[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13708-13715]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5303, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 
  ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE 
   RULES; AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH 
   RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 
                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 892 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 892

       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 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. 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order 
     to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     114-65. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in 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 in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment pursuant to this resolution, the Committee of the 
     Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of 
     the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent 
     order of the House.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of September 29, 2016, or September 30, 2016, 
     for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend 
     the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or 
     his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.
       Sec. 3.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of September 30, 2016, relating to a measure 
     making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2017.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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 would like to believe that you requested 
this time today after having been with the Rules Committee last night 
debating this measure.
  The rule, House Resolution 892, provides for structured debate of 
H.R. 5303, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
  Now, for Members who have been here for more than one term, you are 
thinking: Didn't we just do a Water Resources Development Act of 2014?
  Well, we absolutely did. We were supposed to. This is getting us back 
on track to--Congress after Congress after Congress--focus on the water 
resources of our Nation.
  In this rule today, we are going to make in order the general debate 
on the WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act, as well as a 
number of amendments on both sides. But I want to make it clear that 
the Rules Committee is not done. When Congressman Hastings and I finish 
here on the floor, we will head back to the Rules Committee and we will 
make even more amendments in order for debate. There are 25 amendments, 
bipartisan amendments, made in order by the rule that we are debating 
today. And, again, we will return to committee to make additional 
amendments in order this afternoon.
  It would, no doubt, have been easier to make all the amendments 
available in one package. But as so often happens, Mr. Speaker, when 
you have a bill of this magnitude, of this importance, as the Water 
Resources Development Act is, you have an abundance of interest from 
across this Chamber. I believe the Rules Committee has received over 90 
amendments to improve upon this legislation from Members who have 
important issues that they would like to see debated. That is why you 
see a two-rule process for this particular bill today.
  For folks who don't have the pleasure of serving on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as you and I do, Mr. 
Speaker, I will tell you that the WRDA bill authorizes the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers for all of their activities across the spectrum from 
construction to maintenance. It is the water infrastructure maintenance 
of harbors and locks and dams of flood control projects and of water 
supply projects across the Nation, coast to coast.
  The underlying bill continues the reforms that this Congress began 
and that the President signed in the WRRDA bill of 2014 by strongly 
asserting Congress' authority over Corps activities and, again, 
restoring the 2-year WRDA cycle that has been missing for far too long.
  This return to regular order, Mr. Speaker, I would argue, is going to 
take the politicking out of these projects and return the WRDA bill to 
being that bipartisan bill that focuses on Congress' priorities, as 
spoken by our constituents back home, rather than, as sometimes 
happens, the Corps taking direction from unelected bureaucrats 
downtown. I believe that we get a better work product when we 
collaborate together, again, manifesting the will of our constituency 
back home.
  If you need to see what this return to regular order has meant, Mr. 
Speaker, just look at the 30 Chief's Reports or the 29 feasibility 
studies included in this bill. Again, if you don't serve on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chief's Reports and 
feasibility studies may not mean much to you. But if you are involved 
in water infrastructure anywhere in this country, you know that those 
reports are

[[Page 13709]]

