[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13885-H13888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074, 
  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page H13885, November 14, 2007, the following appeared: 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 817, TRANSPORTATION, 
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
ACT, 2008
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074, TRANSPORTATION, 
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
ACT, 2008


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 817 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 817

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, and for other purposes. All points of

[[Page H13886]]

     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 817 
under section 2 of H. Res. 491 because the resolution contains a waiver 
of all points of order against the conference report and its 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman from Arizona 
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 2 of House 
Resolution 491.
  Such a point of order made under that resolution shall be disposed of 
by the question of consideration under the same terms as specified in 
clause 9(b) of rule XXI.
  The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed, the gentleman from 
New York, each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of 
consideration.
  After that debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: ``Will the House now consider the resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Speaker.
  And while the Speaker of the House is actually in the Chamber, I want 
to read a quote from March of this year. In March of this year, the 
Speaker of the House said, ``Before Members vote on a bill, there 
should be an appropriate time for people to read it. That should be a 
matter of public record. If there is an earmark that can stand the 
scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be 
there.''
  Let me just ask, if I can, the representative from the Rules 
Committee, don't we have a rule that says that we are not to consider a 
bill or a rule until 24 hours after the bill is actually out there? I 
would yield to the gentleman to answer.
  My understanding is that this bill was posted on the Web last night 
at just after 7 o'clock, yet here we are at 1:35 already considering 
the rule. I think that is important, because when you look at the bill, 
we didn't just get it on the Internet where it would be searchable, 
where we could find things in it. We got a PDF file that is not 
searchable.
  When you look at the bill itself, you find complete sections that 
have been X'd out, or little insertions with little notations here that 
are barely legible. You have another big insertion here of an entire 
page. Again, there are little insertions there within the insertion. 
You have within it ``3 percent'' stricken. It says ``4 percent'' now. 
To what?
  This is really difficult to wade through. And when we don't even get 
24 hours? I mean, 24 hours, frankly, is far from sufficient to consider 
a bill that is 531 pages long. Then when you consider the bill itself 
is not searchable, it was given in a PDF file, and then you also have 
141 pages of earmarks that are part of the report. That is not a 
searchable index, either. It is just given. You can wade through it.
  The earmarks that are air-dropped into the conference report are 
supposed to be asterisked. You can see some of those. We identified 21. 
But is that all there is? We're not sure. But when you look through 
that list of earmarks that were air-dropped in, you have to be 
suspicious of why in the world we waited until now to air-drop these 
earmarks in when nobody can challenge them.
  Keep in mind, this is a point of order against consideration of the 
rule. Because the majority has chosen to waive the rule against points 
of order on the bill, we can't challenge any of the earmarks in the 
bill, so we have 21 earmarks air-dropped into the bill at the last 
minute that we have no ability to challenge.
  You might think that, well, if they were air-dropped into the bill, 
then they certainly must be vital spending, vital projects, that we 
just couldn't do during the regular consideration of the bill.
  I will read a couple of them and you can make your own decisions on 
whether or not this was vital spending, something that couldn't wait, 
something that was so important that you had to, at the last minute, in 
the last 24 hours, include it in where nobody could see it.
  One is for $200,000 for the Intergenerational Research Center in 
Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. The Intergenerational 
Research Center, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. This 
is part of the Economic Development Initiative.
  Another one: Waynesburg College Center for Economic Development in 
Pennsylvania for a multipurpose facility. That is $300,000 there.
  Tell me, please, somebody tell me, what was so vital here that we had 
to violate the rules that we have had in the House to insert this at 
the last minute, when nobody has the ability to challenge it?
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to point out to my friend and colleague from Arizona 
that this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule, 
and ultimately to consider a measure that invests in our Nation's vital 
transportation infrastructure and housing program at a time when we 
desperately need it so much in this country. In fact, I would say it is 
simply an effort to try to kill this conference report, and on a faulty 
premise at that.
  Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly 
disclosed in conformance with the House rules. The blanket waiver 
against consideration of the conference report did not include a waiver 
of either clause 9 or rule XXI of House Resolution 491.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Well, we've waived other requirements as well here. What 
this point of order is about is transparency. Again, we got this bill 
last night, less than 24 hours ago. It has always been the 
understanding you would have at least 24 hours, and we are violating 
that even.
  When you look at the bill itself, here I found another page, section 
409, we're not sure what was there, because it is now gone. It is gone 
from the bill. It is very difficult to go through a bill that is 534 
pages that is not even searchable and wade through the earmarks.
  The gentleman mentioned this is vital spending we have to get done. 
Let me give you an example of some of what is in the bill itself. 
$150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia. 
$275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me clear up this issue here about the time requirements. The 
rules of the House say there shall be a 72-hour, or 3-day layover on 
these bills. That was waived. That was waived by the majority party. 
Then as a courtesy in their ``new directions,'' they say it should be 
at least 24 hours. So here they are even waiving a promise of a waiving 
of a rule of 3 days.
  So I wanted to clarify that. It is supposed to be 3 days, that is the 
premise from which we start, and then we come down to a promise of 24 
hours. They are even waiving that promise.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
  Let me get back to this list of these vital projects that we somehow 
have to rush through here. There is $400,000 for the Bel Alton High 
School Alumni Association in Bel Alton, Maryland. Again, $400,000 for 
the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association. Why in the world is this 
in the bill at all? Is it any wonder that somebody wants to move this 
bill through quickly and without following the rules?

