[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13901-13907]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5303, WATER RESOURCES 
  DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6094, 
 REGULATORY RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, AND NONPROFITS ACT; 
  AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 29, 
                    2016, THROUGH NOVEMBER 11, 2016

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 897 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 897

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 5303) to provide for 
     improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States, 
     to provide for the conservation and development of water and 
     related resources, and for other purposes. No further 
     amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     referred to in the first section of House Resolution 892 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment pursuant to this resolution the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6094) to 
     provide for a 6-month delay in the effective date of a rule 
     of the Department of Labor relating to income thresholds for 
     determining overtime pay for executive, administrative, 
     professional, outside sales, and computer employees. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     September 29, 2016, through November 11, 2016--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I told you yesterday that I would be back 
down here today with part 2 of the Water Resources Development Act 
bill.
  This structured rule in House Resolution 897 provides for further 
consideration of H.R. 5303. This rule today will make an additional 19 
amendments in order. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we 
gathered here and passed a rule that made 25 amendments in order to 
this legislation. To put that in perspective, this was a bill that 
passed unanimously out of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, on which I serve; and the Rules Committee gathered, and in 
its wisdom has now made 44 additional adjustments and improvements in 
order that have been recommended by Members of this Chamber.
  This rule also provides, Mr. Speaker, for closed consideration of 
H.R. 6094, the Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and 
Nonprofits Act. That is a bill that requires a 6-month delay in the 
effective date of the Department of Labor's new overtime rules. It 
moves the current effective date of December 1, 2016, out to June 1, 
2017.
  Mr. Speaker, I know you have heard about this issue from your 
constituents, as every Member in this Chamber has. The Department of 
Labor, in its wisdom, sought to raise the maximum wage at which 
overtime rules would apply, and effectively doubled that wage rate. 
That is all going to go into effect on December 1.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there is a single Member of this Chamber 
that doesn't believe those numbers should be adjusted, but to double 
them overnight with virtually no warning to the small business 
community, the education community, or the nonprofit community is not 
the right way to govern. This is going to impact not just the 
hardworking Americans who run these institutions, it is going to impact 
the hardworking Americans who are

[[Page 13902]]

dependent on these jobs and are currently doing the heavy lifting that 
feeds the Nation's economic engine.
  Delaying this rule for 6 months to give us an opportunity to either 
come together as a body and make changes or to allow small businesses 
and nonprofits and educational institutions to begin to adjust is just 
the right thing to do. You will hear more about that, Mr. Speaker, from 
one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who doesn't just serve on the Rules Committee, she 
also serves on the Education and the Workforce Committee that has 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, again, if we pass this rule, we will have an opportunity 
to not just complete work on the WRDA bill with the 19 additional 
amendments, but also to move forward to protect small businesses, 
educational institutions, and nonprofits.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, after a year of 
Democratic calls to address the terrible water crisis in Flint, 
Michigan, House Republicans finally moved forward an amendment offered 
by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), 
to provide assistance to the families of Flint.
  It was a year ago this month that we learned of the man-made drinking 
water crisis in Flint, which exposed thousands of our fellow Americans 
to contaminated water. These are real people, Mr. Speaker. Families 
with children--9,000 children under the age of 6--that have been 
drinking and bathing in poisonous water for over 2\1/2\ years. And even 
today, these families still do not have access to clean water from 
their taps.
  The fact that it has taken a year for Congress to stand up and do the 
right thing, to finally allow us to have a vote for the families of 
Flint, is astonishing. America is supposed to be a place where we look 
out for one another and lift our neighbors up when they are in need. 
Those are the values that define our country. As the people's 
representatives here in Congress, we need to honor those values. 
Whenever an American community is hit by a disaster, we come together. 
This should include not just hurricanes and earthquakes, but also man-
made disasters, like the one that Flint continues to face today.
  I thank the leadership, especially our leadership, our Leader Pelosi, 
and the persistence of my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee). I am pleased that we are finally set to consider a measure to 
authorize the $170 million for the repair and replacement of 
infrastructure in Flint. I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle will enthusiastically support Mr. Kildee.
  But this is just a first step, Mr. Speaker. While the amendment we 
are set to consider today, if adopted, authorizes these funds, it is 
important that we come together to ensure that the much-needed funding 
actually reaches Flint as soon as possible.
  The Senate's Water Resources Development Act, which passed that 
Chamber earlier this month by an overwhelming vote of 95-3, includes 
$220 million in relief for Flint. As we advance our water bill this 
week and set up a conference on the two measures, it is imperative that 
we keep funding for Flint a top priority.
  So while I am pleased that we were able to reach a bipartisan 
agreement on a vote for Flint, I am disappointed, however, that the 
House Republican leadership is still advancing a terrible, misguided 
bill this week to, once again, undermine regulations put forward by the 
administration to help working families.
  With all of the work left to be done on the most pressing issues 
facing our communities, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are so intent on denying long 
overdue compensation to millions of their constituents in payment for 
their hard work and long hours.
  This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 6094, legislation 
designed to delay the Department of Labor's new overtime rule, which 
increases the overtime salary threshold from $23,660 a year to $47,476 
a year. With the Department of Labor's update to the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, an additional 4.2 million salaried workers are eligible 
for overtime pay, and 262,000 working people in my home State of 
Massachusetts will benefit.
  American workers have waited long enough to get their fair day's pay 
for a long day's work that they deserve. This Republican bill will take 
$600 million out of the pockets of 4.2 million American workers who 
would have gained overtime protections on December 1. This is $600 
million that they will never see if we delay these important updates 
for another 6 months. That means, for example, the workers will have 
less money to spend on holiday presents for their families and less 
time to help their kids with their schoolwork and extracurricular 
activities.
  The simple truth is that this Republican bill is a cynical ploy to, 
once again, try to stop the rule from ever, ever going into effect. My 
Republican friends like to lecture families in poverty about what they 
are doing wrong. We hear it all the time on this floor. They tell them 
that they need to work harder to get ahead. These families are already 
working hard, very often working overtime, but they are not receiving 
the pay that they deserve for putting in the extra time.

