[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 175 (Thursday, December 3, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8975-H8983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 22, SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2015
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 546 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 546
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 22) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways,
highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to
its adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate; and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman
from Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. 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
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. 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 Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I confess to you, I usually use the time
that the Reading Clerk is reading the rule to collect my thoughts and
think about what the bill is before us today and how I am going to try
to persuade my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' But we only got about 15
seconds of the Reading Clerk this morning because this rule is so
straightforward and so simple.
I am thinking, why is it--because I sit on the Rules Committee. I
think we do good work up there. Good work is sometimes complicated
work. Why is it that the rule is so short today? And the answer is
because we are in conference report season, Mr. Speaker. We are in
conference report season.
We have already done the hard work in committee. We have already done
the hard work on the floor. The Rules Committee has already done the
hard work of sorting through dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of
amendments. The Senate has done the same hard work.
And we are now here on the conclusion of that work, on the first
long-term transportation bill in more than a decade.
Mr. Speaker, Democratic administrations, Democratic Presidents,
Democratic Houses, Democratic Senates have failed to do what we are
doing today. Republican administrations, Republican Presidents,
Republican Houses, Republican Senates have failed to do what we are
doing today.
In divided government today, Mr. Speaker, I dare say my friend from
Colorado didn't get everything he wanted in this bill, I certainly
didn't get everything I wanted in this bill, but we are taking the
first big step forward toward certainty for the American people on
transportation that we have seen in more than a decade under both
administrations.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 546 is a standard rule for
consideration of a conference report to accompany H.R. 22, the FAST
Act, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act.
I want to thank Chairman Bill Shuster for the way that he conducted
this entire process. Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of serving
on his committee, and between his leadership, the ranking member's
leadership, Mr. DeFazio, we have crafted a bipartisan, bicameral bill.
I was privileged to serve on the conference committee, Mr. Speaker,
that completed this work, and it worked the way conference committees
are supposed to work, I guess, because, Mr. Speaker, it is the first
conference committee I have been on.
I have been here 4\1/2\ years. We don't see things get to conference
that often. I was a staffer around here, chief of staff, for a decade,
never saw a conference committee from that perspective.
Mr. Speaker, these things don't happen that often. They should happen
more. We considered a conference committee report on education
yesterday. We are doing transportation today. I think we might be on to
something. I think we might be on to something. It is called doing the
long, hard work, Mr. Speaker.
I don't know how many sound bites you have read about the
transportation bill. I don't know how much press is being paid to this
bill. It has taken not days, not weeks, not even months, but years to
bring folks together around this solution, and folks have worked
incredibly hard to make that happen.
It is regular order, Mr. Speaker. It is regular order. This is the
way it is supposed to happen. We are not supposed to have a bill
airdropped into the House of Representatives, into the Senate under a
take-it-or-leave-it circumstance.
What you are supposed to have are those days, those weeks, those
months, and, yes, even years of discussion and debate and moving people
together, finding that common ground, finding those solutions, moving
it to a conference report at the end. And that is exactly what we have
done here today.
Mr. Speaker, this is a report that contains views from across this
conference--Members from rural districts, Members from urban districts,
Members from districts that focus on mass transportation, Members from
districts that have incredible road needs.
It covers folks from the West in single-Member States, single-
district States, and folks from the East, with some of the highest
population densities in the country. It is an amazing accomplishment to
bring all of those folks together.
I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, historically, that has been the way
transportation has been. Transportation is not one of those issues that
divides us as Republicans and Democrats or even from the East and West.
It is one of those issues that brings people together.
It is one of those issues--and there aren't many--but it is one of
those issues that we actually have a constitutional responsibility to
perform. The Constitution does not ask much of this United States
Congress when it comes to developing policy and practice domestically
here in this country, but transportation is one of those issues.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned it was the first long-term bill in more than
a decade. That is absolutely true. Length is important all by itself;
certainty in transportation, important all by itself.
We passed a 2-year transportation extension, Mr. Speaker. We put in
the requirement to streamline some of the regulatory process. Here we
are, more than 2 years later, and those regulations haven't even come
out yet.
Building is a long-term process. Rulemaking, so that people can
build, is a long-term process.
Having long-term certainty is valuable in and of itself, but that is
not just what this bill does. It focuses on the national highway
freight network, Mr. Speaker.
Between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, for example, there are three
major Federal arteries. We have the Baltimore-Washington Parkway
running those 35 miles north. We have U.S. Route 1 running that
distance. We have U.S. Interstate 95 running that distance. Those roads
are never separated by more than about 4 miles.
Now, whether or not we need three major Federal arteries running
between two cities over a course of 35 miles, that is a debate that we
can have. What the scope of Federal transportation funding should be is
a debate
[[Page H8976]]
that we can have, And, in this bill, we did have it, Mr. Speaker.
We are focusing on moving goods to market. This is a bill about
getting to your child's soccer game on time. This is a bill about
freeing up congestion on America's roads and improving America's mass
transit in a way that you don't miss the first pitch. But this is also
a bill about moving freight to market. It is a bill about making
America's economy work.
