[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3654-3660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1330
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 725, INNOCENT PARTY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 175 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 175

       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. 725) to amend title 28, United States Code, to 
     prevent fraudulent joinder. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. 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 Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman 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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation. Current Federal court rules allow trial lawyers 
to engage in picking their preferred venue. In particular, trial 
lawyers are able to file suit against the defendant in one State while 
keeping their case in a different State's court.
  When a lawsuit is filed against a defendant in another State, trial 
lawyers may also sue a defendant in the State where they want the trial 
to occur. This keeps the case in the lawyers' preferred State court.
  Many times the target of the lawsuit is a large, national business. 
But if the only defendant in the case is an out-of-State business, then 
the case can be heard in Federal court. Because of this, the trial 
lawyer will then also sue an innocent local individual or a small 
business in order to keep the case before a local court.
  Usually, the case against the innocent local defendant is dropped 
once the case is safely back in State court, but it is dropped only 
after the innocent local defendant has spent time and money dealing 
with the lawsuit.
  This practice is wrong. This practice perverts our justice system and 
causes needless pain. Trial lawyers should not have the power to 
subject innocent local individuals and small businesses to costly and 
time-consuming lawsuits just to rig the system. This kind of abuse of 
litigation is unjust and must be stopped.
  A well-respected Federal appeals court judge, J. Harvie Wilkinson of 
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, has publicly supported Congress 
putting an end to this abuse. He has suggested that Congress provide 
judges greater leeway in making the proper decision on whether a case 
should be removed to Federal court. He has also suggested that Congress 
give Federal judges greater discretion to determine early on in a case 
whether a local party has been fraudulently sued. The Innocent Party 
Protection Act provides these exact changes.
  In 2014 Judge Wilkinson addressed these proposals and said:

       That is exactly the kind of approach to Federal 
     jurisdiction reform that I like because it is targeted.
       And there is a problem with fraudulent jurisdiction law as 
     it exists today, I think, and that is that you have to 
     establish that the joinder of a nondiverse local defendant is 
     totally ridiculous and that there is no possibility of ever 
     recovering.

  That is very hard to do.
  So Judge Wilkinson went on:

       So I think making the fraudulent joinder law a little bit 
     more realistic appeals to me because it seems to me the kind 
     of intermediate step that addresses some real problems.

  The legislation that this rule makes in order is the solution to the 
problem that Judge Wilkinson identifies. The underlying legislation 
would protect innocent local defendants in two main ways. First, the 
Innocent Party Protection Act allows Federal judges more leeway when 
determining whether a defendant has been fraudulently joined to a 
lawsuit for the purpose of keeping the case out of Federal court.
  When a judge has a case before his or her court, the judge will have 
clear guidelines for determining whether the locality of a defendant 
can be disregarded in establishing whether the case will proceed in 
Federal or State court. However, this in no way infringes on our State 
court systems.
  The judge must conclude that the defendant will not face a liability 
under applicable State law. Once that conclusion is reached, the judge 
then may release the innocent defendant from the case. This provision 
keeps legal claims in Federal Court that properly belong there by 
allowing Federal judges to decide whether a local party is truly a 
legitimate defendant and not simply ensnared in a case for the sole 
purpose of keeping the case in a trial lawyer-friendly State court. 
This is a fair and efficient solution to the problem.
  Secondly, the Innocent Party Protection Act establishes a uniform 
approach for evaluating whether a plaintiff has a good-faith intention 
of seeking judgment against a local defendant.
  While the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the right of courts 
to consider whether a plaintiff has a good-faith intention of seeking a 
judgment against a local defendant, the application of this principle 
has not been uniform.
  The Innocent Party Protection Act simply codifies this longstanding 
principle and permits Federal judges to limit a lawsuit to the 
appropriate defendant.
  Plaintiffs with legitimate claims against both a local and out-of-
State defendant will be able to pursue their case in State court. 
However, if no legitimate claim exists, the out-of-State defendant will 
have the opportunity to have the case heard in a neutral forum. By 
codifying this principle, we effectively protect innocent individuals 
and small businesses from bad-faith litigation.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is a fair solution to one 
type of frivolous litigation. I support this effort, and I thank 
Chairman Goodlatte

