[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6289-H6293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE THAT THE UNITED STATES NAVY'S TOTAL 
                 READINESS REMAINS IN A PERILOUS STATE

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 998) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the United States Navy's total readiness remains 
in a perilous state due to high operational demands, increased 
deployment lengths, shortened training periods, and deferred 
maintenance all while the Navy is asked to do more with less as 
financial support for critical areas waned in the era of sequestration 
and without consistent Congressional funding.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 998

       Whereas Navy readiness could further deteriorate in areas 
     such as training, ship construction, ship repair, and 
     deployability if Congress does not provide stable funding for 
     the Department of Defense;
       Whereas the USS Fitzgerald, a United States Navy destroyer, 
     collided with a container ship while transiting through 
     Sagami Bay near Japan on June 17, 2017, resulting in the 
     deaths of seven sailors and hundreds of millions of dollars 
     in damage;
       Whereas the United States Navy's investigation of the USS 
     Fitzgerald collision concluded that the event was 
     ``avoidable'' and that numerous failures included failure to 
     plan for safety, failure to adhere to sound navigation 
     practice, failure to execute basic watch standing practices, 
     failure to properly use available navigation tools, and 
     failure to respond deliberately and effectively when in 
     extremis;

[[Page H6290]]

       Whereas the USS John S. McCain, a United States Navy 
     destroyer, collided with an oil tanker while transiting 
     through the Straits of Singapore on August 21, 2017, 
     resulting in the deaths of 10 sailors and hundreds of 
     millions of dollars in damage;
       Whereas the United States Navy's investigation of the USS 
     John S. McCain collision concluded that the crew suffered 
     from a ``lack of preparation, ineffective command and 
     control, and deficiencies in training and preparations for 
     navigation'';
       Whereas the Navy the Nation Needs, the United States Navy's 
     plan for building and sustaining a lethal, resilient force 
     through balanced investments across readiness, capability, 
     and capacity, explicitly states a need for 355 Battle Force 
     ships, yet the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan peaks at only 
     342 Battle Force ships in 2039 before a predicted decline;
       Whereas an efficient and supported industrial base will be 
     vital to building and maintaining a 355 ship Navy;
       Whereas over the previous 5 decades, 14 defense-related 
     new-construction shipyards have closed, 3 have left the 
     defense industry, and only 1 new shipyard has opened;
       Whereas stable and predictable funding allows for Navy 
     leaders to properly forecast their missions and adhere to the 
     Optimized Fleet Response Plan while also enabling industry 
     partners to prepare for ship repair work at the most 
     competitive prices to the United States Government;
       Whereas China's shipbuilding industry, according to a Naval 
     War College professor, is poised to make the People's 
     Liberation Army Navy the world's second largest navy by 2020, 
     and, if current trends continue, a combat fleet that in 
     overall order of battle is quantitatively on par with that of 
     the United States Navy by 2030;
       Whereas China continues to develop forward operating bases 
     on manmade islands in the South China Sea and, by doing so, 
     consolidate its control over the strategic corridor between 
     the Indian and Pacific Oceans through which \1/3\ of global 
     maritime trade passes; and
       Whereas Russia's shipbuilding industry's focus on undersea 
     warfare has positioned the Russian Navy to add six modernized 
     nuclear attack submarines to its naval inventory by 2023 and 
     aggressively modernize its aging Oscar-class nuclear attack 
     submarine fleet: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) recognizes the United States Navy's need for 
     congressional support to address readiness, training, and 
     modernization challenges that threaten to weaken naval 
     superiority; and
       (2) finds that failing to provide the United States Navy 
     with stable, predictable funding negatively affects its 
     ability to project power around the world, reassure critical 
     allies, and defeat adversaries when necessary.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), who is on the Armed Services 
Committee, to discuss his resolution.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming for all of her efforts, as well as all of my colleagues for 
their continued effort to do everything possible to assure the passage 
of the National Defense Authorization Act and the Defense 
Appropriations bill prior to the end of the fiscal year. That is key.
  We have heard testimony about how money is wasted and uncertainty has 
led us to where we are today. Without that, we must do everything we 
can to assure passage of both of those bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 998, which expresses 
the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Navy's 
total readiness remains in a perilous state due to high operational 
demands, increased deployment lengths, shortened training periods, and 
deferred maintenance all while the Navy is asked to do more with less 
as financial support for critical areas waned in the era of 
sequestration and without consistent congressional funding.
  We have heard that laid out. We agree on both sides that this has 
created the uncertainty that creates the situation we found ourselves 
in today.
  I think it is important to define what the term ``Navy total 
readiness'' truly means. The Navy conducted an independent Strategic 
Readiness Review composed of retired Navy admirals, as well as current 
senior civilian executives in the aftermath of the tragic USS 
Fitzgerald and USS McCain collisions. This Strategic Readiness Review 
identified institutional deficiencies that have developed over a long 
period of time resulting in a weaker Navy.
  Factors that contribute to total Navy readiness include: the total 
number of assets--we know them as ships--manning and training, that is, 
in particular, personnel, in how well they perform their jobs; 
equipping and maintaining, that means providing sailors gear and 
maintaining ships; command and control, which means establishing clear 
lines of leadership and funding; and operations, which is the tempo at 
which our men and women in uniform execute their missions.