In a 21st century world, we cannot have a 20th century transportation
system. We focus on those issues that have been left on the sidelines
for far too long. We focus on bridges, Mr. Speaker. Bridges. It seems
so simple. It is a transportation bill; there ought to be more that
goes on than just roads and just buses.
Bridges, Mr. Speaker, turn out to be that chokepoint that so many of
us have in our district. It turns out it is expensive to build a
bridge. It is environmentally difficult to get the permits. It is an
engineering marvel to put together some of the bridges that we have
here today.
As dollars have gotten tight, many of our communities have not
focused on the safety of existing infrastructure in ways that we all
know our constituents demand. We make that investment in safety and
security today.
Mr. Speaker, we streamline a lot of Federal regulation in this bill.
There is not a man or woman on this floor who doesn't believe that we
have an obligation to protect this great Earth. There is not a man or
woman on this floor who doesn't believe that constructing in an
environmentally sensitive manner is a priority for us all.
But there is also not a man or woman on this floor who believes it
ought to take 10 years to get a yes-or-no answer. There is not a man or
woman on this floor that thinks it ought to take 8 years to get a yes-
or-no answer. If the answer is no, the answer is no. But we deserve,
our constituents deserve some certainty in that construction process.
We eliminate duplication. We speed up delivery. We allow States,
through a pilot program, Mr. Speaker, to begin to enforce some of these
Federal mandates. In many cases, it is not the mandate itself that is
the problem. It is the Federal bureaucracy that is overburdened and
can't come through on permitting.
We allow States, under this bill, as long as they abide by the
Federal standards, to go ahead and implement those standards on their
own so that they can prioritize the projects that are most important to
them.
Mr. Speaker, an issue that I know is important to all of our
colleagues: We take some steps to get veterans back to work. This isn't
the first bill that has done that, of course. We have done bill after
bill after bill after bill on this floor, Hire More Heroes most
recently, to say, if the only thing standing between you and putting
our veterans back to work is Federal regulation, we want to get Federal
regulation out of the way. We build on that again in this bill, Mr.
Speaker.
I don't know if you have any truck-driving schools in your district,
but I can't find a truck-driving school in my district that doesn't
have job offers waiting today for folks who sign up today. The demand
is so great, Mr. Speaker, for folks to move goods to market.
But we have limitations on who is eligible to drive trucks, and for
good reasons. For good safety concern reasons, we don't want folks 19,
20 years of age to be driving these heavy trucks.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have, returning from Afghanistan, returning from
Iraq, folks who have been trained by the finest training facility in
all the world, the United States military, folks who have been trained
in the skills required, the safety skills required, to move heavy
equipment from one place to another.
Those men and women are returning from serving us and are looking for
work. If they were talented enough to serve us overseas, are they not
talented enough to serve us here domestically? Of course they are. We
take steps to recognize that here today.
Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting on that opportunity when I can come
to the floor and tell you I got absolutely everything I wanted in
absolutely every line of the bill. It has only been 4\1/2\ years for
me; I haven't had that opportunity yet. I am still hoping that
opportunity comes.
But what I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that I came here to make a
difference. I came here to move the ball forward. I came here to do the
hard things, not the easy things. The easy things have already been
done.
There is a reason we haven't passed a long-term bill in more than a
decade. It is because it is hard to do. And I take great pleasure and
great pride, as a member of the Rules Committee, the Transportation
Committee, and the conference committee, in bringing this rule to the
floor today.
If we pass this rule, Mr. Speaker, we can move to that conference
report, and we can deliver for America what has been undeliverable for
more than a decade.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I commend my colleagues on the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, who we will be hearing from shortly, for
their diligence in developing a thoughtful, long-term, sustainably
funded surface transportation compromise that really has many of the
priorities that Republicans and Democrats brought to the table.
As the gentleman from Georgia said, this is an example of what we
call regular order of a conference committee.
I want to inquire of the gentleman from Georgia, what was the vote on
the conference committee on this final transportation bill?
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend for yielding. It was a unanimous
approval of this provision.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, you did even better than the education
conference committee. We were 39-1. There was actually one person on
that conference committee who didn't support it. What a great job that
you and your colleagues did.
The education conference committee was the first chance in 7\1/2\
years that I had to serve on a conference committee; my friend from
Georgia, his first chance during his time in Congress to do it.
And that is a procedural matter. When the American people hear, oh,
conference committee, that sounds procedural. Yet another committee;
what does that mean? But the product of these committees are
substantial bills.
{time} 0930
Part of the problem here in this institution is that it is a
bicameral legislature, and the House and the Senate don't talk to each
other enough. The formal way they talk to one another is through a
conference committee. What that means is there are Senators and
Representatives on the same committee working on the same bill, rather
than what happens too often around here where the House passes one bill
and the Senate, if they pass a bill at all, passes a very different
bill, and never the twain shall meet. Mr. Speaker, thanks to this
procedural conference committee, the differences between the House and
the Senate have been worked out.
So we were on the education bill yesterday. The Senate will likely
consider that exact same bill next week, which means it will likely go
to President Obama's desk before Christmas. This transportation bill
the House considers today, I don't know the Senate's schedule, but
hopefully in the next week or two they will consider this exact same
bill, and hopefully it will go to President Obama's desk.