vital to moving your project forward and you know that the feasibility 
study is critical to moving your project forward.
  Each one of these has been reviewed by the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in public hearings, just as we had done in the 
WRRDA bill of 2014. Mr. Speaker, this kind of open and transparent 
process, I would argue, has given us a better work product in the 
underlying bill and is going to give us a better rule here today.
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about our waterways--I had to write the 
stats down here; I don't have them committed to memory--they are mind-
boggling. Six hundred million tons of cargo are moving on our 
waterways, Mr. Speaker. That is $230 billion in economic value moving 
on our inland waterways each year--$1.4 trillion worth of goods moving 
in and out of our ports each year; $320 billion in Federal, State, and 
local revenue generated by those ports. Over one-quarter--over one-
quarter, Mr. Speaker, of the gross domestic product of the entire 
United States of America comes from international trade and 99 percent 
of cargo moves through the ports controlled by this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about over 40 million American jobs tied 
to international trade and, again, supported by this bill brought out 
of committee in a bipartisan and unanimous fashion.
  I am very proud to support the underlying bill. This bill makes in 
order time for the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee to debate this bill. I am very proud that 
the Rules Committee has seen fit to allow those Members who do not 
serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to make their 
voice heard as well.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a definition of how we should be doing things in 
this institution. I am proud to bring this rule to the consideration of 
my colleagues today. I am proud of the underlying bill that this rule 
supports. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting the 
rural and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my friend, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule.
  This legislation historically focuses on the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and water resources infrastructure, such as dams and levees, 
serving as a vehicle to update Corps policies and authorize new 
individual Corps studies, projects, and modifications to ongoing 
projects.
  This legislation could not be more important for our country, 
specifically my State, with its numerous Army Corps projects and water 
resources that Florida's diverse environment, ecosystem, and economy 
relies on.
  I was pleased to see that this legislation includes authorization for 
the dredging of Port Everglades. I have lived with that request for 18 
years of my career here in Congress. This is a project that has seen a 
long road to fruition, and that will be an immense boost to south 
Florida's economy.
  Furthermore, as co-chair of the House Everglades Caucus, my fellow 
caucus members, relevant stakeholders, and I have for years worked 
tirelessly to make the goal of Everglades restoration a reality. It is 
with this goal in mind that I support and applaud the inclusion of the 
Central Everglades Planning Project authorization in this bill.
  This authorization will mean almost $2 billion of Federal and non-
Federal money will be put towards vital restoration projects that will 
help one of the world's most diverse and unique ecosystems thrive once 
again.
  We still have a long way to go to bring the Everglades back to full 
ecological prosperity, and many challenges remain ahead; but by 
authorizing this project, we will be able to take a determined step in 
the right direction, helping Florida's environment and economy.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased that this bill includes 
authorizations for critical water projects important to the State of 
Florida and for many other States around the country, I am disheartened 
to see a measure that was reported favorably out of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee with bipartisan support become shamefully 
transformed by Republican leadership.
  Under the guise of a budgetary point of order, the Republican 
leadership stripped a provision that would have unlocked the harbor 
maintenance trust fund to ensure that revenues collected from shippers 
are used to actually maintain U.S. coastal and Great Lakes harbors.
  So after working in a strong bipartisan fashion to craft a bill that 
all Members could support and after reporting the bill by voice vote, 
the majority saw fit to sabotage the good faith negotiating and hard 
work by--and I underscore one Member, a friend of mine--the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Hahn), who has worked on this the entirety of the 
time that she has been here in Congress, and I am sure serves as a 
disappointment for her. She will speak to that later.
  Mr. Speaker, later today we will be debating a rule for a bill that, 
once again, attacks the Affordable Care Act. That bill also had two 
points of order made against it. Yet, the majority provided that 
legislation with a waiver against those points of order. With these 
contrasting decisions, the majority has revealed its hypocrisy.
  Work in a bipartisan fashion on a major infrastructure bill that gets 
favorably voice voted out of committee and leadership changes the bill 
and provides no waiver.
  Attack the Affordable Care Act in a red meat political messaging bill 
for the extreme right and leadership allows a waiver of the point of 
order so the bill may move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also disheartened to see that this legislation does 
not have any funding to help the people of Flint and that my good 
friend, the Member who represents the city of Flint in this House, 
Congressman Kildee, did not have his amendment, which would have 
provided much-needed relief to the citizens of Flint, made in order.

                              {time}  1245

  I am sure, if time permits, he will speak to the issue as well. 
Congressman Kildee sought this waiver of the rules so that his 
amendment could be made in order. This request was denied.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority grants waivers of points of order all the 
time. I have had the good fortune of being on the Rules Committee, both 
in the majority--perhaps, not often enough, in my mind--and in the 
minority. This Congress alone, as when Democrats were in charge, made 
waivers when they felt like doing so. My Republican friends have 
granted 249 waivers; yet they denied a waiver to address a critical 
public health crisis. There is plenty of blame to go around as to the 
cause of this crisis.
  I said last night that I understand the implications of the State and 
the local governments' responsibilities, but I also feel, when children 
are poisoned, that the Federal Government has an immense 
responsibility. To me, women, children, and the elderly becoming ill 
because of lead-tainted water is an ``everybody'' problem, and this 
body has a political and a moral responsibility to help the people of 
Flint right this wrong.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, if we can't get a waiver of the rules after 
this House works in a truly bipartisan way to address the issues of our 
country or to help children who have been drinking poisoned water in 
their hometowns, then when can we get a waiver?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Florida is very earnest in his comments. One of the 
reasons I enjoy working with him so much on the Rules Committee is we 
get to work on issues that affect people's lives--that make a 
difference for folks back home. Even though we are here debating the 
WRDA bill, I would be remiss if I let the reference to the CO-OP bill, 
coming later on today, pass as

[[Page 13710]]

