[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1473-H1480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 662, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                         EXTENSION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 128 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 128

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     662) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway 
     safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs 
     funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a 
     multiyear law reauthorizing such programs. 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 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 
     Transportation and Infrastructure; (2) the amendment printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative Mica of Florida or 
     his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for a division of the question; and (3) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1330

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 128 provides for a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 662. This rule provides for 
ample debate and opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle, 
the majority and minority, to make sure that they have ample time to 
participate, come to the floor, and express their ideas, which is what 
this new Republican majority is enabling Members to do.
  I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The 
underlying legislation is a simple extension of service transportation 
programs through September 30 of this year.
  This legislation was introduced by the distinguished chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Mica, on February 
11, 2011, with Ranking Member Rahall as an original cosponsor. It was 
reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by a 
voice vote on February 28, 2011. This legislation went through regular 
order with bipartisan support.
  This is a clean, straight extension of current law, providing a hard 
freeze at 2009 spending levels through the end of this fiscal year. 
Without this legislation, the spending levels would expire on Friday, 
March 4, 2011.
  In an effort to provide more transparency and accountability of how 
this body has been run, which is different than how this body has been 
run for the past 4 years, the Republican Conference adopted a policy 
that would no longer permit extensions of programs on a continuing 
resolution or any other appropriations bills. This allows Members a 
straight up or down vote on an issue at hand and, in this case, it is 
surface transportation.
  The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 continues the 
authorization of Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs 
through the end of this fiscal year at the same program funding levels 
established for fiscal year 2009. This authorization is essential to 
allow funds that had been included in transportation appropriations 
legislation to flow to States and local transit agencies. We are not 
trying to get in the way of decisions that need to be made locally; we 
are simply trying to make sure that they are legally executed.
  Should this straight extension of transportation funding not be 
signed into law before the March 4 deadline, the impact would be severe 
and immediate. A shutdown would result in immediate furloughs and 
suspension of payments to States, which would hamper the Federal 
Highway Administration's ability to pay contractors. This would 
jeopardize the States' transportation funding to a tune of $154 million 
a day, killing ongoing projects, things which had been agreed on and 
are being done locally.
  This level of funding was extended by the previous Congress six times 
starting in October of 2009. Continuing this funding at 2009 levels 
allows for the appropriate funding for States to complete and manage 
their transportation projects. With an extension through the fiscal 
year, it will allow the new chairman of the Transportation Committee, 
my dear friend, the favorite son and gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) 
the appropriate time to hold necessary hearings to review and re-
estimate the funding essential for States to carry on their 
transportation projects.
  The Congressional Budget Office, which is also known as the CBO, has 
concluded that the underlying bill today does not affect direct 
spending or revenues. Further, the CBO determined

[[Page H1474]]

that, ``the nontax provisions of H.R. 662 contain no intergovernmental 
or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.''
  Additionally, according to the Department of Transportation, surface 
transportation allows for international trade, which helps sustain and 
create jobs that support our national economy.
  The data reported in the past 10 years says that U.S. surface 
transportation trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has 
increased 48.6 percent, a 13.8 percent increase in the past year alone. 
In December 2010, imports were up 41.9 percent compared to December 
2000, while exports were up 57.7 percent.
  Currently, this trade is valued at $66.5 billion annually. In an ever 
increasing global market, the United States needs to ensure that our 
surface infrastructure can sustain the tremendous growth rate of trade 
so that we can maintain international competitiveness, create jobs and 
encourage economic growth in the United States of America.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. I applaud the Republican leadership for 
following regular order for the bipartisan nature of this bill, for 
Republicans and Democrats working together through the entire process, 
and up to and including the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, the chairman of the 
Rules Committee, extending an unusual amount of time so that every 
single Member has an opportunity to come to this body and not only 
voice what they believe is important to them but also the time where 
they can come down and speak to important matters of this Congress.
  The chairman and ranking member continue to work together to provide 
a necessary extension that will get us through the rest of the year, 
and I look forward to an open and transparent process for the 
reauthorization for next year's funding also. I have confidence in not 
only Chairman Mica, but also John Boehner and Eric Cantor, as they lead 
this House of Representatives on transportation issues, to do what's 
right for a beautiful country that expects Congress to have an open and 
transparent process that is good for all Members.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bill.

