[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H740-H750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3408, PROTECTING INVESTMENT IN OIL 
   SHALE THE NEXT GENERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND RESOURCE 
   SECURITY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3813, SECURING 
    ANNUITIES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ACT OF 2012; AND PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7, AMERICAN ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE JOBS ACT OF 
                                  2012

  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 547 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 547

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3408) to set clear rules for the development 
     of United States oil shale resources, to promote shale 
     technology research and development, 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, with 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources and 20 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources 
     now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of titles XIV and XVII of 
     Rules Committee Print 112-14 shall be considered as adopted 
     in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in part A of 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 the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 3813) to amend title 5, United States Code, to secure 
     the annuities of Federal civilian employees, 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 
     Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute consisting of the text of title XVI of Rules 
     Committee Print 112-14 shall be considered as adopted in the 
     House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in part B of 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 the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 7) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highway, public 
     transportation, and highway and motor carrier safety 
     programs, 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. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in 
     the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of titles I through XIII and title XV 
     of Rules Committee Print 112-14 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill, as amended, and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate, the 
     Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further 
     consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 
     to a subsequent order of the House.
       Sec. 4.  In preparing an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute to be adopted pursuant to this resolution, the 
     Clerk shall retain the title and section designations as they 
     appear in Rules Committee Print 112-14.
       Sec. 5.  In the engrossment of a measure addressed by the 
     first or second section of this resolution, the Clerk is 
     authorized to make technical and conforming changes to 
     amendatory instructions.
       Sec. 6. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 7, the Clerk shall--
       (1) await the disposition of H.R. 3408 and H.R. 3813;
       (2) add the respective texts of H.R. 3408 and H.R. 3813, as 
     passed by the House, to H.R. 7, retaining the title and 
     section designations as they appear in Rules Committee Print 
     112-14 to the extent possible;
       (3) conform the title of H.R. 7 to reflect the addition of 
     the text of H.R. 3408 or H.R. 3813, as passed by the House, 
     to the engrossment;
       (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (5) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 3408 or H.R. 
     3813, as passed by the House, to the engrossment of H.R. 7, 
     H.R. 3408 or H.R. 3813 (as the case may be) shall be laid on 
     the table.
       Sec. 7.  The chair of each of the following committees is 
     authorized, on behalf of the respective committee, to file a 
     supplemental report to accompany any of the following 
     measures:
        (a) Natural Resources, with respect to H.R. 3407, 3408, 
     and 3410;
       (b) Ways and Means, with respect to H.R. 3864; and
       (c) Oversight and Government Reform, with respect to H.R. 
     3813.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes 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.

[[Page H741]]

                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam 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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the efforts made to address our aging national infrastructure and 
chronic unemployment.
  House Resolution 547 provides for a structured rule for consideration 
of H.R. 3408, the Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next 
Generation of Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security, PIONEERS, 
Act; a structured rule for H.R. 3813, the Securing Annuities for 
Federal Employees, SAFE, Act; and general debate for H.R. 7, the 
American Energy and Infrastructure Act.

                              {time}  1240

  This rule makes 20 amendments in order for the PIONEERS Act. Of 
these, 13 are Democrat amendments; three are Republican; and then there 
are three bipartisan amendments. This rule also makes three amendments 
in order for the SAFE Act. However, over 80 percent of the amendments 
submitted to the Rules Committee are dealing with H.R. 7, so the bulk 
of the amendment debate will take place later this week. Finally, this 
rule sets the stage for robust debate on H.R. 7, the American Energy 
and Infrastructure Jobs Act, the long-term surface transportation 
reauthorization.
  In order to gather innovative ideas and input into the 
reauthorization proposal, in addition to the regular subcommittee and 
full committee hearings held here in Washington, Transportation and 
Infrastructure Chairman Mica and the committee conducted several 
bipartisan and, in some cases, even bicameral hearings at public forums 
around the country. In total, 14 field hearings were held in locations 
like Los Angeles and Chicago to Millington, Tennessee, and Maitland, 
Florida.
  The previous transportation authorization, SAFETEA LU, was enacted in 
2005, and it expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, surface 
transportation programs and activities have operated under a series of 
short-term extensions. The most recent of these extensions expires on 
March 31, 2012. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee put 
together a long-term reauthorization of highway, transit and highway 
safety programs that will provide much-needed certainty and stability 
to those charged with rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure and all 
who depend on it for their safe travel.
  H.R. 7 authorizes approximately $260 billion over 5 years for 
highway, transit, rail, safety, and other programs, which is consistent 
with current funding levels. It provides 5 years of stability for 
States to undertake major infrastructure projects and to provide 
lasting employment. It also allows States to spend their highway money 
on actual highway projects. By removing Federal requirements that 
currently force States to spend highway money on nonhighway activities, 
the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act ensures that our 
Nation's highways and bridges are repaired and properly maintained and 
that Federal dollars are spent on the most crucial infrastructure 
needs.
  As opposed to past transportation efforts, this bill stops the annual 
raid on the general fund to bail out the highway trust fund, and is 
paid for by CBO-scored savings and revenues.
  Significant savings are generated by the SAFE Act, which increases 
Federal employee pension contributions to 2.3 percent. It also 
increases pension contributions by Members of Congress to 2.8 percent. 
Revenues are also generated by the PIONEERS Act, which not only removes 
Federal barriers that block the production of our own U.S. energy 
resources, but also creates over 1 million new energy jobs.
  Finally, unlike past transportation bills, including those overseen 
by both Republicans and Democrats, H.R. 7 contains no earmarks. To put 
that in perspective, the previous transportation law contained over 
6,300 earmarks. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act also 
significantly reforms transportation policy in this country.
  As families across the Nation tighten their own belts during these 
difficult economic times, they are reexamining their budgets to ensure 
no penny is wasted on unnecessary or duplicative expenses. Because your 
pennies are placed into the highway trust fund every time you fill up 
your car due to the Federal gas tax, it is in that same and necessary 
spirit that the American Clean Energy and Security Act reexamines the 
dozens of programs paid for by the highway trust fund to root out any 
duplication, waste, or inefficiency.
  Currently, there are over 100 Federal surface transportation 
programs. Many were added over the last 50 years since the Interstate 
Highway System was created in 1956 in order to expand the scope of the 
original programmatic goals of our transportation system. The American 
Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act reforms surface transportation 
programs by consolidating or eliminating approximately 70 programs that 
are duplicative or do not serve a Federal purpose.
  By eliminating or consolidating these cookie-cutter programs that the 
Federal Government is certainly known for, stamping out a program that 
supposedly fits Florida and Montana and Maine and every other State 
equally and including the cities and counties within those communities, 
which is almost impossible to have one plan fits all, this eliminates 
many of those programs. It gives them the flexibility to create 
programs on their own, similar to what the President just did by 
exempting many States from No Child Left Behind. Why? Because the 
States did a better job than the cookie-cutter approach done by that 
particular program.
  By eliminating or consolidating these cookie-cutter programs, the 
American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act helps to ensure that 
taxpayer dollars go to high-priority projects that have a direct 
connection to our economy. By eliminating requirements for States to 
spend highway funds on nonhighway activities, H.R. 7 permits States to 
fund those activities which they choose, but it allows States to also 
fund their most crucial infrastructure needs first. The bill also 
strengthens safety programs and gives States more flexibility to 
develop innovative safety initiatives that save lives.
  In short, the bill seeks to return the focus of our highway funds to 
interstate commerce and safe travel, and it allows States to choose 
their own courses of action.
  For those projects that are crucial for the safe and efficient 
movement of goods and people around our Nation, this legislation 
streamlines their delivery process or construction time by cutting the 
average highway construction completion time in half, from 14 years to 
7 years.
  The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act cuts the bureaucratic 
red tape by allowing Federal agencies to review transportation projects 
concurrently, delegates project approval authority to the States, and 
establishes hard deadlines for Federal agencies to make decisions on 
permits and project approvals. The bureaucracy inherent in the approval 
and delivery process has proven to be the real hurdle, delaying long 
overdue improvements to highways, bridges, and other projects. H.R. 7 
also expands the list of activities that qualify for categorical 
exclusions, an approval process that is faster and simpler than the 
standard process.
  While cutting the project review process time in half, we are also 
ensuring environmental protections, such as those under the National 
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, remain in place while making 
infrastructure improvements in a much more effective manner.
  The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act also reforms 
financing programs to increase private sector involvement in building 
infrastructure. For example, it funds the Transportation Infrastructure 
Finance and Innovation Act, the TIFIA program, for low-cost interest 
loans at $1 billion per year. It also incentivizes States to build upon 
the existing State Infrastructure Bank program by allowing States to 
seek out revenue-generating infrastructure projects that lack the 
capital to move from planning to pavement.
  As these pressing State and local infrastructure needs are met, 
taxpayer exposure for future projects will lessen

