[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 163 (Tuesday, November 3, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7403-H7412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 22, HIRE MORE
HEROES ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM
NOVEMBER 6, 2015, THROUGH NOVEMBER 13, 2015; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 507 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 507
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 Senate amendment to the text of the bill (H.R. 22) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees
with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans
Administration from being taken into account for purposes of
determining the employers to which the employer mandate
applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
All points of order against consideration of the Senate
amendment are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
Senate amendment and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
After general debate, the Senate amendment shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the Senate amendment,
as amended, shall be in order except for an amendment
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-32, which
shall be considered as pending, shall be considered as read,
shall not be debatable, shall not be subject to amendment
except as specified in subsection (b), and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole.
(b) No amendment to the further amendment referred to in
subsection (a) shall be in order except those printed in part
B of 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.
(c) All points of order against amendments referred to in
subsections (a) and (b) are waived.
Sec. 3. At the conclusion of consideration of the
amendments referred to in section 2(b) of this resolution,
the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No
further consideration of the Senate amendment, as amended,
shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of
the House.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from
November 6, 2015, through November 13, 2015--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 6. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of November 5, 2015, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure authorizing
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for the Department of
Defense.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend 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
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 507 is a structured rule
for the consideration of H.R. 22. It provides an hour of general
debate, and it makes in order 29 amendments.
Now, you might say, Mr. Speaker, that 29 amendments seems like that
ought to be the end of the conversation. But my friend from
Massachusetts and I are not done with 29 amendments. There have been
well over 250 amendments submitted for this legislation. We have
included 29 in this base text, and we are going to come back and
include more.
This is the very first rule to come out of Paul Ryan, Speaker, U.S.
House of Representatives.
When Speaker Ryan was speaking to the House last week, when he took
the Speaker's gavel into his hands, he said, ``We need to let every
Member contribute--not once they have earned their stripes, but right
now.''
He said, ``I come at this job as a two-time committee chair. The
committees should retake the lead in drafting all major legislation. If
you know the issue, you should write the bill. We must open up the
process. Let people participate. In other words, we need to return to
regular order.''
Mr. Speaker, I won't tell it to you any way but straight. I am not
sure what folks mean when they say a return to regular order in this
House.
I love a free and spirited debate process. We are going to go deep
into the night tonight, deep into the night tomorrow night, and well
into the late hours on Thursday. I hope my colleagues are still going
to be as enthusiastic about regular order when we are done as they are
before we get started.
But regular order doesn't necessarily mean that you can use dilatory
tactics to slow the House down. It doesn't necessarily mean we need to
see the same amendment 25 different times.
What my friend from Massachusetts and I are doing in the Rules
Committee, Mr. Speaker, is going through those amendments to make sure
that the ideas and the recommendations brought by individual Members of
this House have a chance to be heard, but heard once, not heard six
different times.
We are going to have a robust debate in the spirit of regular order
over these next 3 days. But that will be from a pot of more than 260
amendments winnowed down into those issues that need to be discussed,
have an opportunity to be discussed, on the floor of this House.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, the transportation system in this country is over 4
million miles, 600,000 bridges, and 270,000 public transit route miles.
The scope of the transportation system in this country is vast, and its
importance is even more so. There is not a mayor in this country, Mr.
Speaker, who doesn't know that as goes their education infrastructure
and as goes their transportation infrastructure, so goes the economy of
their community.
Now, we are working on the Elementary and Secondary Education
Reauthorization Act, Mr. Speaker, but that is not for today. Today is
not education day. Today is transportation day, where we are bringing
forward the first 6-year transportation reauthorization that this
country has seen in more than a decade. We have been trying. It is not
from a lack of trying, Mr. Speaker.
The ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, on the Transportation Committee and
the chairman, Mr. Shuster, on the Transportation Committee have been
working diligently not for days, not for weeks, and not for months, but
for years to try to bring this piece of legislation to the floor. This
rule today gives us that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, there are those items in the U.S. Constitution that are
put upon the United States Government as responsibilities that we must
achieve together. Postal roads are among those responsibilities. There
are those who say that Republicans are the party of
[[Page H7404]]
no government. I say nonsense. I say Republicans are the party of good
government. In fact, I don't even think that should be a partisan
issue. I think that should be a nonpartisan issue, something that we
can all agree on, as Americans, as this body.
This bill doesn't just allocate the necessary dollars to the
projects; it changes the process that allocates those dollars so that
we get more value out of each and every one.
I will tell you a story from back home, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it is
going on this week. This week a year ago would have been election week.
I represent only two counties in the great State of Georgia. One of
them is the single most conservative county in the State.
They turned out on election day last year, Mr. Speaker; and while
they had rejected Federal tax increases in the past and while they had
rejected State tax increases in the past, they got together a year ago
this week and voted to tax themselves--this small county in the great
State of Georgia--to the tune of $200 million so they could expand the
major highway going through that county. They didn't trust the
government here in Washington to get a dollar's worth of value out of a
dollar's worth of taxes. They didn't trust the State government to get
a dollar's worth of value out of a dollar's worth of taxes. They
trusted the locality to get a dollar's worth of value out of a dollar's
worth of taxes. And here, this week, it will have been 1 year from
election day and groundbreaking begins.
Groundbreaking begins this week, just 1 year after the decision to
move forward on a project. That is unheard of in Federal circles, Mr.
