[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2680-H2687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1227, GULF COAST HURRICANE HOUSING
RECOVERY ACT OF 2007
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 254 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 254
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1227) to assist in the provision of affordable
housing to low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill,
modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further
amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except
those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on
Rules. Each further amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
further amendments are waived except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1227
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to a time designated by the
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule
is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. WELCH of Vermont asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
General Leave
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 254.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Vermont?
There was no objection.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 254 provides
for the consideration of H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing
Recovery Act of 2007, under a structured rule.
The rule provides 60 minutes of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Financial Services, and the rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the
bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules
Committee report, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives
all points of order to provisions of the bill, as amended.
The rule makes in order seven amendments printed in part B of the
Rules Committee report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report. The
amendments are considered as read, are debatable for the time
specified, are not subject to amendment and are not divisible. All
points of order against the amendments except, again, those in clauses
9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived.
Finally, the rule does provide one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which makes in order
nearly all of the amendments that were brought to the Rules Committee.
Even though many on our side had concerns about the intent and effect
of certain provisions in the amendments, the Rules Committee, with the
recommendation of the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, voted
to allow the House to debate the amendments and let the votes fall as
they may.
Besides the manager's amendment, the rule makes in order more
Republican amendments, actually, than Democratic ones, four Republican
and three Democratic amendments. The few amendments that were not made
in order by the rule were either withdrawn, determined to be
nongermane, or had already been voted on earlier by the House.
The rule also provides extensive time for debate on each amendment so
that the House can have a very vigorous discussion on each of them.
Under this rule, each of the amendments is debatable for 20 minutes.
Two of the amendments are debatable for an hour each.
Chairman Frank came before our committee and testified that we should
allow considerable time to debate each of these amendments on their
merits and allow the views of all Members to be heard, even if that
meant that we have to work late into the evening.
The Rules Committee agreed with the chairman, and I am pleased to
bring forth this very even-handed rule.
Madam Speaker, as you know, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August
25, 2005, followed by Hurricane Rita on September 24 and Hurricane
Wilma on October 24, 2005, causing extraordinarily heavy loss of life
and dislocation of thousands of families. Hurricane Katrina alone
devastated 90,000
[[Page H2681]]
square miles, made 770,000 people homeless and had a death toll of
1,464 in Louisiana alone.
Just by comparison, in 1906 the earthquake and fire in San Francisco
killed an estimated 500 to 3,000 people, resulted in about 250,000
people homeless. The Galveston Island flood of 1900 killed as many as
8,000 people, in the island and the city. The Chicago fire, the famous
fire of 1871, burned an area of approximately 3 square miles and made
100,000 people homeless.
In the aftermath of the storms, Congress approved $16.7 billion for
Community Development Block Grants, and that's the portion of Katrina
aid that we are talking about here, to aid the affected areas with
rebuilding efforts. Of that, roughly $1.2 billion has been spent. There
has been a lot of bureaucratic mismanagement, frankly, in FEMA,
resulting in the delay of aid approved to the people who need it.
Tragically, many residents continue to be displaced, and the pace of
home repair and reconstruction is much slower than had been hoped for.
And tens of thousands of federally assisted evacuees from these
hurricanes face impending deadlines later this year for continued
eligibility for rental assistance. A great number of residents are
still scattered around the country, many hundreds of thousands of miles
from their homes.
Madam Speaker, we are aware that FEMA didn't get its job done in the
aftermath of the hurricane. We are here, in part, to try to put this
back together and make certain that the aid people need is delivered.
In part, this Congress now is responding to the needs of the folks in
the gulf coast again.
I am very pleased to support this rule and support the underlying
bill because it does provide some overdue housing relief to displaced
gulf coast residents. H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing
Recovery Act of 2007, was passed out of the Financial Services
Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 50-16. The bill is practical
in speeding up the repair and rebuilding of homes and affordable rental
housing to the displaced low-income victims to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita
and Wilma.
{time} 1300
Very specifically, the measure frees up for use $1.175 billion in
funds that was previously made available to the State of Louisiana, but
which has been held up by FEMA. Louisiana has proposed combining these
funds with other Community Development Block Grant funds under its Road
Home program for grants to homeowners, but FEMA won't approve use of
the funds, thereby slowing down the program because of concerns about
specific provisions of the Road Home program that provide incentives
for homeowners to commit to return to the State of Louisiana and live.