[[Page H742]]

as revenues generated by the State Infrastructure Bank-funded projects 
will be recycled back into the infrastructure bank for future projects. 
The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act provides certainty to 
communities that infrastructure will be rebuilt, and it provides 
stability to those whose jobs depend on our commitment to rebuilding 
it.
  Given the current economy, it seeks to safeguard valuable taxpayer 
dollars by cutting Washington red tape and by leveraging private sector 
dollars. It frees up States and local governments to make decisions 
that are in the best interests of their communities that they serve. It 
does all of this without a single earmark or a single tax increase, and 
it's all paid for.
  Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the 
efforts made by the relevant committees to address the Nation's 
infrastructure and chronic unemployment. I encourage my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Webster) for yielding me 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. Oh, my goodness, I don't even know where to begin. I 
first would like to publicly thank the Reading Clerk for his patience 
in slogging through the reading of this terribly complicated and 
confusing rule. I think the mere reading of this rule says it all, 
demonstrating how messed up this process is.

                              {time}  1250

  Madam Speaker, Speaker Boehner used to be fond of criticizing bills 
by saying, they wouldn't pass the ``straight face'' test. Well, let me 
tell you, I'm having trouble keeping a straight face right now, not 
when I look at this incredibly partisan, slapdash set of bills before 
us, not when I look at the awful, convoluted process that got us here.
  Madam Speaker, this process is an absolute travesty. The Republican 
leadership took a thousand-page bill--the most partisan transportation 
bill in congressional history--and made it worse. They took a bill that 
was written in secret and jammed through the Transportation Committee 
and inserted unrelated and controversial provisions like Keystone 
pipeline, ANWR, offshore drilling, and cuts in Federal pensions. Even 
worse, they changed the rules in the middle of the game because 
yesterday morning, after everyone had submitted their amendments to the 
original single bill, Speaker Boehner decided to split it into three 
separate measures, and he said it was in the name of transparency. 
Transparency? Give me a break. It was more like the Valentine's Day 
massacre of transparency.
  You know a bill is bad when the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council 
are all opposed to how it's structured. Talk about strange bedfellows.
  Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman, 
called H.R. 7 ``the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever 
seen,'' and ``the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 
years of public service.''
  The chairman of the Transportation Committee calls this a bipartisan 
product. Madam Speaker, making Democratic amendments in order in and of 
itself and then defeating them doesn't make a bill bipartisan. 
Transportation bills, by their nature, have always been truly 
bipartisan, written together by the majority and minority. Republicans 
and Democrats in the past have not only worked in good faith on this 
bill, but they have put their differences aside and did their jobs. I 
should know. I served on the Transportation Committee during a 
Republican-controlled House in my first term, and I served as a 
conferee to the 1998 reauthorization bill.
  Yet H.R. 7 abandons years of good-faith efforts by members of both 
parties to thoughtfully and responsibly craft a bipartisan 
transportation bill that reflects the priorities and vital importance 
of infrastructure investments across this country. H.R. 7 slashes 
investments in Federal highways by $15.8 billion from current levels 
over the bill's duration. It does so at a time when our roads and 
bridges are crumbling before our eyes. This bill ignores that harsh 
reality. It guts transit funding by de-linking dedicated Federal 
funding from the highway trust fund and lumping it in with a 
smorgasbord of other transportation accounts that will be forced to 
compete for annual appropriations.
  What's most egregious and irresponsible about this bill--worse than 
the hyperpartisanship, worse than the atrocious process--is that this 
bill will result in 550,000 job losses. We should be focused, Madam 
Speaker, on creating good jobs in manufacturing and construction--two 
sectors hardest hit with job losses--not kicking them while they're 
already down.
  And like so many other bills, Republicans couldn't let an opportunity 
pass to help their friends at Big Oil. Oil companies are making more 
money, hand over fist, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in 
record profits every year. Now we're seeing gas prices rise again. Yet 
Republicans continue to provide $40 billion worth of taxpayer-funded 
subsidies to companies that don't need them and don't deserve them.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, I tried to end taxpayer subsidies 
to Big Oil. But instead of asking ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and 
other Big Oil companies to pay their fair share while prices at the 
pump rise, the Republicans doubled down for their corporate friends and 
blocked my amendment. I offered it three different ways last night, and 
all three ways were rejected, not even given the courtesy of 
consideration on this House floor. I will offer it again today, if the 
Rules Committee meets, but I have no doubt the other side will continue 
what they usually do: stand with Big Oil and continue to block my 
amendment.
  Allowing more oil and gas drilling off our coasts and opening up the 
treasured Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling will do nothing 
to lower gas prices in the short term, let alone pay for this bill. At 
best, it will be years before any money would come from the new 
drilling areas.
  And let's not forget the Keystone provision that's jammed in here 
that would automatically deem--I used the word ``deem''--the 
environmentally harmful pipeline approved.
  Oh, and then there's the provision to force Federal employees--who 
are currently under a 2-year pay freeze--to nearly triple their 
contributions to their Federal retirement accounts. The Republican 
leadership has, once again, found a way to take a swipe at Federal 
employees, even in a surface transportation bill.
  This part is really confusing. The Republicans are using this attack 
on Federal employees to pay for the highway bill, but they are also, 
apparently--according to press reports--using the same revenue to pay 
for the payroll tax extension. Perhaps my friend from Florida--and I'm 
happy to yield to him--could explain to us how they expect to use the 
same pot of money to pay for two separate things.
  Well, maybe we'll get an answer later on in the debate.
  Madam Speaker, Democrats want a fully funded, commonsense 
transportation bill that puts people back to work. We want a bill that 
makes our roads and bridges safer, not more dangerous. We want a bill 
that is good for America. This is not that bill. This bill before us is 
nothing but red meat political propaganda at its worst. It simply makes 
no sense. It will not become law. We should scrap this bill and start 
over and do it the right way. That's the way we've always done it. We 
should do it in a bipartisan way, come together, and help to get a 
really good transportation bill that will put people back to work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In hearing what I heard in the Rules Committee last night and here on 
the floor this morning, it reminds me that people who have been here a 
long time love cookie cutters, and so many of the people that are 
opposed to this bill are opposed to it because they like cookie 
cutters. They like to say that this program works here and there and 
everywhere, as opposed to giving flexibility to the States.

