[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 41 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1962-H1967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 720, LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF
2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 985, FAIRNESS IN CLASS
ACTION LITIGATION ACT OF 2017
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 180
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. 720) to amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to
the bill shall be in order except those printed in part A of
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
[[Page H1963]]
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
985) to amend the procedures used in Federal court class
actions and multidistrict litigation proceedings to assure
fairer, more efficient outcomes for claimants and defendants,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-5. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. 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 gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 180, 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. The rule provides for
consideration of H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, and H.R.
985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, equally divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The
rule also provides for a motion to recommit for both pieces of
underlying legislation.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman Steve Cohen
on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, as well as Subcommittee on
Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Ranking Member Hank
Johnson.
The Rules Committee made in order 12 amendments total--four
amendments to H.R. 720 and eight amendments to H.R. 985, representing
ideas from both sides of the aisle.
I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and the Judiciary Committee staff
for their work on both pieces of legislation. I am a member of the
Judiciary Committee, and we had the opportunity to consider both pieces
of legislation and enjoyed lively discussion at the markup for both
bills.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we have worked tirelessly in this
House to pass litigation reforms that would promote access to the
courts for all Americans and ensure that the cost of litigation isn't
used as a tool to force settlements.
We have also talked about how to restore reason and remove burdens on
hardworking Americans. These bills help us achieve those goals.
Both bills have enjoyed thorough discussion at both the committee
level and on the floor, both in this Congress and in previous
Congresses.
H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, was introduced by my
friend from Texas, Congressman Lamar Smith. Similar legislation to H.R.
720 has passed the House before, and I look forward to its
consideration again.
This legislation provides a balanced solution to frivolous lawsuits,
based on the simple principle that if an attorney files a baseless
lawsuit that has no grounding in fact or law, the attorney should have
to compensate the victim of their legal action.
This legislation does not change the standard for rule 11 sanctions;
it simply gives this important rule some teeth by making sanctions
mandatory instead of discretionary.
Opponents will argue that this bill will stifle robust examinations
of existing law by discouraging otherwise meritorious lawsuits.
To be certain, LARA does not change in any way the existing standards
for determining what is and what is not a frivolous lawsuit, as
determined under rule 11. In fact, LARA expressly provides that
``nothing in'' the changes made to rule 11 ``shall be construed to bar
or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or
remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights
laws, or under the Constitution of the United States.''
H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, was introduced
by Chairman Goodlatte. This legislation now also includes the
Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency, or FACT, Act, authored by
Congressman Farenthold from Texas.
H.R. 985 provides a targeted solution to a unique problem. At its
core, the bill addresses whether the injury suffered by named
plaintiffs in a class action suit accurately reflects injuries suffered
by the class.
Let me be clear, again, this bill does not kill the class action.
Opponents would have you believe that it does, but these claims have
become a knee-jerk reaction to attempts to address clear abuses in the
legal system.
We want to make the system work for victims of these abuses and of
other injustices. We want to make it more difficult for anyone to take
advantage of the courts and make legal recourse more accessible for
those who genuinely deserve relief.
As a case in point, when Congress passed the Class Action Fairness
Act, CAFA, in 2005, opponents claimed that its passage would mean the
end of class action suits. Actually, it had two targeted goals: to
reduce abusive forum-shopping by plaintiffs and, in certain
circumstances, to require greater Federal scrutiny procedures
throughout the review of class action settlements.
For example, you may remember an infamous Alabama class action
involving Bank of Boston in which the attorneys' fees exceeded the
relief to the class members. As a result, class members lost money
paying attorneys for their legal victory.
Twelve years ago, opponents of CAFA made virtually identical
arguments against that reform that they are making against H.R. 985
today. These objections are unsupported by history.
In fact, researchers at the Federal Judicial Center conducted a study
on the impact of CAFA and concluded that--postenactment--there was an
increase in the number of class actions filed in or removed to the
Federal courts based on diversity jurisdiction, consistent with the
congressional intent behind that law.
