[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17041-17050]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 22, HIRE MORE 
 HEROES ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM 
    NOVEMBER 6, 2015, THROUGH NOVEMBER 13, 2015; AND PROVIDING FOR 
             CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 507 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 507

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the Senate amendment to the text of the bill (H.R. 22) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees 
     with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans 
     Administration from being taken into account for purposes of 
     determining the employers to which the employer mandate 
     applies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 
     All points of order against consideration of the Senate 
     amendment are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     Senate amendment and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
     After general debate, the Senate amendment shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 2.  (a) No further amendment to the Senate amendment, 
     as amended, shall be in order except for an amendment 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-32, which 
     shall be considered as pending, shall be considered as read, 
     shall not be debatable, shall not be subject to amendment 
     except as specified in subsection (b), and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole.
        (b) No amendment to the further amendment referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be in order except those printed in part 
     B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question.
       (c) All points of order against amendments referred to in 
     subsections (a) and (b) are waived.
       Sec. 3.  At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     amendments referred to in section 2(b) of this resolution, 
     the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No 
     further consideration of the Senate amendment, as amended, 
     shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of 
     the House.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     November 6, 2015, through November 13, 2015--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 6.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of November 5, 2015, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure authorizing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for the Department of 
     Defense.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The gentleman from 
Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 507 is a structured rule 
for the consideration of H.R. 22. It provides an hour of general 
debate, and it makes in order 29 amendments.
  Now, you might say, Mr. Speaker, that 29 amendments seems like that 
ought to be the end of the conversation. But my friend from 
Massachusetts and I are not done with 29 amendments. There have been 
well over 250 amendments submitted for this legislation. We have 
included 29 in this base text, and we are going to come back and 
include more.
  This is the very first rule to come out of Paul Ryan, Speaker, U.S. 
House of Representatives.
  When Speaker Ryan was speaking to the House last week, when he took 
the Speaker's gavel into his hands, he said, ``We need to let every 
Member contribute--not once they have earned their stripes, but right 
now.''
  He said, ``I come at this job as a two-time committee chair. The 
committees should retake the lead in drafting all major legislation. If 
you know the issue, you should write the bill. We must open up the 
process. Let people participate. In other words, we need to return to 
regular order.''
  Mr. Speaker, I won't tell it to you any way but straight. I am not 
sure what folks mean when they say a return to regular order in this 
House.
  I love a free and spirited debate process. We are going to go deep 
into the night tonight, deep into the night tomorrow night, and well 
into the late hours on Thursday. I hope my colleagues are still going 
to be as enthusiastic about regular order when we are done as they are 
before we get started.
  But regular order doesn't necessarily mean that you can use dilatory 
tactics to slow the House down. It doesn't necessarily mean we need to 
see the same amendment 25 different times.
  What my friend from Massachusetts and I are doing in the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Speaker, is going through

[[Page 17042]]

