[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 12024-12032]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5021, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION 
                          FUNDING ACT OF 2014

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 669 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 669

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5021) to 
     provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, 
     motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out 
     of the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, modified by the amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure and the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House 
Resolution 669 provides a closed rule, as is customary for bills that 
are reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, for H.R. 5021, the 
Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014.
  On July 10, the Ways and Means Committee marked up H.R. 5021. The 
committee ordered the bill favorably reported by voice vote.
  The bill is simple. It extends our transportation programs and our 
reforms enacted by MAP-21, and it pays for the extension without 
raising taxes on hardworking American taxpayers.
  This extension is crucial. Prior to the expiration of MAP-21 later 
this fall, the highway trust fund is expected to encounter a funding 
shortfall. The Secretary of Transportation has warned that, as early as 
August, payments from the trust fund to the States will begin to be 
delayed.
  Let's be clear: this bill is just an interim remedy for our current 
situation. It is not a solution to our transportation funding problem.
  As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I 
can testify to the work that Chairman Shuster and the committee are 
doing

[[Page 12025]]

to provide a multiyear authorization bill. It is a deliberative, 
thoughtful process. The underlying bill advances that process.
  The underlying bill proposes policies that have previously received 
bipartisan support. Further, these policies have previously also been 
embraced by the Senate.
  The bill extends the surface transportation programs and funding 
through May 2015. It provides stability and certainty for States. It 
continues our investments in infrastructure. It staves off job losses 
at the height of the construction season. And it allows the process to 
move forward toward a long-term solution.
  Some have suggested or proposed a short-term patch for just a few 
months. There are some who would like to see this just provide enough 
time to get through the election. A short-term extension would 
guarantee a crisis. Even worse, that manufactured crisis is easily 
avoidable.
  Central Floridians are still trying to dig their way out of years of 
economic downturn. We are focusing on improving our families' financial 
situation, and certainly we don't need a downturn in construction--and 
especially infrastructure construction in the State of Florida and in 
my particular area, central Florida.
  A short-term extension is, at best, feeble and, at worst, 
irresponsible. Washington should not do less when it can do better. 
Washington should not add to the list of crises of its own doing by 
passing a short-term patch when a longer-term answer is within reach.
  The task at hand remains avoiding the expiration of the existing 
transportation authorization. The existing authorization is actually a 
good bill.
  MAP-21 included significant reforms to cut out Federal red tape and 
bureaucracy. It streamlined the project delivery process. It reformed 
and consolidated programs. It improved safety. It ended the process of 
earmarks in transportation bills.
  MAP-21 set deadlines for slow-moving projects. It set a new NEPA 
funding threshold and expedited projects that were destroyed by 
disaster.
  MAP-21 consolidated more than 100 programs by nearly two-thirds. It 
eliminated dozens of ineffective programs and provided more resources 
and flexibility to States. It also incentivized States to seek partners 
in the private sector to finance and operate infrastructure projects.
  Further, MAP-21 passed the House by a strong bipartisan vote of 373-
52, including the support of the gentleman from Colorado. It passed the 
Senate by an equally strong bipartisan vote of 74-19. The White House 
issued a statement that said they were pleased with the bill.
  While we continue with a process that will lead to a multiyear 
authorization bill, there is no reason why we should not support an 
extension of MAP-21. Extending MAP-21 through next summer is simply an 
extension of another year of good transportation policy.
  Once again, I rise in support of this rule and the potential this 
