.
In fact, later this week, I know we go to the Rules Committee on
Thursday on a provision that is going to take its 46th vote to defund,
delay, or repeal the Affordable Care Act and the patient protections
and budget savings contained within it.
We have all got our roles to play. It is a shame, in my judgment,
that my friends across the aisle would rather reenact some of the same
tired political drama rather than actually accomplish something. We can
do a great deal more here in the House to address the significant needs
that our country has.
Let me tell you how this particular measure is going to play out. The
rule is going to pass. It will be debated here on the House floor
today, both measures having to do with asbestos and with so-called
lawsuit measures. After they pass the House of Representatives, then it
is bound over to the United States Senate where nothing is going to
take place.
Now, I am not prescient--I don't have any way of predicting the
future--but this particular methodology for legislation back and forth
is just as much a problem when the House passes something that the
Senate doesn't do anything about as when the Senate passes something
that the House doesn't do anything about. I can calculate the numbers
on both sides. I just personally think it is wrong for us not to let
this process work its will on behalf of the American people.
Therefore, passing legislation just to have portions of either of our
bases satisfied is not my idea of something to do. What we are doing
here today is nothing other than wasting time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment to the resolution, along with extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the
underlying bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say to this body there are actually more that my friend from Florida
and I agree on than what we disagree on. I might not say that at a
townhall meeting back home, but I will say that to you here, because at
its core we all share a vision of what this Nation can be, what this
Nation should be; but we do get mired in the rhetoric.
It is interesting that we have a bill today that those folks who
represent mom-and-pop businesses say is so important to them they are
going to make sure that every single Member of this House knows that
they are keeping score on this and they want a ``yes'' vote on that
legislation. Yet we have other bills here that the trial lawyers are
saying are so important to them that they are going to write letter
after letter after letter saying this is not in the best interest of
the country, we should move in a different direction.
I will tell you, those are exactly the kinds of bills that we ought
to be working on. Now, are there bigger-picture bills out there?
Absolutely there are. I would like to see a bill that solves Social
Security forever, where we end this business about Social Security is
going to go bankrupt, and once and for all we solve that issue so no
senior is ever concerned about that again.
We don't have that bill on the floor today. We have an opportunity to
stop frivolous lawsuits.
I would like to see a bill on the floor that balances the Federal
budget. I am old fashioned that way, Mr. Speaker. I think if you want
to spend it, you ought to raise it. If you don't want to raise it, then
don't spend it.
But we don't have that bill on the floor today. We have a bill to
make sure that trust funds intended to protect victims of a horrible,
horrible perpetration by industry have an opportunity to collect what
little money there is left from those businesses that perpetrated those
harms. I think we should support that bill today.
Mr. Speaker, one step at a time we really can make a difference. I
have been reading with great dismay that some of the colleagues that I
was elected with 3 years ago have decided they
[[Page H7015]]
are not going to run for reelection. They have been here 3 years, and
they have found that while they came here to make America a better
place, while they came here to serve the men and women back home, while
they came here to make sure their children grew up with the same
freedoms and opportunities that they grew up with, they have decided
that it might not be happening.
We can and we must do better. In fact, we had a committee hearing
last night. My colleague from Florida (Mr. Webster) said, I think
``comprehensive'' ought to be a dirty word. Comprehensive ought to be a
dirty word, because when I hear ``comprehensive,'' Mr. Speaker, what I
hear is we are throwing everything in, and the kitchen sink, and I want
you to pass all or nothing on the House floor.
It doesn't have to be that way. I promise you if you put together a
2,000-page bill, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be parts of it that my
constituency does not believe are in the best interest of America. But
if we pass bills 10 pages at a time, 20 pages at a time, maybe even 30
pages at a time, Mr. Speaker, if we move one idea at a time, we get a
``yes'' or ``no'' vote from both sides of the aisle, we send it to the
Senate, we pass it in the Senate, and the President puts a signature on
it, we can make a difference.
I believe that that momentum matters. I hope we get a ``yes'' vote on
the rule. I hope we get a ``yes'' vote on these underlying bills. I
hope we get bills coming out of the farm bill conference. I hope we get
bills coming out of the budget conference. I hope we get bills coming
out of the Water Resources and Reform Development Act conference. I
hope we move these things before we begin to build that momentum.
We are at a stumbling place, Mr. Speaker. There is an impediment in
our way. I read some White House sources this week that said they
recognize that we have not come through on the promise of ``if you like
your insurance, you can keep it.'' They were looking for solutions, but
they weren't going to come to Congress to look for solutions. They were
going to look for administrative solutions, and they were going to try
to fix it on their own.
