[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7641-H7650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 22, 
                      HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 512 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 512

       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 further 
     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.
       Sec. 2.  (a) No further amendment to the amendment referred 
     to in section 2(a) of House Resolution 507 shall be in order 
     except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc 
     described in subsection (c).
        (b) Each further amendment printed in part A of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered 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, may 
     be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       (c) It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or his 
     designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules not 
     earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or their designees, shall 
     not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question.
       (d) All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in subsection (c) are waived.
       Sec. 3.  No further amendment to the Senate amendment, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such further amendment shall be considered 
     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, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time 
     before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such further amendments are waived.
       Sec. 4.  (a) At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     Senate amendment for amendment the Committee of the Whole 
     shall rise and report the Senate amendment, as amended, to 
     the House with such further amendments as may have been 
     adopted.
        (b) If the Committee reports the Senate amendment, as 
     amended, back to the House with a further amendment or 
     amendments, the previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the question of adoption of such further amendment 
     or amendments without intervening motion. In the case of 
     sundry further amendments reported from the Committee, the 
     question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros 
     and without division of the question.
       (c) If the Committee reports the Senate amendment, as 
     amended, back to the House without further amendment or the 
     question of adoption referred to in subsection (b) fails, no 
     further consideration of the Senate amendments shall be in 
     order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
       Sec. 5.  The Chair may postpone further consideration of 
     the Senate amendments in the House to such time as may be 
     designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of the further amendment or 
     amendments in the House pursuant to section 4(b) of this 
     resolution --
        (a) a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment 
     to the text, as amended, with such further amendment or 
     amendments shall be considered as adopted;
       (b) the Clerk shall engross the action of the House under 
     subsection (a) as a single amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute;
       (c) a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment 
     to the title shall be considered as adopted; and
       (d) it shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or his designee to move 
     that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate 
     amendment to H.R. 22 and request a conference with the Senate 
     thereon.
       Sec. 7.  The chair of the Committee on Armed Services may 
     insert in the Congressional Record not later than November 
     16, 2015, such material as he may deem explanatory of defense 
     authorization measures for the fiscal year 2016.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). 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 Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 
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, I find myself with a big smile on my face. 
I usually do when the Reading Clerk sits down. Even if I could dispense 
with the reading of the rule, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. Even 
if there were some days where I would be tempted to do it, Mr. Speaker, 
this wouldn't be that day because we are down here with rule number two 
on the transportation bill.
  You will remember we came down here yesterday--it was my friend from 
Massachusetts and I at that time--to bring a rule to consider the first 
6-year transportation bill this country has had in over a decade. It is 
a bill that the Transportation and Infrastructure

[[Page H7642]]

Committee has worked on for not days, not weeks, not months, but years 
to get it ready. It is a bill that was not pushed by Republicans or 
pushed by Democrats. It is a bill that was pushed by all of us together 
to do those kinds of important things that are necessary for 
infrastructure planning for each and every one of our constituents back 
home.
  It is a bill that has been moving in the Senate, which is a rarity in 
and of itself. It is a bill that we are moving here in the House. It is 
a bill that can go to the President's desk for his signature and make a 
difference for Americans, make a difference in our economy, and make a 
difference for our families.
  Now, I sit on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. 
Speaker, and you would think that my pride of authorship and all the 
good work we did on that committee would have said: Do you know what? 
We got it right the first time. Let's just bring that bill to the 
floor, and let's get it done because it is important to America. Let's 
finish it today.
  I see some of my colleagues from the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee sitting down here. There might be a little 
temptation to take our work product and rush it straight to the desk 
because we did do a pretty good job together. But in their wisdom, Mr. 
Speaker, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the ranking member of 
the Rules Committee, and our leadership team here in the House said: Do 
you know what? There are a lot of Members who don't sit on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. There are a lot of Members 
who represent some really smart and really talented folks back home in 
America, but their Representative doesn't sit on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. We need their ideas in this debate, too.
  So we came to the floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and we brought a rule 
that made more than 20 amendments in order. We were debating that rule 
for an hour. We hadn't even finished debating the rule when we brought 
back more amendments and made another 16 in order, Mr. Speaker. We are 
back here today because that more than 40 was not enough. We want to 
make another 81 amendments in order. Mr. Speaker, this is a festival of 
democracy that is happening in this House today. Everyone's voice is 
included.
  Now, I want to be clear. We had over 300 amendments submitted to the 
Rules Committee. Here on this floor, sometimes we have a very open 
process with appropriations bills, Mr. Speaker, where absolutely 
everyone can offer absolutely any idea at absolutely any time they want 
to. This process is a little more structured, and I want to stipulate 
that that is true. We had a lot of duplicative amendments offered, Mr. 
Speaker. This is important work. We didn't want to waste the body's 
time. We culled those duplicative amendments.
  We had a couple amendments offered, Mr. Speaker, that were not minor 
changes to the underlying legislation. They were major revisions to 
public policy that had not had committee hearings and that had not had 
any public discussions. We culled those as well.
  But over 120 amendments, Mr. Speaker, will now be made in order on a 
bill, again, that was not the product of days of effort, not a product 
of weeks of effort, not months, but years of effort of our House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to bring together a product 
that this body can be proud of--a product, I might add, that 
Republicans in the past and Democrats in the past have failed to come 
together and succeed on.
  This is a day of celebration, Mr. Speaker, as we offer this rule to 
consider even more of our colleagues' ideas. I hope that we will get 
unanimous support for this rule, Mr. Speaker. With the passage of this 
rule, we can get into debate, and we can move this bill one step closer 
to the President's desk, and we can move one step closer to making a 
difference for those families back home.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we will get to what is in the bill in a minute. With 
regards to process, as an example of a Member of this body, I had a 
number of issues in the transportation area I wanted to address in my 
district. Most notably, I wanted to address the sound levels of train 
horns in our busy downtown areas, like Fort Collins and Longmont. It is 
one of the biggest issues I hear about from our local downtown 
businesses; and, of course, to anybody who, including myself, has been 
downtown with the train blaring by in close proximity, it really is a 
major detriment to the quality of life, and there is no significant 
evidence that I have seen or that has been presented to me that this in 
any way improves safety. So I did offer an amendment that would have 
changed that. Unfortunately, it was blocked in Rules Committee.
  Now, on that particular issue, we had a discussion with the chair and 
the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 
I hope to work with him in other ways. But to say that somehow this is 
an open process, that I can bring forth and other Members can bring 
forth amendments to improve the bill--of course, there were a few 
allowed. Out of 302, there were 126 allowed. That means there are more 
disappointed Members that had ideas than there are satisfied Members 
that are at least going to have the opportunity to bring their idea 
forward.
  Again, it is 126. It is better than 50, and it is better than 30, 
there is no question. But it also means there are an awful lot of 
Republicans and Democrats, including my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Duffy) with whom I sponsored--he as the Republican; I as the lead 
Democrat--a bipartisan amendment that would have dealt with train 
stoppages. We are dealing with this also in Fort Collins, where we have 
trains that do switching and delay traffic sometimes for 15, 30, and 45 
minutes. We are simply saying that you can't do that in an urban zone; 
that delays traffic. It can impede ambulances and fire engines from 
reaching their destinations. It is dangerous. We simply proposed an 
amendment to impose a civil penalty of $10,000 around that to deter 
that kind of action. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that amendment was 
blocked under this very rule that we are talking about here.