extension holds for producing a thoughtful process that results in a 
quality long-term authorization bill.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today, we are considering the rule for H.R. 5021, the 
Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014. While this bill 
provides an extension of Federal highway programs, frankly, our Nation 
deserves a long-term solution to support our transportation 
infrastructure needs that will allow for a more effective and efficient 
use of resources through public-private partnerships and long-term 
contracts. In effect, by engaging in short-term legislating, we are 
actually raising the cost of infrastructure projects across the 
country, making it less efficient rather than more than efficient.
  Unfortunately, this bill is a closed rule, which I do not support. It 
limits debate. It doesn't allow Democrats or Republicans to come up 
with ideas for amendments to improve the bill. That should be what this 
legislative body is all about.
  I have friends on both sides of the aisle who have ideas to make this 
more efficient, to save taxpayers money, and to get more infrastructure 
bang for their buck, ideas like a national infrastructure bank, a 
bipartisan bill by my colleague, Mr. Delaney, that would allow for 
lower-cost financing with locally driven infrastructure projects, at no 
taxpayer cost.
  None of us are even allowed to discuss for not 10 minutes, not 1 
minute, not a single moment, any amendments under this closed rule, and 
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on 
this closed rule.
  In 2012, Congress passed the Moving Ahead for Progress program that 
my colleague, Mr. Webster, mentioned, which reauthorized Federal 
surface transportation programs and maintained the solvency of the 
highway trust fund through the end of September 2014.
  That seemed like a little ways off at the time, but here we are in 
July of 2014, fast approaching insolvency of the trust fund in 
September of 2014. How inconvenient to members of the Republican Party 
that this might occur before an election. Suddenly, there is an impetus 
to do something about it, to actually address the issue or at least to 
kick the can down the road a few months until, conveniently, after the 
election when we actually have a national discussion about how to meet 
our infrastructure needs and to pay for them.
  This bill is simply a very short-term highway trust fund patch. It 
only extends the highway programs through May 31, 2015, and transfers 
$10.8 billion to the highway trust fund.
  As Transportation Secretary Foxx said, without a patch, tens of 
thousands of critical projects and 700,000 jobs will be jeopardized. In 
fact, States are already preparing to delay or halt ongoing projects if 
the funding runs out in September. My home State of Colorado alone has 
nearly 50 active construction projects that could be at risk if we 
don't pass some kind of patch.
  But this approach is just another kick the can down the road 
approach, to have a national discussion about infrastructure, to 
encourage efficiency of our Federal dollars rather than forcing 
contractors to bid out higher amounts because of uncertainty about 
whether their contracts will be long-term or short-term.
  There are several easy ways that we could pay for a long-term 
transportation fix. The simplest would be immigration reform. H.R. 15 
would generate over $200 billion in the first 10 years and close to a 
trillion over 20 years that could be used to invest in infrastructure 
across our country.
  Others have talked about using some kind of user fee. Traditionally, 
the gas tax has been used as a proxy for people who use our highways.
  I am very disappointed that not only are we not considering any long-
term solutions to reauthorizing MAP-21, but we are not even allowed to 
improve this current bill before us, not just to make it longer term, 
but to offer simple, efficient ideas to make it work better and get 
more bang for our buck.
  Our Nation relies on Congress to pass measures that ensure that our 
roadways, bridges, and transit systems are the best in the world. This 
bill falls short on that account. The American Society of Civil 
Engineers has given our country's infrastructure a D-plus grade on its 
2013 report. In this increasingly competitive global economy, a D-plus 
is not enough to get us by as a nation to create jobs and grow our 
economy.
  My home State of Colorado has increasing transportation needs, as do 
many other States. In the wake of floods last September, rockslides, 
landslides, and mudslides caused damage to roadways and bridges in 
Colorado. Five hundred miles of roadway were affected at the peak of 
the flood and 120 bridges were damaged, resulting in over $500