                              {time}  1245

  Republicans like to say that they think hard work should be rewarded. 
This is it. This overtime protection is a way for us to reward the hard 
work of millions of Americans who are doing all of the right things. 
This is a way for us to ensure that every American who puts in a hard 
day's work is able to earn the fair pay that he deserves. Only in this 
place would that be considered a radical idea.
  How can Members of Congress lecture millions of hardworking American 
families who are struggling to escape poverty when they won't even 
support a measure that rewards them for the hard work that they are 
putting in every day to help their own families get ahead?
  Speaker Ryan has a lot to say about fixing poverty--rolling out a 
whole agenda to convince us that, somehow, he is serious about making 
progress in helping families. So why on Earth would Speaker Ryan and 
the House Republicans stand in the way of hardworking families 
receiving the fair pay that they deserve? That doesn't sound like a 
party that truly cares about helping every family succeed.
  America's working families are the ones who lay the foundation that 
makes our economy strong. It is simply shameful that denying 
hardworking families the overtime protections they deserve is something 
that Republicans think should be a top priority of this Congress--so 
pressing, in fact, that the House Republicans considered this bill in 
the Rules Committee as an ``emergency measure.''
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing 
and defeat this bill. It is an antiworker, antifamily bill, and it 
would only make it harder for America's hardworking families to get 
ahead. Our economy only works when hard work is rewarded, and it is 
time for Congress to stand up for those values and to support working 
families.
  It is time for us to do our jobs, Mr. Speaker. We need to be 
providing funds to fight the terrible Zika virus and the opioid crisis. 
We should be addressing the gun violence that is plaguing our 
communities. We ought to be finalizing a continuing resolution to 
ensure that our government remains open come Saturday, and I hope that 
the Senate will vote on that soon so that we can consider it.
  We need to get much-needed assistance to the families of Flint. 
Again, I think it is a stain on this Congress' reputation that this 
leadership has dragged its feet for so long on this issue of providing 
funds to the residents of Flint. This is the United

[[Page 13903]]

