[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1925-H1932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4348, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                     EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART II

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 619

       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. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid 
     highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and 
     other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending 
     enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chaffetz). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 619 provides for a structured rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 4348, a bill which extends the 
Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs through the end 
of fiscal year 2012 and establishes program funding levels consistent 
with the fiscal year 2012 appropriated levels. The highway trust fund 
taxes and expenditure authority are also extended through fiscal year 
2012. The Federal surface transportation programs and highway trust 
fund taxes and expenditure authority are currently authorized through 
June 30, 2012.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill today extends the authority of the 
government to fund highway programs through the end of this fiscal 
year.

                              {time}  1230

  In addition, the bill provides for the approval of the Keystone XL 
pipeline by giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 30 days to 
approve the Keystone XL pipeline expansion, and also includes language 
contained in H.R. 3096, the Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability, 
Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States, 
or RESTORE, Act which would establish the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust 
Fund and dedicate 80 percent of penalties paid by the responsible 
parties in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to the 
restoration of the gulf coast ecosystem and economy.
  Mr. Speaker, our constituents are feeling great real pains at the 
pump, and their pains are being ignored by the President and his 
liberal extremist enablers in Congress.
  Recent polls indicate that 63 percent of Americans say increases in 
gas prices have caused financial hardship for their families. My 
Democratic colleagues may be well served to ignore their Occupy Wall 
Street handlers for a moment and recognize that, as gas prices 
increase, it costs more to transport food and other essential goods and 
services, which lowers the standard of living for all Americans.
  The simple truth is that when President Obama was sworn into office 
in January 2009, the price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. Today, in 
many parts of our country, it's over $5 a gallon. My guess is this is 
not the kind of change that most Americans were expecting or wanted 
when President Obama promised change.
  Maybe since the President doesn't fill up his own gas tank, he does 
not fully appreciate this reality.
  These steeply rising gas prices have major ripple effects. Higher 
energy costs destroy jobs and leave families with less money to meet 
their basic needs.
  One of the most well-known precepts of economics is the principle of 
supply and demand, and the price of gasoline is not immune to this 
basic principle. That's why we need to increase the supply of all 
American energy sources to get us to American energy independence.
  Republicans have crafted and passed legislation that would not only 
lower the price of gas, but create jobs at the same time. 
Unfortunately, the liberal Democrat-controlled Senate stubbornly 
refuses to move these bills through the process.
  It's better to produce our own American energy and create American 
jobs rather than rely on unstable, hostile foreign regimes for critical 
energy resources.
  It seems that Democrats subscribe to the wisdom of President Obama's 
Energy Secretary who proclaimed that ``we somehow have to figure out 
how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''
  Mr. Speaker, in Italy gas prices exceed $9 per gallon. The Obama 
energy policy consists of ignoring the needs of Americans and pleasing 
his liberal base, rather than working for all Americans.
  Congressional Democrats persist in their claim that increasing 
domestic oil and natural gas production will not immediately decrease 
the price of gasoline. For decades, this argument has been used as an 
excuse to continue stalling. We can no longer delay and

[[Page H1926]]