  I have, for instance, an amendment that is very important in my 
district for highway 70 designation that is allowed under this rule, 
and I am happy that it is. Keep in mind, in perspective, there are many 
more ideas--good, bad, and other--that Republicans and Democrats had on 
both sides of the aisle that they weren't even allowed to talk about 
and aren't even allowed to talk about under this rule, this restrictive 
rule, that we have before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish that I could do something and that the Rules 
Committee allowed me to do something about excess train noise in our 
downtown areas. I wish that the Rules Committee had allowed Mr. Duffy, 
me, and the many others that this affects to do something about train 
stoppages closing traffic and endangering the public in our downtown 
areas. But it was not allowed under this rule, not allowed at all.
  Mr. Speaker, calling this bill a 6-year reauthorization is also a bit 
of a misnomer. The bill only makes funding available for 2 to 3 years. 
So this is not, in fact, a 6-year bill. It is a 2- to 3-year bill. It 
is being touted for something that it doesn't have the power to do. 
Simply calling it a 6-year bill when you are only funding it for 2 to 3 
years doesn't make it so.
  Mr. Speaker, our economy is still fragile. Americans are concerned 
about maintaining and growing their quality of life. Affordable 
housing, quality education, and retirement are sometimes out of the 
grasp of too many Americans. Critical infrastructure on public roads 
and bridges is absolutely important for driving our economy forward.
  My colleagues and I are charged with recognizing and offering 
innovative solutions to these problems. We are each selected by 
constituencies that have particular items that impact them. I was sent 
here to work on train noise, as an example, and train stoppages that 
delay traffic, the designation of highway 70, which we hope to be able 
to include in the final bill, and many other transportation issues, 
some of which are reflected in the bill.

[[Page H7643]]

  I certainly commend my colleagues on the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee for working diligently in trying to bring up a 
long-term, robustly funded, and thoughtful bill.
  This bill, unfortunately, is another exclusionary bill. Again, you 
can certainly say there could be improvement to have more amendments 
than prior bills have allowed, but there are many more good ideas that 
Republicans and Democrats have offered that are not allowed to be 
debated under this rule.
  I commend the process and its inclusion of critical provisions 
regarding the Export-Import Bank. This is important to many companies 
in my district to ensure that U.S. businesses are competing on a level 
playing field. As an example, Fiberlok, located in my district in Fort 
Collins, is a specialty printing company. It provides heat transfer 
graphics. It is family owned, and about 40 percent of its business is 
export business.
  I also visited Boulder-based Droplet Measurement Technologies, which 
was named Export-Import Bank's Small Business Exporter of the Year for 
its work in cloud and aerosol measurements.
  We simply want a level playing field for American businesses.
  Of course, this package has some commendable transportation-related 
provisions. For instance, it provides $325 billion in Federal contract 
authority and allows for the direct deposit of any additional revenues 
Congress is able to come up with. It invests in all modes of surface 
transportation, highway, transit, and maintaining funding for 
alternatives like biking and walking that should be commended. It 
creates a $4.5-billion competitive grant program allowing States to 
compete for geographically expansive projects that impact and can now 
be financed by multiple States and regions.
  Unfortunately, however, this is not a 6-year authorization. From the 
Infrastructure 2.0 Act I recently introduced, along with my colleague 
Mr. Delaney, to the President's GROW AMERICA Act, to Mr. DeFazio's and 
Representative Blumenauer's initiatives to re-index the gas tax, many 
of us have been in the forefront of offering avenues for full funding 
of this bill. Yet, unfortunately, time and time again, whether it is 
the repatriation concept or whether it is a re-indexation of the gas 
tax concept, all of the very reasonable offers and ideas that we have 
put forward have been repeatedly and inexplicably rejected, and we have 
seen a failure from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
bring forward ways to actually pay for what they claim is a 6-year 
bill.
  Look, a long-term, sustainable, funded bill is what we want. If that 
is the bill we get, Mr. Speaker, I will personally whip that bill. But 
this is not that bill. This bill fails to make the commitment needed to 
our Nation's crumbling transportation and infrastructure, and it sets 
the precedent of authorizing investments without paying for them, which 
has been the whole difficult part of putting a bill together, which 
this bill just kicks the can down the road on.