States of America. People ought to know, when they get water out of 
their faucets, that they are not poisoning themselves or their kids. 
These are emergencies, Mr. Speaker, and not what this bill is all about 
that my friends are bringing to the floor.
  What they are trying to do is to actually score some points with some 
in the business community who don't want to reward the work of the 
people who work in their companies, and I think that that is 
unfortunate. We ought to stand up for working families. They are the 
ones who need help. What this bill would do is make that less likely.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chair of the Rules Committee and a 
member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his leadership on 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, all too often, the executive branch enacts policies that 
sound wonderful but impose unintended consequences and burdens that 
make the lives of hardworking Americans more difficult. The issue 
underlying H.R. 6094 is another tragic example of that pattern.
  The Department of Labor acted in May to revise overtime regulations 
covering millions of American workers. This regulation will require 
companies to reclassify a significant portion of their workforce, 
eliminating flexibility in work times, bonus compensation, and 
opportunities to advance. It will also impose significant compliance 
costs that will only serve to further bury job creators under red tape.
  While members of both political parties want to see all Americans 
earn more, we cannot ignore the financial consequences of this rule. By 
dramatically increasing the number of employees who do not qualify for 
an exemption under the regulation, the Department is significantly 
increasing the cost of delivering services and is making it more 
difficult to maintain existing staffing levels.
  In plain English, this regulation could cost hardworking Americans 
hours at work or even their jobs. Entire sectors could be less 
profitable with a predictable result for the employees who are doing 
that work. These impacts do not fall solely on frequently and unfairly 
demonized big business. They affect nonprofits and schools as well as 
local and State governments. This will raise the cost of operation for 
nearly every organization and company in the country.
  I have heard from small-business owners, nonprofits, and universities 
across North Carolina that are deeply concerned about this rule. For 
example, an independent supermarket owner said that this rule would 
``effectively put him out of business. Most of our managers make less 
than $40,000 a year. When you make only one penny on the dollar net 
profits, this would force us to raise prices and make us uncompetitive 
against Walmart and other national chains.''
  For many employees, the biggest impact this legislation will have on 
them is the loss of prized flexibility and advancement opportunities. 
No longer will they be able to work flexible hours to cover children's 
doctors' appointments or other family needs. They will be forced to 
clock in and out, lose aspects of their positions that provide positive 
morale, and be reclassified into positions that do not provide the same 
satisfaction.
  It is fair to say that our Nation's overtime rules need to be 
modernized, but the Department of Labor's extreme and partisan approach 
will lead to damaging consequences that the American people simply 
cannot afford. That is why I cosponsored H.R. 6094, the Regulatory 
Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act, which would 
provide a 6-month delay in the implementation of this rule in order to 
allow the small businesses, nonprofit organizations, State and local 
governments, and corporations confronting it with desperately needed 
time to prepare and make changes to accommodate the needs of their 
employees.
  The rule before us today will provide for the consideration of this 
important legislation, and I commend both of them to my colleagues for 
their support.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to point out for my colleagues that, while many of my 
colleagues who support this legislation argue that the new overtime 
rule would overburden nonprofits or educational institutions, I think 
we need to point out a few facts here--most importantly, that that is 
just not the case. The overtime rule provides exemptions for nonprofit 
charitable organizations without sizable commercial activities. The 
overtime rule also provides educational institutions exemptions for 
teachers, coaches, graduate and undergraduate students, and 
administrative personnel.
  I just want to repeat one thing that I said in my opening. I am 
really amazed when my Republican colleagues routinely come to the floor 
and lecture poor people and people who are struggling in poverty. They 
regularly come to the floor and demonize people in this country who are 
on benefits, like SNAP--putting food on the table. You always hear, 
``You ought to work.'' ``You ought to work harder.'' Of the people on 
SNAP, for example, who are able to work, the majority of them work, but 
work doesn't pay enough to get them out of poverty. All that is being 
suggested by this rule from the Department of Labor is that people 
ought to get paid what they deserve. They ought to be able to earn 
enough to be able to have a decent life and to get out of poverty.
  I know what my friends are trying to do. They are saying it is only a 
6-month delay. They are hoping that their candidate for President--God 
forbid--would win the Presidency and would, basically, null and void 
any modernization of the overtime rules. We ought to be concerned more 
about people in this country who are working hard and who are not able 
to make ends meet. I think my colleagues ought to know there are 
exemptions in this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans have waited long enough to update our Nation's 
overtime pay rules. After years of debate and regulatory review, 
proposed rules and final rules, it is time to ensure that Americans are 
paid for the hours they work.
  When I go home to my district, I hear how hard it is for working 
women and men to meet their families' basic needs. Americans need a 
raise. The Republican majority has blocked any vote to raise the 
minimum wage, and they have blocked bills to provide women with equal 
pay for equal work. Did you know that working single mothers are paid 
about 57 cents on the dollar that men are paid right now? Today's bill 
will take $600 million in earned overtime pay from 4.2 million working 
men and women. Half a century ago, 60 percent of salaried employees 
qualified for overtime pay; today, only 7 percent do. This is because 
we did not update overtime rules until this administration stepped 
forward.
  We have heard the arguments for inaction and delay--that it is too 
hard for businesses, the false argument about nonprofits; ``this is 
happening too fast'' is another argument. They don't hold up. It has 
been 12 years since the overtime rule was changed, nearly 3 years since 
President Obama asked for action, and more than a year since the 
proposed rule was issued. The Department of Labor reviewed more than 
270,000 comments, and it changed its proposal as a result of those 
comments. It has provided flexibility for businesses, and it has 
lowered the salary threshold. The Department of Labor has been 
responsive to concerns, and now it is time for the House of 
Representatives to be responsive to the concerns and the needs of 
working families.
  In my home State of Illinois, nearly 194,000 working men and women 
and their families would be helped by overtime protections. They 
shouldn't have