deny access to our own American resources.
  Another false claim of congressional liberals is that the oil 
producers are somehow responsible for the high price of gasoline, even 
though official government investigations have shown time and again no 
wrongdoing. But they insist on tying their fundamental disdain for 
capitalism into the claim that denying fair tax treatment to domestic 
energy producers that is provided to every other industry will somehow 
lower gas prices.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, increasing taxes on American energy producers will 
only make the price of gasoline higher for families and job creators 
because affected companies simply pass their increased costs on to 
customers in order to stay in business.
  In what universe does making something more expensive to produce make 
it cheaper to sell?
  The simple truth is that domestic energy producers are essential to 
the U.S. economy, job creation, energy security, and deficit reduction. 
It supports more than 9 million jobs and adds more than $1 trillion to 
the U.S. economy each year.
  Today, the energy industry pays over $86 million a day in income 
taxes, royalties, bonuses, and rents to the Federal Government. Between 
1996 and 2007, the industry invested more than $1.2 trillion in a range 
of long-term energy initiatives, compared to net income or earnings of 
$974 billion.
  The reality is that failure to produce domestic energy supplies, 
along with global turmoil and competition for supplies with developing 
nations, has driven up energy prices and boosted foreign energy 
companies that do not pay American taxes, nor comply with American 
environmental standards.
  House Republicans are now bringing forward yet another bill that will 
have the dual impact of lowering gas prices while supporting job 
creation. Republicans remain committed to solutions that promote 
America's energy independence, lower gas prices, and help create 
American jobs.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 4348, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part 
II.
  Transportation policy has been and should be bipartisan. In fact, 
it's largely considered nonpartisan across our country, where mayors 
and county commissioners rely on and expect certainty from Washington 
with regard to necessary investments in infrastructure and mass 
transit.
  Yet, instead, here again, with this bill, politics has been injected 
into a process that has long been both bipartisan and an engine of our 
economic dynamo that ties our country together through our 
transportation infrastructure. Instead of creating jobs and advancing 
our economy, here we are with a bill that offers further delays, 
crippling States' and localities' ability to plan and fund projects and 
put Americans back to work.
  The bill before us provides yet another short-term extension, the 
10th extension since the last highway law expired in 2009. The facts on 
the ground aren't changing. Whether we extend this for 2 months or 3 
months or 1 month, we'll be back here again with the same facts on the 
ground, the same looming fiscal crisis at the Federal level, the same 
need for infrastructure at the State and local levels.
  So what facts are new? And what's the justification for such a short-
term extension?
  As we stand here today to vote on another transportation extension, 
50 percent of our roads have been identified as in disrepair; 70,000 
bridges are structurally deficient and potentially dangerous.
  We need to make investments in our Nation's highways and transit 
projects--that much Republicans and Democrats can agree on--to bring 
our infrastructure into the 21st century. Yet, instead, this short-term 
bill before us represents another missed opportunity to make these 
critical investments for our country's future.
  The impact of voting on another short-term extension is not 
insignificant. As a former small business owner myself, I know very 
well the importance of certainty in business planning. Rather than 
providing States with the confidence they need to pass long-term 
projects planned for them and plan their highways, and for construction 
companies to gear up, this bill prolongs the uncertainty, which only 
increases costs, contributing to the deficit and contributing to 
taxpayers getting a worse deal for their investment at the State and 
local levels.
  The underlying bill only allows States and localities to plan for one 
short construction season. What guidance do they have for the next 
construction season? How can bidders and contractors offer their best 
pricing when they don't even know if there will be a paycheck after 
this building season?
  As the bipartisan National Governors Association has said, a string 
of short-term extensions will only increase uncertainty for State and 
local governments and the private sector. Yes, this approach will 
actually increase costs, rather than decrease costs.
  We should be voting, instead, on the bipartisan comprehensive 
transportation bill that the Senate has already passed that, if this 
House brought to the floor, I'm confident would pass and that President 
Obama would sign. It passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan 
majority of 74 22.
  The Senate bill maintains critical investments in our highways and 
public transportation, improves accountability through asset-management 
plans, and establishes performance measures so States are accountable 
for using their funds efficiently.

