[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8265-8272]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2577, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND 
 URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016, AND 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2578, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 287

       Resolved, That (a) at any time after 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 
     any bill specified in section 2 of this resolution. The first 
     reading of each such bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of each such bill are waived. 
     General debate on each such bill shall be confined to that 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate each such 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. Points of order against provisions in each such bill 
     for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
       (b) During consideration of each such bill for amendment--
       (1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in 
     paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in 
     paragraph (2);
       (2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate; and
       (3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read.
       (c) When the committee rises and reports any such bill back 
     to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on that bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The bills referred to in the first section of this 
     resolution are as follows:
        (a) The bill (H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
       (b) The bill (H.R. 2578) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.

[[Page 8266]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 287 provides for a 
modified open rule for separate consideration of H.R. 2578 and H.R. 
2577. Under this rule, any Member may offer any amendments to the bills 
in question that comply with the rules of the House. It also provides 
for 10 minutes of debate on each amendment considered. This approach 
has been what we call a standard rule for appropriations bills and was 
established and has been followed for this last year and the year 
before, and I believe it has been effective and, really, a good way for 
this body to be able to effectively operate, allowing each and every 
Member of this body the chance to offer their amendments.
  This rule also accomplishes two important goals:
  First, it reflects the majority's commitment to an open and 
transparent appropriations process. This rule will also allow for all 
Members to bring to this body their ideas that they have that they 
bring from back home, perhaps ideas from their own individual 
constituents about how we can make this appropriations process even 
better. I think it is important that Members of Congress be given an 
opportunity to do this in the appropriations process, and that is 
exactly what we are trying to do today for a robust opportunity for 
discussion. If an amendment complies with the rules of the House, it 
certainly will be given an up-or-down vote, if that Member chooses to 
do so.
  Secondly, this rule provides for reasonable time constraints. It is 
my belief that if Members' ideas are heard and the process by which we 
consider appropriations bills is done on a timely basis, then the House 
will benefit, and so will the American people, so that we work 
effectively and efficiently at the same time. This rule, I believe, 
strikes a good balance, allowing all Members an opportunity to offer 
necessary amendments but also allowing the House to get its work done.

                              {time}  1230

  I estimate that we will spend about 18 hours in the process to get 
these bills done. Throughout this open process, the House will be able 
to make two great bills, I think, even better.
  Mr. Speaker, the open process by which these two bills will be 
considered, if the rule is adopted, is not only a good thing, but I 
think it says something about the work that the Rules Committee is 
doing. I am proud to support these two underlying bills because they 
make tough decisions, and they prioritize the responsibilities of the 
Federal Government. We simply do not have enough money to spread around 
to not have to make tough decisions. These are tough decisions that are 
made.
  Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, both of these bills were equally 
addressed on a bipartisan basis, and both the ranking member and the 
chairman of the subcommittee said they worked well together.
  Obviously, not everybody was happy with how much money they had to 
spend, but both of the ranking members--the Democrats who were 
present--addressed our committee and said that they were treated 
fairly, that they were treated respectfully, and that it was an open 
and transparent process to achieve good things for the bills.
  That is the hope that I have as we come to the floor today in that 
you will see groups of Members who will come to the floor with an open 
opportunity as a result of what we did in the Rules Committee, knowing 
that the process that took place back in the Appropriations Committee 
was well done.
  Alarmingly, however, yesterday, we learned that President Obama has 
threatened to veto both of these bills because, as I quote him, they 
``drastically underfund critical investments.''
  Let me see if I can break this down for you. It is our job to 
determine what those appropriations levels would be. We heard from the 
President of the United States when he presented his budget, and year 
after year after year, the President of the United States has failed to 
receive more than only several votes on his budget.
  I believe that what we have done by working carefully and 
meticulously through the budget process and through the appropriations 
process gives us a better angle on the needs and the priorities of 
these agencies from a congressional and, I believe, a ``back home'' 
experience.
  The people of this country elected their Representatives, and their 
Representatives have come to Washington and have had a fair and open 
process, notwithstanding that we are not spending as much as people 
want us to spend.
  I believe that the President is saying that he will veto these bills 
because he does not believe that we simply continue to spend more and 
more and more. This President has an insatiable appetite that we saw 
and have seen year after year after year.
  Based upon his words, I would say back to him: Mr. President, please 
look at the merits of the work that the House of Representatives is 
doing on a bipartisan basis. We are trying to live within the 
parameters of a budget that has been established and that was voted on 
by Members of this body, that has the vast majority of the Members of 
this body to say, when compared to the President's budget, this is the 
budget that I believe best represents not only what we can accomplish 
but what will work in the best interests of the American people, our 
constituents. Mr. President, they are the same ones that you have 
across this great Nation. Mr. President, we are asking you to take a 
second look at how you will listen to us and to watch the process that 
is going on here. I think it will develop itself into a better way for 
us to do business, and I would encourage the White House to look at 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, a great nation simply cannot spend money that it does 
not have and be a great nation for very long. This last month, we 
crossed over the terrible, terrible threshold of going from $17 
trillion to $18 trillion in debt, and we continue to add up this debt 
and live off that debt and add to the debt with the spending that we 
do. We believe that what we have got to do is become more responsible 
with the taxpayers' dollars and the future of this great Nation.
  The law of the land and the law that the President has signed 
requires Congress to act within the requirements of the Budget Control 
Act. These were agreements that were made with the President. That is 
what we are sticking to, and that is what these bills do; yet the 
President, once again, is telling us: Please set aside the agreement 
that was made. I don't now like the thing that I agreed to, that I 
signed into law.
  In some instances, they were some of the President's own ideas.
  We need to understand that the American people want and expect us to 
see problems and to solve them and to stick to it. That is what this 
budget process is about, and that is exactly what this appropriations 
process is about.
  Look, I disagree with the President. I believe that what we need to 
do is to live within the agreement of the Budget Control Act. My party, 
the Republicans, have worked to lower discretionary spending from 
nearly $1.5 trillion in 2009, where we were, to today in 2015, $1.014 
trillion.
  That is the difference between 2009 and 2015, years in which 
excessive and out-of-control spending could have taken place but for 
the discipline of the Republican Party and the discipline of our 
Members and, might I say, of the American people, who have heard our 
call for having a plan, a plan which

