[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 72 (Thursday, May 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4114-H4118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3, TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY
FOR USERS
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for
Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs,
and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to
the Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Oberstar
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Oberstar moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-
aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs,
and for other purposes, be instructed to insist on a level of
funding for highway, transit, and highway and motor carrier
safety programs equal to: (1) the level of funding provided
in H.R. 3 ($283.9 billion); plus (2) the additional resources
necessary to increase the guaranteed rate of return for
States to not less than 92 percent while ensuring that each
State receives no less than it is provided under H.R. 3.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when we passed the legislation to extend
highway programs for another 30 days, I said that the most hopeful sign
for the upcoming conference was the apparent agreement that the
chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) would
chair the conference. That assures that this conference will move
expeditiously, on time, with attention to detail and with a deliberate
spirit of achieving all that we need to do in policy and financing to
get a bill back, a conference report back to the House, to the other
body and downtown to be signed.
I know how hard the chairman has worked, how much time and effort and
commitment he has made personally to that initiative, and I am proud to
work alongside with him.
The motion to instruct that I offer directs House conferees to do two
things: Insist in the conference on a level of funding for highway
transit
[[Page H4115]]
and highway and motor carrier safety programs equal to the level of
funding that is in the bill that passed this body, was reported from
our committee, passed this body, 283.9, it should be 284, but who is
going to quibble with Filene's Basement's version of transportation,
and the additional resources necessary to increase the guaranteed rate
of return for States to not less than 92 percent, while ensuring that
every State gets no less than we provided for every State in our
version of the bill.
It has been our goal all along to increase from 90.5 to 92 percent.
The question of equity has been central to last year's and the year
before and this year's reauthorization debate on surface
transportation. In fact, the very title of our bill, Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, makes equity the very top issue in our
legislation.
Donor States, as we have heard for months and months, want their
guaranteed rate of return raised from 90.5 percent to as much as 95
percent. Now, we could do 95 percent handily at $375 billion, the bill
that the chairman and I agreed upon, and 74 to 75 members of our
committee cosponsored, but that was not possible under the politics of
transportation. We understand that.
Donee States, on the other hand, want to ensure that they continue
receiving the adequate highway transportation funding that they have
been accustomed to and committed to. So the bipartisan bill that we
reported from committee in the last Congress set the level at $375
billion.
We knew that that was not going to be acceptable downtown or very
likely in the other body, so we scaled the bill back to $275 billion.
But even then the administration threatened to veto a bill with funding
above its view of the proper investment level, which was a paltry $256
billion that everyone, the contractor community, the labor community,
the States, the transit authorities, everybody knows that does not
build you one more mile of highway, one new bridge or buy one new
transit bus or rail car. Everybody knew that. It was completely
unrealistic.
When we got into conference last year just before the August recess,
the administration finally put on the table $283.9 billion. And we
said, you know, it is movement in the right direction. Let us take it
and let us go with this. But we never reached agreement in conference,
which is why, of course, we are back here on the floor.
We agreed at the outset of this Congress to start where we left off
in the last Congress, without any smoke and mirrors, without any
fussing said, this is the number that is realistic, that if you want to
do legislation, this is the way to do it. Let us start with this
number.
But we also had to face the reality that it is not possible to do
anything above 90.5 percent return on equity for those States who want
us to move higher, without taking away from someone else, without doing
damage to core programs, without a whole host of other difficulties.
Now, the other body found some money. The other body found $11
billion; and in their bill, provided $295 billion in funding and were
able to increase the minimum rate of return to 92 percent. Now, whether
that $11 billion is fiscally sound or politically sustainable is a
matter we will have to address when we get into conference, which is
why this motion to instruct is important.
We all want to achieve equity. We all want to raise those States up.
We all understand, as the other body understood, that if they did not
raise their numbers to get to be able to commit $295 billion, they
would not be able to achieve the equity they needed for those western
States, large geographic areas and large highway mileages and
transportation needs, nor would they be able to satisfy the donor
States or other, smaller, donee States. So they needed more money. They
realistically approached the issue and approved 11 billion additional
dollars.
The reality, as we get into conference, we are not going to be able
to, without additional resources, to come up to the $292 billion level.
The other body will need to pass a conference report, and we will not
be able to bring back to this body a conference report that will
satisfy donor States, donee States without additional resources. So
that is why the additional resources language is needed.
{time} 1515
All of it comes right on the heels of the Texas Transportation
Institute Annual report on congestion, their Urban Mobility Report,
issued just a few weeks ago, which finds once again, every year, they
find congestion increasing. Overall traffic delays totaled 3.7 billion
hours, up from 3.6 billion a year ago.