being an attack on ObamaCare or even pass as being a waiver of the 
budget rules.
  Mr. Speaker, if you have had a chance to look at that, what you know 
is that, when U.S. citizens were forced out of the insurance policies 
that they liked and into the ObamaCare system and when those ObamaCare 
policies they were forced into failed midyear and they lost the 
insurance that they were forced into after having already lost the 
insurance that they had chosen for themselves, the law said we are now 
going to come and tax you--penalize you--once again because you have 
let your insurance policy lapse.
  This is the absurdity of having lost your insurance policy because 
the law took it from you, of having the law force you into a second 
insurance policy, which then collapses under its own weight because it 
cannot support itself, and then of you, the American taxpayer, having 
to be on the hook. So the budget point of order, which is absolutely 
waived, waives the absurd proposition that the Federal Government was 
entitled to tax American citizens who have been twice failed by 
ObamaCare because we were expecting them to pay a penalty for having 
lost their care midyear.
  This is something that unites us. This is not something that divides 
us. We have an opportunity in the next rule that comes up--in the next 
bill that comes up--to step in for those American families who, again, 
lost the insurance they wanted, who lost the insurance they were forced 
into, and who are now being faced with an IRS penalty for their 
troubles. I think this is something that our constituents have sent us 
here to do, and I am glad we are going to be taking action on that 
later today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned in his opening remarks one of 
the greatest disappointments. This bill did come out of committee 
unanimously--bipartisan--in a very fiscally responsible manner, which 
is that we levy a tax on all goods that are imported into this country. 
Every American pays a little bit more for any imported good he buys 
under the premise that that money will be used to maintain and 
construct our harbors and critical port facilities.
  Unfortunately, every year, the Republicans have seen fit to divert 
$400 million to $500 million of that tax into something else. They 
spend it somewhere else. They pretend they are reducing the deficit--
whatever. We do not know. Meanwhile, our harbors are silting in; our 
jetties are failing; and many major projects are delayed. In fact, we 
are going to authorize a bunch of new projects here--billions of 
dollars worth of projects. Unfortunately, the Corps already has 
authorized--but yet has unconstructed and unfunded--$68 billion worth. 
They are saying we can't use the tax dollars--that we can't use the 
dollars which Americans are paying a little bit more of for all of 
their imported goods--for the purpose for which the law was intended: 
dredging our harbors. Here are just two examples.
  We have Savannah--a major project. We have to deal with the post-
Panamax ship. Unfortunately, we are going to have a $15 million-a-year 
deficit in terms of maintaining that project once it is constructed. We 
also have the Port of Charleston--$5 million a year short. Now, if that 
$400 million were not being diverted by the Republican majority to 
other purposes, those projects and others around the country could be 
fully funded.
  I have been working on this provision for 20 years, starting with Bud 
Shuster, the dad of the current chair of the committee. It came out of 
committee unanimously with support on the Republican and Democratic 
sides; yet the Rules Committee stripped it out. They stripped it out 
because they want to keep playing with that money and diverting it away 
from critical needs.
  Then one other thing. We are talking about critical infrastructure 
and the huge backlog. There is an earmark in this. Earmarks are banned. 
Technically, they kind of get around that. There is a $520 million 
earmark for a project that has had no cost-benefit analysis, that has 
not been approved by the Corps of Engineers but that, in fact, will 
include such critical infrastructure as a splash park, a swimming pool, 
ball fields, et cetera. Harbor maintenance tax dollars will be spent on 
these projects in a $520 million boondoggle that has never had a cost-
benefit analysis because one member of the Appropriations Committee 
managed to slip it into an appropriations bill years ago. Then, with a 
little sleight of hand, he said: ``Oh, well. Yeah. It was never 
authorized, never evaluated; but if we tweak it a little bit and say, 
`Well, we are modifying it,' then we can say, `Oh, it is okay.'''
  This is not exactly on the up-and-up here today, folks. We are 
diverting precious tax dollars away from critical infrastructure to 
whatever kind of special things the Republicans have somewhere else 
that they want to fund, and we are funding boondoggles and earmarks to 
the tune of a half a billion dollars.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. To just get back to the core of this, other than that, 
it is a pretty good bill.
  It is critical that we maintain our ports and our infrastructure, and 
it is critical for our competition--the world economy; but we need to 
stop hoodwinking the American people. If you are not going to spend the 
tax for the purpose for which it was collected--harbor maintenance and 
construction--then lower the tax, because every American is paying a 
little bit more for every imported good. Besides that, they are paying 
a lot more because the ships are way out to sea, in line, because they 
can't access our ports, again, because of deferred maintenance at 
portside facilities.
  We have got that money. We are collecting the tax. Let's spend the 
tax in the way in which it is authorized under the law of the United 
States of America, and let's stop playing games.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I say, in broad terms, that I support what the gentleman from Oregon 
has just said. I served with him on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. I was one of the folks who supported the bill 
that unanimously left committee. The great State of Georgia is 
dependent on the Port of Savannah, about which the gentleman from 
Oregon has just laid out the critical funding infrastructure needs.
  The question with the harbor maintenance trust fund, I want to be 
clear, is not one of the diversions of those resources. We often talk 
about trust funds as if someone is dipping his hand in and taking money 
out of the trust funds, and there is not a single person who works at a 
single port in the great State of Georgia who believes that is true--
because it is not. The trust fund still sits there. The gentleman's 
point is that we should be spending the money in the trust fund, and he 
is absolutely right about that. Correct any misunderstanding. No one is 
spending those resources elsewhere. Those resources are still in the 
trust fund, and they ought to be spent.
  The question then becomes for this Chamber: Are we going to delegate 
that authority, as we do time and time again, to the administration, 
and the administration will spend that money any way the administration 
sees fit; or will we, utilizing the constitutional powers not given to 
this body but required of this body, spend those dollars as our 
constituents see fit--in an accountable fashion, not by unelected 
bureaucrats, but by folks who are elected and who stand for election 
every 2 years?
  These dollars need to go out the door. The Port of Savannah is 
critical because it is so big. The Port of Brunswick, in Georgia, is 
even more challenged by dredging that hasn't happened but that should 
have happened.

