[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 24, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H869-H874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3624, FRAUDULENT JOINDER PREVENTION 
                              ACT OF 2016

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 618 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 618

       Resolved, That 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. 3624) to amend title 28, United States Code, 
     to prevent fraudulent joinder. 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. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 618, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward 
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee.
  It is a structured rule that provides 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee for H.R. 3624, the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention 
Act of 2016.
  In addition to consideration of H.R. 3624, the House will also debate 
and vote on two amendments on the House floor.
  Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from the sponsor of 
the bill and a minority representative of the Judiciary Committee. 
Subcommittee hearings were held on this legislation, and it was marked 
up and reported by the Judiciary Committee. This bill went through 
regular order and enjoyed meaningful discussion at the subcommittee and 
full committee level.
  H.R. 3624 is strongly supported by the National Federation of 
Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce because of the 
significance of this issue to small businesses in northeast Georgia and 
across the Nation.
  This legislation will protect innocent local parties, often small 
businessowners, from being dragged into expensive lawsuits. It achieves 
this goal in two specific ways.
  First, the bill empowers judges to exercise greater discretion to 
free an innocent local party from a case where the judge finds there is 
no plausible case against that party.
  It applies the same plausibility standard that the Supreme Court has 
said should be used to dismiss pleadings for failing to state a valid 
legal claim, and we believe the same standard should apply to release 
innocent parties from lawsuits.
  Second, the bill allows judges to look at evidence that the trial 
lawyers aren't acting in good faith in adding local defendants. This is 
a standard some lower courts already use to determine whether a trial 
lawyer really intends to pursue claims against the local defendant or 
is just using them as part of their forum shopping strategy.
  It is important to emphasize that Congress has the authority to 
regulate the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts. The present 
standard has been described as poorly defined and subject to 
inconsistent interpretation and application and the consequences 
significant and real.
  H.R. 3624 is consistent with the views of our Founding Fathers and 
the principles of federalism enshrined in the Judiciary Act of 1789.
  I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman Buck, and their 
staff for their work in bringing forth this important litigation 
reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
and in strong opposition to the underlying legislation. In short, this 
is a lousy bill.
  At the end of last year, Republicans and Democrats came together to 
pass four major pieces of legislation that were sent to President 
Obama's desk and enacted into law.
  We passed a bipartisan budget agreement, a multiyear tax package, a 
highway bill, and legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act that had all been stalled for years.
  That is how Congress is supposed to work, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, 
I thought at the end of last year that maybe these successes would be 
contagious and that it would become the norm to actually work together 
in a bipartisan way and to pass meaningful legislation that would 
actually become law.
  But this Republican leadership, I am sad to say, has returned from 
the holiday break with more of the same tired ideas and partisan 
legislation that is going nowhere. We are wasting time with this 
legislation today, which is going nowhere. We are wasting taxpayer 
dollars spending our time dealing with legislation that is going 
nowhere.
  Instead of considering legislation to create jobs, boost our economy, 
or lift struggling Americans out of poverty,

[[Page H870]]

this Republican leadership is once again bringing to the floor a 
completely unnecessary bill that puts the interests of large 
corporations ahead of the rights of the American people to pursue 
justice through our court system.
  It is not even the first time this week Republicans have played 
politics with our judicial system. Just yesterday Senate Majority 
Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee confirmed that Senate Republicans will not hold hearings or 
any votes on any nominee by President Obama to fill the current vacancy 
on the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving a vacancy on our highest court for 
at least a year or more.
  Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't understand why my Republican 
friends have spent so much time during the last 7 years doing 
everything they can to try to obstruct this President's agenda and 
every idea that this President has had.