                              {time}  1345

  $500,000 for the Los Angeles Fire Museum in Bellflower, California; 
two earmarks totaling $300,000 to revitalize downtown Clearwater, 
Florida; $150,000 for the Edmunds Arts Center in Edmunds, Washington; 
$100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, Alabama; $100,000 for the 
reuse of the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant in Romney, West Virginia; 
$100,000 for the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, Michigan; 
$750,000 to the Detroit Science Center in Detroit, Michigan; and 
$300,000 to the Houston, Zoo in Houston, Texas.
  Again, this is just a tiny sliver of the 141 pages of earmarks in the 
bill, more than 1,000 of them. And again, 21 air-dropped earmarks that 
we have never

[[Page H13887]]

seen before, never had the ability to challenge on the House floor for 
such vital things as the Grand Teton National Park Pathway System in 
Wyoming. This may be a good project, but it should receive the scrutiny 
it deserves, not air-dropped into a report that we are given less than 
24 hours to consider, that we have no ability, none, to amend out.
  Or $500,000 for Park Street Streetscape Improvement in Alameda, 
California. Why in the world was this that vital where we had to 
violate our own rules to bring this to the floor and hide these 
earmarks where they don't see the light of day?
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Campbell from 
California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Let's talk about what is really going on 
here. If somebody is an alcoholic, they understand they shouldn't 
drink. What they will do oftentimes is they will ask their friends to 
help them, you know, come in the house. Make sure I don't have any 
alcohol here. Keep me honest. Make sure I don't do this.
  This Congress is drunk on earmarks. The majority party has said, 
well, we want to get better. We want to stop drinking. We want to stop 
doing these bad earmarks, so we set up a point of order on the bill so 
we can stop this.
  But it is the equivalent of the alcoholic saying, I want you to help 
me, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to come check my house to make sure 
that I don't have any alcohol, but then locking the door so you can't 
go in and you can't look. That is what the majority party is doing 
here.
  They say we have this point of order on earmarks, but we are waiving 
it. We are going to bury them in the bill so you can't see. The 
majority here in this Congress is not serious about controlling 
earmarks, and they should be, because of the ones that the gentleman 
from Arizona read, and whether it is teaching people how to play golf 
in the defense budget or monuments, to me, whatever it is. We have 
budget problems, we all agree. We disagree on how to take care of them. 
But one thing we must do is stop these earmarks, and the majority is 
not doing that.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman yields the 
balance of his time to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. FLAKE. How much time remains on this side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. I did the math for you, sir; 1 minute 
remains.
  Mr. FLAKE. I am glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding. This is exactly 
what the American people are disgusted with. We can't balance the 
budget. We can't send the President appropriation bills that are within 
the budget. This bill is some $3.5 billion over the President's 
request. But having said that, we have all of these projects that 
didn't go through the House, didn't go through the Senate, that got 
air-dropped into a conference. And we wonder why the American people 
look at us like our heads have been cut off.
  There is nobody in my district who would ever vote for any of these 
projects that got air-dropped into this bill. And we have this process, 
this point of consideration on these earmarks, on consideration of this 
bill, in exactly the time when we are supposed to have a better look at 
what these earmarks are.
  All we have are these brief descriptions, if you can find them in the 
bill, because this bill should not be up on this floor until tonight. 
It is one thing to waive the 3-day rule, but the 24-hour rule, most 
Members believe, is almost sacrosanct. And yet, not even 24 hours after 
the bill was filed, it is on the floor of the House. Members don't know 
what is in it. That is why this point of order that we fought for this 
summer was put into effect.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote for the gentleman's point of order 
to stop consideration of this bill so we have a chance to look and see 
what else is in here that we haven't seen, because this place is out of 
control.
  Mr. FLAKE. In my remaining 30 seconds, let me just say, in January 
when we passed transparency rules on earmarks, I was the first one to 
compliment the majority on what they had done. We put some decent rules 
into play. But rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce 
them. And we have seen a pattern over the past several months 
culminating in this kind of thing, breaking the rules so we can bring a 
bill to the floor with 21 air-dropped earmarks into it where we are 
simply not following our own rules.
  This institution deserves better than this. I plead with my 
colleagues to vote to stop this bill from moving forward until we can 
actually see what's in it.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the 