those amendments to make sure that the ideas and the recommendations 
brought by individual Members of this House have a chance to be heard, 
but heard once, not heard six different times.
  We are going to have a robust debate in the spirit of regular order 
over these next 3 days. But that will be from a pot of more than 260 
amendments winnowed down into those issues that need to be discussed, 
have an opportunity to be discussed, on the floor of this House.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, the transportation system in this country is over 4 
million miles, 600,000 bridges, and 270,000 public transit route miles. 
The scope of the transportation system in this country is vast, and its 
importance is even more so. There is not a mayor in this country, Mr. 
Speaker, who doesn't know that as goes their education infrastructure 
and as goes their transportation infrastructure, so goes the economy of 
their community.
  Now, we are working on the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Reauthorization Act, Mr. Speaker, but that is not for today. Today is 
not education day. Today is transportation day, where we are bringing 
forward the first 6-year transportation reauthorization that this 
country has seen in more than a decade. We have been trying. It is not 
from a lack of trying, Mr. Speaker.
  The ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, on the Transportation Committee and 
the chairman, Mr. Shuster, on the Transportation Committee have been 
working diligently not for days, not for weeks, and not for months, but 
for years to try to bring this piece of legislation to the floor. This 
rule today gives us that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, there are those items in the U.S. Constitution that are 
put upon the United States Government as responsibilities that we must 
achieve together. Postal roads are among those responsibilities. There 
are those who say that Republicans are the party of no government. I 
say nonsense. I say Republicans are the party of good government. In 
fact, I don't even think that should be a partisan issue. I think that 
should be a nonpartisan issue, something that we can all agree on, as 
Americans, as this body.
  This bill doesn't just allocate the necessary dollars to the 
projects; it changes the process that allocates those dollars so that 
we get more value out of each and every one.
  I will tell you a story from back home, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it is 
going on this week. This week a year ago would have been election week. 
I represent only two counties in the great State of Georgia. One of 
them is the single most conservative county in the State.
  They turned out on election day last year, Mr. Speaker; and while 
they had rejected Federal tax increases in the past and while they had 
rejected State tax increases in the past, they got together a year ago 
this week and voted to tax themselves--this small county in the great 
State of Georgia--to the tune of $200 million so they could expand the 
major highway going through that county. They didn't trust the 
government here in Washington to get a dollar's worth of value out of a 
dollar's worth of taxes. They didn't trust the State government to get 
a dollar's worth of value out of a dollar's worth of taxes. They 
trusted the locality to get a dollar's worth of value out of a dollar's 
worth of taxes. And here, this week, it will have been 1 year from 
election day and groundbreaking begins.
  Groundbreaking begins this week, just 1 year after the decision to 
move forward on a project. That is unheard of in Federal circles, Mr. 
Speaker, but this bill takes not bipartisan steps, but nonpartisan 
steps to improve upon that process.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to serve on both the Rules Committee and the 
Transportation Committee. I am very proud of the base product that the 
Transportation Committee in this House reported. We didn't just 
consider that bill for a day or for a week. We worked on that bill for 
months as well. We passed it out of committee on a voice vote, Mr. 
Speaker. We passed it out of committee unanimously. In fact, we passed 
the rule out of the Rules Committee last night on a voice vote to bring 
this resolution to the floor.
  This is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to show the American people what 
is best about this House. What is best about this House is not that we 
all agree on everything, because we don't. What is best about this 
House is not that we all represent the same kinds of values and 
constituencies back home, because we don't. What is best about this 
House is that we have an opportunity to come together, express all of 
those issues, and let the chips fall where they may.
  If you look in these 29 amendments, Mr. Speaker, you will see most of 
them are bipartisan or nonpartisan amendments. But we have amendments 
made in order that are just brought by Republicans, and we have 
amendments made in order that are just brought by Democrats. The Rules 
Committee has the power to do whatever the Rules Committee would like 
to do. We are not using that power today to shut the voices out, Mr. 
Speaker. We are using the power today to bring the voices together.
  I am very proud to bring this rule. I think it is worthy of all the 
Members' support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall) for the customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I get into the subject matter that we are here to 
discuss, I do want to respond to my friend from Georgia about Speaker 
Ryan's call for regular order, which I think many on our side welcome. 
But we are not going to get too excited yet because that same pledge 
was made when Speaker Boehner became Speaker of the House, and that 
pledge was broken over and over and over again. In fact, he presided 
over the most closed Congress in the history of our country, more 
closed rules than any other Congress in history.
  When my friend asked the question, ``What does regular order mean?'' 
well, it means that we don't bypass committees of jurisdiction. We let 
them do their work, and then we bring that bill to the Rules Committee, 
as opposed to having some committee staff write a bill in the back room 
someplace in the Capitol, present it, and then have the Rules Committee 
give it a closed rule. It means allowing for all sides to be heard.
  The Rules Committee has routinely blocked out amendments on 
legitimate issues because the Republican leadership didn't want to deal 
with it. They didn't want to have that debate.
  So it means a more open and transparent process. It means a process 
that is more fair and more respectful of all Members, not just 
Democrats, but to Republicans as well. I hope that when Speaker Ryan 
made that pledge, it is more than just words; that we will see, in the 
coming weeks and months, something different around here.
  I would also just say that I don't mean to pick on Speaker Boehner 
because we do have people on the Rules Committee on the Republican side 
who have routinely voted to shut this process down. I hope that there 
is a change of attitude in the Rules Committee, as well, for a more 
open and a more transparent process.
  So having said that, Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the 
consideration of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform 
Act, a 6-year highway bill. After 35 short-term extensions--35 short-
term extensions--this is a welcome step to providing the kind of 
certainty that our State and our local officials need. In fact, they 
have been clamoring for this for a very, very long time.
  Of the 284 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for 
consideration, the rule we are talking about right now makes in order 
29. We expect the committee to meet later today to consider the 
remaining amendments.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Chairman Sam Graves and Ranking

[[Page 17043]]