[[Page 3655]]

and the Judiciary Committee for bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate a rule for a piece of legislation 
that will, in the final analysis, make it more difficult for 
hardworking Americans to stand up to corporate malfeasance; a piece of 
legislation that jettisons a history of legal precedent in the blink of 
an eye because, well, it helps keep the deep pockets of the 
ultrawealthy as deep as possible.
  I learned this law in law school in 1959, but it was in existence way 
before that time, and now my friends across the aisle are going to tell 
us that this legislation is needed because it will protect small 
businesses. This is a feint, folks. Small businesses--indeed all of 
us--have been and continue to be protected by the century-old 
jurisprudential rule that the Republicans come here today to upend. In 
reality, all this bill will do is make it more difficult for regular 
folks across this country to bring lawsuits against massive 
corporations.
  I shudder to think what would have happened in the critically 
important asbestos case had this particular law been in effect; and 
there are many more.
  This bill will make it more expensive both in time and treasure for 
our fellow Americans to hold corporations responsible in the courtroom, 
a need all the more prevalent today as my friends across the aisle have 
been busy gutting regulations at a dizzying pace.
  Let me make it clear, after we finish, my colleague from Colorado and 
I are going to go back to the Rules Committee to discuss some more 
judicial reform. A lot of it is stuff that is going to harm little 
people in the courts and to cause them not to have access to the court 
system, as have many of the regulations that we have already 
disapproved.
  Let us be clear, the American people didn't vote for dirty water, but 
that is what they got with this Republican majority when it voted to 
repeal a rule that barred corporations from dumping mining debris into 
our drinking water, helping powerful mining companies by hurting all of 
the rest of the people in their near curtilage.
  The American people didn't vote to weaken the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, but that is what this majority did when it passed a bill 
adding more hurdles to the SEC rulemaking process, making it more 
difficult for the agency to protect consumers, helping Wall Street 
while putting our economy at risk. I will make a prediction here. It 
may not happen right away, but just like we saw the Great Depression 
that we are just coming out of, we are likely to see that same kind of 
situation again by virtue of lessening the rules against violations in 
securities.
  The American people didn't vote to drug test Americans on 
unemployment insurance--degrading the hardworking men and women in this 
country--but that is what this Republican majority did without delay.
  Mr. Speaker, the list really does go on and on. In fact, just 
yesterday, Republicans continued to chant the corporate clarion call 
with the unveiling of what I now will call their shameful replacement 
of the Affordable Care Act. Until there is a resolution, I am going to 
call it TrumpCare.
  My colleagues like to tout how short the bill is compared to the 
Affordable Care Act. Well, the American people will be surprised to 
find that, in that brevity, Republicans managed to repeal an Affordable 
Care Act provision that placed a limit on insurance executives' 
compensation. Let me repeat that. They managed to repeal a provision 
that placed a limit on insurance executives' compensation. The 
insurance executives shouldn't be too surprised by this, however. 
Repeatedly, Republicans have shown they represent corporate interests 
over the interests of the American people.
  But my Republican colleagues didn't stop there. Their so-called 
replacement, the Trump bill, also claims to have done away with the 
individual mandate. What they don't tell you is that, instead, their 
plan calls for funneling money to the insurance companies in the form 
of a 30 percent surcharge if an individual goes without health 
insurance.
  Let me tell all the older Americans and 80-year-old people like me to 
get ready because they are going to be able to charge you just exactly 
what they want to charge you, and all--mine and yours--insurance is 
going to go up if this particular measure were to become law.
  That is right. Under the Republican healthcare proposal, if you, the 
American worker, goes without healthcare coverage for longer than 2 
months--say you couldn't after a new plan between jobs--then 
Republicans give insurance companies the right to charge you 30 percent 
higher premiums. That is ridiculous.
  Republicans didn't get rid of the individual mandate. They just 
turned the mandate into a windfall for insurance companies--a windfall 
that is going to work out great for insurance executives now that 
Republicans also removed the cap on their compensation tax deductions.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not lose sight of the fact that it took 
Republicans 7 years of undermining the Affordable Care Act to finally 
come up with this proposal for replacing it.