 December 2010 Surface Trade With Canada and Mexico Rose 13.8 Percent 
         from December 2009 (State Rankings in Tables 5 and 7)

       Trade using surface transportation between the United 
     States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
     partners Canada and Mexico was 13.8 percent higher in 
     December 2010 than in December 2009, reaching $66.5 billion, 
     according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of 
     the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1).
       BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology 
     Administration, reported that the value of U.S. surface 
     transportation trade with Canada and Mexico fell 2.2 percent 
     in December 2010 from November 2010 (Table 2). Month-to-month 
     changes can be affected by seasonal variations and other 
     factors.
       Surface transportation consists largely of freight 
     movements by truck, rail and pipeline. In December, 84.8 
     percent of U.S. trade by value with Canada and Mexico moved 
     on land.
       The value of U.S. surface transportation trade with Canada 
     and Mexico in December was up 12.6 percent compared to 
     December 2005, and up 48.6 percent compared to December 2000, 
     a period of 10 years. Imports in December were up 41.9 
     percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7 
     percent (Table 3).


             U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada

       U.S.-Canada surface transportation trade totaled $39.8 
     billion in December, up 12.2 percent compared to December 
     2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 17.7 percent 
     higher in December 2010 compared to December 2009, while the 
     value of exports carried by truck was 10.4 percent higher 
     during this period (Table 4).
       Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in 
     December with $4.7 billion (Table 5).


             U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico

       U.S.-Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $26.8 
     billion in December, up 16.3 percent compared to December 
     2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 16.3 percent 
     higher in December 2010 than December 2009 while the value of 
     exports carried by truck was 18.7 percent higher (Table 6).
       Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in 
     December with $9.5 billion (Table 7).
       The TransBorder Freight Data are a unique subset of 
     official U.S. foreign trade statistics released by the U.S. 
     Census Bureau. New data are tabulated monthly and historical 
     data are not adjusted for inflation. December TransBorder 
     numbers include data received by BTS as of Feb. 16.
       The news release and summary tables can be found at http://
www.bts.gov. More information on TransBorder Freight Data and 
     data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at 
     http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/. BTS 
     will release January TransBorder numbers on March 29.

               TABLE 1--VALUE OF MONTHLY U.S. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Percent change  Percent change
                  Month                        2008         2009         2010        2008-2009       2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January..................................       65,160       47,459       56,697          -27.2            19.5
February.................................       69,406       47,938       59,492          -30.9            24.1
March....................................       70,787       51,055       69,943          -27.9            37.0
April....................................       74,317       49,729       65,831          -33.1            32.4
May......................................       74,128       47,881       66,805          -35.4            39.5
June.....................................       74,139       50,753       69,859          -31.5            37.6
July.....................................       71,628       51,545       61,260          -28.0            18.8
August...................................       72,254       54,254       67,964          -24.9            25.3
September................................       71,801       57,294       68,324          -20.2            19.3
October..................................       72,683       61,400       70,565          -15.5            14.9
November.................................       60,661       58,922       68,060           -2.9            15.5
December.................................       52,910       58,465       66,530           10.5            13.8
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annual...............................      829,875      636,695      791,329          -23.3            24.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding.
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.aov/programs/international/transborder/.


                  TABLE 2.--U.S. SURFACE TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO BY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Percent
                                                                                           change      Percent
                Mode                       December 2009        November     December     November      change
                                                                  2010         2010       December     December
                                                                                            2010      2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Surface Modes:
    Imports.........................  32,030................       36,544       36,345         -0.5         13.5
    Exports.........................   26,435...............       31,516       30,185         -4.2         14.2
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total.......................   58,465...............       68,060       66,530         -2.2         13.8
Truck:
    Imports.........................   19,223...............       23,761       22,480         -5.4         16.9
    Exports.........................   20,600...............       24,660       23,390         -5.1         13.5
Rail:
    Imports.........................   6,451................        7,222        7,106         -1.6         10.2
    Exports.........................   3,317................        3,912        3,785         -3.2         14.1
Pipeline:
    Imports.........................   5,125................        4,413        5,157         16.9          0.6

[[Page H1475]]

 
    Exports.........................   373..................          482          549         13.9        47.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. The
  value of trade for all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes, it also
  includes shipments made by mail, foreign trade zones, and other transportation. For additional detail refer to
  the ``Data Fields'' Section of the TransBorder web page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR_DataFields.html.
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/.


