Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 29 (Wednesday, February 24, 2016)

[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

[[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.''

____________________