                              {time}  1300

  I oppose this overly restrictive rule and the path that we are taking 
to pretend that a bill is 6 years when we only pay for it for 2 to 3 
years.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I remember when I ran for Congress 4\1/2\ years ago, I had this idea 
that because I had really good ideas and had the backing of 700,000 
folks back home in the district who also had really good ideas that we 
were going to be able to come up here and share our good ideas; 435 of 
my colleagues were going to recognize the wisdom that I brought from 
the great State of Georgia, and we were just going to be able to make 
those things happen.
  It has been harder than I had anticipated, Mr. Speaker; I will 
confess that to you. It has been harder than I had anticipated. It 
turns out there are some folks in other parts of the country who have 
some different ideas.
  My friend from Colorado is absolutely right. He offered two 
amendments yesterday, and he only got one of them made in order. That 
has happened to me, too. That has happened to me, too.
  We have got to talk about what we are going to define as success in 
this place. Are we going to define getting half of everything you want 
as failure, or are we going to define getting half of everything you 
want as a huge step in the right direction that we can celebrate 
together?
  There are not that many bills in this institution, Mr. Speaker, that 
are worked through in the bipartisan, collaborative way that this one 
has happened. It is not easy. It is tremendously difficult--
tremendously difficult. Why? Because we have legitimate disagreements 
about public policy--legitimate disagreements about public policy.
  Now, I don't want to tamp down my friend's pessimism about 3-year 
funding instead of 6-year funding. I want 6-year funding, too. I have 
wanted it from day one, and I am prepared to vote for it today. I 
haven't found quite as much enthusiasm for that around not just this 
floor, but the floor right down the hall in the United States Senate. 
We are going to have to sort that out.
  I tell you, with no small bit of optimism, that I think we are going 
to find that 6-year funding before we see a conference report back on 
this floor. I believe it. We need it. We have serious people working at 
it, and we have the ability to make it so.
  But, Mr. Speaker, by any measure--by any measure--certainty of 
funding, certainty of authorization, bipartisanship, nonpartisanship, 
amendments made in order, length of time of the authorization, length 
of time of the funding, by any measure--this is the best transportation 
bill and the best transportation rule that have come to this floor in 
more than a decade--more than a decade.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want us to take our toys and go home claiming 
victory over all that ails America. That is not where we are today. I 
want us to take credit for making a small step in the right direction 
together, a step that so many of our colleagues before us have failed 
to succeed at together, and engage in what is sure to be not another 
hour or 2 or 3 or 4, but dozens of hours to continue to improve this 
work product of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  This is a moment of opportunity for us, Mr. Speaker. We can spend our 
time grousing about what we didn't get, or we can spend our time 
celebrating what we did get, put this bill on the President's desk, 
create certainty for America, and then come right back together the day 
after and begin to make improvements once again. That is the way this 
institution has always worked when it has worked at its finest, Mr. 
Speaker, and that is the way I expect this institution to work today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in terms of what the gentleman from Georgia 
just said, I do appreciate the fact that we are debating many policy 
amendments. That is the way the process should work, both sides of the 
aisle contribute. That is great. Some were excluded that I think should 
have been included. I don't know why they weren't allowed. I was 
willing to stay here later last night and stay later tonight so 
everybody who wanted an amendment could have a chance.
  But the biggest and most glaring omission by the Rules Committee is 
of not allowing any attempt by this House to fund the bill. That is 
pretty extraordinary. Actually, we probably don't even have 3 years of 
pretend funding in the bill because some of those offsets were spent 
last week in the big budget deal, so I don't know what we have left. 
But it sure as heck isn't anywhere near 6 years of funding; and it is 
not 6 years of funding at a more robust level, which is necessary.
  Even if we funded this bill for 6 years, at the end of 6 years, our 
infrastructure will be more deteriorated than it is today. It is 
deteriorating more quickly than we are investing. That is a problem.
  We need to increase the investment. We haven't raised the Federal gas 
tax since 1993. That is a user fee, a user fee created by President 
Dwight David Eisenhower, raised again by Ronald Reagan, and then 
finally by Bill Clinton the last time it was increased. A bipartisan 
idea: user fee. Fund infrastructure for transportation with a user fee.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports an increase in the user fee. 
The American Trucking Association supports an increase in the user fee. 
We

[[Page H7644]]

are virtually being begged by interest groups out there representing 
consumers and commercial users of the system to do something, vote on 
something.
  I offered a really simple little amendment. Let's just index the 
existing gas tax so we don't lose more ground. If we did that, gas 
would go up 1.7 cents a gallon next year. I think consumers would be 
outraged. No, they wouldn't be outraged. They would be pleased we 
started filling in the potholes and doing away with the detours around 
the bridges that are closed.