[[Page 13711]]

The project that my friend from Florida mentioned, the Everglades, is 
not a local port project in Florida; that is a project of national 
significance. We all stand for the restoration that needs to happen 
there in the Everglades, a national environmental and natural treasure. 
We have failed in making those decisions, and if we delegate this 
authority in its entirety to the administration, I tell you that we 
will have failed our constituents again.
  Mr. Speaker, you were with me and the chairman last night in the 
Rules Committee. Chairman Shuster wants to solve this problem. Chairman 
Shuster wants what I want, and I want what Mr. DeFazio wants; and what 
Mr. DeFazio wants is for us to live up to our obligation to maintain 
America's critical port and waterway infrastructure--we can and we 
should and we will--but delegating it to the administration does none 
of those things. That, we should not do. We have an opportunity to do 
it the right way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
  Ms. HAHN. I thank my colleague, Representative Hastings, for 
yielding, and I thank the gentleman earlier for recognizing my work on 
this issue since I have come to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for this bill. My 
colleagues and I, first of all, have been fighting for much-needed 
funding for the children who have been poisoned in Flint, Michigan. 
This bill should have included help for them. These families have 
waited too long, and it is inexcusable that we have not passed 
legislation on their behalf. I am also opposing this bill because an 
important provision that would take the harbor maintenance trust fund 
off budget was stripped from this bill after we passed it out of 
committee unanimously--with true bipartisan support.
  When I first came to Congress 5 years ago, I didn't think we were 
talking about our Nation's ports enough, and I started the bipartisan 
Congressional Ports Caucus, which now has over 100 members, both 
Democrats and Republicans. Some are in the caucus who don't even have a 
port that they represent; but, together, we have brought new attention 
to the problems that are facing our Nation's ports and the impact that 
they have on our economy.
  One of our caucus' priorities has been taking the harbor maintenance 
trust fund off budget so that Congress cannot use these funds for any 
other reason or keep them in a surplus that is not going to the purpose 
for which they were intended. Shippers have been paying billions of 
dollars into this fund for the purpose of maintaining our ports so that 
we can continue to have goods movement and the international trade 
industry be at the core of our economy in this country.

                              {time}  1300

  We had a $9 billion surplus at one point. That is criminal to have 
that money just sitting here not going back to our ports. In fact, over 
the last decade, less than 60 percent of the revenues that we have 
collected have been used to maintain and dredge our ports. This is 
unacceptable. Money that is collected at our ports, for our ports, 
should go back to our ports.
  Jo-Ellen Darcy, the head of the Army Corps of Engineers, told me that 
if she had the appropriate funding--which means we should take the 
harbor maintenance trust fund off-budget--all of our ports in this 
country could be dredged in 5 years. Not only would this create jobs, 
it would prepare ports across the country for the larger ships coming 
through the expanded Panama Canal.
  We made great headway on this issue in 2014 by passing a bipartisan 
WRRDA bill that established annual spending targets that led to the 
full use of these revenues by 2025.
  However, less than 2 months after that was passed, I was back here on 
the floor with my colleague, Representative Huizenga, fighting for the 
appropriations funding that matched what was set in our water bill, and 
we have had to keep fighting for that ever since.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in the Transportation 
Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, decided to address this 
injustice in May when we passed a bipartisan bill that included the 
provision to finally take the harbor maintenance trust fund off-budget. 
However, much to my shock and dismay, this provision was stripped out 
after we passed the bill out of committee.
  We cannot continue to neglect our port infrastructure and put at risk 
job growth, our economy, and global competitiveness. For these reasons, 
I cannot support this rule and WRDA in its current form, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it has to be said the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Hahn) is an amazing advocate for the harbor maintenance trust fund. She 
represents a critically important port infrastructure. It is critically 
important not just for her area, but to the entire United States of 
America.
  I do the same on the Eastern seaboard, the port in Savannah, Mr. 
Speaker, is the fastest growing container port in the country. It is 
not a catalyst for growth in Georgia; it is a catalyst for growth 
across the United States of America, particularly in the Southeastern 
portion.
  The gentlewoman was absolutely right, we made some great progress in 
2014. We came to an agreement that we need to do more. We have the 
ability to do more, and we need to do more. That is not the question 
today, Mr. Speaker. You will not find any reference made by any member 
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee suggesting that they 
don't want to do more.
  The question is: Will we do what we do so often, and that is to 
decide that Congress cannot be trusted with these decisions and let's 
just punt to the administration?
  Now, I will tell you what that means for Savannah since we saw a 
banner up here earlier on the floor talking about the Savannah port. 
What that means for Savannah is that while the Corps of Engineers says 
that we can get this port fully operational for Panamax ships within 
6\1/2\ years, providing taxpayers the maximum bang for their buck--the 
administration funded it not over 6\1/2\ years. They didn't provide 
enough funding for it to get done in 10 years. They didn't provide 
enough funding for it to get done in 20 years--the funding that was 
recommended by the administration stretched the construction out over 
two decades.
  Who wins in that? Who wins in that?
  I will tell you that an advocate for the port system, as the 
gentlewoman from California is, would not spend taxpayers dollars that 
way. I would not spend taxpayer dollars that way and you would not 
spend taxpayer dollars that way.
  Is this institution at fault for not maximizing the utility of the 
harbor maintenance trust fund?
  Yes. Yes.
  Will this institution compound that fault by delegating the authority 
away to the administration?
  The answer is yes.
  I would say to my friends that the nature of a trust fund is that it 
is there when we need it most. What the gentlewoman from California 
described is the spend-up program that was going on over a decade 
recognized that. It recognized that there is going to be a rainy day 
here where we are going to need to dip in, where the revenues won't be 
what we expected. The nature of a trust fund is not to spend it to zero 
every year. The nature of a trust fund is to have it there when you 
need it.
  We are working together to do more here, Mr. Speaker. But when the 
objection is made--and I will read it in part. Section 108 is the 
provision that we are talking about being stripped, and it allows the 
Corps to use the funds available in the harbor maintenance trust fund 
without further appropriation by Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 1960s, when you looked at the Federal budget, 
about one-third of that Federal budget was on autopilot, just going 
right out the

