[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 110 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6235-H6242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5021, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
FUNDING ACT OF 2014
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 669 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 669
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5021) to
provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety,
motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out
of the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means, modified by the amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of
debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House
Resolution 669 provides a closed rule, as is customary for bills that
are reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, for H.R. 5021, the
Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014.
On July 10, the Ways and Means Committee marked up H.R. 5021. The
committee ordered the bill favorably reported by voice vote.
The bill is simple. It extends our transportation programs and our
reforms enacted by MAP-21, and it pays for the extension without
raising taxes on hardworking American taxpayers.
This extension is crucial. Prior to the expiration of MAP-21 later
this fall, the highway trust fund is expected to encounter a funding
shortfall. The Secretary of Transportation has warned that, as early as
August, payments from the trust fund to the States will begin to be
delayed.
Let's be clear: this bill is just an interim remedy for our current
situation. It is not a solution to our transportation funding problem.
As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I
can testify to the work that Chairman Shuster and the committee are
doing to provide a multiyear authorization bill. It is a deliberative,
thoughtful process. The underlying bill advances that process.
The underlying bill proposes policies that have previously received
bipartisan support. Further, these policies have previously also been
embraced by the Senate.
The bill extends the surface transportation programs and funding
through May 2015. It provides stability and certainty for States. It
continues our investments in infrastructure. It staves off job losses
at the height of the construction season. And it allows the process to
move forward toward a long-term solution.
Some have suggested or proposed a short-term patch for just a few
months. There are some who would like to see this just provide enough
time to get through the election. A short-term extension would
guarantee a crisis. Even worse, that manufactured crisis is easily
avoidable.
Central Floridians are still trying to dig their way out of years of
economic downturn. We are focusing on improving our families' financial
situation, and certainly we don't need a downturn in construction--and
especially infrastructure construction in the State of Florida and in
my particular area, central Florida.
A short-term extension is, at best, feeble and, at worst,
irresponsible. Washington should not do less when it can do better.
Washington should not add to the list of crises of its own doing by
passing a short-term patch when a longer-term answer is within reach.
The task at hand remains avoiding the expiration of the existing
transportation authorization. The existing authorization is actually a
good bill.
MAP-21 included significant reforms to cut out Federal red tape and
bureaucracy. It streamlined the project delivery process. It reformed
and consolidated programs. It improved safety. It ended the process of
earmarks in transportation bills.
MAP-21 set deadlines for slow-moving projects. It set a new NEPA
funding threshold and expedited projects that were destroyed by
disaster.
MAP-21 consolidated more than 100 programs by nearly two-thirds. It
eliminated dozens of ineffective programs and provided more resources
and flexibility to States. It also incentivized States to seek partners
in the private sector to finance and operate infrastructure projects.
Further, MAP-21 passed the House by a strong bipartisan vote of 373-
52, including the support of the gentleman from Colorado. It passed the
Senate by an equally strong bipartisan vote of 74-19. The White House
issued a statement that said they were pleased with the bill.
While we continue with a process that will lead to a multiyear
authorization bill, there is no reason why we should not support an
extension of MAP-21. Extending MAP-21 through next summer is simply an
extension of another year of good transportation policy.
Once again, I rise in support of this rule and the potential this
extension holds for producing a thoughtful process that results in a
quality long-term authorization bill.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, today, we are considering the rule for H.R. 5021, the
Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014. While this bill
provides an extension of Federal highway programs, frankly, our Nation
deserves a long-term solution to support our transportation
infrastructure needs that will allow for a more effective and efficient
use of resources through public-private partnerships and long-term
contracts. In effect, by engaging in short-term legislating, we are
actually raising the cost of infrastructure projects across the
country, making it less efficient rather than more than efficient.
Unfortunately, this bill is a closed rule, which I do not support. It
limits debate. It doesn't allow Democrats or Republicans to come up
with ideas for amendments to improve the bill. That should be what this
legislative body is all about.
I have friends on both sides of the aisle who have ideas to make this
more efficient, to save taxpayers money, and to get more infrastructure
bang for their buck, ideas like a national infrastructure bank, a
bipartisan bill by my colleague, Mr. Delaney, that would allow for
lower-cost financing with locally driven infrastructure projects, at no
taxpayer cost.
