[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H6016-H6021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5303, WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6094,
REGULATORY RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, AND NONPROFITS ACT;
AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 29,
2016, THROUGH NOVEMBER 11, 2016
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 897 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 897
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 bill (H.R. 5303) to provide for
improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States,
to provide for the conservation and development of water and
related resources, and for other purposes. No further
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
referred to in the first section of House Resolution 892
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
further 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 in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment pursuant to this resolution the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
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.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6094) to
provide for a 6-month delay in the effective date of a rule
of the Department of Labor relating to income thresholds for
determining overtime pay for executive, administrative,
professional, outside sales, and computer employees. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from
September 29, 2016, through November 11, 2016--
(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. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 5. Each day during the period addressed by section 3
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 6. Each day during the period addressed by section 3
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
Sec. 7. Each day during the period addressed by section 3
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or
legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). 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 the gentleman 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, I told you yesterday that I would be back
down here today with part 2 of the Water Resources Development Act
bill.
This structured rule in House Resolution 897 provides for further
consideration of H.R. 5303. This rule today will make an additional 19
amendments in order. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we
gathered here and passed a rule that made 25 amendments in order to
this legislation. To put that in perspective, this was a bill that
passed unanimously out of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, on which I serve; and the Rules Committee gathered, and in
its wisdom has now made 44 additional adjustments and improvements in
order that have been recommended by Members of this Chamber.
This rule also provides, Mr. Speaker, for closed consideration of
H.R. 6094, the Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and
Nonprofits Act. That is a bill that requires a 6-month delay in the
effective date of the Department of Labor's new overtime rules. It
moves the current effective date of December 1, 2016, out to June 1,
2017.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have heard about this issue from your
constituents, as every Member in this Chamber has. The Department of
Labor, in its wisdom, sought to raise the maximum wage at which
overtime rules would apply, and effectively doubled that wage rate.
That is all going to go into effect on December 1.
Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there is a single Member of this Chamber
that doesn't believe those numbers should be adjusted, but to double
them overnight with virtually no warning to the small business
community, the education community, or the nonprofit community is not
the right way to govern. This is going to impact not just the
hardworking Americans who run these institutions, it is going to impact
the hardworking Americans who are dependent on these jobs and are
currently doing the heavy lifting that feeds the Nation's economic
engine.
Delaying this rule for 6 months to give us an opportunity to either
come together as a body and make changes or to allow small businesses
and nonprofits and educational institutions to begin to adjust is just
the right thing to do. You will hear more about that, Mr. Speaker, from
one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who doesn't just serve on the Rules Committee, she
also serves on the Education and the Workforce Committee that has
jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, again, if we pass this rule, we will have an opportunity
to not just complete work on the WRDA bill with the 19 additional
amendments, but also to move forward to protect small businesses,
educational institutions, and nonprofits.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 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, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, after a year of
Democratic calls to address the terrible water crisis in Flint,
Michigan, House Republicans finally moved forward an amendment offered
by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee),
to provide assistance to the families of Flint.
It was a year ago this month that we learned of the man-made drinking
water crisis in Flint, which exposed thousands of our fellow Americans
to contaminated water. These are real people, Mr. Speaker. Families
with children--9,000 children under the age of 6--that have been
drinking and bathing in poisonous water for over 2\1/2\ years. And even
today, these families still do not have access to clean water from
their taps.
[[Page H6017]]
The fact that it has taken a year for Congress to stand up and do the
right thing, to finally allow us to have a vote for the families of
Flint, is astonishing. America is supposed to be a place where we look
out for one another and lift our neighbors up when they are in need.
Those are the values that define our country. As the people's
representatives here in Congress, we need to honor those values.
Whenever an American community is hit by a disaster, we come together.
This should include not just hurricanes and earthquakes, but also man-
made disasters, like the one that Flint continues to face today.
I thank the leadership, especially our leadership, our Leader Pelosi,
and the persistence of my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee). I am pleased that we are finally set to consider a measure to
authorize the $170 million for the repair and replacement of
infrastructure in Flint. I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle will enthusiastically support Mr. Kildee.
