Volume 142, No. 133 covering the 2nd Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECTS” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H10779-H10783 on Sept. 24, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECTS
The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2988), to amend the Clean Air Act to provide that traffic signal synchronization projects are exempt from certain requirements of Environmental Protection Agency rules.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 2988
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION. 1. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECTS.
Section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
``(D) Traffic signal synchronization projects shall be exempt from regional emissions analysis requirements and from requirements under rules of the Administrator for determining the conformity to State or Federal implementation plans of transportation plans, programs, and projects funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code or the Federal Transit Act.''.
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION. 1. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECTS.
Section 176(c)(4) (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(4)) of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
``(D) Compliance with the rules of the Administrator for determining the conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code or the Federal Transit Act to State or Federal implementation plans shall not be required for traffic signal synchronization projects prior to the funding, approval or implementation of such projects. The supporting regional emissions analysis for any conformity determination made with respect to a transportation plan, program, or project shall consider the effect on emissions of any such project funded, approved, or implemented prior to the conformity determination.''.
Mr. SCHAEFER (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2988 was introduced by the gentleman from California, Congressman McKeon, and has been endorsed by the Bipartisan Speaker's Advisory Group on Corrections. It has the support of both the majority and minority of the House Commerce Committee, and was passed out of the committee on a voice vote.
I would like to thank Mr. McKeon for bringing this issue to the committee's attention, as well as the Speaker's Advisory Group and the minority for its work on this issue.
The issue that H.R. 2988 seeks to address is narrow, but nonetheless important. Currently, EPA requires that nearly all transportation projects be reviewed to determine if they ``conform'' to the State's implementation plan for compliance with the Clean Air Act. This includes traffic synchronization projects, even though most, if not all, synchronization projects lower vehicle emissions. By requiring that these projects be reviewed before they can be implemented, some projects may be delayed by a year or more, resulting in an increase in vehicle emissions.
H.R. 2988 would allow synchronization projects to proceed as soon as they are approved and funded, before conformity determinations are made. Nothing in this bill, however, would relieve a jurisdiction from its responsibility to conduct a regional emissions analysis at a later date, if one is deemed necessary by EPA.
H.R. 2988 will streamline the approval process for traffic synchronization projects and act to speed up these projects. I urge the passage of this bill, which will decrease motorist frustration, as well as vehicle emissions.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] for bringing this issue to us.
It came first to the Corrections Day Advisory Committee because this really is a genuine proposal to correct an anomaly in the law. That anomaly is if the local governments want to synchronize the signals so that passengers do not have to stop every block or so, there seems to be a question of whether they might be in violation of the clean air law.
We discussed this in the context of how to make the proposal work and not have unintended consequences, as far as we knew anyway, and I think we have a good proposal. It reflects a compromise that we developed with the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], and I thank him for bringing this matter to our attention.
This bill will allow communities to synchronize their traffic lights without needless delay.
Under the Clean Air Act, before a transportation project can go forward the project must be determined to be in conformity with State or Federal implementation plans.
Because many jurisdictions make conformity determinations only once a year, projects can be delayed while awaiting a conformity determination.
This bill will allow traffic light synchronization projects to go forward without first undergoing a conformity determination.
Then the project's effects on air pollution can be fully considered when the next conformity determinations are made.
This is a narrow but important issue, and it is notable as well for the process with which it was crafted.
Representative McKeon first brought this bill before the Corrections Day Advisory Group this spring. We engaged in collegial discussions and have been able to craft a bill that works toward the goals of the Clean Air Act, but gives local governments the flexibility they feel they need.
In my view, this is a model way to protect and improve our environmental laws. Earlier in this Congress, some proposed wholesale repeals of even our most successful environmental laws--all in the name of increasing flexibility.
This bill is an example of how we can address desires for flexibility while maintaining the integrity of our environmental laws.
This marks the second time we have amended the Clean Air Act through the corrections process. Earlier this year, we passed a bill which gave States greater flexibility in implementing the Clean Air Act's employee trip reduction requirements. That bill has now become law. This bill should become law as well.