None of us are even allowed to discuss for not 10 minutes, not 1
minute, not a single moment, any amendments under this closed rule, and
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on
this closed rule.
In 2012, Congress passed the Moving Ahead for Progress program that
my colleague, Mr. Webster, mentioned, which reauthorized Federal
surface transportation programs and maintained the solvency of the
highway
[[Page H6236]]
trust fund through the end of September 2014.
That seemed like a little ways off at the time, but here we are in
July of 2014, fast approaching insolvency of the trust fund in
September of 2014. How inconvenient to members of the Republican Party
that this might occur before an election. Suddenly, there is an impetus
to do something about it, to actually address the issue or at least to
kick the can down the road a few months until, conveniently, after the
election when we actually have a national discussion about how to meet
our infrastructure needs and to pay for them.
This bill is simply a very short-term highway trust fund patch. It
only extends the highway programs through May 31, 2015, and transfers
$10.8 billion to the highway trust fund.
As Transportation Secretary Foxx said, without a patch, tens of
thousands of critical projects and 700,000 jobs will be jeopardized. In
fact, States are already preparing to delay or halt ongoing projects if
the funding runs out in September. My home State of Colorado alone has
nearly 50 active construction projects that could be at risk if we
don't pass some kind of patch.
But this approach is just another kick the can down the road
approach, to have a national discussion about infrastructure, to
encourage efficiency of our Federal dollars rather than forcing
contractors to bid out higher amounts because of uncertainty about
whether their contracts will be long-term or short-term.
There are several easy ways that we could pay for a long-term
transportation fix. The simplest would be immigration reform. H.R. 15
would generate over $200 billion in the first 10 years and close to a
trillion over 20 years that could be used to invest in infrastructure
across our country.
Others have talked about using some kind of user fee. Traditionally,
the gas tax has been used as a proxy for people who use our highways.
I am very disappointed that not only are we not considering any long-
term solutions to reauthorizing MAP-21, but we are not even allowed to
improve this current bill before us, not just to make it longer term,
but to offer simple, efficient ideas to make it work better and get
more bang for our buck.
Our Nation relies on Congress to pass measures that ensure that our
roadways, bridges, and transit systems are the best in the world. This
bill falls short on that account. The American Society of Civil
Engineers has given our country's infrastructure a D-plus grade on its
2013 report. In this increasingly competitive global economy, a D-plus
is not enough to get us by as a nation to create jobs and grow our
economy.
My home State of Colorado has increasing transportation needs, as do
many other States. In the wake of floods last September, rockslides,
landslides, and mudslides caused damage to roadways and bridges in
Colorado. Five hundred miles of roadway were affected at the peak of
the flood and 120 bridges were damaged, resulting in over $500 million
of additional repairs to our already beleaguered transportation
infrastructure. While the Colorado Department of Transportation did an
excellent job completing short-term fixes to get traffic moving, there
remain many long-term projects along our canyons and roadways where we
need permanent repairs to our roads. There simply isn't enough of an
investment in this highway infrastructure bill to address our
infrastructure needs.
Again, we don't necessarily need to spend more money. We can simply
pass the Partnership to Build America Act--if it were allowed to be
introduced as an amendment under this bill, I would be happy to--a
bipartisan bill by Representative Delaney with 70 sponsors from both
sides of the aisle that would essentially help finance locally driven
projects to the tune of $750 billion at a low interest rate by allowing
U.S. multinational companies who have tax-deferred profits oversees to
bring back their earnings to the United States, where they can invest
them in growing employment and infrastructure here. It is a win-win
scenario. Yet under this closed amendment process, we are not even
allowed to bring up this bill.
This measure falls short on a number of accounts. Its short-term
nature makes the growing importance of public-private partnerships more
difficult. And yet if we could simply amend this bill and improve it or
make it longer term, we could finally have a discussion about our
national infrastructure.
The House majority continues to have a closed process where bills are
constructed and not allowed to be improved upon by Republicans or
Democrats here in the House. I know that we can do better, and I
encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule, bring down this rule so we
can have an open process regarding transportation funding.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that the authorization
is not ending next month. It is just the funds are running out. We have
got to extend the funds. The authorization continues on through the end
of the year.