[[Page 13904]]

to wait any longer. Extra work should mean extra pay. It is a simple 
matter of fairness. Workers who are hired full time should not be paid 
the same salary whether they work 40 hours a week or 60 hours a week. 
They should either be paid for the hours they work or be able to spend 
those extra hours with their families.
  Many Americans are balancing their jobs with caring for children and 
aging parents. Delaying the Department of Labor's update to overtime 
protections is unfair to those workers and their families.
  It is really time now to get on with it, to move forward. I urge my 
colleagues to reject today's rule and vote against this bill. Let these 
long-overdue overtime rules--overtime pay--for Americans take effect.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the 
great State of Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice today in support of this 
rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 6094, which is the Regulatory 
Relief for Small Businesses, Schools, and Nonprofits Act.
  In recent months, I have heard--and, I am sure, the Speaker has as 
well--from a growing number of constituents who are gravely concerned 
about the impact that the Department of Labor's new one-size-fits-all 
overtime rule would have on their jobs, would have on their businesses, 
as well as would have on nonprofit organizations.
  When the rule goes into effect on December 1, it will impose enormous 
new costs on businesses, lifting the cap of workers who are eligible 
for overtime pay from $23,600 to $47,476. I admit, on its face, this 
sounds like a real benefit for workers; however, the impacts, likely, 
will be devastating. Small businesses and nonprofits that are 
confronted with this new burden will be faced with some very difficult 
choices: having to pay thousands of dollars in additional labor costs, 
they end up having to limit their employees' hours; moving salaried 
workers to hourly positions; or, even worse, laying off workers.