As we have heard on this floor many times, the Affordable Care Act is
the law of the land; ObamaCare is the law of the land. An
administrative branch shouldn't just be able to unilaterally change the
law of the land. The Constitution gives that responsibility to us. We
have got to step up and take responsibility for those things that the
Constitution invests in us, and article III courts are one of those
things. We are taking that responsibility up today.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity not to be Republicans and
Democrats, but to be representatives of Americans in the greatest body
in this entire land, the closest to the American people--the U.S. House
of Representatives. We have a chance to announce our position, the
House position, and move that to the Senate and then, lo and bold, we
have an opportunity to work with the Senate not to adopt a Republican
position or a Democrat position, but a congressional opinion, an
article I constitutional opinion that we then march down Pennsylvania
Avenue and say to the Executive, be he or she a Republican or a
Democrat, this is what the people have to say; we need your signature
on that. They can say ``yes'' or ``no.''
We have set up these roadblocks, Mr. Speaker, where it is not House
and Senate; it is Republican and Democrat. It does not serve this
institution well. It does not serve America well.
I hope we are going to have bipartisan votes on these two bills
today, Mr. Speaker. We are exercising a constitutional responsibility
to direct the courts. We can vote ``yes,'' we can vote ``no,'' but it
is not something that is peripheral to what we are about. It is
something that is essential to the responsibilities that the
Constitution has placed with us.
I promise my colleagues this institution will be a better institution
if we pull out that rule book called the United States Constitution
more often and start with those priorities that it has invested in us,
not the priorities that some interest group has invested in us, not the
priorities that the news media has invested in us, not the priorities
that a Republican Party or a Democratic Party have invested in us, but
the priorities the United States Constitution invests in us, we will
restore the faith of the American people in this institution.
These two bills do that, Mr. Speaker. I encourage a strong ``yes''
vote on the rule that has made in order all of the amendments that were
offered, save one. Let this body work its will. Support this rule.
Support the underlying bill. Vote your conscience on the amendments to
make the bills better if you want to, but let's get our constitutional
responsibilities done.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 982, The
F.A.C.T. Act.
This intrusive legislation which misuses the word ``transparency,''
would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by requiring the posting
of personal exposure and medical information online and create new
barriers to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos diseases.
We have witnessed decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, even after
its hazards were known, have resulted in a legacy of disease and death.
Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have been exposed
to, suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease, and
the toll continues. It is estimated that each year 10,000 people in the
United States are expected to die from asbestos related diseases. This
is an outrage--and to add to their misery--they have to deal with the
onerous provisions of H.R. 982.
Asbestos victims have faced huge barriers and obstacles to receiving
compensation for their diseases. Major asbestos producers refused to
accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to
limit their future liability. In 1994 Congress passed special
legislation that allowed the asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy
trusts to compensate asbestos victims and reorganize under the
bankruptcy law.
But these trusts don't have adequate funding to provide just
compensation, and according to a 2010 RAND study, the median payment
across the trusts is only 25 percent of the claim's value. With
compensation from these trusts so limited, asbestos victims have sought
redress from the manufacturers of other asbestos products to which they
were exposed.
Although the proponents of this legislation assert that it is
intended to protect asbestos victims, not a single asbestos victim has
expressed support for H.R. 982. As the widow of our former colleague
Representative Bruce Vento (D-MN), who passed away from mesothelioma,
stated H.R. 982 ``does not do a single thing'' to help asbestos victims
and their families?
H.R. 982 disturbs a reasonably well-functioning asbestos victim
compensation process. Entities facing overwhelming mass tort liability
for causing asbestos injuries may, under certain circumstances, shed
these liabilities and financially regain their stability in exchange
for funding trusts established under Chapter II of the Bankruptcy Code
to pay the claims of their victims, under certain circumstances. 3 H.R.
982, however, interferes with this longstanding process in two ways.
The FACT Act would require these trusts to: (1) file a publicly
available quarterly report with the bankruptcy court that would include
personally identifying information about such claimants, including
their names, exposure history, and basis for any payment made to them;
and (2) provide any information related to payment from and demands for
payment from such trust to any party to any action in law or equity
concerning liability for asbestos exposure.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this utterly intrusive
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 403 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida
Strike all and insert the following:
Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3383) to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend
to all veterans with a serious service-connected injury
eligibility to participate in the family caregiver services
program. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as
[[Page H7016]]
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises
and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill,
then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3383.
the vote on the previous question: what it really means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 195, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 573]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)
NAYS--195
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Campbell
Culberson
Herrera Beutler
Jones
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Rush
Schwartz
Wenstrup
Young (AK)
{time} 1406
Mr. HIMES, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. LARSON of
Connecticut and SCOTT of Virginia changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
[[Page H7017]]
Mr. HALL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 194, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 574]
AYES--223
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)
NOES--194
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Campbell
Culberson
Doggett
Herrera Beutler
Jones
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Rush
Schwartz
Tiberi
Wenstrup
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1416
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________