But this is just a first step, Mr. Speaker. While the amendment we
are set to consider today, if adopted, authorizes these funds, it is
important that we come together to ensure that the much-needed funding
actually reaches Flint as soon as possible.
The Senate's Water Resources Development Act, which passed that
Chamber earlier this month by an overwhelming vote of 95-3, includes
$220 million in relief for Flint. As we advance our water bill this
week and set up a conference on the two measures, it is imperative that
we keep funding for Flint a top priority.
So while I am pleased that we were able to reach a bipartisan
agreement on a vote for Flint, I am disappointed, however, that the
House Republican leadership is still advancing a terrible, misguided
bill this week to, once again, undermine regulations put forward by the
administration to help working families.
With all of the work left to be done on the most pressing issues
facing our communities, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why my
friends on the other side of the aisle are so intent on denying long
overdue compensation to millions of their constituents in payment for
their hard work and long hours.
This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 6094, legislation
designed to delay the Department of Labor's new overtime rule, which
increases the overtime salary threshold from $23,660 a year to $47,476
a year. With the Department of Labor's update to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, an additional 4.2 million salaried workers are eligible
for overtime pay, and 262,000 working people in my home State of
Massachusetts will benefit.
American workers have waited long enough to get their fair day's pay
for a long day's work that they deserve. This Republican bill will take
$600 million out of the pockets of 4.2 million American workers who
would have gained overtime protections on December 1. This is $600
million that they will never see if we delay these important updates
for another 6 months. That means, for example, the workers will have
less money to spend on holiday presents for their families and less
time to help their kids with their schoolwork and extracurricular
activities.
The simple truth is that this Republican bill is a cynical ploy to,
once again, try to stop the rule from ever, ever going into effect. My
Republican friends like to lecture families in poverty about what they
are doing wrong. We hear it all the time on this floor. They tell them
that they need to work harder to get ahead. These families are already
working hard, very often working overtime, but they are not receiving
the pay that they deserve for putting in the extra time.
{time} 1245
Republicans like to say that they think hard work should be rewarded.
This is it. This overtime protection is a way for us to reward the hard
work of millions of Americans who are doing all of the right things.
This is a way for us to ensure that every American who puts in a hard
day's work is able to earn the fair pay that he deserves. Only in this
place would that be considered a radical idea.
How can Members of Congress lecture millions of hardworking American
families who are struggling to escape poverty when they won't even
support a measure that rewards them for the hard work that they are
putting in every day to help their own families get ahead?
Speaker Ryan has a lot to say about fixing poverty--rolling out a
whole agenda to convince us that, somehow, he is serious about making
progress in helping families. So why on Earth would Speaker Ryan and
the House Republicans stand in the way of hardworking families
receiving the fair pay that they deserve? That doesn't sound like a
party that truly cares about helping every family succeed.
America's working families are the ones who lay the foundation that
makes our economy strong. It is simply shameful that denying
hardworking families the overtime protections they deserve is something
that Republicans think should be a top priority of this Congress--so
pressing, in fact, that the House Republicans considered this bill in
the Rules Committee as an ``emergency measure.''
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing
and defeat this bill. It is an antiworker, antifamily bill, and it
would only make it harder for America's hardworking families to get
ahead. Our economy only works when hard work is rewarded, and it is
time for Congress to stand up for those values and to support working
families.
It is time for us to do our jobs, Mr. Speaker. We need to be
providing funds to fight the terrible Zika virus and the opioid crisis.
We should be addressing the gun violence that is plaguing our
communities. We ought to be finalizing a continuing resolution to
ensure that our government remains open come Saturday, and I hope that
the Senate will vote on that soon so that we can consider it.
We need to get much-needed assistance to the families of Flint.
Again, I think it is a stain on this Congress' reputation that this
leadership has dragged its feet for so long on this issue of providing
funds to the residents of Flint. This is the United States of America.