                              {time}  1445

  If one or all of these total readiness factors are lacking, the Navy 
will suffer. Unfortunately, that is the situation we find ourselves in 
today.
  But we didn't arrive here by accident. I believe we have a tendency 
to respond to the crisis of the day rather than prepare for long-term 
strategic problems with corresponding solutions.
  Make no mistake about it, our adversaries are looking in the long 
term. Don't think for a moment that China isn't watching what we are 
doing and planning for where they will be not next week, not next 
month, not next year, but 10 years down the road, 20 years down the 
road, or a century down the road. The same with Russia, North Korea, 
and Iran. We need to do the same.
  After the Cold War and the Reagan administration came to an end, our 
Navy rapidly decreased in size. In the next few decades, funding levels 
became smaller and smaller. Tough cuts were made. The surface warfare 
community decreased their level of training, weakening the skills of 
their officers and reducing their capacity to effectively and safely 
perform their jobs as ship drivers and warfighters. Ships retired 
without replacements.
  Then, a nationwide financial crisis brought upon a shortsighted 
decision for sequestration, further crippling the Navy's ability to 
take care of itself.
  Meanwhile, threats to the United States and operational tempo have 
not decreased. This created a situation where the Navy was overworked 
with too few resources.
  But our men and women in uniform never complain and never say they 
can't accomplish their mission. They have the kind of resolve in doing 
the things this Nation asks them to do that this Congress should have 
in our commitment to providing them the resources necessary for them to 
continue the great job that we ask of them.
  But at a certain point, we all know we can't continue to operate this 
way. Things begin to break down when they aren't given the resources 
necessary. When their ships aren't properly maintained, when training 
doesn't take place at scheduled intervals to make sure they maintain 
that expertise that we need of them, sailors get stressed. When there 
are simply too many jobs to do and not enough time for people to do 
them, mistakes happen, costly mistakes.
  We won't be able to reverse this trend immediately, but we can 
continue to make targeted, strategic investments in assets, training, 
and manpower to improve the Navy's readiness. I am proud of the work 
that Congress has done in recent years, in particular, this year's 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  The House-passed NDAA adds a total of 13 battle force ships to the 
Navy's inventory, makes critical investments in ship maintenance 
accounts to take care of the ships we already have, and takes strong 
action in regard to surface warfare officer training and command and 
control structures within the Navy.
  In consultation with our Senate counterparts, I am confident that we 
will deliver a bill that supports the Navy's rebuilding efforts and the 
drive and the objective of a 355-ship Navy.
  We cannot be complacent. Yes, we have the best Navy in the world, but 
we can be better. Our sailors and marines are the best on the face of 
the Earth, and they do a spectacular job, folks. But until they can 
walk on water,

[[Page H6291]]

