Ken Buck

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from Florida talked about the specificity that he used in describing the conditions of these veterans, but that is not what the rule says. What the rule says, Mr. Speaker, is that if someone--if a veteran needs a fiduciary, they will be denied the ability to own, possess, purchase a firearm. It doesn't say if they are schizophrenic. It doesn't say if they have PTSD. It doesn't say if they have depression, and if they have PTSD or depression that is somehow linked to further violent behavior. It doesn't say that. What it says is, if you can't balance your bank account, you can't have a gun to protect yourself. There is no relationship between those two. Now, if the gentleman from Florida would go to the Veterans Administration and talk to them about the need to link that finding of a fiduciary with future violent behavior, we may not be here today. But so many people have been trapped in this overbroad rule that we are going to make sure that those people that have a fiduciary and are listed by the VA have a due process right to show that they are nonviolent; that they don't have a propensity to commit a crime with a weapon; that they are not a harm to themselves or to others. And if the VA or an independent judicial officer finds that they are, then yes, list them on the NICS report, but give them that due process right. That is where the majority believes this rule created during the Clinton administration and by the Veterans Administration falls. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from Florida and I were in committee yesterday and heard testimony from one of our colleagues that this bill, as it pertains to veterans' gun rights, is not reactive. It does not go back to those individuals who have been denied their due process rights, who have been denied their Second Amendment rights. This bill is prospective only. It will only affect those who in the future have been denied those rights. And I think it is absolutely important that we understand the Republican Party in the House of Representatives is committed to make sure that those individuals who have been denied their due process rights, their Second Amendment rights in the past, we will find a solution. We will help those individuals. Right now, we are focused on making sure that others have the ability to a fair, open hearing where they can present their side of the story before they are denied their constitutional rights. My friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings) also talks about the fact that H.R. 1259 will do more harm than good; that somehow disciplining those who are delivering poor services to our veterans is unfair to unions. The truth is that 35 percent of the VA's workforce is made up of veterans. But the fact is that veteran employees believe employees that are not meeting acceptable standards for their fellow veterans should be removed, period, regardless of their service while on Active Duty. Are opponents of removing poor-performing employees and those whose misconduct warrant removal saying that a veteran employee who cannot do the job or is guilty of misconduct be kept on the job? On the contrary, veterans know that the strictest accountability standards apply to them during their military service, and millions of hardworking Americans in the private sector do not enjoy anything close to the protections enjoyed by Federal employees. The only employees who need to be concerned with reasonable reform that would be made by this legislation are those who aren't doing their jobs on behalf of the veterans who they serve. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Our veterans have paid a high price. Dispatched to foreign lands to fight for our freedom, many returned injured, grief-stricken over lost friends, and torn apart by the violence of war. We owe them our time, our energy, our gratitude, and our protection. That is why we are here on the floor today: to protect the constitutional rights of our heroes and to make sure we are taking care of them like we promised we would. H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, ensures that government cannot strip our heroes of their constitutional rights without due process. Under current law, if the VA determines that a veteran needs a guardian or fiduciary to help manage their benefits, then that veteran's name must be sent to the NICS database, prohibiting them from purchasing a firearm. The decision to strip any constitutional right from anyone, most importantly our veterans who have put their lives on the line to defend our Constitution, needs to be made with due process. The VA was never designed to adjudicate the removal of constitutional rights. This decision should be made by a judge or judicial