[[Page H743]]

  Cookie cutters are used in education funding. They are used in 
Medicaid funding. They are used in this particular funding for 
transportation. And they're used to limit the flexibility of States who 
really know what their program is. It's far better for the District 
Five MPO in central Florida to put together a program, build it from 
the ground up, determine what their needs are and what modes of 
transportation they would like to have, build that program, send it up 
to the State, the legislature passes it, and it becomes law.
  But no. Right now, there are so many different little programs that 
you have to put money into that you cannot devise your own program. You 
have to live within the constraints of a Federal Government that 
believes in cookie cutters. And it's sad.
  So when you start talking about people who have been around for 35 
years and they've never seen a program like this--no, because they love 
cookie cutters. They love it the way it is because it promotes the 
Federal Government making decisions for the States and local 
communities, as opposed to the local communities being able to develop 
their own programs.
  So let me tell you what they did to Florida. In Florida, at one point 
in time, back in the times that we're talking about, we got 69 percent 
of our money back while States in other areas of the country, including 
the northeast, got maybe two times that amount of money. So the money 
and the funding and the flexibility were all nonexistent. Why?
  If I were on the take, I would have liked to have kept it the way it 
was, but when we begin flattening it out and giving every State a 
chance and returning more moneys back to the State and with that return 
also allowing them to make their own choices on how they would fund 
their transportation projects and what kind of needs they have, and 
being able to, with flexibility from the Federal Government, provide 
for those needs for local communities, there are a lot of people who 
say, I don't want to do it that way. Why? I love cookie cutters.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I don't know what the gentleman is talking about. All I do know is 
this bill underfunds our highway and transportation system. It guts 
mass transit. It's not good for any State in this country. We deserve a 
better bill.
  Also what I have learned is all of these new Members who came to 
Washington and say they want a more open process are giving us one of 
the most convoluted processes I think I have ever witnessed on this 
floor.
  At this time, it is my privilege to yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding.
  We stand here today considering a rule that is a blatant manipulation 
of the legislative process, which we have been pretty proud of, 
frankly, since the beginning of time here. Process is very important in 
the legislative business; and while it may seem like cookie cutter, we 
all still revere Thomas Jefferson and his manual. That's just the way 
we are, I guess.
  But breaking with longstanding, bipartisan tradition for the 
consideration of surface transportation bills, today's rule throws all 
notions of bipartisanship and transparency out of the window. As you've 
heard, it is the first transportation bill since Eisenhower was 
President that was not bipartisan, and it moves toward a transportation 
bill that has been widely condemned on both sides of the aisle and by 
almost everybody who knows about it in the United States.
  Now, as you can see on this poster beside me, the Grand Old Pretzel's 
rating system tracks the legislative contortions that are being done by 
the Republican leadership as they pursue a hyperpartisan agenda. We 
launched this system to answer the calls of the American people: What 
in the world is going on there? No matter which party is in power, the 
American people demand a fair shot, not a rigged game.
  The legislative acrobatics being done by the majority are really 
quite remarkable. I don't know anybody else on Earth who could have 
even thought of it. Their stunt work began late last week, as Mr. 
McGovern pointed out, when we were fully expecting to come in on Monday 
and deal with a thousand-page transportation infrastructure bill, 
legislation that we knew already, because we'd heard so many complaints 
about it, that was cobbled together into Frankenstein's monster. It is 
made up of completely, believe me, completely unrelated and most times 
unvetted provisions that addressed almost every issue under the sun.
  The Secretary of Transportation, as we all know who is our good 
friend, deplores this bill. He would like to see this bill fail.
  However, before the Rules Committee convened last night, and that's 
not the first time this year, we were given last-minute notice that 
Frankenstein's monster was going to be disassembled and broken into 
three separate bills. This last-minute change would allow the majority 
to limit the number of germane amendments--300 were filed--and rule out 
of order commonsense attempts by Democrats to make some special 
interests, such as Big Oil--and Mr. McGovern has fought this for 
years--pay their fair share instead of receiving billions of dollars in 
taxpayer subsidies.
  After forcing through these three bills, the majority plans to direct 
the Clerk of the House to stitch it back together. So the whole purpose 
of it is to try a sleight of hand. What shell game are we playing here? 
That's what we're up to, I'm afraid. So that gives the Senate a 
stitched-together bill which we had cut into three. I don't want 
anybody to miss this point. And they can take it or leave it. Or, I 
hope, have a better bill than this. That's what we're hoping for.
  For inventing a way to pass as many Republican amendments as 
possible, and block as many Democrat amendments as possible, while 
still sewing this monster back again, I want to award the majority four 
Grand Old Pretzels, the coveted Quadruple Contortion.
  The majority has truly achieved the remarkable. Unfortunately, their 
acrobatic achievements come at great cost to the House; and by pursuing 
a partisan agenda over transparency and bipartisanship, the majority 
moves forward alone, against the wishes of their colleagues and the 
American people.
  And I certainly should mention that the President has said this bill 
will be vetoed by him. He again calls for us to work in a bipartisan 
manner, not to be throwing more people out of work but to create jobs 
with an infrastructure bill which is time honored and may be as cookie 
cutter as it gets but, by George, it works.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I enjoyed watching ``Moneyball.'' 
I enjoyed reading the book as well. In the book, they talk about 
fielding averages, players who don't make many mistakes. And in the 
book, Billy Beane said the talent for avoiding failure is not a great 
trait. In fact, the easiest way that someone can avoid making a mistake 
is just being too slow to get to the ball.
  With all due respect, this administration and my good friends on the 
other side are simply too slow to get to the ball. The background or 
the basis of their arguments against this particular rule for this 
particular bill is they wish to fund transportation programs the old-
fashioned way, which means we spend money we don't have. What we're 
trying to do with this particular bill is go outside of the box and 
find a way to actually pay for infrastructure improvements, a way to 
pay for our transportation needs, and to do it with energy development, 
like we all have a problem with escalating prices of gas at the pump.
  For the most vulnerable of our society, we have a problem with them 
paying for heating oil. Economic development, business development 
demands a cheap source of energy, if it's going to happen; and we need 
to find a way to fund our infrastructure needs, and we are wrapping 
them all together by paying for it with economic energy development. 
Who can possibly be opposed to that?