That authorization was a good bill, as I explained in my opening
remarks. MAP-21 was an excellent piece of legislation that consolidated
a lot of programs, allowed States more flexibility, and gave them a
pathway to create many of the infrastructure projects we need. This is
just the money. And then we go a little bit further so we are not
creating a crisis right before we adjourn.
So I think, in the end, this is a very good piece of legislation. It
puts forth what is needed. We need money to finish the authorization we
already have. That is what this does.
The administration policy from the Executive Office of the
President's Office of Management and Budget says this: ``With surface
transportation funding running out''--he is only talking about the
funding. He knows that the policy still is in place--``and hundreds of
thousands of jobs at risk later this summer, the administration
supports House passage of H.R. 5021 . . . This legislation would
provide for continuity of funding for the highway trust fund during the
height of the summer construction season and keep Americans at work
repairing the Nation's crumbling roads, bridges, and transit systems.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, the hallmark of a great country is a great
infrastructure.
In its infancy, this country built interstate canals that helped
commerce and life become strong and our economy vigorous. In the height
of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln met with Justin Morrill,
then a Senator from the State of Vermont, and conceived the ambition of
an intercontinental railroad. In the 1950s, President Dwight D.
Eisenhower said that we needed an interstate highway system.
This temporary bill, where our only responsibility is to make sure we
can preserve what we have by having the funds necessary to repair roads
and bridges is an abdication of our responsibility. Congress can do
better, and America needs better. Our bridges and our roads are falling
apart. I recently visited two projects in Vermont that are in desperate
need of repair, but this bill provides temporary funding for 8 months.
Not only that, instead of basing it on user fees, which have always
been the way we funded infrastructure projects that we all benefit by,
it raids pension funds. It essentially creates a pothole in future
pensions to fill potholes in our highways.
Some folks are saying that we need time in order to put together a
long-term bill. Madam Speaker, we have had time. What we need is a
decision. There are options out there. As the gentleman from Colorado
said, we are not lacking options; what we are lacking is will. This has
traditionally been an area of common agreement between Republicans and
Democrats where, yes, it is always difficult to figure out what that
revenue source is, but that difficulty is not an excuse for Congress to
fail to do its job and give this highway trust fund a sustainable and
long-term revenue source so that folks in Montpelier and folks in
Austin, Texas, can put together those plans to repair our roads and
bridges, put America back to work, and get this economy going.
[[Page H6237]]
I urge us to defeat this rule and to defeat this bill and for
Congress finally to do its job.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the future of our
transportation system in this country.
Back at home in Sussex, Bergen, and Warren Counties in the Fifth
District of New Jersey, they are only asking the same thing that people
across America are, and that is to have a safe and efficient
transportation system of roads and bridges.
The highway trust fund is bankrupt. Our past highway bills have been
filled with excessive Federal regulation and pork-laden projects,
meaning that the maintenance of our roads and bridges has not been
getting done. So we are here today because we don't have the money now
to fix them.
Going forward, we have two clear choices. Either we can continue down
the same path, the current path, passing a bill to bail out the trust
fund to the tune of some $50 billion, or we can find a better way.
Personally, I get tired every year going and speaking to the
Secretary of Transportation--it doesn't matter which party--and asking
him: Can you tell me what exactly the needs are on Route 17 in Bergen
County or Route 519 in Sussex or Warren County? I ask that question,
and again and again they will say: Where's Route 17? Where's Route 517?
Where's Route 519?
We are here saying we cannot continue to allow Washington, who
doesn't know our needs and doesn't know our roads, to tell us how to
run things. The solution to our current quagmire is to return the power
back to the people who know better, back to the States. States,
counties, and local officials are the ones that use these roads. They
are in the best position to decide how to use these transportation
dollars.
There is not one single Federal official here in Washington, elected
or otherwise, who knows the needs of my community or your community
with specific detail as well as the people who actually live there, who
actually drive on those roads, and who actually have to maintain those
roads.
So it is about time, after all these years, that we re-empower the
States, re-empower the counties, re-empower the local officials, the
people who live and use these roads, to make the transportation
decisions, instead of people here in Washington who have no clue what
the needs are, who have no idea what the problems are, who have no idea
as to actually provide, what I said at the very beginning, what the
people in my counties of the Fifth District want as a safe and
efficient transportation system.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank Mr. Polis for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 5021.