I urge your support for H.R. 2988 and again want to recognize Representative McKeon for his outstanding efforts on this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise to urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 2988, which corrects a regulation in the Clean Air Act that unnecessarily delays the implementation of traffic signal synchronization projects.
This issue was brought to my attention last year by the city of Lancaster, CA, which is in my congressional district. The city had proposed a straightforward traffic signal synchronization project that would improve traffic flow and reduce congestion in the community. The city had hoped to implement this project in a timely manner. However, because of an EPA rule governing the implementation of these projects in air quality nonattainment areas, a regional emissions analysis of the project was required. The city became frustrated when it learned that it could take more than a year for the responsible local agency to perform the required analysis, and contacted my office for assistance.
As written, H.R. 2988 would allow synchronization projects to be implemented before undergoing a regional emissions analysis to determine whether the project conforms to a State or Federal air quality implementation plan. The signal synchronization project would still be subject to the traditional review process that exists for determining the air quality implications of the project. This is a fair, nonpartisan bill that deserves our support, and I would like to thank my friends from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, the gentleman from Colorado, Chairman Schaefer, and my friend from California, Mr. Waxman, for their support in moving this legislation forward. I especially want to note that when I discussed this legislation with the correction's day task force earlier this year, Mr. Waxman volunteered his help in addressing this issue, and I have valued his involvement in bringing this bill before us today.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I have never liked this corrections day procedure. I think it is very much contrary to the spirit of legislating, creating a whole new category of majority, and because my concern at the very outset was that these issues would not likely be given substantial consideration in committees.
Today we have an example of an issue that was not given the benefit of public hearings, either in the Committee on Commerce or in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
I do not disagree with the intent of the proponents of this legislation, but it does raise very significant policy issues that at least ought to have been aired in the committee process.
The legislation would create an entirely new type of exemption to the Clean Air Act's conformity requirements. That is cause in itself to have hearings and to air this issue so the public can have input and so Members of Congress who have concerns about the policy could have at least the opportunity to debate the issue in the committee structure.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is proceeding on streamlining its transportation conformity rule, and specifically is reviewing this issue of signalization in the course of rulemaking. That public process of rulemaking should be allowed to proceed prior to any legislative action being taken by the Congress, especially on a bill on which hearings have not been held.
There is a jurisdictional concern for me, and that is the issues raised within the bill are clearly within the ambit of the congestion, mitigation and air quality provisions of ISTEA, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Therefore, they are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom the bill was not even referred.
The bill affects the ability of States and localities to use Federal transportation funds in nonattainment areas. A change of that significance ought to be reviewed by the committee with generic jurisdiction over transportation.
In addition, the bill specifically amends section 176 of the Clean Air Act. In 1990, when the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, as it was then known, undertook consideration of ISTEA, we very clearly and extensively looked at the impact on clean air requirements of congestion in urbanized areas. We specifically amended section 176, and the Speaker of the House appointed Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure members as conferees on this section during consideration of ISTEA.
{time} 1300
The bill is properly within the jurisdiction of our committee.
Under EPA's rules, transportation projects that have a neutral or a very small impact on air quality are exempt from conformity determinations, those determination which cover a project's impact on a region's air quality. So when a community constructs bike and pedestrian paths or purchases new buses, it may use Federal transportation dollars to fund the project without showing the air quality effects, in this case benefits, or alternative transportation projects.
Under current rules, traffic signalization projects which are not regionally significant may be funded without a new regional emissions analysis but region-wide traffic signalization and synchronization projects that affect hundreds of intersections are not exempt from the Clean Air Act's conformity determination. Those projects are likely to affect traffic on a regional level, and the impacts may be positive; they may be negative, depending on the pollutant involved and the speeds on the roads and the impact of traffic flow at the regional level.
