[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16970-16979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2655, LAWSUIT ABUSE REDUCTION ACT 
   OF 2013, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 982, FURTHERING 
             ASBESTOS CLAIM TRANSPARENCY (FACT) ACT OF 2013

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

[[Page 16971]]

call up House Resolution 403 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 403

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2655) to 
     amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to 
     improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     982) to amend title 11 of the United States Code to require 
     the public disclosure by trusts established under section 
     524(g) of such title, of quarterly reports that contain 
     detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition of 
     claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos; and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to 
     the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I think back to a time when I was a 
teenager and I came into the gallery, and I am convinced that I came in 
during a rule because the reading clerk was standing there, reading 
line after line after line of material I didn't understand at all, and 
I thought, Why in the world is line by line by line the legislation 
being read? Haven't the Members already looked at that legislation? 
Haven't they already had time to study it?
  What I know now, Mr. Speaker, 3 years with the voting card of the 
people of the Seventh District of Georgia, is that the rule is the only 
piece of legislation in this entire body that has to be read word for 
word here on the floor of the House.
  My colleague from Florida and I spend a lot of hours up there in the 
Rules Committee sorting those things out, but the rules matter. The 
process matters.
  I will be able to confess to you, Mr. Speaker--and I think sometimes 
we get that process done a little better, sometimes we get that process 
not done quite so well, but today we have a rule that brings two very 
important pieces of legislation to the floor. This structured rule 
provides for H.R. 982, which is the Furthering Asbestos Claim 
Transparency Act, the FACT Act; and it brings a closed rule for H.R. 
2655, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013.
  I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I was just talking with a group about 
what the Rules Committee does, and I have talked about the importance 
of an open process and how closed rules don't give folks as much 
opportunity to express their views on the floor.
  It is going to be a closed rule on the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, 
H.R. 2655, because for 11 days, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee 
solicited amendments from the entire body. It asked anyone who had any 
ideas about how to improve this legislation to submit those amendments 
so that we could consider them in the Rules Committee, and over that 
period of 11 days, Mr. Speaker, not one Member of this body offered any 
ideas about how to improve this bill. We would have liked to have made 
amendments in order for this bill, but none were submitted. So while we 
say this is a closed rule on H.R. 2655, it is only because no 
amendments were submitted to improve upon it.
  Now on H.R. 982, the FACT Act, Mr. Speaker, we had five amendments 
submitted, all Democrat amendments. One was withdrawn. So there were 
only four that were in order for our meeting last night. One was 
confessed to actually just try to eliminate the effectiveness of the 
bill altogether. So we excluded that one because if folks don't like 
the bill, they can just vote ``no.'' They don't have to destroy the 
bill from within; they can just vote ``no'' on final passage. But all 
of the other amendments that were submitted we made in order. Now these 
are not amendments that I intend to support on the floor, Mr. Speaker, 
but I do think it is important that people's voices be heard.
  So, again, three amendments are made in order. That is 75 percent of 
all the amendments that were submitted, and they are all amendments 
offered by my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. The Rules 
Committee thought it was important to make those amendments in order.
  Now we will talk a lot, Mr. Speaker, in the debate that comes after 
the rule about the content of these bills. One deals with frivolous 
litigation and whether or not judges will be required to allow folks 
who had to defend against frivolous lawsuits to recover the costs of 
those suits.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, if someone files a frivolous lawsuit against you, 
you can have that lawsuit tossed out, but you have to go back to the 
court a second time to recover all of the costs that it took you to 
have the frivolous lawsuit tossed out. It is a tremendous burden on 
small businesses in our Nation. This bill seeks to solve that.
  The FACT Act, our asbestos litigation act, aims to provide some 
transparency to the asbestos trust funds. I don't know if you are 
familiar, Mr. Speaker, but when it was discovered all of the health 
damage done by asbestos, the lawsuits began immediately and would have 
driven every one of those companies that either used asbestos or 
produced asbestos into bankruptcy, leaving no money at all for victims 
who had health problems that they then sought compensation for.
  So federally we created, within Federal bankruptcy courts, these 
asbestos trust funds that allowed these companies, these manufacturers 
of asbestos, these folks who utilized processes that included asbestos, 
to deposit money into a trust fund and not go out of business but to 
provide certainty that victims would be able to recover from those 
funds in the future.
  There is some concern, Mr. Speaker, that the process, as it exists 
today, does not allow for folks to see who is getting those dollars and 
whether or not the victims who have the most urgent needs are receiving 
those dollars first. Our great concern, Mr. Speaker, is that when those 
trust funds are depleted, they are gone forever. As you know, asbestos-
related illnesses often don't present themselves for years down the 
road, so we have a stewardship obligation to these trust funds to keep 
them protected for future claimants.
  This bill requires a degree of transparency, a quarterly report from 
the