This bill would transfer such funds to CDBG grants in order to
expedite the availability of those funds. The bill also has a number of
provisions designed to address the shortfall in affordable housing for
low-income families. And, as we all know, it was low-income families
who bore the brunt of suffering as a result of these hurricanes. This
measure would prevent public housing units in New Orleans from being
demolished until the Federal Government has a plan to replace them and
grant displaced public housing tenants an absolute right of return to
either their former neighborhood or one as close as possible.
Faced with a looming September deadline for the cutoff of some 12,000
families currently receiving Disaster Voucher Program assistance, H.R.
1227 extends this deadline through at least the end of the year and
authorizes replacement vouchers to affected families when the program
terminates, and that would continue as long as the family is eligible
for voucher assistance.
Additionally, responding to numerous accounts of government waste in
the gulf coast rebuilding process, H.R. 1227 includes a number of
provisions to ensure effective oversight. Federal funds must be used
efficiently, effectively, and legally. The bill requires the State of
Louisiana to submit monthly reports on the progress of the Road Home
program in making funds available to homeowners. The bill requires the
Government Accountability Office to complete quarterly reports
identifying any waste, fraud, and abuse in connection with the program.
We have got to stay on top of this money. And the bill requires the GAO
study to examine methods of improving the distribution of Federal
housing funds to assist States with hurricane recovery efforts.
Finally, the bill authorizes reimbursement of communities and
landlords for monies lost through providing assistance to displaced
individuals. A number of communities and private sector landlords
throughout the country did play a critical role in providing housing
assistance to evacuees in the aftermath of the hurricanes. This was
crucial at a time when housing was in short supply and hundreds of
thousands of families needed that assistance. We want to encourage such
actions in future disasters to restore people's faith that the
government can be a friend and an ally at a time of extraordinary need.
Much of the gulf coast remains devastated. Residents continue to
suffer from inadequate housing, health care, and other basic services.
And, more than 1\1/2\ years after Hurricane Katrina struck, the
situation in the gulf coast remains an emergency. We must act now to
right some of the wrongs that have been done and not wait on the
sidelines anymore. We urge that you support the rule and the underlying
bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank the
distinguished gentleman from Vermont, my friend Mr. Welch, for the
time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.
On August 24, 1992, I remember Hurricane Andrew, category 5 storm,
devastated my community, with wind gusts of over 200 miles per hour.
That storm caused over $26 billion of damage to south Florida. Entire
communities were destroyed. Hurricane Andrew caused 43 deaths,
destroyed over 125,000 homes, left approximately 180,000 people
homeless, and wiped out approximately 80 percent of the area's farms.
Until Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005, Hurricane Andrew
was the costliest natural disaster in the United States' history.
We in south Florida were very fortunate to receive generous
assistance from fellow Americans in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. I
know that assistance was essential for recovery, as it is for recovery
in the gulf coast.
As someone who experienced Hurricane Andrew firsthand, I have an idea
of the trials that confront those who live through horrific storms. The
road to recovery is long and difficult. It doesn't come easy. But
communities must come together and put all of their efforts into
rebuilding and meeting the needs of the residents. We cannot walk away
from our obligations to our fellow Americans. And, just as we did after
Andrew, together we must build, together we must recover, together we
must be better and stronger than before.
Immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, the
Republican majority in this Congress committed over $100 billion to
help the area confront the immediate aftermath of the storm and to deal
with the recovery effort. Included in that were $16.7 billion, almost
$17 billion for the Community Development Block Grant programs. States
applied for those funds through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. So far, HUD has approved under $11 billion of those funds
to affected States.
Madam Speaker, we all agree that those who wish to return to New
Orleans or other devastated areas should be able to do so. This is the
position of Mr. Alphonso Jackson, the Housing and Urban Development
Secretary, which he reiterated in August when he said during a visit to
New Orleans, ``Every family who wants to come home should have the
opportunity to come back.'' We should all do what we can to make
certain that we rebuild, that we see communities rebuild and become
even more robust and safer communities.
The underlying legislation seeks to assist in the provision of
affordable housing to low-income families affected by Hurricane
Katrina. There is some concern, Madam Speaker, that the legislation
goes beyond the scope of the bill's stated intent. For example,
[[Page H2682]]
the legislation seeks to turn what is currently a temporary disaster
voucher program into a permanent voucher, and to require HUD to provide
tenant replacement vouchers for all public housing units not brought
back on line, including those slated for demolition prior to the
storms.
The American people have demonstrated their resiliency before and
will do so again. Obviously our prayers continue to go out to the
victims and their families of these horrific natural disasters. The
spirit of community, generosity, and goodwill across the country
continues to give me confidence that Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
just as Florida did before, will recover from these tragedies stronger
and better than before.