which someday they may be able to do, until they can walk on water, 
then we must continue to build them ships.
  It is imperative that this Congress supports the United States Navy 
financially and authoritatively in a manner that allows for reassuring 
our allies, maintaining global presence, and defeating adversaries when 
necessary. We must give our sailors and our marines the tools they need 
to succeed in an atmosphere and an environment that is even more 
challenging than it has ever been in the era of great power competition 
where we know that our allies are committing to not just countering the 
United States, but defeating the United States strategically.
  We must do nothing less than fully support our Navy-Marine Corps 
team, giving them what they need not just for today, not just for next 
year, not just for within our purview of what this Congress has to do, 
but for years to come, for decades to come, and for centuries to come. 
For it is only with that, that we will be able to counter what our 
adversaries are doing every second of every day, and that is finding 
ways to defeat the United States strategically. We must do nothing less 
than the same.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's motion. It is part of the 
same discussion we had on the previous resolution, and I, as I said, 
completely agree. The lack of certainty on the continuing resolutions 
has negatively impacted the Department of Defense and our readiness. 
There is absolutely no question about it. The only thing I would debate 
today is: What is the best way to address that problem? How do we 
honestly get at it?
  These resolutions would suggest that if we simply fund defense and 
ignore everything else, then we will be fine. I think the way we got 
into this mess is instructive, and it is also going to be helpful in 
terms of how we get out of this mess going forward.
  It is worth noting, at the end of this, we talked a little bit about 
tax cuts and how one thing doesn't have to do with the other. Tax cuts 
do not increase revenue. If they did, we would have the easiest job in 
the world. Also, a tax rate of zero would generate the most revenue for 
the United States Government. Obviously, that is not true.
  Now, it is true that tax policy, depending on how it is structured, 
can be more encouraging to investment. But we have never had lower tax 
rates on the Federal level than we have right now. After all of the 
Bush tax cuts, as I mentioned the tax cuts under President Obama, and 
now the tax cuts under President Trump, all of that has added up to a 
massive decrease in our revenue, and that is part of the equation.
  When President Bush put the tax cuts in place in 2001, for three 
consecutive fiscal years after that, we had a real dollar decrease in 
the amount of revenue that the Federal Government took in.
  Now, I also understand that taxes are always a burden on the people 
who have to pay them. If we are running government well, we are going 
to try to keep those taxes as low as is humanly possible. But if we are 
going to meet the needs of government, we have to raise revenue.
  What we have heard today is a very, very compelling case for how, 
over the course of the last decade, we haven't met the needs of 
readiness within the Department of Defense. So, again, I simply urge us 
to make a choice here. If we want to cover these costs, then let's 
raise the revenue and pay for it, and not pretend with this fantasy 
that somehow cutting the amount of revenue you take in is going to 
increase the amount of revenue you are going to take in. It doesn't 
work that way, and it certainly doesn't work in the current economic 
environment.
  The second thing I would say is, while national security is 
critically important, it is not the only thing we do that is important. 
And that is the other thing that worries me about this debate. We 
massively slash revenue so we have less money to play around with, then 
we make the case for why we need to massively increase our defense 
budget, and everything else that the Federal Government does just sort 
of drifts away as an afterthought.
  There are a lot of examples of this. I used infrastructure in the 
previous debate, and I will use a different example this time, the Fred 
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. It is not in my district, but it is 
just across the street from my district in Seattle, Washington.
  It is doing incredible work right now on cancer. They are literally 
this close to, in some cases, curing it. They have come up with a new 
way for dealing with blood cancers--taking the white blood cells out of 
the body, reenergizing them, and putting them back in--that has 
achieved truly miraculous results.
  Fred Hutch gets an overwhelming amount of their funding from the 
National Institutes of Health, from the Federal Government. The budget 
that President Trump originally proposed last year would have cut 
funding for Fred Hutch by 75 percent.
  So while we are caring about national security, I think we also have 
to care about, well, curing cancer. It is not irrelevant. It actually 
saves lives and makes a difference.
  Lastly, I do, as I said earlier, worry about a view of the world that 
says, basically, the entire world is out to get us and we have to spend 
as much money as is humanly possible here in the United States to 
defend ourselves.
  We face threats. There is no question about that. We need a National 
Security Strategy and a national security budget to meet those threats. 
But in order to really create a safer and more prosperous world, we 
need to build alliances so that we are threatened by fewer people and 
so that we have more friends who will help us deter those who do 
threaten us. This is a point that Ms. Cheney made that I completely 
agree with.
  Deterrence is incredibly important. In a place like North Korea, will 
Kim Jung-un attack South Korea? Or will Iran attack? If they feel like 
they face a credible deterrent, they won't, and the U.S. needs to be 
part of that. But our allies need to be part of that as well.
  Here, Russia is a great example. If Russia feels that NATO is weak, 
they will be emboldened. We already are seeing what they are doing in 
Ukraine. Estonia, Latvia, and other countries in Eastern Europe feel 
threatened by Russia. They need to know that the United States stands 
with our allies in Europe in order to deter that aggression and stop 
the war before it happens.
  That does not all fall on the United States defense budget. It falls 
on us having friends and allies who can back up our credible 
deterrence.
  Lastly, I just close by saying that we certainly face the threats we 
face. It is worth noting that we still, in the United States, spend way 
more money every year on defense than any of our adversaries, than any 
other country in the world. So it is not just a matter of money; it is 
a matter of having a smart strategy and spending that money well.
  I am pleased that--knock on wood--this is supposed to be the first 
year in forever that the Department of Defense will actually have a 
full audit of where they spend their money. But making sure the money 
that is spent is spent efficiently and effectively is also part of 
having an adequate national security budget. So I worry that, 
basically, we say, look, all we have to do is spend as much money as 
the Pentagon wants and everything will be fine. I think it is a lot 
more complicated question than that. Again, it comes back to having a 
sound fiscal policy and a sound national security policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Smith, is worried about a lot of 
things that really just aren't the case over here on this side of the 
aisle.
  I agree with Mr. Smith that weakness is provocative. We certainly 
need look no further than the Obama administration to see what happens 
when the United States is weak, to see what happens when the United 
States abandons its longstanding allies in the Middle East, including 
Israel, in order to provide funding and a pathway to nuclear weapons 
for the Iranians. We see what happened again and again and again.
  We saw what happened when the Obama administration, President Obama, 
decided to pull troops out of