[[Page 16972]]

trustees of these trust funds to see who is making claims on these 
funds, who is receiving claims out of these funds, again, just so we 
can be good stewards of those trust funds and ensure they are available 
for future years.
  I don't sit on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, but I heard from 
the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee last night. I heard 
from the chairman of the full committee last night in the Rules 
Committee as we held a hearing on both of these bills. I am glad that 
we are able to bring them to the floor today, Mr. Speaker. Two bills, a 
structured rule. One rule is closed because no amendments were 
provided. The other bill is receiving 75 percent of all of the 
amendments that were submitted. Just one amendment was excluded by that 
rule.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman, and he was very clear 
about, one, the process and, two, the basic substance of both measures 
that are on the floor today. To a relative degree, I agree with much of 
what he has said. I know that my friend from Georgia is an advocate of 
an open process, and with all due respect to him and the committee, 
structured rules--whether Members have offered suggestions for change 
or not--are not open rules. However, in this particular case, he is 
correct that of the five amendments that were offered by Members of my 
party, three of them were made in order, and none were offered on the 
first of the two measures.
  Mr. Speaker, with only 15 days left in this session of the 113th 
Congress, we are here yet again doing more of the same, which is 
nothing. It has been reported that some among my friends across the 
aisle have even joked that the House shouldn't be in session in 
December at all.
  Instead of addressing our Nation's serious immigration needs--and I 
might add a footnote there. There is a substantial loss to our economic 
undertakings by virtue of us failing to do the things that we can and 
should do either comprehensively or step by step to deal with the 
immigration circumstances of this great Nation. We could be passing 
ENDA, as the Senate did last week, where we could end discrimination in 
the workplace.
  Or we could do something that all of us know needs to be done: we 
could work on ending sequestration. I was at two meetings this morning, 
one dealing with homelessness and the other dealing with the need for 
food, and in each instance, the parties that were the experts cited how 
sequestration has impacted their nonprofit organizations in trying to 
assist the homeless and the needy as it pertains to food. So we could 
be working on trying to stop this meat-ax approach that is set in 
motion. Yet we find ourselves passing bills that won't do anything and 
aren't going to go anywhere.
  In fact, H.R. 2655, as my colleague has pointed out, no Member 
offered any amendment to it. It is so bad that nobody even wanted to 
fix it. The bill is nothing more than a partisan solution to a problem 
that doesn't exist.
  The American Bar Association, the preeminent bar association among 
lawyers in every category in the United States of America, wrote the 
following:

       No serious problem has been brought to the Rules 
     Committee's attention. There is no need to reinstate the 1983 
     version of rule 11 that proved contentious and diverted so 
     much time and energy of the bar and bench.

  The ABA continued that the bill ``is not based on an empirical 
foundation, and the proposed amendments ignore lessons learned.''

                              {time}  1245

  The proposed changes would ``impede the administration of justice by 
encouraging additional litigation and increasing court costs and 
delays.''
  This bill not only prevents judges from calling balls and strikes; it 
forces members of the bench to call balks on every pitch before the 
ball can even reach the plate.
  The Judicial Conference, the preeminent conference of the United 
States courts in this country that is the body responsible for 