Member Eleanor Holmes Norton for all of their hard work to get us to 
this point.
  This isn't the highway bill that I would have written, but the bottom 
line is that we need a long-term surface transportation authorization 
bill. States need to be able to count on Federal funding for more than 
a month at a time. Large-scale infrastructure projects take years to 
complete. States need certainty, and this bill is a step forward in 
that direction.
  Mr. Speaker, our roads and our bridges are already in need of massive 
repairs. I tell my colleagues all the time that we have bridges in 
Massachusetts that are older than most of your States. The underlying 
bill provides $325 billion in contract authority from the highway trust 
fund over 6 years for highway, transit, and safety programs. It would 
allow for automatic adjustments if more money comes into the highway 
trust fund.
  I am pleased to see that among the provisions in this bill is a 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which is the same language 
that the House passed with strong bipartisan support last week, 
notwithstanding the fact that we had to use a discharge petition 
because the way this place operates, the will of the majority was not 
respected. But we should vote against any amendments--any and all 
amendments--that would jeopardize this provision.
  Not only will a long-term highway bill help our economy, but it will 
create and sustain thousands of American jobs, particularly in the 
construction and manufacturing industries that were hardest hit by the 
Great Recession.
  In all candor, I can't say that I am enamored with everything in this 
bill. I wish that it provided more robust funding levels. I am sorry to 
see that we are continuing to use guarantee fees as a pay-for on an 
unrelated transportation bill. G-fees should be used to protect 
taxpayers from mortgage losses, not as an offset on a highway bill.
  I also have serious concerns about the use of private debt collection 
as an offset in this bill. Instead of raising money, if history is any 
indication, it is likely the use of private debt collection agencies 
would result in the Federal Government losing revenue. We know that 
because that has happened in the past.
  Moving forward, I would strongly, strongly caution against loading 
this bill up with controversial provisions. This rule makes in order an 
amendment by Congressman Ribble of Wisconsin to permit States to allow 
bigger and heavier trucks on our interstate highways, and I understand 
that several other amendments have been offered to increase truck size 
and truck weights. I think passing these kinds of amendments is one of 
the most dangerous things that we can do, and I believe it would 
seriously threaten this carefully crafted compromise.
  Despite what some in the trucking industry might have you believe, 
bigger trucks have never resulted in fewer trucks on our road. Since 
1982, when Congress last increased the gross vehicle weight limit, 
truck registrations have increased 90 percent.
  Now, some say if we allow bigger and heavier trucks on our Federal 
Interstate Highway System, we can somehow alleviate their presence on 
local roads. That is a false argument because trucks still need to make 
deliveries and pickups at warehouses and businesses, and local roads 
are the way they get there. So all the Ribble amendment would do is 
make more of our roads less safe.
  By the way, on the Interstate Highway System, these bigger and 
heavier trucks can drive faster, thereby endangering more and more of 
the others who are driving on these highways. Bigger truck crashes kill 
nearly 4,000 people every year, and the reality is that most of those 
fatalities are those in passenger vehicles, not the trucker. Big trucks 
pay only a fraction of the true cost of the wear and tear they cause on 
our roads and bridges. State budgets are stretched to the brink as it 
is and can't afford to make up for the multibillion-dollar 
underpayments.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans have said loud and clear over and over again 
that they don't want bigger trucks. A January 2015 nationwide survey by 
Harper Polling found that 76 percent of respondents oppose longer, 
heavier trucks, and a May 2013 public opinion poll by Lake Research 
Partners found that 68 percent of Americans opposed heavier trucks. 
That should be enough to give people who want to put bigger and heavier 
trucks on our roads some pause. But as I have learned serving in this 
Congress, usually this place does the opposite of what the American 
people want.
  Let me remind my colleagues that in MAP-21, the most recent long-term 
highway bill, Congress directed the Department of Transportation to 
conduct a comprehensive study on truck size and weight laws. After 2 
years of careful study, DOT concluded that the current data limitations 
were so profound that no changes in truck size and weight laws in 
regulations should be considered until these data limitations could be 
overcome. So we asked DOT to do a study, and that is their 
recommendation. Yet there are all these amendments to try to get around 
that.
  I would just say to my friends who are thinking of voting for some of 
these amendments to allow bigger, heavier, and more dangerous trucks on 
the road and on our Interstate Highway System to talk to some of the 
families of the victims. I have, on a regular basis, talked to people 
who have lost their husbands, their wives, their kids, and their best 
friends to these senseless crashes. Think about them before you just go 
along with whatever particular special interest asks you to do.
  By the way, those who drive these trucks are opposed to this. They 
are opposed to this. Yet here we are with an attempt to try to kind of 
make our roads less safe.
  So loading this bill up with all kinds of exemptions to truck size 
and weight laws I think would be a huge mistake and would jeopardize 
the passage of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
Ribble amendment and all these other amendments that may be made in 
order to put bigger, heavier, and more dangerous trucks on the road.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the return to regular order and all 
of the amendments that we are going to consider today, it is not lost 
on me that just here in the Rules Committee debate, my friend from 
Massachusetts was able to talk about truck size and weight for longer 
than regular order would have allowed the proponent of an amendment to 
talk about that. Under the 5-minute rule, which is what we have here to 
conduct these issues, it is hard to grapple with some of these big 
issues in an amendment process.
  Some of these issues, as my friend from Massachusetts suggested, 
should be hashed out in committee, where there is no time limit, where 
we can work on these, where we can consider all of the studies, where 
we can go through all of the work.
  There is a role for the Rules Committee to pick and choose 
amendments, those that have been considered enough, those that can be 
considered in a short period of time, and those that need to remain in 
committee and be hashed out there.
  As we grapple with what regular order means, I hope my colleagues 
will come down on the side of reserving the biggest of these issues for 
committee work and the more minor changes for here on the floor of the 
House.
  While I prefer to agree with my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Speaker, I have to disagree with him about the track record we put 
together in this body over the last 4\1/2\ years.
  I came to Congress at the exact same time that John Boehner became 
Speaker of the House. My first experience here in this Chamber, Mr. 
Speaker, was when John Boehner brought H.R. 1 to the floor. It turns 
out the Democratic Congress had not finished the budgeting process the 
year before.
  So here we were. We were in the middle of the fiscal year. No budget 
had

[[Page 17044]]