[[Page 13712]]

door every year primarily for income support programs. Two-thirds of 
that budget was investing in the United States of America, growing the 
United States of America, focused on our kids, focused on our ports, 
focused on our schools, focused on our parks, focused on innovation and 
infrastructure.
  Today, that same chart has been flipped. Two-thirds of the Federal 
budget is on autopilot, and only one-third is left to the discretion of 
this institution.
  I say to my friends that I think more of us as a body than to say 
that we can't get this done. Fair enough if folks want to look back at 
history and say: But, Rob, we have been trying to get this done and we 
haven't gotten it done right yet.
  I can see that is true. We have come closer together than we have 
ever come before. More than 50 percent of this body has been here 6 
years or less. More than 50 percent of this body does not know of the 
failures. They only know of their desire to succeed, and that is why we 
have come closer than we have ever come before. Let's not punt today. 
Let's not concede failure today. Let's not decide that the President, 
whoever he or she may be next cycle, is going to know better than us 
tomorrow, better than our constituents tomorrow. Let's just do the job 
that we were sent here to do, and we have never been closer to 
celebrating that success together. I hope we will get there.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my very 
good friend who also is an appropriator.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings)--who I concur is my very good friend--for his 
leadership on behalf of Florida and particularly in protecting our 
beloved Everglades.
  While I support the underlying bill because of the critical 
investments the Army Corps of Engineers will make at Port Everglades 
and in restoring the Everglades, I, unfortunately, rise today in 
opposition to the partisan fashion in which the Water Resources 
Development Act, or WRDA, has been brought to this floor.
  I am proud the Central Everglades project, which is authorized by 
this bill, will provide over a billion dollars in Federal and non-
Federal funds to continue the essential work of restoring the Florida 
Everglades.
  The Everglades, which we call affectionately the River of Grass, is 
home to thousands of rare species and its survival relies on the flow 
of water and a high standard of water quality throughout our State of 
Florida.
  Restoring historic water flow is not only critical for the Everglades 
and for its ecosystem, but it also boosts critical freshwater supplies 
that are essential to the daily lives of millions of Floridians and the 
very future of a Florida we call home.
  Additionally, I am proud that WRDA includes authorization for the 
Port Everglades--not the same--the Port Everglades harbor dredging 
project. This has been an almost astounding 20-year planning process. 
It shouldn't have taken that long, and we are thrilled that we are 
finally here.
  The deepening and widening of the channels at Port Everglades will 
allow south Florida to receive cargo from larger ships, the post-
Panamax cargo ships coming from the widened Panama Canal. That will 
create nearly 1,500 new jobs in south Florida and over 29,000 related 
jobs statewide through new commerce coming through the port.
  However, I also want to reflect on the majority's obstructionism. For 
months, Democrats, led by Representative Kildee, have urged the 
majority to help Flint and other communities that have been exposed to 
lead to fund the necessary repairs to water infrastructure, as well as 
replace that which has been corroded and allowed lead to leach into the 
water system.
  I visited Flint in March and spoke to families exposed to lead in 
their water and whose children may have been exposed. As a mother of 
three children myself, I am outraged for those mothers in Flint who 
learned that the water their children have been drinking for months is 
dangerous and could have long-term effects on their children's 
development.
  As Americans suffer, Republican leadership's continued recklessness--
and specifically their refusal to include funding for Flint in WRDA--is 
unconscionable.
  Have you no heart or soul? Do you not feel for someone else's 
children besides your own?
  The tone deafness is astounding. The majority has even withheld a 
vote on the matter. They won't even let us vote, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the majority has even withheld a 
vote on the matter, refusing to rule in order Mr. Kildee's amendment, 
the Families of Flint Act. They have no conscience. If they did, they 
would allow a vote.
  Vote ``no,'' as I have said many times on this floor. Vote ``no.''
  Have the courage of your convictions, but let the democratic process 
work. Trust this body. As the gentleman has just said on the harbor 
maintenance trust fund, trust this body to make the decision together. 
You can't have it both ways. You either trust this body to cast their 
votes accordingly or you don't. You can't pick and choose because you 
are playing politics with the lives of children if you do.
  For this reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), who represents the Port of Charleston 
that we saw on the map earlier.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for what he has done on this bill. It would take 
the wisdom of Solomon to get all the competing interests and all the 
competing views perfectly happy on this bill.
  What I think the gentleman has done in the Rules Committee is to 
recognize that this is a bill that cannot wait. It is a bill whose time 
has come. He has absolutely the courage of his convictions. He has got 
a whole lot of heart and a whole lot of soul, and he has worked with 
other Members to say this is a bill as best constructed as we can get 
it and we have got to move.
  The question on the underlying bill that I think Ranking Member 
DeFazio and Chairman Shuster have worked so hard on is one that is 
complex in nature but incredibly simple in what it produces. It 
produces a couple of things that, I think, are worth consideration.
  First, it produces something that has everything to do with what Mr. 
Woodall was just talking about on the way that our budget used to be 
configured. There used to be a budget in the United States that was 
built around what are we going to do, what are we going to invest in 
our country to make our country more competitive. We have gone on to an 
entitlement budget that both the Republican and Democratic side would 
say doesn't work for a lot of folks out there and is a financial train 
wreck.
  I thought it was fascinating, in fact, that Mario Draghi, who is the 
head of the European Central Bank, said in Brussels yesterday that it 
is ``not enough for delivering real and sustainable growth in the long 
term'' if we continue down this road of low interest rates. In fact, he 
said a continued path of low interest rates has harmful side effects.
  I think we have seen that with a lot of retirees out there. A lot of 
folks who have pension plans that are depending on what comes next in 
financial markets are being hurt with this financial engineering. What 
he said, in short, was to be competitive in the world economy, you 
cannot continue to rest on this notion of financial engineering as a 
way to get you there.
  So what this bill is ultimately about, as Mr. Woodall was just 
pointing out, we have got to move from the European Central Bank's 
financial engineering as the way in which we are