proposing the necessary changes in the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, asked Federal judges about these proposed changes. Eighty-
seven percent of the judges asked prefer the existing rule 11 to the 
1983 version; 85 percent of them support the safe harbor provisions; 91 
percent oppose mandatory sanctions for every rule 11 violation; 84 
percent think that attorneys' fees should not be awarded for every rule 
11 violation. And here is the big one: 85 percent believe the amount of 
groundless litigation has not grown since promulgation of the 1993 
rule.
  These are men and women who face these issues on a daily basis. They 
know better than most--and almost anyone in this House of 
Representatives--and believe that rule 11 has plenty of teeth as is.
  This bill would substitute the judgment of Congress for that of our 
judges. When the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes the 
changes in this bill, you would have to wonder who the bill is really 
benefiting.
  It is not just the judges who oppose this bill. There is a long list 
of groups that include attorneys, consumer protection groups, civil 
rights organizations, and public interest advocates, all in opposition 
to this bill.
  As late as this morning, I received an additional letter from the 
National Employment Lawyers Association. In sum and substance, they 
feel that they represent farms, fields, schools, factories, executive 
offices, military services, hospitals, and many others; and they feel 
that they are a unique voice in this category. They stand in opposition 
because they think it will proliferate the amount of litigation that is 
unnecessary in our overburdened courts as it is.
  The court already has discretion to award sanctions, attorneys' fees, 
and expenses. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2655 will create more hurdles with 
which deep-pocketed businesses can drag out litigation that is already 
too expensive and time consuming.
  My friends across the aisle have produced a number of anecdotes in 
support of this bill; but most of the cases cited are demand letters or 
State law cases, neither of which are subject to the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure.
  Furthermore, lawsuits are too complicated to explain with a quip of 
carefully selected and characterized facts. Just because a particular 
fact pattern is entertaining or seemingly silly does not mean the case 
is without merit. Just because a case makes for a good headline doesn't 
mean that real people weren't really injured.
  The most famous example that I can think of is the woman who sued 
McDonald's for her coffee being too hot. When you say it like that, it 
sounds like you want coffee to be hot when you get it. But what is 
skipped over when we say it that way is that the coffee caused third-
degree burns, and the lady had to be hospitalized for 8 days, received 
skin grafts, and then 2 years of medical treatment. Well, that hot 
coffee doesn't sound so silly when you look at it from that standpoint.
  Speaking of bills opposed by the people they supposedly help, the 
second portion of this rule, H.R. 982, the FACT Act, is ironically 
titled because it was drafted without regard to any of the facts. There 
is no evidence of systemic fraud or that systemic failures encourage 
fraud. The GAO in its study was unable to identify endemic and overt 
instances of fraud that would justify these kinds of changes.
  Most of the information supporters seek is available through the 
standard discovery process.
  This bill seriously compromises the privacy of victims in order to 
provide offenders with litigation shortcuts. Claims of wanting to 
increase transparency are really laughable, since the offenders 
involved in these suits are allowed to maintain their privacy. This 
bill further victimizes people who have already been through so much.
  Human error is not fraud. Isolated incidents are troubling, but fraud 
prevention procedures are already in place and functioning adequately.