[[Page H6292]]

Iraq based on a timeline that he established in Washington, D.C., with 
no regard to the facts on the ground. We saw what happened. What 
happened was the rise of ISIS.
  So the problem that we have is, in order to deter, we have to make 
sure people understand that we are strong. We have lived through 8 
years in the previous administration of apologies and weakness, and 
President Trump is turning that around. President Trump is making clear 
that people understand that no longer will that be the case, and that 
we, in fact, are going to be a Nation that stands up for what we 
believe in.

  I think it is also very educational, Mr. Speaker, to think about this 
debate we are having here today, this discussion, and to think about 
what it sounds like to men and women who are serving overseas and to 
their family members. What we are supposed to be discussing here and 
debating here is a resolution that expresses a sense of this body that 
the United States Navy has been hurt extensively by the lack of 
predictable funding. Instead, what we are getting is a lot of 
discussion and conversation about a whole bunch of other things that I 
am more than happy to debate.
  Mr. Smith and I clearly have very different opinions about the 
economy and about what you have to do to generate economic growth in 
this economy. But that is not this resolution.
  I think we have the opportunity here, on a bipartisan basis, once and 
for all, to show that we are in a position where we are going to 
provide the kind of support that our men and women in uniform need.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and I agree, that the fundamental 
point is that we need to make sure that we adequately provide for, in 
this case, what the resolution is focused on, the Navy and the Marine 
Corps. As I have agreed throughout, adequate readiness for them is 
incredibly important. The CRs and the budget fiasco that we have had 
have not provided that.

                              {time}  1500

  What I am trying to do is, rather than just an empty resolution that 
says, gosh, it would be great if we actually looked after you, to talk 
about the policy steps that are going to be necessary to actually do 
that. So I think that is an incredibly important part of this debate.
  Now, we can have every resolution all day long saying we want to cure 
cancer, we want to bring peace to the world. That is great. But what 
are the steps that are going to be necessary, in this case, to get to 
the point where the Navy and Marine Corps has the adequate funds that 
they need, or at least has predictability for what they are going to be 
able to do, because we have been having these discussions about how, 
gosh, we ought to do this, and then we don't.
  I am trying to explain to the people who serve in the military and 
everybody else exactly why we don't; instead of just giving them empty 
promises saying we would really like to help you, it just seems like 
year after year, somehow we don't. We don't, for all of the reasons 
that I have listed in terms of fiscal policy going forward.
  The other thing that I would like to point out is, Obama is no longer 
President. Donald Trump is President. And it seems to me like the one 
thing the Republican Party would want to do, they would love to have 
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to kick around for, like, ever. But 
you are actually in charge now; so why don't you be responsible for the 
policies that we have right now.
  And I just, I couldn't believe that I heard the Representative from 
Wyoming say that America is now projecting strength. If there was ever 
an example of the President of the United States projecting the most 
embarrassing, abject weakness I have ever seen than what President 
Trump just did with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, I can't think of it. 
And quite frankly, a number of Republican commentators that I have seen 
talk over the last 24 hours can't think of it either.
  So I know it is incredibly comforting, from a policy perspective, to 
blame everything, absolutely everything, that has gone wrong in the 
world on President Obama, but he is not in charge anymore.
  Donald Trump is in charge. The Republican Party is in charge of the 
House and the Senate, and it is time to focus on policies that are 
going to move us forward and advance our interests; and not just feel 
comfort in the fact that we can sort of rewrite history and blame 
President Obama for absolutely everything that has gone wrong.
  It is a big, complicated, and difficult world for President Trump. It 
was for President Obama. We need to work together. We need to find ways 
to confront the challenges we face in a thoughtful way. Simply blaming 
the past president for absolutely everything isn't going to get us 
there.
  So, again, let me just conclude by saying I completely agree. The 
issue that needs to be addressed is to make sure that we have adequate 
readiness for all of the men and women who serve in the military.
  We are only talking about the Navy and Marine Corps. As I think the 
gentlewoman said, we are going to talk about the Air Force and the Army 
next week. I think we should talk about all of them at the same time, 
because it is all equally important. But to get there, we need to have 
a strategy that is actually sustainable, instead of one that is based 
on hope.
  And to my mind, that is the worst thing that we can do to the men and 
women who serve in the military is say we want you to do all of this, 
and we don't really have the funds to do it, so you are going to have 
to figure it out as you go. It would be far, far better to say, look, 
here is, realistically, where our budget is at. Here is, realistically, 
what we can do.
  Give them that task, and then they will be trained and equipped to do 
it, instead of being asked to do more than we are willing to provide 
money for.
  And it is one thing if this was just 1 year. It is one thing if we 
had a surplus. But we don't. We have the budget environment that we 
have. So if we are going to get to the point where we adequately 
address readiness and address the issues that are being raised, then we 
need to be realistic about what we can do and, like I said, not keep 
blaming past administrations for things; actually try to implement 
policy right now that is going to make sure that we have the strongest 
national security policy we can, and that, again, the men and women who 
serve in the military, at a minimum, are trained and equipped to do the 
missions that we are asking them to do; that we don't ask them to do 
missions that go beyond the funds that we provide for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  These resolutions do lay out the steps necessary. These resolutions 
make clear that the House has done its business, has done its work; we 
need the Senate to do its work, and we need to get these bills to the 
President's desk.
  As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the only person that had hope as a policy 
was Barack Obama, and my colleague is right, that he is no longer--
President Obama is no longer in the Oval Office. However, the damage 
that his policies did are so devastating and so long-lasting that we 
are having to dig out from under it. That is why we are here today.
  We are here today because not only have continuing resolutions hurt 
the Department of Defense, the policies of the last 8 years have 
created a situation, geopolitically and militarily, where the work that 
we have got to do to undo those very ill-guided policies is significant 
and requires the kind of funding that we are talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) to close.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming, again, for all of her efforts today to highlight this 
important issue about the commitment this Nation has to make to our 
military to make sure we rebuild this lost readiness, and H. Res. 
998 is purely simply about that.