I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Financial
Services Committee. He listened to the needs of Miami-Dade County with
regard to how the distribution formula for HUD section 8, when it was
changed in the CR that this Congress passed some weeks back. There was
damage, damage cost, and the chairman is ameliorating and alleviating
that damage, and we are grateful for that.
Now, Mrs. Biggert, our colleague from Illinois, went before the Rules
Committee with an amendment to hold harmless all of the public housing
agents from the damage done by the change in the formula in the CR, to
hold harmless all the agencies through this calendar year. I am sorry,
I truly am, that the majority in the Rules Committee refused to make in
order Mrs. Biggert's amendment, and that is one of the reasons why we
are opposing the rule today.
I think it is appropriate to point out that the majority is failing
to live up to its commitment to run the House in an open and fair
manner. The majority sent a notice to Members that they had until
Monday at 10 a.m. to file amendments with the Rules Committee in order
to be considered; however, the official committee report accompanying
this bill was not filed until Friday, giving Members less than 1
business day to review the report and file amendments for
consideration, not to mention the fact that most Members were already
in their districts or traveling back home on Friday.
So I think it is fair to ask the question, how can the majority
expect Members to review the actions of the Committee on Financial
Services in a timely manner when they barely give them a chance to
review the committee report?
The majority also promised to provide more open rules. Yes, they have
provided several open rules on noncontroversial bills. I think it is
important to ask, what about on bills where both sides do not
necessarily agree on all aspects of the legislation? Will the majority
continue to block amendments from the minority? What will they do on
the supplemental appropriations bill? We shall soon find out.
I believe it is fair to say, if the majority is serious about their
commitment to openness, they should allow for open rules on the
underlying legislation and the supplemental appropriations bill which
is coming forth soon. Members of the minority are concerned that this
bill, as I stated before, turns a temporary disaster voucher program
into a permanent one, and the concern that of the $110 billion
appropriated by the 109th Congress, only a small portion has been
distributed to those in need. In response to these concerns, they
offered several thoughtful and germane amendments to the Rules
Committee to address their concerns; however, the majority once again
closed them out. I think that is unfortunate, and, again, that is why,
Madam Speaker, we oppose this rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, just in
response to the comments by my friend from Florida, this pretty much is
an open rule. The ones that weren't allowed were nongermane. And then
there was one amendment that was not allowed because it was an
amendment that was earlier offered and rejected by this House, and that
was at the recommendation of the Chair of the Financial Services
Committee, who had a very open process in the Financial Services
Committee considering numerous amendments and then has pretty much
invited any Member who wanted to submit an amendment to have an
opportunity on the floor to do so or for consideration before the Rules
Committee.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, the chair of the Committee on Financial
Services, Mr. Frank.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, no, it is not a fully open rule. It is a far more open
rule than any that the majority allowed in the previous Congress on
major legislation from the Financial Services Committee. I tell you
that as a fact.
First, the argument was made that people didn't have enough time to
file amendments. This bill was voted out of committee on March 7. It is
true that the actual report was delayed. It was delayed partly because
staff on both sides held up the actual writing on the language, and we
had a CBO scoring issue, and we were waiting for CBO. But the text of
the bill was put forward publicly on March 7.
In fact, there are a number of amendments offered here; most of them
are from members of the committee, some are from nonmembers of the
committee.
So the notion that people didn't know until Friday what to put in the
amendments on Monday is false. The fact is that this bill on March 7
was voted out of committee. In fact, the text of the bill was set on
March 6. What we did on March 7 was come back and complete roll call.
But as of noon on March 7, people knew what would be in this bill. It
was not a secret that we were marking it up; it was not a secret that
it would be coming up today.
So anybody who waited until Friday, who made the mistake, they have
themselves to blame. In fact, we made a couple of accommodations. The
gentleman from Georgia had an amendment which he filed which was
misfiled, and his amendment as filed went to a section different than
he wanted to affect.
{time} 1315
Whether you realize that, we urged the Rules committee to allow him,
after the deadline, to make an appropriate substitution. That was done
so that his appropriate amendment is in order. To the extent that there
was that technical glitch, we said, that's not right; let's allow the
gentleman from Georgia's amendment to go forward, the one substantive
to the bill.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) had an important amendment
that was adopted in committee. CBO raised issues with it. We then asked
the Rules Committee, after the deadline, to accommodate a change for
Mr. Baker's amendment because we were accommodating the CBO scoring. So
we did make two agreements after the deadline to accommodate these
particular changes.