This closed rule prevents an opportunity for us to address the larger
issues related to passing a long-term surface transportation
reauthorization, and that is what Mr. Polis and Mr. Welch are talking
about. I agree.
The constituents that I represent in North Carolina feel that it is
critical to extend the highway trust fund. This bill is only one piece
of what must be done to strengthen our Nation's infrastructure and
economy.
The need to pass surface transportation reauthorization funding is
extremely critical. MAP-21 expires at the beginning of October. At the
same time, each day brings us closer to a highway trust fund shortfall
and risks putting major transportation projects on hold and stalling
our economy.
{time} 1345
The North Carolina DOT has indicated that the highway trust fund
insolvency would jeopardize 108 projects and 20,000 jobs across my
State.
Eastern North Carolina remains one of the poorest districts in the
country despite the economic resurgence many other areas of the country
have seen. Strengthening infrastructure helps encourage economic
development, increase commerce and improve tourism. We cannot afford to
halt construction, growth, and progress. We must find a way to provide
consistent and robust transportation funding. We need a fix to the
reauthorization act.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule so that we can have a
larger conversation about the long-term surface transportation
reauthorization.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a leader on transportation issues.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Polis.
I listened carefully to what you said, and you are right--this closed
rule is a disservice. My respected friend from Florida, I think, is
just wrong.
Madam Speaker, this is not a solution, and it is not a deliberate,
thoughtful process. We have not had a single hearing on transportation
finance in the Ways and Means Committee all year. We didn't have one
the year before that. We haven't had a hearing in the 43 months that
Republicans have been in charge. This is a perfectly predictable
problem that was created by the halfhearted bill that they passed last
Congress. We knew this was coming for months. Now we are here.
With all due respect, I, too, am disappointed that we have a rule
that does not make in order broad discussion and amendment. We have
been unable in this Congress to deal meaningfully with the looming
transportation crisis. The gentleman is on the Transportation
Committee. He doesn't have a bill. We are almost through this Congress,
and we don't have a bill. America is falling apart. America is falling
behind. We have failed to give America's communities the resources and
a robust 6-year reauthorization plan.
We have done it before under the chairmanship of Bud Shuster and
Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and I was happy to have played a small
role. That bill made a difference.
If we fail to come to grips with the funding level and, instead, in
approving this rule and the underlying bill, this Congress is giving
itself a ticket out of town to adjourn and pass it on to not just the
next Congress but to the Congress after that. Make no mistake. In May
2015, you are not going to be in any different a place. It is going to
be May 2017.
Congress has legitimate policy differences. I appreciate my friend
from New Jersey. Some people think that the Federal Government should
get out of the partnership that we have had and reduce or eliminate the
Federal gas tax. They are willing to give up on the successful
partnership and let each State decide what to do, when it wants to do
it, or what it is able or not able to do. They would abandon all sense
of a national vision and the ability to shape transportation policies.
That is rejected by the mayors, rejected by county commissioners,
rejected by State transportation officials. They want that partnership.
Frankly, there are some people who feel the gas tax ought to be
adjusted to deal with inflation and increased fuel economy as well as
the demands of a growing Nation with an aging infrastructure. Some
people are comfortable with the Republican budget, which will have no
new projects for 15 months and will doom us to a 30 percent reduction
over the next 10 years. Those are legitimate policy differences, but we
are not dealing with them here on the floor. We are shrugging our
shoulders, passing them on to the next Congress and, frankly, to the
Congress after that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I agree with the people who build and maintain and
use our transportation infrastructure. We should address this
infrastructure question head on. American infrastructure used to be the
best in the world and a point of pride, bringing Americans together. It
is now a source of embarrassment and deep concern as we fall further
and further behind global leaders.
We ought to reject this rule. We ought to allow full debate and, by
all means, resolve the funding question now so we can go forward.
America deserves no less.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I just want to make sure we remind everybody that there were 373
Members
[[Page H6238]]
who voted for that halfhearted bill, including the gentleman who spoke
against that bill but who voted for it just 2 years ago. Why? Because
it was good policy. It set forth some policy moving forward in that
MAP-21 allowed for more flexibility for the local communities to
determine what they needed. It took 100 projects and silos and so forth
and reduced them down by a major amount. It gave that flexibility to
the States.