                              {time}  1240

  Extremely disappointing is the transportation policy, an issue that 
has long been bipartisan in its support, which has turned into a 
political football in this Congress. The House majority has continued 
to offer partisan bills that would weaken our economy and create 
uncertainty. This time, the majority has crafted a transportation bill 
by linking it to unnecessary and unrelated politically motivated 
riders. It is a completely unrelated Christmas tree of a bill that we 
see before us with elements that have nothing to do with our 
transportation and infrastructure.
  Almost as appalling as the riders in the bill are the restrictive 
rules before us. This rule only made in order three Republican 
amendments, completely shutting out all Democratic, and even some 
Republican, ideas. When it comes to transportation policy, this body 
should be considering amendments under an open process that allows 
Members of both parties to bring forward their ideas to save taxpayer 
money and to invest in infrastructure. Unfortunately, thoughtful 
amendments were not made in order in this process, including some that 
I will discuss later in the debate.
  Because this rule and the underlying bill represent some of the worst 
partisanship that I've seen in the 3 years I've been here, I strongly 
oppose them both. I urge my colleagues in the House to reject this 
approach, to reject this rule, to reject this bill, and to bring up the 
Senate bill and to bring it quickly to passage in the House so that we 
can send it to President Obama in order to reauthorize transportation 
in a bipartisan way, one that reflects our values as Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind my colleague from 
Colorado that the Democrats were in charge of both Houses of the 
Congress and had the Presidency when the authorization for this bill 
first expired, and I believe they reauthorized it several times and 
weren't able to get a bill passed.
  I would now like to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague 
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I want to thank my colleague and friend from North 
Carolina for yielding time to me.
  I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying bill. I am very 
pleased that the rule has allowed one of my amendments to go forward, a 
very important amendment, I should add.
  Our country depends on its maritime commerce. Without the use of our 
maritime transportation routes, we're not really talking about 
transportation. We cannot expand exports and we cannot move our 
agricultural commodities or our manufactured goods to other

[[Page H1927]]

destinations around the world if we do not have waterways that have 
been maintained.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has said to me on multiple occasions, if 
you take the top 60 ports and harbors in this country, fewer than 35 
percent of those waterways are dredged adequately to the authorized 
depth and width authorized by Congress. My bill, which is now an 
amendment to this transportation bill, H.R. 104, is the RAMP Act. It is 
the Realize America's Maritime Promise Act. It has bipartisan support 
with 190 Members in the House and with over 30 Senators over on the 
Senate side.
  What has happened, Mr. Speaker, is this: in 1986, Congress created 
the harbor maintenance tax and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This 
was a user fee on the owners of the cargo--a user fee, an ad valorem 
tax. The revenue was supposed to be dedicated solely to operations in 
maintenance dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers where they have 
Federal authorization.
  What has happened over time is that these funds have been diverted to 
other uses. In 2011, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund collected more 
than $1.4 billion in revenue, but only slightly over half of it was 
used for the intended purpose. The rest was diverted off to all kinds 
of other sources. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Oversight 
Subcommittee on Ways and Means, I find this to be an egregious abuse 
and diversion of taxpayer dollars.
  My amendment is very simple. It ties the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund receipts to the expenditures so that these funds will be used for 
their intended purpose, and that is to dredge, to maintain, these very 
important waterways. Now, why is all that important? Well, the years of 
neglect of these waterways is hurting American competitiveness, and it 
is hurting our ability to export.
  The bottom line is this: for every foot that we lose in shoaling on 
the Mississippi River, we're losing $1 million per day per ship because 
of the short loading or the light loading of these vessels or of their 
operating under restricted schedules. In January of 2012 alone, we had 
five vessels that ran ashoal on the Mississippi River--five vessels 
that ran ashoal. It is a safety issue as well as an economic issue. Not 
only that, many of our Great Lake ports are closing. They're closing 
because of shoaling.
  How can we be a competitive Nation that is engaged in international 
trade if we don't take care of these waterways? This funding is 
critical to preventing these draft restrictions. In fact, the Army 
Corps of Engineers has said if they could have access to the incoming 
receipts, they could maintain all these waterways to the specified 
depth and width.
  What is really good about this amendment is that it also adds nothing 
to the deficit. According to the CBO, it doesn't score. It's not an 
earmark. It's programmatic spending. It's basically restoring the 
original intent of the use of these funds. So I urge the support of the 
rule and, certainly, of my amendment and of the underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont, my former colleague from the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Welch.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Unfortunately, this is another example of Congress failing the 
American people. It's failing our States. It's failing our communities.
  First of all, how in the world can we expect transportation projects 
to be done on a short-term basis--90-day extensions? 4-month 
extensions? That just isn't possible to get from planning, to 
execution, to construction. It won't happen. Number two, how can we 
have a transportation bill where we don't fund mass transit? 
alternative transportation? That makes no sense whatsoever.
  What has happened here is that the need to have a transportation bill 
for this whole country has been hijacked for political purposes. The 
Keystone pipeline is an example. Take whatever position you want on 
Keystone, but will the implementation of Keystone bring down gas 
prices, as is asserted? Will allowing drilling everywhere that the 
``drill, baby, drill'' folks want to drill even lower gas prices?
  A study of the Energy Information Administration said if we opened up 
all of the coastal waters--off Florida, off the east coast, off the 
west coast--and if we drilled on all of the public lands, that might 
add over time, which is about 10 years, 1 million barrels a day to the 
supply. That's in a world demand of 100 million barrels a day.
  So the question is: What impact is that going to have on price? The 
best estimate they came up with was about 3 cents per gallon. That 
suggests when there is so much effort and so much political rhetoric 
about something that is so profoundly ineffective in giving relief at 
the pump to folks who need it, that it has a political agenda. Let's, 
instead, do things that would make a difference at the pump.
  One, let's fully fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Turn 
that into what it has historically been, which is a safeguard for 
consumers and a safeguard for businesses that need stable pricing in 
the commodities market. Instead, we are allowing it to become a casino 
for Wall Street speculation, which is probably adding about $20 on the 
price of a $100-barrel of oil, or 50 cents on a gallon of gas when you 
go to fill up. That doesn't need to be. Squeeze out the Wall Street 
speculation, and give a break to our consumers and businesses.
  Two, allow the President in fighting this speculation to deploy the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 800 million barrels of oil owned by the 
taxpayers. When that has been deployed by Presidents--two Republicans, 
two Democrats--it has been a shot across the bow to the speculators, 
and it has brought down prices by 8 percent to 33 percent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WELCH. Three, let's commit ourselves to using American oil that 
is produced on American soil to be used in America. So, if there is 
going to be Keystone oil that is flowing through our States, why do we 
just want that to go to the export market when it will provide no 
benefit whatsoever to the American consumer?
  Let's do the things we can to bring down the price. Let's tap the 
SPR. Let's strengthen the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and 
let's use American oil on American soil.