We see that necessary reforms have resulted in a class action option
that is alive and well, representing an important part of our legal
system. And it
[[Page H1964]]
will remain that way. Claims to the contrary, Mr. Speaker, are just
simply inaccurate.
H.R. 985 is a targeted solution that says a Federal court may not
certify a proposed class unless the party seeking the class action
demonstrates through admissible evidentiary proof that each proposed
class member suffered an injury of the same type and extent as the
injury of the named class representative or representatives.
This requirement also exists in rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Unfortunately, not all courts appropriately interpret or
apply these standards.
{time} 1245
To claim that this bill, which codifies existing standards, would
kill class action suits is just simply not supported by facts.
Class actions exist for a reason, a reason vindicated both by
compassion and by wisdom. The class action option exists to allow a
group of individuals who have been similarly harmed to join together to
seek appropriate compensation for their injuries.
In today's world, we see abuse after abuse of that legitimate
purpose. As a result, we have seen the rise of a class of people who
may bear legitimate injuries, but we also see countless others who have
suffered no injury at all yet are vying for class action spoils to
which they have no right. The no-injury class actions are designed to
exploit companies to achieve a quick payday through accusations that
are not grounded in genuine injuries.
Class actions should be preserved as a tool for those who are harmed
to plead their case and receive just compensation. H.R. 985 will allow
courts to focus their resources on cases in which the people have
actually suffered injuries. This helps ensure that we hold responsible
parties accountable for their actions.
As I mentioned, H.R. 985 also includes the Furthering Asbestos Claims
Transparency, or FACT, Act. The FACT Act is designed to reduce fraud
and compensation claims for asbestos-related diseases. This is a
critical step to preserving resources for true victims because,
unfortunately, double-dipping has become too common in asbestos claims.
For every dollar awarded to fraudulent claims, there is $1 less
available to true victims who are facing mesothelioma or other
asbestos-related illnesses. These victims are often those to whom our
country owes its greatest debt: our veterans. Veterans currently
comprise 9 percent of the population, yet they make up approximately 30
percent of the asbestos victims. Veterans are uniquely positioned to
benefit from the increased transparency that this bill offers.
Despite the positive impact that increased transparency can have for
veterans, detractors claim that the legislation will negatively impact
the privacy rights of claimants. Allow me to be clear, Mr. Speaker:
this is not true. The bill actually requires far less personal
information from claimants than State courts currently require in their
disclosure documents.
This legislation will reduce fraud in the asbestos trust system to
safeguard assets in order to compensate future asbestos victims,
veterans or otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 985 and H.R. 720 will establish meaningful reforms
to our litigation system. I believe the United States is the greatest
country in the world, and our justice system is designed to be free and
fair, yet we have seen our justice system abused by people who seek ill
gain at the expense of actual victims. These bills that today's rule
provides for help us to right that wrong. They may not be perfect, but
they recognize existing flaws in the system and strive to fix those
flaws to better serve the American public.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank my colleague and friend from Georgia for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, with this package of bills, the majority is taking a
sledgehammer to civil litigation. I know that my colleague and I are
not going to agree with that because I listened intently to what he had
to say. But it is closing courthouse doors to ordinary people who are
injured in the workplace and makes it harder for working people wronged
by the rich and powerful to seek justice.
First, H.R. 985 is really a solution in search of a problem. It uses
the false notion of rampant fraud in the legal system to shield
corporate wrongdoers and deny their victims relief.
Second, H.R. 906 has the potential to further victimize asbestos
victims.
Third, H.R. 720 would roll back significant improvements to the Rules
of Civil Procedure and repeat a failed experiment that led to a decade
of problems in the courts. By requiring mandatory sanctions that tie
judges' hands, we saw an avalanche of unnecessary litigation.
The majority is wasting time and taxpayer money to make changes that
evidence and the experts tell us are not necessary and could actually
cause more harm than good. It doesn't make sense.