As for my State, we have the largest transportation program this year
that we have ever had--$10 billion--which is $2 billion more than it
was the year before. Why? Because this program and this project and
this bill and the reauthorization worked, and all we are doing is
extending that good policy. The policy already extends all the way
through the end of the year. We are funding it. That is the real need,
to finish funding it, and then we extend it another 5 months.
To me, it is a great piece of legislation that can be improved. It
gives us the time as we come along and begin working on the
reauthorization bill that we are getting ready to propose at some point
in time in the future. The staff is already working, and the Members
are giving ideas. I have met with the staff, and have given them some
ideas that I thought would work, and that is happening right now.
This does not preclude us from continuing on. We don't have to have,
really, even within the current timeframe, a new reauthorization bill
until the end of the year. However, we do need funding. That is what
this bill does. It provides the funding necessary to complete what, I
think, was a very good piece of public policy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman yielded
back?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman reserved.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, our country's roads and highways are a vital asset to
our economic competitiveness. Strengthening our transportation
infrastructure will, of course, make our roads and transit systems
safer, but it also will support commerce, create jobs, and strengthen
our Nation's economy.
In my home State of Rhode Island, 20 percent of our bridges are in
poor condition. Without any changes, 40 percent of the State's bridges
will be structurally deficient by 2024, and, according to a report
released yesterday by the White House, if Congress fails to act, over
3,500 jobs in Rhode Island will be jeopardized. This should not be
allowed to happen, and Congress has a responsibility to provide the
funding for these important transportation projects.
The highway trust fund is a critical resource that supports the
building and repairing of our roads, highways and bridges, and hundreds
of thousands of jobs all across our country. Although I support acting
quickly to replenish the highway trust fund, I am very disappointed
that this bill is being brought up under a closed rule, ensuring that
we cannot consider alternative and more robust funding mechanisms.
Although the Highway and Transportation Funding Act presents a
solution that will extend surface transportation authorization until
next May and ensure the highway trust fund does not become insolvent
next month, a short-term solution is not enough. We have to find a
long-term solution to this issue that secures real investments in
rebuilding America. Due to the nature of construction projects, of
course, States, localities, and contractors need long-term financing to
allow for the proper planning of infrastructure projects. The
uncertainty has already put important transportation projects at risk,
so this governing by crisis must end.
Earlier this month, I welcomed Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx
to Rhode Island, and we discussed the urgent need to replenish the
highway trust fund to help maintain Rhode Island's transportation
infrastructure system and the absolute necessity of a long-term and
sustainable funding model. We met with local, State, and Federal
leaders and stakeholders to hear their concerns and to discuss a path
forward.
This closed rule does not allow us to offer any solution to this
problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule so that we can
address this serious issue in a real way.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, if--or should I say when--we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will
bring up legislation that will prevent employers from denying common
birth control coverage to women, and it will fix the damage that has
been done by the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision. Now more
than ever, it is critical to protect everyone's right to health
services, including that of basic contraception.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
Madam Speaker, in January of this year, I joined over 90 of my House
colleagues in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in advance
of the arguments in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.
The free exercise of religion is one of our country's foundational
principles and greatest strengths, but so too is the fundamental
commitment to equality and fairness--the core idea that the rights and
privileges of one American never snuff out the rights and privileges of
one's neighbor's.
We are disappointed in the Court's ruling that closely held
corporations can now place themselves between patients and doctors. We
are disappointed that it is yet another blow to women's health. We are
disappointed in yet another threat to the economic security of women
and families, and we are disappointed that, for the first time, our
Supreme Court gave a religious exemption to a generally applicable law
to a for-profit corporation.
For-profit corporations do not exist to advance the interests of
individuals with a shared religious faith, and in fact, they are
prohibited by law from hiring, firing, or structuring their memberships
on the basis of religion.
I am proud to stand with Representatives Slaughter, DeGette, and
Nadler in offering legislation to keep private medical decisions
between patients and their doctors, and I look forward to the day that
our laws acknowledge that corporations are not people and that the
constitutional rights of an individual are what this country is formed
to enshrine and protect.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the
audience or anyone listening that we are talking about a rule that is
dealing with transportation funding and about extending it so that we
can continue the jobs necessary and finish the projects that have been
started in States and so that we can start new ones. That is what we
are talking about here and not necessarily about the issue that was
just presented.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, with due respect to my colleague from
Florida, the gentleman is incorrect.
