Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 653, I call up the bill (H.R. 2745) to amend the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the Federal Trade Commission shall exercise authority with respect to mergers only under the Clayton Act and only in the same procedural manner as the Attorney General exercises such authority, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy. We in the House of Representatives who face re-election every 2 years, under the Constitution, are perhaps reminded of that more than others. And while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means by which we can successfully avail ourselves. When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President. But none of those powers can be exercised if a sizable Senate minority controlled by the President's own political party refuses to exercise them, or in the absence of veto-proof majorities in both Houses. Nor would the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand because they would not actually require the President to faithfully execute the laws. Of course, the most powerful and always available means of solving the problem at hand is to vote out of office a President who abuses his power. In the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence. So today we consider a resolution to authorize the Speaker to file on behalf of the House in litigation brought by a majority of the States challenging the constitutionality of the President's unilateral immigration amnesty program. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear that constitutional challenge to the President's immigration plan, which the people's legislative representatives never approved. So far, a Federal judge in Texas has issued a preliminary injunction in the case blocking the enforcement of the President's unilateral immigration amnesty. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that injunction. Importantly, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case and, rather than limiting the issue the way President Obama requested, it took the State's suggestion and requested briefing on the following question: ``whether the President's action violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3.'' That clause of the Constitution requires the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Founders would have expected Members of the House of Representatives, known as the people's House for its most direct connection to the will of the people, to aggressively guard their role in the constitutional legislative process. The resolution before us today will provide another means of doing just that. The stakes of inaction are high. The lawsuit challenges the President's failure to enforce key provisions of the immigration laws. We should all support this resolution today as it aims to help deliver a simple message: Congress writes the laws, under Article I, section 1, the very first sentence of the United States Constitution. We should all support this resolution today. Our own constitutionally required oath to support the Constitution of the United States requires no less. What is required of the President of the United States is found in Article II, section 3, which says, ``he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' That is the issue before us. For the Court to pay attention to this institution's concern, the Court requires that the Congress take a vote, and that is what we should do today in order to let the Court know that this brief is not just a collection of a group of Members; this is an actual vote of the United States House of Representatives to ask the Court to consider our very well-founded concerns and protect the people's House, protect the people's rights under the Constitution, protect the Constitution itself, and Article I, section 1, which said very simply, ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 118, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Pallone

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), the chief sponsor of this legislation and a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hardworking Americans are some of the leading victims of frivolous lawsuits and the extraordinary costs that our legal system imposes. Every day, local businessowners routinely have lawsuits filed against them, based on claims they have no substantive connection to, as a means of forum shopping on the part of the lawyers filing the case. These lawsuits impose a tremendous burden on small businesses and their employees. The Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act, introduced by Judiciary Committee Member Ken Buck from Colorado, will help reduce the litigation abuse that regularly drags small businesses into court for no other reason than as part of a lawyer's forum shopping strategy. In order to avoid the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, plaintiffs' attorneys regularly join instate defendants to the lawsuits they file in State court, even if the instate defendants' connections to the controversy are minimal or nonexistent. Typically, the innocent but fraudulently joined instate defendant is a small business or the owner or employee of a small business. Even though these innocent instate defendants ultimately don't face any liability as a result of being named as a defendant, they nevertheless have to spend money to hire a lawyer and take valuable time away from running their businesses or spending time with their families to deal with matters related to a lawsuit to which they have no real connection. To take just a couple of examples, in Bendy v. C.B. Fleet Company, the plaintiff brought product liability