But consider, Mr. Speaker, how the majority conducted itself on
health care for a decade now. Almost immediately after President Obama
signed the Affordable Care Act into law, 13 Republican State attorneys
general filed a Federal lawsuit opposing health reform. That was back
in 2010. Since that time, the majority has voted over and over again--
more than 60 times--to undermine the ACA.
CBS News has highlighted that it costs the taxpayers an estimated $24
million a week to run the House of Representatives. Think how many
millions of dollars of legislative time the majority wasted on these
votes that never had any chance of becoming law under the previous
President. They wasted taxpayers' dollars and they wasted precious
time. The majority spoke again and again about repeal and replace, and
all the while, they didn't have a thing in the world to replace the
health care with.
Former Speaker John Boehner recently made that clear, and it wasn't
until this week that the majority finally let Members of Congress and
the American people see their latest effort--and it would be a
catastrophe for families across the country. More and more groups and
individuals are lining up against it.
People would be forced to pay more for worse coverage if they could
afford any coverage at all. The bill would also defund Planned
Parenthood, which more than 2.5 million people, men and women, rely on
for lifesaving preventive care, like cancer screenings and STI testing,
every single year.
It is truly astonishing that the majority is trying to rush through
this bill without a Congressional Budget Office estimate about how much
it would cost or what impact it would have on the insurance market.
Let me quote from a Washington Post story this morning written by the
great Karen Tumulty:
While it is not uncommon for panels to consider legislation
without the Congressional Budget Office first weighing in,
veterans of the process say that doing so on bills as far-
reaching as the healthcare overhaul is rare and ill-advised.
We don't have any idea how many people would gain or lose coverage
without the CBO estimate, but we do know that this bill would take us
back to the days before the Affordable Care Act when American people
were on their own to try and get health care without any real
safeguards in place at all; when families were liable to go bankrupt
from heavy healthcare costs in a year's time, and the ACA protects them
from that by saying that once an insured person has spent $4,500 a year
on health care, the insurance company will pay the rest, and for a
family, $12,500 to insure them. That is something so rarely talked
about that is in this bill that I think is of vast importance, and we
would lose that.
Billionaires would get a tax break, but working families probably
couldn't afford health care.
We are rushing through this healthcare bill without a proper
understanding of its cost or its impacts. The majority completely
skipped the hearing process and, therefore, hasn't heard from experts
or doctors or people battling an illness--except, I guess, what is
going on torturing people over in the Energy and Commerce Committee
where they have been there since, what, over 24 hours now.
So we were encouraged yesterday when we learned at the Rules
Committee that White House Secretary
[[Page H1965]]
Sean Spicer had said at a briefing yesterday:
Every Member of the House and the Senate will be able to
have their opportunity to have amendments offered through the
committee process and on the floor.
It looks like we are not going to have that opportunity. And I do not
have enthusiasm for the notion that we will have an open rule since,
under this Speaker we have not had any, and the Democrats long to be
able to offer some amendments to this bill. I certainly hope that that
might be the case.
Now, the only way that happens is through the open rule. As I said,
we haven't seen one of those in Speaker Ryan's leadership. I hope the
majority follows through with the White House's promise of an open rule
because, more than anything on this, the American people deserve an
open and transparent process as this bill moves forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Sometimes it is often said that we discuss the issues that come to
the floor, and there are real debates taking place across the street
right now dealing with our discussions around health care. But I want
to go back to actually the bills that we are dealing with in the rule
and discuss the part of where do sometimes these issues come from,
especially when we are discussing things like H.R. 985 and class act
litigation.
This came, actually, from outside the walls here and outside into the
real world where this is being practiced. One of the things that is
happening is that Federal judges have been looking to Congress to
reform the class action system which currently allows lawyers to fill
classes with hundreds of thousands of unmeritorious claims and use the
artificially inflated classes to force defendants to settle the case.