  The contempt that Republicans have demonstrated for this President 
from day one, when the Senate majority leader made clear that they 
wanted to make President Obama a one-term President and that the 
Republicans were going to do everything they could to stop every piece 
of legislation that he proposed because they wanted him to have no 
success stories, I think illustrates why this place has become the 
Congress of dysfunction.
  We need to do better. We need to understand that, in Washington, 
D.C., our job is to try to get things done, not simply put roadblocks 
in the way.
  Interfering with our judicial system to score political points sets a 
dangerous precedent, and the underlying bill that we are set to 
consider later today is just one more attempt to unbalance the scales 
of justice.
  H.R. 3624, the so-called Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act, works to 
create a wild west environment for big corporations by making it harder 
for ordinary citizens to hold them accountable for their actions. It is 
simply another Republican handout to big business.
  H.R. 3624 is an attempt to create a solution to a problem that 
doesn't exist. The issue of determining if a local party has improperly 
joined a case is already dealt with in our judicial system. There is no 
real evidence that the current system is failing to address any 
fraudulent joinders.
  This bill creates redtape and bureaucracy, something I am constantly 
hearing my Republican friends complain about, all to make our courts 
friendlier to big business.
  H.R. 3624 looks to move judicial cases that are supposed to be 
handled in State courts up to the Federal system, where trials take 
longer and are more expensive.
  This makes it significantly harder for an individual who has been 
injured by a corporation to take them to court and to be able to 
receive the compensation that they may be entitled to, that they 
deserve.
  The costs are even higher for those seeking justice when you consider 
that this change would force many individuals to travel long distances.
  This is unjust and unfair. Maybe it pleases a certain group of 
contributors, but it is certainly not in the interests of the average 
American citizen.
  Clogging up our Federal court system with unnecessary cases that 
should be handled in State courts is simply not in the best interest of 
the American people. Congress should not be taking away the power of 
the courts to determine where a case should be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans would be outraged to learn that we are even 
considering a bill that would tilt the scales even more in the 
direction of big corporations.
  This is the people's House. We are supposed to be on the side of the 
people, not on the side of big corporations.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, to reject this 
underlying bill, and to get on the side of the American people. If we 
want to do something constructive, maybe what we ought to do is pass a 
bill that allows the American people to sue the Congress for 
malpractice because that is what this is about.
  This really is malpractice, that we are wasting our time on a bill 
that essentially is a giveaway to big corporations and we are not doing 
the business that the people sent us here to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the 
previous question. If we do defeat the previous question, I am going to 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a resolution that would 
require the Republican majority to stop its partisan games and finally 
hold hearings on the President's budget proposal.
  I don't know why this is so controversial. We ought to have a 
hearing, and we ought to talk about various ideas on how to deal with 
our budget. The President of the United States is entitled to have a 
hearing up here in the House of Representatives.
  I urge my colleagues again not to follow suit of the Senate, which 
is, again, blocking any hearings on a new Supreme Court nominee.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) to discuss this proposal.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time.
  This is my eighth year in service on the House Budget Committee. For 
the last 7 years, every year, the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget has come to the House Budget Committee and has presented the 
budget of the President of the United States--the President of the 
United States, who has been duly elected by the people of this country 
for two terms.
  Now the House Budget Committee decides that it wants to break 40 
years of tradition and not allow the administration to present the 
President's budget to not just the committee, but also to the country. 
This isn't just unprecedented, this is disrespectful to the members of 
the committee and the Members of this House. It is certainly 
disrespectful to our President and the office of the Presidency. And 
above all, it is disrespectful to the American people who expect their 
elected leaders to at least review the budget of the President they 
elected.
  As I have said before, the American people have elected President 
Obama twice. They did it for a reason. One of the reasons was that we 
were facing one of the greatest financial crises in the history of this 
country. The record since President Obama has taken office is pretty 
good. During his time in office, he has overseen one of the most 
monumental recoveries in our Nation's history.
  Consider some of the things that have happened over the past two 
terms of the Obama administration. Over the last 6 years, 14 million 
new jobs have been created; unemployment is now down to 5 percent; our 
budget deficit is at the smallest it has been in 8 years, down $1 
trillion from the year President Obama took office; corporate profits 
are up more than 165 percent; the Dow Jones average has doubled; the 
S&P 500 has more than doubled, up 140 percent; the NASDAQ has tripled, 
rising 222 percent; more than 16 million Americans now have health 
coverage who previously didn't; and new business formations are running 
at their highest rate in 17 years.
  With that record of economic leadership, you would think that not 
just the American people, but certainly the House Budget Committee 
members would want to hear what this President has to say about his 
vision for the economy going forward and for the budget of this 
government. But no, once again, for the first time in 40 years, we 
don't have time or, apparently, the interest to listen to what the 
President has to say.
  I shouldn't say ``we.'' This is the Republicans on the Budget 
Committee.
  Budgets are the way we prioritize our values and our preferences for 
future action. I know why the Republicans don't want to hear the 
President's budget, because they don't want the American people to 
compare what the President would like to do with what their own budget 
will do. Now, we don't

