[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H290-H293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM ENHANCED BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT OF
2006
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate
bill (S. 2275) to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national flood
insurance program, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2275
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance
Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY.
The first sentence of subsection (a) of section 1309 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)), as
amended by the National Flood Insurance Program Further
Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-106;
119 Stat. 2288), is amended by striking ``$18,500,000,000''
and inserting ``$20,775,000,000''.
SEC. 3. EMERGENCY SPENDING.
Amendments made pursuant to this Act are designated as
emergency spending, as provided under section 402 of H. Con.
Res. 95 (109th Congress).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here with my colleague from
Massachusetts on an important bill. It is designed, of course, to
increase the borrowing authority of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I introduced H.R.
3669, the National Flood Insurance Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority
Act of 2005. That piece of legislation increased insurance by $2
billion, which went a long way in helping the Department's flood
insurance response.
The bill before us today would provide a total of about $20.775
billion in borrowing authority to help ensure that the NFIP have
sufficient funding on a cash basis in the short-term. This bill would
allow FEMA to continue paying claims resulting from Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita and Wilma, while the administration further evaluates the extent
of the damage and the most appropriate means to cover all potential
future claims.
These claims from those whose homes and businesses have been damaged
or destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma are not a new
obligation. They are the result of a legal promise we made to these
homeowners and business owners, a commitment we made when Congress
passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and subsequent
revisions.
Homeowners and business owners across the country agreed to pay
premiums, communities agreed to adopt building codes to mitigate flood
dangers, and the Federal Government agreed to provide insurance
coverage to policyholders after a disaster. Every single one of these
claims represents someone who has taken the responsible course of
action by purchasing flood insurance and paying premiums to the
government.
We not only have a legal obligation to honor our commitments, we have
a moral obligation to provide the coverage we promised to provide to
these people. I think the thrust of this bill is so important for
people. I understand the argument some of my colleagues are making
about the need to have further reforms for the National Flood Insurance
Program.
I note the Committee on Financial Services held a markup in November
of 2005 that addressed several reform initiatives to enhance
accountability and ensure 2004 reforms are implemented. We had the
support of Chairman Oxley and our ranking member Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear, we had reforms. This is
not going to be the last of these bills that we are going to see, and
we will work towards having some reforms.
In addition, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
held four hearings on this important program last year, including an
August field hearing in rural Ohio, in my district. The Housing
subcommittee will have continuous oversight of this important program,
NFIP and look for all possible legislative solutions that will make
this program as efficient and responsive as it can be.
Floods have been and continue to be one of the most destructive and
costly natural hazards to our Nation. Early last year, there have been
three major floods in the district that I represent, all three of these
incidents qualify for Federal relief granted by the President, and this
flooding event, in January of last year, resulted in historic levels of
damage in several communities.
Now, we have a major disaster of the likes of which we haven't seen
before down in the gulf, and the national flood insurance is a valuable
tool in addressing the losses incurred throughout the country due to
these floods. I urge the support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H291]]
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what the gentleman from Ohio, the
chairman of the subcommittee, said. In the Committee on Financial
Services, on a bipartisan basis, we marked up a bill that would
authorize increased funding, but accompanied that with some reform. Let
me go back to a couple of years ago, when, at the initiative of a
bipartisan pairing of Members, our former colleague, Mr. Bereuter of
Nebraska and our continuing colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) took up the cause of reforming the flood insurance program.
We began that process. Frankly, I find it a little ironic. Some of
those who have been critical recently of the flood insurance program
were some of those who resisted our efforts to make tougher reforms
back then. But at the insistence of those two Members who I mentioned,
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley); the chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Ney and I and others
worked hard. We did insist on some reforms. We didn't get everything we
wanted.
This year, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, or last year, in
this Congress, we again had a very serious markup in our full
committee. It was controversial. One or two items that some of us
supported were defeated, but we worked this out, and we had a bill to
come to the floor that would have increased borrowing authority, but
would also have further reformed the program, and this is a case, by
the way, where environmentalism and protecting the taxpayers go
together. It is not in anybody's interest to have buildings put into
places inappropriately.
Unfortunately, the Senate did not show any interest in doing the
same, and we have heard some comments from some Members of the Senate
about reform, but their preference for reform seems very abstract. It
does not often make its way into legislation.
