Hire more Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall) for the customary 30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the subject matter that
we are here to discuss, I do want to respond to my friend from Georgia
about Speaker Ryan's call for regular order, which I think many on our
side welcome. But we are not going to get too excited yet because that
same pledge was made when Speaker Boehner became Speaker of the House,
and that pledge was broken over and over and over again. In fact, he
presided over the most closed Congress in the history of our country,
more closed rules than any other Congress in history.

When my friend asked the question, ``What does regular order mean?''
well, it means that we don't bypass committees of jurisdiction. We let
them do their work, and then we bring that bill to the Rules Committee,
as opposed to having some committee staff write a bill in the back room
someplace in the Capitol, present it, and then have the Rules Committee
give it a closed rule. It means allowing for all sides to be heard.

The Rules Committee has routinely blocked out amendments on
legitimate issues because the Republican leadership didn't want to deal
with it. They didn't want to have that debate.

So it means a more open and transparent process. It means a process
that is more fair and more respectful of all Members, not just
Democrats, but to Republicans as well. I hope that when Speaker Ryan
made that pledge, it is more than just words; that we will see, in the
coming weeks and months, something different around here.

I would also just say that I don't mean to pick on Speaker Boehner
because we do have people on the Rules Committee on the Republican side
who have routinely voted to shut this process down. I hope that there
is a change of attitude in the Rules Committee, as well, for a more
open and a more transparent process.

So having said that, Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the
consideration of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform
Act, a 6-year highway bill. After 35 short-term extensions--35 short-
term extensions--this is a welcome step to providing the kind of
certainty that our State and our local officials need. In fact, they
have been clamoring for this for a very, very long time.

Of the 284 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for
consideration, the rule we are talking about right now makes in order
29. We expect the committee to meet later today to consider the
remaining amendments.

I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Chairman Sam Graves and Ranking
Member Eleanor Holmes Norton for all of their hard work to get us to
this point.

This isn't the highway bill that I would have written, but the bottom
line is that we need a long-term surface transportation authorization
bill. States need to be able to count on Federal funding for more than
a month at a time. Large-scale infrastructure projects take years to
complete. States need certainty, and this bill is a step forward in
that direction.

Mr. Speaker, our roads and our bridges are already in need of massive
repairs. I tell my colleagues all the time that we have bridges in
Massachusetts that are older than most of your States. The underlying
bill provides $325 billion in contract authority from the highway trust
fund over 6 years for highway, transit, and safety programs. It would
allow for automatic adjustments if more money comes into the highway
trust fund.

I am pleased to see that among the provisions in this bill is a
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which is the same language
that the House passed with strong bipartisan support last week,
notwithstanding the fact that we had to use a discharge petition
because the way this place operates, the will of the majority was not
respected. But we should vote against any amendments--any and all
amendments--that would jeopardize this provision.

Not only will a long-term highway bill help our economy, but it will
create and sustain thousands of American jobs, particularly in the
construction and manufacturing industries that were hardest hit by the
Great Recession.

In all candor, I can't say that I am enamored with everything in this
bill. I wish that it provided more robust funding levels. I am sorry to
see that we are continuing to use guarantee fees as a pay-for on an
unrelated transportation bill. G-fees should be used to protect
taxpayers from mortgage losses, not as an offset on a highway bill.

I also have serious concerns about the use of private debt collection
as an offset in this bill. Instead of raising money, if history is any
indication, it is likely the use of private debt collection agencies would result in
the Federal Government losing revenue. We know that because that has
happened in the past.

Moving forward, I would strongly, strongly caution against loading
this bill up with controversial provisions. This rule makes in order an
amendment by Congressman Ribble of Wisconsin to permit States to allow
bigger and heavier trucks on our interstate highways, and I understand
that several other amendments have been offered to increase truck size
and truck weights. I think passing these kinds of amendments is one of
the most dangerous things that we can do, and I believe it would
seriously threaten this carefully crafted compromise.

Despite what some in the trucking industry might have you believe,
bigger trucks have never resulted in fewer trucks on our road. Since
1982, when Congress last increased the gross vehicle weight limit,
truck registrations have increased 90 percent.

Now, some say if we allow bigger and heavier trucks on our Federal
Interstate Highway System, we can somehow alleviate their presence on
local roads. That is a false argument because trucks still need to make
deliveries and pickups at warehouses and businesses, and local roads
are the way they get there. So all the Ribble amendment would do is
make more of our roads less safe.