                              {time}  1250

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I want to point out to my colleague from Vermont that it was 
under Democrats that this authorization expired. They renewed the 
authorization six times while they were in control of both Houses of 
Congress and had the Presidency, so they haven't done the job they 
should have done.
  I also want to point out that the President has the tools he needs 
through agencies already to do the investigations that need to be done; 
they have done them over and over again and they've found no fault on 
the part of ``speculators'' or the oil companies.
  All the President and his allies on the other side of the aisle are 
doing, Mr. Speaker, is trying to distract people from their failed 
economic policies. Every policy that they have instituted has failed 
miserably, brought us record unemployment, and brought record gas 
prices. He blames, blames, blames other people, takes no 
responsibility, refuses to be held accountable for anything that this 
administration has done, that the Democrats, when they were in charge 
of the Congress for 4 years, did which created this situation.
  I think it's time that they quit casting blame and look for ways to 
solve problems, like encouraging the President to approve the Keystone 
pipeline and increasing the real supply, not 17 hours' worth of fuel 
from the strategic oil reserve.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on H.R. 
14, a bill brought forth by Representative Tim Bishop and 
Representative Corrine Brown containing the text of the Senate 
transportation bill, S. 1813, which passed the Senate by an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 74 22.
  To discuss our amendment to the rule, I am proud to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

[[Page H1928]]