The Senate sent us a bill, which, as I understand it, they intended
to keep going until July. Frankly, that troubled me, because if we were
to extend this program until July, given this being the even year of
the session, with all that implies, the likelihood of our getting to
the reforms would have diminished. What I like about this bill, and I
hope it is a reassurance to some of those who want reforms, our
understanding is you can't be precise if you don't know exactly how the
spendout is going to be, but this should run out in May. That means
that we have got to pass legislation again on this subject, as the
gentleman from Ohio said.
I want to serve notice now, and I think I speak for the Members on my
side, and I know this is something that both the subcommittee chairman
and the full committee chairman agree with in desirability, we need to
do further reforms. We are not talking about depriving people of the
benefit of this program, we are talking about improving it from an
environmental and efficiency standpoint.
By the way you do people no favor if you encourage them to build
where they are then going to be the victims of a diaster. I know the
chairmen of the full and subcommittee feel strongly about this.
Let me speak for myself. I will support this bill. I will not support
a further grant of increased borrowing authority unless we have had a
chance to deal with the reforms. If some of the changes that I support
are voted on, and I am defeated, I accept that.
But to be confronted with a situation where the Senate sends us
legislation that simply extends the money without any consideration of
reform will be unacceptable to me. I don't want to victimize the people
who are there, but it is simply does not comply with our duties to the
taxpayers, to the environment, and elsewhere, to the public interest,
to simply continue to put more money into this program without further
reforms.
As I said, we did begin the process. So I will support this now. I am
pleased that the chairman of our committee has noted we have a bill
which was marked up in our committee, which has some reform. I hope we
will bring our further bill to the floor with those reforms and let
Members work their will on it and send it to the Senate.
But I again want to stress, I agree with those who say we need more
reforms. I congratulate the leadership of the committee who have scaled
this back in terms of how long it will last, so that we will not get an
extension that makes it unlikely that we will be able to do some
further reform.
{time} 1115
I do not plan to support a further increase in funding to keep this
program going until both Houses have dealt seriously with the need for
reform.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today this Congress is being asked to raise the amount
of money that the FEMA flood insurance program is allowed to borrow
from $18.5 billion to $21.2 billion.
Now, obviously, we all understand that the disaster of Katrina was
unprecedented in the history of our Nation. And our Nation responded by
appropriating unprecedented funds to deal with this catastrophe. But at
some point enough is enough, and today I rise to express my concerns
about the fairness of this program.
I have a very difficult time allocating any additional funds to the
FEMA flood insurance program because of the way that program is
treating the people of Michigan. FEMA is currently going about a
remapping of communities in my State that will bring thousands more of
my constituents and perhaps tens of thousands across the State of
Michigan into the flood plain. This will force those with federally
guaranteed mortgages to purchase FEMA flood insurance.
Mr. Speaker, let me share a few numbers with you and ask you to
determine for yourself whether or not Michigan needs to pay more into
this insurance pool.
Since 1978, that was the year Michigan actually opted into the
program, the people of Michigan have paid premiums totaling over $138
million; and in that same time, FEMA has paid outside claims totaling
less than $38 million. So since 1978, as you can see through this
chart, Michigan has subsidized this program to the tune of over $100
million. And the people of FEMA seem to agree.
In fact, there was an article I think last week in the Detroit Free
Press which quoted FEMA spokesperson Eugene Kinerney saying this about
Michigan's participation in the program. He said, ``You guys subsidize
other policies in other parts of the country, absolutely.'' That is
what FEMA said. So in what appears to me to be a grab for even more of
our money, along comes FEMA saying, even though you have never had a
flood, you live in a flood plain and you need to purchase insurance,
even though the Great Lakes are at historically low levels; even though
my State of Michigan has only had claims totaling 27 percent of what we
have paid into the program; even though only eight other States
received a lower percentage in their premiums than Michigan.
If a private insurance company tried to do this same thing, they
would be hauled in front of our State insurance commissioner and have
to beg to keep their license. I refuse to support any more legislation
that enables this type of irresponsible management that seems to be the
norm in the FEMA flood insurance program. In fact, one of my
constituents who is a township supervisor in a township called Clay
Township, this is a community on St. Clair River going in to Lake
Huron; this is a community that is going to be hit very hard by this
remap, I asked him, what do you think about FEMA remapping our area? He
said, why would FEMA want to come here and raise the elevations when
our water levels are at low levels? Well, they are broke, are they not?