By the way, on the Interstate Highway System, these bigger and
heavier trucks can drive faster, thereby endangering more and more of
the others who are driving on these highways. Bigger truck crashes kill
nearly 4,000 people every year, and the reality is that most of those
fatalities are those in passenger vehicles, not the trucker. Big trucks
pay only a fraction of the true cost of the wear and tear they cause on
our roads and bridges. State budgets are stretched to the brink as it
is and can't afford to make up for the multibillion-dollar
underpayments.

Mr. Speaker, Americans have said loud and clear over and over again
that they don't want bigger trucks. A January 2015 nationwide survey by
Harper Polling found that 76 percent of respondents oppose longer,
heavier trucks, and a May 2013 public opinion poll by Lake Research
Partners found that 68 percent of Americans opposed heavier trucks.
That should be enough to give people who want to put bigger and heavier
trucks on our roads some pause. But as I have learned serving in this
Congress, usually this place does the opposite of what the American
people want.

Let me remind my colleagues that in MAP-21, the most recent long-term
highway bill, Congress directed the Department of Transportation to
conduct a comprehensive study on truck size and weight laws. After 2
years of careful study, DOT concluded that the current data limitations
were so profound that no changes in truck size and weight laws in
regulations should be considered until these data limitations could be
overcome. So we asked DOT to do a study, and that is their
recommendation. Yet there are all these amendments to try to get around
that.

I would just say to my friends who are thinking of voting for some of
these amendments to allow bigger, heavier, and more dangerous trucks on
the road and on our Interstate Highway System to talk to some of the
families of the victims. I have, on a regular basis, talked to people
who have lost their husbands, their wives, their kids, and their best
friends to these senseless crashes. Think about them before you just go
along with whatever particular special interest asks you to do.
By the way, those who drive these trucks are opposed to this. They
are opposed to this. Yet here we are with an attempt to try to kind of
make our roads less safe.

So loading this bill up with all kinds of exemptions to truck size
and weight laws I think would be a huge mistake and would jeopardize
the passage of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to reject the
Ribble amendment and all these other amendments that may be made in
order to put bigger, heavier, and more dangerous trucks on the road.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am now really worried about what Speaker Ryan meant
when he said that we were going to return to regular order, based on
what my colleague, Mr. Woodall, just said as he defended the Boehner
Congress, which, by the way, is the most closed Congress in the history
of our Congress--more closed rules, over 180 closed rules. If you want
to defend that process, fine.

Not only the closed rules, but on major amendments, important issues
were not even allowed to be brought up. We tried to debate the war--we
are at war--and the Rules Committee, with the blessing of the
leadership, wouldn't even allow us to bring that to the House floor.
Important issues are routinely denied here.

If your idea of regular order is still ``your way or the highway,''
then I don't think that much is going to be changed, just maybe the
same menu, a different waiter, I guess. That is about what we can
expect. I hope that is not the case.

I think the record, not only how the Republicans have treated the
minority with regard to important bills, but also to a lot of people on
your own side, has been lousy. It has been a bad record.

I am hoping that the new Speaker understands that and believes that
this place could be better served if we have a more inclusive process,
more regular order, and we respected our committees.

By the way, speaking of committees, the Transportation Committee
didn't see fit to put in a provision for bigger truck sizes and heavier
trucks. That is the committee of jurisdiction. They didn't do that.
Mr. Ribble has the right to bring his amendment. These other people
have the right to bring their amendment. Members will have a whole 10
minutes to debate this.

I would also say that not all amendments are created equally. Some
are more important than others. I think this is an amendment that is
more important than some of the sense of Congress language that we are
going to be debating in terms of amendments later.

But a whole 10 minutes and we are going to let the States decide.
That is the retort from my colleague from Georgia. I get it.

There are people in this House, especially on the Republican side,
who think the States should control everything; that when it comes to
civil rights or voting rights, let the States decide, and the Federal
Government should have no role in guaranteeing that everybody in this
country has their voting rights protected or their civil rights
protected. I disagree with that.

On this issue, it is an issue of safety. When the gentleman says that
we are just trying to take these big trucks off these side roads, that
is not true. These trucks still have to go on those small roads to do
their deliveries.

That is not going to change. They will still have to utilize those
roads. On those side roads, I wish there weren't these big trucks, but
at least they are going slower than they will on an interstate highway.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Andrew Matthews,
chairman of the National Troopers Coalition, representing 45,000
members, asking us to oppose any amendment forcing States to allow
heavier and longer trucks on our Nation's highway.