So we had a very quick meeting of the Rules Committee yesterday. My
goodness, usually when the Rules Committee meets, those are contentious
meetings. We have a lot of amendments from Democrats and Republicans
that want to have their voice heard. But on a final conference report,
it went pretty quickly, and members of our committee on both sides of
the aisle had a lot of praise for the chair and the ranking member of
the committee that had worked tirelessly to put this deal together.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act--they came up with a
clever acronym, FAST. That works well, right? Transportation, fast, we
all want to go fast, not too fast. The act commits $305 billion over a
5-year period towards improving our Nation's
[[Page H8977]]
roads, bridges, transit systems, and railways. This is something that
Republicans and Democrats both agree is the job of government.
Transportation, infrastructure, and making sure people can get from one
place to another is one of the most critical roles that our government
plays.
In the first year, FAST increases spending on highways by $2.1
billion. By the final year, the funding levels will reach $6.1 billion
in addition to current investment. It also raises transit funding from
$8.6 billion to almost $10.6 billion by 2020.
It establishes a Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects
program that helps focus our attention on projects that increase the
competitiveness of American goods and services by expanding and
improving upon heavily trafficked freight routes. Two that affect us in
Colorado--very near and dear to my district--are highway 25, from
Denver to Wyoming, and highway 70, from Denver to Salt Lake City, which
we were able to successfully include an amendment in the House version,
which I am proud to say is also reflected in this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, these Nationally Significant Freight and Highway
Projects open the door to economic development, improve the flow of
goods across our great country, increase the quality of life for
residents, ease congestion and safety concerns, and, along our
particular corridors, are to the benefit of tourism and the tourism
industry as well.
This bill helps leverage private investment in our surface
transportation program by promoting the use of public-private
partnerships which simply have become a reality for many infrastructure
projects today like those used to expand highway 36 from Denver to
Boulder, which I drive on most days that I am back home in Colorado.
The FAST Act encourages installation of vehicle-to-vehicle and
vehicle-to-infrastructure equipment--which the Colorado Department of
Transportation has been at the cutting edge of designing and
implementing--to improve congestion, ensure passenger safety, and
really help create a 21st century infrastructure. This bill helps
increase dedicated bus funding by 89 percent over the life of the bill,
a change that was direly needed after the last highway authorization.
The FAST Act maintains local flexibility for STP Metro funding,
allows governments to dictate what is best for our communities, and
leaves the door open for complex transportation infrastructure projects
like the northeast line of the Denver Regional Transportation
District's FasTrack system, which our voters approved a decade ago.
The bill requires a feasibility study to determine an impairment
standard for drivers under the influence of marijuana, something that I
introduced a bill on and have been working hard on to increase the
safety of driving in States where marijuana is legalized, like my home
State of Colorado.
This bill increases funding for highway railway grade crossings and
requires operators to report the movements of hazardous materials along
railroads, many of which, again, traverse my district. In Fort Collins,
in Loveland, and in Longmont, where trains run through the downtown
every day, these types of commonsense safety measures are desperately
needed and welcomed.
The bill includes reforms to the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing loan program--a loan that can be used to divert
cumbersome traffic out of the middle of our downtown areas like in Fort
Collins--to ensure speedy approval.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good bill. The policy changes are
thoughtful and progressive. The funding levels authorized are an
improvement upon those of the past. The financing sources we tap, while
not ideal, are workable.
Now, it is always fair to say in any compromise that we could have
done better. There are a few things I am disappointed that this bill
doesn't contain.
We were on the edge of cutting a deal that would have included
international tax reform that would have brought American wealth home,
used the taxes gained to fund transportation and infrastructure
restoration projects nationwide, and prevented the offshoring of
corporations, which we continue to see.
Earlier this Congress, Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill with my
friend, Representative Delaney, that would have deemed repatriation at
8.75 percent to fund both a 6-year highway bill at increased funding
levels and create a new, national infrastructure bank. Combining
international tax reform--desperately needed in its own right--with
bold and robust infrastructure investment is a forward-thinking,
problem-solving solution and exactly the type of move that I wish--and
the American people wish--that Congress could have made.
Our failure to come to a deal on the repatriation of overseas wealth
has, unfortunately, robbed the American people of hundreds of billions
of dollars in public investment and continues to abandon the $2
trillion in overseas earnings that could have been brought home.
In addition, we fail to address the tax incentive that American
companies have to merge with overseas corporations or relocate their
own headquarters overseas to avoid paying American taxes. We came
close--we came close--to addressing this in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to address international tax reform as
soon possible to prevent the continuing offshoring of companies and the
moving of jobs overseas, as well as to ensure that over $2 trillion in
overseas earnings can be invested here in America rather than face an
enormous tax penalty if it is brought back, thereby preventing it from
being brought back and providing an incentive for companies to invest
in overseas growth and infrastructure rather than investing in
infrastructure and growth here at home.
Mr. Speaker, the failure to contain corporate tax reform is not my
only challenge in supporting this bill. There were certainly other
programs that I believe we could have invested in, like improving even
more the TIFIA investment which funds important projects like those
needed along highways 70 and 25 in my district. I would have liked to
have seen a direct funding stream tied to improvement and maintenance
projects along designated high-priority corridors.