People ought to know, when they get water out of their faucets, that
they are not poisoning themselves or their kids. These are emergencies,
Mr. Speaker, and not what this bill is all about that my friends are
bringing to the floor.
What they are trying to do is to actually score some points with some
in the business community who don't want to reward the work of the
people who work in their companies, and I think that that is
unfortunate. We ought to stand up for working families. They are the
ones who need help. What this bill would do is make that less likely.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chair of the Rules Committee and a
member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his leadership on
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, all too often, the executive branch enacts policies that
sound wonderful but impose unintended consequences and burdens that
make the lives of hardworking Americans more difficult. The issue
underlying H.R. 6094 is another tragic example of that pattern.
The Department of Labor acted in May to revise overtime regulations
covering millions of American workers. This regulation will require
companies to reclassify a significant portion of their workforce,
eliminating flexibility in work times, bonus compensation, and
opportunities to advance. It will also impose significant compliance
costs that will only serve to further bury job creators under red tape.
While members of both political parties want to see all Americans
earn more, we cannot ignore the financial consequences of this rule. By
dramatically increasing the number of employees who do not qualify for
an exemption under the regulation, the Department is significantly
increasing the cost of delivering services and is making it more
difficult to maintain existing staffing levels.
In plain English, this regulation could cost hardworking Americans
hours at work or even their jobs. Entire sectors could be less
profitable with a predictable result for the employees who are doing
that work. These
[[Page H6018]]
impacts do not fall solely on frequently and unfairly demonized big
business. They affect nonprofits and schools as well as local and State
governments. This will raise the cost of operation for nearly every
organization and company in the country.
I have heard from small-business owners, nonprofits, and universities
across North Carolina that are deeply concerned about this rule. For
example, an independent supermarket owner said that this rule would
``effectively put him out of business. Most of our managers make less
than $40,000 a year. When you make only one penny on the dollar net
profits, this would force us to raise prices and make us uncompetitive
against Walmart and other national chains.''
For many employees, the biggest impact this legislation will have on
them is the loss of prized flexibility and advancement opportunities.
No longer will they be able to work flexible hours to cover children's
doctors' appointments or other family needs. They will be forced to
clock in and out, lose aspects of their positions that provide positive
morale, and be reclassified into positions that do not provide the same
satisfaction.
It is fair to say that our Nation's overtime rules need to be
modernized, but the Department of Labor's extreme and partisan approach
will lead to damaging consequences that the American people simply
cannot afford. That is why I cosponsored H.R. 6094, the Regulatory
Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act, which would
provide a 6-month delay in the implementation of this rule in order to
allow the small businesses, nonprofit organizations, State and local
governments, and corporations confronting it with desperately needed
time to prepare and make changes to accommodate the needs of their
employees.
The rule before us today will provide for the consideration of this
important legislation, and I commend both of them to my colleagues for
their support.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to point out for my colleagues that, while many of my
colleagues who support this legislation argue that the new overtime
rule would overburden nonprofits or educational institutions, I think
we need to point out a few facts here--most importantly, that that is
just not the case. The overtime rule provides exemptions for nonprofit
charitable organizations without sizable commercial activities. The
overtime rule also provides educational institutions exemptions
for teachers, coaches, graduate and undergraduate students, and
administrative personnel.
I just want to repeat one thing that I said in my opening. I am
really amazed when my Republican colleagues routinely come to the floor
and lecture poor people and people who are struggling in poverty. They
regularly come to the floor and demonize people in this country who are
on benefits, like SNAP--putting food on the table. You always hear,
``You ought to work.'' ``You ought to work harder.'' Of the people on
SNAP, for example, who are able to work, the majority of them work, but
work doesn't pay enough to get them out of poverty. All that is being
suggested by this rule from the Department of Labor is that people
ought to get paid what they deserve. They ought to be able to earn
enough to be able to have a decent life and to get out of poverty.