  If you indexed and you project that, you could borrow money against 
the future income following the budget rules of PAYGO. We could borrow 
$100 billion and fill in the huge hole in this bill and then use some 
of those so-called pay-fors to increase spending under this bill.
  Why can't we have a simple vote on revenues, a vote by the House of 
Representatives?
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that I can identify with the gentleman from Oregon's 
frustration.
  The frustration you see is not from a gentleman who does not have any 
power over the process. He is the ranking member of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee. But the rules of the House prevent the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee from funding 
transportation. It is an incredibly powerless space to be in.
  Your job on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is to 
come up with good transportation policy. You just can't pull any of the 
levers that fund it. That is the frustration you hear from my friend 
from Oregon, and I don't discount that in the least.
  What I do discount, however, is any suggestion that what is happening 
today is in any way unprecedented. My friend from Oregon first began 
serving in this House when Ronald Reagan was President of the United 
States, and not one Ways and Means major funding bill has come to this 
House floor under an open rule in any day of the gentleman's service--
not one. Not one Ways and Means bill funding this government has come 
to the House floor under an open rule. Not under Republicans, not under 
Democrats, not ever--not ever.
  There are lots of reasons for that. I don't need to get into arcane 
budget policy. But what I do need to say is we have an opportunity in 
conference to solve this problem. We are grappling with openness in 
this institution. I am excited about it, Mr. Speaker. A lot of folks 
say, oh, we can't have openness on the floor because we will have to 
take tough votes. I say, if you don't want to take tough votes, don't 
run for Congress.
  We have a serious challenge, however, in whether or not we allow a 
committee, like the Ways and Means Committee, whose sole purpose, whose 
sole jurisdiction, covers tax matters--no one else covers tax matters 
other than the Ways and Means Committee. Do we allow them to grapple 
with funding issues, or do we bring an amendment to the floor, debate 
it for 9\1/2\ minutes, and change Federal tax policy together? We can 
do that.
  I am glad we are not doing Federal transportation policy in a 9-
minute stint. I am glad we worked on it, again, not for days, not for 
weeks, not for months, but for years, together, to get policy that 
worked.
  It is very puzzling to me, again, by any measure--by any measure. 
This is the best transportation process and the best transportation 
rule that this body has seen in a decade. We can choose to recognize 
that and improve upon it, or we can choose to continue the self-
flagellation that seems to constitute government today. I don't 
understand it. I am very proud to be in this body. I am very proud to 
work with each one of you, and I am very proud of the work that we have 
done together.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I need 10 minutes at least to respond to that assertion. There is no 
party with whom I have served over the last 35 years that has been any 
more into self-flagellation of the United States Government, the 
American Government, than his party. I will say with all due respect.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. No.
  Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman is not talking about me. The gentleman is 
talking about my party.
  Mr. HOYER. I talked about your party.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. But I will tell you that I disagree with the gentleman's 
basic premise. He talks about the rule. The rule is not the issue. I am 
against this rule. Its substance, that is what the gentleman from 
Oregon was talking about. He was talking about investing and making 
America grow, creating jobs. That is what we ought to be debating, not 
some rule for you to have a lot of amendments. You can have a zillion 
amendments. If they are all awful, it won't be a good rule.
  I rise in opposition to this rule. I rise in opposition because it 
would make in order several amendments that undermine the will of a 
majority of both parties in this House, that the Export-Import Bank 
should be reopened immediately.
  I said for a year and a half the majority of this House was for it; 
and for a year and a half, it was bottled up by a committee chairman in 
a closed process.
  Since some Republicans blocked an extension of the Export-Import 
Bank's charter authority and let it shut down in July, hundreds of 
American jobs have been shipped overseas, and exporters and their 
workers have been unable to compete on a level playing field in foreign 
markets.
  Last month, in a historic effort, virtually all Democrats and a 
majority of Republicans came together to end the gridlock and take 
steps to allow the House to work its will and hold a vote on reopening 
the Export-Import Bank. This rule seeks to reverse that process.
  When that vote was finally held, Mr. Speaker, 127 Republicans finally 
got the opportunity to work their will--a majority of their 
Conference--and joined with every Democrat, save one, to reopen the 
Bank and create jobs in our country.
  The will of this House is clear, unequivocal. The best way to reopen 
the Bank is by keeping, unchanged, in this highway bill the Heitkamp-
Kirk language, a bipartisan amendment from the Senate that 313 Members, 
otherwise known as 75 percent of this body, voted for last week on this 
floor. The amendments that this rule would make in order are, in 
effect, a last-ditch attempt by the Bank's opponents to undo the will 
of the majority of this House.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule; and should it be adopted, 
as is likely the case, I urge every one of my colleagues who voted to 
reopen the Export-Import Bank last week to stand together in defeating 
every single amendment offered on the Export-Import Bank so we can 
stand together to defeat all of the amendments that are offered on the 
Export-Import Bank.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 25 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. It is a Senate bill and a House bill that are exactly the 
same. If they had been passed alone, they would be on the President's 
desk right now.
  Once again, we need to help American exporters; but more importantly 
than that, we need to help American workers get and keep jobs. We talk 
a lot about it. This is an opportunity to do it. Defeat any and every 
amendment, no matter how sugary it may sound, to defeat the Export-
Import Bank.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I don't fault my friend from Maryland for not yielding. He had very 
limited time. I remember the days of the magic minute. Those were 
better yielding days.
  Mr. HOYER. But I will yield to him on his time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate that. The gentleman is always generous.
  Mr. Speaker, while the minority whip was the majority leader of this 
institution, this House did a lot of big things--a lot of big things. 
But what they couldn't do--what they couldn't do--was a bill like the 
one that Ranking Member DeFazio and Chairman Bill Shuster have brought 
to the floor today.

[[Page H7645]]

  


