Providing for Consideration of H.R. Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and in strong opposition to the underlying legislation. In short, this is a lousy bill.
At the end of last year, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass four major pieces of legislation that were sent to President Obama's desk and enacted into law.
We passed a bipartisan budget agreement, a multiyear tax package, a highway bill, and legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that had all been stalled for years.
That is how Congress is supposed to work, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, I thought at the end of last year that maybe these successes would be contagious and that it would become the norm to actually work together in a bipartisan way and to pass meaningful legislation that would actually become law.
But this Republican leadership, I am sad to say, has returned from the holiday break with more of the same tired ideas and partisan legislation that is going nowhere. We are wasting time with this legislation today, which is going nowhere. We are wasting taxpayer dollars spending our time dealing with legislation that is going nowhere.
Instead of considering legislation to create jobs, boost our economy, or lift struggling Americans out of poverty, this Republican leadership is once again bringing to the floor a completely unnecessary bill that puts the interests of large corporations ahead of the rights of the American people to pursue justice through our court system.
It is not even the first time this week Republicans have played politics with our judicial system. Just yesterday Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed that Senate Republicans will not hold hearings or any votes on any nominee by President Obama to fill the current vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving a vacancy on our highest court for at least a year or more.
Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't understand why my Republican friends have spent so much time during the last 7 years doing everything they can to try to obstruct this President's agenda and every idea that this President has had.
The contempt that Republicans have demonstrated for this President from day one, when the Senate majority leader made clear that they wanted to make President Obama a one-term President and that the Republicans were going to do everything they could to stop every piece of legislation that he proposed because they wanted him to have no success stories, I think illustrates why this place has become the Congress of dysfunction.
We need to do better. We need to understand that, in Washington, D.C., our job is to try to get things done, not simply put roadblocks in the way.
Interfering with our judicial system to score political points sets a dangerous precedent, and the underlying bill that we are set to consider later today is just one more attempt to unbalance the scales of justice.
H.R. 3624, the so-called Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act, works to create a wild west environment for big corporations by making it harder for ordinary citizens to hold them accountable for their actions. It is simply another Republican handout to big business.
H.R. 3624 is an attempt to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The issue of determining if a local party has improperly joined a case is already dealt with in our judicial system. There is no real evidence that the current system is failing to address any fraudulent joinders.
This bill creates redtape and bureaucracy, something I am constantly hearing my Republican friends complain about, all to make our courts friendlier to big business.
H.R. 3624 looks to move judicial cases that are supposed to be handled in State courts up to the Federal system, where trials take longer and are more expensive.
This makes it significantly harder for an individual who has been injured by a corporation to take them to court and to be able to receive the compensation that they may be entitled to, that they deserve.
The costs are even higher for those seeking justice when you consider that this change would force many individuals to travel long distances.
This is unjust and unfair. Maybe it pleases a certain group of contributors, but it is certainly not in the interests of the average American citizen.
Clogging up our Federal court system with unnecessary cases that should be handled in State courts is simply not in the best interest of the American people. Congress should not be taking away the power of the courts to determine where a case should be heard.
Mr. Speaker, Americans would be outraged to learn that we are even considering a bill that would tilt the scales even more in the direction of big corporations.
This is the people's House. We are supposed to be on the side of the people, not on the side of big corporations.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, to reject this underlying bill, and to get on the side of the American people. If we want to do something constructive, maybe what we ought to do is pass a bill that allows the American people to sue the Congress for malpractice because that is what this is about.
This really is malpractice, that we are wasting our time on a bill that essentially is a giveaway to big corporations and we are not doing the business that the people sent us here to do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a resolution that would require the Republican majority to stop its partisan games and finally hold hearings on the President's budget proposal.
I don't know why this is so controversial. We ought to have a hearing, and we ought to talk about various ideas on how to deal with our budget. The President of the United States is entitled to have a hearing up here in the House of Representatives.
I urge my colleagues again not to follow suit of the Senate, which is, again, blocking any hearings on a new Supreme Court nominee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 1 minute.
I include in the Record an editorial that appeared in the New York Times, entitled, ``Republican Budget Tantrum.'' The editorial concludes with this paragraph saying:
``The President's budget request is a detailed and worthy entry in the contest of ideas. Its aim is to move the Nation forward. If Republicans had compelling ideas and a similar commitment to progress, they would engage with the proposals in the budget. But they don't. So they won't.'' [From the New York Times, Feb. 9, 2016] Republican Budget Tantrum (By The Editorial Board)
By law, dating back to 1921, the president of the United States must submit an annual budget request to Congress. On Tuesday, President Obama submitted his eighth and final budget. And like all presidential budgets, it is a statement of values and priorities, a blueprint for turning ideas into policies, a map of where the president wants to lead the country.