I know what my friends are trying to do. They are saying it is only a
6-month delay. They are hoping that their candidate for President--God
forbid--would win the Presidency and would, basically, null and void
any modernization of the overtime rules. We ought to be concerned more
about people in this country who are working hard and who are not able
to make ends meet. I think my colleagues ought to know there are
exemptions in this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, Americans have waited long enough to update our Nation's
overtime pay rules. After years of debate and regulatory review,
proposed rules and final rules, it is time to ensure that Americans are
paid for the hours they work.
When I go home to my district, I hear how hard it is for working
women and men to meet their families' basic needs. Americans need a
raise. The Republican majority has blocked any vote to raise the
minimum wage, and they have blocked bills to provide women with equal
pay for equal work. Did you know that working single mothers are paid
about 57 cents on the dollar that men are paid right now? Today's bill
will take $600 million in earned overtime pay from 4.2 million working
men and women. Half a century ago, 60 percent of salaried employees
qualified for overtime pay; today, only 7 percent do. This is because
we did not update overtime rules until this administration stepped
forward.
We have heard the arguments for inaction and delay--that it is too
hard for businesses, the false argument about nonprofits; ``this is
happening too fast'' is another argument. They don't hold up. It has
been 12 years since the overtime rule was changed, nearly 3 years since
President Obama asked for action, and more than a year since the
proposed rule was issued. The Department of Labor reviewed more than
270,000 comments, and it changed its proposal as a result of those
comments. It has provided flexibility for businesses, and it has
lowered the salary threshold. The Department of Labor has been
responsive to concerns, and now it is time for the House of
Representatives to be responsive to the concerns and the needs of
working families.
In my home State of Illinois, nearly 194,000 working men and women
and their families would be helped by overtime protections. They
shouldn't have to wait any longer. Extra work should mean extra pay. It
is a simple matter of fairness. Workers who are hired full time should
not be paid the same salary whether they work 40 hours a week or 60
hours a week. They should either be paid for the hours they work or be
able to spend those extra hours with their families.
Many Americans are balancing their jobs with caring for children and
aging parents. Delaying the Department of Labor's update to overtime
protections is unfair to those workers and their families.
It is really time now to get on with it, to move forward. I urge my
colleagues to reject today's rule and vote against this bill. Let these
long-overdue overtime rules--overtime pay--for Americans take effect.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice today in support of this
rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 6094, which is the Regulatory
Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act.
In recent months, I have heard--and, I am sure, the Speaker has as
well--from a growing number of constituents who are gravely concerned
about the impact that the Department of Labor's new one-size-fits-all
overtime rule would have on their jobs, would have on their businesses,
as well as would have on nonprofit organizations.
When the rule goes into effect on December 1, it will impose enormous
new costs on businesses, lifting the cap of workers who are eligible
for overtime pay from $23,600 to $47,476. I admit, on its face, this
sounds like a real benefit for workers; however, the impacts, likely,
will be devastating. Small businesses and nonprofits that are
confronted with this new burden will be faced with some very difficult
choices: having to pay thousands of dollars in additional labor costs,
they end up having to limit their employees' hours; moving salaried
workers to hourly positions; or, even worse, laying off workers.
{time} 1300
Worse than that, the Department of Labor has made no attempt to make
this rule workable for small business. There is no phase-in. On
December 1, it will hit every business, every school, and every
nonprofit in America full force, just like a freight train.
The rule was not curtailed to geography either. It will take effect
in the Seattle metropolitan area, where the
[[Page H6019]]
annual mean wage is around $61,000, the same way it will impact the
Yakima area, where that annual mean wage is just over $41,000.
The way the Department of Labor went about issuing this very flawed
one-size-fits-all rule just isn't right. H.R. 6094--which I was proud
to cosponsor, and I thank Congressman Walberg for introducing--would
simply delay the rule for 6 months so that we can work with the
Department of Labor as well as stakeholders to address this issue in a
responsible, workable way.
Sadly, to not adopt this delay will result in job losses for the very
people the rule was intended to help: your constituents and mine.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just make a comment for the benefit of my colleagues before I
yield to the next speaker, and that is about this rule.
This is a closed rule. Again, this is another pattern that my
Republican friends seem to have developed since they have taken over
the House; and that is, basically shutting down debate and shutting
down the opportunity for Members to have an opportunity to express
themselves.