Finally, I would have liked to have seen the plight of communities
with rail running through their downtowns addressed in the bill, an
issue very near and dear to the cities in my district, cities like Fort
Collins, Loveland, and Longmont, which are changed entirely by constant
disruption of train horns and road blockages through our busy downtown
areas.
The economic loss that we face in our communities, on top of the
disturbance to residents' quality of life, isn't something that we can
continue to sit by and do nothing about. We are going to work with
every bit of flexibility in the bill. We continue to work with the
department on less expensive implementation of quiet zones and of
trying to reopen the rulemaking around train horns, which we expect to
happen shortly, but there is no specific statutory fix to that issue in
this bill itself.
So while I support this bill and commend the effort and the regular
order that led to us getting here, we still need to look at what we can
do. We see this bill as a floor, not a ceiling. There is even more we
can do to bring our transportation infrastructure into the 21st
century, to ensure its funding source is reliable and sustained, to
repatriate overseas earnings and invest them here at home, and to
eliminate an incentive for American companies to move overseas.
I hope my Republican colleagues agree that passage of this bill
doesn't mean that we retire from presenting new, thoughtful ideas to
improve our Federal highway system. I hope that Republicans and
Democrats will continue to partner to address and solve some of these
issues that I have raised that are not included in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to tell my friend
how much I appreciate what he had to say about international tax reform
and what our opportunities are to grow America rather than grow our
competitors abroad and to say there are a lot of different provisions
in this bill. The Transportation Committee was unanimous in its support
of this bill, as were
[[Page H8978]]
several of the other committees who were involved in the conference,
but there were a few stragglers out there on some of the extraneous
provisions that were placed in here.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble), a member of the freshman class of 2010 and a
member of the Transportation Committee.
Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Congress has offered Members the classic
Sophie's choice. Either vote ``no'' on the transportation bill and
guarantee no reforms to road and bridge building happen, or vote
``yes'' and get reforms necessary to save money and streamline
construction, but do it without actually paying for it and keep racking
up the national debt.
While many of my colleagues are sure to rush to the floor in the next
few hours to pat themselves on the back for accomplishing this
marvelous, transformational highway bill, we should not be popping
champagne. There is no backslapping deserved.
While I am encouraged by the fact that in many ways the policy
related to surface transportation takes a significant step forward, I
am deeply discouraged by the phony pay-fors.
Mr. Speaker, during the upcoming debate on this legislation, you and
the American people are going to hear repeatedly that this bill is
fully offset and fully paid for, essentially that new revenue and
savings will keep the cost of this bill from adding to our national
debt. This is, plain and simple, not the case. Most of the offsets are
from general fund transfers.
Now, it would take a magician of miraculous skill to transfer money
out of a fund that has a negative balance of $400 billion. If, in fact,
there is money to transfer from an empty fund, I might suggest that we
instead try to make the fund a bit less empty instead of transferring
it to more spending.
But I digress. Let's take a look at the pay-fors.
One of a long series of phony offsets is selling off oil that is
currently owned by the American people in the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. While you are stewarding the American people's money, you are
supposed to buy low and sell high, not the other way around. Not only
are we selling off a public asset at near record low prices, we are
also counting on getting over double the current market price in order
to make all the math work. If you can find a buyer to pay $94 per
barrel for oil, like the authors claim, while the market price is $41,
I have got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.
Another phony offset is hiring aggressive private contractors to go
after people who are delinquent on their Federal taxes. Now, listen, I
am all for collecting all outstanding taxes. But what does that have to
do with road building? If, in fact, we can collect an additional $2.5
billion by doing this, shouldn't that money be put against the $400-
billion deficit we are facing already?
Why is it an offset that generates its revenue amount over 10 years
when the highway bill is only for 5 years? What is going to happen in
year 6? Will all the road building the country needs be completed by
then? Are there not any other roads going to need to be built in year
6? Are we not, then, just going to have to borrow even more money?
Mr. Speaker, the bill does make a very reasonable point that taxes
must be indexed to inflation to keep from losing value every year. I
found this quite ironic. That makes total sense. So it is applied to
the gas tax; right? Wrong.
Mr. Speaker, here is my favorite phony pay-for. The bill's authors
didn't have the political courage to deal with user fees for drivers,
but instead are indexing taxes collected by the U.S. Customs Service.
Now, that is really ironic, but that tax is easy to hide from
constituents. Now Americans returning from overseas will pay more for
them in taxes to pave our roads while people who use the roads simply
look on and smile.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is more. There are modifications to royalty
payments. Wow, that has got everything to do with roads. Or how about
denying passports to those who have unpaid taxes? This is allegedly
going to raise $350 million. Of course, that has nothing to do with
roads, and, in fact, may not even be possible without all kinds of
court trials and cases.
Mr. Speaker, I know you can sense my frustration. At the end of the
day, this bill will pass, the President will sign it, and while
everyone is patting themselves on the back for passing a long-term
solution, we are going to continue to pile debt on our grandchildren.