been passed. No appropriations bills had been passed. This brand-new 
Congress comes in, the biggest freshman class in American history. It 
was an exciting, exciting time, Mr. Speaker, as you will recall.
  One of the first bills out of the gate was a bill to fund $3.5 
trillion worth of Federal Government. All these new Members here have 
all been sent with a mandate from their constituents back home.
  While history would have suggested that a Speaker would have closed 
down that process, said this is too important to put before the entire 
House, what Speaker John Boehner said is: Bring the bill to the floor 
and we will debate it for as long as it takes.
  Mr. Speaker, do you remember that? It was all night long, day in, day 
out, until we finished the job. Every Member on this floor had their 
voice.
  We can't always do that, Mr. Speaker. There is not enough daylight or 
darkness in the year to do that with every bill that comes to the floor 
of the House. But I cannot let it be said that Speaker Boehner presided 
over the most closed Congress in history. In fact, the opposite is 
true.
  If you track down my Democratic friends, they will tell you they 
offered more amendments in a John Boehner Speakership than they ever 
had a chance to offer in a Speaker Pelosi Speakership. I am not 
faulting the previous Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I am only saying that 
openness is something you have to believe because it is hard. It is 
complicated.
  I listened to my friend from Massachusetts. He said: I want an open 
process. I just want to defeat all the amendments I don't like that 
come to the floor of the House.
  Sometimes that is just the way it is. Sometimes you have to come down 
here to the floor of the House, you have to have the difficult debate, 
and you have to win on the merits.
  Mr. Speaker, we did ask the Department of Transportation to consider 
truck weights. We absolutely did. And we passed it in a bipartisan way. 
It was signed by the President of the United States. The date the 
report was due back to this Congress was last year.
  Last year is when this body spoke and said: You have to have this 
study back to us by the winter of 2014.
  The Department of Transportation said: Whatever. Whatever. We are 
working on it. It is really hard. I know Congress told us to. I know 
they are the boss. But whatever. We will get there.
  Here we are a year later and we still don't have the report, Mr. 
Speaker. Don't let it be said that we are succeeding here at the 
Federal level.
  What does my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) do? This is radical. 
I want to redescribe the radical amendment that my friend from 
Massachusetts just spoke about. The radical idea that my friend from 
Wisconsin has is: Let's let the State governments decide for themselves 
about what the truck weights should be on Federal highways in their 
system.
  I don't dispute for a moment that there are going to be States that 
say: This is too dangerous. We don't want heavier trucks on our road. I 
don't doubt that for a minute.
  But don't you doubt for a minute, Mr. Speaker, that there will be 
States that say: Today we allow those heavier trucks on our small two-
lane curvy roads through north Georgia.
  If you really care about families that have been harmed by truck 
accidents, then you want those trucks off of those dangerous two-lane 
roads and you want them on the finest highway system known to man: the 
United States interstate system.
  I trust States to make those decisions, Mr. Speaker. Don't think for 
a moment--don't think for a moment--that the collective wisdom of 435 
people in this body is a good substitute for folks who sit back home in 
the great State of Georgia. I promise you, our judgment, the way we 
love on one another in Georgia is superior to anything this body could 
craft.
  That is the radical idea from my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble). 
Let States decide. Let the local people who have to deal with the 
consequences of action or inaction--let them decide.
  It feels right to me, Mr. Speaker. That is what is wonderful about 
this body. We are going to make these amendments in order. We are going 
to bring them to the floor of the House. We are going to have the 
debate. And then, lo and behold, at the end of the process, you are 
going to have to stick your card in the slot and vote ``yes'' or 
``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is the way it is supposed to be. I don't want a 
body where we all agree on everything all the time. I want a body where 
we are able to talk about those things that divide us and where we are 
able to unite around those things that unite us.
  One of those things, Mr. Speaker, is what my friend from 
Massachusetts said. We have been in a short-term extension process for 
far too long. It has been a short-term extension process that has gone 
through both Republican and Democratic leaderships, Mr. Speaker. This 
is not a partisan problem. This is an American problem.
  Today the Transportation Committee has crafted an American solution 
that, if we pass this rule, we will be able to consider.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now really worried about what Speaker Ryan meant 
when he said that we were going to return to regular order, based on 
what my colleague, Mr. Woodall, just said as he defended the Boehner 
Congress, which, by the way, is the most closed Congress in the history 
of our Congress--more closed rules, over 180 closed rules. If you want 
to defend that process, fine.
  Not only the closed rules, but on major amendments, important issues 
were not even allowed to be brought up. We tried to debate the war--we 
are at war--and the Rules Committee, with the blessing of the 
leadership, wouldn't even allow us to bring that to the House floor. 
Important issues are routinely denied here.
  If your idea of regular order is still ``your way or the highway,'' 
then I don't think that much is going to be changed, just maybe the 
same menu, a different waiter, I guess. That is about what we can 
expect. I hope that is not the case.
  I think the record, not only how the Republicans have treated the 
minority with regard to important bills, but also to a lot of people on 
your own side, has been lousy. It has been a bad record.
  I am hoping that the new Speaker understands that and believes that 
this place could be better served if we have a more inclusive process, 
more regular order, and we respected our committees.
  By the way, speaking of committees, the Transportation Committee 
didn't see fit to put in a provision for bigger truck sizes and heavier 
trucks. That is the committee of jurisdiction. They didn't do that.
  Mr. Ribble has the right to bring his amendment. These other people 
have the right to bring their amendment. Members will have a whole 10 
minutes to debate this.
  I would also say that not all amendments are created equally. Some 
are more important than others. I think this is an amendment that is 
more important than some of the sense of Congress language that we are 
going to be debating in terms of amendments later.
  But a whole 10 minutes and we are going to let the States decide. 
That is the retort from my colleague from Georgia. I get it.
  There are people in this House, especially on the Republican side, 
who think the States should control everything; that when it comes to 
civil rights or voting rights, let the States decide, and the Federal 
Government should have no role in guaranteeing that everybody in this 
country has their voting rights protected or their civil rights 
protected. I disagree with that.
  On this issue, it is an issue of safety. When the gentleman says that 
we are just trying to take these big trucks off these side roads, that 
is not true. These trucks still have to go on those small roads to do 
their deliveries.
  That is not going to change. They will still have to utilize those 
roads. On

[[Page 17045]]

those side roads, I wish there weren't these big trucks, but at least 
they are going slower than they will on an interstate highway.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Andrew Matthews, 
chairman of the National Troopers Coalition, representing 45,000 
members, asking us to oppose any amendment forcing States to allow 
heavier and longer trucks on our Nation's highway.
  Every one of us here is saying please don't do this, please don't do 
this. We will have a whole 5 minutes to make the case against that 
amendment.