[[Page 13713]]

supposedly competitive as an economy and go back to the basics, back to 
the basics of where we are on tax policy, back to the basics of where 
we are on regulatory policy, back to the basics on spending, taxes.
  Go down the list, but among the things on that list is this notion of 
investing in infrastructure. It is important not only in terms of 
making our economy more competitive; it is also important if you care 
about the debt and deficit. The only way we can close that gap is not 
spending restraint, but also by growing the economy; and that this is, 
in fact, a linchpin to growing the economy and, therefore, it cannot 
wait.
  I think he also recognizes what Thomas Friedman talks about in this 
so-called flat world that we live in; that it is an increasingly 
competitive world. I thought it was interesting that Hillary Clinton 
mentioned last night in the debate that 95 percent of the folks in the 
world live out there and 5 percent live in the United States, and we 
have got to trade with them. And disproportionately, the way in which 
we trade, almost 90 percent of what we buy in markets around this 
country got here by container.
  So we have got to go about this business of upgrading our port 
facilities, for instance. That is why I think that, as Representative 
Wasserman Schultz was just mentioning, it is important what is 
happening in Port Everglades. It is important what is happening in the 
port in Miami. It is important to what is happening in the port in Lake 
Charleston.
  Do I have a hometown component to the fact that I like Charleston and 
South Carolina?
  Yes. But it has everything to do with the growth of the region based 
on the Panama Canal being widened and based on post-Panamax-sized ships 
coming to the East Coast, Gulf Coast, and West Coast ports in this 
country. To be competitive, we have got to be continuing this process 
on a regular basis of upgrading our infrastructure.