We are so close, though, to getting this right. We streamlined the
process to get roads built faster saving taxpayer dollars. We have
returned more decisionmaking back to the States, and we have reduced
the bureaucracy and red tape around transportation construction.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from
Georgia have eloquently explained some of the benefits of the piece of
legislation. These are valuable and not insignificant reforms. It is
because of these reforms that I am going to reluctantly support this
bill in spite of these phony, god-awful pay-fors. Here is why: I
realize that if this bill does not pass, what we will get instead is
another extension of current policy and more borrowing, because that is
what the Congress has done since I have been here.
So this goes back to the classic Sophie's choice I mentioned at the
beginning of my conversation here. To get the good, I must accept the
bad; to reject the bad, I must reject the good. If only this body, this
Congress, had the political courage to tell the American people a
simple truth: if something is worth buying, it is worth paying for.
Taxing tomorrow should not replace living within our means today. It
hurts future generations, and I am profoundly disappointed. We can and
should do better for the people who sent us here to speak for them.
{time} 0945
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds before I further
yield.
I agree with many of the critiques from the gentleman from Wisconsin.
I think, when you pick apart a lot of the ways that this bill is paid
for, you will find that they either won't generate the amount of
revenue we think they will or you are borrowing from the outyears,
meaning years 5 through 10, to effectively fund years 1 through 5. I
know a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle will weigh that in
their vote. I wish that the committee could have done better in finding
pay-fors.
I would like to briefly address the national petroleum reserve. I
think it is great that Democrats and Republicans are coming together
around selling assets the Federal Government has that are nonproductive
assets, like the petroleum reserve that was set up for a time when
America relied on foreign oil. We are now net producers of crude oil.
I introduced an amendment that was not allowed for the energy bill
yesterday to sell down the entire strategic petroleum reserve, which I
think we should. However, the accounting for it in this bill shows us
magically receiving twice the value per barrel for the price of oil
than the futures market actually indicates that we would get. That is
simply fictitious accounting in terms of how this bill is paid for.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to yield 5 more minutes to
my friend from Wisconsin because I strongly, strongly agree with the
framework that he advanced.
I have come to this floor repeatedly with a simple suggestion that we
index the gas tax and move forward with paying for our future. It is, I
think, an interesting question if we had followed regular order dealing
with transportation funding, if we would have had a hearing that would
have had the President of the AFL-CIO, had the President of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, truckers, AAA, legislators from seven red
Republican States that have raised the gas tax and the sky didn't fall
come forward and talk to Congress about what would make a difference.
Because they have all agreed that we shouldn't be borrowing from the
future, that we should right-size this, not playing budget games, and
be able to have the most effective way to create millions of family
wage jobs and show that we can do our job the same way that was led by
President Eisenhower and President Reagan.
[[Page H8979]]
That said, I think this bill does represent an important step forward
because there was some regular order followed by the committee. I take
my hat off to Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio, who worked
their way through a variety of contentious issues and brought forward a
piece of legislation that provides modest, but important, increases in
our funding programs.
It retains the basic structure. It has some improvements streamlining
the process. It protects transit, safety, pedestrian, cycling programs,
and a higher speed passenger rail. It speaks to a multiplicity of
interests that Americans care deeply about.
It has embedded in it areas of innovation to encourage us to use
technology to be able to improve the transportation system. I think
there is no question that this is a new frontier, that 10 years from
now we will not recognize much of what happens in the transportation
space.
We will be able to coax more value out of our transportation system.
We will be able to stretch dollars and unleash a great deal of
innovation and activity. This legislation encourages that.
Part of the innovation is that, while I think we should index and
raise the gas tax to actually adequately fund a robust bill, I think it
is important for us to get rid of the gas tax and replace it with
something that is sustainable over time.
And, again, this legislation has some provisions that will enable
States to experiment with pilot projects like we have had in Oregon for
the last 10 years for a fee that is based on road use, that would be
sustainable, that would be fair, that actually could be adjusted in
ways to help rural and small-town America and be able to give greater
access to transportation in a more efficient fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we will use the 5 years of stability,
ending the saga of 35 short-term extensions because we wouldn't face
the funding question.
I am hopeful that we will use these 5 years to be able to refine some
of the improvements that are in it and to be able to directly face the
question of whether or not we are going to pay for our transportation
future, that we won't use gimmicks, that we will use the tried-and-true
user fee and replace the gas tax with something that is better and more
sustainable.
It is time to start building that foundation now. It is not just more
money, but it is transforming how the transportation systems work. I
think this bill gives us leverage to move forward on that. Rebuilding
and renewing America is a nonpartisan issue. It is an issue that can
actually bring us together while we make our communities more livable,
our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.
We can put millions of Americans to work at family wage jobs that
will improve the quality of life for communities from coast to coast.
This bill is a step in that direction. But it is only going to work if
we accept our responsibilities to properly fund it, to face the future,
and accept responsibility to do our job right. I hope we will.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to not just celebrate the successes that we are having today, but to
associate myself with my colleagues who say the next round of hard work
begins tomorrow.
There is a reason that we have the funding pay-fors that we have in
this bill. It is not a lack of political courage. I have colleagues on
both sides of the aisle who have courage to spare. It is a lack of
trust.
When my constituents back home send me a dollar's worth of taxes and
get 50 cents worth of road out of it, they say: Rob, what is the deal?
The streamlining that goes on in this bill grows that trust. The
elimination of duplication, the focus on national priorities instead of
pet projects, on and on and on, builds that trust.