As the Supreme Court has recognized, ``even a small chance of a
devastating loss'' inherent in most decisions to certify a class
produces an ``in terrorem'' interim effect that often forces settlement
independent of merits of the case.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that fear because what we are dealing with
many times in these class actions--and I know the Speaker and others
are aware--is the definition of the class that really depends on the
case itself, not as much of the merits of the case because of the
potential of a devastating loss. So the actual class certification
becomes something that is the main driver in these cases.
Notice what Ruth Bader Ginsberg said about this. She recognized this
when she said: ``A court's decision to certify a class . . . places
pressure on the defendant to settle even unmeritorious claims.'' That
is pretty powerful from a Supreme Court Justice talking about these
issues.
Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals, appointed
by President Clinton back in the day, has explained that class
certification ``is, in effect, the whole case.''
Then-Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit Richard Posner explained that
certification of a class action, even one lacking merit, forces
defendants ``to stake their companies on the outcome of a single jury
trial, or be forced by fear of the risk of bankruptcy to settle even if
they have no legal liability.''
Mr. Speaker, listen to what these judges are saying. They are saying,
number one, that the class certification is the most important thing
because it depends on the outcomes and forces settlements. Notice what
was said here by Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg, ``unmeritorious
claims.'' Judge Diane Wood, Seventh Circuit, talked about it being
``the whole case.'' Judge Posner says that, in actuality, they are
forced to settle ``even if they have no legal liability.''
In another Seventh Circuit Court decision, the court wrote: ``One
possible solution to this problem is requiring judges to do some
threshold level of review of the merits of a class action before
allowing certification, that is, approval of a class . . . It is cases
like the one before us that demonstrate precisely why the courts, and
Congress, ought to be on the lookout for ways to correct class action
abuses. Given the complexity of our legal system, it is impossible to
develop perfect standards for identifying and quickly disposing
of frivolous claims. Inevitably this court and other courts will be
faced with the cases that waste the time and money of everybody. Beyond
addressing the legal claims before us as we would in any ordinary case,
we must frankly identify situations where we suspect the lawyers,
rather than the claimants, are the only potential beneficiaries.''
Again, not coming in a vacuum, it is coming from the courts who see
this on a regular basis, from Judge Ginsberg on down, saying: This is
the whole deal. This is why we do these things.
Mr. Speaker, this is something that does need to be taken up. It is
something that we are proud to bring to the floor. In doing so, I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule that would require a CBO cost estimate to be made publicly
available for any legislation that amends or repeals the Affordable
Care Act which may be considered in the Energy and Commerce or Ways and
Means Committees or on the House floor.
The Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce are marking
up repeal legislation today. Legislation this significant should not
advance through the committee process, let alone the House, without
first hearing from our nonpartisan budget experts at CBO on what the
cost and overall impact would be.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most enduring symbols of fairness is Lady
Justice, who is depicted holding the Scales of Justice that represent
fairness in our courts. That central idea is embodied in the fact that
justice in the United States of America is supposed to be delivered
fairly, without any bias toward wealth or privilege.
It is no secret that sometimes we do struggle to live up to that
ideal. We have seen evidence of that far too often recently. But, Mr.
Speaker, this Chamber shouldn't be actively working to tilt those
scales toward the rich and the powerful, but that is what this
legislation would do. Considering these bills wastes their money and
fritters away the time we should be spending addressing our crumbling
infrastructure and the skyrocketing cost of education.
And, Mr. Speaker, today we got from the American Society of Civil
Engineers the new grades on our infrastructure. This year we get a D
minus, and we should certainly do better than that.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). Is there objection
to the request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think what we are hearing today--and I think what we
are going through in the process--is issues of real change, issues of
discussions that have been going on in our country for really now
almost 8 years. It has been 7 years since the Affordable Care Act,
ObamaCare, was passed.
We are seeing the changes that have taken place, Mr. Speaker, from
your time here and my time here on really dealing with the American
people and dealing with the substances of what their concerns and fears
are. The things that I have come before this body and debated many
times were what does the view look like from outside of this Chamber.