  TABLE 3.--DECEMBER 2010 SURFACE TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO COMPARED
                      WITH DECEMBER OF PRIOR YEARS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Percent change
Compared to December  in . . -------------------------------------------
              .                                           Total surface
                                Imports      Exports          trade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009........................         13.5         14.2              13.8
2008........................         25.7         25.8              25.7
2007........................          5.4         14.3               9.2
2006........................          7.2         20.1              12.7
2005........................          5.3         22.8              12.6
2004........................         22.5         34.8              27.8
2003........................         40.1         54.9              46.5
2002........................         54.0         75.6              63.1
2001........................         66.7         83.5              74.0
2000........................         41.9         57.7              48.6 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/
 international/transborder/.


                 TABLE 4.--U.S. MERCHANDISE TRADE WITH CANADA BY SURFACE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Percent
                                                                                           change      Percent
             Mode                                  December     November     December    November-      change
                                                     2009         2010         2010       December     December
                                                                                            2010      2009-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Surface Modes............  Imports.........       18,926       20,461       21,432          4.7         13.2
                               Exports.........       16,521       19,012       18,330         -3.6         10.9
                               Total...........       35,447       39,472       39,762          0.7         12.2
Truck........................  Imports.........        8,836       10,373       10,399          0.3         17.7
                               Exports.........       12,776       14,667       14,106         -3.8         10.4
Rail.........................  Imports.........        4,121        4,893        4,707         -3.8         14.2
                               Exports.........        1,825        2,133        2,095         -1.8         14.8
Pipeline.....................  Imports.........        5,107        4,398        5,142         16.9          0.7
                               Exports.........          251          306          227        -26.0        -9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. The
  value of trade for all surface modes is not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes, it also
  includes shipments made by mail, foreign trade zones, and other transportation. For additional detail refer to
  the ``Data Fields'' Section of the TransBorder web page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR_DataFields.html.
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/intemational/transborder/.


     TABLE 5.--TOP 10 STATES TRADING WITH CANADA BY SURFACE MODES OF
       TRANSPORTATION, RANKED BY DECEMBER 2010 SURFACE TRADE VALUE
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               December
                Rank                          State              2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................  Michigan..............        4,672
2..................................  Illinois..............        3,824
3..................................  New York..............        3,276
4..................................  California............        2,462
5..................................  Ohio..................        2,394
6..................................  Texas.................        2,300
7..................................  Washington............        1,551
8..................................  Pennsylvania..........        1,486
9..................................  Minnesota.............        1,288
10.................................  Indiana...............       1,202
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/
 intemational/transborder/.


                                     TABLE 6.--U.S. MERCHANDISE TRADE WITH MEXICO BY SURFACE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
                                                                [In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Percent
                                                                                     December     November     December     Percent change      change
                     Mode                                                              2009         2010         2010     November-December    December
                                                                                                                                 2010         2009-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Surface Modes.............................  Imports..........................       13,104       16,083       14,913            -7.3            13.8
                                                Exports..........................        9,914       12,504       11,855            -5.2            19.6
                                                Total............................       23,018       28,587       26,768            -6.4            16.3
Truck.........................................  Imports..........................       10,387       13,389       12,081            -9.8            16.3
                                                Exports..........................        7,824        9,993        9,284            -7.1            18.7
Rail..........................................  Imports..........................        2,330        2,328        2,399             3.0             2.9
                                                Exports..........................        1,491        1,780        1,690            -5.0            13.3
Pipeline......................................  Imports..........................           18           15           15             4.0           -13.1
                                                Exports..........................          122          175          322            83.8          165.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. Percent changes based on numbers prior to rounding. The value of trade for all surface modes is
  not equal to the sum of truck, rail and pipeline modes, it also includes shipments made by mail, foreign trade zones, and other transportation. For
  additional detail refer to the ``Data Fields'' Section of the TransBorder web page: http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/
TBDR_DataFields.html
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/.