The time to build that trust is before the next highway bill, not at
the end of a highway bill cycle. There is a lot of work for each and
every one of us to do in a bipartisan way to go out and build that
trust.
I think about what my friend from Oregon said: We are going to
squeeze a lot of efficiency out of our transportation system.
The innovation title in this bill is absolutely going to allow us to
do more with less, which is precisely why constituents are worried
about an indexed gas tax that puts transportation spending on
autopilot, because all of our experience is, if you raise it, someone
will spend it.
Balancing efficiency with productivity is a challenge that we all
face that begins with trust generated back home, Mr. Speaker. My great
hope is that the reforms in this bill, combined with the reforms in
MAP-21, combined by the leadership that States and localities are
taking with their own revenue bases, are going to create that trust for
a generation to come.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Like the others you have heard from this morning, I commend those who
have worked so hard on this bill. But, like them, I, too, have
reservations about the final product.
It continues to underfund our Nation's infrastructure and it relies
on unsustainable revenue sources and budgetary musical chairs; yet, it
does include some policy provisions that I believe will result in
better project development and delivery.
I represent the heart of the Las Vegas Valley, a region that is home
to over 2 million people. We receive and enjoy the visits of over 43
million people from around the world annually. Having a transportation
system to safely and efficiently move these people and products around
is vital to our economic success.
That is why I am thankful that this final report includes a number of
provisions that I advocated for, including language to ensure our
States and MPOs consider the needs of the traveling public when
developing their long-term transportation plans.
The bill will also create a national travel and tourism advisory
committee comprised of stakeholders from across the industry to develop
a plan to identify and invest in infrastructure and operational
improvements along the most important travel corridors.
In addition, the final bill includes language I submitted that will
extend the authorization for the development of Interstate 11, a major
regional project in the Southwest.
Lastly, the conference report includes provisions I advocated for in
the committee to make our roadways safer for all users, not just cars
and trucks, but pedestrians and cyclists who have seen increased
accidents and fatalities in recent years.
For these reasons that affect my district and the rest of the country
and for others that have been mentioned, I think the bill deserves
support. While it is not perfect, it is a step in the right direction.
For that reason, I will vote for it. I urge others to do so as well.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say I think my friend from Nevada missed one of those great
successes that she had--I will call it the Rodney Davis-Dina Titus
amendment--to make sure that localities have even more control over
their spending decisions.
It is one of those episodes, Mr. Speaker, where folks didn't get
everything they wanted, but because folks were in there advocating for
their constituents throughout the entire process, we ended up further
down the road today than we would have been yesterday but for the
Davis-Titus team pushing forward on that language.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill is, and that is what regular
order gets us. It is so frustrating. I feel like I am in a room full of
racehorses here trying to wait for the doors to open. The gates have
just come open, and we all want to get to the finish line.
Our new Speaker has made some commitments about bringing more
involvement and individual Member participation in the process. That is
new to this institution in many ways, Mr. Speaker, but it is not new to
the Transportation Committee. It is not new to the work that you and I
have been doing on the committee for these past many months. That is
why this bill is worthy of the support of so many of our colleagues.
I can go through a similar list as my friend from Nevada of ideas
that came
[[Page H8980]]
from the folks who lead back home. Folks who are in the tourism
industry know more about tourism than those of us who are not, as do
folks who are in the visitor industry, folks who are in the
construction industry, folks who are in the concrete industry, on and
on and on.
Mr. Speaker, when you open the process up, you end up with fewer
folks with political agendas at the table. You end up with more folks
with practical agendas at the table. When you open the process up, you
don't end up with politicians looking for their own piece of the pie.
You end up with the public sharing their expertise and their
experience. That is how you end up with a bill like the FAST Act today.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a great pleasure for me to serve on the
Transportation Committee with folks like the gentlewoman from Nevada,
like the gentleman from Illinois, to be able to have a common goal--
very different approaches on how you want to achieve that goal, very
different constituencies pushing you towards that goal--but to know
that, if you put in the time and if you put in the hours, you will get
a result.
So often in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, it seems like we are tilting
at windmills. When I joined the Transportation Committee, I knew that
we were not going to be tilting at windmills. We were going to be
slaying a dragon. This bill slays that dragon today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am pleased to be here as a conferee to the conference that worked
to resolve the difference between the House and Senate versions on the
surface transportation reauthorization.
A huge thank you goes to Chairmen Shuster and Graves and Ranking
Members DeFazio and Norton and their committees and personal staff for
all the work that was put in to get us to this 5-year authorization.
The fact is that America is literally falling apart. I am glad that
we are going to be sending the President a long-term authorization this
week. Making our infrastructure work and work for us smarter is really
critical.
{time} 1000
The bill does a lot to support research, development, and the
deployment of transportation technology.
I am pleased with the overall research title, including specific
investments in hazardous materials, R&D, and traffic congestion
mitigation, but I do have a couple of concerns with oversight.
The Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office was moved
out of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and
Technology and into the Federal Highway Administration. We have to be
vigilant that this move doesn't undermine the multimodal coordination
of ITS research and development.