Speaker, but this bill takes not bipartisan steps, but nonpartisan
steps to improve upon that process.
Mr. Speaker, I happen to serve on both the Rules Committee and the
Transportation Committee. I am very proud of the base product that the
Transportation Committee in this House reported. We didn't just
consider that bill for a day or for a week. We worked on that bill for
months as well. We passed it out of committee on a voice vote, Mr.
Speaker. We passed it out of committee unanimously. In fact, we passed
the rule out of the Rules Committee last night on a voice vote to bring
this resolution to the floor.
This is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to show the American people what
is best about this House. What is best about this House is not that we
all agree on everything, because we don't. What is best about this
House is not that we all represent the same kinds of values and
constituencies back home, because we don't. What is best about this
House is that we have an opportunity to come together, express all of
those issues, and let the chips fall where they may.
If you look in these 29 amendments, Mr. Speaker, you will see most of
them are bipartisan or nonpartisan amendments. But we have amendments
made in order that are just brought by Republicans, and we have
amendments made in order that are just brought by Democrats. The Rules
Committee has the power to do whatever the Rules Committee would like
to do. We are not using that power today to shut the voices out, Mr.
Speaker. We are using the power today to bring the voices together.
I am very proud to bring this rule. I think it is worthy of all the
Members' support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall) for 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.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the subject matter that
we are here to discuss, I do want to respond to my friend from Georgia
about Speaker Ryan's call for regular order, which I think many on our
side welcome. But we are not going to get too excited yet because that
same pledge was made when Speaker Boehner became Speaker of the House,
and that pledge was broken over and over and over again. In fact, he
presided over the most closed Congress in the history of our country,
more closed rules than any other Congress in history.
When my friend asked the question, ``What does regular order mean?''
well, it means that we don't bypass committees of jurisdiction. We let
them do their work, and then we bring that bill to the Rules Committee,
as opposed to having some committee staff write a bill in the back room
someplace in the Capitol, present it, and then have the Rules Committee
give it a closed rule. It means allowing for all sides to be heard.
The Rules Committee has routinely blocked out amendments on
legitimate issues because the Republican leadership didn't want to deal
with it. They didn't want to have that debate.
So it means a more open and transparent process. It means a process
that is more fair and more respectful of all Members, not just
Democrats, but to Republicans as well. I hope that when Speaker Ryan
made that pledge, it is more than just words; that we will see, in the
coming weeks and months, something different around here.
I would also just say that I don't mean to pick on Speaker Boehner
because we do have people on the Rules Committee on the Republican side
who have routinely voted to shut this process down. I hope that there
is a change of attitude in the Rules Committee, as well, for a more
open and a more transparent process.
So having said that, Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the
consideration of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform
Act, a 6-year highway bill. After 35 short-term extensions--35 short-
term extensions--this is a welcome step to providing the kind of
certainty that our State and our local officials need. In fact, they
have been clamoring for this for a very, very long time.
Of the 284 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for
consideration, the rule we are talking about right now makes in order
29. We expect the committee to meet later today to consider the
remaining amendments.
I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Chairman Sam Graves and Ranking
Member Eleanor Holmes Norton for all of their hard work to get us to
this point.
This isn't the highway bill that I would have written, but the bottom
line is that we need a long-term surface transportation authorization
bill. States need to be able to count on Federal funding for more than
a month at a time. Large-scale infrastructure projects take years to
complete. States need certainty, and this bill is a step forward in
that direction.
Mr. Speaker, our roads and our bridges are already in need of massive
repairs. I tell my colleagues all the time that we have bridges in
Massachusetts that are older than most of your States. The underlying
bill provides $325 billion in contract authority from the highway trust
fund over 6 years for highway, transit, and safety programs. It would
allow for automatic adjustments if more money comes into the highway
trust fund.
I am pleased to see that among the provisions in this bill is a
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which is the same language
that the House passed with strong bipartisan support last week,
notwithstanding the fact that we had to use a discharge petition
because the way this place operates, the will of the majority was not
respected. But we should vote against any amendments--any and all
amendments--that would jeopardize this provision.
Not only will a long-term highway bill help our economy, but it will
create and sustain thousands of American jobs, particularly in the
construction and manufacturing industries that were hardest hit by the
Great Recession.
In all candor, I can't say that I am enamored with everything in this
bill. I wish that it provided more robust funding levels. I am sorry to
see that we are continuing to use guarantee fees as a pay-for on an
unrelated transportation bill. G-fees should be used to protect
taxpayers from mortgage losses, not as an offset on a highway bill.
I also have serious concerns about the use of private debt collection
as an offset in this bill. Instead of raising money, if history is any
indication, it
[[Page H7405]]
is likely the use of private debt collection agencies would result in
the Federal Government losing revenue. We know that because that has
happened in the past.
Moving forward, I would strongly, strongly caution against loading
this bill up with controversial provisions. This rule makes in order an
amendment by Congressman Ribble of Wisconsin to permit States to allow
bigger and heavier trucks on our interstate highways, and I understand
that several other amendments have been offered to increase truck size
and truck weights. I think passing these kinds of amendments is one of
the most dangerous things that we can do, and I believe it would
seriously threaten this carefully crafted compromise.
Despite what some in the trucking industry might have you believe,
bigger trucks have never resulted in fewer trucks on our road. Since
1982, when Congress last increased the gross vehicle weight limit,
truck registrations have increased 90 percent.