     TABLE 7.--TOP 10 STATES TRADING WITH MEXICO BY SURFACE MODES OF
       TRANSPORTATION RANKED BY DECEMBER 2010 SURFACE TRADE VALUE
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               December
                Rank                          State              2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................  Texas.................        9,459
2..................................  California............        4,073

[[Page H1476]]

 
3..................................  Michigan..............        2,922
4..................................  Arizona...............          979
5..................................  Illinois..............          915
6..................................  Ohio..................          686
7..................................  Tennessee.............          497
8..................................  Indiana...............          445
9..................................  Georgia...............          414
10.................................  North Carolina........         399
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS TransBorder Freight Data, http://www.bts.gov/programs/
 international/transborder/.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from Texas for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 
2011, prevents our Nation's highway, transit, and safety programs from 
expiring ahead of the upcoming construction season by extending them at 
fiscal year 2010 funding levels through September 30 of this year.
  My friend from Texas referenced the fact that it would be bad if we 
did not do this before March 4, and I agree with him thoroughly. I am 
hopeful that he has the same attitude with reference to the overall 
aspect of any kind of shutdown of the government. A shutdown would be 
bad in any of its particulars, and not just as he referenced it, that I 
agree with, in the area of transportation and infrastructure.
  This extension allows States to continue signing contracts, managing 
planning and construction, and paying for vital transportation and 
infrastructure projects while we finalize a multiyear authorization to 
update our network. As all of us know, our interstate highways, roads, 
and bridges are in desperate need of repairs and improvements. All you 
have to do is drive around Washington to prove that.
  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2009 
report card, which rates the operational condition and future capacity 
of dams, levees, railways, roads, bridges, and transit by letter grade, 
our Nation's surface infrastructure is rated at a ``D.''

                              {time}  1340

  This is deplorable and, frankly, it's embarrassing--embarrassing for 
several reasons. I came here in 1992. We were advocating on both sides 
of the aisle that we should be about the business of repairing bridges 
in this country, and the multiples are enormous from that time. We were 
talking 14,000 bridges.
  More than 26 percent of our Nation's bridges today are either 
``structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,'' with the number of 
such bridges in urban areas on the rise. And we have seen what 
disasters can occur when a bridge collapses.
  Existing rail capacity is inadequate to handle future freight and 
passenger rail growth without significant investment. Last year, I took 
the Amtrak to New York, and when returning to Washington, I looked at 
the rail underbed. I grew up near a railroad in Altamonte Springs, 
Florida. And the railbed in that time where I grew up in the 40s was 
100 percent better than the railbed just outside of this city on the 
Amtrak line. That's ridiculous.
  Our interstate highway program has changed little since it was 
created in the 1950s by the distinguished President, Dwight 
Eisenhower's vision. With ever-increasing congestion--and we see it 
right around here--and improvement costs, our Nation's roads were even 
poorer at a D-minus in 2009. One-third of America's roads are in poor 
or mediocre condition, and 45 percent of major urban highways are 
congested.
  Just last January, the main road in and out of one of the cities that 
I'm privileged to represent, the city of Pahokee, was closed for 17 
days because of sunken asphalt. Now, that may not sound like much, a 
little old town like Pahokee being cut off. But a collapsed culvert had 
created a 2-inch dip measuring 252 square feet in size on the 
northbound lane of State Road 715. This resulted in hours-long detours 
for commuters and trucks, stymied local and regional business, and 
regrettably reduced access to Glades General Hospital and Pahokee 
Airport.
  Similar stories can be found throughout my home State of Florida and 
indeed in communities across this Nation. We can, and we must, do 
better.
  Just as routine and preventive health care costs much less than a 
trip to the emergency room, regular maintenance and improvements cost 
less than major overhauls and replacement. According to Transportation 
for America, for every dollar that we spend today on maintenance, we 
avoid $14 in future costs.
  H.R. 662 obligates up to $42.5 billion for Federal-aid highway 
programs and $639 million for the equity bonus programs to ensure that 
States receive in Federal highway funds a certain portion of the 
gasoline taxes that they contribute.
  Investing in our Nation's roads is about more than getting from point 
A to point B faster, which would be, in many respects, reason enough 
for many commuters. It's about having more time, about having more 
money, and about having more opportunities to work, play, live, and 
enjoy life. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic 
at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion. That averages to $710 per 
motorist. Furthermore, poor conditions cost motorists $67 billion a 
year in repairs and operating costs.
  One way to ease congestion is getting more people to use public 
transit. In fact, transit use increased 25 percent between 1995 and 
2005, faster than any other mode of transportation. However, nearly 
half of American households do not have access to bus or rail transit, 
and only 25 percent have what they consider to be a good alternative.
  On that note, increasing the capacity of our transportation and 
infrastructure network means nothing if our roads are not safe. Each 
year, thousands of people die in road crashes in the United States, and 
millions more are injured or disabled. As cochair of the Congressional 
Caucus on Global Road Safety, I recognize that road crash fatalities 
and disabilities represent a serious public health concern. This 
extension authorizes $742 billion in highway-safety programs 
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as 
well as $597 million for truck-safety activities of the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, in order to help save lives and minimize 
crash-related injuries.
  Safe, dependable, and efficient transportation is essential to our 
economic recovery and our Nation's competitiveness. At a time when 
unemployment in the construction industry is double the national rate, 
this extension provides much-needed market stability to create and 
sustain thousands of jobs.
  The transportation sector has played a crucial role in rebuilding the 
U.S. economy, most recently through the Recovery Act, which provided 
$27.5 billion in new funding for surface transportation programs 
through the existing Federal-aid highway program and $8.4 billion for 
transit. In addition, $1.5 billion and $600 million were made available 
in two rounds, respectively, by the discretionary grant program known 
as TIGER, the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery.
  Extending these highway, transit, and other surface transportation 
programs is not only essential to our Nation's continued economic 
recovery, but also to our long-term prosperity and future. Today, we 
find ourselves on the cusp of a great opportunity, the opportunity to 
make meaningful investments in the future of this country, improve our 
quality of life and cut future debt. We need a truly interconnected, 
multi-modal system that effectively utilizes high-speed rail, light 
rail, streetcars, van pools, motor carriers by water, efficient buses, 
cars and