  Are we willing to state our commitment to our sailors and Marines 
about what we must do as a Nation to provide the resources that they 
need to do the job that we ask them to do?

[[Page H6293]]

  Are we willing to send a message to them that says, we are committed 
to standing by them for everything that has to happen to provide 
certainty to them so they know what their future holds?
  Are we willing to send a message to our adversaries to say that this 
Nation is committed to rebuild our Navy and Marine Corps team to make 
sure that they are a force to be reckoned with anytime an adversary of 
ours may think of acting badly around the world; that that Navy and 
Marine Corps team will be there. That is what this resolution is about.
  It is also sending a message to every one of our constituents; is 
this Congress committed to the right policies to making the commitment 
of resources to make sure that our Navy and Marine Corps team has what 
they need? That is another important part of this message.
  And will we, as a nation, assure that in the long-term we are 
committed to countering what our adversaries are doing? And we see 
that. We see that in scores. Whether it is something like submarines, 
where we are on path, by 2029, to be down to 42 total attack 
submarines, the most requested asset in the entire United States 
inventory. We are down to 42 submarines in 2029.
  China, by 2020, will have 70 submarines, total attack submarines and 
ballistic missile submarines, building five to six per year, so that by 
2029, when we are at 42 submarines, attack submarines, and on the way 
to rebuilding Ohio-class submarines, the Chinese could be as high as 
124 submarines. Now, quantity has a quality all of its own.
  This resolution today says, are we going to make the commitment to 
make sure that we can counter those adversaries? Are we going to be 
able to tell our children and our grandchildren that when we had the 
chance we made the commitment? We made the commitment to our sailors, 
to our Marines, and as we will next week, to our soldiers and our 
airmen, and subsequently our Coast Guardsmen, to make sure that they 
have what they need, that this Nation makes the commitment to assure 
that we have the future of our Nation's defense well in hand. That is 
what today is about.
  I ask my colleagues to join me to make sure that we are willing to 
make this simple commitment. While it may be in words, those words will 
speak volumes to our sailors, to our Marines, to our citizens, and to 
our adversaries, that this Nation has an unshakable resolve to make 
sure that we have what we need to counter the threats abroad, and to 
counter anybody that thinks of threatening the United States, or our 
friends, or our allies, or would want to act badly. Today's resolution 
is all about that, not just for today, but for decades to come.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 998.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________