Now, some say if we allow bigger and heavier trucks on our Federal
Interstate Highway System, we can somehow alleviate their presence on
local roads. That is a false argument because trucks still need to make
deliveries and pickups at warehouses and businesses, and local roads
are the way they get there. So all the Ribble amendment would do is
make more of our roads less safe.
By the way, on the Interstate Highway System, these bigger and
heavier trucks can drive faster, thereby endangering more and more of
the others who are driving on these highways. Bigger truck crashes kill
nearly 4,000 people every year, and the reality is that most of those
fatalities are those in passenger vehicles, not the trucker. Big trucks
pay only a fraction of the true cost of the wear and tear they cause on
our roads and bridges. State budgets are stretched to the brink as it
is and can't afford to make up for the multibillion-dollar
underpayments.
Mr. Speaker, Americans have said loud and clear over and over again
that they don't want bigger trucks. A January 2015 nationwide survey by
Harper Polling found that 76 percent of respondents oppose longer,
heavier trucks, and a May 2013 public opinion poll by Lake Research
Partners found that 68 percent of Americans opposed heavier trucks.
That should be enough to give people who want to put bigger and heavier
trucks on our roads some pause. But as I have learned serving in this
Congress, usually this place does the opposite of what the American
people want.
Let me remind my colleagues that in MAP-21, the most recent long-term
highway bill, Congress directed the Department of Transportation to
conduct a comprehensive study on truck size and weight laws. After 2
years of careful study, DOT concluded that the current data limitations
were so profound that no changes in truck size and weight laws in
regulations should be considered until these data limitations could be
overcome. So we asked DOT to do a study, and that is their
recommendation. Yet there are all these amendments to try to get around
that.
I would just say to my friends who are thinking of voting for some of
these amendments to allow bigger, heavier, and more dangerous trucks on
the road and on our Interstate Highway System to talk to some of the
families of the victims. I have, on a regular basis, talked to people
who have lost their husbands, their wives, their kids, and their best
friends to these senseless crashes. Think about them before you just go
along with whatever particular special interest asks you to do.
By the way, those who drive these trucks are opposed to this. They
are opposed to this. Yet here we are with an attempt to try to kind of
make our roads less safe.
So loading this bill up with all kinds of exemptions to truck size
and weight laws I think would be a huge mistake and would jeopardize
the passage of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to reject the
Ribble amendment and all these other amendments that may be made in
order to put bigger, heavier, and more dangerous trucks on the road.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the return to regular order and all
of the amendments that we are going to consider today, it is not lost
on me that just here in the Rules Committee debate, my friend from
Massachusetts was able to talk about truck size and weight for longer
than regular order would have allowed the proponent of an amendment to
talk about that. Under the 5-minute rule, which is what we have here to
conduct these issues, it is hard to grapple with some of these big
issues in an amendment process.
Some of these issues, as my friend from Massachusetts suggested,
should be hashed out in committee, where there is no time limit, where
we can work on these, where we can consider all of the studies, where
we can go through all of the work.
There is a role for the Rules Committee to pick and choose
amendments, those that have been considered enough, those that can be
considered in a short period of time, and those that need to remain in
committee and be hashed out there.
As we grapple with what regular order means, I hope my colleagues
will come down on the side of reserving the biggest of these issues for
committee work and the more minor changes for here on the floor of the
House.
While I prefer to agree with my friend from Massachusetts, Mr.
Speaker, I have to disagree with him about the track record we put
together in this body over the last 4\1/2\ years.
I came to Congress at the exact same time that John Boehner became
Speaker of the House. My first experience here in this Chamber, Mr.
Speaker, was when John Boehner brought H.R. 1 to the floor. It turns
out the Democratic Congress had not finished the budgeting process the
year before.
So here we were. We were in the middle of the fiscal year. No budget
had been passed. No appropriations bills had been passed. This brand-
new Congress comes in, the biggest freshman class in American history.
It was an exciting, exciting time, Mr. Speaker, as you will recall.
One of the first bills out of the gate was a bill to fund $3.5
trillion worth of Federal Government. All these new Members here have
all been sent with a mandate from their constituents back home.
While history would have suggested that a Speaker would have closed
down that process, said this is too important to put before the entire
House, what Speaker John Boehner said is: Bring the bill to the floor
and we will debate it for as long as it takes.
Mr. Speaker, do you remember that? It was all night long, day in, day
out, until we finished the job. Every Member on this floor had their
voice.
We can't always do that, Mr. Speaker. There is not enough daylight or
darkness in the year to do that with every bill that comes to the floor
of the House. But I cannot let it be said that Speaker Boehner presided
over the most closed Congress in history. In fact, the opposite is
true.
If you track down my Democratic friends, they will tell you they
offered more amendments in a John Boehner Speakership than they ever
had a chance to offer in a Speaker Pelosi Speakership. I am not
faulting the previous Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I am only saying that
openness is something you have to believe because it is hard. It is
complicated.
I listened to my friend from Massachusetts. He said: I want an open
process. I just want to defeat all the amendments I don't like that
come to the floor of the House.
Sometimes that is just the way it is. Sometimes you have to come down
here to the floor of the House, you have to have the difficult debate,
and you have to win on the merits.
Mr. Speaker, we did ask the Department of Transportation to consider
truck weights. We absolutely did. And we passed it in a bipartisan way.