[[Page 16973]]

  Asbestos victims oppose this bill. My friends across the aisle would 
have known, if they had provided victims an opportunity; but they did 
not provide that opportunity. I asked the chair of this committee last 
evening whether or not the victims had been afforded an opportunity to 
make a presentation. When I pointed out to him that staff had allowed 
that they could have a private meeting, but they did not have an 
opportunity to testify during the proceedings, he agreed with me.
  That seems to be a favorite tactic of my Republican friends. They 
have done this to asbestos victims, and they have done it to judges.
  When it came to shutting down the government, they ignored the 
overwhelming desire of hardworking and working-poor Americans. They 
continued to ignore economists and the downgrading of our credit rating 
over the debt ceiling. They disregard the science of climate change, 
despite erratic, catastrophic weather patterns and rising sea levels.
  I am sure that all of us recognize the most recent typhoon that has 
devastated the Philippines. I am hopeful that we, along with others in 
the world, will hasten to the rescue. America is always to be commended 
for our efforts when tragedies strike other nations, and I would call 
on other nations who have not done so to become adherent to the kind of 
philosophy that we have. And I hope that we can help those in the 
Philippines to recover rapidly.
  If my friends continue to ignore the world as it is in favor of the 
red-tinted paradise they believe it to be, they will have no one to 
blame but themselves when the country decides it is time to ignore 
them.
  I wish to say one additional thing regarding the privacy concern.
  Yesterday, I called Comcast Television. The Miami Heat, champions of 
basketball for the last 2 years, were playing last night. So I thought 
that I would order the NBA game last evening.
  Well, lo and behold, last evening and this morning, before I left to 
attend meetings, the Comcast system is down and it is not working. I 
was told that I would get a phone call yesterday; and I didn't get any 
phone call. So I called this morning and I was told I would get a phone 
call today, but I missed the game last night. Incidentally, the Heat 
won. I did see that in the paper this morning.
  But I am concerned about the privacy measures because when I called 
Comcast, after giving them my account number and after telling them who 
I was and what my address was--and this is through three different 
automatic systems--then the young man came over the telephone. And when 
he came over the telephone after doing all of this--the account, my 
name, where I live again--he then asked me for the last four digits of 
my Social Security number.
  The wife of a former colleague of ours who died of mesothelioma, 
Bruce Vento, has written actively, along with others, for us to see how 
this identity problem might persist if we pursue this course.
  This bill would make the private information of asbestos poisoning 
victims readily available on the Internet, and therein lies the 
difference. Different now is that any information anybody needs is 
already in the courthouse. And they can go to the courthouse and 
achieve that information. But this is part of what we mean when we say 
this bill ``re-victimizes'' asbestos victims all over again.
  If an employer or identity thief wants to get the information in a 
regular lawsuit, they have to physically now go to every courthouse in 
the country and look through paper records. But with this bill, if 
Alcee Hastings applies for a job at X Corporation, the manager at X can 
search for my name on the Internet, learn that I got money from an 
asbestos trust, and then decide, if he or she wanted, not to hire me 
out of some misplaced fear that I am someone who just goes around suing 
their employer. Or they could refuse to hire me because they fear I 
will be sick a lot or drive up their group health insurance.
  An identity thief could learn the last four digits of my Social 
Security number. That is the same piece of information that I gave to 
Comcast yesterday and that my bank and credit card companies use to 
verify my identity during customer service calls.
  What part of that do you not understand that, if you put it on the 
Internet, then anybody can utilize it?
  Risking employment discrimination and identity theft for asbestos 
poisoning victims just because my colleagues on the other side want to 
stick it to the trial lawyers seems awfully crass to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I say to my friend that I absolutely share his passion for privacy 
protection. In fact, I had to leave a hearing we were having in the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, Mr. Speaker, where we 
were looking at the ObamaCare Web site and talking to the chief 
information officers and the chief technology officers about how this 
Web site had gone live without having been fully vetted for security 
protections; talking about how, even as we sit here today, we have not 
fully run through those security processes.
  I share the gentleman's concern. The gentleman is an attorney as 
well. I remember when I was in law school and they gave you access to 
the LexisNexis database when you showed up to law school. You could 
dial up anybody in the country. It is giving you a credit report and 
showing you Social Security numbers.
  We really do have to have a national conversation, Mr. Speaker, about 
where we are headed. Those last four digits that were once my private 
knowledge are out there all over the Internet today. My birthday is 
broadcast everywhere on the Internet. My mother's maiden name is out 
there. All of those things that folks used to ask me to protect me have 
now become part of the public domain. And what the gentleman says about 
a need to focus on that and protect folks is absolutely right, and we 
absolutely need to do that.
  There was only one amendment last night that was offered to deal with 
privacy. It was going to give a unique identifier to folks, instead of 
listing names, so that we could have the transparency to see if folks 
were trying to game the system and take opportunities away from future 
victims. That amendment was withdrawn. We didn't have an opportunity to 
talk about that.
  But my great hope is that this bill will pass the House today and 
that we will be able to have a similar bill come out of the Senate. If 
regular order has a chance to prevail on Capitol Hill, conference 
committees will give us another chance to take a bite at that apple.
  I think the gentleman brings up very real concerns; and, again, we 
will have an opportunity to talk about those today.
  The gentleman says, Mr. Speaker, there are some bills that are just 
so bad, nobody wants to fix them. I want to say to the gentleman that I 
am sympathetic to that sentiment. There are a few that I could rattle 
off right now that are so bad, I wonder if it is even possible to fix 
them.
  But the bill the gentleman was talking about was the bill to 
eliminate frivolous lawsuits, Mr. Speaker. When we had these penalties 
in place back for 10 years between 1983 and 1993, more than 70 percent 
of judges said that they utilized this procedure and that they awarded 
damages in frivolous lawsuits. Seventy percent of judges, Mr. Speaker, 
utilize this provision that we are trying to bring back into being to 
punish filers of frivolous lawsuits.
  This is not a bill for Big Business, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that 
has been key voted by the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses. If you know NFIB--and I know most of my colleagues do--this 
is the trade association that represents the mom-and-pop shops, Mr. 
Speaker. These aren't the big, working-out-of-a-glass-building-downtown 
folks that you think are out to get the consumer. These are our friends 
and neighbors. These are folks