                              {time}  1300

  Worse than that, the Department of Labor has made no attempt to make 
this rule workable for small business. There is no phase-in. On 
December 1, it will hit every business, every school, and every 
nonprofit in America full force, just like a freight train.
  The rule was not curtailed to geography either. It will take effect 
in the Seattle metropolitan area, where the annual mean wage is around 
$61,000, the same way it will impact the Yakima area, where that annual 
mean wage is just over $41,000.
  The way the Department of Labor went about issuing this very flawed 
one-size-fits-all rule just isn't right. H.R. 6094--which I was proud 
to cosponsor, and I thank Congressman Walberg for introducing--would 
simply delay the rule for 6 months so that we can work with the 
Department of Labor as well as stakeholders to address this issue in a 
responsible, workable way.
  Sadly, to not adopt this delay will result in job losses for the very 
people the rule was intended to help: your constituents and mine.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just make a comment for the benefit of my colleagues before I 
yield to the next speaker, and that is about this rule.
  This is a closed rule. Again, this is another pattern that my 
Republican friends seem to have developed since they have taken over 
the House; and that is, basically shutting down debate and shutting 
down the opportunity for Members to have an opportunity to express 
themselves.
  This bill was noticed in the Rules Committee, I think on Monday, and 
we did the rule yesterday. Members didn't even know this was coming up. 
So to bring a bill like this to the floor under a closed process I 
think is unfortunate. It denies Members on both sides of the aisle an 
opportunity to offer different points of view and to have a vigorous 
debate.
  Many of us believe that this Congress ought to do more to help 
strengthen opportunities and benefits for those in the middle class. We 
believe that more people ought to have the opportunity to get into the 
middle class. That is why we are fighting for a livable wage, yet we 
can't even bring that to the floor. The only things that seem to get to 
the floor are tax breaks for big businesses or repeals of the 
Affordable Care Act or bills like this that would basically take the 
pay that has been earned by workers away from them.
  Again, I think this kind of illustrates where the priorities of this 
Republican Congress really are. I mean, they are not with working 
people. They are with those who are privileged and those at the very 
top. And my hope is that maybe after this election, we can get some 
changes made where we can get back to doing the people's business, not 
just the rich people's business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Graham).
  Ms. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with deep disappointment that 
the Rules Committee didn't make in order any of my amendments to 
improve the management and health of the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, 
and Flint Rivers.
  Floridians are incredibly frustrated that the Apalachicola River is 
dying because of mismanagement and overuse upstream. Just this year, it 
was named one of the country's most endangered rivers.
  Two years ago, in a rare show of collaboration and bipartisanship on 
this very issue, Members from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, agreed to 
language that actually acknowledged the mismanagement and encouraged 
the States to stop the arguing and work together to find a solution. 
What a novel concept, but even that tiny compromise is being stricken 
in this bill. We have an egregious problem that my amendment would have 
fixed, and this Congress won't even allow it to be discussed.
  I am well aware that other States involved in this issue have a lot 
at stake. It is infuriating that other States won't recognize what is 
at risk in Florida. There are people all over the country, even some of 
you in this Congress, who spend time in the region and enjoy the 
Apalachicola's beauty and resources. It is shameful and shortsighted 
that we are letting it die because of politics and dysfunction in this 
House.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friend from Massachusetts 
that I do not have any further speakers remaining, and I am prepared to 
close when he is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question; and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would allow those 
with outstanding student debt to refinance their existing high interest 
rate loans to lower interest rates. Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives 
us an opportunity to provide immediate relief to those struggling with 
student loan debt.
  You know, when interest rates go down, people can refinance their 
home mortgages. Why can't we extend that same ability to people with 
high student loan rates?
  Everybody says that we want to make sure that everybody who wants a 
college education ought to be able to get one, yet we make it very 
difficult for people to be able to afford one. The debt that is 
accumulated--and especially the interest on that debt that is 
accumulated--is very, very difficult for people to absorb when they get 
out of school.
  So that is why Democrats have been asking time and time again for us 
to address issues like that, college affordability. How do we ease the 
burden on our young people who are trying to get a college education?
  So rather than bringing up legislation that basically will not 
increase the overtime salary threshold, thereby denying people who are 
working the ability to have a little bit of extra cash

[[Page 13905]]