This bill was noticed in the Rules Committee, I think on Monday, and
we did the rule yesterday. Members didn't even know this was coming up.
So to bring a bill like this to the floor under a closed process I
think is unfortunate. It denies Members on both sides of the aisle an
opportunity to offer different points of view and to have a vigorous
debate.
Many of us believe that this Congress ought to do more to help
strengthen opportunities and benefits for those in the middle class. We
believe that more people ought to have the opportunity to get into the
middle class. That is why we are fighting for a livable wage, yet we
can't even bring that to the floor. The only things that seem to get to
the floor are tax breaks for big businesses or repeals of the
Affordable Care Act or bills like this that would basically take the
pay that has been earned by workers away from them.
Again, I think this kind of illustrates where the priorities of this
Republican Congress really are. I mean, they are not with working
people. They are with those who are privileged and those at the very
top. And my hope is that maybe after this election, we can get some
changes made where we can get back to doing the people's business, not
just the rich people's business.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Graham).
Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with deep disappointment that
the Rules Committee didn't make in order any of my amendments to
improve the management and health of the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee,
and Flint Rivers.
Floridians are incredibly frustrated that the Apalachicola River is
dying because of mismanagement and overuse upstream. Just this year, it
was named one of the country's most endangered rivers.
Two years ago, in a rare show of collaboration and bipartisanship on
this very issue, Members from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, agreed to
language that actually acknowledged the mismanagement and encouraged
the States to stop the arguing and work together to find a solution.
What a novel concept, but even that tiny compromise is being stricken
in this bill. We have an egregious problem that my amendment would have
fixed, and this Congress won't even allow it to be discussed.
I am well aware that other States involved in this issue have a lot
at stake. It is infuriating that other States won't recognize what is
at risk in Florida. There are people all over the country, even some of
you in this Congress, who spend time in the region and enjoy the
Apalachicola's beauty and resources. It is shameful and shortsighted
that we are letting it die because of politics and dysfunction in this
House.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friend from Massachusetts
that I do not have any further speakers remaining, and I am prepared to
close when he is.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question; and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would allow those
with outstanding student debt to refinance their existing high interest
rate loans to lower interest rates. Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives
us an opportunity to provide immediate relief to those struggling with
student loan debt.
You know, when interest rates go down, people can refinance their
home mortgages. Why can't we extend that same ability to people with
high student loan rates?
Everybody says that we want to make sure that everybody who wants a
college education ought to be able to get one, yet we make it very
difficult for people to be able to afford one. The debt that is
accumulated--and especially the interest on that debt that is
accumulated--is very, very difficult for people to absorb when they get
out of school.
So that is why Democrats have been asking time and time again for us
to address issues like that, college affordability. How do we ease the
burden on our young people who are trying to get a college education?
So rather than bringing up legislation that basically will not
increase the overtime salary threshold, thereby denying people who are
working the ability to have a little bit of extra cash in their pockets
when they work overtime--that is what this is all about, and we are
actually punishing working people--maybe we ought to do something to
actually help working families.
If you vote ``no'' on the previous question, we will be able to have
a debate and a vote on this. I hope that not just Democrats, but
Republicans as well will see that it is important for us to address
this issue of college affordability. I, again, urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the previous question.
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 (Mr. Marchant). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the
previous question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I was just with a group for lunch, and I was talking
about all of the amazing things that we are able to do in here
together. It really is amazing. I think back on what has become known
as the Bush tax cuts.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, we had President Bush; he had a
Republican Senate; he had a Republican House; and he was trying to
provide tax relief for the American people. But because of the way the
rules work around here and it takes a lot of votes to get work done, he
was not able to make that tax policy permanent. He didn't have enough
votes. Republicans were running the entire show, but he couldn't get
enough agreement on tax relief for Americans to make that tax policy
permanent.
You, me, Mr. McGovern, and President Obama, we got together and we
made that tax policy permanent for 99 percent of Americans. We did
together what Republicans couldn't do alone.