[[Page 16974]]

who are employing our sons and daughters. These are folks who create 
most of the jobs in this country.
  And they don't key vote a lot of bills, Mr. Speaker. You can go to 
their Web site--NFIB--and see the number of bills that they key vote. 
But they have picked this one out.

                              {time}  1300

  My colleague from Florida says that some people believe it is so bad 
that it can't be fixed. They have heard from lawyer association, after 
lawyer association, after lawyer association which says it doesn't like 
it, but we are hearing from the mom-and-pop shops which can't defend 
against it.
  Understand, Mr. Speaker, that today, if a frivolous lawsuit is filed 
against you--and I don't mean ``frivolous'' because I think it is 
silly. There are lots of those out there. That is going to be a much 
higher number. I mean ``frivolous'' because the judge in the case says 
it has absolutely no merit on either the facts or the law. When the 
judge says it has no merit whatsoever, but you have had to pay to 
defend yourself against it, this bill says the fellow who filed it 
ought to make you whole.
  Punitive damages are something we often hear about from the trial 
lawyer bar. This bill doesn't have punitive damages. This bill doesn't 
say, if you try to bankrupt the mom-and-pop company that is down the 
street from me, we are going to punish you. I think probably it should, 
but they didn't want to go that far. They said, if you are trying to 
destroy, with a frivolous lawsuit, the mom-and-pop company down the 
street, you have to make it whole. If a judge decides that your case 
has no merit--not a possibly of merit, but no merit--on either the 
facts or the law, the poor small business owner who is being harassed 
by that lawsuit should at least have the chance to be made whole at the 
end of that process. The National Federation of Independent Business--
small mom-and-pop shops--is who cares about this legislation.
  Again, folks are going to vote ``yes,'' and folks are going to vote 
``no,'' but I think it is important that we say, Mr. Speaker, that this 
is the purview, those things that are important. The gentleman from 
Florida says, hey, there are more important things we could be working 
on. I happen to agree with him. There really are important things that 
we need to have on the floor of this House, but if you are the small 
business owner who is about to lose your entire lifetime of work 
because someone has filed a frivolous lawsuit against you, I promise 
you there is no more important bill in your life than the one that is 
before us today.
  I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend who talks about 
sequester that I think that is an important thing. I happen to be the 
Rules Committee designee to the Budget Committee, and I happen to be 
the chairman of the Republican Study Committee Budget and Spending Task 
Force. In fact, we are having a meeting with Maya MacGuineas on the Fix 
the Debt campaign next Monday afternoon to talk about what those 
options are for dealing with long-term problems. The Budget Committee 
right now is in conference with the Senate, trying to find a way to 
restore funding to discretionary spending programs that we all believe 
have been ham-handedly reduced. Instead, they are trying to find 
savings on which we can agree on those long-term mandatory spending 
programs that rarely, Mr. Speaker, have an opportunity to see 
aggressive oversight, to see the things that can improve them, to see 
the things that can preserve their long-term fiscal viability.
  I would say, finally, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Florida that, as 
the designee to the Budget Committee and as the chairman of the Budget 
and Spending Task Force, I don't believe it is the failure to raise the 
debt ceiling that threatens America's credit rating. I think it is out-
of-control spending that threatens America's credit rating. It only 
takes a stroke of a pen here for us to raise the credit limit to 
infinity, but I promise you that that is not in the best interests of 
the American economy.
  We all know we have spending challenges in this country. We all know 
that we have made promises to veterans, to seniors, to the infirm, to 
the poor that we don't have the money to keep. I think that is immoral. 
If you don't want to help somebody, then say you don't want to help 
somebody, but do not promise someone that you will be there for him in 
his time of need and pull the rug out from under him when he needs the 
promise to be fulfilled the most. We can do better. This body has done 
better.
  In 1983, Republicans and Democrats came together and extended the 
fiscal lifetime of Social Security by not doing things that hurt 
seniors in that day but by doing things that raised the retirement age 
for me--I was 13 at the time--from 65 to 67. That is a pretty modest 
step that made a big impact in the life of the Social Security trust 
fund.
  There are big issues that we need to discuss here on the floor. I 
hope we will bring those issues to the floor. Our committees in the 
House moved things in a responsible way, step by step, throughout the 
summer. We could use a little partnership from the other side of the 
Hill, but I hope we will focus on what we have before us here today, 
Mr. Speaker--an opportunity to make a difference for future victims who 
are applying to the trust fund and an opportunity to make a difference 
today for small businesses which are being victimized by frivolous 
litigation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation 
of the rules of the House.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my 
classmate, colleague, and good friend.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that asbestos exposure 
has had on working men and women in this country because I represent an 
area with several shipyards. In the last few decades, in my district 
alone, several thousand local shipyard workers have developed 
asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma from asbestos exposure that 
occurred between the 1940s and the 1970s. Hundreds of these workers 
have already died, and asbestos deaths and disabilities are continuing 
due to the long latency period associated with the illness.
  Now, I believe that we cannot consider legislation affecting victims 
of asbestos exposure without remembering exactly who caused the 
problem. Court findings show that companies made willful and malicious 
decisions to expose their employees to asbestos. There are several 
examples:
  In one case in 1986, after hearing both sides, the New Jersey Supreme 
Court declared:

       It is, indeed, appalling to us that the company had so much 
     information on the hazards of asbestos workers as early as 
     the mid-1930s and that it not only failed to use that 
     information to protect the workers, but more egregiously, it 
     also attempted to withhold this information from the public;

  A few years earlier, the Superior Court, Appellate Division of New 
Jersey held in the same case:

       The jury here was justified in concluding that both 
     defendants, fully appreciating the nature, extent, and 
     gravity of the risk, nevertheless made a conscious and cold-
     blooded business decision, in utter and flagrant disregard to 
     the rights of others, to take no protective or remedial 
     action;

  In 1999, the Florida Supreme Court found:

       The clear and convincing evidence in this case revealed 
     that, for more than 30 years, the company concealed what it 
     knew about the dangers of asbestos. In fact, the company's 
     conduct was even worse than concealment; it also included 
     intentional and knowing misrepresentations concerning the 
     dangers of its asbestos-containing product.

  That is who we are talking about, and those are the types of 
companies that will benefit from this legislation.