Congestion and delay cause an additional consumption of 2.3 billion
gallons of fuel. That means every driver in America in a congested area
is spending 1 week longer in their car than they would if they could
drive at posted highway speeds, and they are buying one tank of
gasoline more than they would if they could drive at posted highway
speeds. It is a moral issue because they are taking the name of the
Lord more often in traffic on weekdays than they do in church on
Sundays.
We need to address that issue, all three of those issues. We are the
most mobile society in history. We travel at an increasing rate and we
travel in our cars. Population in the decade of the '90s as expressed
in the Census of 2000 group is 4 percent. But transportation usage grew
14 percent, 3-plus times as much as population growths. Total vehicle
miles traveled, just vehicle miles traveled, rose 19 percent in that
decade. Number of households grew 72 percent in that decade, but
household vehicle miles soared 193 percent.
The fact is congestion is choking our cities. It is choking off
commerce. It is causing business to spend more money. UPS told me that
for every 5 minutes' delay they lose $40 million nationally, every 5-
minute delay. There is a business adverse impact unless we make the
investment. It is within our hands to do this.
Now, even at the Senate-passed level of 295, we are $80 billion below
where we know we need to be. What we are saying with this motion to
instruct is let us go to conference. Let us keep 92 percent the rate of
return on the radar screen, which is our objective and the other body's
objective, and get the resources we need and do no less for every State
in conference than we did in the House bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this motion to
instruct the conferees.
It is a beautifully drafted, I thought, solution to a problem. But I
will tell you after reviewing it that if we go to 92 percent and we
insist that they be no less than what is in H.R. 3, there will be a
problem of having a higher number in de facto. I think we can get
there. I just do not think we ought to be instructing the conferees and
having the illusion of actually going above to what we vote with 417
votes for in this House.
I will urge the gentleman to consider that as we go to conference
that I will do everything in my power to get more money. I think what
we ought to be concentrating on is, that yesterday was the seventh
extension that we had on this legislation. It is not this body's fault.
It is not the House and the people's fault. It is the other side who
decided not to finish this product. Yes, we just got the papers today,
before we go on this short recess so it has hamstrung us.
I want us to get to conference. I want the conferees to be nominated
today. I want us to get the staffs working together to solve this
problem. Try to get more money than was there, but sticking with the
number of House-passed so that we finally get some stability within the
States.
Everything the gentleman said about traffic is absolutely right: it
has got worse in the last 4 years. We have seen a tremendous increase
of automobile and trade traffic, and we are not addressing that issue
as we should be.
I have tried to explain to the people that this is just another step
forward. When we do get this bill, it is every intention I have by the
first or the middle of June that we will have this bill on the
President's desk. But that is just the beginning. We will come back
again, and with the gentleman's help,
[[Page H4116]]
again and again and again until we solve this problem with
transportation in this great Nation of ours.
Yes, we are mobile compared to the rest of the world, but we are very
quickly becoming less mobile. We are becoming standing in traffic. We
are not able to deliver next day. We are losing effort. We are losing
what I call productive hours. And more than that we are losing the edge
globally. We are going to have a vote here in the near future on CAFTA,
or whatever they call that thing, Central America. We had a vote on
NAFTA. We had a vote on GATT. We had a vote on world trade, et cetera,
et cetera; and this is well and good, but if we are going to get into
that business of trade and production and import and export, we have
got to have the transportation system in place. We have to have the
rail in place, which it is not.
Every railroad we have today is oversubscribed. We have not laid any
new rail access or relieved the congestion on the highway. We have not
improved, what I think is necessary, truck lanes, which is in our bill.
We have not done the things we should have done and everyone says,
well, it will take care of itself. Well, that is a very shortsighted, I
think, point of view for this country.
So for those who look upon this bill as the final thing, whatever we
come out of a conference, if it is 289, 284, 283, whatever it will be,
if it is 290, that is just the beginning. And I hope you take time to
understand that.
I again reluctantly oppose the motion to instruct. We will be
together in that conference, and we will hopefully together achieve the
goals they are seeking.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the chairman, and I simply
reiterate what a delight it is to work with him in concert towards the
objective we all share.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I thank the ranking
member for his leadership on this issue, and I thank the chairman for
his leadership.
I know that were we acting independently as a committee to formulate
the legislation and set the surface transportation policy for the
United States of America, the bill would be much more robust than what
is before us today. But we have to deal with the facts that are before
us.
We are 20 months overdue on a surface transportation reauthorization.
