[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11436-11440]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 11437]]

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. 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, again and again and again until 
we solve this problem with transportation in this great Nation of ours.

[[Page 11438]]

  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

[[Page 11439]]

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 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:

[[Page 11440]]



                             [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
     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.''

                          ____________________