                              {time}  1315

  We can cast this dye and call it anything we want to; but the fact of 
the matter is it is a success, and it is one that we have done 
together. I don't know where partisanship comes into this process, and 
it will be a shame if it comes in today because it sure hasn't been in 
in the previous days, weeks, months, and years that we have been 
working on this process.
  I had some great ideas for this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I serve on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Where better for a fellow 
with great ideas on transportation to work than on the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee.
  So I knocked on my chairman's door. I said, Mr. Chairman, I bring the 
wisdom of the Seventh District of Georgia. I have crafted it all here 
in legislative language for you. Let me just go ahead and give it to 
you so you can include it in the base text.
  Do you know what the chairman said to me?
  He said, Rob, we are doing this in a collaborative manner. If your 
ideas are that good, you are going to find some folks on the other side 
of the aisle who believe in your ideas, too. You bring me back those 
ideas. Together, we will get it done.
  He was right. That is exactly what I did. My ideas were that good. 
Thank you very much. I did go out and find some collegiality on the 
other side of the aisle, and we did include those ideas in the base 
text. That is what this product is.
  You can't do that on every piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, as the 
divisions are too great; but the minority whip was right--this is about 
jobs. There is not a local mayor in the country who doesn't know that, 
as one's transportation infrastructure and education infrastructure 
goes, so goes one's community.
  We need to solve that education piece. Today, we are going to solve 
the transportation piece. Not once in more than a decade has a bill 
come to the floor of this House with the kind of commitment to 
transportation and infrastructure that this bill has today. My hope is, 
somewhere in these 81 amendments this rule makes in order, we will be 
able to improve upon that bill. If nothing else, if we can't improve 
upon it, at least we can find out where the will of the House is by 
defeating those amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the process I ran to be a part of. This is the 
way I imagined the House to work. I am very proud to be here today, and 
I hope my colleagues will take some of that pride as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join my Ways and Means 
Committee colleague, my counterpart--Mr. Renacci of Ohio--along with 
several other Members, in submitting to the Rules Committee a modified 
version of our bipartisan bill to provide long-term, sustainable 
funding for our highways and bridges, which this bill does not do.
  Our proposal would have used the next 3 paid-for years to set up a 
task force to devise a plan to fund the remaining years of the bill. 
Continuity can ensure that construction projects and the jobs they 
provide don't come to a grinding halt when Congress fails to act.
  The fact that our bipartisan amendment to save the highway trust fund 
was shut out from floor consideration but that the devolution crowd 
gets a vote on their plan to dismantle the fund speaks volumes about 
how this leadership views the concept of an open process and regular 
order, to say nothing of the place for compromise and bipartisan 
solutions.
  Look, we have a diverse coalition of colleagues who is cosponsoring 
our plan. We have support from a broad coalition of business, labor, 
construction, engineering, and transit advocates.
  Let's be frank. Be it under Democratic or Republican control, this 
body has been loath to make the tough decisions needed on the issue of 
transportation funding. It is a disgrace that our bipartisan team was 
not given the chance to put the trust back into the trust fund.
  I urge my colleagues to send a message by opposing this bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  ``Disgrace'' is a strong word from my friend; but I would say that, 
if there is disappointment in this institution, it is that the Ways and 
Means Committee, with the sole jurisdiction over funding 
transportation, has failed under both Republican and Democratic 
leadership to provide long-term transportation funding. The gentleman 
serves on that committee. I don't. I welcome his support on the 
steering committee if I try to make that move.
  It is not easy, Mr. Speaker, to find that transportation funding, and 
the gentleman made a passionate pitch in the Rules Committee last night 
about the importance of keeping the user fee dynamic at play here.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a time when the transportation bill was pushed 
by folks back home, not because they needed transportation certainty, 
as they so desperately need today, but because the local jurisdiction 
was only getting back about 80 cents out of every gas tax dollar they 
were sending in. They wanted to push that number up to 81 or to 82. It 
brought us all together around pushing a bill.
  When we decided we didn't have the courage in the United States 
Congress--I was not in this institution at that time--to actually fund 
what it was that we had paid for, we began taking money out of general 
revenues and just stuffing it in the transportation trust fund. Now, if 
you are a road builder, if you are in the business of getting people to 
work, if you are in the business of getting families out of traffic, if 
you are in the business of making America's economy grow, you thought 
that was a trade worth making. You had no idea that, now that every 
State is getting back more than a dollar for every dollar of taxes they 
send in, it is really hard to get people back to the table to fix the 
problem that the gentleman is speaking of.
  We are at a nexus here, Mr. Speaker, between trying to solve a 
problem and trying to preserve our user fee system. I don't know where 
the division in the road is going to go. If we fail to maintain the 
user fee system when we find the additional year 4, year 5, and year 6 
of transportation funding, we may never get it back.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent a very conservative area in the great State 
of Georgia. We don't much care for taxes of any kind. We don't mind 
taking care of one another, but we feel like we do it better ourselves 
than do folks from far, far away. My local jurisdiction rejected 
Federal gas taxes. It rejected State gas taxes. It passed for 
themselves a $200 million bonding initiative to build roads locally 
because they believed they would get it done. Users are paying for 
those roads.
  There is not a conservative in this country, I would posit, who is 
unwilling to pay for what it is that he uses. It is our job to go sell 
that to folks--that, if you use it, you need to pay for it--and there 
is no shame in that. It is a constitutional responsibility that we have 
in this body, and it is one we ought to be proud to stand up and 
support.
  Though, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that 
we are going to have some EPA discussions in this legislation. My folks 
back home don't believe that, if they send a dollar to Washington, they 
are going to get a dollar's worth of roads back in return. They don't. 
They believe 10 percent is going to come off here and 10 percent is 
going to come off there. It is going to be wasted on regulatory 
compliance here, and it is going to be wasted on silly Federal mandates 
there; and they are going to get 50 cents of road for a dollar's worth 
of taxes. I don't think they are all wrong about that, Mr. Speaker. I 
think there is a lot of wisdom in that suspicion.
  Now, this bill does a lot to correct that.
  Two days ago, we had the ranking member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in the Rules Committee, who was making that 
very point, which is that this bill is working to restore that trust.
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, who worry about 
funding as I worry about funding, if we restore that trust, we will 
have access to the funding.
  It is a very challenging issue, Mr. Speaker. It is our 
responsibility, in

[[Page H7646]]

having lost that trust, to restore it. This bill takes a major step in 
that direction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Georgia suggests that this is very 
complex and difficult and that we have wrapped ourselves around the 
axle, and we can't do this in the Rules Committee or in the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  That is hogwash.
  I wish that the Ways and Means Committee would have accepted the 
legislation that I have had for the last 5 years that is supported by 
the Chamber and the truckers and AAA and bicyclists and engineers--but, 
no, they have not done it. We could have an opportunity with this bill. 
There are a number of my colleagues who have proposals for finance, but 
they wouldn't even make in order a study, for heaven's sakes.
  This year, seven Republican States, including Georgia, have raised 
the gas tax. They have followed the admonition of President Ronald 
Reagan in 1982, who called on Congress to come back after Thanksgiving 
recess and raise the gas tax.
  The gentleman was not there when I testified, but I submitted a list 
of 18 organizations that support raising the gas tax, and we are not 
even allowed an opportunity to debate it on the floor. That is why we 
can't do as good a job as we want with this transportation bill.
  And what are we given?--a 6-year shell with 3 years of, sort of, pay-
fors--I like this--requiring the Federal Reserve dividend, which is 
opposed by most of my Republican friends. There are 150 people who 
signed a letter, saying that it is really stupid to sell the strategic 
oil reserve at twice what the current price is and--one of my 
favorites--having bill collectors hound poor people for their taxes. 
The last two times we tried it, it lost money.
  This is a fraud. I urge rejection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As a Rules Committee member--and it is called the powerful House 
Rules Committee for a reason--I am thrilled to see the parade of my 
Ways and Means colleagues on the House floor, who are saying that what 
Ways and Means doesn't get done we should be doing in the Rules 
Committee instead. I am excited about that as, I am sure, my friend 
from Colorado is as well. Together, we can do a lot of good tax policy.
  I have a bill called the ``FairTax.'' I haven't been able to bring it 
to the floor yet. With the endorsement now of two of my Ways and Means' 
friends that we ought to be able to make these amendments in order on 
major funding legislation and bring them to the floor, I am looking 
forward to trying to get that delegation letter going. I don't have any 
Democrats on the bill right now, but I would welcome anybody. It is 
H.R. 25, the fundamental tax reform bill. I would love to bring that to 
the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking as if it is over right now, as if there 
is no more debate left to have. That is what is nonsense. We are going 
to continue improving this bill throughout the afternoon and into the 
night and into tomorrow. We are going to take this bill to conference 
and improve it still.
  I have said it once, but I will say it again: the opportunity for 6 
years of funding is still there.
  This isn't the time to turn the firing squad inward. This is the time 
to stand shoulder to shoulder and get out there and do this together. 
We believe in that, Mr. Speaker. We couldn't reach agreement with the 
Senate last year because they wanted 3 years of funding, and we wanted 
6. We were dreaming the big dreams, not as Republicans and Democrats, 
but as the U.S. House of Representatives--as the people's House. Those 
days are still upon us. We have an environment in which to win. I hope 
we will seize it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Titus), a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Ms. TITUS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, when the new Speaker took the gavel last week, he 
promised us that the House would run differently in that Members on 
both sides of the aisle would get a chance to bring forth amendments 
and that the House would debate the merits of those.
  Today, I am reminded of the saying, ``Plus ca change, plus c'est la 
meme chose.''
  Like the gentleman admonished and as the chairman said, I worked 
across the aisle and brought a bipartisan amendment with my friend, Mr. 
Davis from Illinois. It made a small change about the local use of 
transportation dollars. Despite overwhelming support, we were denied 
the opportunity to bring that amendment to the floor.
  In the middle of the night, in the backroom here in the Capitol, the 
majority decided that the will of the people simply didn't have to be 
heard on this important transportation issue; yet they have allowed 10 
amendments to be heard on the Export-Import Bank, which have nothing to 
do with transportation, and the issue of which was resolved a week ago.
  Indeed, I say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. 
So, despite all the fancy rhetoric you are hearing, I would urge you to 
remember that and to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With this new order that we have here, we are going to have to work 
through it together, and it is not going to be easy. For the folks who 
think it is going to be easy, I would go ahead and turn your voting 
card in now and let somebody else come up here and do the work. It is 
not going to be easy. It is going to be hard.