[[Page H744]]

  Even the President of the United States, in one of his arguments for 
having a payroll tax increase, said the reason we need to do it is 
because we are paying too much money at the pump for gasoline, which I 
think is justifiable in his case. When President Obama came into 
office, the average cost of gasoline was $1.79. Today, the average cost 
for a gallon of gasoline, not inflated prices, just same dollars, is 
$3.28. That's an 83 percent increase in the cost at the pump since 
President Obama has been in office.
  Now, we asked in the Rules Committee the other day, if we went back 
to the old-fashioned way of paying for transportation and just paid for 
it out of gas taxes, how much would we have to raise to fund this 
particular program? And the guesstimate at that time was around 20 
cents a gallon--20 cents a gallon. Even if you had a small car, that's 
still two to three bucks a time every time you went to fill up. At that 
rate, nobody in the car can afford a Big Gulp. Basically, what we're 
trying to do on the Republican side is allow people to drive with good 
drinks on good roads. Our friends on the other side apparently want us 
to walk; or if we have good roads, you have to pay significantly more 
for it. That simply is wrong.
  We have problems with heating oil in this country. The other side's 
approach to it is simply freeze in the dark. There is a better way of 
doing it; and this bill, these bills, try to accomplish that.
  The other day we heard in the Rules Committee that there is no oil in 
ANWR. That comes as a great surprise to people who live in Alaska, 
which is maybe one of the reasons why the State Legislature of Alaska 
has asked us to please allow them to have access to their resources. 
The Native Americans who live near ANWR have asked us and begged us to 
please allow them to have job production by allowing them to be able to 
get to the resources of their area. And, indeed, if we had not usurped 
the control of the lands of those people, this would have happened well 
before that.
  Even President Carter has suggested that this particular area in ANWR 
is where we should be developing our oil and gas resources, and that's 
specifically why it was put there. The fact that we haven't done it is 
nothing more than a dissatisfaction and a shame on us as the U.S. 
Congress.
  I heard the other day that there is no plan for oil shale 
development. We have no technology to do it, even though Estonia has 
been doing it for over 100 years in a way that has minimal amount of 
water that's used. Last year, they produced 1.3 million barrels, 
meeting the European Union environmental standards.
  My friends over in Germany who are trying to get away from nuclear 
are looking to Estonia and using their oil shale to supplement what 
they need. And we don't have the technology to go forward with that?
  We are looking in the western States as a Saudi Arabia of oil shale. 
We have more energy potential in those three States than there is in 
Saudi Arabia, and all we are asking to do is be allowed to deal with 
it. In the 2000s, the professionals on the ground, they did the study. 
They charted the land. They held the town meetings, and they came up 
with a plan that this administration threw out the window, arbitrarily 
making a political deal to stop that. What we're asking is to go back 
to that as our starting foundation. What the professionals on the 
ground did, use that as our basis to start moving forward in this 
particular area.
  I heard that the CBO said there's no money to be gained out of it, 
there's no energy from that.

                              {time}  1310

  What the CBO actually said is, of course, there is, but by scoring 
it--you're not going to score in the future--it's zero because you 
already know what's going to happen in the future. It is there, it is 
possible, and we can do it.
  We want alternative energy. We certainly want more solar power, as 
long as you're not bailing out failed programs. We want more wind 
power, especially off the coast of Massachusetts. We just want to have 
every element--every element--of our energy portfolio developed, 
including what we have here in the United States. These bills do just 
that.
  Let me figure out one last reason to do it. It's for kids. I live in 
a State where 70 percent of the land is owned by the Federal 
Government. That means, quite simply, when we try to fund our education 
system, we cannot charge property tax on our land. When you stop, by 
arbitrary decisions of the Department of Energy, developing resources, 
we don't get income tax from high-paying jobs, we don't get severance 
tax, and we don't get royalty payments.
  That means the 12 western States that have all the BLM lands grew 
their education funding over the last 3 years at a 35 percent rate. 
That's not bad. But every State east that has no BLM land that doesn't 
have these kinds of restrictions grew their education funding at 68 
percent, almost two to one. That's the difference. That's the reality.
  What we are doing when we stop energy development, it's hurting kids 
in the West--my kids. Their education opportunities are retarded simply 
because we do not allow the development of resources that are there, 
and that should be done.
  Look, we're asking you simply to allow us to develop these lands and, 
in so doing, make it possible to have cheaper gas at the pump, make it 
possible to heat our homes cheaply, make it possible for energy 
development that goes on energy, cheap energy, and build infrastructure 
with it at the same time to develop our potential.
  All I want you to do, Madam Speaker, is to follow the words that are 
printed above you on that wall where it simply says: ``Let us develop 
the resources of our land, call forth its powers, and see whether in 
our day and generation, we may not perform something worthy to be 
remembered.''
  It is time for us to do something worthy to be remembered by 
developing our resources, using it to pay for infrastructure, and for 
Heaven's sake, for once, Congress doesn't need to be too slow to get to 
the ball.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me just make a couple of points to remind my 
colleagues of a few things. One is, this bill breaks the tradition of 
bipartisan action to rebuild our economy, to create jobs, and 
strengthen our economy. This bill, the Republican bill, kills 550,000 
American jobs. It kills them. It cuts highway investments in 45 States 
and bankrupts the highway trust fund by $78 billion.
  I would like to include for the Record a statement by the ranking 
member, Mr. Rahall, talking about CBO's estimate, prediction that this 
would bankrupt the highway trust fund.