We have extended the old transportation bill seven times at lower
levels of funding than under any scenario of bill that will come out of
any conference with the House and the Senate. That means that projects
have been foregone, investments have not been made, jobs have not been
created.
As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) point out, people are
sitting in traffic. We are not keeping up with demand; we are not
keeping up with maintenance as we should.
For every billion dollars we invest, now, remember, we are borrowing
a pile of money to run this government, $1.3 million a minute to run
the government. Some of it goes to pay people, not to grow things. Some
of it goes to other programs of dubious value. But for this program,
for surface transportation, for highways, for roads, for bridges, for
mass transit, we are not borrowing the money. The American people have
already paid the tax. It is sitting there waiting to be spent, spent
productively, putting people to work, and moving us more efficiently
and moving goods more efficiently. We should not forego that.
A billion dollars, 47,000 jobs are created or sustained for every
billion-dollar investment; $6.1 billion in additional economic
activity; 32 percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre
condition; 28 percent of bridges are structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete; 36 percent of the Nation's urban rail vehicles
and maintenance facilities, 29 percent of the Nation's bus fleet and
maintenance facilities are in substandard or poor condition.
My State alone, the little State of Oregon, has a $4.7 billion
interstate, not intrastate, interstate bridge problem. The interstate
that connects Canada, the United States and Mexico; California, Oregon,
and Washington, $4.7 billion.
Our neighbors to the north in Washington State have one problem, a
viaduct problem in Seattle, an incredible safety issue on an incredible
choke point and problem. That is $1.5 billion for that one project. And
so it is across the country. Member after Member can come forward and
enumerate these projects that are necessary, needed investments.
We need the most robust bill possible. I am hopeful that this is the
last extension. I am hopeful this will be a conference that comes to a
positive conclusion. We can get this done before the end of June with a
sense of urgency and with the leadership of these two gentlemen.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I
must say that I enjoy serving with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar). He certainly is one of the most knowledgeable people on
transportation issues. He was working on it long before I came to
Congress. We agree on many transportation issues. However, I think we
may disagree on this particular action he is asking for the House to
take.
To paraphrase him, he said we need to address the problem of people
taking the Lord's name more in traffic than they do in church on
Sunday. I am right with him. And I am trying to correct that situation.
Again, we agree that we need to move this process forward. This is
the seventh extension. There are people waiting. There are jobs
waiting. In some areas, unlike Florida, you only have a certain
building season. But we have come to an agreement on a 30-day
extension. We are about to appoint conferees and move forward with the
process that will finish the job. But we do not want to finish the job
and start on a shaky foundation. We would send the wrong message now if
we put our position forward, the 283.9 or 284 billion, it is the House
position.
Agreeing on 92 and sending a message to conference at this point, I
submit, is premature. Why would you show your cards at this particular
juncture in the conference process? We may be able to do better. We may
not have the money to do the 92. We may be putting ourselves in a very
difficult position to start out the conference in already dealing with
an administration that we know is temperamental on this issue. So we
need to move forward on a good solid foundation.
We do not need to pass this.
The other thing, too, I heard our majority leader address some folks
from Florida, and he said in Congress the legislative process is
something that is very important. He said they have a term for this in
Texas. He said they called it ``strategey,'' just joking of course, for
strategy. And I submit this is strategery, not good strategy, because
we are not moving forward in a timely fashion.
Members have not been alerted to this action. Some Members, I think,
have already departed the Chamber and are on their way to Memorial Day
events back in their districts. So from a strategic standpoint, I think
we make a mistake by even offering this at this time. I think at the
right time with the right strategy that we could do better to move this
process and also the dollars forward to build our Nation's
infrastructure.
{time} 1530
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I appreciate the difficulty in which my committee colleagues find
themselves in this matter, but I would also observe that the business
of the House is never over until the adjournment vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
yielding me this time to speak on his motion to instruct.
And I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I join in the gentleman's
assessment of the capacity of the chairman of our committee, who will
be chairing the conference committee; and we know
[[Page H4117]]
there will be no cell phones that will violate the sanctity of the
conference committee activity. Would that it would set the tone for the
entire Congress.
I take modest exception to my friend from Florida, because I think
the spirit with which this is offered is to, in fact, strengthen the
foundation upon which the chairman and the members of our conference
committee will go into this discussion. It is an opportunity for us to
present a united front in the House.
I think it is quite clear, based on the work that has gone on in the
course of the last 2\1/2\ years, that there is strong, strong interest
and understanding and appreciation of what robust means. This is an
opportunity for us to demonstrate once again the breadth of support
that our chairman and our leadership take into this conference
committee.