[[Page 12026]]

million of additional repairs to our already beleaguered transportation 
infrastructure. While the Colorado Department of Transportation did an 
excellent job completing short-term fixes to get traffic moving, there 
remain many long-term projects along our canyons and roadways where we 
need permanent repairs to our roads. There simply isn't enough of an 
investment in this highway infrastructure bill to address our 
infrastructure needs.
  Again, we don't necessarily need to spend more money. We can simply 
pass the Partnership to Build America Act--if it were allowed to be 
introduced as an amendment under this bill, I would be happy to--a 
bipartisan bill by Representative Delaney with 70 sponsors from both 
sides of the aisle that would essentially help finance locally driven 
projects to the tune of $750 billion at a low interest rate by allowing 
U.S. multinational companies who have tax-deferred profits oversees to 
bring back their earnings to the United States, where they can invest 
them in growing employment and infrastructure here. It is a win-win 
scenario. Yet under this closed amendment process, we are not even 
allowed to bring up this bill.
  This measure falls short on a number of accounts. Its short-term 
nature makes the growing importance of public-private partnerships more 
difficult. And yet if we could simply amend this bill and improve it or 
make it longer term, we could finally have a discussion about our 
national infrastructure.
  The House majority continues to have a closed process where bills are 
constructed and not allowed to be improved upon by Republicans or 
Democrats here in the House. I know that we can do better, and I 
encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule, bring down this rule so we 
can have an open process regarding transportation funding.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that the authorization 
is not ending next month. It is just the funds are running out. We have 
got to extend the funds. The authorization continues on through the end 
of the year.
  That authorization was a good bill, as I explained in my opening 
remarks. MAP-21 was an excellent piece of legislation that consolidated 
a lot of programs, allowed States more flexibility, and gave them a 
pathway to create many of the infrastructure projects we need. This is 
just the money. And then we go a little bit further so we are not 
creating a crisis right before we adjourn.
  So I think, in the end, this is a very good piece of legislation. It 
puts forth what is needed. We need money to finish the authorization we 
already have. That is what this does.
  The administration policy from the Executive Office of the 
President's Office of Management and Budget says this: ``With surface 
transportation funding running out''--he is only talking about the 
funding. He knows that the policy still is in place--``and hundreds of 
thousands of jobs at risk later this summer, the administration 
supports House passage of H.R. 5021 . . . This legislation would 
provide for continuity of funding for the highway trust fund during the 
height of the summer construction season and keep Americans at work 
repairing the Nation's crumbling roads, bridges, and transit systems.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, the hallmark of a great country is a great 
infrastructure.
  In its infancy, this country built interstate canals that helped 
commerce and life become strong and our economy vigorous. In the height 
of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln met with Justin Morrill, 
then a Senator from the State of Vermont, and conceived the ambition of 
an intercontinental railroad. In the 1950s, President Dwight D. 
Eisenhower said that we needed an interstate highway system.
  This temporary bill, where our only responsibility is to make sure we 
can preserve what we have by having the funds necessary to repair roads 
and bridges is an abdication of our responsibility. Congress can do 
better, and America needs better. Our bridges and our roads are falling 
apart. I recently visited two projects in Vermont that are in desperate 
need of repair, but this bill provides temporary funding for 8 months. 
Not only that, instead of basing it on user fees, which have always 
been the way we funded infrastructure projects that we all benefit by, 