  News From the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                Rep. Nick J. Rahall, II--Ranking Member

       For Immediate Release: February 13, 2012.

    Breaking News--CBO: Republican Surface Transportation Proposal 
 Bankrupts Highway Trust Fund--Republican Leadership's Bill Falls $78 
                   Billion Short Over Ten-Year Period

       Washington, DC.--According to a new analysis released this 
     afternoon by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO), the Republican Leadership's surface transportation 
     bill that the House is expected to act on later this week 
     would bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund by 2016 and create a 
     $78 billion funding shortfall over a ten-year period.
       ``The Republican Leadership's partisan signature `jobs' 
     bill is not sustainable, and would lead America's 
     transportation programs down a reckless path toward 
     bankruptcy,'' said U.S. Representative Nick J. Rahall (D WV), 
     top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
     Committee. ``There is no doubt we need to pass a long-term 
     bill that creates certainty, but the only thing this bill 
     does is make certain the Highway Trust Fund will go belly up 
     even before the end of the bill.''
       New projections released today by CBO show the balance of 
     the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund will go broke 
     by fiscal year 2016 under the Republican Leadership's 
     controversial plan. Over a ten-year period, the bill would 
     create a $78 billion funding shortfall in the Highway Trust 
     Fund, adding greater uncertainty to the future integrity of 
     surface transportation programs.
       ``Despite attempts by Republican Leadership to cobble 
     together a hodgepodge of funding that included giveaways to 
     Big Oil, cutting pensions for middle-class American workers, 
     and a bailout from the General Fund, the bill is going to 
     create a huge funding shortfall that will jeopardize the 
     ability of States and local communities to move forward with 
     construction projects down the

[[Page H745]]

     road,'' said Rahall. ``Instead of working with Democrats in a 
     bipartisan fashion to create jobs, Republicans are advancing 
     a partisan proposal that will destroy 550,000 American jobs 
     while putting the future of transportation programs in 
     doubt.''
       CBO's analysis of H.R. 7, which is also available on the 
     House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Democrats' 
     Website at: http://go.usa.gov/QET.

  I also want to point out to my colleagues both from Utah and Florida, 
under this bill, Utah would lose $159 million over 5 years in highway 
funding according to the Federal Highway Administration. That, 
according to economists, is 5,531 jobs. In Florida, there would be a 
cut of $880 million over 5 years compared to current law; and according 
to economists, that would destroy 30,637 jobs. Now granted, this thing 
is over 1,000 pages, so I could forgive my colleagues for not reading 
the fine print on the bill; but if they read the fine print and they 
were advocating these kinds of reductions for their States, let me just 
say I'm glad they're not my Congressmen.
  At this point, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is a tragic exercise. It's a waste of time, 
and here's why. This is probably the only chance for a jobs bill this 
year, but it destroys almost 600,000 jobs. This bill is the only chance 
for every State to start on its backlog of projects for roads and 
bridges and transit, but it has cuts for every State except for five 
States. This bill is the only opportunity for Federal funding for mass 
transit across the country, but the bill defunds the Federal allocation 
for mass transit funding that began with Ronald Reagan.
  This bill is the only major piece of Federal legislation that has 
paid for itself with user fees, but this bill uses Federal employee 
pensions from hard-pressed middle-income workers to subsidize roads for 
almost 300 million Americans. This bill was the only chance this year 
for a bipartisan bill based on the long history of bipartisan 
Transportation and Infrastructure bills, but it is rife with poison 
pills that guarantee that it will be stillborn.
  Historically, the Transportation and Infrastructure bill has been our 
most popular bill. Even before coming to the floor today, this bill has 
received thumbs down across the Nation. That's what it should get here, 
too.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the Members that 
this bill, H.R. 7, will also be allowed to be amended. It will require 
another rule. There's no previous question in here; we're not moving 
towards that. We're going to have the opportunity to amend that bill at 
a later date. So I did say that in my opening remarks. I just want to 
remind the Members.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Florida, or anybody, who can explain to me what's happening. I just got 
an email from the Rules Committee saying that the meeting on the 
transportation bill that was scheduled for 2 o'clock today to deal with 
hundreds of amendments that Members have offered has now been postponed 
subject to the call of the Chair. I'm wondering whether my friend from 
Florida or Utah or somebody could tell me whether they have any idea 
why the meeting was canceled and when it's going to be rescheduled.
  I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And the answer 
to that question is that this--different from the last Congress--this 
Congress allows amendments to bills, lots of them. There have been a 
huge amount of amendments filed to this H.R. 7, and it's going to take 
awhile to go through them to make sure they're germane and so forth. 
The meeting is coming. Don't worry about that. It's just not going to 
happen by 2 o'clock.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I just say to the gentleman, from my understanding, 
there's already been a cutoff for amendments, that people can't file 
new amendments as we speak. Or is the gentleman telling me something 
different?
  Mr. WEBSTER. Yes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. We've passed the amendment deadline----
  Mr. WEBSTER. I'm not talking about future amendments; I'm talking 
about the ones already filed. There are many, many amendments. In 
reviewing those, there's a process, and we're going to do that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Well, I appreciate that.
  Let me ask the gentleman this: yesterday, we were told--well, I'm 
reading right now news reports that one of the problems is that one of 
your offsets to the payroll tax cut, which is going after Federal 
workers' pensions, is the same offset that you have in the highway 
bill.
  Is that the reason why this is being postponed, because the 
Republican leadership can't quite figure out how they're paying for any 
of this stuff?
  Mr. WEBSTER. Not to my knowledge, no.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to insert in the Record the 
Statement of Administration Policy making it very clear that this bill 
would be vetoed.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