My friends from the other side of the aisle often talk about
infrastructure and how important it is to America, and they are right
every single time they do it, Mr. Speaker. But when they passed a
trillion-dollar stimulus bill that I opposed with every fiber of my
being, we didn't see infrastructure grow in this country; we saw
dollars get squandered. They controlled the White House, the U.S.
House, the U.S. Senate. They controlled every single branch of
government, and they were not able to succeed at creating the kind of
infrastructure improvements that every American knows that we need.
But you know who did, Mr. Speaker?
You, me, Mr. McGovern with President Obama in this divided Congress
and divided government, we got together and passed the longest surface
transportation funding bill this country has seen since the 1990s. We
did that together. I could go down the list:
[[Page H6020]]
education, water resources, taxes, regulation. The list goes on and on
and on of things, when we sat down and when we talked to one another,
we were able to get passed.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, we were down here yesterday on the
House floor. We were talking about the situation in Flint. We were
talking about amendments that were not made in order. And word came
down that the only reason they weren't made in order is because we are
just a bunch of racists here in the House of Representatives. The only
reason that they weren't made in order was because Republicans have no
conscience, is what we heard from the other side of the aisle.
I will ask anyone in this Chamber: Who thinks that gets us closer to
a solution? Who thinks it does?
It pushes us further apart not just as an institution here, but as a
Nation of citizens who care about one another.
So what happened after that, Mr. Speaker?
We went back to the drawing board together. We worked together, and
we are back here today together with an amendment to address the
situation in Flint.
How?
Not with a nongermane amendment, as it was yesterday. Not with an
amendment that tries to deal with another committee's jurisdiction, as
it did yesterday. But with an amendment that is squarely within the
jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on
which I serve and from which this bill comes today.
I know it is an election year, and I know that as much as
constituents say they don't like negative ads, they show up and vote
based on them every single time. So I know that it would be easy for my
colleagues to conclude that the best thing to do running up to an
election is to come down here to the House floor and denigrate
absolutely everyone who doesn't agree with them. It is not that we have
policy disagreements, Mr. Speaker; it is that you must be a scoundrel,
they would say. It is not that we have policy disagreements; it is that
you must not have a conscience, they will say. It is not that we have
policy disagreements; it is that you don't care.
It makes me sad because, as I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I know the
Members of this body on a personal level, and I know every single one
of them cares. We are down here today doing something that matters, and
I don't know why folks aren't taking a victory lap for our successes
together. I don't know why they want to continue to tear at the fabric
that makes this Nation great. Caring about each other is what we do. It
is a legitimate disagreement about how to care.
My friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) just talked about student
loans. I have this conversation with every single high school class I
visit with, Mr. Speaker: How do we love you best from Washington, D.C.?
Do we give you all the money you can possibly borrow so you can go
anywhere in the country you want to go to get that bachelor's degree
with which you may not be able to find a job and you now have a
mortgage-sized debt? Or do we not lend you that money? Do we create
work-study programs? Do we create co-op programs? Do we put you to work
in contact with employers so that when you leave school, you have no
debt and real skills and real experience?
It is a fair disagreement. Some folks may think you love people more
by giving them all the free money they can handle and the mortgage debt
that goes with it. Other folks think you love folks by giving them
real-world experience, real-world skills, and a real employer to talk
to.
I don't think that you hate children if you make that wrong decision.
I think that we are having a discussion about how to love on those
children.
Mr. Speaker, what we are down here doing today is not about stepping
on low-income Americans. We could have a better debate about this issue
if that wasn't what folks would come down and perpetuate. It is
undeniable--and every single Member of this institution has seen it
back home. It is undeniable that real working families are showing up
on our doorstep, saying: Congressman, there is a problem; I need you to
fix it.
The administration just moved forward and doubled--doubled--the wage
for which you now qualify for overtime. Now, in my part of the world--
we are not New York City; we are not Los Angeles, California; we are
not San Francisco. $45,000 a year in my part of the world is what a
manager makes. It is what a manager is going to make--a manager.