it raids pension funds. It essentially creates a pothole in future 
pensions to fill potholes in our highways.
  Some folks are saying that we need time in order to put together a 
long-term bill. Madam Speaker, we have had time. What we need is a 
decision. There are options out there. As the gentleman from Colorado 
said, we are not lacking options; what we are lacking is will. This has 
traditionally been an area of common agreement between Republicans and 
Democrats where, yes, it is always difficult to figure out what that 
revenue source is, but that difficulty is not an excuse for Congress to 
fail to do its job and give this highway trust fund a sustainable and 
long-term revenue source so that folks in Montpelier and folks in 
Austin, Texas, can put together those plans to repair our roads and 
bridges, put America back to work, and get this economy going.
  I urge us to defeat this rule and to defeat this bill and for 
Congress finally to do its job.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the future of our 
transportation system in this country.
  Back at home in Sussex, Bergen, and Warren Counties in the Fifth 
District of New Jersey, they are only asking the same thing that people 
across America are, and that is to have a safe and efficient 
transportation system of roads and bridges.
  The highway trust fund is bankrupt. Our past highway bills have been 
filled with excessive Federal regulation and pork-laden projects, 
meaning that the maintenance of our roads and bridges has not been 
getting done. So we are here today because we don't have the money now 
to fix them.
  Going forward, we have two clear choices. Either we can continue down 
the same path, the current path, passing a bill to bail out the trust 
fund to the tune of some $50 billion, or we can find a better way.
  Personally, I get tired every year going and speaking to the 
Secretary of Transportation--it doesn't matter which party--and asking 
him: Can you tell me what exactly the needs are on Route 17 in Bergen 
County or Route 519 in Sussex or Warren County? I ask that question, 
and again and again they will say: Where's Route 17? Where's Route 517? 
Where's Route 519?
  We are here saying we cannot continue to allow Washington, who 
doesn't know our needs and doesn't know our roads, to tell us how to 
run things. The solution to our current quagmire is to return the power 
back to the people who know better, back to the States. States, 
counties, and local officials are the ones that use these roads. They 
are in the best position to decide how to use these transportation 
dollars.
  There is not one single Federal official here in Washington, elected 
or otherwise, who knows the needs of my community or your community 
with specific detail as well as the people who actually live there, who 
actually drive on those roads, and who actually have to maintain those 
roads.
  So it is about time, after all these years, that we re-empower the 
States, re-empower the counties, re-empower the local officials, the 
people who live and use these roads, to make the transportation 
decisions, instead of people here in Washington who have no clue what 
the needs are, who have no idea what the problems are, who have no idea 
as to actually provide, what I said at the very beginning, what the 
people in my counties of the Fifth District want as a safe and 
efficient transportation system.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

[[Page 12027]]


  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank Mr. Polis for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 5021. 
This closed rule prevents an opportunity for us to address the larger 
issues related to passing a long-term surface transportation 
reauthorization, and that is what Mr. Polis and Mr. Welch are talking 
about. I agree.
  The constituents that I represent in North Carolina feel that it is 
critical to extend the highway trust fund. This bill is only one piece 
of what must be done to strengthen our Nation's infrastructure and 
economy.
  The need to pass surface transportation reauthorization funding is 
extremely critical. MAP-21 expires at the beginning of October. At the 
same time, each day brings us closer to a highway trust fund shortfall 
and risks putting major transportation projects on hold and stalling 
our economy.

