focuses on, the needs of the people who rely on this piece of legislation and we've had a very thorough examination, we've had hearings, not only with regard to the budget but as well, external to that on issues that impact a rural community, people who care about conservation, people who care about nutrition, people who care about research in this -- in these areas. so that, again, i think that within the subcommittee we have had a very -- both at a member level and at a staff level -- a very, very close-knit effort. i might also say that in translating that as well to the conference with the senate and that members were engaged in

that process as well as staff for several weeks. as we tried to meld the two views together so that it was a thorough examination of all the issues that are there and that we could come to some common resolve about it. so i think we can feel good about both the work done at the subcommittee level, in the house and our work with the senate, this conference report. now, i think we have some specific time constraints which i wish we didn't but we are guided by a september 30 deadline in terms of being able to pass a bill. and what happens if that doesn't happen with an appropriation

bill. we're also constrained that there was that time constraint but in addition, in the fiscal year coming to an end, if you will, tomorrow, which would then, with this motion to instruct, would really tie the happeneds of the managers of the conferees in trying to be able to move forward, given the weeks that have gone into producing the conference report. also time constraints in this institution which have to do with, and it's none of our doing, we were not in session yesterday with regard to a holiday, we come back, we're in session today, we have other constraints of when people are coming and going, so that you're looking at time is of the essence in trying to pass legislation. and particularly, i add, what

we're trying to do is to keep the bills moving, appropriations bills moving, because we know what that means in terms of that fiscal year deadline. and we want to try to get bills passed into law without delay. and i know that there has been talk of 48 hours, now i understand this is 72 hours. i think that i want to -- if i can say it this way, responsibly oppose my colleagues -- my colleague's motion to instruct. i don't know if we can meet that deadline but i also do believe fundamentally that we have in fact had a thorough examination of all of the issues that have in these appropriations bills and the conference bill, that i think we can take to our colleagues, who as well have been following what's going on because they have specific and

particular interests in what this bill means for them. i'm someone who agrees that you need to look at bills, read them, understand them, etc., and i honestly do believe that on this piece of legislation we have that kind of understanding and with that, if i may, i would like to yield to my colleague, the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. obey. the speaker pro tempore: for? ms. delauro: for such time as he may want to speak. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for such time as he may want. mr. obey: i thank the gentlewoman for the time. let me say, this is a very interesting institution and we have all kinds of demands placed upon it which are often contradictory. example, many a member in this chamber will loudly request that

we limit earmarks and then they will also ask when we go into conference that their own earmarks be funded at the highest possible level. i've had two members of the house talk to me today about those matters, didn't seem at all bothered by the conflict in what they were asking. we have people who say, these bills should be available for 72 hours before we vote on them, but some of those same people will not want the house to meet on monday, and they will not want the house to meet on friday, and if that's the case, then that means that this bill, for instance, even if it is conferenced tomorrow, could not be voted on any day in the remainder of the week.

we have people who want us to push these bills through before the end of the fiscal year, and yet when we say, well, can you go to conference at 8:00 tomorrow morning, we were just told today, no, they couldn't. can you go to conference at 9:00? no, they can't. when we talk to the members of the other body and say, can you go to conference at 11:00 tomorrow, no, we can only go to conference at 2:00, if it's in the afternoon. so anyone managing a bill, as the gentlewoman from connecticut is going to have to manage this one, is faced with all kinds of conflicting demands from members who seem to be almost unconscious about the fact that their demands in fact are are conflicting. that's all i can say as chairman of the committee is, we will try to give members the

maximum time possible to review the bills consistent with our obligation to get the work done. so i think if anyone is concerned about a specific item in the bill, i'm sure the gentlewoman and i'm sure the gentleman from georgia will be willing to walk them through what the committee has in mind. but in the end, i would simply -- i'm not going to vote for this motion, because i can't with a straight face both promise to make these bills available for 72 hours and meet all the other conflicting demands that members of the house are making. we've got an obligation to try to balance those requirements and we'll do that to the best of our ability and in the end, i think we'll have reasonable bills and we'll let the public be the judge of just how

reasonable they are. i thank the gentlewoman for the time. ms. delauro: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. livingston: i want to say this, as my friends on the appropriations -- mr. kingston: this concern really is far beyond this bill. i do believe this process particularly on the subcommittee has been open and members on our side of the aisle have had plenty of time to read it. however, i know there are members not on the appropriations committee who are constantly criticizing our committee for doing things, and i do believe they do deserve the time to view the bill. it is a $23 billion bill in terms of the discretionary spending and i think around $80 billion for the nondiscretionary spending. $100 billion is probably worth three days of scrutiny. yet i think what's really more concern, because the process of

