[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.

                          ____________________