in their pockets when they work overtime--that is what this is all 
about, and we are actually punishing working people--maybe we ought to 
do something to actually help working families.
  If you vote ``no'' on the previous question, we will be able to have 
a debate and a vote on this. I hope that not just Democrats, but 
Republicans as well will see that it is important for us to address 
this issue of college affordability. I, again, urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was just with a group for lunch, and I was talking 
about all of the amazing things that we are able to do in here 
together. It really is amazing. I think back on what has become known 
as the Bush tax cuts.
  You may remember, Mr. Speaker, we had President Bush; he had a 
Republican Senate; he had a Republican House; and he was trying to 
provide tax relief for the American people. But because of the way the 
rules work around here and it takes a lot of votes to get work done, he 
was not able to make that tax policy permanent. He didn't have enough 
votes. Republicans were running the entire show, but he couldn't get 
enough agreement on tax relief for Americans to make that tax policy 
permanent.
  You, me, Mr. McGovern, and President Obama, we got together and we 
made that tax policy permanent for 99 percent of Americans. We did 
together what Republicans couldn't do alone.
  My friends from the other side of the aisle often talk about 
infrastructure and how important it is to America, and they are right 
every single time they do it, Mr. Speaker. But when they passed a 
trillion-dollar stimulus bill that I opposed with every fiber of my 
being, we didn't see infrastructure grow in this country; we saw 
dollars get squandered. They controlled the White House, the U.S. 
House, the U.S. Senate. They controlled every single branch of 
government, and they were not able to succeed at creating the kind of 
infrastructure improvements that every American knows that we need.
  But you know who did, Mr. Speaker?
  You, me, Mr. McGovern with President Obama in this divided Congress 
and divided government, we got together and passed the longest surface 
transportation funding bill this country has seen since the 1990s. We 
did that together. I could go down the list: education, water 
resources, taxes, regulation. The list goes on and on and on of things, 
when we sat down and when we talked to one another, we were able to get 
passed.
  You may remember, Mr. Speaker, we were down here yesterday on the 
House floor. We were talking about the situation in Flint. We were 
talking about amendments that were not made in order. And word came 
down that the only reason they weren't made in order is because we are 
just a bunch of racists here in the House of Representatives. The only 
reason that they weren't made in order was because Republicans have no 
conscience, is what we heard from the other side of the aisle.
  I will ask anyone in this Chamber: Who thinks that gets us closer to 
a solution? Who thinks it does?
  It pushes us further apart not just as an institution here, but as a 
Nation of citizens who care about one another.
  So what happened after that, Mr. Speaker?
  We went back to the drawing board together. We worked together, and 
we are back here today together with an amendment to address the 
situation in Flint.
  How?
  Not with a nongermane amendment, as it was yesterday. Not with an 
amendment that tries to deal with another committee's jurisdiction, as 
it did yesterday. But with an amendment that is squarely within the 
jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on 
which I serve and from which this bill comes today.
  I know it is an election year, and I know that as much as 
constituents say they don't like negative ads, they show up and vote 
based on them every single time. So I know that it would be easy for my 
colleagues to conclude that the best thing to do running up to an 
election is to come down here to the House floor and denigrate 
absolutely everyone who doesn't agree with them. It is not that we have 
policy disagreements, Mr. Speaker; it is that you must be a scoundrel, 
they would say. It is not that we have policy disagreements; it is that 
you must not have a conscience, they will say. It is not that we have 
policy disagreements; it is that you don't care.
  It makes me sad because, as I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I know the 
Members of this body on a personal level, and I know every single one 
of them cares. We are down here today doing something that matters, and 
I don't know why folks aren't taking a victory lap for our successes 
together. I don't know why they want to continue to tear at the fabric 
that makes this Nation great. Caring about each other is what we do. It 
is a legitimate disagreement about how to care.
  My friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) just talked about student 
loans. I have this conversation with every single high school class I 
visit with, Mr. Speaker: How do we love you best from Washington, D.C.? 
Do we give you all the money you can possibly borrow so you can go 
anywhere in the country you want to go to get that bachelor's degree 
with which you may not be able to find a job and you now have a 
mortgage-sized debt? Or do we not lend you that money? Do we create 
work-study programs? Do we create co-op programs? Do we put you to work 
in contact with employers so that when you leave school, you have no 
debt and real skills and real experience?
  It is a fair disagreement. Some folks may think you love people more 
by giving them all the free money they can handle and the mortgage debt 
that goes with it. Other folks think you love folks by giving them 
real-world experience, real-world skills, and a real employer to talk 
to.
  I don't think that you hate children if you make that wrong decision. 
I think that we are having a discussion about how to love on those 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are down here doing today is not about stepping 
on low-income Americans. We could have a better debate about this issue 
if that wasn't what folks would come down and perpetuate. It is 
undeniable--and every single Member of this institution has seen it 
back home. It is undeniable that real working families are showing up 
on our doorstep, saying: Congressman, there is a problem; I need you to 
fix it.
  The administration just moved forward and doubled--doubled--the wage 
for which you now qualify for overtime. Now, in my part of the world--
we are not New York City; we are not Los Angeles, California; we are 
not San Francisco. $45,000 a year in my part of the world is what a 
manager makes. It is what a manager is going to make--a manager.
  What the Department of Labor has said is: You know what? Overtime--
which is what is paid to workers, not management. Salary is paid to 
management; hourly pay to workers. What the Department of Labor has 
said is: You know what? We are going to have a one-size-fits-all 
solution because, clearly, people living in small town Georgia should 
be regulated by the same rules as people living in downtown New York 
City. Surely, if we are going to fight poverty, what works in downtown 
New York City is the exact same thing we are going to need in small 
town Georgia.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, you know that is nonsense. It is not true in your area; 
it is