[[Page H1477]]

bikes. We need a system that helps ensure that lower-income workers can 
also get to and hold down jobs, a system that gets people where they 
need to go, increases our energy independence through new sources and 
innovative technologies, improves air quality, reduces traffic deaths 
and injuries, and creates jobs by supporting America's hard-hit 
construction and manufacturing sectors.
  It is imperative that we not only extend the surface transportation 
programs through the end of the current fiscal year, but also pass a 
multi-year--yes, multi-year, as many as a 6-year--reauthorization as 
soon as possible. A new multi-year surface transportation authorization 
will create even more jobs and ensure that we can meet our growing 
transportation needs in the 21st century in a way that is affordable, 
efficient, innovative, resilient, sustainable, and accountable.
  In this country, highways, roads, bridges and transit are neither 
Democratic nor Republican. They serve all Americans and help bring us 
closer together, literally.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Carlsbad, California (Mr. Bilbray), a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I would 
just like to say, Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opportunity for all 
of us, both Democrats and Republicans, to talk openly and frankly about 
the fact that we are at a point in our history where we need to not 
only spend money, but we have to be smarter, too. I think too often in 
Washington we are thinking that our degree of efficiency or compassion 
is based on how much we spend and not how well we accomplish our goals.
  I would only ask my colleague who just addressed us to join with some 
of us who say that we need to be smarter. As a former member of the Air 
Resources Board in California, I can show you studies that have been 
done by very noted research people that point out--one study alone that 
says we could reduce fuel and emission problems by 22.6 percent. But to 
do that, we not only have to address what is the private sector doing 
in Detroit in building cars, but what is the government sector doing in 
controlling those cars when they are on the road.
  One of the biggest problems we have is Washington sends money out for 
projects, but we do not hold those projects to a standard that has been 
upgraded to 21st century standards. An example: There are studies that 
have shown that 97 percent of all stop signs that you and I stop for 
every day, Mr. Speaker, don't have to be stop signs. Those could be 
yield signs. Now granted, there are those sites with sight-distance 
problems where you have to have stops. But when you and I go drive down 
out of our home tomorrow morning, think about when you stop, why are 
you stopping? It's not for safety. Lord forbid, it's not for fuel 
consumption or for environmental conservation; it is because the law 
says you have to stop, even though there is a cost in environmental and 
economic impact. The safety factor is not the factor being determined. 
It is easier for a local government to give you a ticket on a stop 
sign, or at least that perception is there, when a yield sign is just 
as enforceable.
  A good example is why is a four-way stop always the easiest and the 
cheapest way for a government to be able to control an intersection 
when everybody knows that a roundabout has been proven to be a major 
source of safety and environmental and economic benefit.
  The fact is that communities that have been brave enough to try new 
traffic control, like the new computer-engineered roundabouts and 
traffic circles, have not only proven that it reduces congestion by a 
huge amount because it stops the queuing approach; it also eliminates 
that pollution that stop signs cause by five times more polluting than 
allowing somebody to drive through an intersection at low speed, that 
roundabouts do. But it also eliminates, as the gentleman who just spoke 
brought up, the safety factor. A roundabout eliminates the T-boning 
where fatalities occur. Actually, by going to the next generation of 
traffic control, we can not only address fuel consumption and 
pollution, but we can make our roads safer.