claims against a national company for its allegedly defective medicinal drink. The plaintiff also joined a resident local defendant health clinic alleging it negligently instructed the plaintiff to ingest the drink. The national company removed the case to Federal Court and argued that the small local defendant was fraudulently joined because the plaintiff's claims against the clinic were time-barred by the statute of limitations, showing ``no possibility'' of recovery. Despite finding the possibility of relief against the local defendant ``remote,'' the court remanded the case after emphasizing how hard it is to demonstrate fraudulent joinder under the current rules. The court practically apologized publicly to the joined party, stating: ``The fact that Maryland courts are likely to dismiss Bendy's claims against the local defendant is not sufficient for jurisdiction, given the Fourth Circuit's strict standard for fraudulent joinder.'' Shortly after remand, all claims against the local defendant were dismissed, of course, after its presence in the lawsuit served the trial lawyer's tactical purpose of keeping the case in their preferred State court. When courts themselves complain about the unfairness of current court rules, Congress should take notice. In Baumeister v. Home Depot, Home Depot removed a slip-and-fall case to Federal Court. The day after removal and before conducting any discovery, the plaintiff amended the complaint to name a local business, which it alleged failed to maintain the store's parking lot. The court found the timing of the amended complaint was ``suspect,'' noting the possibility ``that the sole reason for amending the complaint to add the local defendant as a defendant . . . could have been to defeat diversity jurisdiction.'' Nevertheless, the court held Home Depot had not met its ``heavy burden'' of showing fraudulent joinder under current law because the court found it was ``possible,'' even if it were just a tenth of a percent possible, that ``the newly added defendant could potentially be held liable,'' and remanded the case back to State court. Once back in State court, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss the innocent local defendant from the lawsuit, but only after it had been successfully used as a forum shopping pawn. Trial lawyers join these unconnected instate defendants to their lawsuits because today a case can be kept in State court by simply joining as a defendant a local party that shares the same local residence as the person bringing the lawsuit. When the primary defendant moves to remove the case to Federal Court, the addition of that local defendant will generally defeat removal under a variety of approaches judges currently take to determine whether the joined defendant prevents removal to Federal Court. One approach judges take is to require a showing that there is ``no possibility of recovery'' against the local defendant before a case can be removed to Federal Court, or some practically equivalent standard. Others require the judge to resolve any doubts regarding removal in favor of the person bringing the lawsuit. Still, others require the judge to find that the local defendant was added in bad faith before they allow the case to be removed to Federal Court. The current law is so unfairly heavyhanded against innocent local parties joined to lawsuits that Federal Appeals Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has publicly supported congressional action to change the standards for joinder, saying: ``That's exactly the kind of approach to Federal jurisdiction reform that I like because it's 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 defendant is totally ridiculous and that there's no possibility of ever recovering . . . That's very hard to do. 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 bill before us today addresses those real problems in two main ways: First, the bill allows judges greater discretion to free an innocent local party from a case where the judge finds there is no plausible case against that party. That plausibility standard is the same standard the Supreme Court has said should be used to dismiss pleadings for failing to state a valid legal claim, and 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. This bill is strongly supported by the National Federation of Independent Business, representing America's small businesses, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among other legal reform groups. Please join me in supporting this vital legislation to reduce litigation abuse and forum shopping and to protect innocent parties from costly, extended, and unnecessary litigation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3624.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is not often that the House has the opportunity to protect innocent local people and businesses from costly and meritless lawsuits and holding them to a good faith standard in litigation all by passing a bill that is just a few pages long, but that is the opportunity the House has today. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, for introducing this vital measure, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the points raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member. First of all, it is not this bill that removes cases from State courts to Federal courts. It is the United States Constitution and the Federal laws that have been passed by this Congress for over 200 years that recognize the importance of the principle of diversity jurisdiction and of having parties from different States in cases in controversy able to remove those cases to the Federal system, which represents all citizens, not just the citizens of one State, as State courts are sometimes perceived as doing. Secondly, it is not this legislation that creates the kind of circumstance that the gentleman from Michigan claims it does of denying access to the courts. Rather, it is the purpose of this legislation to treat people fairly who have been treated unfairly in the process. If you have no liability in a case, you should not be sued in the first place. If you are sued by a lawyer who is trying to manipulate the rules in order to keep a case in a court that he has forum-shopped--in other words, he has picked the court that he prefers it to be in--that individual or business, as quickly as possible, should be able to seek redress from the Federal court so as to have a determination made about whether or not it is indeed a party that is ``plausibly liable,'' which is a Supreme Court standard to be held in the case. If it is not a party, then the rules of Federal procedure would allow for the removal of that case to Federal court. So we should not be blaming innocent parties for spoiling the plans of trial lawyers to try to forum-shop into a favorable jurisdiction. Let me make a few other quick points about federalism. Some of the rhetoric on the other side suggests that it is somehow strange for Federal courts to be deciding State law claims, but as a matter of history, that is totally inaccurate. State law claims are heard by Federal courts whenever the Federal courts have the diversity jurisdiction that is outlined in the Constitution. That has been a major part of the Federal trial court's work for far longer than Federal claims have existed, and out-of-State defendants have been able to remove civil cases from State courts since the beginning of the Federal judicial system created by the very first Congress of which James Madison and many other Founders were members. All the bill before us today does is protect the right of removal from being subverted by blatant gamesmanship on the part of trial lawyers. H.R. 3624 also protects in-State individuals and small businesses from being dragged into litigation just so the plaintiff can keep the case in State court when the plaintiff's primary target is an out-of-State corporation. Is it really unfair to say to the trial lawyer, ``when your real target is an out-of-State corporation but you want to keep the case in State court, you have to come up with a claim against the local in- State individual or small business that is at least plausible''? That is the simple, fair, and modest demand that this bill makes on trial lawyers. Is it fair to the local individual or small business that it is required to bear the costs and other burdens of litigation when the claim against it isn't even plausible? No, it is not, but that is what is allowed under current law, and that is what H.R. 3624 will correct. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for bringing this outstanding legislation before the House. This is very common sense. It solves a very practical problem, and most importantly, it protects the innocent. I want to quote him with regard to this motion to recommit. He says: As a prosecutor, I deeply respected all the rules we developed in this great country to protect the innocent. These are rules of general application, such as rules protecting people's rights to have their side of the story told and rules protecting people from biased or inaccurate testimony. I would have been appalled if anyone ever suggested that these general protections, designed to protect innocent people from criminal liability, should be suspended because the case was one of assault or battery, murder, or somehow related to insurance. Our country is, rightfully, proud of its principles providing due process and equal protection, but those concepts are meaningless if they are only selectively applied to some types of cases, but not others. For the same reason, we should all be outraged at the suggestion that rules of fairness, designed to protect the innocent, should be suspended in the civil law because the case involves one particular subject or another. But that is exactly what this motion to recommit does. The problem with all of the arguments made by opponents of this bill is that those arguments rely on trapping completely innocent local people in lawsuits they don't deserve to be in. That is wrong, and that is unfair. Innocent local people and small businesses deserve protections from being dragged into lawsuits that are really directed against other larger parties, regardless of the nature of those lawsuits against other parties. In the end, this bill doesn't require much of trial lawyers. It tells trial lawyers not to sue local innocent people and businesses just so they can further their own forum shopping strategies. It tells trial lawyers they need to have a plausible case before they can wrap up innocent local people and businesses in costly and time-consuming lawsuits. It tells trial lawyers their lawsuits must be based on good faith. But, apparently, those very modest demands of civility and fairness are too much to ask, according to opponents of this bill who would prefer to dilute it with irrelevancies and distractions. It is not often that the House has the opportunity to protect innocent local people and businesses from costly and meritless lawsuits, rein in forum shopping abuses by trial lawyers, and hold them to a good faith standard in litigation, all by passing a bill that is just a few pages long. But that is the opportunity the House has today. I urge all of my colleagues to take that opportunity now. Reject this motion to recommit and, in so doing, expand the opportunities