It was signed by the President of the United States. The date the
report was due back to this Congress was last year.
Last year is when this body spoke and said: You have to have this
study back to us by the winter of 2014.
The Department of Transportation said: Whatever. Whatever. We are
working on it. It is really hard. I know Congress told us to. I know
they are the boss. But whatever. We will get there.
Here we are a year later and we still don't have the report, Mr.
Speaker.
[[Page H7406]]
Don't let it be said that we are succeeding here at the Federal level.
What does my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) do? This is radical.
I want to redescribe the radical amendment that my friend from
Massachusetts just spoke about. The radical idea that my friend from
Wisconsin has is: Let's let the State governments decide for themselves
about what the truck weights should be on Federal highways in their
system.
I don't dispute for a moment that there are going to be States that
say: This is too dangerous. We don't want heavier trucks on our road. I
don't doubt that for a minute.
But don't you doubt for a minute, Mr. Speaker, that there will be
States that say: Today we allow those heavier trucks on our small two-
lane curvy roads through north Georgia.
If you really care about families that have been harmed by truck
accidents, then you want those trucks off of those dangerous two-lane
roads and you want them on the finest highway system known to man: the
United States interstate system.
I trust States to make those decisions, Mr. Speaker. Don't think for
a moment--don't think for a moment--that the collective wisdom of 435
people in this body is a good substitute for folks who sit back home in
the great State of Georgia. I promise you, our judgment, the way we
love on one another in Georgia is superior to anything this body could
craft.
That is the radical idea from my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
Let States decide. Let the local people who have to deal with the
consequences of action or inaction--let them decide.
It feels right to me, Mr. Speaker. That is what is wonderful about
this body. We are going to make these amendments in order. We are going
to bring them to the floor of the House. We are going to have the
debate. And then, lo and behold, at the end of the process, you are
going to have to stick your card in the slot and vote ``yes'' or
``no.''
Mr. Speaker, this is the way it is supposed to be. I don't want a
body where we all agree on everything all the time. I want a body where
we are able to talk about those things that divide us and where we are
able to unite around those things that unite us.
One of those things, Mr. Speaker, is what my friend from
Massachusetts said. We have been in a short-term extension process for
far too long. It has been a short-term extension process that has gone
through both Republican and Democratic leaderships, Mr. Speaker. This
is not a partisan problem. This is an American problem.
Today the Transportation Committee has crafted an American solution
that, if we pass this rule, we will be able to consider.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am now really worried about what Speaker Ryan meant
when he said that we were going to return to regular order, based on
what my colleague, Mr. Woodall, just said as he defended the Boehner
Congress, which, by the way, is the most closed Congress in the history
of our Congress--more closed rules, over 180 closed rules. If you want
to defend that process, fine.
Not only the closed rules, but on major amendments, important issues
were not even allowed to be brought up. We tried to debate the war--we
are at war--and the Rules Committee, with the blessing of the
leadership, wouldn't even allow us to bring that to the House floor.
Important issues are routinely denied here.
If your idea of regular order is still ``your way or the highway,''
then I don't think that much is going to be changed, just maybe the
same menu, a different waiter, I guess. That is about what we can
expect. I hope that is not the case.
I think the record, not only how the Republicans have treated the
minority with regard to important bills, but also to a lot of people on
your own side, has been lousy. It has been a bad record.
I am hoping that the new Speaker understands that and believes that
this place could be better served if we have a more inclusive process,
more regular order, and we respected our committees.
By the way, speaking of committees, the Transportation Committee
didn't see fit to put in a provision for bigger truck sizes and heavier
trucks. That is the committee of jurisdiction. They didn't do that.
Mr. Ribble has the right to bring his amendment. These other people
have the right to bring their amendment. Members will have a whole 10
minutes to debate this.
I would also say that not all amendments are created equally. Some
are more important than others. I think this is an amendment that is
more important than some of the sense of Congress language that we are
going to be debating in terms of amendments later.
But a whole 10 minutes and we are going to let the States decide.
That is the retort from my colleague from Georgia. I get it.
There are people in this House, especially on the Republican side,
who think the States should control everything; that when it comes to
civil rights or voting rights, let the States decide, and the Federal
Government should have no role in guaranteeing that everybody in this
country has their voting rights protected or their civil rights
protected. I disagree with that.
On this issue, it is an issue of safety. When the gentleman says that
we are just trying to take these big trucks off these side roads, that
is not true. These trucks still have to go on those small roads to do
their deliveries.
That is not going to change. They will still have to utilize those
roads. On those side roads, I wish there weren't these big trucks, but
at least they are going slower than they will on an interstate highway.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Andrew Matthews,
chairman of the National Troopers Coalition, representing 45,000
members, asking us to oppose any amendment forcing States to allow
heavier and longer trucks on our Nation's highway.
Every one of us here is saying please don't do this, please don't do
this. We will have a whole 5 minutes to make the case against that
amendment.
National Troopers Coalition,
September 23, 2015.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: On behalf
of the National Troopers Coalition's 45,000 members, we ask
that you oppose any amendment forcing states to allow heavier
and longer trucks on our nation's highways when you consider
the transportation reauthorization. Specifically, we urge you
to vote against any amendments allowing the operation of
91,000 pound single tractor-trailers or double 33-foot
tractor-trailers, replacing the twin 28-foot trailers in
operation today.