[[Page H871]]

know exactly what that Republican budget is going to look like this 
year, but we do know that the Republican budget is going to resemble 
the Paul Ryan budget of 2012 and 2011.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. YARMUTH. That budget was so distasteful to the American people 
that his running mate in 2012, Mr. Romney, was forced to disavow it. We 
can make our own judgments, but we can't make our own judgments if we 
can't see and we don't let the American people see the administration 
discuss their priorities versus the Republican priorities.
  This really is an insult, once again, to the American people that 
Republicans are too scared of the contrast that will be presented to 
even allow the President's budget, the constitutionally elected 
President of the United States, to have his budget discussed in front 
of the American people. It is shameful.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I include in the Record an editorial that appeared in the New York 
Times, entitled, ``Republican Budget Tantrum.'' The editorial concludes 
with this paragraph saying:
  ``The President's budget request is a detailed and worthy entry in 
the contest of ideas. Its aim is to move the Nation forward. If 
Republicans had compelling ideas and a similar commitment to progress, 
they would engage with the proposals in the budget. But they don't. So 
they won't.''

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 9, 2016]

                       Republican Budget Tantrum

                        (By The Editorial Board)

       By law, dating back to 1921, the president of the United 
     States must submit an annual budget request to Congress. On 
     Tuesday, President Obama submitted his eighth and final 
     budget. And like all presidential budgets, it is a statement 
     of values and priorities, a blueprint for turning ideas into 
     policies, a map of where the president wants to lead the 
     country.
       This week, even before the president's budget was released, 
     the Republican chairmen of the budget committees announced 
     they would not even hold hearings with the White House budget 
     director to discuss the proposal.
       Their decision is more than a break with tradition. It is a 
     new low in Republican efforts to show disdain for Mr. Obama, 
     which disrespects the presidency and, in the process, 
     suffocates debate and impairs governing.
       Mr. Obama's budget proposes to spend $4 trillion in the 
     2017 fiscal year (slightly more than for 2016). That total 
     would cover recurring expenses, including Medicare and Social 
     Security, as well as new initiatives to fight terrorism, 
     poverty and climate change, while fostering health, education 
     and environmental protection. If Republicans find those 
     efforts objectionable--as their refusal to even discuss them 
     indicates--they owe it to their constituents and other 
     Americans to say why.
       Would they prefer to renege on Social Security benefits? Do 
     they think $11 billion to fight ISIS, as the budget proposes, 
     is too much? Is $4.3 billion to deter Russian aggression 
     against NATO allies a bad idea? Does $19 billion for 
     cybersecurity to protect government records, critical 
     infrastructure and user privacy seem frivolous? And is $1.2 
     billion to help states pay for safe drinking water or $292 
     million to send more preschoolers to Head Start really 
     unaffordable?
       Republicans have objected that the president's budget does 
     not do enough to tackle the nation's borrowing. But according 
     to the White House's estimate, the proposal would reduce 
     deficits by $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years. That would 
     be sufficient to hold deficits below 3 percent of the 
     economy, a level that is widely considered manageable and 
     even desirable, because a wealthy and growing nation can 
     afford to borrow for projects that would be financially 
     burdensome if paid for all at once.
       If Republicans have a plan to pay for the necessary work of 
     government while eliminating deficits entirely, they should 
     present it.
       The problem is that Republicans do not have viable 
     alternatives. The budget proposes a $10-a-barrel tax on crude 
     oil to help pay for $320 billion in new spending over 10 
     years on clean-energy transportation projects. Congressional 
     Republicans, unable to break free of their no-new-taxes-ever 
     stance, have derided the oil tax. But what is their plan to 
     pay for projects to modernize transportation and promote 
     green technology in the absence of a new tax?
       The budget would also raise $272 billion over the next 
     decade by closing tax loopholes that let high-income owners 
     of limited-liability companies and other so-called pass-
     through businesses avoid investment taxes that apply to all 
     other investors. Most of the money would be used to 
     strengthen Medicare's finances. What is the Republican plan 
     to strengthen Medicare?
       The president's budget request is a detailed and worthy 
     entry in the contest of ideas. Its aim is to move the nation 
     forward. If Republicans had compelling ideas and a similar 
     commitment to progress, they would engage with the proposals 
     in the budget. But they don't. So they won't.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we are reading in 
the press that the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Republican 
chairman of the Budget Committee, is now punting on the Republican 
budget because apparently there is not enough red meat in there to 
satisfy the Tea Party--or the Freedom Caucus or whatever they call 
themselves this particular week--which is very, very disturbing. But I 
think it is important that the Republicans do their job, just like the 
President did his job. And while you are waiting to do your job, I 
think you should maybe have a hearing on the President's budget so that 
maybe some of these ideas, my friends might be able to react to and 
maybe even find some agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the refusal of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle to hold a hearing on the President's budget is an 
unprecedented show of disrespect. The lack of respect I have seen for 
this President is abominable, it is disgraceful, and it does not 
represent the American character.
  Chairman Price of the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, recently 
remarked he wanted to ``save the President the embarrassment'' of 
having his Budget Director come testify before the Congress.
  Save him the embarrassment? He should be embarrassed.
  This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, since 1975 that the Budget 
Committee has not given the basic courtesy of reviewing the President's 
budget, regardless of politics, regardless of whether we had a 
Democratic President or a Republican President, or regardless of 
whether we had a Democratic Congress or we had a Republican Congress--
since 1975.
  This crass display of partisanship diminishes the ability of Congress 
to do its job. It certainly doesn't help us in reaching across the 
aisle, or maybe I am missing something. Had the committee held a 
hearing on the President's budget, you would know that it creates 
opportunity for all, not just those at the top. It invests in growing 
the economy and ensuring the United States is competitive in the 21st 
century.
  Look, we set the parameters in December, just a few months ago, and 
now what you want to do politically is tell us you can't live within 
those parameters. That is what you are telling the American people. We 
agreed to that. We voted on it.
  Now the majority has punted--to use the term--its responsibility and 
postponed releasing a budget as it tries to cater to the extreme 
rightwing of its party.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. PASCRELL. By the way, we were going to be marking up that budget 
this week; am I correct? I will stand corrected, Mr. Speaker, if I am 
wrong. We were supposed to be marking up that budget. Now, we have to 
ask: Why aren't we marking up that budget?
  We call on you to use this extra time during this delay to do your 
job and hold a hearing on the President's budget. It is the right thing 
to do. It is the moral thing to do.
  Gee, what does that mean? I asked you if you want to work in a 
bipartisan way. This would be a demonstration of how to do that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying again to my colleagues that they 
should defeat this rule, which is a restrictive rule. They should vote 
against