of all local citizens and small businesses that would otherwise be smothered by costly and meritless lawsuits. Pass this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Very simply, a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet Mr. and Mrs. Williams, Eric's parents. They came to the House Judiciary Committee on the day that we marked up our prison reform legislation and included matters related to protecting the security officers in that legislation. They came after Eric had been brutally murdered. So they knew that nothing they did there that day would save him, that he had already been lost. But they came for one important reason. They don't want to see that happen to any other Federal prison security guards anywhere anytime. They strongly support this legislation. I ask my colleagues to pass this legislation in Eric Williams' name and out of respect for the concern his parents have that officers who serve their country in our Federal prisons are kept safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who is the chief sponsor of the House version of this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today I rise in support of S. 238, the Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015. Eric Williams was born on August 24, 1978, in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He was the son of Donald and Jean Williams. Eric spent most of his life in Nanticoke, Pennsylvania, where he attended the Nanticoke public schools and graduated from Greater Nanticoke Area High School in 1996. Eric was an avid soccer player. He played youth soccer, was a member of the high school team, and continued playing in adult leagues. In addition, to his love of soccer, Eric was an avid sportsman. He enjoyed hunting, fishing, and bowling. Eric graduated with a criminal justice degree from King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and was a graduate of Lackawanna College's police program. He went on to become a security specialist and then a police officer with Jefferson Township, Pennsylvania. In September of 2011, Eric began his career as a corrections officer at the U.S. Penitentiary in Canaan. In his spare time, he volunteered by visiting jails, talking to inmates about health and spiritual issues. On the night of February 25, 2013--3 years ago tomorrow--Eric was supervising more than 100 high-security inmates at the USP in Canaan. While making his rounds for nightly lockdown just before 10 p.m., inmate and gang member Jesse Con-ui launched an unprovoked, brutal, and cowardly attack against Senior Officer Williams. Con-ui knocked Eric down a staircase, fracturing his skull. He proceeded to stab Eric more than 200 times with a homemade prison shank. When authorities found Eric's body, he had only a set of keys, a pair of handcuffs, and a handheld radio on him, clearly not enough to defend himself against such a brutal attack. Eric was 34 years old when he was murdered. The Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015 will ensure that our brave corrections officers have the necessary equipment to properly defend themselves from this type of attack in the future. S. 238 requires the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to issue pepper spray to any Bureau of Prisons officer or employee who may have to respond to an emergency situation to reduce acts of violence committed by prisoners. This is a much-needed piece of legislation to ensure the safety and security of Bureau of Prisons employees as well as the inmates in their facilities. This bill passed the Senate 2 months ago and, if passed today, will be presented to the President. I want to particularly thank Congressman Marino, who represents the district where Eric lived and who has been a staunch advocate for making pepper spray available to Bureau of Prisons employees. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 238) to amend title 18, United States Code, to authorize the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to issue oleoresin capsicum spray to officers and employees of the Bureau of Prisons.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a subcommittee chairman who has been an advocate on this issue and whose district was directly impacted by the murder of Eric Williams.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 238, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I especially thank Congresswoman Comstock for leading this tribute to Justice Scalia. The Nation's legal lights faded recently with the loss of the great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but they will not be dimmed for long, for Justice Scalia left a legacy of illumination that will continue far beyond his mortal years. Although Justice Scalia is no longer with us on Earth, his cogent, witty, and plain-spoken writings will continue to educate law students and good citizens everywhere for centuries to come. Justice Scalia was no mere legal technician. He was a deep thinker who had an uncommon knack for crystallizing powerful ideas into trenchant, lasting prose. The journey on which he led his readers was always a joy, always compelling, because Justice Scalia always made clear where the path started. He once said: ``More important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly.'' And for Justice Scalia, as with morality, so it was with the law. Justice Scalia always made sure he built his argument on a solid foundation: the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. As a strong defender of the rule of law, he was a gentle legal giant. Like all great educators, Justice Scalia was respectful of others, regardless of their differing views. ``I attack ideas,'' he