Providing for Consideration of H.R. Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 618 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 618

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3624) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent fraudulent joinder. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five- minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee.

It is a structured rule that provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for H.R. 3624, the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016.

In addition to consideration of H.R. 3624, the House will also debate and vote on two amendments on the House floor.

Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from the sponsor of the bill and a minority representative of the Judiciary Committee. Subcommittee hearings were held on this legislation, and it was marked up and reported by the Judiciary Committee. This bill went through regular order and enjoyed meaningful discussion at the subcommittee and full committee level.

H.R. 3624 is strongly supported by the National Federation of Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce because of the significance of this issue to small businesses in northeast Georgia and across the Nation.

This legislation will protect innocent local parties, often small businessowners, from being dragged into expensive lawsuits. It achieves this goal in two specific ways.

First, the bill empowers judges to exercise greater discretion to free an innocent local party from a case where the judge finds there is no plausible case against that party.

It applies the same plausibility standard that the Supreme Court has said should be used to dismiss pleadings for failing to state a valid legal claim, and we believe the same standard should apply to release innocent parties from lawsuits.

Second, the bill allows judges to look at evidence that the trial lawyers aren't acting in good faith in adding local defendants. This is a standard some lower courts already use to determine whether a trial lawyer really intends to pursue claims against the local defendant or is just using them as part of their forum shopping strategy.

It is important to emphasize that Congress has the authority to regulate the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts. The present standard has been described as poorly defined and subject to inconsistent interpretation and application and the consequences significant and real.

H.R. 3624 is consistent with the views of our Founding Fathers and the principles of federalism enshrined in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman Buck, and their staff for their work in bringing forth this important litigation reform.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

It has been interesting. Again, I want to just remind everyone, Mr. Speaker, that this is a rule debate about a bill that is coming forward to discuss a fraudulent joinder, which is something that impacts our communities and impacts our legal system. Just as a reminder, I am going to ask that you vote for the rule and for the underlying bill, H.R. 3624, which will have plenty of debate forthcoming.

It has been an interesting thing in the last few minutes to discuss with my colleagues across the aisle and talk about real ideas and press releases. Well, it is interesting. It has always been the prerogative of Congress and committee chairmen to invite whom they want and how they run their committees, and that is continuing in that tradition.

I think it is interesting that at the time it was announced, no hearing on the President's budget was needed; we had no reason to believe the President's budget would balance or show any real interest in doing the fiscal challenge.

If you want to talk about press releases, go look at what was handed out just a few weeks ago. In the President's budget, it had a great picture of a mountain on the front. It was great symbolism because it basically just symbolized that this is a budget of debt; it is a mountain of debt; it has no hope, no promise--never will--to balance our budget.

Do you want to talk about real ideas? It reminds me of when I was going back and I was raising my children when they were smaller, and I would say it is time to eat and they would say: Daddy, we want candy. Daddy, we want this.

I would say: You have to eat real food.

Real ideas mean that in this country we take them seriously.

It means a budget that can actually balance.

When you have military leaders, business leaders, and community leaders saying that the greatest threat to America right now is our debt and deficit situation, and, yet, the President, in his own press release--if you would, a large budget--says that we are never going to balance, that we don't hope to balance, I do not understand the disconnect from the kitchen table to the White House's kitchen table. Undoubtedly, there is a disconnect, because you put forth an idea that is not serious, and you are not putting forth an idea that balances. It is the compelling idea that makes us move forward.

The budget debate that Congress is having right now is one that the American people are demanding. It is about how we advance a budget that balances and that addresses fiscal challenges so we can have a strong national defense, a healthy economy, and healthy retirements and security for seniors and families. The President's ``status quo'' budget doesn't do that. In fact, it doesn't do anything with regard to what we have talked about.

Mr. Speaker, I was back in my district last week, as many of us were. One of the many things we are hearing in this election season is the reality that there is a disconnect between Main Street and inside this beltway. As long as there are ideas down a certain avenue called Pennsylvania that say we want to put a budget up that has no hope of helping this country out of the situation it is in, then we are not dealing in reality, then we are not dealing in real ideas. We are simply dealing in the fantasy that, one day, it will all just be better.

Mr. Speaker, I remind our Democrat friends who are adamant about bringing the President's budget into the mix that they are welcome to offer it up when a vote comes; but the last time the President's budget hit the floor, it got all of two votes.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 618 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 624) Directing the Committee on the Budget to hold a public hearing on the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as a witness. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of the resolution specified in section 2 of this resolution. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 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. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source