[[Page 16975]]

  Now, any suggestion that people are getting paid more than once is 
absolutely absurd. The fact of the matter is, because of the 
bankruptcies, most of them are not getting anywhere close to what they 
actually would have been awarded, and the bill before us does not help 
those victims. It actually hurts them.
  The bill is nothing but a scheme to delay the proceedings and to 
allow the victims to get even less than they get now. Because of the 
delay, many of the victims will die before they get to court. This 
helps the guilty corporations that have inflicted this harm on innocent 
victims because, if the plaintiffs die before they get to court, their 
pain and suffering damages are extinguished. If you can delay cases 
enough so that the plaintiffs will die before they get to trial, the 
corporations will not only get to delay their payments, but when they 
finally have to pay, they will have to pay much less.
  These people are the ones who made those conscious and cold-blooded 
business decisions. They are the ones who will benefit from the bill at 
the expense of the innocent, hardworking victims. Regrettably, many of 
those victims are our veterans because they were working on Navy ships.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose 
the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous 
question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 
3383, which is my good friend Representative Esty's measure, the 
Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act of 2013.
  To discuss her bill, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  Ms. ESTY. Thank you to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, when I was back in my district, I didn't hear 
about asbestos. I didn't hear about rule 11 sanctions. I heard about 
how harmful the government shutdown was, about the need to pass 
comprehensive immigration reform and of the hope that this Congress 
would focus on job-creating measures, but I also heard from folks in my 
district about the costs they face in caring for their beloved family 
members--veterans, who have proudly served our country.
  Many of these veterans receive care at home, as they prefer, but some 
families are simply not able to provide home care for financial or 
other reasons. Now, these veterans could seek long-term institutional 
care through the VA, but that is much more expensive. The VA's FY14 
budget request estimates that long-term institutional care costs the VA 
over $116,000 per veteran per year. Caregivers of the post-
9/11 victims are eligible for a stipend, which costs much less than the 
cost of long-term care. More than 10,000 veteran caregivers and their 
families have been helped so far, and that is a very good thing, but 
there are more who should qualify. There are more veterans in need, and 
we shouldn't leave them behind.
  I introduced the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act, which 
would expand the eligibility for veterans' caregiver benefits to family 
caregivers of all veterans. According to the CBO, approximately 70,000 
caregivers of pre-9/11 veterans could be eligible for this program, and 
let's stop kidding ourselves into believing we are not already spending 
more taxpayer dollars to provide care through other VA programs.
  Let's work together on a solution for all of our veterans, some of 
whom, in fact, were exposed to asbestos and suffer from mesothelioma. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can 
consider the Caregivers Expansion and Improvement Act in order to honor 
our obligation to care for our veterans, an obligation which did not 
end on Veterans Day.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to my colleague that I very much appreciate her concern about 
the family members of veterans.
  So often, we craft a one-size-fits-all solution in this body, and if 
you want to care for your loved one at home, there is very little help 
for you. Now, if you want to institutionalize your loved one--if you 
want to dump your loved one off on the State--then we have a program 
for you, but if you want to nurture your loved one but you just need a 
little help, if you want to keep your loved one by your side but you 
just can't do it alone, there are very few opportunities that you have 
within our Federal system today. One exception to that is the PACE 
program, which was championed by Bob Dole back in the day, that allows 
you to bridge some of the different Federal programs that are available 
to you and to utilize those within your home, within your family, 
rather than having to institutionalize your loved one.
  I don't think there is a man or a woman in this body, Mr. Speaker, 
who does not both have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration 
for our veterans but who also feels a debt of service to our veterans. 
I will point out that we always talk about the hyperpartisan U.S. House 
of Representatives. We moved our Veterans Affairs' spending bill in 
this House back on June 4. On June 4, we passed it in this House with 
only four Members voting ``no.'' Talk about things that bring you 
together, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to divide you. That is the kind of 
commitment that this institution has to our veterans.
  I can't tell you why we haven't been able to get that signed into 
law. I know the Senate has not yet acted on that bill. I think it would 
be something that would bring them together, too, and I would recommend 
that to them, but of the 435 Members of this body, only four Members 
voted ``no'' on our bill to try to fulfill that commitment in order to 
make sure our veterans--our returning men and women--have the kinds of 
resources that not just they deserve but that we have committed to 
them.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague at 
this time that I have no further speakers and that I am prepared to 
close if he is prepared to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. I am prepared to close.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I understand why we are here. I understand that my friends across the 
aisle evidently don't mind wasting this body's time, their resources, 
and money passing bills that are going to go nowhere.
  In fact, later this week, I know we go to the Rules Committee on 
Thursday on a provision that is going to take its 46th vote to defund, 
delay, or repeal the Affordable Care Act and the patient protections 
and budget savings contained within it.
  We have all got our roles to play. It is a shame, in my judgment, 
that my friends across the aisle would rather reenact some of the same 
tired political drama rather than actually accomplish something. We can 
do a great deal more here in the House to address the significant needs 
that our country has.
  Let me tell you how this particular measure is going to play out. The 
rule is going to pass. It will be debated here on the House floor 
today, both measures having to do with asbestos and with so-called 
lawsuit measures. After they pass the House of Representatives, then it 
is bound over to the United States Senate where nothing is going to 
take place.
  Now, I am not prescient--I don't have any way of predicting the 
future--but this particular methodology for legislation back and forth 
is just as much a problem when the House passes something that the 
Senate doesn't do anything about as when the Senate passes something 
that the House doesn't do anything about. I can calculate the numbers 
on both sides. I just personally think it is wrong for us not to let 
this process work its will on behalf of the American people.
  Therefore, passing legislation just to have portions of either of our 
bases satisfied is not my idea of something to do. What we are doing 
here today is nothing other than wasting time.