But I want to stress again, Members knew on March 7 what was going to
be in this bill. So I don't know why anybody would have waited until
Friday to do the amendments. It was a fairly public controversial
process that we had. We had a number of rollcalls in the committee.
And I will say this: my view, I would have had a rule that was even
more accommodating. But what this does is allow every amendment that
the Parliamentarian's Office found to be germane to the bill and the
substance of this program to be in order. There is some debate over one
amendment from the gentleman from Georgia involving a kind of generic
language about offsets. And that was not allowed. I would have voted to
allow it; but it was not allowed. We considered it in committee. It was
voted on, debated, defeated.
But every amendment that was offered and, again, the deadline for
amendments was Monday. The bill had been voted out of committee on
Wednesday, March 7. There was plenty of time for that bill to be looked
at and for people to offer amendments. When I saw the amendments on
Monday, I urged the Rules Committee to put in order everything that was
germane. They have put in order a number of germane amendments with a
lot of debate time.
Now, I understand that there are Members who would like it to have
included a few more things. But every single one of them voted for
rules far
[[Page H2683]]
more restrictive. So this bill, you know, I have always thought the
question is, Is this a good rule? I have always thought the fount of
all wisdom that we should be guided by was expounded by a philosopher
named Henny Youngman, whom you, Madam Speaker, along with I certainly
remember. And the wisdom was, asked, How is your wife, the answer was,
Compared to what? And is this a good rule? Compared to what? Compared
to every rule that affected the Committee on Financial Services during
Republican leadership, it is a rule of great openness. Compared to an
ideal of complete openness, not quite.
So it is a far better rule than any Republicans ever brought forward
with regard to openness. It is not as good as I would like, but it does
allow into debate every amendment germane to the substance of this
bill, particularly to this bill, in terms of these programs, a number
of amendments that change it one way or the other: some that would
expand it, some that would retract it. And I believe the House will
have a chance to work its will on this issue.
The only other thing I would say is this when we are talking about
time: For people who haven't been remembering exactly, I do want to
remind people, despite what you might think, it is not November of
2005. We are now here in March of 2007. I say that because people who
saw the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi and
in Louisiana, to some extent in Texas, and who expected the Federal
Government to respond, and looked at the things we are doing, which are
called for by that dilemma that was created by the hurricanes, they
would have assumed that their Federal Government would have done that
within a couple of months after the hurricanes.
Unfortunately, about an 18-month freeze elapsed because the now-
minority, then-majority, did not have the energy to deal with it. So we
are doing a bill today that is 18 months overdue.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank you for allowing or supporting the inclusion of one of my
amendments. But you would agree, I hope, that the reason that the
section was misidentified in the initial submission to the Rules
Committee is because the text of the bill that we are considering today
wasn't available until Friday afternoon, and that section numbers
indeed changed; is that not correct?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I do agree, but it was changed as of
Friday, and so people could have looked at that on Friday and gotten it
right. And I appreciate that. So, yeah, the section changed and as
somebody even picked it up as of Friday, in the case of the gentleman
from Louisiana, it was a different thing. We didn't get the CBO's
scoring until too late, and then we had to work it out. The scoring
came in. Part of the problem was CBO is very busy, and we passed the
bill on March 7 and we didn't get their scoring until that Friday, and
that was one of the reasons for the delay.
I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would note that there are 12\1/2\
minutes remaining for the gentleman from Vermont and 21 minutes
remaining for the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend from
Georgia.
I think a fundamental part of the role of the opposition of the
minority is to hold the majority accountable, not only to history,
which our friend from Massachusetts is making reference to, but
accountable with regard to the promises made by the majority.
And so it was the majority that reiterated that they would bring an
open process. And, for example, we are already seeing not only, we have
seen in bill after bill after bill, the minority closed out. But also,
for example, rules passed by the majority, for example, requiring 3
days for people to view legislation before it comes to the floor, rules
like that being waived.
So let's see, for example, what is done on the supplemental
appropriations bill. Are they going to waive the rule passed by the
majority requiring 3 days? Are they going to waive it with regard to
that legislation as well?
And my friends on the other side of the aisle point out that, I think
they said this is almost an open rule. It is not an open rule.
Mrs. Biggert, I mentioned before, had an amendment to hold harmless
the public housing agencies from the effects of the change in the
formula in the middle of the fiscal year with regard to section 8. And
her amendment was not made in order.
So it is important to point that out. No, this is not an open rule
nor an almost open rule nor a semi- or a pseudo-open rule. It is not an
open rule.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, first, the Parliamentarian ruled
that the gentlewoman from Illinois' amendment which we debated in
committee was not germane because it went far beyond the hurricane. So
that was the reason for that.