                                  National Troopers Coalition,

                                               September 23, 2015.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: On behalf 
     of the National Troopers Coalition's 45,000 members, we ask 
     that you oppose any amendment forcing states to allow heavier 
     and longer trucks on our nation's highways when you consider 
     the transportation reauthorization. Specifically, we urge you 
     to vote against any amendments allowing the operation of 
     91,000 pound single tractor-trailers or double 33-foot 
     tractor-trailers, replacing the twin 28-foot trailers in 
     operation today.
       Troopers, every day, see the dangers these longer and 
     heavier rigs pose to the motoring public and our officers. 
     With heavier trucks, stopping distances increase threatening 
     the motoring public and our Trooper members. And if ``Twin 
     33s'' become legal, this could ultimately replace 53-foot 
     singles as one of the most commonly used configurations, 
     adding a dangerous 17 feet in length to our already crowded 
     highways.
       The transportation reauthorization bill should not include 
     such a far-reaching policy change, especially following the 
     release of the long-awaited USDOT truck size and weight 
     study, which largely concluded that not enough data exists to 
     make a clear recommendation on changing any existing truck 
     size and weight laws.
       The bottom line is bigger and heavier trucks make our roads 
     and highways are unsafe due to, among other things, greater 
     stopping distances and higher risk of rollover. The National 
     Troopers Coalition opposes any changes to current truck size 
     and weight laws and urges you to do the same. Should you have 
     any questions or need any additional information, I can be 
     reached.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                            Andrew Matthews, Esq.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Teamsters Union, which most of these 
truck drivers are Teamsters, sent us a letter strongly urging us to 
oppose the Ribble amendment. Law enforcement, the drivers, all these 
safety coalitions say no; but a special interest comes in here and says 
they would like an exemption, and everybody Clambers to try to help 
them out. Know what you are voting for before you vote for this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to an important safety 
provision in the Senate-passed DRIVE Act being considered by the House 
this week.
  I am pleased the House is working in a bipartisan manner to fix our 
Nation's critical highway infrastructure needs. I want to bring 
attention to a key provision which is included in the DRIVE Act that 
passed the Senate earlier this year.
  In 2004, two young sisters, Raechel and Jacqueline Houck, were killed 
just outside my district when their rented Chrysler PT Cruiser caught 
fire and crashed due to a defective steering component. The vehicle was 
not grounded or fixed before it was rented to the Houck sisters, 
despite having a safety recall notice issued a month before the tragic 
accident.
  While today Federal law prohibits car dealers from selling new cars 
subject to a recall, there is no similar law prohibiting rental car 
companies from renting out vehicles under a safety recall.
  That is why I am so pleased the Senate included the text of my bill, 
H.R. 2198, the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act, into 
the DRIVE Act.
  This legislation is nothing more than a commonsense fix. It modifies 
existing law to prohibit rental car companies from renting a vehicle 
under recall until it has been fixed. Pure and simple, consumers must 
be protected from renting cars that are subject to a safety recall.
  This key provision does not only have bipartisan support in the 
House, but it is also supported by the rental car industry, consumer 
safety groups, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
General Motors, and Honda.
  Furthermore, a change.org petition calling for passage of this bill 
was started by Raechel and Jacqueline's mother, Cally Houck. It has 
received signatures from over 180,000 consumers nationwide.
  I am disappointed that there may be attempts to strike this critical 
vehicle safety language from this final highway bill. I believe such 
actions are misguided and would seriously undermine the tireless effort 
by Cally Houck and the families who have lost loved ones due to this 
clear defect in our safety laws.
  Therefore, as the House debates the highway bill this week, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose any amendments to weaken or undermine this 
important bipartisan language.
  Let us honor the lives of Raechel and Jacqueline Houck by working 
together to enact a simple, yet meaningful solution that will surely 
save lives in the future.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I certainly agree with my friend from Massachusetts that folks ought 
to know what they are talking about before they come and vote on 
amendments. In fact, I think folks ought to know what they talk about 
when they even come down and talk about amendments. I think that ought 
to be part of the thing. There is no point of order to stipulate that, 
but I believe it is an important provision.
  I serve on the Transportation Committee, Mr. Speaker. So I have a 
vested interest in this. I have kind of a pride of authorship. We 
worked very hard on this.
  In my friend from Massachusetts' opening statement, he thanked the 
chairman and the ranking member of the full committee and of the 
subcommittee. They call them the Big Four on that committee, Mr. 
Speaker, the Big Four.
  If you can get the Big Four to have an agreement, then you feel like 
you can get your amendment across the finish line because being a 
committee chairman means something.

                              {time}  1315

  Among the many amendments that we considered in committee were truck 
weight amendments, Mr. Speaker. I know this because I serve on that 
committee.
  Did you know, today, Mr. Speaker, that we have first responder 
vehicles--fire trucks, for example--that are prohibited from getting on 
Federal highways because of this system? If you are in a crisis--if you 
are in a first responder crisis--because of the wisdom of the Federal 
Government, the wisdom of this body, we have said: Do you know what? 
You probably shouldn't get on the fastest and most direct route to 
respond to the crisis. We really need you to stay on the local roads. 
No interstate travel for you.
  That is just nonsense. That is absolute nonsense.
  Good news, Mr. Speaker. We have folks here in this body who care 
about ferreting out the nonsense and putting a stop to it. So we 
considered that amendment in committee, and we passed that amendment in 
committee. If we pass this rule today, Mr. Speaker, we can change the 
law of the land to make that difference for people.
  This is a new day in terms of House leadership, Mr. Speaker. It is a 
new day. I am going to be interested to see whether we spend more time 
litigating the past or planning for the future. I am about looking 
forward. I am optimistic about tomorrow. I know it is going to be 
better than yesterday no matter how good yesterday was. This is the 
opportunity we have here together.
  Unanimous out of committee. Voiced out of the Rules Committee. This 
is the bill. I don't want anybody to be confused. There is no civil 
rights legislation in this bill today. This is a transportation bill. I 
don't want anybody to

