Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 56 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)

[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

[[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.

____________________