[[Page 8267]]

carefully moves America into the future, that lessens the amount of 
debt the American people have to take on, and that makes better 
opportunities for our children and grandchildren not to have to pay 
back our excessive spending just because we are a group of people who 
thinks it is smarter than the people back home. We aren't.
  They get also, Mr. Speaker, that we have to have a defined goal. We 
have to do exactly what they do back home, and that is to be 
responsible about a family budget, about a State budget, about a 
Federal Government budget.
  That means disciplined accountability and a plan that you are willing 
to stick to. That is exactly what we have done. We have worked hard to 
lower discretionary spending over these years, and the effort has saved 
more than $2 trillion over this period of time and, I believe, over 
what would have been spent.
  I think this is a big win for the American people, and I think it is 
a big win for people who want, need, and expect Members of Congress to 
come to Washington and stick not only to a plan, but to a disciplined 
approach in trying to balance together the needs of this great Nation 
and its people and the need for us to look over the horizon at what our 
future would be.
  I think that we have lowered spending and that we have had a chance 
to shrink the size of government. Certainly, what we are trying to do 
is to work at lowering the deficit or the amount of money that would 
have been added to that deficit. These are the discussions that people 
back home have with their Members of Congress: What lies ahead? And how 
are you going to be able to make tough decisions?
  I hope that the President of the United States is listening to this 
because we are, on a bipartisan basis, having these same discussions in 
the House of Representatives and in the committees on which our Members 
serve. Now is the time not to go back to liberal, reckless spending 
opportunities. They will always abound.
  It is always easier to spend somebody else's money. I just don't 
think it is right, so the Republican Party is here on the floor today 
with two more appropriations bills, and it is going to sell to the 
American people the confidence that we have that we can make this 
government work more effectively and more efficiently--yes, with fewer 
dollars but with greater opportunities for efficiency.
  I believe that both of these bills strike what is a balance, a 
balance between funding critical projects while making smart financial 
decisions. These two can be accomplished, and that is why we are trying 
to work together to prioritize it.
  H.R. 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2016, focuses on the true governmental interest: 
fighting crime; making decisions about how we keep terrorists at bay; 
keeping the American people safe; and supporting the U.S. economy at 
the same time by making critical investments in science, space, 
exports, and manufacturing. Certainly, in tough economic times, tough 
decisions are required, and that is exactly where we are.
  Yesterday, we had a chance to hear from two Members of Congress--
Republicans--one of them, the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. 
Culberson), the subcommittee chairman. He talked about the bill 
reflecting smart but fair decisions. The decisions that he spoke about 
were that the legislation provided $51.4 billion in total 
discretionary, which was $661 million below the President's request.
  H.R. 2578 also prioritizes vital programs that are, essentially, 
built around law enforcement--Federal law enforcement--and their 
ability to aim at the problems that our citizens see and that, 
certainly, our law enforcement sees and to put a priority on national 
security and public safety and initiatives that also aim for job 
creation and economic growth. These are part of the priorities that 
have to be taken up, and, in fact, they were.
  The second bill, H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016, I 
believe, similarly had many of the same characteristics.
  First of all, they are going to stick to exactly what we talked about 
in the budget, and they are going to have to strike a balance--a tough 
balance--but one which is based on the priorities of essential programs 
and on making responsible reductions to low-priority activities.
  This bill provides $55.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is 
$9.7 billion below what the President wanted. Once again, the President 
does not want to stick to the budget agreement--an agreement which he 
signed into law--but that is what this body is going to do.
  We are going to live within the law, and living within the law is 
what the American people expect as part of the plan. This bill allows 
for important investments in national transportation infrastructure, 
including investments in our national highways, railways, and airports. 