The second thing is I want to concede one point to the gentleman. He
has chided us because we have set ourselves too low a standard. We have
set ourselves the standard of simply being better than they were last
year. I acknowledge that is too low a bar. I think we have met it with
ease, but I am inclined to do better. So I promise him, as far as I am
concerned, I will try to have a higher standard.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I don't know
exactly where the standard is in height. I will say that the promise
was an open process, and that process does not exist, and that promise
has not been kept. And in bill after bill after bill, the minority is
closed out.
Now, it is true that some open rules have been permitted on
legislation that we would bring forth under suspension. Madam Speaker,
when bills are noncontroversial, many times they are brought forth
under a process called suspension of the rules when there is mostly
unanimity or often unanimity or almost unanimity in this House. Yes. So
in bills like that we have seen some open rules where the minority has
been able to have the amendments that it wishes to be considered.
But I just want to remind colleagues that may be listening to this
debate, Madam Speaker, that when I point to Mrs. Biggert, it is not a
theoretical, you know, height issue, whether so much height of a
promise has been met. No. No. Mrs. Biggert is here and Mrs. Biggert is
a colleague, and she went before the Rules Committee with an amendment
that I thought was an important amendment and that she has worked hard
on, and she was closed out.
As a matter of fact, I would like to recognize, at this point,
another colleague, and then I will recognize Mrs. Biggert. I yield 4
minutes to my good friend, Dr. Price, who also had an amendment, a
germane amendment, that he has worked on, that he has given thought and
effort to and he brought to the Rules Committee so that we here could
consider it today. And he was closed out.
So, again, not theory, not height, not almost closed, almost open.
The gentleman from Georgia exists.
I yield 4 minutes to Dr. Price.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from
Florida for his passion for openness and honesty in our process, and I
thank him for yielding me some time.
I rise to oppose this rule for two specific reasons. One is because
it is not an open rule. It is not an open rule. It is a violation of
the assurances that we have been provided by the majority party. It is
not an open rule. Having a little bit of an open rule is like being a
little bit pregnant. It ain't possible. This is not an open rule. And I
stand here with an amendment that was turned down by the Rules
Committee. I stand here also opposing this because this rule takes
fiscal sanity and it moves it into a room somewhere, a very dark room,
and then locks the door and it throws away the key.
I have in my hand, Madam Speaker, the report from the Rules Committee
on what we are considering today. And it has the amendment that I had
offered, commonly known as PAYGO,
[[Page H2684]]
and it has the recorded vote. This is in the Rules Committee yesterday.
And my amendment would have been very simple. It said: ``Would
require any new spending authorized by this legislation to have a
specific offset.'' Simple. And what happened on the vote? Mr. McGovern
voted ``no.'' Mr. Hastings from Florida voted ``no.'' Mr. Welch voted
``no.'' Mr. Arcuri voted ``no.'' Ms. Slaughter voted ``no.'' Ms. Matsui
voted ``no.'' They voted against even considering, even considering
financial responsibility. So I rise to oppose this rule.
This new majority has promised a fair and open process; but, Madam
Speaker, I am here to tell you that what we are living in now is the
land of Orwellian democracy. Because they just say something, they
think it is so. Once again, this majority has blocked a vote on
applying pay-as-you-go principles to new spending.
We have wonderful comments from leadership on the other side. Speaker
Pelosi has said, on a previous rule, when the Republicans were in
charge, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices
silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against
the rule.'' And I support that sentiment. ``Because this is a
restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote `no.' ''
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on a rule that came before the
House, ``Mr. Speaker, once again this House majority is resorting to
heavy-handed tactics that are designed to do one thing only, to achieve
a pre-ordained result by shutting down a full and fair debate in this
House.'' And that is precisely what the majority party is doing now.
The new Chair of the Rules Committee said, ``If we want to foster
democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to
debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just
appropriations bills. An open process should be the norm, not the
exception.''
Democrat Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel said, ``Let us have an up or down
vote. Don't be scared. Don't hide behind some little rule. Come on out
here. Put it on the table. Let us have a vote.''
So I ask my friends on the majority side, what are you afraid of? The
amendment said: ``Which would require any new spending authorized by
this legislation to have a specific offset.''
What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? That is real
financial responsibility.
My good friend from Massachusetts said that they were waiting on a
CBO scoring. Well, then the bill does require funding. In fact, what
the CBO has said, that it has a price tag of nearly $1.3 billion. Maybe
money well spent, but I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that it is money
that we ought to find in our current budget.