[[Page 17046]]

be confused. We are not rolling back anything for anyone here today. 
This is a bipartisan--even better, nonpartisan--transportation funding 
bill. I don't want anybody to be confused today. This is something that 
Democrats failed to get done when they ran the show, and it is 
something Republicans failed to get done when they ran the show. Now we 
are all here together, getting it done. I think that is worth 
celebrating.
  I urge all of my colleagues to pass this rule so we can get to it and 
then support the underlying bill as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that will 
restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  We need to recommit ourselves to voter equality. This legislation 
would require Federal approval in some States for changes to voting 
practices that could be discriminatory.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you will notice many of us are wearing 
``Restore the Vote'' pins here today because we are, quite frankly, 
appalled by what is going on in certain States in terms of taking away 
people's right to vote. We find that offensive, and we think that there 
is a Federal obligation to guarantee that right, that we just can't 
leave it up to the States. All of us in this country should have equal 
protections under the law when it comes to voting.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of voting 
rights for all Americans. I was proud to stand alongside my fellow 
colleagues this morning to launch the Restore the Vote legislative 
strategy.
  This national effort will help mobilize support for H.R. 2867, the 
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015, a bill that I sponsored with 
Representatives Judy Chu and Linda Sanchez in order to restore critical 
Federal oversight to jurisdictions which have a recent history of voter 
discrimination.
  Since elections are held on Tuesdays, every Tuesday that Congress is 
in session, we will declare it to be ``Restoration Tuesday.'' Members 
of Congress will wear a ``Restore the Vote'' ribbon pin and will speak 
on the House floor about the importance of restoring and protecting 
voting rights for all Americans. Today is the first Restoration 
Tuesday, and I am honored to speak on behalf of H.R. 2867, the Voting 
Rights Advancement Act.
  Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court in the Shelby case 
struck down the Federal preclearance. The Supreme Court issued a 
challenge to Congress to develop a modern-day coverage formula that 
looks at current discriminatory acts by States and political 
jurisdiction. The Voting Rights Advancement Act answers that challenge.
  The bill restores and advances the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by 
looking at recent voter discrimination practices since 1990. An entire 
State can be covered by preclearance if 15 or more voting violations 
occur in a State in the most recent 25-year period. This updated 
coverage formula ensures that 13 States, including my home State of 
Alabama, are required to obtain preclearance for changes in voting 
practices and laws. The 13 States that will be covered under this new 
formula include Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, 
South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Arizona, Texas, New York, 
California, and Virginia. The bill also provides greater transparency 
in Federal elections by ensuring that voters get notice of changes in 
locations and of changes in voting practices.
  Put simply, the Voting Rights Advancement Act offers more voter 
protection to more people in more States.
  Mr. Speaker, old battles have become new again. Since the Shelby 
decision, 33 States across this Nation have issued photo I.D. laws that 
have made it harder for vulnerable communities to vote, like our senior 
citizens, our young people, and the disabled.
  As a daughter of Selma, I am painfully aware that the injustices 
suffered on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 50 years ago have not been fully 
vindicated. Just recently, my constituents were dealt a very 
devastating blow when Alabama closed 31 DMVs--that's right, driver's 
license offices--a State that had recently adopted one of the Nation's 
harsher photo I.D. laws. This decision is completely unacceptable. 
These closures render it almost impossible for so many of my 
constituents to get the most popular form of photo I.D., which is a 
driver's license.
  This DMV closure decision is just one example of modern-day barriers 
to voting. While we no longer have to count marbles in a jar or recite 
the names of all of the counties, there are still laws and decisions 
that make it harder for people to vote. ``Injustice anywhere is a 
threat to justice everywhere,'' Martin Luther King once said.
  On March 7, 2015, I welcomed President and Mrs. Obama as well as 
President Bush and Mrs. Bush, along with 100 Members of the House and 
the Senate, to my hometown of Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 50th 
anniversary of the voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery. Mr. 
Speaker, it was a ``kumbaya'' moment when Republicans and Democrats 
gathered together in recognition of how far our Nation had come in 
living up to its ideals of justice and equality for all.
  The 50th commemoration of the marches from Selma to Montgomery must 
be so much more than just one day of reflection, Mr. Speaker. A single 
moment filled with colorful language and wonderful speeches is nice, 
and walking hand in hand across the Edmund Pettus Bridge is nice; but 
gone should be the days of ``feel good'' moments that, in and of 
themselves, lead to no clear path to action. The Voting Rights 
Advancement Act is that action.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, we are asking our colleagues, 
Democrats and Republicans, to join with us in supporting the Voting 
Rights Advancement Act as Congress must act now to protect the rights 
of all Americans.
  The fate of our democracy depends upon its citizens having the 
unfettered right to vote. Our vote is our voice, and no voices should 
be silenced. We are asking everyone to join us in our efforts to make 
sure that we restore the vote to the voices of the excluded. To 
restrict the ability of any American to vote is an assault on all 
Americans' rights to participate equally in the electoral process.
  I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2867, the Voting Rights 
Advancement Act.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is easy on a big bill like this to get confused about what is in 
it and what is not in it. I would refer folks to transport.house.gov. 
That is not just for Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker. Anybody across 
the country can access that.
  What you are going to find--and, again, what is an extraordinary 
success story that we have on the floor today--are all of these 
national priorities that we share. The bill refocuses funding on 
national priorities. It gets us back to the core of the original 
highway trust fund. It reforms the program, again, in a bipartisan--
even nonpartisan--way to get the dollars on the ground faster to make a 
difference in people's lives.
  Time is money, Mr. Speaker, whether you are shipping goods or whether 
you are sitting in traffic. It promotes innovation to bring some new 
ideas into the transportation infrastructure. We are getting ready for 
next generation roads, and that language is here: roads and bridges, 
public transportation,