A new deployment program was funded through a large tax on existing
R&D programs. While I support the deployment program, we shouldn't lose
sight of the fact that today's R&D investments enable tomorrow's new
deployment opportunities. So we shouldn't be shortsighted.
Nonetheless, I support the FAST Act. It is a bipartisan, bicameral,
long-term authorization to fund highway transit, highway safety, motor
carrier safety, hazardous material safety, and even passenger rail
programs and projects.
Let me be clear. It is not the bill I would have written, and it is
definitely not perfect, including some of the problematic pay-fors that
have been discussed today. But it will provide certainty, invest in
America's infrastructure, and create good-paying American jobs.
The bill is funded at the higher Senate-approved level, which is
important.
I am happy to have worked in a bipartisan fashion with my colleagues
on the floor and in committee to make a difference in people's lives.
In our region, our Senators, Representatives Norton and Comstock, and
I have provided new and direct Federal oversight of the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
We have also worked to include transit-oriented development
eligibility in TIFIA. Yes, this would mean that many of the transit-
oriented projects across the Nation, in the metropolitan Washington
region, and in my county, Prince George's County, along the Green Line,
will now be able to qualify for Federal financing because most transit-
oriented development infrastructure projects are less than the $50
million threshold that TIFIA currently requires.
In working with several Members, we were able to restore funding for
the High Density States program that will allow transit systems in
these States to maintain jobs, service, and service frequency and
continue to help those who rely on public transportation.
Though I oppose today's rule, we have to enact a bill that will
construct and rebuild our road, bridge, transit, and rail
infrastructure that creates jobs here at home and enables the United
States to compete internationally in the 21st century.
This is a good first step. Let's not stop here. Let's continue to
work in this fashion to rebuild America's infrastructure.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Financial Services.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank Congressman Polis for the
time he has granted me.
Mr. Speaker, after more than 2 years of obstruction by a vocal,
ideologically driven minority that led to a 5-month shutdown of the
Export-Import Bank, I could not be more pleased to rise and speak in
strong support of the provision in the conference report that would
finally put the Ex-Im Bank back in the business of supporting U.S.
jobs.
After having spoken with and having listened to the stories of
countless users of the Ex-Im Bank, both in my district and across the
country, I can tell you without a doubt that the 4-year reauthorization
of the Bank in this conference report is absolutely necessary and
essential to ensure that U.S. businesses, both large and small, can
operate and survive in the global marketplace.
From the loss of satellite contracts in California, to the many
potential job losses across this country, to offers from our foreign
competitors that have urged American exporters to take their operations
to Canada or overseas to Europe and China, there is no question that
the shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank has done great damage.
In joining with Whip Hoyer, Leader Pelosi, Representatives Heck and
Moore, as well as with Representatives Fincher and Lucas, we showed
that a determined majority of Democrats and Republicans who work
together will ultimately prevail.
It is time to put an end to this wholly destructive and entirely
unnecessary period that has caused us so much pain and fear and
hopelessness for so many businesses and workers across this country
whose livelihoods rely on the Ex-Im Bank.
I urge the passage of the conference report.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Today, I recognize the patriotism and volunteer service of Major
Fredric Arnold, a World War II P-38 fighter pilot in the Army Air
Corps.
Mr. Arnold flew and survived 50 combat missions and was promoted to
the rank of major at the age of 23. He received numerous medals,
including the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal with nine oak
leaf clusters.
While assigned to the Office of Flying Safety, he wrote and
illustrated the first ever flight training manuals for the P-38, P-47,
P-51, and P-80 fighter aircraft, and he created educational air combat
situation drawings for the P-38 Lightning, which saved the lives of
inexperienced American pilots.
Today, at age 93, Mr. Arnold lives in Boulder, Colorado, where he is
creating a monumental bronze sculpture, funded by The Radiance
Foundation, which depicts 12 life-sized fighter pilots who are engaged
in a World War II flight briefing, in order to honor the 88,000 airmen
who lost their lives during the war and to ensure future generations
remember the sacrifices that were made to protect our freedom.
This sculpture is entitled, ``Lest We Forget: The Mission,'' and it
will be exhibited at the World War II Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana.
[[Page H8981]]
I am proud to recognize Major Fredric Arnold for his service as a
fighter pilot and for his personal commitment to honor and help us all
remember the aviators who served this Nation during World War II.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from Colorado if he
has any other speakers remaining.
Mr. POLIS. We are prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to
close.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would close the loophole
that allows suspected terrorists to legally buy guns. This bill would
bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the terrorist watch
list.
Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, a third of our Nation's major roads are rated
as poor or mediocre, and one in four bridges is in need of significant
repair or expansion, many of them dangerous, while 45 percent of
Americans don't have access to public transit.
Congestion on our roadways has gotten so bad that Americans are
wasting an average of 8.4 billion hours--that is 8.4 billion hours less
in productivity--and 4.5 billion gallons of gas over a decade while
being stuck in traffic.
The average commuters are wasting nearly $800 of their own money and
5 full days of their lives each year in traffic. In my district alone,
population and congestion has far outpaced our ability to maintain our
critical thoroughfares.
If you have ever been to Colorado, you will know that there is one
way up to our world-class ski resorts and ski areas and unparalleled
14,000-foot peaks from the Denver metro area. It is called highway 70.