It is truly the broadest base of support for a transportation
infrastructure bill that we have ever seen. It represents from coast to
coast, rural and urban, small State, suburb, not just highway, of which
we are deeply concerned, but our chairman and ranking member are deeply
appreciative of the relationship of all the transportation modes and
many of the smaller projects that are within the ambit of the ISTEA
legislation.
This vote on the motion to instruct will clearly strengthen the hand
of the Chair and of the House. It is a point of departure. I am willing
to follow them forward if we can expand the boundaries here to capture
the spirit and the interest and the concern not just of our committee,
but the people that we represent at home and the Members in the House.
With all due respect, I would suggest that the offer with which I
think this is offered and that I will support is to strengthen the hand
of the chairman and ranking member, strengthen the hand of the House,
and capture the broad base of support so we can be successful in this
important deliberation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time, and I echo the remarks of my
colleague from Oregon as well the ranking member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. This is a bipartisan bill. I cannot
do anything more than to congratulate Chairman Young and Ranking Member
Oberstar for the collaborative method in which they have approached the
legislation that would provide for transportation for America.
But, Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is a big plus for the State
of Texas because of the great changing needs that we are facing: The
congestion that we are facing not only in our cities, but in our rural
areas, the necessity of urban areas to have sound walls in order to
ensure that transportation is near neighborhoods, the increasing use of
toll roads, primarily because there is need for more money to provide
for transportation, the lack of dollars to help with our rail systems
throughout America.
Clearly, we need to ensure that the funding in H.R. 3, that was
collaboratively voted on in a bipartisan manner, is preserved and to
instruct that our States receive the dollars necessary for safety and
for transportation. This motion to instruct is simply a gift to the
conferees in order to give them the enhanced instruction to make the
transportation bill the one that provides jobs, builds highways,
provides highway safety programs and transit programs; and for me,
happening to be a mass transit supporter, we would hope these dollars
would also be focused on bus transportation and mass transportation,
including light rail, which is so needed in the city of Houston.
So I hope my colleagues will support enthusiastically this motion to
instruct because, again, it provides a solid foundation for us to build
a new and innovative transportation system for all of America.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank the
gentlewoman from Houston for her thoughtful remarks, representing the
Nation's fourth largest urban area. She certainly knows whereof she
speaks about transportation and congestion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Railroads.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I want to thank Chairman Young and Chairman
Petri, and particularly I want to thank Ranking Member Oberstar for his
leadership on this issue.
This bill is over 2 years overdue, and that is just not fair to the
Nation's traveling public who deserve better from this Congress and, of
course, from this administration. We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq,
yet there is a question as to the level of spending in this
transportation bill. Clearly, the committee voted $318 billion for
transportation. The Department of Transportation itself said that we
needed $375 billion. They said $375 billion.
The Department of Transportation statistics show that for every $1
billion invested in transportation infrastructure, it creates 42,000
jobs. It also saves the lives of 1,400 people, and you cannot argue
with those figures. Transportation funding is a win-win for everyone
involved. The States get to improve their transportation and
infrastructure. That creates economic development and puts people back
to work; it enhances safety and improves local communities.
By delaying the passage of this much-needed legislation, we are doing
a disservice to the driving public and to the Nation as a whole. The
States are battling red ink and want to see this bill passed. The
construction companies, who are laying off employees, want to see this
bill passed. And the citizens waiting in traffic jams in Orlando,
Florida, and central Florida want to see this bill pass.
Let us get serious about putting people back to work and let us pass
a bill that truly meets the needs of the traveling public and not the
needs of this President who is trying to look fiscally responsible
while he runs up the national debt.
I encourage everyone to contact their Members and ask them to support
transportation funding that truly meets the needs of this growing
Nation. We need to stop spending money everywhere but here in the
United States. Transportation infrastructure spending is an investment
in America, and it is time we spent money on something that benefits
the people that are actually paying the bills.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We have had a good discussion of the subject matter. I think it need
not be further elaborated. Again, if you are serious about a good
result in the conference, you will support this motion to instruct
conferees, a fair, equitable, and balanced motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189,
nays 223, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 227]
YEAS--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
[[Page H4118]]
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--223
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Berkley
Cramer
Cunningham
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Doyle
Emerson
Filner
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Holden
Jenkins
Kind
McCarthy
McDermott
McNulty
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Smith (WA)
Taylor (MS)
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1602
Mr. BONNER, Mr. OTTER, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. ISTOOK and Mr. DANIEL
E. LUNGREN of California changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair will appoint
conferees at a later time.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 227, on H.R. 3 Motion to
Instruct, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________