I know this: my district is along the shore of Lake St. Clair, the
St. Clair River and Lake Huron. We also have many rivers and
tributaries, and they occasionally flood, but not as often as the
amount of these claims paid shows.
We also look down at the water, not up like they do in places like
New Orleans. We do not need any more of my constituents forced into
this program, and we do not need others across the State of Michigan
forced into it either.
[[Page H292]]
In Michigan we are struggling economically. We have been hit by an
economic hurricane of higher energy costs, low-cost foreign-
manufactured goods, and competition from lower-wage States, many of
which are recipients of the subsidy that the people of Michigan provide
to the FEMA flood program. We have the highest unemployment in the
entire Nation, and our citizens can absolutely not afford to continue
to pay higher costs for insurance that they do not even use. Yet once
again we are being asked to subsidize the insurance payouts to people
in other States.
Before we allow this to happen, FEMA must show the methodology behind
this program and show how it makes sense. I think this is an issue of
basic fairness; and until that time, I will not support any expansion
of the program; and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has been one of the two
leading Members of Congress in recent years to try to improve this
program.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
permitting me to speak on this measure and I appreciate the leadership
that has been exhibited by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Oxley, and
Mr. Ney. The Committee on Financial Services is trying to get this
right. It provides a back drop as the story of Katrina continues to
unfold.
Our Republican colleagues are going to put together a critique that
is somewhat hard hitting. But the real failure is not just limited to
the administration's response and problems with FEMA. The real failure
is a much greater policy failure.
Over a long period of time, a variety of circumstances have put
people at risk. The tragedy is that we are not better equipped today.
There will be another catastrophic natural disaster before we have
actually finished the job with Katrina. God forbid that there be a
terrorist act on top of it.
Now, this bill provides an opportunity for a simple mid-course
correction that would be a longer-term reform of the flood insurance
program. As Mr. Frank of Massachusetts mentioned, I have been working
on this for the last 6 years officially with some limited success. I
understand some of the difficulties and the reluctance, I am pleased
that we are making some progress, but it is long past time to be timid.
We know what to do. We face a disaster zone from the California coast
to the tip of Florida. Drought, flames, storms, a whole mixture of
issues are what we are going to be facing. We should be having
something on the floor soon like the bill offered by our colleague from
Louisiana, Mr. Baker. And for heaven's sake, we need to be trying to
look in a comprehensive form to be sure that we do not end up making
the same sort of mistakes.
Today we are going to vote on increasing the borrowing authority. It
is appropriate. I will vote for it. There is no way that we can have
the rate payers absorb these catastrophic events. But I am extremely
disappointed that somehow the bill we have before us does not have the
measures to include more people to participate in the program, spread
the financial risk, make people safer, and make participation
mandatory.
In the hearings that took place in the other body this month, there
was near unanimous support from groups as wide ranging as the National
Taxpayers Union, the Association of Floodplain Managers, the National
Wildlife Federation, the Consumer Federation, on and on. They know that
we want to reduce or eliminate subsidies for people living in the most
hazardous areas and for second homes.
We need to expand the mandatory purchase requirements for people who
live behind levees and experience residual risk. We need to fully
support FEMA's efforts to update flood plain maps and include areas
beyond the hundred-year flood plain.
We finally have implemented the reforms made in the Flood Insurance
Act of 2004. I appreciate the hard work that the Financial Services
Committee did in putting the spotlight on FEMA and working with our
friends in other committees. But we need now for FEMA to promulgate the
regulations to implement it, otherwise the reform is meaningless.
We cannot overstate the importance of mitigation. FEMA and the Multi-
hazard Mitigation Council just released a report on the benefits of
mitigation, which found that for every dollar spent, our government
saves an average of $4. The insane system we have here now, however, is
that mitigation costs Mr. Obey and costs Mr. Lewis of California hard
dollars. If it is in a supplemental, billions of dollars come in and
they are off budget and that is easier. We have got to change that as
well.
We do ourselves no favors by lowering our sights, tempering our
expectations, and failing to do what we know how to do in the best
interests of the taxpayer and the people who are in harm's way. Delay
will simply mean more lives lost, more property damage. It will cost
the taxpayer more money, not under the limits that the Appropriations
Committee operates under; but it will be taxpayer money nonetheless.