If you have ever taken it on a Friday evening or on a Sunday evening,
you have probably sat in your car at a dead stop, waiting at times
perhaps even for hours.
If you have ever been to the largest city in my district, Fort
Collins, home to one of our greatest universities, Colorado State
University, you have probably found similar circumstances along highway
25 during rush hour.
The expansion of highway 25 and the high-speed rail along highway 70
have been given completion dates of 60 years from now. That isn't good
enough. Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder, Vail, Frisco, Breckenridge--
none of these tourism- and recreation-driven communities can survive
without making improvements for 60 years.
The future of these projects lies with a long-term, robustly funded
surface transportation reauthorization. Our future depends upon our
States' and municipalities' ability to rely on what level of Federal
support they can expect to receive and what their Federal partnerships
will look like year in and year out.
By providing consistency in funding levels and a several-year
commitment to critical infrastructure projects, as we do today in this
conference report, we open up a future for major highway improvements
like those needed with highways 25 and 70 in my district and with
highways and roads across the entire Nation.
While I have outlined the issues and misgivings I have with this
bill--and I certainly agree with Mr. Ribble about the lack of courage
this Congress has to actually pay for a bill and to instead devise
clever gimmicks that only partially pay for the bill, including
assuming that we are going to get twice the money per barrel for oil
that the Federal Government owns and the actual market price would
bear--I think that this bill, nevertheless, is a step forward over
continued short-term reauthorizations, which I have been voting against
the last several times they have come before us and which, I should
point out, also generally include gimmicky ways of paying for it.
So if this Congress, which it seems to have done, has chosen not to
address the real issue of how to pay for something and has chosen to
instead use gimmicks, it is still better to do that in a predictable
manner rather than to come up with a new gimmick every 60 days--a
gimmick of the month, if you will--which is what this Congress has been
doing throughout this year.
I thank my colleagues for the inclusion of my amendments in this
bill, particularly an amendment to designate Highway 70 from Denver to
Salt Lake City as a High Priority Corridor. That provision will open up
funding sources and opportunities for a highway that has been a
nightmare for residents, for tourists, and for freight truck drivers
for decades, particularly during its busiest times.
I appreciate the committee's desire to be transparent and receptive
to ideas brought by Members who don't serve on the committee.
I am hopeful that what happened here this week, as my colleague from
Georgia started out by saying, not only with the surface transportation
reauthorization but also with the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, is only a beginning--a beginning of big things, of good things, of
hard compromises, of the success of regular order, of discussions
between the House and the Senate that will hopefully bode well for
future developments.
I am hopeful that we can get back to work after a long hiatus of
gridlock and grandstanding. I hope this is the first of many.
I congratulate my colleagues for coming together on such a pivotal
piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have talked about how much work has gone into this bill--not days,
not weeks, not months, but even years in trying to get here.
I want to say what I said when I began, which is, when Democrats
controlled every single lever of government, they could not get a bill
like this done. When Republicans controlled every single lever of
government, we failed to get a bill like this done. Today, with the
leadership of Bill Shuster and Mr. DeFazio, we are getting that done.
But it is not just at the Member level. And I want to associate all
of the hard staff work that goes into making something like this
happen, Mr. Speaker. Chris Bertram, our staff director over on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Matt Sturges, our deputy
staff director over on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee;
Collin, Geoff, Murphie on my own staff, Alex Poirot--folks who have put
in hour after hour after hour, right through the Thanksgiving holiday,
making sure that America's priorities get done.
Folks back home don't care how much hard work it takes; they care
that we put in the hard work. And this is an example of that success
today.
Mr. Speaker, so often, I hear my colleagues say, ``If I had written
this bill myself, it would have been different.'' Generally, when I
hear my colleagues on the other side of aisle say, ``If I had written
this bill it would be different,'' I think, ``Thank goodness you didn't
write this bill.'' I have no doubt that they think the same thing when
I say that.
We rarely get everything that we want, but we rarely have an
opportunity to come together and be as successful as we are today.
The only roadblock between us and a long-term transportation bill for
the first time in more than a decade is my yielding back the balance of
my time.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 546 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.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. 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
[[Page H8982]]
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 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 H.R. 1076.
____
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. WOODALL. Mr. 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. Mr. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 179, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 666]
YEAS--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--179
Adams
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
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)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
[[Page H8983]]
NOT VOTING--11
Aguilar
Cuellar
Johnson, Sam
Maloney, Carolyn
Meeks
Payne
Rokita
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Loretta
Takai
Williams
{time} 1042
Messrs. WALZ, LEVIN, and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). 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 is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 384,
noes 40, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 667]
AYES--384
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Benishek
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McDermott
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Quigley
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--40
Becerra
Bera
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Crowley
Delaney
Edwards
Fudge
Graham
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Huffman
Jeffries
Kennedy
Lieu, Ted
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Moore
Neal
Pallone
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Rangel
Ruiz
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Slaughter
Speier
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Van Hollen
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Aguilar
Cuellar
Johnson, Sam
Meeks
Payne
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Loretta
Takai
Williams
{time} 1051
Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Messrs. CUMMINGS, ASHFORD, BRAT, MOULTON, and
BUTTERFIELD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
____________________