      H.R. 7--American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012

  (Rep. Mica, R Florida, and Rep. Duncan, R Tennessee, Feb. 14, 2012)

       The Administration strongly opposes the Rules Committee 
     Print of H.R. 7, which includes H.R. 3408, the Protecting 
     Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, 
     Energy, and Resource Security (PIONEERS Act) and H.R. 3813, 
     the Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2012. 
     H.R. 7 does not reflect the historically bipartisan nature of 
     the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The 
     Administration has serious concerns with provisions in the 
     bill that would make America's roads, rails, and transit 
     systems less safe, reduce the transportation options 
     available to America's traveling public, short circuit local 
     decision-making, and turn back the clock on environmental and 
     labor protections.
       This bill would reduce safety throughout the Nation's 
     transportation system by failing to make necessary 
     investments in roads and bridges, limiting funding to State 
     and local governments for highway safety, and repealing 
     requirements that help ensure the safe handling of hazardous 
     materials by railroads. The bill also fails to adequately 
     improve transit safety in accordance with recommendations of 
     the National Transportation Safety Board and legislation 
     submitted by the Administration in December 2009.
       H.R. 7 eliminates programs that ensure the Nation's 
     metropolitan areas have sufficient resources to provide 
     multiple transportation options to help reduce congestion. 
     H.R. 7 also eliminates a thirty-year legacy of dedicated 
     transit funding from the Highway Trust Fund. The bill 
     allocates Federal funding for transit in a manner that 
     undermines local decision making regarding the operation of 
     local transit systems. This bill also reduces authorized 
     funding levels for Amtrak and loosens the requirements on 
     loan programs, putting taxpayer dollars at risk. In addition, 
     the bill inappropriately targets funding towards systems that 
     carry only a small number of the Nation's bus passengers. 
     Finally, while the Administration appreciates that the bill 
     does not contain earmarks, H.R. 7 eliminates funding for a 
     number of discretionary grant programs, missing an 
     opportunity to promote competition and innovation.
       H.R. 7 would also significantly weaken environmental 
     protections for transportation projects and undermine civic 
     engagement in the decision-making process. The bill includes 
     arbitrary timelines that deem an environmental and 
     substantive review satisfactory regardless of a project's 
     complexity and impact. The bill also limits judicial recourse 
     of parties affected by transportation projects in a manner 
     that undermines well-established judicial principles.
       The Administration is committed to promoting safe and 
     responsible domestic oil and gas production as part of a 
     broad energy strategy that will protect consumers and reduce 
     the Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, the 
     bill includes pay-fors that open up pristine natural habitats 
     not suitable for resource extraction and undermine prudent 
     development of the Nation's oil and natural gas resources by 
     opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial 
     development, mandating lease sales in new offshore areas with 
     no Secretarial discretion for determining which areas are 
     appropriate and safe for such exploration and development, 
     and preempting a Bureau of Land Management environmental 
     impact statement on oil shale extraction. Further, this bill 
     seeks to circumvent a longstanding process for determining 
     whether cross-border pipelines are in the national interest 
     by mandating the permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline 
     project despite the fact that the pipeline route has yet to 
     be identified and there is no complete assessment of its 
     potential impacts, including impacts on health and safety, 
     the economy, foreign policy, energy security, and the 
     environment.
       The Administration is committed to working on a bipartisan 
     basis on a surface transportation reauthorization bill that 
     provides the necessary funding to modernize the Nation's 
     surface transportation infrastructure,

[[Page H746]]

     increase transportation options, maintain and create good 
     paying jobs, and ensure lasting economic competitiveness. 
     Because this bill jeopardizes safety, weakens environmental 
     and labor protections, and fails to make the investments 
     needed to strengthen the Nation's roads, bridges, rail, and 
     transit systems, the President's senior advisors would 
     recommend that he veto this legislation.

  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm 
reminded of the Broadway play ``Chicago,'' when one of the acts is 
``razzle dazzle them.'' With all due respect to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, all the razzle and all the dazzle is not 
working here. There are conflicts in terms of the offsets that are 
being used in trying to offset money both in this bill and in other 
legislations, and I think that that's indicative of the kinds of issues 
that are being brought before the floor here.
  H.R. 7 takes $44 billion out of the pockets of millions of middle 
class American workers over the next 10 years by slashing existing 
pension benefits and cutting employer retirement contributions for new, 
current, and retiring Federal workers. That's according to the 
Congressional Budget Office--again, new, current, and retiring Federal 
workers.