                              {time}  1330

  Because what constitutes regular order for us? How do we work 
together?
  My friend from Nevada just talked about her amendment that the Rules 
Committee didn't consider. She is absolutely right. That said, she 
offered the amendment in committee and withdrew it before we had a 
chance to vote on it.
  We had this topic before us in the Transportation Committee and 
didn't do it there. Folks chose to do it on the House floor and in the 
Rules Committee instead. Is that the way we want this institution to 
work? Do we want to ignore the issues at the committees of jurisdiction 
and bring them to the House floor straightaway, or do we want to work 
through the committee process?
  I don't have all the answers, Mr. Speaker. I have one vote in a body 
of 435. I generally side on the side of openness as opposed to being 
closed. I generally side on the side of voting instead of not voting.
  Of all the rules I have had a chance to handle, Mr. Speaker, in the 
4\1/2\ years the good people of the Seventh District have entrusted me 
with their voting card, this bill that we have before us, this rule 
that we have before us makes in order more voices than any other rule I 
have ever handled.
  If folks don't think we have gone far enough today, fair enough. 
Let's talk about it again tomorrow. But I challenge you to tell me that 
we did it better yesterday, not ``we'' the Republicans yesterday, not 
``we'' the Democrats yesterday, but ``we'' this House yesterday.
  I have been watching this institution a long time. Not in more than 
10 years have we even considered a bill of this magnitude on the floor 
of the House, and I am pleased that we finally came together to do it 
today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Delaney).
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Georgia talks about the 
certainty that will be obtained by this bill. There will be certainty. 
There will be an absolute certainty that we will continue to 
underinvest in our infrastructure in the United States of America for 
the next 6 years.
  Mr. Speaker, because of recent funding levels, we have caused the 
infrastructure in this country to be underinvested by a huge number. 
People estimate we have a $6 trillion shortfall in our infrastructure. 
Well, that is a huge challenge. It is also a huge opportunity. If we 
could actually increase our investment in infrastructure, we

[[Page H7647]]

would create jobs, we would improve the lives of our constituents, and 
we would make our country more competitive.
  Instead, we are looking at a bill that locks in infrastructure 
spending at current levels for another 6 years. How anyone could 
possibly look at the facts, look at the data, and look at the situation 
of the infrastructure in this country and conclude that that is the 
right answer is beyond my comprehension.
  The only way to stop this chronic underinvestment in our 
infrastructure that will cause the infrastructure crisis in this 
country to continue to build is to reject this rule and reject the 
underlying bill so that this Congress can go back to the drawing board 
and figure out smart ways to increase our funding in infrastructure.
  There are bipartisan solutions. We have heard about some of them 
today. One of the ones that I have worked on for years is to tie 
increasing our investment in infrastructure to international tax 
reform, where we have trillions of dollars sitting overseas trapped. If 
we can create pathways for that money to come back, we can allocate 
additional revenue towards infrastructure and increase our investment 
in infrastructure so we will not continue to have the problem of 
chronic underinvestment in our infrastructure and we can rebuild 
America.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Maryland he is 
absolutely right. We could do better in terms of certainty.
  I would remind the gentleman that when Democrats ran this institution 
the cycle before I got here, they passed six different transportation 
extension bills in 2 years. That means we are averaging 4 months of 
certainty.
  This bill, even under the most pessimistic assertions, gives us 3 
years of certainty, which is more certainty than America has seen in a 
decade. I am not trying to stop trying, Mr. Speaker. I want us to keep 
fighting forward together. I just want us to recognize that this is the 
best we have done in a long, long time. Let's take advantage of having 
done the best we have done in a long, long time, and let's keep trying 
to do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan), a senior member of the Transportation Committee.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the gentleman 
from Georgia for yielding me this time. In my 27 years in this 
Congress, I can think of very few Members who are better orators, 
greater speakers than the gentleman from Georgia; and I appreciate his 
giving me this time.
  I rise in support of this rule.
  Later today, Congressman Paulsen of Minnesota and I will be offering 
an amendment that, I think, is very technical in nature; but it is 
designed to help the smallest businesses in the trucking industry.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for 
including some provisions from a bill that I introduced in the base 
text that establishes hiring practices that a freight broker must 
follow.
  My and Mr. Paulsen's amendment clarifies the requirements that a 
freight broker must meet before hiring a motor carrier for the delivery 
of goods. This bill will require a broker to check to ensure that a 
motor carrier is first registered with, and authorized by, the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration to operate as a licensed motor 
carrier; and, secondly, that it has the minimum insurance required by 
Federal law; and, third, it has the satisfactory safety fitness 
determination by the FMCSA. My amendment inserts ``or be unrated'' in 
the third requirement.
  Currently, there are thousands of small trucking companies which have 
yet to be audited by the FMCSA. By adding the words ``or be unrated,'' 
we ensure that these very small companies will not be precluded from 
being in the pool of eligible motor carriers that can be used for 
shipping goods.
  Without this modest change, thousands of very small, very safe 
trucking companies will be eliminated from the pool of eligible motor 
carriers just because the FMCSA has not had time or staff levels enough 
to rate them. Without this amendment, thousands of small companies that 
have never had a wreck or a violation will be hurt.
  So, without this change, we will hurt small businesses and drive up 
the cost of shipping goods for everyone. This is an amendment for the 
little guy, the mom-and-pop operators.
  There is a second part to this amendment that address a fourth 
requirement that must be checked by the brokers. This fourth condition 
requires a broker to check to make sure that a motor carrier has not 
been issued an out-of-service order to prohibit a carrier from 
conducting operations.
  To conclude, I will just say my and Mr. Paulsen's amendment ensures 
that we have only safe trucks on the road and that thousands of small 
businesses are not hurt in the process. This amendment is supported by 
the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association, the Transportation 
Intermediaries Association, various other associations, the 
International Warehouse Logistics Association, and on and on.