authority. Instead of stripping veterans of constitutional rights, our VA should be focused on protecting veterans. That is exactly what the other two bills under consideration do. H.R. 1259 gives the Department of Veterans Affairs greater ability to discipline employees for misconduct or poor performance. We entrust our VA employees with the health and well-being of our veterans. Most of these employees do a great job, working hard to make sure our heroes are cared for; but, occasionally, a VA employee engages in misconduct, behavior that can endanger the very lives of our veterans. These men and women sacrificed to serve our Nation. The least we can do is enable them to receive the best care possible at the VA. That is why we need H.R. 1259, to allow the VA, under an expedited process, to fire or suspend or demote employees who are putting our veterans at risk. The legislation also allows the VA to recoup the money paid in bonuses or relocation grants to employees convicted of a felony. Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve the best. They deserve the best employees. They deserve the best medical staff. That is what the third bill under consideration, H.R. 1367, will achieve. This legislation improves the VA's ability to recruit the best medical staff, offering the agency direct hiring authority to fill key positions with critical staffing needs. It also creates a fellowship program to train up VA management for the best performance. It is time to improve the personnel practices at the Veterans Administration. Mr. Speaker, the resolution on the floor today is vital for our Nation's veterans. Their constitutional rights and their well-being stand in the balance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention and the attention of my colleague from Florida to a letter dated January 26, 2017, from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Representative Roe, and the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate, Chairman Isakson, to the President in which they asked for various positions to be exempted from the President's executive order concerning a hiring freeze. The next day, January 27, the Acting Secretary issued a memorandum under the authority of that Presidential memorandum, executive order, granting the chairman's request and exempting various positions. I would exceed my time limitations, Mr. Speaker, if I were to read all of these. But let me assure you there are dozens and dozens of positions at the Veterans Administration that have been exempted from the President's hiring freeze. They include social worker, science lab technician, practical nurse, nursing assistant, dietician, nutritionist, occupational therapist, on and on and on. And the need for the amendment that the gentleman presents is unnecessary. I would also like to talk very briefly about the gentleman's argument that somehow those at the Veterans Administration are being harmed, and we are attacking a union in some way rather than trying to deal with real situations and improving the quality of care at the VA. I want to give a few examples of VA employees and just the time that it took to remove people. A VA employee was a willing participant in an armed robbery several years ago, and after a lengthy legal and administrative battle where the employee was supported by the Public Employees Union, the employee was reinstated in their previous position without any discipline. A VA nurse showed up to work intoxicated and participated in a veteran's surgery while under the influence of alcohol. Although the employee eventually resigned, to date, no other employees were disciplined for allowing the employee to participate in the veteran's surgery. In 2013, a vocational rehab specialist out of the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System crashed a government car, and a passenger ended up dying. He was later indicted for a DUI. The VA confirmed that the employee was not removed from payroll until January of this year-- almost 4 years. In 2014, a VA employee at the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System took a veteran who was a recovering drug addict to a crack house where he purchased illegal drugs for the veteran, as well as purchased a prostitute for him, though the employee was still employed at the VA well over a year later after the incident until they were finally able to remove him. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up now for our veterans. They have performed their duty, and it is time for us to perform for them. Our duty is to take care of them. A ``yes'' vote restores their Constitutional rights and improves their quality of care. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I thank Chairman Roe and Representative Wenstrup for bringing these bills before us.