[[Page H872]]

the previous question so we can actually bring forward the resolution 
that would allow for there to be a hearing on the President's budget 
proposal, and we should defeat the underlying bill.
  We should defeat the underlying bill because it is a giveaway to big 
corporations and big special interests. It is a bill that seems like it 
was written in the Republican congressional campaign committee to make 
big contributors happy. It does nothing to protect the well-being and 
the interests of average Americans, of small businesses, and of people 
who do not have a lot of wealth.
  For those reasons, we ought to reject the underlying bill, we ought 
to have a debate on the President's budget proposal, and we ought to 
have a debate on whatever the Republicans come up with on their budget 
proposal.
  Speaker Ryan said that this would be the year of ideas, but it seems 
that any idea that isn't the idea of a small group of very, very 
rightwing Republicans is not welcome to be talked about, never mind 
deliberated on, in this Congress. We need to listen to all ideas, and 
that includes what the President has proposed.
  By the way, this is a President who, notwithstanding all of the 
attempts by my Republican friends to try to frustrate all of his 
legislative efforts, has a record of accomplishment nonetheless, and 
one that I think we Democrats are very, very proud of.
  But the fact of the matter is he is the President. He was elected not 
once, but he was elected twice. The American people elected him twice. 
He is our President for another year, whether my friends like it other 
not. He ought to be given the respect--and not just him, but the 
Presidency ought to be given the respect--to not play these kinds of 
political games when it comes to the budget.
  I hope that the previous question will be defeated so that we can 
bring this amendment to the floor for a vote.
  Again, I urge my colleagues, we have a lot to do. Let's stop bringing 
press releases to the floor for votes, and let's start doing business 
that will actually help the American people. This has become a place 
where trivial issues get debated passionately but important ones not at 
all. We need to change that. There is a reason why Congress is so low 
in the public opinion polls. What is happening today is an example of 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of 
my time.
  It has been interesting. Again, I want to just remind everyone, Mr. 
Speaker, that this is a rule debate about a bill that is coming forward 
to discuss a fraudulent joinder, which is something that impacts our 
communities and impacts our legal system. Just as a reminder, I am 
going to ask that you vote for the rule and for the underlying bill, 
H.R. 3624, which will have plenty of debate forthcoming.
  It has been an interesting thing in the last few minutes to discuss 
with my colleagues across the aisle and talk about real ideas and press 
releases. Well, it is interesting. It has always been the prerogative 
of Congress and committee chairmen to invite whom they want and how 
they run their committees, and that is continuing in that tradition.
  I think it is interesting that at the time it was announced, no 
hearing on the President's budget was needed; we had no reason to 
believe the President's budget would balance or show any real interest 
in doing the fiscal challenge.
  If you want to talk about press releases, go look at what was handed 
out just a few weeks ago. In the President's budget, it had a great 
picture of a mountain on the front. It was great symbolism because it 
basically just symbolized that this is a budget of debt; it is a 
mountain of debt; it has no hope, no promise--never will--to balance 
our budget.
  Do you want to talk about real ideas? It reminds me of when I was 
going back and I was raising my children when they were smaller, and I 
would say it is time to eat and they would say: Daddy, we want candy. 
Daddy, we want this.
  I would say: You have to eat real food.
  Real ideas mean that in this country we take them seriously.