Troopers, every day, see the dangers these longer and
heavier rigs pose to the motoring public and our officers.
With heavier trucks, stopping distances increase threatening
the motoring public and our Trooper members. And if ``Twin
33s'' become legal, this could ultimately replace 53-foot
singles as one of the most commonly used configurations,
adding a dangerous 17 feet in length to our already crowded
highways.
The transportation reauthorization bill should not include
such a far-reaching policy change, especially following the
release of the long-awaited USDOT truck size and weight
study, which largely concluded that not enough data exists to
make a clear recommendation on changing any existing truck
size and weight laws.
The bottom line is bigger and heavier trucks make our roads
and highways are unsafe due to, among other things, greater
stopping distances and higher risk of rollover. The National
Troopers Coalition opposes any changes to current truck size
and weight laws and urges you to do the same. Should you have
any questions or need any additional information, I can be
reached.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Andrew Matthews, Esq.,
Chairman.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Teamsters Union, which most of these
truck drivers are Teamsters, sent us a letter strongly urging us to
oppose the Ribble amendment. Law enforcement, the drivers, all these
safety coalitions say no; but a special interest comes in here and says
they would like an exemption, and everybody Clambers to try to help
them out. Know what you are voting for before you vote for this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to an important safety
provision in the
[[Page H7407]]
Senate-passed DRIVE Act being considered by the House this week.
I am pleased the House is working in a bipartisan manner to fix our
Nation's critical highway infrastructure needs. I want to bring
attention to a key provision which is included in the DRIVE Act that
passed the Senate earlier this year.
In 2004, two young sisters, Raechel and Jacqueline Houck, were killed
just outside my district when their rented Chrysler PT Cruiser caught
fire and crashed due to a defective steering component. The vehicle was
not grounded or fixed before it was rented to the Houck sisters,
despite having a safety recall notice issued a month before the tragic
accident.
While today Federal law prohibits car dealers from selling new cars
subject to a recall, there is no similar law prohibiting rental car
companies from renting out vehicles under a safety recall.
That is why I am so pleased the Senate included the text of my bill,
H.R. 2198, the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act, into
the DRIVE Act.
This legislation is nothing more than a commonsense fix. It modifies
existing law to prohibit rental car companies from renting a vehicle
under recall until it has been fixed. Pure and simple, consumers must
be protected from renting cars that are subject to a safety recall.
This key provision does not only have bipartisan support in the
House, but it is also supported by the rental car industry, consumer
safety groups, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
General Motors, and Honda.
Furthermore, a change.org petition calling for passage of this bill
was started by Raechel and Jacqueline's mother, Cally Houck. It has
received signatures from over 180,000 consumers nationwide.
I am disappointed that there may be attempts to strike this critical
vehicle safety language from this final highway bill. I believe such
actions are misguided and would seriously undermine the tireless effort
by Cally Houck and the families who have lost loved ones due to this
clear defect in our safety laws.
Therefore, as the House debates the highway bill this week, I urge my
colleagues to oppose any amendments to weaken or undermine this
important bipartisan language.
Let us honor the lives of Raechel and Jacqueline Houck by working
together to enact a simple, yet meaningful solution that will surely
save lives in the future.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I certainly agree with my friend from Massachusetts that folks ought
to know what they are talking about before they come and vote on
amendments. In fact, I think folks ought to know what they talk about
when they even come down and talk about amendments. I think that ought
to be part of the thing. There is no point of order to stipulate that,
but I believe it is an important provision.
I serve on the Transportation Committee, Mr. Speaker. So I have a
vested interest in this. I have kind of a pride of authorship. We
worked very hard on this.
In my friend from Massachusetts' opening statement, he thanked the
chairman and the ranking member of the full committee and of the
subcommittee. They call them the Big Four on that committee, Mr.
Speaker, the Big Four.
If you can get the Big Four to have an agreement, then you feel like
you can get your amendment across the finish line because being a
committee chairman means something.
{time} 1315
Among the many amendments that we considered in committee were truck
weight amendments, Mr. Speaker. I know this because I serve on that
committee.
Did you know, today, Mr. Speaker, that we have first responder
vehicles--fire trucks, for example--that are prohibited from getting on
Federal highways because of this system? If you are in a crisis--if you
are in a first responder crisis--because of the wisdom of the Federal
Government, the wisdom of this body, we have said: Do you know what?
You probably shouldn't get on the fastest and most direct route to
respond to the crisis. We really need you to stay on the local roads.
No interstate travel for you.
That is just nonsense. That is absolute nonsense.
Good news, Mr. Speaker. We have folks here in this body who care
about ferreting out the nonsense and putting a stop to it. So we
considered that amendment in committee, and we passed that amendment in
committee. If we pass this rule today, Mr. Speaker, we can change the
law of the land to make that difference for people.
This is a new day in terms of House leadership, Mr. Speaker. It is a
new day. I am going to be interested to see whether we spend more time
litigating the past or planning for the future. I am about looking
forward. I am optimistic about tomorrow. I know it is going to be
better than yesterday no matter how good yesterday was. This is the
opportunity we have here together.
Unanimous out of committee. Voiced out of the Rules Committee. This
is the bill. I don't want anybody to be confused. There is no civil
rights legislation in this bill today. This is a transportation bill. I
don't want anybody to be confused. We are not rolling back anything for
anyone here today. This is a bipartisan--even better, nonpartisan--
transportation funding bill. I don't want anybody to be confused today.