  So I really call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's 
look at making sure that when we send this money over to the States and 
the cities and the counties--and I was a mayor. I ran a transit system, 
the San Diego trolley system. We helped build that system. We need to 
make sure that we are doing the right thing in government. And one of 
the things that we are not doing in government that we can do and lead 
through example, if we truly care about public safety, environmental 
protection and fuel efficiency, if we really want to lead, let's not 
mandate on the private sector that they have to do something if we're 
not willing to look at our colleagues here in government and say: We 
have to reform ourselves.
  I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's work 
together. Let's start saying, look, local governments, counties and 
cities; the environmental, economic, and safety impacts of you not 
upgrading your traffic control to an efficient system is costing our 
economy 22.6 percent more than it should. It is costing our environment 
22.6 percent that it shouldn't. And the fact is, we don't know how many 
lives we can save until we are willing to do that.
  I call on both sides, let's get together and work on this and set an 
example for the rest of the world.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I say to my colleague and my friend from 
California, sign me up.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member 
of the Railroad Subcommittee and my classmate. We came here together.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I thank my classmate for giving me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule. I would like to begin by 
discussing the importance of reauthorizing the surface transportation 
bill. It has been a long time since we had a bill; since 2005, in fact. 
I cannot overemphasize the importance of completing this bill as soon 
as possible, not only to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure but for 
the desperately needed jobs it will create.
  Transportation projects are a natural economic development tool. The 
Department of Transportation has indicated for every $1 billion 
invested in transportation, it creates 42,000 permanent jobs and $2.1 
billion in economic activity. It also saves the lives of 1,400 people. 
You can't argue with those numbers.
  Transportation funding is a win/win for everyone involved. States get 
to improve their transportation infrastructure, which creates economic 
development, puts people back to work, enhances safety, and improves 
local communities.
  Yet in delaying the passage of this much-needed legislation any 
further, we are doing a disservice to the driving population, and the 
Nation as a whole. The States who are battling red ink want to see this 
bill passed. The construction companies who are laying off employees 
want to see this bill passed. And the citizens waiting in traffic jams, 
like my constituents on the I-4 corridor in central Florida, want to 
see this bill passed. If this Congress fails to pass a real 
transportation funding bill, our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure, and the citizens who use it, will suffer for years to 
come.
  There are numerous studies that have come out in the last few months 
documenting the current state of affairs. The American Society of Civil 
Engineers has found that this country's infrastructure ranked ``D''--
barely passing, certainly not acceptable for a superpower like the 
United States.
  So we need to really pass this bill and really pass a full 6-year 
reauthorization bill so the States can plan and the communities can 
plan for their transportation needs.
  I have to take a moment to talk about high-speed rail because come 
Friday--it is a very sad state of affairs for the people of Florida. 
The Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, has indicated that he is going to 
turn down $2.5 billion for Federal high-speed rail funding. That is 
very sad for the people of Florida because we have worked for a number 
of years across the aisle. Mr. Mica and I have worked. And, in fact,

[[Page H1478]]