                              {time}  1345

  Their plan would kick millions of Americans off their health 
insurance and force millions more to pay higher premiums. It would take 
health care away from the poor, give tax cuts to the rich, and pull the 
rug out from under seniors, families, and children.
  In fact, this plan is so bad that Republicans literally hid not only 
their horrific proposal, but themselves, from their constituents. Many 
of their Members are seeing it just in the last 36 hours. They did this 
by callously brushing off townhall meeting after townhall meeting.
  Why all the smoke and mirrors regarding something as simple as this 
measure is in light of the fact that they ran on replacing it? Why hide 
it and why rush it and why go through this charade that most of us know 
and several Senators said yesterday will be dead on arrival?
  Actually, let me ask the American people. Who do you think the 
Republican Party is representing, you or corporate America?
  Mr. Speaker, we are not even a full 2 months into the Republican-led 
government and, in addition to the unconstitutional Muslim bans--and 
notice I said ``bans,'' because the old one is nothing but the new one, 
and the new one is the old one, minus one, and that is the country of 
Iraq--we have the Republican denial of clear Russian influence in our 
most recent election.
  Let me be very clear about this particular aspect. All of the 
intelligence agencies have indicated that there was Russian 
interference in this last election. I don't understand why we are not 
totally outraged and why there is not extraordinary emphasis on this 
kind of action against our fundamental democracy.
  It is ridiculous that we are around here doing things that we know 
are not likely to pass the United States Senate and that we are 
disapproving regulations, yet we cannot get an independent commission 
to make a determination of how this impact occurred. And we do know 
that it occurred. I am outraged, and I would hope more Americans would 
be as well.
  We have also seen the almost immediate recusal of the Attorney 
General due to his inability to be forthright with our Senate 
colleagues; wild and baseless claims emanating from late-night Twitter 
storms from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Mar-a-Lago; and we have a 
Republican Party dedicated to ensuring that their corporate benefactors 
can rest easy, no matter the harm they cause to everyday working 
Americans.
  Are we addressing any of these concerns here today?
  I would imagine my colleague, rightly, will come back and argue that 
all the things that I just talked about are not this particular rule. 
Well, this rule

[[Page 3656]]