We have stated it and will offer the language on the previous
question. So, as long as we can have the votes to defeat the previous
question, we will be able to bring to the floor under the procedures of
this body a bill that will ensure that women have access to
contraception as part of basic health care. That is under the rules of
this House--by defeating the previous question now being discussed and
that I will offer--and we will be able to move forward on ensuring that
women have access to comprehensive birth control.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Polis.
Madam Speaker, I rise, like my colleague Mr. Kennedy, to urge a
``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can discuss a matter
that is very urgent to the women of this country.
The most blessed moment of my life was the birth of my son, Ben. His
life has brought me great joy as well as great responsibilities. The
decision to bring Ben into the world was a private decision, made by
his father and me. We didn't call our Congressman, and we didn't call
my employer.
Now it appears, with the Hobby Lobby case, that the Supreme Court of
the United States seems to think that
[[Page H6239]]
life begins at incorporation. I vehemently disagree. Employers belong
in the workplace and not in the doctor's office or in our bedrooms.
That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the not my boss' business act,
which will ban a corporation from using its owner's religious belief to
deny health care coverage for contraception. No one should lose access
to birth control because her company doesn't approve of it. A woman's
family planning decision is not her boss' decision, and it is none of
her boss' business.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a leader on the issue.
{time} 1400
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman from Colorado and, as
well, the manager of this rule.
I too rise to be able to push for voting ``no'' on the previous
question, dealing with making sure that we fix the taking away of
women's rights as it relates to choice and pass the it is not my boss's
business legislation that gets us back right-side up, taking care of
women and their rights, in particular, as it relates to their own body
and their family choices as well, to make sure that they have the right
to take care of their own family.
Let me also say that I would wish and had hoped that the present
underlying bill, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act, was truly
a bill that committed to the American people that we believe in the
investment of infrastructure in creating jobs.
This is not what this bill is. This is a temporary fix, saying to the
American cities and transit centers, our transit facilities, and buses
and highways and freeways, that you are only a side thought here in the
United States Congress. We will give you a small amount of money,
transferring $9.8 billion from the general fund and $1 billion from the
leaking underground storage tank trust fund, just to give you a
temporary fix. We are going to put a finger in the dam.
We are not going to have a concerted, concentrated, responsible
assessment of America's transportation needs so that we can fund it. We
are not going to ask Houston metro what monies they need. We are not
going to ask Texas what monies they need. We are not going to ask New
York or California.
I would simply say we have got to get away from the I don't believe
in government crowd and work with the people who understand that
government has a role. The Federal Government has a role. It is a
rescue facility. It is an SOS. It helps people in need, when the States
are in need, and it helps to build infrastructure.
The highway system that President Eisenhower, a Republican, created--
which we have been recognized for--here, we are nickel-and-diming, so I
hope that we will get down to the table, work with those of us who are
concerned.
Finally, vote ``no'' on the previous question because it is not your
boss's business. If you want to have family planning, it is certainly
not your boss's business.
Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security, I rise in
to speak on the rule and in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 5021,
the ``Highway and Transportation Funding Act,'' which reauthorizes
federal-aid highway and transit programs for eight months--through May
31, 2015--by transferring $10.8 billion from in other federal funds to
the Highway Trust Fund to cover projected trust fund shortfalls over
that time.
Instead of this temporary extension, I would have strongly preferred
that we were debating a comprehensive, fair, equitable, and long-term
transportation reauthorization bill the nation desperately needs. We
have had two years to do so.
Democrats want such a bill as does the President. But apparently our
friends across the aisle do not since they have spent the last two
years wasting time on advocating policies wanted by no one except for
the right-wing extremists of the Tea Party.
But I support this emergency but temporary measure because as the
Department of Transportation has reported, if we do not act now highway
trust fund balances by the beginning of August will reach dangerously
low levels and result in a reduction of payments to states by an
average of 28 percent.
Many states have already begun to cancel or delay planned
construction projects, threatening 700,000 thousands of jobs, including
106,100 jobs in my home state of Texas.
The funds to be transferred are $9.8 billion from the General Fund
and $1 billion from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust
Fund. The cost of the transfer from the general fund of the Treasury is
offset through an extension of customs fees and ``pension smoothing,''
which is a euphemism for allowing some large corporations to underfund
their pension systems.