                              {time}  1315

  Finally, this is about a change in process, if you look at the 
underlying bill. The Founding Fathers talked about e pluribus unum--
from the many, one--and too often we have gotten away from that; we 
have gotten to a Balkanized look at the way districts work.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, we have got to go about looking at the 
national needs of this country as opposed to just the regional needs or 
the local needs.
  We got off on the notion of earmarks, and at times our answer is just 
to cede to the executive branch that deliberation. I think that what 
this bill correctly does is it pulls back to Congress that which the 
Constitution vested with the Congress in deliberation of these kinds of 
matters, which makes it incredibly important.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you advise both of us how much time 
remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 12 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment 
to the rule to bring up a desperately needed $220 million aid package 
for the people of Flint, Michigan, who have been without clean drinking 
water for the last 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, we have known about this manmade catastrophe for more 
than a year, and we didn't give the waiver last night to Mr. Kildee's 
amendment. We have provisions to deal with manmade catastrophes dealing 
with a variety of issues, prominent among them when a freight rail goes 
off the tracks and causes their freight, that may very well be harmful 
to a community, to pollute that community. We act, as we should have 
here.
  The Republican majority continues to do nothing about this, hiding 
behind House rules to block funding and justify its inaction. I really 
don't understand it. I said last night to all of our colleagues, if it 
was any one of our communities--and I might add a footnote right there, 
there are other communities in the United States of America that do 
have problems with lead poisoning, and it augurs well that we should 
consider them as well. However, we all know the circumstances of Flint, 
Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, American families are being poisoned by lead-
contaminated water. When that happens, we have a moral responsibility 
to act now. We can't wait any longer. I have heard around here that it 
is a local and a State responsibility. Well, if that is the case, we 
need to shut this institution down because everything, then, would be a 
local and a State responsibility, and all of our infrastructure issues 
of consequence would be a State and a local issue, as they are, but the 
Federal Government has responsibilities as well.
  While there is enough blame to go around about Flint, the simple fact 
of the matter is--and I am sure the next speaker will point it out--the 
United States Senate has seen, in its wisdom, 95-3 they have voted--95-
3--to provide the $220 million, which is nothing more than a start to 
try and do what is necessary in order for people to be uplifted. This 
is an area of our country, if we were talking 40 years ago, that was a 
driving engine of this country, that portion of Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), my friend who has worked 
tirelessly on behalf of his constituents, to discuss our proposal. I 
find it shameful that he has to once again come here and ask for what 
we could have done in the Committee on Rules last night by giving him 
the necessary waiver for his amendment to be put on the floor and at 
least voted on.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Hastings, so much for 
his kind words, for yielding, and for his unyielding support for the 
people of my home community. It means a lot to me.
  I rise in opposition to the previous question so that I can bring up 
something that I hoped I was going to be able to bring up through the 
amendment process or could have been inserted in this bill in the first 
place, and that is the relief for the people of Flint that, as my 
friend said, passed the United States Senate 95-3. And yet at every 
turn, the Republican leadership in this body finds a reason, some kind 
of an excuse, or some kind of technicality to prevent us from providing 
help to a whole city that has been poisoned and continues to have water 
that is unsafe to drink.
  This is a water resources bill. The Speaker said that, no, it 
shouldn't be in the continuing resolution, this help for Flint; it 
should be in WRDA. The majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, said this should 
come up in WRDA. So last night, I went to the Committee on Rules, 
offered the amendment to put the language in WRDA, and on a party line 
vote, of course, the answer was no, nothing for the people of Flint, a 
city that is being poisoned by its own water. The Federal Government 
has the opportunity to help. Nothing.
  When the Speaker said that this is where the conversation should take 
place on Flint, I assumed that that meant a conversation would take 
place and we could debate the merit of this paid-for provision to help 
the people of Flint. But the conversation, I suppose, that the Speaker 
anticipated went something like this: No, nothing for Flint, end of 
conversation. That is shameful. What are we here for, for God's sake? 
Why do we come to this place if not to do the work of the American 
people?
  We have waived the rules in this Congress--not just since I have been 
here,

[[Page 13714]]