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage every Member to 
defeat the previous question so we can end this legislative circus and 
bring the bipartisan Senate transportation bill to the floor.
  Our Nation's infrastructure is at a critical juncture, and the 
traveling public and men and women who build our roads and rails don't 
have time for the games that the Republicans are playing with this 
bill.
  The Republican ``my way or the highway'' attitude is not how we 
should legislate. Transportation has always been a nonpartisan issue, 
but that has changed since the new Republican leadership took control 
of the House. In just 2 years, the Republican leadership has ruined a 
process that used to be bipartisan from a committee that used to be 
bipartisan. I think Secretary LaHood said it best when he said that 
this bill that the Republicans are bringing to the floor is the worst 
bill he has seen in 35 years.
  We are in danger of letting our transportation system fall into total 
despair, slowing the economy even further and putting the traveling 
public in harm's way.
  The American Society for Civil Engineers give America a D grade in 
infrastructure quality and has estimated $2.2 trillion is needed to 
bring our Nation's infrastructure to good repair. Transportation for 
America reports that there are 69,000 structurally deficient bridges 
nationwide. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the Nation will lose $336 
billion in economic growth over the next 5 years due to inadequate 
infrastructure. The World Economic Forum ranks the United States of 
America 24th in infrastructure quality. We are the world's largest 
superpower and we should never be ranked 24th in anything.

  The Senate amendment that was offered by the Democratic leadership on 
the committee would fund 2 million jobs every year, provide continued 
dedicated funding for public transit, streamline project permitting in 
a responsible way, strengthen Buy America requirements, increase 
funding for safety programs, and--let me emphasize--is fully paid for.
  Transportation and infrastructure funding is absolutely critical to 
this Nation and, if properly funded, serves as a tremendous economic 
engine to job creation. The Department of Transportation statistics 
show that for every $1 billion we invest in transportation, it 
generates 44,000 permanent jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Again, I would encourage every Member to vote 
``no'' on the previous question. All we're asking for is an up-or-down 
vote on the Senate bill.
  When I was a kid, we used to say, ``I dare you.'' I double dare you, 
my Republicans. Bring the bill to the floor for an up-or-down vote.
  I heard someone on the floor yesterday talking about the Senate, that 
we need to do away with the Senate. I now thank God for the United 
States Senate, because they are behaving very responsibly. They passed 
a bill with over 80 percent of the Members voting for a bipartisan 
transportation bill. That's what we've always had in the 20 years I've 
been on the committee.
  Let's pick up that Senate bill. Let's pass it, send it on to the 
President to create jobs, and let's see what happens at the next 
election.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 5 minutes to my 
colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Rules Committee, Chairman Dreier said 
this: ``There's no way we're going to have a transportation bill unless 
it is bipartisan.'' Mr. Speaker, it was music to my ears. I thought the 
chairman had a revelation, because that's exactly the tune the 
Democrats have been singing for weeks, that we need a bipartisan 
transportation bill. We've been saying this month after month after 
month.
  Transportation bills have always been bipartisan. Our colleagues like 
to criticize the Senate for inaction, but even they passed an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan bill this year.
  Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words. Instead of taking the 
bipartisan path, my Republican friends have tried one partisan approach 
after another, and they have failed every time. And the partisan march 
continues today.
  Last night, nine Members of the House submitted amendments to this 
bill, five Democrats and four Republicans. Then, not 2 minutes after 
the chairman said what he said, my Republican friends approved a rule 
on a straight party-line vote to block every single Democratic 
amendment.
  Let me review this for my colleagues because I think it is important.
  First, the underlying bill was written by Republicans in a back room 
without any Democratic input, none. Now Republicans are only allowing 
themselves to amend the bill they wrote.
  This chart produced by the majority says it all: four Republican 
amendments submitted, three made in order for debate on the House 
floor; five Democratic amendments in order, not a single one allowed.
  Maybe some of the people in the back room can't see this number 
because it's so small. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to make it a little bit 
easier for those who need a little help here. Here we go. Zero 
Democratic amendments allowed.
  This is a bill written only by Republicans which only Republicans can 
amend. Apparently, this is what a bipartisan process means in the 
Republican House. This is the new and improved open House that they 
promised.
  Open House my foot, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, there are real consequences to this approach. I had a 
very important amendment blocked yesterday in the Rules Committee, an 
amendment to end the subsidies to the oil companies that are gouging 
Americans at the pump, an amendment that will cut the deficit by $40 
billion. I don't care what my Republican friends say, that is a lot of 
money.