                              {time}  1320

  Over the weekend in my district, I heard from many Federal workers 
who are concerned about the kinds of proposals that are being brought 
forth to offset legislation by our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. The $44 billion that I just talked about is in addition to $60 
billion that Federal workers are already contributing as a result of 
the existing 2-year pay freeze.
  Although House Republicans would force Federal workers to contribute 
more than $100 billion, given both proposals, toward deficit 
reduction--and now obviously transportation projects, and who knows how 
many times they're over-counting this--they have consistently refused 
to ask wealthy Americans to sacrifice even one penny toward these 
goals.
  I am opposed to this H.R. 7, I'm opposed to this rule, and I ask my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop attacking Federal 
workers.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to engage the gentleman from Florida, the manager of the rule, 
in just a discussion if I could.
  I don't have any problem with the rule--I don't think. The underlying 
legislation I've got a lot of difficulties with, which is why I filed 
or participated in the filing of many, many amendments, particularly on 
H.R. 7.
  What causes me some angst is on page six, at the conclusion of 
section three of the rule, it indicates that after general debate on 
H.R. 7 the Committee of the Whole will rise without motion and no 
further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to 
a subsequent order of the House. Now, I think that you can't go to 
passage without a subsequent rule and you can't do a variety of other 
things. But my concern is, as a conspiracy theorist in training, that 
that line could produce a result--you're asking for us to vote on the 
rule today, but could produce a result where you don't bring a 
subsequent rule dealing with the amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. It's fraught with difficulty because, out of these 
240 amendments that are out there to H.R. 7, I may have a different 
view on your rule today unless there is some assurance you're going to 
produce a second rule that is somehow going to resemble an open rule on 
these remaining amendments.
  I yield to the gentleman for whatever response you choose to make.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would tell you this, I'm only here as the manager of this rule. No 
other position do I espouse or claim. However, I can tell you over my 
dead body the Rules Committee will not go forward unless we have 
reviewed those amendments and come back with a second edition that 
would allow for all of the things that you said in that particular 
statement out of that page.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, the gentleman is an honorable Member and I'm 
going to go with that, but I want the concern to be mentioned.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This gets more and more interesting. I share the gentleman from 
Ohio's concern, especially in light of the fact that the Rules 
Committee canceled their meeting today at 2 o'clock that was scheduled 
to go over all these amendments.
  We have no idea what's going on. My guess is the leadership on their 
side has no idea what's going on. This process is so convoluted and it 
lacks transparency. I, quite frankly, think my colleagues should be 
ashamed of bringing this kind of a bill under this kind of process to 
the floor.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  So last year the oil industry made $137 billion in the United States. 
This year, of course, heading to $5 a gallon gasoline. They're tipping 
American drivers upside-down so fast that they'll probably make $200 
billion.
  They've got to raise about another $40 billion to pay for this 
transportation bill. They could take away the $4 billion in tax breaks 
each year over 10 years, $40 billion that they give to ExxonMobil. They 
really don't need that money. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay 
twice, once at the pump and then once as taxpayers. So they could have 
solved all of this just by taking away the oil tax breaks.
  But here's what they do: They say, one, we can drill for shale in 
Colorado and Wyoming. And we know that Shell Oil and the Department of 
Interior say that there is no commercially available technology. Two, 
they can drill in the Arctic refuge, but we know that there are no 
votes in the Senate to make it possible for that to happen. And three, 
their next proposal is to drill off of the beaches of California and 
Florida for oil--off the beaches. The Republicans are lining up 
themselves in these States to say I want to make the amendment to make 
sure we don't do that.
  So, none of this is going to happen in terms of the revenues that 
they say they're going to generate. These are phantom revenues from 
phantom drilling that's never going to happen.
  Moreover, they want to export the natural gas out of our country. 
Well, let me tell you what T. Boone Pickens says about this. This is 
what T. Boone Pickens says about exporting U.S. natural gas:

       If we do it, we're truly going to go down as America's 
     dumbest generation.

  It's bad public policy to export natural gas. Why is that? Because 
natural gas in the United States is six times cheaper than in Asia, 
it's three times cheaper than in Europe. That's why our agriculture is 
doing so well, that's why manufacturing is coming back. The cost of a 
unit of production of any product in terms of the energy which is 
needed has plummeted. That's our advantage in coming out of the 
recession.
  Finally, on the Keystone pipeline, why don't we keep the oil here in 
the United States? The Canadians want to take the oil, build a pipeline 
through the United States over our environmentally sensitive areas, 
bring it to Port Arthur, Texas, an export zone, and then send the oil 
to Asia and Latin America. Where's the American part of this? What do 
we get out of the Keystone pipeline? Nothing.
  So I will have an amendment that says, if we build that pipeline--if 
we let the Canadians--that we keep the oil here in the United States 
because the oil should stay in the United States, the natural gas 
should stay in the United States. We shouldn't be pretending that we're 
going to be raising the revenues from these other places where they are 
just phantom revenues from phantom drilling, which is never going to 
happen.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

[[Page H747]]