This is something that Democrats failed to get done when they ran the
show, and it is something Republicans failed to get done when they ran
the show. Now we are all here together, getting it done. I think that
is worth celebrating.
I urge all of my colleagues to pass this rule so we can get to it and
then support the underlying bill as well.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that will
restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
We need to recommit ourselves to voter equality. This legislation
would require Federal approval in some States for changes to voting
practices that could be discriminatory.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you will notice many of us are wearing
``Restore the Vote'' pins here today because we are, quite frankly,
appalled by what is going on in certain States in terms of taking away
people's right to vote. We find that offensive, and we think that there
is a Federal obligation to guarantee that right, that we just can't
leave it up to the States. All of us in this country should have equal
protections under the law when it comes to voting.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of voting
rights for all Americans. I was proud to stand alongside my fellow
colleagues this morning to launch the Restore the Vote legislative
strategy.
This national effort will help mobilize support for H.R. 2867, the
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015, a bill that I sponsored with
Representatives Judy Chu and Linda Sanchez in order to restore critical
Federal oversight to jurisdictions which have a recent history of voter
discrimination.
Since elections are held on Tuesdays, every Tuesday that Congress is
in session, we will declare it to be ``Restoration Tuesday.'' Members
of Congress will wear a ``Restore the Vote'' ribbon pin and will speak
on the House floor about the importance of restoring and protecting
voting rights for all Americans. Today is the first Restoration
Tuesday, and I am honored to speak on behalf of H.R. 2867, the Voting
Rights Advancement Act.
Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court in the Shelby case
struck down the Federal preclearance. The Supreme Court issued a
challenge to Congress to develop a modern-day coverage
[[Page H7408]]
formula that looks at current discriminatory acts by States and
political jurisdiction. The Voting Rights Advancement Act answers that
challenge.
The bill restores and advances the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by
looking at recent voter discrimination practices since 1990. An entire
State can be covered by preclearance if 15 or more voting violations
occur in a State in the most recent 25-year period. This updated
coverage formula ensures that 13 States, including my home State of
Alabama, are required to obtain preclearance for changes in voting
practices and laws. The 13 States that will be covered under this new
formula include Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida,
South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Arizona, Texas, New York,
California, and Virginia. The bill also provides greater transparency
in Federal elections by ensuring that voters get notice of changes in
locations and of changes in voting practices.
Put simply, the Voting Rights Advancement Act offers more voter
protection to more people in more States.
Mr. Speaker, old battles have become new again. Since the Shelby
decision, 33 States across this Nation have issued photo I.D. laws that
have made it harder for vulnerable communities to vote, like our senior
citizens, our young people, and the disabled.
As a daughter of Selma, I am painfully aware that the injustices
suffered on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 50 years ago have not been fully
vindicated. Just recently, my constituents were dealt a very
devastating blow when Alabama closed 31 DMVs--that's right, driver's
license offices--a State that had recently adopted one of the Nation's
harsher photo I.D. laws. This decision is completely unacceptable.
These closures render it almost impossible for so many of my
constituents to get the most popular form of photo I.D., which is a
driver's license.
This DMV closure decision is just one example of modern-day barriers
to voting. While we no longer have to count marbles in a jar or recite
the names of all of the counties, there are still laws and decisions
that make it harder for people to vote. ``Injustice anywhere is a
threat to justice everywhere,'' Martin Luther King once said.
On March 7, 2015, I welcomed President and Mrs. Obama as well as
President Bush and Mrs. Bush, along with 100 Members of the House and
the Senate, to my hometown of Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of the voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery. Mr.
Speaker, it was a ``kumbaya'' moment when Republicans and Democrats
gathered together in recognition of how far our Nation had come in
living up to its ideals of justice and equality for all.
The 50th commemoration of the marches from Selma to Montgomery must
be so much more than just one day of reflection, Mr. Speaker. A single
moment filled with colorful language and wonderful speeches is nice,
and walking hand in hand across the Edmund Pettus Bridge is nice; but
gone should be the days of ``feel good'' moments that, in and of
themselves, lead to no clear path to action. The Voting Rights
Advancement Act is that action.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, we are asking our colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans, to join with us in supporting the Voting
Rights Advancement Act as Congress must act now to protect the rights
of all Americans.
The fate of our democracy depends upon its citizens having the
unfettered right to vote. Our vote is our voice, and no voices should
be silenced. We are asking everyone to join us in our efforts to make
sure that we restore the vote to the voices of the excluded. To
restrict the ability of any American to vote is an assault on all
Americans' rights to participate equally in the electoral process.
I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2867, the Voting Rights
Advancement Act.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is easy on a big bill like this to get confused about what is in
it and what is not in it. I would refer folks to transport.house.gov.
That is not just for Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker. Anybody across
the country can access that.
What you are going to find--and, again, what is an extraordinary
success story that we have on the floor today--are all of these
national priorities that we share. The bill refocuses funding on
national priorities. It gets us back to the core of the original
highway trust fund. It reforms the program, again, in a bipartisan--
even nonpartisan--way to get the dollars on the ground faster to make a
difference in people's lives.
Time is money, Mr. Speaker, whether you are shipping goods or whether
you are sitting in traffic. It promotes innovation to bring some new
ideas into the transportation infrastructure. We are getting ready for
next generation roads, and that language is here: roads and bridges,
public transportation, driver safety, truck and bus safety, hazardous
materials. It is all in here.