We continue the cycle of responding after the fact to disasters
instead of doing everything beforehand to fulfill our obligations and
to act in the best interests of our constituents everywhere.
I echo the words of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: I hope this is the
last time we have legislation of this nature before us. I appreciate
the subcommittee's hard work, and I for one will support it today; but
I add my voice as someone who will fight like the devil one more
suboptimal effort.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional speakers. I want to thank
the gentleman from Oregon, and I also want to point out just a few
things.
We had the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer provisions in our bill to have
FEMA enforce the 2004 that the gentleman from Oregon had mentioned was
in there, also increased insurance coverage. We had raising the
penalties on lenders who do not enforce the regs. So there were a lot
of the reforms that we had in there.
I am going to tell you today, we have a commitment, of course, and I
know the gentleman from Oregon understands that and we all do here
today, we have a commitment to these people that paid in and we need to
pay back to these people because they paid their money; but we need to
have the reforms.
The other thing is if anybody stands here today and says this is
going to last us, we will be okay until August, I want to tell you we
will not be okay until August. This will not take us through to August.
I predict to you today FEMA can say what it wants, it can communicate
what it wants. This will not last maybe 2 months or more. I predict we
will be back. We have to do the reforms. I personally commit to work
with you on it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand there probably
has been some confusion about how long things are going to go. I will
say I am now convinced that the problem is FEMA has no idea of what the
spend-out rate is, and this is a further indication.
While we are on the subject, since we are talking about FEMA, I do
have to say it is not on a related subject, it is not related, but the
decision by FEMA to evict people who have lost their homes, who are
living in hotels because some of them did not fill out the right forms,
is the single cruelest most senseless public policy I have seen. It
serves no purpose. It is an infliction of further misery on people who
have already been beset. And it is an example of incompetence and
callousness compounding each other.
Let me get back to this. Here I sympathize with my friends on the
majority who have the responsibility of trying to make sense out of
what they are hearing. We do not want to cut off the people who need
help. I appreciate what the gentleman said. Let me say we have put a
bill out. I hope we will see that bill on the floor soon, that we will
get to vote on it, that we will send it to the Senate. And until and
unless we get Senate consideration on the kinds of things we are
talking about, I will vote for this one, but for no further ones.
[[Page H293]]
Mr. NEY. Reclaiming my time, I predict we will be back here within 60
days, 60 or 90 days, I will bet that we will be back here, so we will
have to work towards the reforms. Also, our subcommittee was the first
committee of the House to go down to New Orleans and to Gulfport,
Mississippi. We went down with our ranking member, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters). Some Democrats and Republicans on the staff
went down there and they did a fine job. They saw what we saw. This is
going to be a long, long process.
I will tell you we will be back here within 90 days again because
they can say it will last, but it will not last.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I think, given the calendar, we should do
it as quickly as possible.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the following
letter into the Record of the debate on S. 2275, National Flood
Insurance Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority.
Washington, DC,
February 14, 2006.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Majority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner: As you
know, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests a $5.6
billion increase in FEMA's borrowing authority because its
flood insurance program, the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), is unable to cover current claims against it from the
unprecedented losses resulting from Hurricane Katrina.
Since 1968, the NFIP has offered property owners in coastal
and river areas federally subsidized flood insurance. It
currently insures approximately 4.7 million homeowners,
renters and other policyholders, who pay premiums for
coverage. Total insured assets are above $800 billion with
some 20,100 communities participating. In heavy loss years,
when losses exceed its premiums, FEMA is authorized to borrow
from the U.S. Treasury up to $1.5 billion. This borrowing has
historically been repaid with interest within very short time
periods from NFIP premiums and fees.
However, the catastrophic damage and losses resulting from
the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes is far exceeding the available
resources in the National Flood Insurance Fund. Consequently,
Congress last year eventually raised FEMA's borrowing
authority to $18.5 billion. But despite this, flood damage
claims from the 2005 hurricanes are now estimated to be in
excess of $20 billion and growing, surpassing all combined
payments in the program's history. This will again
necessitate Congress raising the limit on FEMA's borrowing
authority to pay these claims. And, if additional flooding
occurs in 2006, these costs will only grow higher.