Madam Speaker, the Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 during the
Eisenhower Administration to help finance construction of the
Interstate Highway System, which modernized the nation's transportation
infrastructure and was instrumental in making the United States the
world's dominant economic power for two generations. Our national
leaders then understood that investing in our roads and bridges
strengthened our economy, created millions of good-paying jobs, and
improved the quality of life for all Americans.
It is currently composed of two accounts that fund federal-aid
highway and transit projects built by states. Federal funding from the
trust fund accounts for a major portion of state transportation
spending.
The Highway Trust Fund is financed by gasoline and diesel taxes,
which until the last decade produced a steady increase in revenues
sufficient to accommodate increased levels of spending on highway and
transit projects.
However, those tax rates--18.4 cents/gallon federal tax on gasoline
and a 24.4 cents/gallon tax on diesel fuel--have remained unchanged
since 1993 and were not indexed to inflation so the value of those
revenues has eroded over the years, and, combined with the fact that
vehicles have been getting increasingly better mileage, the revenues
deposited into the Highway Trust Fund beginning last decade have not
kept pace with highway and transit spending from the trust fund.
Consequently, since 2008, Congress has periodically had to transfer
at the 11th hour general Treasury revenues into the trust fund to pay
for authorized highway and transit spending levels and avoid a funding
shortfall. The total amount to date is $54 billion.
Obviously, this is practice is economically inefficient and injects
uncertainty in the highway construction plans, projects, and schedules
of state and local transportation agencies, not to mention the anxiety
it causes to workers and businesses who economic livelihood is
dependent on those projects.
Madam Speaker, the last transportation authorized by Congress for 4
years or more, SAFETEA-LU, expired on September 30, 2009, at the end of
FY 2009. Because Congress and the Administration could not agree to a
new reauthorization, it was necessary to resort to stop-gap temporary
extensions on no less than eight occasions spanning a period of 910
days before Congress finally enacted the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21 Act) on July 6, 2012, which reauthorized
highway and transportation programs through Fiscal Year 2014, a little
more than two years, or until September 30, 2014.
MAP-21 was intended as a short-term measure to give Congress and the
Administration breathing room to reach agreement on a long-term
reauthorization bill.
Yet, as Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means
Committee, has pointed out, since gaining the majority in 2010, his
Republican colleagues have failed to take any action to sustain the
Highway Trust Fund over the long-term and shore up vital infrastructure
projects and has not held even a single hearing on financing options
for the Highway Trust Fund.
Instead, House Republicans have wasted the nation's time voting to
repeal the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times, waging a War on
Women, voting to hold the Attorney General in contempt, pursuing
partisan investigations into Benghazi, the IRS, and the Fast and
Furious scandal originating in the Bush Administration.
Instead of doing their job, their big new idea is to sue the
President for doing his job.
Madam Speaker, enough is enough. It is long past time for this
Congress, and especially the House majority, to focus on the real
problems and challenges facing the American people.
And one of the biggest of those challenges is ensuring that American
has a transportation policy and the infrastructure needed to compete
and win in the global economy of the 21st Century.
To that we have to do extend the reauthorization of current
transportation programs and to authorize the transfer of the funds to
the Highway Trust Fund needed to fund authorized construction projects
and keep 700,000 workers, including 106,100 in Texas on the job.
But that is only a start and just a part of our job. The real work
that needs to be done in the remaining days of this Congress is to
reach an agreement on a long-term highway
[[Page H6240]]
and transportation bill that is fair, equitable, fiscally responsible,
creates jobs and leads to sustained economic growth.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision took direct
aim at women's rights by giving employers a legal right to make
personal health decisions for their employees.
This devastating ruling opened the door to a wide range of
discrimination and denial of basic health care services for women. Now,
all closely held corporations, which represent 90 percent of American
businesses, can legally impose their own religious beliefs on female
employees.
That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the not my boss' business
act, which would undo this damage and prevent for-profit companies from
using the religious beliefs of the owner as an excuse to discriminate
against women and limit their individual health care rights and
choices.
Ninety-nine percent of American women will make the decision to use
contraceptives at some point in their lives. What rights do
corporations have to deny them this choice?