[[Page 17047]]

driver safety, truck and bus safety, hazardous materials. It is all in 
here.
  There are those bills in Congress where the more you read them, the 
more you think: ``Man, what were those guys thinking?'' This is one of 
those bills where the more you read it, you think: ``How in the world 
did those guys get it done?'' This is a success story, Mr. Speaker. It 
is worthy of all of my colleagues' support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We need to pursue this in the manner we are doing it because, again, 
important issues like this don't ever see the light of day in this 
House. We can't talk about voting rights or vote on a bill to protect 
voting rights. We can't vote on immigration reform because my friends 
are slaves to this majority rule on their side of the aisle. These are 
important issues, and we shouldn't just leave them to the States in 
which people's voting rights are being denied.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Adams).
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, August 6 marked the 50th anniversary of the 
passage of the bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965, historic 
legislation that prevented State and local governments from denying any 
citizen the right to vote based on his race, ensuring equal voting 
rights for all.
  In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a major provision of this law, 
severely limiting the Federal oversight of State voting laws. My home 
State of North Carolina passed the most egregious voting law in the 
Nation immediately after that decision, which slashed early voting, 
implemented strict voter I.D. requirements, and ended pre voter 
registration programs. Other States across the country followed suit 
and also implemented election laws that disenfranchised voters.
  All voters should be able to make their voices heard and elect 
leaders of their choice, and I am proud to join my colleagues today in 
renewing our call to repair America's broken election system.
  I cosponsored the Voting Rights Advancement Act to help restore 
Federal oversight to jurisdictions which have a recent history of voter 
discrimination. This bill updates the coverage formula to ensure that 
States like North Carolina are required to obtain preclearance for 
changes to voting practices and procedures. It reaffirms our commitment 
to voter equality, and it creates additional pathways for voter access. 
Simply put, this bill protects the right to vote.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation 
because every American deserves to have his voice heard. Every American 
deserves equal access to the ballot box, and every American deserves 
the right to vote.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
  Mrs. BEATTY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is election day in Ohio. Right now, my constituents 
are casting ballots to decide their next local, State, and judicial 
elected officials. Participating in our democratic process is not only 
a right, but it is a duty. Unfortunately, again, for many Americans, 
voting recently became more difficult in 2013.
  As you have heard my colleagues mention, Mr. Speaker, that is when 
the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965 in its Shelby v. Holder decision, making it easier for States 
and localities to disenfranchise voters in areas that have a history of 
voter suppression.
  We shouldn't roll back voting rights protections. Instead, we should 
honor the progress our country has made to ensure equal rights and 
equal treatment.
  Congress should immediately bring H.R. 2867, the Voting Rights 
Advancement Act of 2015, to the floor so all Americans may cast ballots 
to choose their leaders and their public servants. I am a cosponsor--
no. Let me say I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, and it enjoys 
bipartisan support and leadership support in both the House and the 
Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, voting rights restoration should happen now. On 
Tuesdays, I will proudly wear my pin for restoring the vote. Mr. 
Speaker, again, that is restoring the vote.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague if he has any 
further speakers remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am ready to close for our side.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in a few moments, I am going to offer an amendment to 
the rule. It has been worked out collaboratively with the minority. I 
said when I began that we were making almost 30 amendments in order, 
but we were nowhere close to done. In fact, this amendment wants to 
make another 16 amendments in order right now.
  We are still going to go back to the Rules Committee and meet at 3 
p.m. We are still going to make even more amendments in order, but this 
amendment will make an additional 16 amendments in order under this 
rule. It will make more time available for debate, Mr. Speaker.
  We want to make a technical fix to dispense with the reading of the 
Senate bill so that we can get directly into amendments. That is a 
standard procedure, but it was not in the base rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this is only going to make this rule better. I look 
forward to offering that amendment here in just a few moments.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reiterating our call for Members to vote 
``no'' on the previous question so that we can restore the vote.
  Only in this Republican-controlled House of Representatives is the 
notion of protecting everybody's right to vote a radical idea. We see 
voter suppression efforts all across this country, and it is a Federal 
responsibility. It is a Federal responsibility, and we have got to live 
up to that responsibility. So I hope that my colleagues will vote 
``no,'' so we can have this debate and we can have an up-or-down vote 
on this.
  Quite frankly, the committees of jurisdiction should have ruled this 
bill to the floor, and we should be having that debate. But I guess for 
political reasons my colleagues don't see the benefit in moving this 
important legislation to the floor. We have an opportunity to do that 
today.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend Chairman Shuster, 
Ranking Member DeFazio, and their entire team for bringing us here 
today with a carefully crafted compromise, 6-year highway bill, which, 
I think, is absolutely imperative. Our States, our cities, and our 
towns have been demanding this for a long, long time, and we are very 
close to making some progress.
  I would urge, like I did in my opening statement, we ought not to 
screw it up with a whole bunch of controversial amendments because some 
special interest PAC thinks it is a good idea.
  I will again reiterate my strong opposition, not only to the Ribble 
amendment, but to a whole bunch of other amendments that will allow 
bigger and heavier trucks on our Federal Interstate Highway System. 
These are Federal highways. Yes, it is a Federal responsibility. It is 
a Federal responsibility.
  I would just remind my colleagues that the people who agree with me 
on this include the National Troopers Association, the National 
Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, AAA, the 
National League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and 
Townships, the American Public Works Association, The U.S. Conference 
of Mayors, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Road Safe America, 
Brain Injury Association of America, Parents Against Tired Truckers, 
Advocates for