Unfortunately, this new borrowing will likely never be
repaid by the beneficiaries. According to CBO, it ``is highly
unlikely that the program will be able to repay that amount
of borrowing out of its income from premiums and fees.'' It
is estimated that the interest expenses alone from these
loans would consume a large portion of the program's annual
revenues for the foreseeable future. It would take decades to
repay these costs, assuming no other flooding--undoubtedly,
these payouts will be forgiven at some point.
Lacking this ability to repay within a reasonable period,
we view deficit-financed spending from any additional FEMA
borrowing above its current $18.5 billion level to be
essentially identical to those of a conventional federal
spending program. Therefore, spending flowing from additional
federal borrowing authority should be fully paid for by
spending reductions elsewhere in the federal budget.
In addition, any long-term extension must include
comprehensive structural reforms to the program. The
hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 have made it clear that
legislative action is urgently needed to make the NFIP
actuarially sound and able to build sufficient cash reserves
to cover higher than expected losses. For instance,
comprehensive reform would better align premium rates with
the policyholder's associated risk while reducing direct
subsidies of over $1.3 billion annually, starting with the
elimination of all subsidies for vacation homes, and address
the repetitive loss problem, where subsidies flow to homes to
be rebuilt over and over after multiple flood losses, while
ensuring proper flood mitigation measures and mapping are in
place, enforced and used to reduce losses from future floods.
We believe these and other reforms are critical to reducing
the taxpayers' risk exposure while strengthening and
improving the flood insurance program.
This week, Congress is scheduled to extend FEMA's borrowing
authority through April. While this spending should be
offset, we appreciate your work with House conservatives to
ensure this a short-term extension that will allow
substantial time for a vigorous and comprehensive reform of
the flood insurance program over the coming months. If this
imperative reform effort falters, we will oppose any future
increases to FEMA's borrowing authority that are not fully
offset.
We look forward to working with you and committee
leadership to ensure that this component of federal
assistance is both timely and fiscally responsible, and that
any package of reforms continues to meet core federal
responsibilities.
Sincerely,
Mike Pence,
Member of Congress.
Jeb Hensarling,
Member of Congress.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2275,
to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA, for carrying out the National Flood Insurance
Program NFIP.
The National Flood Insurance Program was developed in 1968 in
response to private insurers' unwillingness to issue flood insurance to
homeowners residing in areas prone to flooding. The program makes
available federally subsidized insurance policies for purchase to
communities willing to comply with NFIP standards. Those standards
include the adoption of floodplain mapping and building regulations.
Currently, over 20,000 communities, supporting 4.7 million people,
participate in the program. Statistics show that compliance with NFIP
guidelines works--Communities in compliance, suffer 80 percent less
property damage than that those not in compliance.
The act before us today will increase FEMA's borrowing authority for
administration of the program from $18.5 billion to $21.2 billion. Two
point seven billion dollars may seem like a lot, but it is a necessary
step towards prevention, and prevention should be our ultimate goal. It
is important remember that the $2.7 billion is not a handout--it must
be repaid by profits made from premiums and interest accrued from the
loan.
Hurricane Katrina opened everyone's eyes to the importance of flood
insurance. Flooding is not a problem that just comes around when a
hurricane hits, neither is it going to disappear after the damage
inflicted on the gulf coast is repaired.
Most are unaware that the United States suffers $2 billion of damage
annually. In fact, in my home district of Houston, from 1978 to 1995,
almost $300 million in flood insurance claims were made. If those facts
are not startling enough, consider that the NFIP, the arm of FEMA that
makes coverage available to communities in need, is now bankrupt.
Even more alarming is the fact that current evidence indicates that
the insurance industry has acted irresponsibly, without compassion, and
only in the interest of profits. In 2004, the insurance industry had a
record year netting $800 billion in policy holder premiums. The
insurance industry must realize that they have a responsibility to the
public, as well as to generate profits for their companies, and that
they must find a way for the two to coexist. A staggering 40 percent of
property owners along the gulf coast do not have flood insurance
coverage. As we have now been reminded in the wake of Katrina, the
absence of coverage creates a difficult situation.
The NFIP was created to serve as a safety net to those unable to
purchase flood insurance from private companies, and their services are
once again in need. The act before us today is an important step in the
right direction, but a dramatic change in national policy is the only
way we can ensure that the necessary change will take place. I ask my
colleagues to rise in support of S. 2275.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2275, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was
passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________