Every one of us here is saying please don't do this, please don't do
this. We will have a whole 5 minutes to make the case against that
amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Teamsters Union, which most of these
truck drivers are Teamsters, sent us a letter strongly urging us to
oppose the Ribble amendment. Law enforcement, the drivers, all these
safety coalitions say no; but a special interest comes in here and says
they would like an exemption, and everybody Clambers to try to help
them out. Know what you are voting for before you vote for this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that will
restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

We need to recommit ourselves to voter equality. This legislation
would require Federal approval in some States for changes to voting
practices that could be discriminatory.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you will notice many of us are wearing
``Restore the Vote'' pins here today because we are, quite frankly,
appalled by what is going on in certain States in terms of taking away
people's right to vote. We find that offensive, and we think that there
is a Federal obligation to guarantee that right, that we just can't
leave it up to the States. All of us in this country should have equal
protections under the law when it comes to voting.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We need to pursue this in the manner we are doing it because, again,
important issues like this don't ever see the light of day in this
House. We can't talk about voting rights or vote on a bill to protect
voting rights. We can't vote on immigration reform because my friends
are slaves to this majority rule on their side of the aisle. These are
important issues, and we shouldn't just leave them to the States in
which people's voting rights are being denied.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reiterating our call for Members to vote
``no'' on the previous question so that we can restore the vote.

Only in this Republican-controlled House of Representatives is the
notion of protecting everybody's right to vote a radical idea. We see
voter suppression efforts all across this country, and it is a Federal
responsibility. It is a Federal responsibility, and we have got to live
up to that responsibility. So I hope that my colleagues will vote
``no,'' so we can have this debate and we can have an up-or-down vote
on this.

Quite frankly, the committees of jurisdiction should have ruled this
bill to the floor, and we should be having that debate. But I guess for
political reasons my colleagues don't see the benefit in moving this
important legislation to the floor. We have an opportunity to do that
today.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend Chairman Shuster,
Ranking Member DeFazio, and their entire team for bringing us here
today with a carefully crafted compromise, 6-year highway bill, which,
I think, is absolutely imperative. Our States, our cities, and our
towns have been demanding this for a long, long time, and we are very
close to making some progress.

I would urge, like I did in my opening statement, we ought not to
screw it up with a whole bunch of controversial amendments because some
special interest PAC thinks it is a good idea.

I will again reiterate my strong opposition, not only to the Ribble
amendment, but to a whole bunch of other amendments that will allow
bigger and heavier trucks on our Federal Interstate Highway System.
These are Federal highways. Yes, it is a Federal responsibility. It is
a Federal responsibility.

I would just remind my colleagues that the people who agree with me
on this include the National Troopers Association, the National
Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, AAA, the
National League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and
Townships, the American Public Works Association, The U.S. Conference
of Mayors, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Road Safe America,
Brain Injury Association of America, Parents Against Tired Truckers,
Advocates for Auto Safety, Trucking Alliance, the Teamsters, and the
AFL-CIO. I can go on and on and on.

The overwhelming opinion on this is that we should not go down the
road of bigger and heavier trucks; yet we have got a special interest
out there that says we should do it, and so all of a sudden Members are
clamoring to do it. It would be a mistake. It would make our roads more
dangerous. It will threaten the safety of passengers on our highways.
It is a bad idea.

Certainly, people ought to pay attention to what they are voting on
before they come here and vote for this. Unfortunately, we are not
going to have the time to debate it because it is going to be 5 minutes
on each side. I think it would be a threat to this bill, and I think
that would be a huge mistake.

Let us respect the great work that has been done by the
Transportation Committee. Let's not load it up with a bunch of
controversial provisions. This is about safety on our highways, first
and foremost. If my colleagues don't believe that, they ought to talk
to the families who have lost loved ones in accidents due to bigger and
heavier trucks. They ought to talk to the drivers. They ought to talk
to people who know what they are talking about and not rely on a
particular special interest.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so we can have this debate and a vote on protecting
voting rights in this country to restore the vote.

Let's respect the work that the committee of jurisdiction has done
here, but let's vote ``no'' on these efforts to allow bigger and
heavier trucks on our roads. For the sake of our constituents, for
their safety, let us do the right thing and vote ``no'' on those
amendments.
I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source