There are those bills in Congress where the more you read them, the
more you think: ``Man, what were those guys thinking?'' This is one of
those bills where the more you read it, you think: ``How in the world
did those guys get it done?'' This is a success story, Mr. Speaker. It
is worthy of all of my colleagues' support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We need to pursue this in the manner we are doing it because, again,
important issues like this don't ever see the light of day in this
House. We can't talk about voting rights or vote on a bill to protect
voting rights. We can't vote on immigration reform because my friends
are slaves to this majority rule on their side of the aisle. These are
important issues, and we shouldn't just leave them to the States in
which people's voting rights are being denied.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Adams).
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, August 6 marked the 50th anniversary of the
passage of the bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965, historic
legislation that prevented State and local governments from denying any
citizen the right to vote based on his race, ensuring equal voting
rights for all.
In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a major provision of this law,
severely limiting the Federal oversight of State voting laws. My home
State of North Carolina passed the most egregious voting law in the
Nation immediately after that decision, which slashed early voting,
implemented strict voter I.D. requirements, and ended pre voter
registration programs. Other States across the country followed suit
and also implemented election laws that disenfranchised voters.
All voters should be able to make their voices heard and elect
leaders of their choice, and I am proud to join my colleagues today in
renewing our call to repair America's broken election system.
I cosponsored the Voting Rights Advancement Act to help restore
Federal oversight to jurisdictions which have a recent history of voter
discrimination. This bill updates the coverage formula to ensure that
States like North Carolina are required to obtain preclearance for
changes to voting practices and procedures. It reaffirms our commitment
to voter equality, and it creates additional pathways for voter access.
Simply put, this bill protects the right to vote.
I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation
because every American deserves to have his voice heard. Every American
deserves equal access to the ballot box, and every American deserves
the right to vote.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
Mrs. BEATTY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is election day in Ohio. Right now, my constituents
are casting ballots to decide their next local, State, and judicial
elected officials. Participating in our democratic process is not only
a right, but it is a duty. Unfortunately, again, for many Americans,
voting recently became more difficult in 2013.
As you have heard my colleagues mention, Mr. Speaker, that is when
the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965
[[Page H7409]]
in its Shelby v. Holder decision, making it easier for States and
localities to disenfranchise voters in areas that have a history of
voter suppression.
We shouldn't roll back voting rights protections. Instead, we should
honor the progress our country has made to ensure equal rights and
equal treatment.
Congress should immediately bring H.R. 2867, the Voting Rights
Advancement Act of 2015, to the floor so all Americans may cast ballots
to choose their leaders and their public servants. I am a cosponsor--
no. Let me say I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, and it enjoys
bipartisan support and leadership support in both the House and the
Senate.
Mr. Speaker, voting rights restoration should happen now. On
Tuesdays, I will proudly wear my pin for restoring the vote. Mr.
Speaker, again, that is restoring the vote.
{time} 1330
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague if he has any
further speakers remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I am ready to close for our side.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in a few moments, I am going to offer an amendment to
the rule. It has been worked out collaboratively with the minority. I
said when I began that we were making almost 30 amendments in order,
but we were nowhere close to done. In fact, this amendment wants to
make another 16 amendments in order right now.
We are still going to go back to the Rules Committee and meet at 3
p.m. We are still going to make even more amendments in order, but this
amendment will make an additional 16 amendments in order under this
rule. It will make more time available for debate, Mr. Speaker.
We want to make a technical fix to dispense with the reading of the
Senate bill so that we can get directly into amendments. That is a
standard procedure, but it was not in the base rule.
Mr. Speaker, this is only going to make this rule better. I look
forward to offering that amendment here in just a few moments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reiterating our call for Members to vote
``no'' on the previous question so that we can restore the vote.
Only in this Republican-controlled House of Representatives is the
notion of protecting everybody's right to vote a radical idea. We see
voter suppression efforts all across this country, and it is a Federal
responsibility. It is a Federal responsibility, and we have got to live
up to that responsibility. So I hope that my colleagues will vote
``no,'' so we can have this debate and we can have an up-or-down vote
on this.
Quite frankly, the committees of jurisdiction should have ruled this
bill to the floor, and we should be having that debate. But I guess for
political reasons my colleagues don't see the benefit in moving this
important legislation to the floor. We have an opportunity to do that
today.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend Chairman Shuster,
Ranking Member DeFazio, and their entire team for bringing us here
today with a carefully crafted compromise, 6-year highway bill, which,
I think, is absolutely imperative. Our States, our cities, and our
towns have been demanding this for a long, long time, and we are very
close to making some progress.
I would urge, like I did in my opening statement, we ought not to
screw it up with a whole bunch of controversial amendments because some
special interest PAC thinks it is a good idea.
I will again reiterate my strong opposition, not only to the Ribble
amendment, but to a whole bunch of other amendments that will allow
bigger and heavier trucks on our Federal Interstate Highway System.
These are Federal highways. Yes, it is a Federal responsibility. It is
a Federal responsibility.
I would just remind my colleagues that the people who agree with me
on this include the National Troopers Association, the National
Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, AAA, the
National League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and
Townships, the American Public Works Association, The U.S. Conference
of Mayors, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Road Safe America,
Brain Injury Association of America, Parents Against Tired Truckers,
Advocates for Auto Safety, Trucking Alliance, the Teamsters, and the
AFL-CIO. I can go on and on and on.