                              {time}  1300

  The taxpayers' money that's going right into the pockets of the same 
oil companies that are driving up gas prices just as summer approaches, 
why in the world are American taxpayers being asked to subsidize Big 
Oil? These are the same oil companies that recorded tens of billions of 
dollars in profits in the first 3 months of 2012. These companies took 
in tens of billions of dollars in profits in 3 months while raising gas 
prices to more than $4 a gallon and we reward them with $40 billion 
worth of tax breaks and giveaways? Come on, what is wrong with the 
leadership of this House of Representatives?
  Look, there is nothing wrong with corporations making profits. That's 
what they're in business to do. What is wrong is for American taxpayers 
to be subsidizing wildly profitable companies at a time when too many 
Americans are still unemployed and struggling to pay their bills. With 
their tax dollars funding corporate welfare for Big Oil and then still 
paying astronomical prices at the pump, it's a double whammy for 
American families.
  With all the talk about cutting spending and reducing subsidies here 
in Washington, I would have thought that the Rules Committee would have 
made in order my amendment, an amendment, by the way, just so there's 
no confusion here, that I have offered repeatedly. I have offered it 
over six times, and all six times it has been blocked by the Rules 
Committee.
  But the Rules Committee decided not to make it in order. And to say 
that this is somehow a bipartisan process and then immediately deny any 
Democrat amendments, including my amendment to end tax breaks for Big 
Oil companies, tells you everything you need to know about the 
Republican leadership in this House. This is a lousy process, and the 
American people are paying the price.
  I would just close by saying the fact that we can't vote up or down 
on the Senate bill to extend the highway bill for at least 2 years 
means that our cities and our towns and our States can't plan ahead. 
What an awful thing for us to do during this difficult economic time.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this very partisan rule. Let's get 
back to working on a transportation bill in a bipartisan way that will 
actually help the American people.

[[Page H1929]]

  Enough of these games.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleague from 
Massachusetts that if we raise taxes on the oil companies, surely that 
will be passed along to consumers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. FOXX. When I'm finished. I believe the gentleman from Colorado 
probably has adequate time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thought since you referred to me we would have a 
dialogue, but I guess not. Okay.
  Ms. FOXX. As my colleague knows, yesterday, in the Rules Committee, 
people on his side of the aisle talked about tax breaks and giveaways, 
and that, again, implies that all the money that hardworking taxpayers 
earn is government money, and that is not the way it is. That attitude 
about giving away money from the Federal Government implies that the 
money belongs to the government.
  I would also like to point out to my colleague that the subsidies he 
talks about are not subsidies. They are the tax deductions, tax 
``breaks'' that every manufacturer gets, not just the oil companies. To 
talk about corporate welfare is a bit disingenuous.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) to respond to the gentlelady.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, give me a break. I mean, oil companies are making record 
profits. We are producing more oil in this country than ever before. 
They are producing so much they are exporting oil, and at the same time 
they are raising gas prices at the pump for average, ordinary citizens.
  The fact that taxpayers are subsidizing Big Oil when they're making 
record profits and sticking it to the American people, I think is 
unconscionable. That's what I tried to get rid of, and we should at 
least have a vote up or down on that on the floor.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would just add one more thing: the amount 
of subsidies that we are giving to multinational corporations who are 
taking their jobs overseas, let's stop that. Let's stop the subsidies 
that are going to Big Agriculture all over this country, not small mom-
and-pop farms, people who are taking care of themselves. But Big 
Agriculture, let's stop that.
  Let's also stop $147 million going to Brazilian cotton farmers as a 
subsidy every year. They will not tell you. They will not tell you 
about these subsidies. American taxpayers are footing the bill for that 
and paying high prices at the gas pump to get their gas, and the oil 
companies are rolling around in that money.
  I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Yesterday I submitted an amendment to this bill that would have 
provided the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the CFTC, with a 
steady, sustainable source of funding so that it could do the job that 
it has been assigned to do--that's oversee the futures markets and curb 
rampant speculation in the oil market that is causing families pain at 
the pump.
  Again, this House majority has put the profit margins of Wall Street 
and oil speculators over the needs of American families and the 
American economy. They refuse to allow an up-or-down vote on this 
amendment. Specifically, the amendment would authorize the collection 
of user fees to offset the cost of the Commission's operation. It would 
simply bring the CFTC into line with all other Federal financial 
regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
  This is in keeping with a pattern by this majority to hamstring this 
Commission at every turn. Last year, their agricultural appropriations 
provided only $172 million in funding, 44 percent below the request, 
meaning that we have less cops on the beat to stop speculation. We 
fought back. We got that up to $205 million in the final 2012 budget, 
but it's not enough for the Commission to do its job.