The Hobby Lobby decision is a significant step backwards for women's
health and equality, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question, so that we can bring up and consider this important
legislation and move bosses out of the bedroom and back into the
boardroom.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman
from Florida has any remaining speakers.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. No, Madam Speaker, we don't.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, this Congress seems committed to kicking the can down
the road, avoiding discussions of real solutions, failing to solicit
ideas from Members of both sides of the aisle to move our country
forward, and just stumbling along.
I think we can do better as a Nation, and we need to do better with
regard to our Nation's infrastructure.
Yes, this bill funds the highway trust fund until next May. That is
important; but what happens after May 2015? Is that the magic month
where we finally agree that we need to take long-term action to address
our Nation's crumbling roads and bridges?
This Congress continues to manage self-imposed crisis to self-imposed
crisis. That is no way to run a company. It is certainly no way to run
a country.
As long as we kick the can down the road, we are reducing the
certainty that developers and contractors need to plan for the future
and increasing costs for taxpayers for supporting our existing
infrastructure.
We are undercutting opportunities for public-private partnerships
because of the lack of stability or even knowing when or if or in what
form the highway trust fund will be funded in the future.
If we don't act to provide stability to the highway trust fund, we
are not only putting our economy at risk, but the safety and well-being
of all those who send us here as their representatives. It is not only
a competitiveness issue. It is a safety issue for the American people.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. When we defeat the previous question, we can send our
colleagues back to work with regard to infrastructure and a long-term
solution and address an issue that my constituents have been writing me
about and that American women and men across the country have been
crying out for.
Contraception was a tremendous leap forward for women and for the
American people. It empowers women to make the reproductive choices
that make sense for them and their families. It reduces the number of
abortions. It helps ensure that children are planned and well-raised,
yet the recent Supreme Court decision throws into jeopardy the
availability of contraception as a basic part of comprehensive health
care.
By defeating the previous question, we can bring to the floor a
simple bill that I strongly support that would remedy that and ensure
that women have access to contraceptive choices as part of their basic
health care and prevent us returning to the pre-contraception era.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This rule provides for ample and open debate. It advances a bill that
originally passed the House 373-52, one of the most bipartisan votes we
have had since I have been here.
The underlying bill extends good public policy. That policy was
supported, like I said, by 373 Members of the House, 74 in the Senate,
and signed by the President.
While we must look forward to the passage of another multiyear
transportation authorization, there is no reason we should not pass the
extension. Certainty means ``the state of being free from doubt or
reservation; confident; sure.''
Extending our transportation programs until next summer provides our
States with certainty. It also ensures that our highway trust fund does
not become insolvent at the end of this month.
This extension will keep our transportation construction workers on
the job. It will keep our transit systems functioning at full capacity.
It will continue our investments in our economy. It will do all these
things, without raising taxes on the American people.
Most importantly, it advances the process of a multiyear
transportation bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Shuster
and other members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
as we focus on producing a long-term bill that strengthens our
transportation programs.
The passage of this extension gives us the opportunity to work
together and produce a solution that continues to deliver an unmatched
transportation system for the American people. It is our responsibility
to make sure that that happens.
This bill is the last chance to fulfill our responsibility to the
American people and to provide our States with certainty before the
highway trust fund reaches insolvency.
I urge all Members of this House to vote for the rule, vote for the
bill, keep our transportation systems operating, and let us work
together for a long-term solution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 669 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(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.
5051) to ensure that employers cannot interfere in their
employees' birth control and other health care decisions. 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 among and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means. 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
[[Page H6241]]
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 H.R. 5051.
____
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 Democratic minority 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.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 192, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 407]
YEAS--228
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--192
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Byrne
Campbell
Cantor
Carney
DesJarlais
Hanabusa
Kingston
Lewis
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Roskam
Williams
{time} 1440
Ms. DeGETTE, Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, O'ROURKE, PAYNE, NOLAN,
Ms. WATERS, Mr. McDERMOTT, Ms. PELOSI, and Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. POMPEO, MULLIN, JOHNSON of Ohio, and PETERSON changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
[[Page H6242]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). 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 231,
noes 186, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 408]
AYES--231
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--186
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Black
Byrne
Campbell
Cantor
Carney
Chu
DesJarlais
Garrett
Gohmert
Hanabusa
Kingston
Lewis
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Williams
{time} 1447
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.
____________________