This week, even before the president's budget was released, the Republican chairmen of the budget committees announced they would not even hold hearings with the White House budget director to discuss the proposal.
Their decision is more than a break with tradition. It is a new low in Republican efforts to show disdain for Mr. Obama, which disrespects the presidency and, in the process, suffocates debate and impairs governing.
Mr. Obama's budget proposes to spend $4 trillion in the 2017 fiscal year (slightly more than for 2016). That total would cover recurring expenses, including Medicare and Social Security, as well as new initiatives to fight terrorism, poverty and climate change, while fostering health, education and environmental protection. If Republicans find those efforts objectionable--as their refusal to even discuss them indicates--they owe it to their constituents and other Americans to say why.
Would they prefer to renege on Social Security benefits? Do they think $11 billion to fight ISIS, as the budget proposes, is too much? Is $4.3 billion to deter Russian aggression against NATO allies a bad idea? Does $19 billion for cybersecurity to protect government records, critical infrastructure and user privacy seem frivolous? And is $1.2 billion to help states pay for safe drinking water or $292 million to send more preschoolers to Head Start really unaffordable?
Republicans have objected that the president's budget does not do enough to tackle the nation's borrowing. But according to the White House's estimate, the proposal would reduce deficits by $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years. That would be sufficient to hold deficits below 3 percent of the economy, a level that is widely considered manageable and even desirable, because a wealthy and growing nation can afford to borrow for projects that would be financially burdensome if paid for all at once.
If Republicans have a plan to pay for the necessary work of government while eliminating deficits entirely, they should present it.
The problem is that Republicans do not have viable alternatives. The budget proposes a $10-a-barrel tax on crude oil to help pay for $320 billion in new spending over 10 years on clean-energy transportation projects. Congressional Republicans, unable to break free of their no-new-taxes-ever stance, have derided the oil tax. But what is their plan to pay for projects to modernize transportation and promote green technology in the absence of a new tax?
The budget would also raise $272 billion over the next decade by closing tax loopholes that let high-income owners of limited-liability companies and other so-called pass- through businesses avoid investment taxes that apply to all other investors. Most of the money would be used to strengthen Medicare's finances. What is the Republican plan to strengthen Medicare?
The president's budget request is a detailed and worthy entry in the contest of ideas. Its aim is to move the nation forward. If Republicans had compelling ideas and a similar commitment to progress, they would engage with the proposals in the budget. But they don't. So they won't.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we are reading in the press that the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, is now punting on the Republican budget because apparently there is not enough red meat in there to satisfy the Tea Party--or the Freedom Caucus or whatever they call themselves this particular week--which is very, very disturbing. But I think it is important that the Republicans do their job, just like the President did his job. And while you are waiting to do your job, I think you should maybe have a hearing on the President's budget so that maybe some of these ideas, my friends might be able to react to and maybe even find some agreement.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying again to my colleagues that they should defeat this rule, which is a restrictive rule. They should vote against the previous question so we can actually bring forward the resolution that would allow for there to be a hearing on the President's budget proposal, and we should defeat the underlying bill.
We should defeat the underlying bill because it is a giveaway to big corporations and big special interests. It is a bill that seems like it was written in the Republican congressional campaign committee to make big contributors happy. It does nothing to protect the well-being and the interests of average Americans, of small businesses, and of people who do not have a lot of wealth.
For those reasons, we ought to reject the underlying bill, we ought to have a debate on the President's budget proposal, and we ought to have a debate on whatever the Republicans come up with on their budget proposal.
Speaker Ryan said that this would be the year of ideas, but it seems that any idea that isn't the idea of a small group of very, very rightwing Republicans is not welcome to be talked about, never mind deliberated on, in this Congress. We need to listen to all ideas, and that includes what the President has proposed.
By the way, this is a President who, notwithstanding all of the attempts by my Republican friends to try to frustrate all of his legislative efforts, has a record of accomplishment nonetheless, and one that I think we Democrats are very, very proud of.
But the fact of the matter is he is the President. He was elected not once, but he was elected twice. The American people elected him twice. He is our President for another year, whether my friends like it other not. He ought to be given the respect--and not just him, but the Presidency ought to be given the respect--to not play these kinds of political games when it comes to the budget.
I hope that the previous question will be defeated so that we can bring this amendment to the floor for a vote.
Again, I urge my colleagues, we have a lot to do. Let's stop bringing press releases to the floor for votes, and let's start doing business that will actually help the American people. This has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately but important ones not at all. We need to change that. There is a reason why Congress is so low in the public opinion polls. What is happening today is an example of that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source