  I would urge my colleagues to look into this amendment and hopefully 
support it later today when we bring it to the floor.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, many American workers don't have access to 
paid sick days, which means they can't miss work without losing a day's 
pay or risking their job security, sometimes even endangering the 
public health by spreading their flu or cold to others.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone should be able to take care of themselves or 
their loved ones when they are sick and not have to worry about losing 
their job or falling behind on their bills.
  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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question. Defeating the previous question will allow us to amend the 
rule to provide for consideration of the Healthy Families Act. It is an 
act that would allow workers to earn up to 7 days of job-protected sick 
leave every year.
  Being a working parent should not mean choosing between your job and 
taking care of yourself and your family. But at least 43 million 
private sector workers, 39 percent of the workforce, must make this 
decision every time illness strikes. Millions more cannot earn paid 
sick time to care for a sick child or for a family member.
  Employers ultimately suffer when workers have to make this choice. 
Increased turnover rates amount to greater costs. And employers can 
jeopardize the health of other employees when their policies force 
employees to come to work sick.
  Paid sick days policies have been enacted successfully at the State 
and local levels. Nearly 20 jurisdictions across the country have 
adopted paid sick day laws, and there is strong public support for 
universal access to paid sick days. Eighty-eight percent of Americans 
support paid sick days legislation.
  The Healthy Families Act allows working families to meet their health 
and financial needs while boosting businesses' productivity and 
retention rates.
  It ultimately strengthens this Nation's economy. It is common sense, 
business savvy, and it is the right thing to do. Let's protect the 
public health, boost the economy, help hardworking families have access 
to paid sick days. Let's pass the Healthy Families Act.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member on the Ways and Means 
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be bragging about this 
legislation today, boasting about this legislation. Let me give you the 
perspective of 27 years here.
  This used to be the easiest legislation to pass in this institution. 
It created

[[Page H7648]]

greater cost efficiencies. It created greater investment and, just as 
importantly, it put people to work immediately.
  There was no hearing held on the tax title portion of this bill. 
There was no operation or opportunity for Members to offer amendments 
in the Ways and Means Committee. Now, let me point out, for that 4-year 
period when we were in the majority, I held those hearings; and then 
after the loss of elections, during those 4 years, nothing ever came of 
it again.
  We have repeatedly urged the opportunity to talk about a genuine 
mechanism for financing the Federal highway system, our airports, our 
railroads; and the opportunity has not availed itself.
  To point something out here that I think is noteworthy as well, this 
financing is held together by bubble gum. How many times are we going 
to sell the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Every time I turn 
around, it becomes the pay-for these days. Is there any oil left in 
there? That is how we are going to finance the Federal highway system?
  A reminder, what I heard earlier that in some States people only want 
to pay for services that they use, that was the revenue mechanism, the 
user fee, the gas tax that allowed people to pay for the services that 
they used; namely, driving along on the Federal highway system. Now, 
how is that for a complication?
  We are here today because we have not adequately addressed the 
Federal highway system's responsibility and that begins in this House 
of the Congress where all financing, according to our Constitution, is 
supposed to originate. If the Ways and Means Committee isn't taking it 
up, there is no opportunity for the House to take it up.
  Don't brag about this rule today. It is a bad rule, and we should 
vote it down and get on with financing the Federal highway system the 
way it is supposed to be financed.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I just remind my friend, during the Congress before I arrived when he 
was chairman, four different extensions of the highway trust fund, not 
one of them was funded with a change in the gas tax.
  Mr. NEAL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, we held the hearings. We went through it. We 
had the Chamber of Commerce in, the American Trucking Association, and 
we had organized labor in. We were set to go, and then we lost the 
institution and that was the end of the discussion about the Federal 
highway system.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Neal said, this transportation highway 
bill used to be a solid, bipartisan bill that invested in the future of 
this country. This Congress has set different expectations. I think if 
we are candid with ourselves and with the American people, we have 
become a low-expectations Congress. I guess it could be said that this 
bill meets, but certainly doesn't exceed, the low expectations that 
prevail in this body.
  It is true that it will have a 6-year bill authorization with 3 years 
of bubble-gum-styled funding. That is going to give some certainty to 
the agency of transportation in Vermont, so it is true that this is 
better than when we were doing 3-month extensions and 5-month 
extensions on ``pension smoothing.''
  You know what? America deserves better. America needs more, and we 
can provide it. We have jobs to create, work to be done, workers ready 
to put shovels in the ground and to get America moving again. It is 
within our power, both sides, to make that happen. But it can't happen 
if we are so fearful to even discuss revenue measures that we don't 
have hearings on them.