So this hypocrisy of the majority party is stifling, absolutely
stifling. They are not the most open and fair Congress in history; in
fact, they are a far cry from it.
I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule based on fiscal
responsibility and based on the hypocrisy of the majority party
claiming to provide open rules, claiming to provide real and honest
debate and running away from it once again.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, in response to my friend from
Georgia, I would say two things. First, there are seven amendments that
have been allowed. One of them included an amendment by the gentleman
from Georgia that was not timely, but was accommodated by the Rules
Committee. The amendment that was rejected is an amendment that has
been rejected before.
The second point that I think it is important to make is that we have
a responsibility in this House to get work done.
{time} 1330
And the rules are intended to help us do the work of the American
people, not be a political wedge to make bogus arguments about process.
And it is a disgrace, it is a disgrace, that going on 2 years after
these hurricanes, there are people who are still homeless because we
had a Federal Emergency Management Administration that was incompetent
and reckless. It was headed by a person whose previous experience was
as a judge of an Arabian horse contest, and that happened under the
administration and the Congress that was led by Republicans.
That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to this Congress. It is
not acceptable to this party. It is not acceptable to this Congressman.
It is not acceptable by a bipartisan vote of 52-16 of the Financial
Services Committee.
We have business to do because there are people who are still in
emergency situations well over a year after devastating hurricanes.
This legislation is about doing something now that should have been
done 1\1/2\ years ago.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman Mr. Welch for his insightful leadership on this issue, and I
thank the Financial Services Committee.
And I ask the question of my colleagues, how many of them have
encountered Hurricane Katrina survivors, as I have every day in my
congressional district, or been back to the scene of the crime, if you
will, along the Mississippi gulf or the Louisiana gulf and asked the
question, how long?
This legislation, which I believe the Rules Committee has been
enormously fair in allowing amendments by both Republicans and
Democrats, answers the immediacy of the concerns. One, being no
housing. One of the amendments Mr. Green will be offering is raising
the question of extending the benefits so that individuals who are
trying to recoup themselves to get back home will have housing. How
many have walked into apartments in Houston, Texas, and talked to
Katrina survivors who held in their hand an eviction notice because
their FEMA benefits were being cut off, while at the same time they
were trying to access the Road Home Program, and they could not access
those dollars?
So this is answering real questions for real Americans, and it
answers the failures of this administration, which never seemed to get
it together and concern themselves enough with breaking, if you will,
the entanglement of bureaucracy to ensure that these individuals will
receive benefits.
So one of the issues, Madam Speaker, as we both serve on the Homeland
Security Committee, is to pre-prepare so we are in front of the natural
disaster or man-made disaster. I look forward to legislation that
establishes post
disaster housing, not trailers, so that individuals can be evacuated to
real housing that is there in place to be able to be of help.
This legislation moves the ball further down the road. It is long
overdue. It is a good rule. It is a rule that I have not seen in my
time here in the Congress under the other majority; so I am grateful
that we are moving forward as we are.
Let us vote for the rule. Let us vote for the underlying legislation.
Let us help those who need our help, and let us help them now.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I
yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert), who also had an amendment that was closed out, closed out by
the majority in the Rules Committee.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, while I am grateful that this rule made in order one
of my amendments to H.R. 1227, I rise today in opposition to this
modified closed rule because my other amendment, a very important
amendment, was not made in order.
My second amendment would have struck section 302 of H.R. 1227 and
inserted a new section at the end of the bill resetting the section 8
funding formula to its pre-continuing resolution state. The amendment
would require HUD to distribute section 8 funds to public housing
authorities for the remainder of the 2007 calendar year as they were
distributed before the enactment of the continuing resolution just last
month.
The section 8 funding formula change that was included in the CR was
not well thought out. One doesn't need to look very far for evidence of
this fact. Under the funding formula change that was included in the
CR, all of the gulf coast PHAs lose funding, and the budget of the New
Orleans PHA alone drops from $73 million to $3 million in 2007 and then
permanently from there on.
[[Page H2685]]
The bill before us today fixes this problem for the gulf coast and
New Orleans PHAs, but not for the rest of the country. I guess they
realized that they had made a mistake in that area, but let's just
leave the other PHAs in trouble. Half of the PHAs in the country, then,
over 1,200 public housing authorities in 29 States, remain in trouble.
Because of the section 8 funding formula change in the CR, PHAs in
half of our Nation's communities will not be able to serve many of our
neediest citizens. Very soon HUD will issue a notice that informs PHAs
that if they haven't spent their ``unspent balances'' by a date
certain, they lose these funds. If a person is walking the streets with
a voucher and hasn't found a place to rent, he or she loses the voucher
because these ``unspent funds'' will be recaptured by HUD. It was wrong
to change the funding formula midyear when PHAs had already set their
budgets for this year.