[[Page 16976]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment to the resolution, along with extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the 
underlying bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to this body there are actually more that my friend from Florida 
and I agree on than what we disagree on. I might not say that at a 
townhall meeting back home, but I will say that to you here, because at 
its core we all share a vision of what this Nation can be, what this 
Nation should be; but we do get mired in the rhetoric.
  It is interesting that we have a bill today that those folks who 
represent mom-and-pop businesses say is so important to them they are 
going to make sure that every single Member of this House knows that 
they are keeping score on this and they want a ``yes'' vote on that 
legislation. Yet we have other bills here that the trial lawyers are 
saying are so important to them that they are going to write letter 
after letter after letter saying this is not in the best interest of 
the country, we should move in a different direction.
  I will tell you, those are exactly the kinds of bills that we ought 
to be working on. Now, are there bigger-picture bills out there? 
Absolutely there are. I would like to see a bill that solves Social 
Security forever, where we end this business about Social Security is 
going to go bankrupt, and once and for all we solve that issue so no 
senior is ever concerned about that again.
  We don't have that bill on the floor today. We have an opportunity to 
stop frivolous lawsuits.
  I would like to see a bill on the floor that balances the Federal 
budget. I am old fashioned that way, Mr. Speaker. I think if you want 
to spend it, you ought to raise it. If you don't want to raise it, then 
don't spend it.
  But we don't have that bill on the floor today. We have a bill to 
make sure that trust funds intended to protect victims of a horrible, 
horrible perpetration by industry have an opportunity to collect what 
little money there is left from those businesses that perpetrated those 
harms. I think we should support that bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, one step at a time we really can make a difference. I 
have been reading with great dismay that some of the colleagues that I 
was elected with 3 years ago have decided they are not going to run for 
reelection. They have been here 3 years, and they have found that while 
they came here to make America a better place, while they came here to 
serve the men and women back home, while they came here to make sure 
their children grew up with the same freedoms and opportunities that 
they grew up with, they have decided that it might not be happening.
  We can and we must do better. In fact, we had a committee hearing 
last night. My colleague from Florida (Mr. Webster) said, I think 
``comprehensive'' ought to be a dirty word. Comprehensive ought to be a 
dirty word, because when I hear ``comprehensive,'' Mr. Speaker, what I 
hear is we are throwing everything in, and the kitchen sink, and I want 
you to pass all or nothing on the House floor.
  It doesn't have to be that way. I promise you if you put together a 
2,000-page bill, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be parts of it that my 
constituency does not believe are in the best interest of America. But 
if we pass bills 10 pages at a time, 20 pages at a time, maybe even 30 
pages at a time, Mr. Speaker, if we move one idea at a time, we get a 
``yes'' or ``no'' vote from both sides of the aisle, we send it to the 
Senate, we pass it in the Senate, and the President puts a signature on 
it, we can make a difference.
  I believe that that momentum matters. I hope we get a ``yes'' vote on 
the rule. I hope we get a ``yes'' vote on these underlying bills. I 
hope we get bills coming out of the farm bill conference. I hope we get 
bills coming out of the budget conference. I hope we get bills coming 
out of the Water Resources and Reform Development Act conference. I 
hope we move these things before we begin to build that momentum.
  We are at a stumbling place, Mr. Speaker. There is an impediment in 
our way. I read some White House sources this week that said they 
recognize that we have not come through on the promise of ``if you like 
your insurance, you can keep it.'' They were looking for solutions, but 
they weren't going to come to Congress to look for solutions. They were 
going to look for administrative solutions, and they were going to try 
to fix it on their own.
  As we have heard on this floor many times, the Affordable Care Act is 
the law of the land; ObamaCare is the law of the land. An 
administrative branch shouldn't just be able to unilaterally change the 
law of the land. The Constitution gives that responsibility to us. We 
have got to step up and take responsibility for those things that the 
Constitution invests in us, and article III courts are one of those 
things. We are taking that responsibility up today.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity not to be Republicans and 
Democrats, but to be representatives of Americans in the greatest body 
in this entire land, the closest to the American people--the U.S. House 
of Representatives. We have a chance to announce our position, the 
House position, and move that to the Senate and then, lo and bold, we 
have an opportunity to work with the Senate not to adopt a Republican 
position or a Democrat position, but a congressional opinion, an 
article I constitutional opinion that we then march down Pennsylvania 
Avenue and say to the Executive, be he or she a Republican or a 
Democrat, this is what the people have to say; we need your signature 
on that. They can say ``yes'' or ``no.''
  We have set up these roadblocks, Mr. Speaker, where it is not House 
and Senate; it is Republican and Democrat. It does not serve this 
institution well. It does not serve America well.
  I hope we are going to have bipartisan votes on these two bills 
today, Mr. Speaker. We are exercising a constitutional responsibility 
to direct the courts. We can vote ``yes,'' we can vote ``no,'' but it 
is not something that is peripheral to what we are about. It is 
something that is essential to the responsibilities that the 
Constitution has placed with us.
  I promise my colleagues this institution will be a better institution 
if we pull out that rule book called the United States Constitution 
more often and start with those priorities that it has invested in us, 
not the priorities that some interest group has invested in us, not the 
priorities that the news media has invested in us, not the priorities 
that a Republican Party or a Democratic Party have invested in us, but 
the priorities the United States Constitution invests in us, we will 
restore the faith of the American people in this institution.
  These two bills do that, Mr. Speaker. I encourage a strong ``yes'' 
vote on the rule that has made in order all of the amendments that were 
offered, save one. Let this body work its will. Support this rule. 
Support the underlying bill. Vote your conscience on the amendments to 
make the bills better if you want to, but let's get our constitutional 
responsibilities done.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 982, The 
F.A.C.T. Act.
  This intrusive legislation which misuses the word ``transparency,'' 
would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by requiring the posting 
of personal exposure and medical information online and create new 
barriers to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos diseases.
  We have witnessed decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, even after 
its hazards were known, have resulted in a legacy of disease and death. 
Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have been exposed 
to, suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease, and 
the toll continues. It is estimated that each year 10,000 people in the 
United States are expected to die from asbestos related diseases. This 
is an outrage--and