is not even deserving of that kind of consideration, largely for the 
reason it is yet another structured rule disallowing Members of this 
House to have an opportunity to have input into a measure that is 
getting rid of a century of precedent in our judiciary. No, what we are 
doing is debating obscure civil procedure rules that date back to the 
days of President Teddy Roosevelt.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from Florida that 
we are debating the special order of business from rules and that all 
comments must be relevant to the rule or the underlying bill.
  This particular underlying bill has to do with a rule of civil 
procedure and fraudulent joinders. It does not have to do with the 
gentleman's healthcare replacement act or his thoughts on the 
healthcare replacement act, insurance executive's compensation, 
individual mandates, tax cuts for the rich, Russia, Iraq, although I 
did appreciate the gentleman's memories from law school the year that I 
was born.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is a delight for me to join the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) on a piece of legislation that 
actually has his name on it, he is responsible for, understands, and is 
prepared today to fully debate.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida, a member of 
the Rules Committee, for not only coming down to offer his argument 
against the facts of the case as they reside today on this important 
piece of legislation, but I also want to acknowledge that I know the 
frustration.
  I know there is a lot of frustration. There is a lot of frustration 
from our colleagues who have lost the House, the Senate, and the 
Presidency. They are in the middle of what might be called wandering, 
as they have called it, in the darkness or in the doldrums of being 
deep in the minority.
  With that said, there is an agenda that is being laid out before the 
American people. It happened, Mr. Speaker, directly as a result of what 
we call an election--an election where all these issues, or most of 
them that have been discussed by the gentleman, were fully debated not 
only in a theater near you, but directly in congressional contests, in 
senatorial contests and the debates for the President of the United 
States.
  The facts of the case are really pretty simple. The Republican Party 
will be talking about all the issues that the gentleman brought up 
today right before our eyes. Probably on C-SPAN, trying to compete 
against us, is a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  The gentleman, Greg Walden, the chairman of the committee, over the 
weekend released the text of the chairman's mark, the ``bill'' of the 
Republican Party of how we are going to look at health care.
  It is true that we have Chairman Devin Nunes of the Intelligence 
Committee looking at the issue that was brought up of Russia. We have 
forthrightly, over the weekend, said: All right. We are being asked to 
look at this. Just so you know, media, American people, we are going to 
do that. We are going to do what you have asked because we believe it 
is the right thing to do: open hearings, open debate, acknowledgement 
of the issues, and a certainty that we will go look into it, and we are 
going to let you know what we find. That is really where we are.
  This morning, at 8 a.m. in my office, I cohosted with the gentleman 
from Florida an opportunity for the American Bar Association. We 
brought in, from across this country--I didn't bring them in; they came 
into my office from across the country--a number of well-established, 
thoughtful, and articulate people. We didn't ask: Are you Republican? 
We didn't ask: Are you Democrat? We said: You represent your 
organization, and we want to hear from you.
  This is the kind of leadership that I believe not only myself but 
also the gentleman, Mr. Hastings, wants to be associated with. We want 