My amendment would have corrected this problem by telling HUD to
distribute section 8 funds to PHAs for the remainder of 2007 calendar
year as they were distributed to PHAs before the enactment of the CR.
Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues on the Rules Committee voted
against making my amendment in order and against restoring much-needed
funds to many of the Nation's PHAs. And they did so with full knowledge
that PHAs in their own congressional districts would benefit from my
amendment.
All three counties in my district lose funding under the formula
change in this CR, but at least I attempted to do something about it
and didn't consciously vote against fixing the problem.
We also will continue to try to fix the problem caused by the section
8 formula included in the CR. As ranking member on the Housing
Subcommittee, I will continue to work with my Housing colleague
Chairwoman Maxine Waters to craft a bipartisan section 8 reform bill in
the Financial Services Committee, which is the appropriate place to
address any changes to the funding formula, not in an appropriation
bill such as the recently enacted CR.
I recognize that the minority party may not be able to stop this rule
from going forward, Madam Speaker, but I urge my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to seriously consider voting against this rule.
While the bill prevents PHAs in the Gulf Stream from being harmed by
the formula in the CR, this rule does nothing to help PHAs nationwide
that are in the same predicament.
Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise to correct myself.
The gentleman from Georgia asked me to acknowledge that his amendment
was originally misfiled because of a change in the section that
occurred last Friday. I acknowledged that, but incorrectly. In fact,
the change happened during the markup. The section was renumbered
during the markup. And the gentleman, of course, being a member of the
committee, could have done that.
I want to stress again no change was made in the text of that bill
from March 7 until today; so anybody who wanted to offer amendments
knew that on March 7.
Secondly, as to the gentlewoman from Illinois, as I said, I guess I
am coming here, Madam Speaker, confessing all day. I mean, I confess
that I have not reached as high enough a standard as I should in
parliamentary terms because I have taken simply being better than the
Republicans as my standard, and I pledge to do better.
Similarly, I guess I should be scolded for being lax on the rules.
The gentlewoman from Illinois offered her amendment in committee. We
did not raise a point of order against it in committee. Now, I do want
to point out the parliamentarian for our committee is the
parliamentarian that was the parliamentarian under my predecessor. That
is one of the first things I did after the election was to call the
parliamentarian, Mr. Duncan, a former member of the Parliamentarian's
Office, who had been hired by my predecessor, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley), and asked him to stay on. I believe it should be totally
nonpartisan, and I believe it has been. It was the Parliamentarian's
Office that told the Rules Committee that the gentlewoman from
Illinois' amendment was not germane.
Now, I acknowledge my excessive tolerance. I have learned I am more
tolerant of a lot of things than a lot of people here, and I accept
that. I perhaps should have been more strict with regard to the
committee. We had that debated, and the rule is generally that you do
not take something that is narrowly applied and make it broader. There
is language in this bill that applies to how vouchers are allocated
where there was a hurricane. The gentlewoman wanted to change something
that had been in the CR. She said it shouldn't have been in the CR. And
I will say this: We will in our committee be revisiting that. We will
have a voucher bill. That will come before our committee going forward.
But I do want to make it clear in defense of the Rules Committee that
where I allowed the amendment without getting a ruling on it, the Rules
Committee, when they restricted the gentlewoman's amendment from being
offered, were following the ruling of the parliamentarian that it was
not germane.
I will yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
When it was in committee, there was no point of order. And the
amendment also contained New Orleans and the gulf coast.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand.
Mrs. BIGGERT. That was carved out by your side of the aisle,
realizing that that was very important, leaving the other PHAs.
When I went to the Rules Committee, I spent over an hour there, and
the germaneness never came up.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I
acknowledge that I did not raise a point of order. I acknowledge that I
was very tolerant and did not make a point of order that apparently
would have been sustained by the parliamentarian. But it was the
parliamentarian who said that.
I am sorry the woman spent over an hour in the Rules Committee.
Sometimes that is fun; sometimes it is not, but that is part of the
job. But the fact is that the decision to exclude her particular
amendment was made on the ruling of the parliamentarian that it was not
germane.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
We are grateful for the tolerance in the gentleman's committee with
regard to the amendment presented by Mrs. Biggert. The Rules Committee
could have been equally tolerant. Let us be clear.