                              {time}  1345

  The North Carolina DOT has indicated that the highway trust fund 
insolvency would jeopardize 108 projects and 20,000 jobs across my 
State.
  Eastern North Carolina remains one of the poorest districts in the 
country despite the economic resurgence many other areas of the country 
have seen. Strengthening infrastructure helps encourage economic 
development, increase commerce and improve tourism. We cannot afford to 
halt construction, growth, and progress. We must find a way to provide 
consistent and robust transportation funding. We need a fix to the 
reauthorization act.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule so that we can have a 
larger conversation about the long-term surface transportation 
reauthorization.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a leader on transportation issues.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Polis.
  I listened carefully to what you said, and you are right--this closed 
rule is a disservice. My respected friend from Florida, I think, is 
just wrong.
  Madam Speaker, this is not a solution, and it is not a deliberate, 
thoughtful process. We have not had a single hearing on transportation 
finance in the Ways and Means Committee all year. We didn't have one 
the year before that. We haven't had a hearing in the 43 months that 
Republicans have been in charge. This is a perfectly predictable 
problem that was created by the halfhearted bill that they passed last 
Congress. We knew this was coming for months. Now we are here.
  With all due respect, I, too, am disappointed that we have a rule 
that does not make in order broad discussion and amendment. We have 
been unable in this Congress to deal meaningfully with the looming 
transportation crisis. The gentleman is on the Transportation 
Committee. He doesn't have a bill. We are almost through this Congress, 
and we don't have a bill. America is falling apart. America is falling 
behind. We have failed to give America's communities the resources and 
a robust 6-year reauthorization plan.
  We have done it before under the chairmanship of Bud Shuster and 
Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and I was happy to have played a small 
role. That bill made a difference.
  If we fail to come to grips with the funding level and, instead, in 
approving this rule and the underlying bill, this Congress is giving 
itself a ticket out of town to adjourn and pass it on to not just the 
next Congress but to the Congress after that. Make no mistake. In May 
2015, you are not going to be in any different a place. It is going to 
be May 2017.
  Congress has legitimate policy differences. I appreciate my friend 
from New Jersey. Some people think that the Federal Government should 
get out of the partnership that we have had and reduce or eliminate the 
Federal gas tax. They are willing to give up on the successful 
partnership and let each State decide what to do, when it wants to do 
it, or what it is able or not able to do. They would abandon all sense 
of a national vision and the ability to shape transportation policies. 
That is rejected by the mayors, rejected by county commissioners, 
rejected by State transportation officials. They want that partnership.
  Frankly, there are some people who feel the gas tax ought to be 
adjusted to deal with inflation and increased fuel economy as well as 
the demands of a growing Nation with an aging infrastructure. Some 
people are comfortable with the Republican budget, which will have no 
new projects for 15 months and will doom us to a 30 percent reduction 
over the next 10 years. Those are legitimate policy differences, but we 
are not dealing with them here on the floor. We are shrugging our 
shoulders, passing them on to the next Congress and, frankly, to the 
Congress after that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I agree with the people who build and maintain and 
use our transportation infrastructure. We should address this 
infrastructure question head on. American infrastructure used to be the 
best in the world and a point of pride, bringing Americans together. It 
is now a source of embarrassment and deep concern as we fall further 
and further behind global leaders.
  We ought to reject this rule. We ought to allow full debate and, by 
all means, resolve the funding question now so we can go forward. 
America deserves no less.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I just want to make sure we remind everybody that there were 373 
Members who voted for that halfhearted bill, including the gentleman 
who spoke against that bill but who voted for it just 2 years ago. Why? 
Because it was good policy. It set forth some policy moving forward in 
that MAP-21 allowed for more flexibility for the local communities to 
determine what they needed. It took 100 projects and silos and so forth 
and reduced them down by a major amount. It gave that flexibility to 
the States.
  As for my State, we have the largest transportation program this year 
that we have ever had--$10 billion--which is $2 billion more than it 
was the year before. Why? Because this program and this project and 
this bill and the reauthorization worked, and all we are doing is 
extending that good policy. The policy already extends all the way 
through the end of the year. We are funding it. That is the real need, 
to finish funding it, and then we extend it another 5 months.
  To me, it is a great piece of legislation that can be improved. It 
gives us the time as we come along and begin working on the 
reauthorization bill that we are getting ready to propose at some point 
in time in the future. The staff is already working, and the Members 
are giving ideas. I have met with the staff, and have given them some 
ideas that I thought would work, and that is happening right now.
  This does not preclude us from continuing on. We don't have to have, 
really, even within the current timeframe, a new reauthorization bill 
until the end of the year. However, we do need funding. That is what 
this bill does. It provides the funding necessary to complete what, I 
think, was a very good piece of public policy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman yielded 
back?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman reserved.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, our country's roads and highways are a vital asset to 
our economic competitiveness. Strengthening our transportation 
infrastructure will, of course, make our roads and transit systems 
safer, but it also will support commerce, create jobs, and strengthen 
our Nation's economy.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, 20 percent of our bridges are in 
poor condition. Without any changes, 40 percent of the State's bridges 
will be structurally deficient by 2024, and, according to a report 
released yesterday by