[[Page 13906]]

not true in my friend from Massachusetts' area; and it is certainly not 
true in my hometown.
  My friends will come to the floor and tell you it is because 
Republicans just don't like working people. This bill exempts three 
categories of people and three categories only: educational 
institutions, small businesses, and nonprofits.
  The Boys & Girls Clubs of America are headquartered in Atlanta, 
Georgia. They wrote to the Department of Labor when the Department of 
Labor released this regulation. They said they opposed it. They said 
the regulation in its current form was going to undermine their ability 
to serve young people. They are not alone.
  Mr. Speaker, those concerns are real, and if my friends on the other 
side of the aisle would sit down and talk to us about them, I know that 
they care about these issues like I care about these issues. We can all 
work to change what that limit is, but we don't have to throw families 
out of jobs. As a result, we don't have to punish small-business owners 
trying to make it work. As a result, we don't have to punish nonprofits 
who have one goal and one goal only, and that is to make a difference 
in people's lives. As a result, I don't believe, when I disagree with 
my colleagues on the House floor, it is because they are bad people. I 
think they are good people with bad ideas.
  If we can sit and talk together, a group of good people around the 
table with differing ideas, I know that we can come to a conclusion, 
which is what we have done with the second bill in this rule, Mr. 
Speaker, the WRDA bill.
  My friend from Massachusetts mentioned a terrible habit of closed 
rules. There were 44 amendments made available to this bill, Mr. 
Speaker--44. That is a bill that passed unanimously with unlimited 
debate and unlimited amendments coming out of committee. We made 44 
more amendments in order on this House floor.
  I am constantly amazed at the improvements that come from right here, 
colleagues who may not be on the committee who don't have an 
opportunity to make a difference. They bring an amendment to the 
Committee on Rules, we come together and we make it in order. We bring 
it to the House floor. It makes a difference.
  Mr. Speaker, the WRDA bill is going to affect something in every 
single district we have in this Chamber--every single district--whether 
it is direct, as it will be in the Port of Savannah or the Port of 
Charleston; whether it is indirect, as it will be for all the inland 
ports in the country; whether it is indirect because of all the job 
growth that happens around the country as a result. Ninety-nine percent 
of all of the imports and exports coming through this country, moving 
through our ports system, we did that together.
  I sat through those long committee hearings, Mr. Speaker. I don't 
remember anyone being called a scoundrel. I don't remember anyone being 
accused of not having a conscience. I don't remember anyone being 
called a racist. And I distinctly remember the bill coming out of 
committee on a voice vote, unanimous support.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people will believe us if we tell them how 
incapable we are; the American people will believe us if we tell them 
how broken self-government is; and the American people will believe us 
if we tell them that nobody else has anything to bring to the table 
except their Member of Congress. But those things will not be true.
  We are not just moving a bill to protect nonprofits and educational 
institutions and small business, Mr. Speaker. We are not just moving a 
bill that is going to do more to protect inland waterways and the 
economy than what we have seen in previous years, Mr. Speaker; we put 
together a package that I believe is going to start the logs rolling 
for all of the other priorities that we have in this Chamber. But we 
can't get to them unless we pass this rule.
  This rule came out of the Committee on Rules last night about 11:30, 
Mr. Speaker. The Committee on Rules was working late on your behalf 
last night. They say nothing good happens after midnight. That is why 
we finished up at 11:30. We have got a good rule for you. It is worthy 
of the support of this Chamber.
  I ask all of my friends to support the rule, to support the 
underlying legislation, and to allow us to continue to be about the 
business of the American people.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 897 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1434) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 
     for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1434.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

[[Page 13907]]

     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

                          ____________________