In other words, the Rules Committee waives points of order, Madam
Speaker, with regard to the whole bill; so, obviously, they could have
waived a point of order with regard to the issue of germaneness for
Mrs. Biggert. So the Rules Committee could have been amply tolerant.
And that is one of the reasons, since the Rules Committee majority was
not, with regard to our colleague who has put so much work into this
issue to hold harmless the public housing agencies for the remainder of
this year from the mistake made by the majority in the so-called
continuing resolution, that we believe that she should have been able
to make her point before all of the Members.
Madam Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to my
distinguished friend from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I have come down here this morning not to
really speak about the process. It is to discuss with all my fellow
Members something that I think we need to make a commitment to going
forward.
Hurricane Katrina was a terrible tragedy for the gulf coast. It was a
terrible tragedy for New Orleans. In fact, it was the greatest tragedy
that we have had as far as a natural disaster in the history of our
country. As far as loss of property and loss of life, it is somewhere
between five and six times greater than anything we had ever
experienced before. When you talk property loss, uninsured property
loss, because a lot of the flooding was in New Orleans where there was
not flood insurance, or along the coast where they
[[Page H2686]]
had wind insurance but not for the surge, the storm surge, the losses
are even greater.
But out of a tragedy, there ought to always be opportunities. And the
opportunity that we have let slip by today, and, as I said, I am more
concerned about the future, and I hope that the chairman of the full
committee will work with me, is for us to go back and make sure that we
do right by the people of New Orleans in public housing.
{time} 1345
The New Orleans public housing was a failure. It was dysfunctional,
and it had been so for 40 or 50 years.
There is a philanthropist in Atlanta who has helped build a community
in Atlanta called East Lake. It was the highest crime area in the State
of Georgia. Today it is one of the safest precincts in the State of
Georgia. He did it not by replacing one-on-one public housing units, as
we are going to do in this bill. He did it by making a mixed community
of renters, subsidized renters, owners and public housing units.
In the State of New York, almost half of the prisoners in the State
penitentiary in New York State come from public housing projects in
seven ZIP codes in New York.
We owe it to our citizens all over the United States, not just in New
Orleans, to try to make a model, a vision in New Orleans, and correct
what is a community of public housing where children actually hide in
bathtubs and sleep in bathtubs at night because that is the only safe
place to be. That ought not to be in America.
We can change this. We know how to do it. Some of these HOPE VI
projects are amazing. We didn't do this in this bill. We owe it to the
American people to do it going forward.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I want to thank
the gentleman and all who have participated in this debate for having
done so. I think it has been a good debate.
I simply want to reiterate that on such an important issue, I am
sorry that we do not have a truly open rule, one that obviously would
satisfy any definition of the word. Under an open rule, for example,
Mrs. Biggert could have had her hold-harmless amendment discussed and
debated by the full House, as well as Dr. Price and others who wanted
to have their amendments debated and discussed.
I would simply urge and request of my friends on the other side of
the aisle that not only on noncontroversial bills should we have the
ability for the minority to be heard, not only on noncontroversial
bills or bills of consensus should there be open rules, but rather
there should be open rules on other legislation, legislation where
there will be genuine debate and even disagreement and discussion.
Madam Speaker, having said that, having no other speakers, and
reiterating our opposition to the rule, and looking forward to the
debate on the underlying legislation, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my good friend from Florida.
Once again, Madam Speaker, this is, we believe, a fair and open rule
that provides consideration for a much-needed, bipartisan piece of
legislation. The rule makes in order nearly every amendment brought to
the Rules Committee, more Republican than Democratic amendments, and
with considerable time to debate the merits of each amendment that will
be presented.
The underlying bill will provide increased flexibility for already
allocated funds, provide new oversight for existing programs. It
preserves public housing, assists evacuees with rental housing and
provides support for landlords in local communities who assisted
evacuees with housing.
Don't forget the displaced victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and
Wilma. That is really what this is all about. The Federal Government's
response to the storms has been a national embarrassment, and it is
just not acceptable. We have an obligation, all of us, to get our act
together so that they can move on with their lives and put them back
together.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting House Resolution 254 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on suspending the rules and agreeing to House Concurrent
Resolution 42; suspending the rules and passing H.R. 759; and agreeing
to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 190, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 160]
YEAS--228
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--190
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
[[Page H2687]]
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Bachus
Brady (PA)
Cannon
Castor
Davis, Jo Ann
Gilchrest
Graves
Kanjorski
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Meehan
Paul
Pence
Sessions
Westmoreland
{time} 1415
Messrs. TERRY, SULLIVAN, JORDAN of Ohio and TOM DAVIS of Virginia
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________