when I was first elected, for every dollar we sent to Washington, we 
were receiving 77 cents in Florida transportation dollars. I worked to 
change that formula, and now we get 92 cents, and that is $5 billion.
  Well, for once Florida has an opportunity to get some of their 
gasoline tax dollars back and to put Floridians to work. We have 12 
percent unemployment. With the 90 percent funding from the Federal 
Government and the 10 percent private, that would generate over 60,000 
jobs. But it is so sad, and it is really a no-brainer for the Governor. 
He indicated he spent over $100 million to be the Governor of the State 
of Florida, and he indicated that he wanted to put Floridians to work.
  Well, Mr. Governor, how are you going to put them to work? What are 
you going to work them on besides talk? What really puts people to work 
is transportation and infrastructure, and it is a no-brainer, the high-
speed rail project. The communities have worked on it. In fact, in 1980 
Bob Graham, being the Governor, appointed me to a committee to work on 
high-speed rail. Let me just say, when there is no vision, the people 
perish.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  And I would also take this opportunity, if she would yield to me, to 
ask her a question.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The previous SAFETEA-LU measure provided 
some funding for a high-speed rail corridor. This particular provision 
does not. Am I correct that if we were to do the high-speed rail 
project, that the lowest estimate is it would provide 30,000 jobs?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Sir, that is the lowest; but it would provide 
60,000 jobs because you're not just looking at the construction, but 
everywhere you build a station is economic development, and it is jobs.
  Let me say, this is public-private. In other words, we would be 
contracting the jobs out. Companies, private companies, would be 
building these stations. In fact, over eight different companies have 
indicated that they want to be partners with this. It is sort of the 
way we build airports. The Federal Government goes in and puts the 
major infrastructure down, and then there are private operators.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. All I've got to say is that I have been elected 
for 30 years and this is in my opinion the worst politics I have ever 
seen. The Bible says, ``Without vision, the people perish.'' The people 
of Florida are going to suffer. We have a roughly 12 percent 
unemployment rate. That's over 2 million people that's unemployed. This 
is an opportunity to put 60,000 people to work. That translates not 
just in jobs, but if you have a job, you can pay your mortgage until 
the foreclosure goes down. It goes on and on. I want to thank the 
President, the Vice President, the mayors and all of the communities 
who have worked together for this project.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I enjoy my colleagues coming to the floor and talking 
about us being without a vision and that the people will perish. People 
are perishing all across our country because of the excessive spending 
that this administration and the previous two Congresses have placed 
upon the people. Excessive debt. This year, the President has estimated 
we will have a $1.650 trillion debt. And as best I can tell you, some 
sense of reality and dose of discipline must be invoked upon this 
Congress. That's what we're attempting to do not only by this bill 
today but by also following regular order, by allowing Members of 
Congress to come and speak very clearly on the floor, by allowing an 
open process, things which were never allowed in the previous two 
Congresses.
  I appreciate Members coming to the floor and talking about what's in 
the best interests of the country. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is 
that the Republican majority is going to do something about jobs. We're 
going to do something about spending. We will bring discipline, 
authority, responsibility and actions directly to the floor of the 
House of Representatives as opposed to spending which was out of 
control, ideas which ran amok, and a lack of vision and clarity for our 
future. I'm very proud of what we're doing here today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Florida was speaking about 
the light rail program that may expire on Friday, and I am hopeful that 
our Governor will understand that, a retort came from my friend from 
Texas about her saying about a lack of vision is what causes these 
kinds of matters. The gentlewoman from Florida was talking about light 
rail. I don't recall my friend from Texas being upset when we did light 
rail in Houston, and I was for that. I might add all of us know that we 
need to move people as best we can in other methodologies, as I have 
described earlier.
  Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans must work together to invest 
more in our Nation's aging transportation infrastructure network; 
invest more, not less. We have a vision for America's future 
transportation infrastructure. Now we need the leadership to make it a 
reality. I shudder to think what would have happened to this Nation's 
overall national security had Dwight Eisenhower not had the vision and 
those Congresspersons who were here and the American people did not 
agree that we would have an interstate highway system. I understand 
that it takes money to do these things.
  Let's look at Minnesota as an example. When the bridge collapsed in 
Minneapolis, tragically, lives were lost and a system that was a city's 
lifeblood had to be repaired. It has been repaired. But wouldn't it 
have been so much better, not just to avoid the tragedy, that's 
obvious, but could we not have as we do see in some of these 
situations, that these bridges need repair, these levees need repair. 
The Congresspersons from Louisiana were talking about the levees that 
were blown away during Katrina 10 years before that happened. I stand 
here today and talk about a levee in the Everglades that unless it's 
repaired, it is going to cause a disaster. You either pay me now on 
these things or you pay a whole lot later. We're not talking about not 
spending, not investing. We're talking about doing it wisely and with 
accountability.
  While I support the underlying bill, I would like to express my 
disappointment at the closed process. My colleague comes down here and 
talks about all the Members are going to get a chance to come down here 
and they're going to get a chance to express their ideas. Well, there 
may be some Members that may have had an amendment that might innovate 
something or might improve our transportation system. My friend from 
Texas will claim that this is technically not a closed rule, and it's 
true that the rule did allow one--one--amendment by Chairman Mica, who 
wrote the underlying bill that I support. You heard that correctly. The 
only Member who is allowed to offer an amendment is the same Member who 
wrote the bill.
  On January 5, the distinguished Speaker of this House for whom I have 
great respect, and he is a friend of mine, stated the following:
  ``Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, 
and engage in it--openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the Chamber 
closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work 
its will.''
  My colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) offered a motion for 
an open rule, so these important matters could be debated openly on the 
House floor. But this amendment was defeated last night, or yesterday, 
in a party-line vote. In addition, I also made a motion to amend the 
rule and make in order an amendment by Delegate Holmes Norton of 
Washington, D.C. and cosponsored by Mr. Moran of Virginia which would 
simply have permitted the District of Columbia to spend its own money 
after March 4--in other words, this coming Friday--in the event of a 
government shutdown. That was defeated on a party-line vote.
  I ask you, Madam Speaker, does this sound like an open process to 
you? I