  Meanwhile, high oil prices affect every aspect of Americans' lives, 
not just the cost of traveling but of heating homes, food, other 
purchases. The cost of gas is irrefutably affected by rampant 
speculation in the oil market. Goldman Sachs has estimated that 
speculators increased crude prices by about 20 percent and the price of 
gas by 56 cents a gallon. The chairman of ExxonMobil talked about 
speculation going on on Wall Street.
  We're here to represent the American consumer, not oil speculators.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I am going to repeat it, our job, the job that all of 
our constituents gave to us--they gave us this job--we are here to 
represent their interests and the consumers, not the oil speculators.
  We need to ensure that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is 
the agency to regulate the oil industry, that it has the resources that 
it needs to do the job and is doing it.
  The amendment that I proposed is a commonsense solution to this 
problem. It should have had an airing, and it should have been passed 
by this Congress because that is in the best interests of American 
taxpayers. That's our job. And if we're not prepared to do our job, the 
American people should turn their backs on us and shut the place down.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that our colleagues across 
the aisle, as well as President Obama, the answer to everything is to 
raise taxes, but they never can explain how raising taxes would lower 
costs, especially on gasoline. To me, that shows how disconnected they 
are from economic reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. May I inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining 
speakers?
  Ms. FOXX. We have no remaining speakers, and I am prepared to close 
if the gentleman is prepared to close.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, there were several amendments offered in Rules Committee to 
make this bill better. To help reduce the budget deficit, my colleague, 
Mr. McGovern, introduced an amendment ending $40 billion in subsidies 
to the oil and gas industry. As the gentlelady said, that has nothing 
to do with the price of gas. Getting rid of subsidies to oil companies 
doesn't make gas more affordable. But the question is: Why are we 
giving money to oil and gas companies at a time when we have a national 
deficit? Why don't they pay taxes like every other company?

                              {time}  1310

  I was a small businessman before I got here, and the companies that I 
was involved with had to pay taxes. What I don't understand is why 
economically a tax subsidy is any different than an expenditure 
subsidy. And economists across the ideological spectrum would agree 
corporate welfare is a government giveaway, whether it appears on the 
tax line or the expenditure line.
  Specifically, with regard to any tax breaks to the oil and gas 
industry, Mr. McGovern's amendment, which is, unfortunately, ruled out 
of order for this bill, would end the section 451 credit for producing 
oil and gas from marginal wells, the section 43 credit for enhanced oil 
recovery, the section 263 provision allowing the existing expansion of 
intangible drilling costs, and a number of other provisions that in 
effect give oil and gas companies a lower tax rate than other companies 
in this country.
  Why don't we use that money to reduce the deficit? Why don't we use 
that money to bring down the corporate tax rate overall, as is a key 
component of corporate tax reform, which I strongly support and 
discussed with Mr. Brady in our Rules Committee yesterday with regard 
to the other bill which moves in the wrong direction with regard to 
bringing down our tax rates and having a simpler Tax Code?
  Mr. McGovern has offered a similar amendment to save the U.S. 
Government $40 billion to reduce our deficit to several different bills 
in the past, including through an appropriations bill, an energy bill, 
a tax bill. Every single time the Republicans have said, Oh, it's not 
germane to this bill. Every single time they voted the McGovern 
amendment down.