to be associated with listening to the American people, trying to be 
thoughtful about what we do and have equal participation.
  The gentleman knows that at the Rules Committee yesterday we had a 
very thoughtful person representing the Republican Party. The gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) came up. We had Mr. Buck, who was able to come and 
talk about this issue today.
  In fact, it might be an arcane issue to the American people, but it 
consumes a lot of time, and it has a deliberative effect on the outcome 
of important cases in Federal courts and State courts across the 
country. We feel like it is worthy of an afternoon, an afternoon at the 
Rules Committee, to fully vet the legislation and an afternoon here on 
the floor of the House of Representatives.
  But like any other good majority, we have a lot of other things going 
on, and we are looking at the Affordable Care Act, how it worked and 
how we might thoughtfully replace it. We are looking at the issues 
related to Russia. We are looking at the American Bar Association.
  Members of Congress are extremely busy, but, Mr. Speaker, I think, 
with great respect, we should give the author of the bill, Mr. Buck, 
his time to come and thoughtfully explain why we are doing what we are 
doing.
  I am just a dadgum chairman of the committee. I just do the things 
that I hope are necessary to look at every single item and being fair--
being fair in the ability that people have to come and bring their 
ideas and trying to be fair in trying to bring them down here.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for acknowledging this body is busy. 
This body is engaged in, as we speak, a public, open debate about what 
direction health care should go.
  What I would like to offer is my evaluation of where we are going to 
be. We are going to be at a point where we do not have to scare people 
about where we have been or why we are going to a place.
  I am on what is known as ObamaCare. As a Member of Congress, I am 
legally required to be on ObamaCare for health care. But, Mr. Speaker, 
it is twice as expensive as what I had before; and it is not working 
for me, it is not working for my family, and it is not working for a 
lot of people.
  So we are trying to look at how we might carefully, thoughtfully, 
artfully work with the American people, so we put the bill up and let 
you see it. We don't have to pass it to find out what is in it. We are 
trying to read the bill and understand it first.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not a pledge. It is a hope that every single 
Member of this body will understand what is in the bill before they can 
respectfully, whether somebody disagrees or agrees with it, explain the 
bill for what is correct.
  What is correct about the bill is this: if you like your own doctor, 
you can keep your own doctor. If you like your own healthcare plan, 
even if it is ObamaCare, you can do that, too.
  The Republican Party is open about what we believe. We are trying to 
be thoughtful with the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe, with the leadership that we have of Paul Ryan 
who has attempted to work through a difficult issue, the American 
people will understand why Republicans not only won the election, but 
why Republicans have better ideas in health care, too.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the chairman of the Rules 
Committee and he knows that.
  I just heard him say his insurance went up under ObamaCare. Mine did, 
too. I also want to remind him that, if this measure as offered 
yesterday were to become law, his and my insurance is going to go up 
again.
  So we weren't doing all of the things that you said you were going to 
do by bringing the price down. In addition, we don't even know what 
CBO's score is with respect to this matter.
  You said that you are reading it to understand it now, yet Members 
are in the Energy and Commerce Committee,