What the Department of Labor has said is: You know what? Overtime--
which is what is paid to workers, not management. Salary is paid to
management; hourly pay to workers. What the Department of Labor has
said is: You know what? We are going to have a one-size-fits-all
solution because, clearly, people living in small town Georgia should
be regulated by the same rules as people living in downtown New York
City. Surely, if we are going to fight poverty, what works in downtown
New York City is the exact same thing we are going to need in small
town Georgia.
{time} 1315
Mr. Speaker, you know that is nonsense. It is not true in your area;
it is not true in my friend from Massachusetts' area; and it is
certainly not true in my hometown.
My friends will come to the floor and tell you it is because
Republicans just don't like working people. This bill exempts three
categories of people and three categories only: educational
institutions, small businesses, and nonprofits.
The Boys & Girls Clubs of America are headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. They wrote to the Department of Labor when the Department of
Labor released this regulation. They said they opposed it. They said
the regulation in its current form was going to undermine their ability
to serve young people. They are not alone.
Mr. Speaker, those concerns are real, and if my friends on the other
side of the aisle would sit down and talk to us about them, I know that
they care about these issues like I care about these issues. We can all
work to change what that limit is, but we don't have to throw families
out of jobs. As a result, we don't have to punish small-business owners
trying to make it work. As a result, we don't have to punish nonprofits
who have one goal and one goal only, and that is to make a difference
in people's lives. As a result, I don't believe, when I disagree with
my colleagues on the House floor, it is because they are bad people. I
think they are good people with bad ideas.
If we can sit and talk together, a group of good people around the
table with differing ideas, I know that we can come to a conclusion,
which is what we have done with the second bill in this rule, Mr.
Speaker, the WRDA bill.
My friend from Massachusetts mentioned a terrible habit of closed
rules. There were 44 amendments made available to this bill, Mr.
Speaker--44. That is a bill that passed unanimously with unlimited
debate and unlimited amendments coming out of committee. We made 44
more amendments in order on this House floor.
I am constantly amazed at the improvements that come from right here,
colleagues who may not be on the committee who don't have an
opportunity to make a difference. They bring an amendment to the
Committee on Rules, we come together and we make it in order. We bring
it to the House floor. It makes a difference.
Mr. Speaker, the WRDA bill is going to affect something in every
single district we have in this Chamber--every single district--whether
it is direct, as it will be in the Port of Savannah or the Port of
Charleston; whether it is indirect, as it will be for all the inland
ports in the country; whether it is indirect because of all the job
growth that happens around the country as a result. Ninety-nine percent
of all of the imports and exports coming through this country, moving
through our ports system, we did that together.
I sat through those long committee hearings, Mr. Speaker. I don't
remember anyone being called a scoundrel. I don't remember anyone being
accused of not having a conscience. I don't remember anyone being
called a racist. And I distinctly remember the bill coming out of
committee on a voice vote, unanimous support.
Mr. Speaker, the American people will believe us if we tell them how
incapable we are; the American people will believe us if we tell them
how broken self-government is; and the American people will believe us
if we tell
[[Page H6021]]
them that nobody else has anything to bring to the table except their
Member of Congress. But those things will not be true.
We are not just moving a bill to protect nonprofits and educational
institutions and small business, Mr. Speaker. We are not just moving a
bill that is going to do more to protect inland waterways and the
economy than what we have seen in previous years, Mr. Speaker; we put
together a package that I believe is going to start the logs rolling
for all of the other priorities that we have in this Chamber. But we
can't get to them unless we pass this rule.
This rule came out of the Committee on Rules last night about 11:30,
Mr. Speaker. The Committee on Rules was working late on your behalf
last night. They say nothing good happens after midnight. That is why
we finished up at 11:30. We have got a good rule for you. It is worthy
of the support of this Chamber.
I ask all of my friends to support the rule, to support the
underlying legislation, and to allow us to continue to be about the
business of the American people.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 897 Offered by Mr. McGovern
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.
1434) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, 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 Education and the Workforce. 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. 1434.
____
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 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. 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 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________