  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. One hundred sixty days ago, the President of the United 
States came to this Chamber and put forward a plan to create jobs for 
our country. One of the ideas that he had to create jobs for our 
country was to put our construction workers back to work building 
schools and fixing roads and bridges so they could have money to spend 
in stores and restaurants and help the country. For 160 days, the 
majority ignored this idea. Now what they've done is brought this idea 
to the floor that is doomed for failure and won't work.
  In the other body, Republicans and Democrats worked together and 80 
Members have voted for a bill that in fact would put construction 
workers back to work, they're cooperating on it, and I think it has a 
great chance to pass and be signed by the President. But consistent 
with their principle that consensus is always to be avoided, the 
majority over here did something else. The ``something else'' is a bill 
that will actually kill jobs in the United States, and we should not 
support it.
  But the way they did it I think merits some mention. Many on the 
other side were outraged when they thought the health care bill was 
going to be brought up when no one had read it and it wasn't going to 
be a straight up-or-down vote. What in fact happened was the health 
care bill was available to the public and the Members for 7 weeks--
every word of it--and there was a direct up-or-down vote.
  What we have here is a bill that's 1,000 pages long that almost no 
one has read and a procedure that avoids having an up-or-down vote on 
the bill. If you thought it was wrong in March of 2010--and it would 
have been, which is why we didn't do it--then it's wrong now. We should 
oppose the rule, oppose the bill, and work together to put Americans 
back to work.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized and 
is advised that he has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I would only remind the Members that 
there is nothing that leaves this Chamber without an up-or-down vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I take modest exception to my good 
friend from Florida. There will be no up-or-down vote on this package.
  Now, service in Congress is often a roller coaster with highs and 
lows. Well, I've had highs and lows in my service in Congress, but this 
is one of the worst moments of the last 15 years.
  At a time when our communities and our economy need us to rebuild and 
renew America, we are faced with the worst transportation bill in 
history, ever. It is so bad that the majority party did not even have a 
hearing on any of the three pieces that they've broken the 
transportation package into. It reverses 20 years of bipartisan 
transportation reform. It eliminates a 30-year commitment for transit 
and road funding certainty that comes from the Reagan administration, 
it's out the window.
  It is so bad that they aren't going to allow an up-or-down vote. The 
strategy they have is to have the pieces dealt with individually, and 
then, when they're done, if they somehow pass, and I hope they don't, 
then it's deemed passed.
  Now, what's really sad is that this is not just a partisan bill; it's 
a bad partisan bill. Like my friend from Massachusetts, I served on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for 12 years, and most of 
that time, Republicans were in charge. But we never, ever had behavior 
like this--shutting people out, shutting down the process, not 
involving the public, and moving in the wrong direction.
  It shatters a bipartisan coalition that I've been working on for 
years to develop support for resources and good policy. It's even so 
bad they get rid of the wildly popular Safe Routes to School program.
  It's not worthy of the proud tradition of the T&I Committee or, for 
that matter, even the Rules Committee. It should be rejected.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Boone Pickens is right: It makes no sense 
to export our natural gas when manufacturing is coming back.
  I join with Mr. LaTourette for an open rule. This is not a 
comprehensive rule and, as well, there's no oversight and regulation, 
and that means no environmental oversight. Minority contracting needs 
to be in place.
  And if you want to do something, look at H.R. 3710, my deficit 
reduction, job creation, energy security bill. This is a bill that 
needs to go back to the drawing board and really do, as the President 
said, an infrastructure bill that will help all Americans, be paid for, 
and not take pensions off the backs of Federal employees.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I wasn't going to speak on the rule, but I heard my 
colleague from Oregon stand up and criticize the bill, criticize the 
process, and I needed to set the record straight.
  This bill is the first bill that has come out of the committee on a 
partisan-line vote, but it's not because of Republicans. It's because 
Democrats refused to participate in the process.
  When they were in the majority, Chairman Oberstar brought a bill to 
the committee and we unanimously supported it. There was a lot of stuff 
in there we didn't like, but we wanted to do it on a bipartisan basis, 
try to correct some of the problems. But we were unable to even move 
that bill to the floor because the majority, the Democrat majority, 
wouldn't even put that bill on the floor.
  So it's not that Republicans didn't reach out to our colleagues 
across the aisle. We did. Chairman Mica and many members of the 
committee traveled the United States, had bipartisan hearings, had a 
bicameral hearing in California with Senator Boxer. So we reached out 
and reached out and reached out.
  And the Democrats typically want to work together on the T&I 
Committee. I don't know; maybe their leadership told them they weren't 
allowed to work with us on this. But this bill is the biggest reform 
bill that's happened in the transportation industry, in transportation 
in this country since its inception of the highway trust fund in the 
1950s.
  We are consolidating programs that overlap and today are outmoded, so 
we've consolidated, eliminated some. We're compressing the timelines. 
Most Americans don't realize that it takes, on average, 13 to 15 years 
to build a highway in this country. We're compressing that to 7 to 8 
years. We're going to have more roads built in this country because we 
are taking the reforms that are necessary.
  This has gone on for far too long, and I'm really disappointed that 
my Democratic colleagues, all they want to do is raise taxes. They want 
to increase the regulation instead of making government work better, 
more efficiently, and get those dollars out there quicker that our 
communities need.
  So I believe this is a significantly improved transportation bill 
than what we've seen at least 2 years ago, and it's something that I 
support wholeheartedly and would encourage my Democratic colleagues to 
take a close look and support it also.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule. I like some of the reforms in this 
bill. There are some reforms that have been overdue and are necessary.
  The problem I have is that if this rule waives all points of order 
against the bill, the bill as I understand it--and nobody can inform me 
otherwise--is that it violates the Ryan budget, or the so-called House 
budget, that we passed. We don't know how much. It could be tens of 
billions, could be just under that, but it seems to violate the budget 
that we passed. That's why we're having to waive all points of order 
against the bill, and for that I voice my opposition for the rule.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H748]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how 
many more speakers he has left, because we have a lot. We ran out of 
time, so I'm the last speaker.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is awful, this process is awful, and I think 
it's beyond salvageable. I just want to talk about one thing in 
closing.
  Madam Speaker, oil companies get taxpayer subsidies for oil 
injection, extraction, drilling, manufacturing, pricing, and inventory 
floors. They get taxpayer subsidies, while making tens of billions of 
dollars in record profits, and taxpayers continue to get fleeced with 
rising gas prices.
  At the end of this debate, I will try to defeat the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to eliminate one of these subsidies for the Big Five oil 
companies. The Big Five oil companies do not need, they do not deserve 
this subsidy, and the American people don't deserve these rising gas 
prices.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the 
Record, along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this is a reasonable amendment. The 
American people are tired of getting gouged at the pump by these big 
oil companies that are making record profits and, at the same time, we 
continue with taxpayer subsidies to give them these handouts. Enough is 
enough.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Improvements to our infrastructure are waiting. Stable construction 
jobs are waiting. Unemployment lingers above 8 percent nationally and 
near 10 percent in central Florida.
  A long-term reauthorization is necessary, not just another short-term 
extension like we have become so used to in this body. It streamlines 
and consolidates Federal transportation programs, cuts red tape and 
Washington bureaucracy, increases funding flexibility to the States and 
local government, better leverages existing infrastructure resources, 
and encourages more private sector participation in building our 
Nation's decaying infrastructure. It provides 5 years of certainty and 
stability with flat funding that is paid for without raising taxes.
  The American Energy and Infrastructure Act is long overdue. We can't 
delay anymore. It's time to stop putting off until tomorrow what we 
should have done yesterday.
  This bill eliminates the typical cookie-cutter approach that 
Washington has used over and over again to fund all kinds of programs, 
including transportation. This is a great policy that consolidates many 
programs, that allows States the flexibility to build their own 
programs. It allows local communities and NPOs to design a program of 
transportation that fits their needs.

                              {time}  1340

  It can only be done when we consolidate these programs and make the 
reforms found in this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in 
favor of this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:


  An amendment to H. Res. 547 offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       (1) The amendment in section 2, to be offered by Mr. 
     McGovern of Massachusetts or his designee, debatable for 10 
     minutes, is considered to have been printed at the end of 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     H. Res. 547.
       (2) The amendment referred to in section 1 is as follows:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1. DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC 
                   PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES NOT ALLOWED WITH RESPECT 
                   TO OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES OF MAJOR INTEGRATED 
                   OIL COMPANIES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 199(d)(9) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 
     ``(9 percent in the case of any major integrated oil company 
     (as defined in section 167(h)(5)))'' after ``3 percent''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after tile date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        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 opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WEBSTER. 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 547, if 
ordered, and motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 2079, H.R. 3247, and 
H.R. 3248.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 181, not voting 23, as follows:

[[Page H749]]

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               YEAS--229

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     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
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--181

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     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
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     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
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Blackburn
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Guinta
     Hartzler
     Johnson (IL)
     Luetkemeyer
     Moore
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Renacci
     Serrano
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1406

  Mr. CROWLEY, Ms. WATERS, and Messrs. CUELLAR and MEEKS changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 50 I was at an important 
hearing of the Health Subcommittee. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on February 15, 2012, I was unavoidably 
detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 50. Had I 
been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 50: ``nay''--On Ordering 
the Previous Question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 186, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 51]

                               AYES--235

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     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
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     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
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--186

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar

[[Page H750]]


     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     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
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Campbell
     Doggett
     Guinta
     Johnson (IL)
     Moore
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Waters
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1415

  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.

                          ____________________