but in this 114th Congress--to make way for legislation that needs to 
come to the floor because it was someone's priority 249 times. Twice in 
this rule we waived the rules of the House of Representatives in order 
to get legislation to the floor.
  Let me ask a question. If there is ever a time when we ought to do 
everything we can, including waiving a point of order, it would be to 
take up relief for a city that is drinking poison, relief that the 
Senate has already passed 95-3. But what do the people of Flint get? 
Lipservice. Nothing. Excuses. It is a shame.
  This is the Congress of the United States. Let me give you a civics 
lesson for those of you who may be listening. The city of Flint happens 
to be in the United States of America. We have an obligation to all 
Americans. So when Mr. Hastings is confused, I share that confusion. 
What is it? Why is it that the majority will do backflips to bend the 
rules, to break the rules, to amend the rules, and to waive the rules 
to achieve whatever their particular goal might be? But, no, when it 
comes to the people of Flint, you are on your own.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Is the $220 million that the Senate passed 95-3 paid 
for?
  Mr. KILDEE. It is fully paid for.
  I thank the gentleman for the question. Fully paid for.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KILDEE. So we have a fully paid-for provision. There is no 
excuse. It will not increase the deficit. So it does beg the question: 
Why? Or a better way to put it: Why not?
  I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to a conclusion that I 
don't want to come to, that the leadership in this House, when they 
think about Flint or when they look at Flint, sees something different. 
They don't see American citizens. They don't see people in need. But 
there is something about this poor community, this poor majority 
minority community that exempts them from the kind of help that we have 
provided time and time again to people in crisis in this country.
  I hate to come to the conclusion that there is something about these 
people that causes this Congress to decide they don't deserve that 
help. That is a shame.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am so incensed by that presentation. I 
know my friend is passionate for his folks. I live in a majority 
minority county. And if you want to know, if any folks are watching 
this, and they want to know why we can't get things done together, they 
could use that presentation as the expose of why we are divided instead 
of united.
  How dare you suggest that folks don't care about your community. How 
dare you suggest that race is the basis of this. How dare you, when I 
sat in my committee working on this issue hour after hour and not one 
Member brought this up, not one Member brought this to the committee.
  I am incensed. Mr. Speaker, we owe each other better than that. You 
all are better than that. This institution is better than that. I know 
the gentleman is passionate, but that kind of vitriol is not going to 
get us to where I know you and I both want us to be.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and understand the gentleman's 
comment. My point is this: Prove me wrong. Prove me wrong. You have it 
in your power to take up this legislation. It is not me who is blocking 
this legislation. I don't want to come to this conclusion. It is very 
difficult to, time and time again, take this question to the floor of 
the House and wonder why Flint is exempt.
  Sympathy does not get anywhere. I understand there is all sorts of 
sympathy for the people of Flint. Well wishes. But when it comes time 
to act, when it comes time to actually do something for this community, 
nothing.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Florida, I do 
not have any further speakers remaining, and I am prepared to close if 
he is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I was happy to see the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure work in such a bipartisan way to address the water 
infrastructure needs of our Nation. I applaud the chairman and ranking 
member and all of the members on the committee for negotiating a 
measure that they were able to report favorably by voice vote. I am 
also especially happy to see so many important projects from my State 
included in the measure.
  However, leadership has once again proved that they are unable to 
free themselves from the chains of partisanship and have, therefore, 
scuttled a bipartisan bill that came out of committee on voice vote, 
and they did so at the last possible moment.
  The American people, many of them, are sickened by and tired of the 
games that we play here in the House of Representatives. All of the 
American people deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by picking up where my friend from 
Florida left off, and that is that this was an amazing work product 
that came out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  I love serving on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We 
have got a lot of good men and women from all across the country on it; 
and, yes, we are able to come together and do things that perhaps other 
committees in this House could not come together and do.
  That doesn't happen on its own. I want to recognize all the folks--
not just the members on the committee--like Geoff Bowman, Matt Sturges, 
and Collin McCune, who serve in a staff role on that committee, 
bringing all of this paperwork together so that we can get about the 
people's business.
  Mr. Speaker, we have talked about a lot of different things in this 
rule to deal with the WRDA bill. Most of them don't have anything to do 
with the WRDA bill. Folks don't know back home. My friend from Florida 
is absolutely right. People are sick and tired of the games they see 
going on in Washington. As my friend knows, committee jurisdiction 
isn't a game. It is the rules that we play by in order to get work 
done, in order to make sure that subject matter experts are working on 
individual pieces of legislation.
  I sit on Transportation and Infrastructure. I am a subject matter 
expert on Transportation and Infrastructure. I have absolutely no 
jurisdiction over the EPA or clean drinking water at all, and I don't 
have any expertise over it. I don't have any expertise.
  When my friend from Michigan asked why more isn't being done, I don't 
know. I look at a CNN article about my hometown of Atlanta that says 
our drinking water infrastructure is being delivered with pipes 
constructed in the 1800s. I look at a report from CNN that says 4,500 
drinking water facilities across this country are failing the EPA lead 
test today--that is 4,500.
  I don't know why the folks with jurisdiction over those issues are 
not at work on it. Do I think the EPA bears responsibility for letting 
folks, as the articles go on to say, cheat with impunity, that it just 
became a culture in local drinking waters that you could misreport and 
the EPA would just wink and nod and go along with it? Is there blame to 
go around, as my friend from Florida said? Of course, there is.
  One of the great surprises, Mr. Speaker, of coming to serve in this 
body is the caliber of the men and women that I have gotten to serve 
with. I get to read the reports on TV about Congress playing games, 
about partisanship, about folks who don't care about one another, and I 
know it

[[Page 13715]]

is not true. I get to read about folks who care only about feathering 
their own nest or pursuing their own career, who don't care about 
serving men and women in their times of need, and I know that it is not 
true. I hear about folks who would rather put party above people, and I 
know that it is not true. That is because I know him, I know him, and I 
know him, and right on down the line.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, is not going to solve all of the ills of this 
country. It is not even going to solve a large part of them. It is 
going to solve one little part as it deals with the critical water 
infrastructure of our ports and waterways on which so many millions of 
American jobs depend.
  I don't propose that we pass this rule and pass the underlying bill 
and absolve ourselves of any other responsibility. I propose that we 
pass this rule and we pass this underlying bill so that we can get 
about the rest of our responsibilities. One issue at a time, Mr. 
Speaker, working together, Member to Member, community to community, we 
would amaze the American people with what we could get done.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this rule; support the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 892, the special order of business 
governing consideration of H.R. 5303, the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2016, included a prophylactic waiver of points of order against 
the amendments made in order in House Report 114-790. The waiver of all 
points of order now includes a waiver of clause 9 of rule XXI, which 
requires that if a sponsor of the first amendment as designated in a 
report of the Committee on Rules to accompany a resolution sits on a 
committee of initial referral, that sponsor must have a list of 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits in the amendment to be printed in the Congressional Record 
prior to its consideration. However, it is important to note that the 
sponsor of amendment 1 in the committee report has since submitted the 
required statement.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 892 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment submitted by Representative Kildee 
     of Michigan for printing in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII 
     dated September 27, 2016, shall be in order as though printed 
     as the last amendment in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     if offered by Representative Kildee of Michigan or a 
     designee. That amendment shall be debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
                                  ____


        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. HASTINGS. 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.

                          ____________________