Improved traffic flow and increases in traffic speed may reduce carbon monoxide emissions. They may also increase nitrogen oxide emissions in certain speed ranges; particulate matter, PM-10. Those emissions may also increase under certain conditions. These pollutant effects, together with the affected projects, are best considered as part of a community's conformity plan.
Under this legislation, region-wide traffic signal synchronization projects are prospectively exempted from the Clean Air Act's required conformity determination. So States and localities can use Federal funds to adopt region-wide synchronization projects without considering the Clean Air Act effects of the projects before they undertake them. Subsequently States and localities will look back at the effects of these projects in their next conformity determination.
So the bill creates an entirely new category of exemption: projects not required to show conformity with air quality controls prior to funding, but projects that have to look back to see what good or harm they did after they have been done. Now, that is an inherent conflict, and it should have been aired, should have been extensively discussed, and it was not, unfortunately.
So I just do not think in the waning hours of the Congress we should pass something so hastily, albeit in response to a wide range of concern. I do not question at all the concerns based on real circumstances, but their is another forum, the rulemaking process in which this should be considered. There is another forum, the committee hearing process, in which this should be considered.
We should have taken this matter up in our committee against the backdrop of 2 years of hearings prior to enactment of ISTEA, against the backdrop of regional transportation institutes that are studying and developing synchronization projects under scientific conditions, and given this a full, thorough in-depth consideration. That is what troubles me about this process. That is why I oppose the legislation and urge Members to oppose the bill.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, this bill, which amends the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, would allow States to avoid delay and implement traffic signal synchronization projects prior to demonstrating that such projects are in conformity with State and Federal implementation plans. Instead, States would be required to consider the effect on emissions of such projects in subsequent conformity determinations. As a result, this bill does not waive any Clean Air Act conformity requirements.
Although I do not object to the bill today, I note for the record that the subject matter of H.R. 2988 does fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as the Committee on Commerce. When Congress was considering the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, members of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation were named as conferees on various provisions of the bill that impacted transportation, including the very provision being amended.
While not ceding our committee's shared jurisdiction on conformity provisions within the Clean Air Act, I do applaud this bill which seeks to speed project delivery and enhance air quality and traffic congestion.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I think we have a good example of why the Corrections Day Calendar was needed. Here we have a commonsense proposal by the Representative from California, Mr. McKeon, to say that, if a local government wants to synchronize their traffic signals, they should be able to do it.
The question that we had before us is whether that is going to interfere with environmental standards under the Clean Air Act. Our committee, which is the primary committee on the Clean Air Act, I looked at that issue and made sure we are not going to add to pollution. That was really not a factor. If it added to air pollution, it would be considered later.
That is why this thing has been worked out, and now this bill is being presented to the full House for consideration on the Corrections Day Calendar.
The argument by my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] was they should have had jurisdiction. They should have been able to look at this bill. They should have considered it within a couple of years of hearings.
Well, how many years of hearings do we need on the idea that cities and communities ought to be able to synchronize their traffic signals? Why should this be held up for a long period of time? I think the idea of the Corrections Day Calendar was not to let committee jurisdictions become an impediment for doing something that is sensible.
Now, if the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure should have had jurisdiction, they should have gone to the Speaker and said: Refer this bill to us. You referred it to Commerce. We think we have jurisdiction, refer it to us as well.
Presumably they did. If they did not, they should have. But if they did and the Speaker looked at it and said this is something that has been reviewed sufficiently, and it is his decision to end it to the House floor, it is now before us.
Madam Speaker, I do not think we ought to let jurisdictional concerns hold up a commonsense proposal that has been reviewed by the committee that has primary, maybe exclusive jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act.
I respect the fact that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has areas of the law that might also impact on this. That issue should have been taken up with the Speaker. But I would hope we would not hold up something interminably that is so small and makes so much sense.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to offer a correction of my own.
In my statement I said we held 2 years of hearings on ISTEA before bringing the legislation to the House floor. I felt this provision should at least have had hearing, not 2 years of hearings.