Mr. BUCK

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 and the Judiciary Committee for bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that I have no additional speakers.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for his thoughts. May I inquire how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

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. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 175 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, in honor of America's heroic veterans, the Honor Flight Network conducts two annual Honor Flight ceremonies to Washington, D.C. to give our nation's heroes a day to visit and reflect at their war memorials. On September 11th of last year, Honor Flight Northern Colorado held its 17th Honor Flight that gave many of our courageous veterans this extraordinary opportunity. I am pleased to recognize the Honor Flight on September 11, 2016, honoring World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War veterans of Northern Colorado. Mr. Speaker, those who participated in this flight are as follows: World War II: Fredric Arnold, Gene Bennett, C.H. Clark, Lillian Crosley, Raymond Dickey, Darwin Dixon James Edmisten, Jimmie Godsey, Louis Hamman, Delbert Haynes, John Hess, Robert Horton, Dolores Kochheiser, Harry Maroncelli, Elmer McGinty, Frank Occhiuto, Robert Schueneman, Raymond Valadez, William VanBeber, William Way. Korean War: Richard Bernhardt, Harold Bohm, Lee Boylan, George Brandt, Casper Brixius, James Comer Jr., Russell Daniels, Ralph Darrough, Ross DeBey, Garold Fox, S. Gilbert Garcia, Ronald Gillman, William Harrison, Virgil Hecker, Allan Hedberg, Dennis Lance, Gordon Leben, Albert Lowe, Jimmy Martin, Francis McKenna Jr., Ernest Medialdea, James Montgomery, Delmer Moss, James Petrie, William Pool, Carroll Quick, Robert Ray, Kennedy Roode, Al Schott, William Sherman, James Shuey, Donald Trettenero, Herbert Wenger, Eugene Ziehm. Vietnam War: Roy Armstrong, Wilbur Boegli, Cary Bott, Thurman Bradley, Claude Buehrle, Robert Bullard, John Carpenter, Terrence Carroll, Robert Cofone, Larry Coldren, Paul Conley, Byron Daniels, Robert Davis, Mark DeDecker, Michael Doherty, Gary Dorsey, Mark Drake, Dale Eggleston, Jerry Eldred, Gary Ellerman, Daniel Ferguson, William Fisher, Roy Friesen, Glenn Fulcher, Glenn Gaines, Jerry Graham, Paul Graves, Dwight Gutsche, Percey Hamilton II, Christopher Harris, Robert Hawkey, William Hellyer, Thomas James, Norman Kegerries, Michael Krier, LeRoy Lawson, Harold Lif, Peter Lister, Jimmy Lofink, William Margheim, Dallas Maurer, Kevin McGrath, Richard Miller Jr., David Naylor, Wesley Nelson, Richard Norris, Larry Perkins, Robert Randall, Danny Robinett, Robert Rutz, Robert Schrader, Billy Schwindt, Jackie Scott, David Sellers, David Shigley, Tommy Silva, Kenneth Skoglund, Darrell Smith, John Smith, Farrell Spencer, Edward Stephens, Stanley Suichta, Martin Treml, Kerry Tyler, Linda Tyler, Daryl Vande Hoef, Thomas White, Terry Willert, John Young. It is my distinct pleasure as the U.S. Representative of the 4th District of Colorado to recognize the honor, courage, and sacrifice of these heroes, along with all members of America's Armed Forces. I thank them for their dedication and service to this nation.

Mr. BUCK

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment empowers State, local, and tribal governments by ensuring they have a say in the regulatory process. H.R. 1009 already codifies and improves upon the practices of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. My amendment strengthens the language even further, requiring OIRA to hold Federal agencies accountable for coordinating and consulting with State, local, and tribal governments before issuing new regulations. In other words, we are giving governors, local officials, and tribal leaders a say in the regulations that affect them. These local officials know what their communities need much better than the bureaucrats in Washington. Unfortunately, our Federal agencies have a habit of issuing regulations and policies without consulting local and State governments. For example, we just need to look at the EPA waters of the United States rule. Historically, States have had significant authority over water management. Governors have worked with local and tribal leaders to set up their own laws and regulations to ensure that water is properly allocated, that water meets certain quality standards, and that water in their State is protected from misuse. The EPA's WOTUS rule is excessive and burdensome because they disregarded the role of the States in crafting waterway regulations. The agency held no substantive consultation with State governments prior to issuing the rule, despite States' historical roles in regulating their water supplies, despite the State-level experts who could have helped the EPA craft a better regulation, despite President Clinton's Executive Order 13132 ensuring that Federal agencies consult with State, local, and tribal officials before issuing a rule. Federal officials never gave State, local, and tribal officials the opportunity to explain how their States were currently handling the situation and how this rule could negatively impact their jurisdictions. Since the EPA bureaucrats barreled ahead without State, local, or tribal input, they proposed an overreaching rule. This amendment would require the EPA and other Federal agencies to account for how proposed rules will affect impacted States, localities, and tribes. The amendment under consideration simply requires Washington to listen to and learn from local governments because local governments are closer to the people. And the people of this Nation should have a say in the rules and regulations that are affecting their livelihoods. In closing, this amendment is simple. It ensures that regulatory agencies talk with State, local, and tribal leaders throughout the regulatory process. I urge my colleagues in the House to support this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.