[[Page 12028]]

the White House, if Congress fails to act, over 3,500 jobs in Rhode 
Island will be jeopardized. This should not be allowed to happen, and 
Congress has a responsibility to provide the funding for these 
important transportation projects.
  The highway trust fund is a critical resource that supports the 
building and repairing of our roads, highways and bridges, and hundreds 
of thousands of jobs all across our country. Although I support acting 
quickly to replenish the highway trust fund, I am very disappointed 
that this bill is being brought up under a closed rule, ensuring that 
we cannot consider alternative and more robust funding mechanisms.
  Although the Highway and Transportation Funding Act presents a 
solution that will extend surface transportation authorization until 
next May and ensure the highway trust fund does not become insolvent 
next month, a short-term solution is not enough. We have to find a 
long-term solution to this issue that secures real investments in 
rebuilding America. Due to the nature of construction projects, of 
course, States, localities, and contractors need long-term financing to 
allow for the proper planning of infrastructure projects. The 
uncertainty has already put important transportation projects at risk, 
so this governing by crisis must end.
  Earlier this month, I welcomed Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx 
to Rhode Island, and we discussed the urgent need to replenish the 
highway trust fund to help maintain Rhode Island's transportation 
infrastructure system and the absolute necessity of a long-term and 
sustainable funding model. We met with local, State, and Federal 
leaders and stakeholders to hear their concerns and to discuss a path 
forward.
  This closed rule does not allow us to offer any solution to this 
problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule so that we can 
address this serious issue in a real way.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, if--or should I say when--we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will 
bring up legislation that will prevent employers from denying common 
birth control coverage to women, and it will fix the damage that has 
been done by the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision. Now more 
than ever, it is critical to protect everyone's right to health 
services, including that of basic contraception.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, in January of this year, I joined over 90 of my House 
colleagues in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in advance 
of the arguments in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.
  The free exercise of religion is one of our country's foundational 
principles and greatest strengths, but so too is the fundamental 
commitment to equality and fairness--the core idea that the rights and 
privileges of one American never snuff out the rights and privileges of 
one's neighbor's.
  We are disappointed in the Court's ruling that closely held 
corporations can now place themselves between patients and doctors. We 
are disappointed that it is yet another blow to women's health. We are 
disappointed in yet another threat to the economic security of women 
and families, and we are disappointed that, for the first time, our 
Supreme Court gave a religious exemption to a generally applicable law 
to a for-profit corporation.
  For-profit corporations do not exist to advance the interests of 
individuals with a shared religious faith, and in fact, they are 
prohibited by law from hiring, firing, or structuring their memberships 
on the basis of religion.
  I am proud to stand with Representatives Slaughter, DeGette, and 
Nadler in offering legislation to keep private medical decisions 
between patients and their doctors, and I look forward to the day that 
our laws acknowledge that corporations are not people and that the 
constitutional rights of an individual are what this country is formed 
to enshrine and protect.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the 
audience or anyone listening that we are talking about a rule that is 
dealing with transportation funding and about extending it so that we 
can continue the jobs necessary and finish the projects that have been 
started in States and so that we can start new ones. That is what we 
are talking about here and not necessarily about the issue that was 
just presented.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, with due respect to my colleague from 
Florida, the gentleman is incorrect.
  We have stated it and will offer the language on the previous 
question. So, as long as we can have the votes to defeat the previous 
question, we will be able to bring to the floor under the procedures of 
this body a bill that will ensure that women have access to 
contraception as part of basic health care. That is under the rules of 
this House--by defeating the previous question now being discussed and 
that I will offer--and we will be able to move forward on ensuring that 
women have access to comprehensive birth control.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Polis.
  Madam Speaker, I rise, like my colleague Mr. Kennedy, to urge a 
``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can discuss a matter 
that is very urgent to the women of this country.
  The most blessed moment of my life was the birth of my son, Ben. His 
life has brought me great joy as well as great responsibilities. The 
decision to bring Ben into the world was a private decision, made by 
his father and me. We didn't call our Congressman, and we didn't call 
my employer.
  Now it appears, with the Hobby Lobby case, that the Supreme Court of 
the United States seems to think that life begins at incorporation. I 
vehemently disagree. Employers belong in the workplace and not in the 
doctor's office or in our bedrooms. That is why I am a proud cosponsor 
of the Not My Boss' Business Act, which will ban a corporation from 
using its owner's religious belief to deny health care coverage for 
contraception. No one should lose access to birth control because her 
company doesn't approve of it. A woman's family planning decision is 
not her boss' decision, and it is none of her boss' business.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a leader on the issue.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman from Colorado and, as 
well, the manager of this rule.
  I too rise to be able to push for voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, dealing with making sure that we fix the taking away of 
women's rights as it relates to choice and pass the it is not my boss's 
business legislation that gets us back right-side up, taking care of 
women and their rights, in particular, as it relates to their own body 
and their family choices as well, to make sure that they have the right 
to take care of their own family.
  Let me also say that I would wish and had hoped that the present 
underlying bill, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act, was truly 
a bill that committed to the American people that we believe in the 
investment of infrastructure in creating jobs.
  This is not what this bill is. This is a temporary fix, saying to the 
American cities and transit centers, our transit facilities, and buses 
and highways and freeways, that you are only a side thought here in the 
United States Congress. We will give you a small amount of money, 
transferring $9.8 billion from the general fund and $1 billion from the 
leaking underground storage tank trust fund, just to give you a 
temporary fix. We are going to put a finger in the dam.
  We are not going to have a concerted, concentrated, responsible 
assessment of America's transportation needs so