[[Page H1930]]

  Clearly, this is a proposal that's worthy of discussion. If it's not 
a tax discussion and not an energy discussion, not an expenditure 
discussion, what kind of discussion is it? And why can't we be talking 
about reducing the deficit here on the floor of the House instead of 
continuing to spend unnecessary money on subsidies? It's funny how the 
majority party waives rules when it's convenient for their agenda but 
refuses to apply a consistent standard to an amendment that is worthy 
of consideration by this House.
  At the same time oil companies have record profits, we're continuing 
to subsidize oil injection, extraction, exploration, drilling, 
manufacturing, pricing, and inventory valuing by creating price floors, 
offsetting taxes, providing generous credits and deductions, providing 
tax shelters, and allowing the valuation of inventories at deeply 
discounted prices. If we are serious about deficit reduction, let us 
take this opportunity to vote down this rule and allow for the 
discussion of the McGovern amendment. We need to close these loopholes 
and allow for real deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment to the rule in the Record, along with extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. This amendment is the Bishop bill and the Corrine Brown 
bill, which would simply allow the House the opportunity to vote on the 
Senate bill, which, given the strong bipartisan majority in the Senate, 
I believe would pass the House of Representatives. At least let's give 
it a chance. Let's give the House a chance to work its will, Democrats 
and Republicans, and see where we really are with regard to this 
Congress' commitment to critical infrastructure needs in this country. 
Voting down this rule would be the first step in allowing Mr. Bishop 
and Ms. Brown to come forward with the Senate bill for consideration in 
this House, which would provide some certainty to State and local 
planners, allowing them to reduce costs and get better value for the 
taxpayer dollar.
  I also strongly encourage the majority to consider allowing 
amendments and good ideas from both sides of the aisle in bills like 
the transportation bill, and let us work to find an appropriate time 
and an appropriate place for the consideration of Mr. McGovern's bill 
and Mr. McGovern's amendment. And whether the proceeds are used to 
reduce the deficit or bring down corporate taxes or some split thereof, 
or other worthy public purposes, surely we can at this juncture, when 
we cannot afford the government we have, help reduce the size and the 
scope of government by ending subsidies and giveaways to big 
multinational oil companies.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I 
yield back the balance of time.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 619 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(1) 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. 
     14) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
     construction 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. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (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.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. 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. POLIS. Mr. 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 adopting the resolution, if ordered; and 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 180, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               YEAS--243

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg

[[Page H1931]]


     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     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
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     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
     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
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--180

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     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
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     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
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     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
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     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)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews
     Filner
     Kaptur
     Marino
     Napolitano
     Paul
     Rangel
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1339

  Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. PELOSI and Mr. HONDA changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. YOUNG of Indiana, SMITH of Nebraska and Mrs. BLACK changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 165, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 165 due to a family medical emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' On Ordering the Previous 
Question on H. Res. 619 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, 
motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the 
Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of multiyear law reauthorizing 
such programs, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 177, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--246

     Adams
     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
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     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
     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
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--177

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     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

[[Page H1932]]


     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     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
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     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
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     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)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews
     Filner
     Kaptur
     Marino
     Napolitano
     Paul
     Rangel
     Slaughter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1346

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 166, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 166 due to a family medical emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to H. Res. 
619 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an 
extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, 
transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund 
pending enactment of multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for 
other purposes.

                          ____________________