[[Page 3657]]

as you explained, marking it up, and they don't even know what CBO's 
score is. I will get back to that in a few minutes about all these 
people we pay over there to do that work, and then we are not utilizing 
them.
  I also want to address my friend from Colorado and have him 
understand that I am not precluded from presenting to the American 
public what legislation we wish to prioritize.
  As the gentleman knows, we are currently debating the rule. This is a 
tool used to set the House agenda and to prioritize consideration of 
legislation. For that very reason, this is, in fact, the appropriate 
time for us to explain to the American people what legislation we would 
like to prioritize and what agenda we would like to pursue in this 
House. I won't reiterate it, in the interest of time.
  I will have a previous question that will demonstrably show what 
legislation we think we should be addressing. I will do that for as 
long as I am given the opportunity to manage rules. I will come down 
here and present the position of the Democratic Party so that they 
understand our priorities and not necessarily am I hidebound by this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, without continuing the dialogue, I would 
like to at least respond to the gentleman and look right at you, Mr. 
Speaker, and tell you, in fact, we are going to have a CBO score. We 
are going to have a CBO score when we have an agreed-upon bill. This is 
a process that is open. The bill is being proposed. The bill is going 
to be debated. Then there are going to be votes.
  For them to presume that they know the score before they know the 
outcome is not the way the chairman of the committee looks at it. Mr. 
Walden looks at it that he is going to let the committee vote and come 
up with a bill, and there are significant changes that could happen one 
way or another. I think it would be a presumptuous viewpoint to say 
here is the bill and here is the score, take it or leave it. I know 
Chairman Walden very well, and Greg Walden is trying to operate off 
openness and the agreement to look at the bill. When it is finalized, a 
score will become available. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this 
issue up.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for yielding. I especially thank him for bringing this legislation 
before this Congress.
  I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. We are 
addressing the topic that we used to call fraudulent joinder. I like 
the title of this bill better, as pointed out by Ms. Slaughter last 
night. We call it the Innocent Party Protection Act. It is more 
accurate and it is more descriptive. The other fraudulent joinder piece 
tends to put people to sleep who aren't operating in this arena.
  I know that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) has operated in 
this arena. He has significant experience and frustrating experience 
watching innocent parties being drug into litigation just so that an 
opposing attorney can utilize that jurisdiction within a particular 
State where they think they have a friendly venue.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I make the point from the beginning, which we 
don't often enough do here, and that is our pledge we made some years 
ago that all of our legislation would be indexed back to the 
Constitution. We don't always address that in the debate.
  I just turn my pocket Constitution to Article III, section 1. It 
says: ``The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one 
supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from 
time to time ordain and establish.''
  We agree with that. I have made this point that all of the Federal 
courts are completely under the jurisdiction of the United States 
Congress. If we decided that we wanted to abolish a Federal district, 
we could do that. In fact, it happened 200 years ago, two districts. I 
don't propose such a thing, but I am just asserting the power of 
Congress, which hasn't been questioned or challenged, I would point 
out.
  Under section 2, it says: ``The judicial Power shall extend to all 
Cases, in Law and Equity, arising . . . between Citizens of different 
States. . . .''
  This is a tool, then, that the fraudulent joinder attorneys use to 
drag people into litigation who may have nothing to do with it 
whatsoever. It is a problem. It is a problem, we know, not just because 
there are complaints out there from innocent parties that have been 
wrapped up in litigation and required to defend themselves and hire 
attorneys and spend thousands of dollars--tens of thousands--hundreds 
of thousands of dollars in order to protect their economic interests 
even though they have zero involvement in the case and perhaps zero 
chance of having any judgment brought against them.
  So apparently the judges who make these decisions look at rule 11 and 
they find enough latitude in there that they allow the defendants to 
stay on the case, and I will call them being fraudulently joined to the 
case. We need to tighten up these rules. We need to send a very clear 
message to the courts so that they have got some guidelines to live by 
because it is their job, of course, to read the law, take their 
directions from the United States Congress, and act accordingly. I 
think just this debate and the debate we had in the last Congress help 
us in that cause.
  The next thing I pick up from the Constitution, the next thing is the 
bill itself, and prevention of fraudulent joinder is under section 2. 
It sets out four different categories that would be cause for the court 
to release a defendant. And it says the joinder of the defendant is 
described in this paragraph. It says it is fraudulent if the court 
finds that in one of four different categories there is actual fraud in 
the pleading of jurisdictional facts, which, with respect to that 
defendant, if there is actual fraud, that is pretty much a no-brainer, 
should be released from the case. That is pretty simple. I am glad it 
is now an opportunity to go into statute.
  Second is if it is based on a complaint and the materials submitted 
under the paragraph, it is not plausible to conclude that the 
applicable State law would impose liability on that defendant. In other 
words, if it is implausible for the defendant to have a liability, then 
the court can release that defendant under this act should it become 
law. That is also, to me, a no-brainer.
  As one who has been a defendant in lawsuits, I would reflect, Mr. 
Speaker, that when I first ran for office, there were some people who 
thought that I should just simply capitulate to whatever their legal 
demands were. Even though I have only been in the courtroom a couple 
handful of times throughout the 40-some years of business that we have 
done as King Construction, I had four of them lined up against me at 
the same time. They thought that I would just have to settle out of 
court. It is a frustrating thing to not see a liability but have that 
leverage brought against you. I have experienced that, and that 
animates me on this.
  The third component is if a State or Federal law clearly bars all 
claims in the complaint against that defendant. All right, that is also 
a simple provision.
  But the fourth one is another one that deserves consideration, and 
that is that there be a good faith intention. Otherwise, if there is no 
good faith intention to prosecute the action against that defendant or 
to seek a joint judgment which would include that defendant, then that 
defendant can be released from the case. We need to streamline our 
courts, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rothfus). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would just summarize this case in 
that