appropriations has gone through regular order, and i think i thank the -- i think the gentleman from wisconsin and the gentlewoman from connecticut have done a great job of being open to all members of the committee, however,'re bills, which have been significant, which are not -- have not gone through our committee, did not have the sunshine of this bill or the sunshine of some of the other bills system of a lot of things that's concerning the constituents back home right now, and i think that mr. baird from oregon, has picked up on is that people are thinking about the stimulus bill, $787 billion and i know that the gentleman actually from wisconsin, had hearings in december on that and we were appreciative of that. but a lot of members of the house did not have the opportunity to read that bill and scrutinize it as much as they'd like. to then the most recent one was the cap and trade bill, which members were aware that it was

getting amended at 3:00 a.m. and we were supposed to vote on it the next day, we convened six hours later at 9:00 a.m. we also have out there in the realm of possibilities a massive health care bill. a bill that the c.b.o. scored at $1.29 trillion. our constituents are very concerned. in fact, i've never seen a pe 2igsic -- petition like this before but there's been a petition passed among members of congress saying, would you awe gree to sign the bill before you vote on it? i think that's a fair request by our constituents, the minimum bid for members of congress to read the bill. i think the appropriations committee can lead by example on this by allowing 72 hours, but i think they're also concerned, perhaps this should be regularly part of the process when we have a large spending bill.

this one is $100 billion. again, the health care bill is $1.29 trillion. people deserve the opportunity to look at it. now, i also know, having served in the majority, how difficult it is to manage a bill in a house with 435 independent contractors and conflicting schedules. then you go to the really hard job, that's the other body. sometimes it's difficult to get everybody just in the room at the same time. but that's why we passed last week in the house a continuing resolution which actually builds in some time, now, that we'll have, should the other body pass that this week, we'll have until october 30 to pass these bills, so the 72 hours won't put in jeopardy any of the funding levels of the -- force the government to go back on some money or scramble around, we do have until october 30, but there certainly

would be no reason to wait that long. we're just asking for 72 hours. i feel like -- we feel very strongly about this we have done this already on the energy and water bill, and i think that we're just concerned about spending, mr. speaker. that's kind of what this boils down. to again, it goes well beyond the appropriations committee and certainly beyond this bill, but we are hearing from the folks back home and i represent georgia, mr. baird represents oregon, i share his concerns. we have a discharge petition on his bill, trying to get it on the floor of the house right now. i don't know if it's bipartisan, but 160 members have already signed that discharge petition expressing concern to have more time to read the bill once they are out of conference committee. so with that, i'll reserve the balance of my time, but i will also say to my friend from connecticut, we do not have any other speakers on this side, so if you're ready to yield back, i would be too.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman. i would just with the remaining few comments, because i think we have had a conversation, discussion about this, i'll focus my attention on this particular piece of legislation and i understand the gentleman is talking about other areas, but i think that this is particularly, and maybe unique in the sense of the kind of efforts that have gone in to make this a very open process, a process where people are knowledgeable about what they're doing, and how they're doing it, and what kinds of inputs have gone in and again, there are not too many folks around here, whether they're from north, south, east, or west, there are folks from the northeast who care about animal and plant disease, there are folks on the west coast, east

coast, that care about dairy. there are people who have expressed their views who are on the committee, off the committee, with regard to our settling the issue of the chinese poultry. i think everyone has had a very adequate amount of time to look at this and to be table reflect on it so that they can come to a conclusion. let me just ask the gentleman if he does have any more speakers? mr. kingston: i do not have any more speakers, i'm ready to yield back, with the exception i have been admonished that as i was looking at the speaker from oregon, i was thinking of oregon, mr. baird is from washington and so i'll ask forgiveness from mr. baird, they're both great states, i want to make sure that's a matter of record before i yield back. ms. delawyer re: i have no further speakers on our side, i

yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to instruct. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- mr. kings spn: i -- mr. kingston: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, on september 24, 2009, the committee on transportation and infrastructure met in open session to consider 11 resolutions to authorize appropriations for the general services administration g.s.a., fy-2010, capital investment and leasing programs, including six construction resolutions authorizing $302.6 million and

fire repair and authorization resolutions authorizing $10.4 million. the committee adopted the resolutions by voice vote with a quorum present. enclosed are copies of the resolutions adopted by the transportation for -- committee for transportation and infrastructure on september 24, 2009. signed, sincerely, james oberstar, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on appropriations. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 905 by the yeas and nays. house resolution 16 by the yeas and nays. motion to instruct on h.r. 2997

by the yeas and nays, votes on h.r. 2442, h.r. 1771, and h.r. 1053 will be taken later this week.