The gentleman may have confused something I said earlier with my suggestion that we have hearings. At least a half day of hearing, at least an hour of hearing the issue would have been sufficient.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, and that is a correction, but the point I would still make is we looked at it with our majority and minority staff on the Committee on Commerce. We talked about ways to make this legislation work. We did not feel a hearing would be particularly productive because I do not know what anybody would have to say about the idea that a community should be able to synchronize their traffic signals.
But I respect the fact the gentleman feels there should have been a jurisdictional claim, and in exercising his jurisdiction he might have held a hearing and might not have. But I would hope now we will pass this bill forward to the other body. I hope it becomes law.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the subcommittee chairman, for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this effort that the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] is moving ahead with under this corrections day procedure.
I am here to not only support Mr. McKeon's efforts but to support what we are doing with this corrections day procedure. I want to begin as we sit here just 42 days before the election to congratulate wholeheartedly my fellow Angelino, Mr. Waxman, for his excellent statement and his assessment that the has provided of not only this effort of Mr. McKeon's but also the corrections day procedure.
I also want to congratulate Mr. Waxman for the terrific testimony that he gave to our Committee on Rules about 10 days ago, I guess it was on September 12, when he looked at the issue of corrections day and said, and I am going to quote his testimony here, he said: When corrections day was first proposed over a year ago, I had serious reservations about instituting such a process. I was concerned that the corrections procedure would become a fast track for special interest legislation.
I think that was a justifiable concern he raised at that point, but we have worked in a bipartisan way to do everything possible to ensure that the Corrections Day Calendar would be used as it was intended, to deal with preposterous situations like Mr. McKeon's attempt to synchronize traffic lights when we have a bureaucracy in Washington that is blocking that.
The assessment that Mr. Waxman went on to make was that he believes the process has worked basically as intended, and I quote, the bills that were placed on the Corrections Day Calendar were for the most part noncontroversial and appropriate for the abbreviated legislative process of corrections day. The corrections day process has proved an opportunity to expeditiously legislate. We have been able to repeal duplicative laws, act to increase flexibility and even make bipartisan policy changes.
The speech that my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], just gave is one that I think more often than not emanates from this side of the aisle. I would like to congratulate Henry Waxman for his vision in being so strongly committed in dealing with a preposterous situation like this.
Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and appreciate his efforts for moving this forward. I strongly want to support the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] in his efforts.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to thank the gentleman from California for his kind statements. I think the Corrections Day Calendar has worked well for the most part. It can work well. We always have to be vigilant it is not used for improper purposes. Under the leadership of our chairman, the gentlewoman from Nevada, Barbara Vucanovich, who has been exceedingly fair, I think the committee has lived up to the representations of those who called for it claimed and those of us who were wary and skeptical have been proved wrong.
I thank the gentleman for his statements in support of this legislation as well.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to again say to the gentlemen from California, Mr. Waxman and Mr. McKeon, that this is excellent legislation, and I think it is going to certainly speed up the process and be good for the American people.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2988.
This bill, which amends the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990, would allow States to implement traffic signal synchronization projects without first having to make a determination that such projects are in conformity with State and Federal implementation plans.
It is important to note that this bill does not waive Clean Air Act conformity requirements, but requires States to consider the emissions effect of these projects in subsequent conformity determinations.
The Transportation Committee shares jurisdiction with the Commerce Committee over the transportation conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act. During consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, members of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation were conferees on the transportation conformity provisions and worked closely with the Commerce Committee to resolve these issues.
We on the Transportation Committee have closely followed the implementation of the transportation conformity rules because of their direct impact on transportation programs. The conformity rules are often determinative of whether transportation projects can be built in urban areas.
The bill before us today is a constructive proposal that will facilitate completion of projects that will decrease traffic congestion and improve air quality and I therefore urge support of the bill.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2988, the Traffic Signal Synchronization Act.