Inside this Chamber, we have raucous debates. We have discussions on
things. And at the end of the day, I believe sometimes, Mr. Speaker,
those sitting at home say: Does anybody listen to me? Does anybody hear
my call?
Over the past few years, we have seen through election results and we
have seen through times of change here in this body that the Affordable
Care Act is nothing like affordable. In fact, as many have described
it, it has been in a death spiral. We are beginning to work on that.
[[Page H1966]]
Now, I understand how that can make the other side, the ones who gave
us the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, not want to see that changed. I
can appreciate that.
Reality must set in at some point, and reality says that to defend
something that is failing is asking for a status quo that hurts people.
Now, I believe my friends across the aisle don't want to do that, but
that is what they are doing, holding onto a legacy that is only a
legacy for many of heartbreak and problems.
Did it help in some ways? Are we finding some? Did we address issues
over the past few years and begin the discussion of preexisting
conditions, keeping our children on until 26, and removing caps? Those
were all discussed and could have been handled in many different ways
besides the government takeover of health care.
Instead, we chose to use an ideological position to begin the process
of moving forward, and moving forward in which government will put its
fingers on the scale and government will begin to say what is right and
what is wrong. What we found in the whole process was our individual
mark is destroyed.
I have had some of my colleagues actually say: Let's just start over
and go back to the way it was. That would be nice, except that land
doesn't exist anymore.
Even if you wanted to--and I don't think we need to--we need to move
forward with free-market solutions that put access to affordable health
care for all Americans on the table, so that we can actually bend the
cost curve so that we can actually work to help people. That is what we
are working on. We are going to continue to work on making a smooth
transition from the disaster that many of us have seen over the past
few years. When we do that, change will come, and change is hard.
My folks back home are looking for change that helps, by Brittany
Ivey, who joined me here for the joint session just a few weeks ago,
who had employer-based health coverage with her family taken. She had
to make choices about healthcare coverage and staying home. These
choices make families' decisions harder because they would rather make
the decision to stay with family, but are having to work because health
care became unaffordable. It is these kind of choices that we are
laying out for the American people to listen and to say: What do we
need to do and how do we need to go forward?
So when we look ahead, we take issues of health care seriously. The
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is a friend. She states her
position eloquently. It is always good to be on the floor with her. We
disagree, and this is the place for this disagreement. This is a time
in which we share; this is a time in which we come together. And what
the Republican majority will do, Mr. Speaker, is keep its promises.
Now, I have had a moment of sharing what we are doing in health care,
but also let's get back to why we are here, for the rule. The rule
deals with abuses in the system; it deals with fairness.
Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing reforms to our litigation system
that increase fairness, balance, and transparency. These principles are
part of our larger goals as House Republicans to create a system that
works better for the American people and restores accountability to the
system.
We agree that there are legitimate lawsuits and legitimate class
action suits. No one is arguing against that. In fact, I firmly believe
that Americans should have access to a robust legal system that
protects them.
We encounter a problem, however, when frivolous lawsuits are lobbed
against small businesses and employers in attempts to profit without
warrant and at the expense of jobs.
The bills provided for by the underlying rule help us address this
challenge and to ensure that the litigation system functions as
intended, rather than being manipulated to improperly target
individuals or entities for profit.
The rule itself provides for robust debate on the legislation and
amendments from both sides of the aisle.
I would encourage my colleagues to look favorably on these bills as a
step toward reining in unnecessary and burdensome litigation and making
the legal system work better to address true grievances and harms.
Mr. Speaker, that last statement probably sums up what we need to be
about here. Let's look at the truth. Let's help people. Let's remember
why we are here and, that is, those who sent us.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 180 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. In rule XXI add the following new clause:
13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or
matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and
Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
152), or part thereof, in the House, in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union, or in the Committees
on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, unless an easily
searchable electronic estimate and comparison prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office is made available
on a publicly available website of the House.
(b) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order
that waives the application of paragraph (a).
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
[[Page H1967]]
____________________