[[Page H1479]]

urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and instead pass this 
much-needed extension through a truly open process that allows all 
Members to offer amendments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I will say that this process that we 
have had as opposed to having it just mixed in a resolution allows for 
a motion to recommit for the gentleman and his party, and it is my hope 
that they will take up that open process that we talked about where 
we'll see what their ideas are. In a few minutes we'll find out when 
they make that choice.
  Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot of things during this debate, up to 
and including about thoughts and ideas about shutting down the 
government, that that looms ahead of us. Not one Republican, not one 
Republican, is talking about shutting down the government. It is an 
issue that Republican leadership, including the gentleman Mr. Boehner, 
the Speaker of this House, has openly talked about that we will do 
every single thing that we can do to avoid a government shutdown.
  So it's my hope that this body would recognize, we're not offering 
that as a threat to the American people. We're open for doing business. 
We're trying to make sure we not only address this issue weeks ahead of 
time but that we're forthright about how we would go about giving 
options, opportunities, how we would work with the President and the 
Senate to make sure that we avoid this from happening.
  Secondly, we heard about a vision statement, a vision statement that 
evidently is lacking now from Republicans. Well, the facts of the case 
are very simple and, that is, the vision that our country sees ahead 
right now is diminishment of jobs, of a free enterprise system that is 
overburdened by rules and regulations, a policy that comes from this 
administration that is about destroying jobs, whether it be from the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission 
or, government-wide, an assault on the free enterprise system and upon 
employers.

                              {time}  1410

  So what we are trying to do is to offer some reassurance today that 
we will go ahead and reauthorize the Surface Transportation bill and 
that there will be the understanding that the gentleman--the fabulous 
chairman of the committee, John Mica from Florida--will, in fact, lead 
in a bipartisan effort with Ranking Member Rahall to provide the 
opportunity to make sure that there is public involvement, that open 
hearings are held, that we in committee talk about this, and that every 
Member is given a chance to participate.
  That is what Republicans are now willing to do: regular order, open 
processes, and a chance to make sure, as they find their way here to 
the floor, that every single bill we want, where possible, allows for a 
Democrat motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, you heard me say earlier today that my Republican 
colleagues and I are committed to an open process and to far, far more 
accountability, transparency, and an open process than what our friends 
have ever allowed us for the last 4 years.
  Today's legislation is a step in the right direction. The underlying 
bill has bipartisan support, even up at the Rules Committee, where 
Republicans and Democrats support this underlying legislation. It went 
through regular order, which is a structure which worked, and open 
debate on the floor. This is just the first step in the necessary 
transportation funding--an open dialogue with the American people, 
cities, States, counties--and it is essential that the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee takes the time to review where it is and 
to come up with the recommendations in allowing for a future that will 
be even brighter and better.
  Allowing this funding gives the States the tools that they need. We 
are working, as Chairman Mica is, with counties, cities, States, and 
with elected officials all across the country. The hard work that he is 
doing pays off again today. I will predict that we will pass this rule 
and this bill on a bipartisan basis because of the way our Speaker, 
John Boehner, our majority leader, Eric Cantor, and also the great 
chairman, John Mica, insist on making sure that the floor is run with 
openness for the body. I look forward to working with Chairman Mica and 
the rest of the committee on that endeavor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam 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, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 128 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 129; 
and adopting House Resolution 129, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256, 
nays 169, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 155]

                               YEAS--256

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--169

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez

[[Page H1480]]


     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Carney
     Giffords
     Hanna
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Pelosi
     Simpson

                              {time}  1437

  Messrs. OWENS, FRANK of Massachusetts, and GUTIERREZ changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CARNEY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 155, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on March 2, 2011, I inadvertently voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 155. I intended to vote ``no.''

                          ____________________