[[Page 12029]]

that we can fund it. We are not going to ask Houston metro what monies 
they need. We are not going to ask Texas what monies they need. We are 
not going to ask New York or California.
  I would simply say we have got to get away from the I don't believe 
in government crowd and work with the people who understand that 
government has a role. The Federal Government has a role. It is a 
rescue facility. It is an SOS. It helps people in need, when the States 
are in need, and it helps to build infrastructure.
  The highway system that President Eisenhower, a Republican, created--
which we have been recognized for--here, we are nickel-and-diming, so I 
hope that we will get down to the table, work with those of us who are 
concerned.
  Finally, vote ``no'' on the previous question because it is not your 
boss's business. If you want to have family planning, it is certainly 
not your boss's business.
  Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security, I rise in 
to speak on the rule and in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 5021, 
the ``Highway and Transportation Funding Act,'' which reauthorizes 
federal-aid highway and transit programs for eight months--through May 
31, 2015--by transferring $10.8 billion from in other federal funds to 
the Highway Trust Fund to cover projected trust fund shortfalls over 
that time.
  Instead of this temporary extension, I would have strongly preferred 
that we were debating a comprehensive, fair, equitable, and long-term 
transportation reauthorization bill the nation desperately needs. We 
have had two years to do so.
  Democrats want such a bill as does the President. But apparently our 
friends across the aisle do not since they have spent the last two 
years wasting time on advocating policies wanted by no one except for 
the right-wing extremists of the Tea Party.
  But I support this emergency but temporary measure because as the 
Department of Transportation has reported, if we do not act now highway 
trust fund balances by the beginning of August will reach dangerously 
low levels and result in a reduction of payments to states by an 
average of 28 percent.
  Many states have already begun to cancel or delay planned 
construction projects, threatening 700,000 thousands of jobs, including 
106,100 jobs in my home state of Texas.
  The funds to be transferred are $9.8 billion from the General Fund 
and $1 billion from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust 
Fund. The cost of the transfer from the general fund of the Treasury is 
offset through an extension of customs fees and ``pension smoothing,'' 
which is a euphemism for allowing some large corporations to underfund 
their pension systems.
  Madam Speaker, the Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 during the 
Eisenhower Administration to help finance construction of the 
Interstate Highway System, which modernized the nation's transportation 
infrastructure and was instrumental in making the United States the 
world's dominant economic power for two generations. Our national 
leaders then understood that investing in our roads and bridges 
strengthened our economy, created millions of good-paying jobs, and 
improved the quality of life for all Americans.
  It is currently composed of two accounts that fund federal-aid 
highway and transit projects built by states. Federal funding from the 
trust fund accounts for a major portion of state transportation 
spending.
  The Highway Trust Fund is financed by gasoline and diesel taxes, 
which until the last decade produced a steady increase in revenues 
sufficient to accommodate increased levels of spending on highway and 
transit projects.
  However, those tax rates--18.4 cents/gallon federal tax on gasoline 
and a 24.4 cents/gallon tax on diesel fuel--have remained unchanged 
since 1993 and were not indexed to inflation so the value of those 
revenues has eroded over the years, and, combined with the fact that 
vehicles have been getting increasingly better mileage, the revenues 
deposited into the Highway Trust Fund beginning last decade have not 
kept pace with highway and transit spending from the trust fund.
  Consequently, since 2008, Congress has periodically had to transfer 
at the 11th hour general Treasury revenues into the trust fund to pay 
for authorized highway and transit spending levels and avoid a funding 
shortfall. The total amount to date is $54 billion.
  Obviously, this is practice is economically inefficient and injects 
uncertainty in the highway construction plans, projects, and schedules 
of state and local transportation agencies, not to mention the anxiety 
it causes to workers and businesses who economic livelihood is 
dependent on those projects.
  Madam Speaker, the last transportation authorized by Congress for 4 
years or more, SAFETEA-LU, expired on September 30, 2009, at the end of 
FY 2009. Because Congress and the Administration could not agree to a 
new reauthorization, it was necessary to resort to stop-gap temporary 
extensions on no less than eight occasions spanning a period of 910 
days before Congress finally enacted the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in 
the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21 Act) on July 6, 2012, which reauthorized 
highway and transportation programs through Fiscal Year 2014, a little 
more than two years, or until September 30, 2014.
  MAP-21 was intended as a short-term measure to give Congress and the 
Administration breathing room to reach agreement on a long-term 
reauthorization bill.
  Yet, as Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, has pointed out, since gaining the majority in 2010, his 
Republican colleagues have failed to take any action to sustain the 
Highway Trust Fund over the long-term and shore up vital infrastructure 
projects and has not held even a single hearing on financing options 
for the Highway Trust Fund.
  Instead, House Republicans have wasted the nation's time voting to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times, waging a War on 
Women, voting to hold the Attorney General in contempt, pursuing 
partisan investigations into Benghazi, the IRS, and the Fast and 
Furious scandal originating in the Bush Administration.
  Instead of doing their job, their big new idea is to sue the 
President for doing his job.
  Madam Speaker, enough is enough. It is long past time for this 
Congress, and especially the House majority, to focus on the real 
problems and challenges facing the American people.
  And one of the biggest of those challenges is ensuring that American 
has a transportation policy and the infrastructure needed to compete 
and win in the global economy of the 21st Century.
  To that we have to do extend the reauthorization of current 
transportation programs and to authorize the transfer of the funds to 
the Highway Trust Fund needed to fund authorized construction projects 
and keep 700,000 workers, including 106,100 in Texas on the job.
  But that is only a start and just a part of our job. The real work 
that needs to be done in the remaining days of this Congress is to 
reach an agreement on a long-term highway and transportation bill that 
is fair, equitable, fiscally responsible, creates jobs and leads to 
sustained economic growth.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision took direct 
aim at women's rights by giving employers a legal right to make 
personal health decisions for their employees.
  This devastating ruling opened the door to a wide range of 
discrimination and denial of basic health care services for women. Now, 
all closely held corporations, which represent 90 percent of American 
businesses, can legally impose their own religious beliefs on female 
employees.
  That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Not My Boss' Business 
Act, which would undo this damage and prevent for-profit companies from 
using the religious beliefs of the owner as an excuse to discriminate 
against women and limit their individual health care rights and 
choices.
  Ninety-nine percent of American women will make the decision to use 
contraceptives at some point in their lives. What rights do 
corporations have to deny them this choice?
  The Hobby Lobby decision is a significant step backwards for women's 
health and equality, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question, so that we can bring up and consider this important 
legislation and move bosses out of the bedroom and back into the 
boardroom.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman 
from Florida has any remaining speakers.