[[Page 16977]]

to add to their misery--they have to deal with the onerous provisions 
of H.R. 982.
  Asbestos victims have faced huge barriers and obstacles to receiving 
compensation for their diseases. Major asbestos producers refused to 
accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to 
limit their future liability. In 1994 Congress passed special 
legislation that allowed the asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy 
trusts to compensate asbestos victims and reorganize under the 
bankruptcy law.
  But these trusts don't have adequate funding to provide just 
compensation, and according to a 2010 RAND study, the median payment 
across the trusts is only 25 percent of the claim's value. With 
compensation from these trusts so limited, asbestos victims have sought 
redress from the manufacturers of other asbestos products to which they 
were exposed.
  Although the proponents of this legislation assert that it is 
intended to protect asbestos victims, not a single asbestos victim has 
expressed support for H.R. 982. As the widow of our former colleague 
Representative Bruce Vento (D-MN), who passed away from mesothelioma, 
stated H.R. 982 ``does not do a single thing'' to help asbestos victims 
and their families?
  H.R. 982 disturbs a reasonably well-functioning asbestos victim 
compensation process. Entities facing overwhelming mass tort liability 
for causing asbestos injuries may, under certain circumstances, shed 
these liabilities and financially regain their stability in exchange 
for funding trusts established under Chapter II of the Bankruptcy Code 
to pay the claims of their victims, under certain circumstances. 3 H.R. 
982, however, interferes with this longstanding process in two ways. 
The FACT Act would require these trusts to: (1) file a publicly 
available quarterly report with the bankruptcy court that would include 
personally identifying information about such claimants, including 
their names, exposure history, and basis for any payment made to them; 
and (2) provide any information related to payment from and demands for 
payment from such trust to any party to any action in law or equity 
concerning liability for asbestos exposure.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this utterly intrusive 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 403 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

       Strike all and insert the following:
       Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 3383) to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend 
     to all veterans with a serious service-connected injury 
     eligibility to participate in the family caregiver services 
     program. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3383.
                                  ____



        the vote on the previous question: what it really means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 195, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 573]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock

[[Page 16978]]


     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--195

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Culberson
     Herrera Beutler
     Jones
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     Neal
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Wenstrup
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1406

  Mr. HIMES, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. LARSON of 
Connecticut and SCOTT of Virginia changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. HALL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 194, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 574]

                               AYES--223

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz

[[Page 16979]]


     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Campbell
     Culberson
     Doggett
     Herrera Beutler
     Jones
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     Neal
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Tiberi
     Wenstrup
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1416

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________