Under section 176 of the Clean Air Act, transportation plans, programs and projects must conform to a State's air quality implementation plan [SIP]. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
EPA requires that nearly all transportation projects be reviewed to
``conform'' to the State's implementation plan for attaining or maintaining the national ambient air quality standards. This includes traffic synchronization projects, even though most, if not all, synchronization projects lower vehicle emissions. By requiring that these projects be reviewed before they can be implemented, some projects may be delayed by a year or more, resulting in an increase in vehicle emissions.
Clearly, this situation is contrary to the original intent of the Clean Air Act. As chairman of the Commerce Health and Environment Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act, I would like to thank Representative McKeon, who introduced H.R. 2988, for bringing this matter to the attention of the Commerce Committee. I would also like to thank Representative Waxman, the ranking minority member of the Health and Environment Subcommittee, for his willingness to seek a bipartisan solution to this problem.
During our markup, the Commerce Committee unanimously approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute which allows synchronization projects to proceed at the earliest opportunity while a regional emissions analysis or other conformity determinations are made. However, nothing in the bill, as amended, would relieve a jurisdiction from its responsibility to conduct a regional emissions analysis at a later date, if one is deemed necessary by EPA. It is the purpose of the legislation that traffic light synchronization projects be approved and that any emissions increase or decrease caused by such synchronization be credited or made up in the overall SIP.
Altogether, H.R. 2988, as amended, will streamline the approval process for traffic synchronization projects and act to speed up these projects--resulting in lower emissions.
I believe H.R. 2988 is consistent with correction's day and would urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3153 and H.R. 2988, the two bills we are considering on the Corrections Day Calendar. This will be the last time this session that we call upon the Corrections Day Calendar as the 104th Congress comes to a close. I believe that we have had significant success and the corrections day process will be looked upon as a useful and productive means to make commonsense changes in current law.
I want to commend the Speaker for his creativity in working to make our lives less cumbersome and less intrusive, and I especially want to thank him for giving me the opportunity to chair this innovative and effective corrections day advisory group. It has also been an honor and a privilege to serve with my cochairs, Mr. Zeliff and Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Waxman, and the other eight members of the advisory group in making this process a success. As we all know, change is never easy to implement, especially in the legislative process. However, I believe corrections day has worked and I am very pleased with what we have accomplished this Congress.
Since the commencement of corrections day, 10 bills have been signed into law by the President, and 8 bills have passed the House and are waiting further action in the Senate. The American people are demanding a more responsive Government, and corrections day is a key part in meeting their demands.
H.R. 3153, the Small Business Transport Correction Advancement Act, directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule concerning the ``materials of trade'' exception by December 31, 1996. This bill would provide an exception for small businesses such as farming, plumbing, and painting to transport relatively small quantities of certain hazardous materials. Also, H.R. 2988, the Traffic Signal Synchronization Act, allows States to quickly implement traffic light synchronization projects, which would likely lower vehicle emissions. The bill also requires the EPA to examine the effects of traffic synchronization projects in all subsequent conformity reviews.
I believe that the two bills we are considering today are good examples of how the corrections day process works well in a bipartisan manner with the agency and committees of jurisdiction. I want to recognize the Committees on Transportation and Commerce, Chairman Shuster and Chairman Bliley, and their staffs for the expedient and hard work they did to get these bills to the floor. I am hopeful that the Senate will recognize the need for quick action and send these bills to the President without delay.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of this measure as amended by the Commerce Committee. It will clarify our intent that traffic signal synchronization projects should go forward without delay while still preserving the overall duty of regional authorities to monitor the air quality impacts of transportation projects. In this way, the bill promotes local flexibility while ensuring that air quality will not be harmed.
I do regret that we must even take up this amendment to the Clean Air Act. It is my strong view that there should never have been an issue as to whether traffic light projects that ease congestion are subject to the Clean Air Act's conformity requirements. However, EPA failed to reach this common sense conclusion so we are forced to act.
I thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. McKeon--the author of the measure--and Mr. Waxman for their work on this bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the measure.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Greene of Utah). Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and the bill.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and (three-fifths having voted in favor thereof) the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up