[[Page 12030]]


  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. No, Madam Speaker, we don't.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, this Congress seems committed to kicking the can down 
the road, avoiding discussions of real solutions, failing to solicit 
ideas from Members of both sides of the aisle to move our country 
forward, and just stumbling along.
  I think we can do better as a Nation, and we need to do better with 
regard to our Nation's infrastructure.
  Yes, this bill funds the highway trust fund until next May. That is 
important; but what happens after May 2015? Is that the magic month 
where we finally agree that we need to take long-term action to address 
our Nation's crumbling roads and bridges?
  This Congress continues to manage self-imposed crisis to self-imposed 
crisis. That is no way to run a company. It is certainly no way to run 
a country.
  As long as we kick the can down the road, we are reducing the 
certainty that developers and contractors need to plan for the future 
and increasing costs for taxpayers for supporting our existing 
infrastructure.
  We are undercutting opportunities for public-private partnerships 
because of the lack of stability or even knowing when or if or in what 
form the highway trust fund will be funded in the future.
  If we don't act to provide stability to the highway trust fund, we 
are not only putting our economy at risk, but the safety and well-being 
of all those who send us here as their representatives. It is not only 
a competitiveness issue. It is a safety issue for the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. When we defeat the previous question, we can send our 
colleagues back to work with regard to infrastructure and a long-term 
solution and address an issue that my constituents have been writing me 
about and that American women and men across the country have been 
crying out for.
  Contraception was a tremendous leap forward for women and for the 
American people. It empowers women to make the reproductive choices 
that make sense for them and their families. It reduces the number of 
abortions. It helps ensure that children are planned and well-raised, 
yet the recent Supreme Court decision throws into jeopardy the 
availability of contraception as a basic part of comprehensive health 
care.
  By defeating the previous question, we can bring to the floor a 
simple bill that I strongly support that would remedy that and ensure 
that women have access to contraceptive choices as part of their basic 
health care and prevent us returning to the pre-contraception era.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This rule provides for ample and open debate. It advances a bill that 
originally passed the House 373-52, one of the most bipartisan votes we 
have had since I have been here.
  The underlying bill extends good public policy. That policy was 
supported, like I said, by 373 Members of the House, 74 in the Senate, 
and signed by the President.
  While we must look forward to the passage of another multiyear 
transportation authorization, there is no reason we should not pass the 
extension. Certainty means ``the state of being free from doubt or 
reservation; confident; sure.''
  Extending our transportation programs until next summer provides our 
States with certainty. It also ensures that our highway trust fund does 
not become insolvent at the end of this month.
  This extension will keep our transportation construction workers on 
the job. It will keep our transit systems functioning at full capacity. 
It will continue our investments in our economy. It will do all these 
things, without raising taxes on the American people.
  Most importantly, it advances the process of a multiyear 
transportation bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Shuster 
and other members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
as we focus on producing a long-term bill that strengthens our 
transportation programs.
  The passage of this extension gives us the opportunity to work 
together and produce a solution that continues to deliver an unmatched 
transportation system for the American people. It is our responsibility 
to make sure that that happens.
  This bill is the last chance to fulfill our responsibility to the 
American people and to provide our States with certainty before the 
highway trust fund reaches insolvency.
  I urge all Members of this House to vote for the rule, vote for the 
bill, keep our transportation systems operating, and let us work 
together for a long-term solution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 669 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5051) to ensure that employers cannot interfere in their 
     employees' birth control and other health care decisions. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce, the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5051.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative

[[Page 12031]]

     Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th 
     edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the 
     previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is 
     generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority 
     Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 192, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 407]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--192

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Byrne
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carney
     DesJarlais
     Hanabusa
     Kingston
     Lewis
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Roskam
     Williams

                              {time}  1440

  Ms. DeGETTE, Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, O'ROURKE, PAYNE, NOLAN, 
Ms. WATERS, Mr. McDERMOTT, Ms. PELOSI, and Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. POMPEO, MULLIN, JOHNSON of Ohio, and PETERSON changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 186, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 408]

                               AYES--231

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick

[[Page 12032]]


     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--186

     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Black
     Byrne
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carney
     Chu
     DesJarlais
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Hanabusa
     Kingston
     Lewis
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Williams

                              {time}  1447

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________