[[Page 3658]]

it is not only me, it is not Mr. Buck alone, it is not Mr. Sessions 
alone, it is the American people who are calling out for this kind of 
relief. It is not just the American people--we might consider them to 
be laypersons in this--but it is also the courts. The Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, Judge Harvie Wilkinson, as Mr. Buck quoted, spoke to 
this issue. The Supreme Court of the United States has spoken to this 
issue under ``plausible'' versus ``speculative.'' Professor Martin 
Redish also has spoken on this subject matter.
  The Third Circuit spoke to the Briscoe issue. The final piece is the 
Fifth Circuit has essentially adopted a very similar, if not identical, 
policy. We need to codify this. This is our chance to do so. I urge 
adoption of the rule and support of the underlying rule.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for his 
thoughts.
  May I inquire how much time is remaining on my side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) that I have no additional speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule which would modify the rules of the House to 
require a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office before any 
legislation that would amend or repeal the Affordable Care Act may be 
considered in committee or on the House floor.
  The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 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 
the Congressional Budget Office on what the cost and overall impact 
will be.
  Mr. Speaker, we have over 200 employees at the Congressional Budget 
Office. We pay them collectively--and administrative duties--nearly $50 
million a year to advise us at times exactly like this.
  House rules already require the Congressional Budget Office cost 
estimates to be included in committee reports. We are simply trying to 
improve and strengthen this principle of transparency in order to 
ensure that we know the cost of this repeal legislation before we vote, 
and that includes the members in the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
today who are marking this up so as how they would know the cost before 
they vote in committee today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for my friends across 
the aisle to tether themselves to the ideals that have made this 
country great for generations; ideals that, if we are to be saved from 
the rushing current we presently find ourselves being dragged down by, 
will be, as they always have been, those ideals which save us from 
ourselves.
  We are a nation built upon the strength of immigrants, of teachers, 
of doctors, of mill workers, garbagemen and -women, small-business 
owners, and farmers. We are a nation of dreamers and innovators, 
respectful of our individuality and mindful of our unparalleled power 
once unified in common cause.
  At some point, my Republican friends will, I hope, realize that their 
unabashed and wholesale championing of corporate interests at the 
expense of hardworking Americans is a losing cause. For the sake of our 
environment, our children, our grandchildren, and our unborn children, 
I hope this day is earlier rather than later.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before the House today is simple. It provides 
for the consideration of the Innocent Party Protection Act.
  Mr. Speaker, we often speak of the Federal regulations or taxes 
inhibiting job growth in our country, but there are other headwinds 
that our Nation's job creators face as well. One of those headwinds is 
frivolous litigation.
  I believe strongly that anyone and everyone should have access to 
justice. Everyone who is injured deserves to have their day in court, 
and they should have the opportunity to make their case. However, 
sometimes trial lawyers take advantage of our justice system and seek 
to gain an unfair advantage against a defendant. Trial lawyers may try 
to go court shopping in order to rig the case against the defendant.
  One way they may seek to secure their preferred venue is to sue a 
perfectly innocent individual or a small business who happens to reside 
in the jurisdiction within which the trial lawyer desires to pursue the 
case. After some time, the innocent party is often released from the 
litigation, but not before incurring legal costs as well as emotional 
and opportunity costs. Each time an innocent small-business man or 
woman has to divert their attention from growing their business and 
divert resources away from investing in their employees and creating 
jobs and divert energy away from expanding their involvement in our 
communities, and instead they are forced to direct their attention 
toward defending themselves from a frivolous legal claim, each time 
this happens is a missed opportunity for creating jobs and for 
realizing economic growth.
  The Innocent Party Protection Act defends our small-business men and 
women from bad faith lawsuits. It provides relief from trial lawyers 
who seek out friendly courts in order to pursue their cases. It 
balances the needs of justice with proper restraints on decidedly 
unjust actions. The Innocent Party Protection Act is a good and 
equitable solution. I ask my colleagues in the House to support our 
local businesses and defend them against frivolous lawsuits. Vote 
``yes'' on the resolution. Vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Rein in 
this abuse of our justice system. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and 
Chairman Sessions for bringing this bill before us.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 175 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. In rule XXI add the following new clause:
       13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or 
     joint resolution 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

[[Page 3659]]

     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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 175 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House 
Resolution 175, if ordered; ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 174; and adoption of House Resolution 174, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 184, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 129]

                               YEAS--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bishop (GA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Cleaver
     Crist
     Cummings
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jordan
     Meeks
     Moore
     Palazzo
     Pittenger
     Titus
     Welch

                              {time}  1436

  Messrs. O'HALLERAN, MOULTON, and WALZ changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 129.
  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. 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 235, 
noes 185, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page 3660]]



                             [Roll No. 130]

                               AYES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Allen
     Cleaver
     Cummings
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Pelosi
     Suozzi
     Titus
     Welch


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1444

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 130.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 130.

                          ____________________