                              {time}  1315

  It means a budget that can actually balance.
  When you have military leaders, business leaders, and community 
leaders saying that the greatest threat to America right now is our 
debt and deficit situation, and, yet, the President, in his own press 
release--if you would, a large budget--says that we are never going to 
balance, that we don't hope to balance, I do not understand the 
disconnect from the kitchen table to the White House's kitchen table. 
Undoubtedly, there is a disconnect, because you put forth an idea that 
is not serious, and you are not putting forth an idea that balances. It 
is the compelling idea that makes us move forward.
  The budget debate that Congress is having right now is one that the 
American people are demanding. It is about how we advance a budget that 
balances and that addresses fiscal challenges so we can have a strong 
national defense, a healthy economy, and healthy retirements and 
security for seniors and families. The President's ``status quo'' 
budget doesn't do that. In fact, it doesn't do anything with regard to 
what we have talked about.
  Mr. Speaker, I was back in my district last week, as many of us were. 
One of the many things we are hearing in this election season is the 
reality that there is a disconnect between Main Street and inside this 
beltway. As long as there are ideas down a certain avenue called 
Pennsylvania that say we want to put a budget up that has no hope of 
helping this country out of the situation it is in, then we are not 
dealing in reality, then we are not dealing in real ideas. We are 
simply dealing in the fantasy that, one day, it will all just be 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind our Democrat friends who are adamant about 
bringing the President's budget into the mix that they are welcome to 
offer it up when a vote comes; but the last time the President's budget 
hit the floor, it got all of two votes.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 618 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 624) 
     Directing the Committee on the Budget to hold a public 
     hearing on the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request 
     with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as a 
     witness. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the resolution specified in section 2 of 
     this resolution.

        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

[[Page H873]]

     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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, 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. McGOVERN. 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 237, 
nays 180, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               YEAS--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Blumenauer
     Buck
     Cook
     Green, Gene
     Hastings
     Herrera Beutler
     Huizenga (MI)
     Kelly (IL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Rooney (FL)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Speier

                              {time}  1340

  Messrs. CARDENAS, LYNCH, RUSH, and FARR changed their votes from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 85. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the 
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3624.
  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. McGOVERN. 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 238, 
noes 180, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               AYES--238

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp

[[Page H874]]


     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Buck
     Cook
     Green, Gene
     Hastings
     Herrera Beutler
     Huizenga (MI)
     Kelly (IL)
     Napolitano
     Roby
     Rooney (FL)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sewell (AL)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier

                              {time}  1347

  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.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 86. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on H. Res. 618--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 
3624--Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2015.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 86 on 
February 24, 2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I was unable to vote on Wednesday, February 
24, 2016, due to important events being held today in our district in 
Houston and Harris County, Texas. If I had been able to vote, I would 
have voted as follows: On the motion on ordering the previous question 
on the rule for consideration of H.R. 3624, the Fraudulent Joinder 
Prevention Act of 2015, I would have voted ``no.'' On passage of H. 
Res. 618, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3624, I would 
have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________