                              {time}  1345

  We have had good proposals from Mr. Blumenauer, a bipartisan proposal 
with Mr. Renacci and Mr. Pascrell, the Delaney proposal. There are 
solutions out there that are going to invest in this country, generate 
jobs for this economy, increase the gross domestic product, and make 
our economy more competitive and our highway system safer.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards), a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule 
precisely because it makes in order various Export-Import Bank 
amendments that are actually designed to kill what we just did to make 
sure that we could reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  Nonetheless, I am grateful to Chairmen Shuster and Graves and Ranking 
Members DeFazio and Norton and their committees and their personal 
staffs for their leadership in trying to move forward a 6-year 
reauthorization.
  All of us have acknowledged that this is far from perfect, but the 
fact is, America is literally falling apart: by asphalt, by rebar, by 
cement, by steel, by rail, pothole by pothole, just falling apart. The 
United States now ranks 16th in infrastructure according to the World 
Economic Forum. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, 
the overall assessment of our infrastructure ranks is, I am sad to say, 
a whopping D plus.
  As some of you remember from The Washington Post back in February, a 
constituent of mine was driving on the Suitland Parkway, just outside 
of D.C. She was minding her own business, running her errands. What 
happens? A chunk of cement falls down and hits her car. That is right, 
a chunk of cement falling from the beltway to hit her car on the 
Suitland Parkway. Fortunately, no one was injured, but this is just one 
example of a project that was on the Federal list and simply wasn't 
worked on because there was no money to do it.
  I support what we are doing today in terms of a bipartisan 
authorization for a long-term authorization, but this is nowhere near 
what we need to do to repair the couple of trillion dollars in 
infrastructure deficit that we face in this country that is causing us 
not to be as competitive as we need to be and really is taking up a 
bunch of time for people who are stuck on roads that are going nowhere.
  Let me be clear, this is not the bill that I would have written. It 
is not perfect, but maybe it is the best that we can do under the 
circumstances. Clearly, though, we shouldn't have a 6-year 
authorization with only a couple years of funding. There have been 
numerous proposals to fund our long-term infrastructure.
  I am grateful that I was able to at least work on a couple of 
amendments regarding oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority, WMATA, and I look forward to continuing to work on 
these efforts.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a few of my colleagues have talked about selling down 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I think that is a great bipartisan 
idea to pay for something. We actually no longer need to have crude oil 
in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Our Nation is a net producer of crude oil, so they are actually 
stockpiling the same stuff that we are talking about exporting; namely, 
unprocessed crude oil. There is a component of the crude oil reserve 
that is heating oil that is processed. That is still necessary. That is 
not being sold down. Nobody has talked about selling that down. I think 
we can use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as an additional pay-for for 
other items until it is successfully phased out over the next few 
years. I think this bill is the first step. I applaud my colleagues for 
including it.
  Keep in mind, though, it is an accounting trick in terms of the 
dollar value of that. They are assuming that it will be sold at roughly 
twice the current price of oil. That may happen; it may not. We don't 
know. But at least it is being sold, and that is a good thing.
  A third of our Nation's roads are rated poor or mediocre. We need to 
do better. We have a responsibility to address the transportation and 
infrastructure crisis.

[[Page H7649]]

  If you have ever been to Fort Collins, the biggest city in my 
congressional district, home to Colorado State University, you have 
found a lot of traffic along Interstate 25.
  If you have ever traveled Interstate 70 to our world-class ski 
resorts, like Vail or Breckenridge, you might very well have been 
locked in traffic as you went out there to enjoy the ski season or the 
summer high season.
  Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder, Vail, Frisco, Breckenridge, these 
are our communities that are tourism-and recreation-driven, and we need 
a 21st century transportation solution that provides consistency in 
funding levels, not a shell game to fund 2 years of a 6-year bill.
  We need to open up a future for major highway improvements, like we 
need on Interstates 25 and 70. We need to put politics aside and not 
shroud a 2-year bill behind a facade of a 6-year bill. Our parents and 
grandparents sacrificed to build a world-class national infrastructure 
system, but we need the courage to maintain it and improve it for the 
21st century.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the responsibility of this maneuver. 
I urge defeat of the previous question, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on my 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 5\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate my friend from Colorado working with me on this rule 
today. I appreciate all the folks on the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure who made this possible, and the whole body that came 
in front of the Committee on Rules, bringing amendments to try to make 
the bill better.
  I don't want to suggest that the differences that we have between one 
another here are in any way going away because of this bill. They are 
not. I have heard passionate speech after passionate speech about 
funding of this bill.
  I share some of those concerns, but I represent a county of 200,000 
people who just raised $200 million in a bonding initiative to build 
their roads. Until my colleagues have raised the taxes on their 
constituents by $1,000 on every man, woman, and child--$4,000 on a 
family of four--to build roads back home in your district, please don't 
come and ask my constituents to pay even more.
  Georgia is one of the States that has raised its gas tax, from a 7 
cent sales tax to a 26 cent excise tax. When your State has taken on 
that same burden of responsibility, come back to me and tell me how 
much more Georgia needs to put in to help you.
  The devolution of the transportation trust fund has long been a 
conversation in this body, but by holding the Federal gas tax constant 
over these years, that devolution has been happening naturally with the 
effect of inflation, and localities are picking up the tab.
  You know what we are celebrating this week back home, Mr. Speaker? 
This is election week, of course. A year ago this week is when Forsyth 
County passed its $200 million bonding initiative. You know when they 
broke ground on the project, Mr. Speaker? This week. This week. You 
tell me that time is money. It is true in transportation.
  I challenge you to find that Federal project that you are working on 
back home in your district that you are going from conception to 
groundbreaking in 12 months. I want to help you find the funding to 
make it happen, I do, because, clearly, you are running at a heightened 
level of efficiency, and it deserves our support.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason we need this bill is because we are not 
getting a dollar's worth of value out of a dollar's worth of Federal 
taxes. The reason we need this bill is to help make some of those 
bipartisan reforms to the infrastructure program that just don't make 
sense. They just don't make sense in the 21st century, and it is no 
wonder. Democratic Congresses failed to succeed in this effort. 
Republican Congresses failed to succeed in this effort. This Congress 
is succeeding in this effort.
  There are 81 new amendments with this rule today, 81 new ideas with 
this amendment today. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill has more 
certainty and more funding than any other proposal this body has 
considered in more than a decade. This rule has more openness, more 
voices, and more amendments than any other rule of this nature that I 
have been able to handle in 4\1/2\ years here.
  We don't get it right every day. We don't get it right every day. 
Votes don't go the way I want them to go every day, but we have got a 
chance, Mr. Speaker. We have got a chance with this bill, with this 
process, with this new House leadership team to restore the trust that 
has been lost for far too long.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying 
resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 512 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 8. 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. 
     932) to allow Americans to earn paid sick time so that they 
     can address their own health needs and the health needs of 
     their families. 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 among and 
     controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on Education and the Workforce, 
     House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform. 
     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. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 932.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page H7650]]

     ``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 resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________