[[Page 17048]]

Auto Safety, Trucking Alliance, the Teamsters, and the AFL-CIO. I can 
go on and on and on.
  The overwhelming opinion on this is that we should not go down the 
road of bigger and heavier trucks; yet we have got a special interest 
out there that says we should do it, and so all of a sudden Members are 
clamoring to do it. It would be a mistake. It would make our roads more 
dangerous. It will threaten the safety of passengers on our highways. 
It is a bad idea.
  Certainly, people ought to pay attention to what they are voting on 
before they come here and vote for this. Unfortunately, we are not 
going to have the time to debate it because it is going to be 5 minutes 
on each side. I think it would be a threat to this bill, and I think 
that would be a huge mistake.
  Let us respect the great work that has been done by the 
Transportation Committee. Let's not load it up with a bunch of 
controversial provisions. This is about safety on our highways, first 
and foremost. If my colleagues don't believe that, they ought to talk 
to the families who have lost loved ones in accidents due to bigger and 
heavier trucks. They ought to talk to the drivers. They ought to talk 
to people who know what they are talking about and not rely on a 
particular special interest.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so we can have this debate and a vote on protecting 
voting rights in this country to restore the vote.
  Let's respect the work that the committee of jurisdiction has done 
here, but let's vote ``no'' on these efforts to allow bigger and 
heavier trucks on our roads. For the sake of our constituents, for 
their safety, let us do the right thing and vote ``no'' on those 
amendments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of those days where I don't think it is a 
rare moment of agreement; I think it is a typical moment of agreement. 
There are issues that divide us, and there are issues that unite us. 
Focusing on America's infrastructure is one of those issues that unites 
us.
  I agreed with my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, when he said 
he hoped in the new administration here in this House that we focused 
on fairness and respect. I think that is absolutely right. I think that 
is what the American people ask of us back home.
  I don't particularly think that suggesting that there are folks in 
this body who are moving amendments to the floor based on the bidding 
of special interests moves us in the direction of respect. In fact, I 
think it moves us in the opposite direction, Mr. Speaker. I don't think 
suggesting there are those in this body who care about the individual 
safety of families in our district and those who don't moves us in the 
direction of fairness or respect, Mr. Speaker. I think it moves us in 
the opposite direction. That is the challenge that our new Speaker has. 
We are trying to get to regular order, trying to have all the voices 
heard, Mr. Speaker, but you have seen the complexity of that just here 
today.
  On the one hand, you have heard a passionate speech for why we 
shouldn't be considering trucking amendments in a trucking bill; that 
there couldn't possibly be enough time to discuss trucking while 
dealing with trucks, why we shouldn't possibly have an opportunity to 
bring experts together who have just passed a trucking bill to deal 
with more trucking issues. On the other hand, you heard a very 
passionate plea of why we should bring a Judiciary Committee 
legislative bill into the transportation bill.
  This bipartisan bill, this bill that has been worked out, this bill 
that has succeeded where Congress after Congress after Congress has 
failed, you have heard a very passionate pitch to say, you know what, 
let's take that transportation bill and let's drop in a giant judiciary 
issue on top of it because that is regular order. It is not regular 
order.
  I don't dispute that there is frustration in this body for the pace 
at which legislation moves. I share it. Mr. Speaker, I instigate it for 
Pete's sake. I came here in the class of 2010. I want to get things 
done. As soon as we come together and get this done, by golly, we can 
go back to poking or kicking or talking or whatever it is that folks 
need to get done, but that is not this bill.
  This bill is a success. This process is a success. The openness of 
this process is something that we can all be proud of. It doesn't just 
happen because Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter come 
together in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. It happens because 
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio came together in the 
Transportation Committee. This is one of those moments that brings us 
together, not as a body, but as a nation, getting about the business 
that our constituents sent us here to do.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Woodall

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer an amendment to the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       On page 2, line 11, insert after the period: ``The first 
     reading of the Senate amendment shall be dispensed with.''.
       At the end of the first section, add the following: ``The 
     Senate amendment, as amended, shall be considered as read.''.
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 7. The amendments specified in Rules Committee Print 
     114-33 shall be considered as though printed in part B of 
     House Report 114-325.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, that is 35 amendments now. There are 35 
amendments made in order by this rule. We will still go back at 3 
o'clock this afternoon to find even more. That is the collaborative 
process that I am representing on the floor here today.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the amendment, I 
urge strong support for the rule, and I urge strong support for the 
underlying resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 507 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2867) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to revise the 
     criteria for determining which States and political 
     subdivisions are subject to section 4 of the Act, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2867.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the

[[Page 17049]]

     opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. 
     Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the 
     effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand 
     for the previous question passes the control of the 
     resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an 
     amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party 
     offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous 
     question and a member of the opposition rose to a 
     parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adoption of the amendment to House Resolution 507, if ordered;
  Adoption of House Resolution 507, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 354.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 178, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 583]

                               YEAS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brady (PA)
     Conyers
     Ellmers (NC)
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Jackson Lee
     Jones
     Larson (CT)
     Meeks
     Richmond
     Speier
     Takai
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                              {time}  1410

  Mrs. TORRES changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. LaMALFA and JODY B. HICE of Georgia changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.

[[Page 17050]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248, 
nays 171, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 584]

                               YEAS--248

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu, Judy
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Waters, Maxine
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--171

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brady (PA)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Jackson Lee
     Jones
     Larson (CT)
     Meeks
     Neugebauer
     Richmond
     Speier
     Takai
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                              {time}  1419

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________