once said. ``I don't attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day job.'' That is a life lesson for all of us who engage in any debates and the ideas that undergird them. In that spirit, Justice Scalia often said: ``My best buddy on the Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has always been,'' and Justice Ginsburg's moving tribute to her own best buddy should reduce every bitter partisan to tears. Throughout his life, Justice Scalia correctly inveighed against the notion of a living Constitution, the misguided idea that the Constitution's text and original meaning somehow shifted this way and that with changes in popular attitudes. Justice Scalia said: That's the argument of constitutional flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old, and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But . . . the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says some things and doesn't say other things. As a lifetime-appointed Supreme Court Justice, Justice Scalia, like all other lifetime-appointed judges, had the opportunity to effectively alter the meaning of the Constitution if he wanted and could garner the support of four of his colleagues. But like George Washington refusing the crown offered him, Justice Scalia rejected the notion the Supreme Court should impose its own preferred policies on the country through strained constitutional interpretations. Instead, Justice Scalia was an ardent defender of democracy, representative democracy. As he said: ``If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility.'' Justice Scalia's respect for article I of the Constitution, the article that begins with these words, ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,'' that article, which clearly sets forth the powers of the Congress to legislate, not the executive branch and not the courts, is one of Justice Scalia's greatest legacies. As much as Justice Scalia will be remembered as an able critic of the notion of a living Constitution, he will be remembered for his own living dissents, and many majority opinions, which will live forever in the hearts and minds of lovers of the law in America and around the world. Thank you, Justice Scalia.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, Frances Garland once stated that she thought of herself first as a housewife and desired to be only a successful mother. Her personal view of her life as it unfolded does not do justice to how much she was appreciated by so many whom she touched, whether family or friends. Frances was one of my longtime friends in Roanoke, Virginia and one of my constituents for the past 23 years until she passed away on January 12 at age 91. The Roanoke community is grieving this loss and we continue to keep her husband of 72 years, Bob, in our thoughts and prayers. As someone new to Roanoke in the mid-1970s, Frances and Bob were among the first folks I met when I moved to the Star City with my wife to work for Sixth District Congressman Caldwell Butler. I knew the Garlands for owning and operating Garland's Drug Store in Roanoke's Grandin Village and then came to know them even better because of the role that Bob played as a member of Roanoke City Council and the work that Frances did as a stalwart in the Republican Party. Feeling the tug created by her husband's political service, Frances volunteered in a variety of important capacities--as a precinct captain in Roanoke, for four years as leader of the Virginia Federation of Republican Women (VFRW) in 1972, as one of the first female members of the Republican Party of Virginia's State Central Committee, as an alternate delegate to the 1976 Republican National Convention, and as a Presidential Elector in 1992. Her leadership of the VFRW was instrumental in giving women more important political opportunities throughout the Commonwealth, opportunities that have broadened to this day. She even served three Virginia Governors on the Virginia Commission on the State of Women. Throughout her 91 years, Frances showed in everything she did that she was committed to being a loving wife and mother, to hard work, and to being a leader who displayed quintessential grace at every turn. My former boss, Congressman Butler, paid tribute to Frances in 1988 on the occasion of her receiving the Governor John N. Dalton Distinguished Service Award at the Virginia Republican State Convention. Congressman Butler said, ``We remember her for all the things she has done and all the offices she has held, but we admire her most for her great talent, and for her charm, patience, and quiet dignity with which she has gone about her tasks.'' While her tasks on Earth are complete, Frances Garland leaves behind a wonderful family who loved her dearly, a whole host of friends who will miss the renowned get-togethers at the Garland home, and a wide- ranging group of Republicans who will forever remember the invaluable contributions she made to making the party stronger in the Roanoke Valley, the Commonwealth, and our nation. And she did it all through digging in, doing the hard work, and with a talent for having others share in her love of it all.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1428) to extend Privacy Act remedies to citizens of certified states, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during four votes of the second series on February 3, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Issa to H.R. 1675, ``No'' on the amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney to H.R. 1675, ``No'' on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions, and ``Yes'' on final passage of H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2015.