Rules Committee for yielding to me.
  I think my friend from Arizona raises issues, and sometimes it is not 
clear with reference to earmarks. I don't recall hearing too many 
people argue about the earmarks that the President of the United States 
has within the prerogative of the President. Two-thirds of Federal 
spending is nondiscretionary. And in a budget the size of ours, which 
is $2.9 trillion, that means discretionary funds in this particular 
budget are about $935 billion.
  What they fail to do in their point of order or that we hear in the 
Rules Committee is to say to the general public that the name of the 
Member requesting the earmark exists, the name and address of the 
intended recipient, and if there is no specifically intended recipient, 
the intended location of the activity, the purpose of such earmark, a 
certification that the Member or spouse has no financial interest in 
such congressional earmark, and it requires the House Appropriations 
Committee to make open for public inspection approved earmarks.
  Now each of these earmarks has an asterisk and each of these earmarks 
is easily identifiable. Clearly, there are things that people disagree 
with as to whether or not in the particular constituency that that 
constituency is going to benefit.
  Democrats cut in half the number of earmarks. I believe my friend 
from Arizona knows that when this measure was sent to the Senate, the 
Senate increased the number of earmarks that are here. But I don't care 
whether you call it earmark, toe mark, arm mark, elbow mark, whatever 
it is, it is something that benefits the American people. And in a 
budget that has $2 trillion in it, we can find some reason for us to 
control that as opposed to the executive branch.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, we must consider this conference report 
which provides funding for our Nation's priorities. For example, 
Community Development Block Grants to provide communities with funds to 
assist low and moderate-income persons; housing for the elderly, 
disabled, and homeless veterans; foreclosure mitigation and 
reconstruction of the Minnesota bridge and the repair of aging bridges 
throughout our Nation that is desperately needed.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the new House Democratic 
majority has implemented the most honest and open earmark rule in the 
history of the United States House of Representatives. But don't take 
my word for it. A few weeks ago, Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers 
for Commonsense, was quoted in CQ Weekly as saying, ``The House has 
given us more information than we have ever had before on earmarks, and 
they deserve credit for that.''
  I am troubled with the analogy given by my colleague from California 
comparing it to a drinking problem. I would say the comparison, 
considering the way the Republicans abused the process, would be to a 
person who started a fire, then called the fire department, and when 
the fire department came and put out the fire, they then turned around 
and criticized the fire department for the way that the fire was put 
out.
  That is the situation that they have. They abused the earmarks when 
they were in control of the House, and now they are critical of our 
majority when we attempt to fix it. It is important to remember which 
side actually abused the earmark process and who actually stepped up to 
the plate to reform the system and provide transparency.

[[Page H13888]]

  We didn't wait until 2 months before the election. We responded to 
the people's call for more openness on the first day of Congress. It 
seems quite clear to me that the minority is more concerned with 
obstructionism, while we are focused on actually meeting the needs of 
our constituents and the people in this country.
  This question of consideration is the result of an unwarranted point 
of order against our rule. A ``no'' vote will prevent consideration of 
a critical package that has strong House and Senate bipartisan support.
  So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to block 
this bill, we will stand up for housing and we will stand up for the 
critical infrastructure upon which our economy depends. We must 
consider this rule and we must pass this conference report today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider this rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the question of consideration will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197, 
nays 186, not voting 49, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1093]

                               YEAS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--49

     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt
     Boucher
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Carson
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doyle
     Hastert
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Langevin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Meeks (NY)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rush
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shays
     Smith (NJ)
     Taylor
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1414

  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1093, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2007, I was participating in 
an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing and inadvertently 
missed 1 recorded vote.
  I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 1093.

                          ____________________