The overwhelming opinion on this is that we should not go down the
road of bigger and heavier trucks; yet we have got a special interest
out there that says we should do it, and so all of a sudden Members are
clamoring to do it. It would be a mistake. It would make our roads more
dangerous. It will threaten the safety of passengers on our highways.
It is a bad idea.
Certainly, people ought to pay attention to what they are voting on
before they come here and vote for this. Unfortunately, we are not
going to have the time to debate it because it is going to be 5 minutes
on each side. I think it would be a threat to this bill, and I think
that would be a huge mistake.
Let us respect the great work that has been done by the
Transportation Committee. Let's not load it up with a bunch of
controversial provisions. This is about safety on our highways, first
and foremost. If my colleagues don't believe that, they ought to talk
to the families who have lost loved ones in accidents due to bigger and
heavier trucks. They ought to talk to the drivers. They ought to talk
to people who know what they are talking about and not rely on a
particular special interest.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so we can have this debate and a vote on protecting
voting rights in this country to restore the vote.
Let's respect the work that the committee of jurisdiction has done
here, but let's vote ``no'' on these efforts to allow bigger and
heavier trucks on our roads. For the sake of our constituents, for
their safety, let us do the right thing and vote ``no'' on those
amendments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of those days where I don't think it is a
rare moment of agreement; I think it is a typical moment of agreement.
There are issues that divide us, and there are issues that unite us.
Focusing on America's infrastructure is one of those issues that unites
us.
I agreed with my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, when he said
he hoped in the new administration here in this House that we focused
on fairness and respect. I think that is absolutely right. I think that
is what the American people ask of us back home.
I don't particularly think that suggesting that there are folks in
this body who are moving amendments to the floor based on the bidding
of special interests moves us in the direction of respect. In fact, I
think it moves us in the opposite direction, Mr. Speaker. I don't think
suggesting there are those in this body who care about the individual
safety of families in our district and those who don't moves us in the
direction of fairness or respect, Mr. Speaker. I think it moves us in
the opposite direction. That is the challenge that our new Speaker has.
We are trying to get to regular order, trying to have all the voices
heard, Mr. Speaker, but you have seen the complexity of that just here
today.
On the one hand, you have heard a passionate speech for why we
shouldn't be considering trucking amendments in a trucking bill; that
there couldn't possibly be enough time to discuss trucking while
dealing with trucks, why we shouldn't possibly have an opportunity to
bring experts together who have just passed a trucking bill to deal
with more trucking issues. On the other hand, you heard a very
passionate plea of why we should bring a Judiciary Committee
legislative bill into the transportation bill.
This bipartisan bill, this bill that has been worked out, this bill
that has succeeded where Congress after Congress after Congress has
failed, you have
[[Page H7410]]
heard a very passionate pitch to say, you know what, let's take that
transportation bill and let's drop in a giant judiciary issue on top of
it because that is regular order. It is not regular order.
I don't dispute that there is frustration in this body for the pace
at which legislation moves. I share it. Mr. Speaker, I instigate it for
Pete's sake. I came here in the class of 2010. I want to get things
done. As soon as we come together and get this done, by golly, we can
go back to poking or kicking or talking or whatever it is that folks
need to get done, but that is not this bill.
This bill is a success. This process is a success. The openness of
this process is something that we can all be proud of. It doesn't just
happen because Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter come
together in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. It happens because
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio came together in the
Transportation Committee. This is one of those moments that brings us
together, not as a body, but as a nation, getting about the business
that our constituents sent us here to do.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Woodall
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer an amendment to the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
On page 2, line 11, insert after the period: ``The first
reading of the Senate amendment shall be dispensed with.''.
At the end of the first section, add the following: ``The
Senate amendment, as amended, shall be considered as read.''.
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 7. The amendments specified in Rules Committee Print
114-33 shall be considered as though printed in part B of
House Report 114-325.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, that is 35 amendments now. There are 35
amendments made in order by this rule. We will still go back at 3
o'clock this afternoon to find even more. That is the collaborative
process that I am representing on the floor here today.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the amendment, I
urge strong support for the rule, and I urge strong support for the
underlying resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 507 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, 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.
2867) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the
criteria for determining which States and political
subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for
other purposes. 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.
All points of order against provisions in the bill 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2867.
____
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. 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 will be
followed by 5-minute votes on:
Adoption of the amendment to House Resolution 507, if ordered;
Adoption of House Resolution 507, if ordered; and
The motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 354.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 178, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 583]
YEAS--241
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
[[Page H7411]]
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--178
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Brady (PA)
Conyers
Ellmers (NC)
Fattah
Gohmert
Jackson Lee
Jones
Larson (CT)
Meeks
Richmond
Speier
Takai
Yarmuth
Yoder
{time} 1410
Mrs. TORRES changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. LaMALFA and JODY B. HICE of Georgia changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248,
nays 171, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 584]
YEAS--248
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruiz
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Waters, Maxine
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--171
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
[[Page H7412]]
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Brady (PA)
Ellmers (NC)
Fattah
Gohmert
Jackson Lee
Jones
Larson (CT)
Meeks
Neugebauer
Richmond
Speier
Takai
Yarmuth
Yoder
{time} 1419
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________