It also provides help to people who are in dire need of affordable 
housing options.
  Mr. Speaker, I learned a long time ago, when I became a scoutmaster 
for the Boy Scouts of America, that needs always outpace resources. 
Needs are always out there, and they are something that you just simply 
want to continue to be a part of, but money is not always the answer.
  Sometimes, a prioritization of the needs that you have to meet will 
then define you to a better process, one which people can then better 
understand. That is what we are doing here today.
  Like most Members, who will have an opportunity as a result of the 
work that we did last night in the Rules Committee, I have ideas that, 
I think, can help improve H.R. 2577. One of those ideas, I have brought 
to the floor many, many times in a bill; and during the debate on 
funding, I think I will have good ideas that will help make our country 
stronger--in this case, make transportation stronger.
  It became clear to me a number of years ago that government 
subsidized rail service on Amtrak does not make economic sense. What we 
have looked at is that Amtrak takes money. Years and years and years 
ago, they agreed that they would quit taking government subsidies and 
would run the railroad as an east and west operation.
  Instead, what did they do? They became a cross-country hauler. Every 
single long-distance route that Amtrak provides--those of more than 400 
miles in length--operate at a loss every single month. There are 11 
routes that cost double the amount of revenue that they create. That is 
why I have offered two important opportunities, which were amendments, 
to eliminate this.
  The first would eliminate the funding for Amtrak's long-distance 
routes, which have a total direct cost of more than twice the revenue. 
That means, if the cost is twice the revenue, then it would be 
eliminated.
  The second would eliminate the funding for Amtrak's worst performing 
line, the Sunset Limited. The Sunset Limited, which is an east-west and 
west-east operation is subsidized for every single ticket and for every 
single train by over $400 in government subsidies, a loss totalling 
$41.9 million last year alone.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the ideas. Mr. Speaker, you will 
be hearing about lots of them over the next 18-some hours of debate 
that will take place. This is a good thing about this rule. Members 
just like myself will have a chance to come and put their ideas as 
opportunities on the floor for other Members to consider. I think that 
is why we are here today, to work together on a process that will make 
our country even stronger.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the 
chair of the Committee on Rules and my friend, for yielding the 
customary 30 minutes for debate.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in 
opposition to the rule and underlying bill.

[[Page 8268]]

  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of both H.R. 2578, 
the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, as well as H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Both, in my 
opinion, are woefully inadequate and underfunded pieces of legislation 
that serve as a slap in the face to hard-working Americans and a 
reminder of my Republican colleagues' shortsighted and irresponsible 
attempt at achieving a balanced budget.
  Last night, in his testimony before the Committee on Rules on H.R. 
2577, Ranking Member David Price made a statement that was not only 
profound but incredibly accurate. He responded to Republican sentiments 
that slashing domestic appropriations in isolation is a necessary evil 
by stating that ``a great nation must invest in its future.''
  Indeed, the importance of this investment cannot be overstated. For 
too long, we have forced austerity measures upon appropriators that 
prevent the funding of programs that create jobs; bolster our economy; 
repair and improve our Nation's decrepit highways, transit systems, and 
infrastructure; that fund medical research; and provide safe, decent, 
and affordable housing for poor and vulnerable families, the elderly, 
and disabled.
  It both saddens and frustrates me that my Republican friends continue 
to go after domestic programs that would unequivocally improve the 
lives of so many Americans while at the same time refusing to address 
the real drivers of the fiscal crisis, which are tax expenditures and 
mandatory spending.
  It is unconscionable to me that we, as a nation, cannot come up with 
the money to fund projects that repair and improve our country's 
transportation infrastructure. I pointed out yesterday in the Committee 
on Rules that aside from all of the bridges that I talked about from 
Florida that are in need of repair, right here in Washington, the 
Memorial Bridge that leads from Virginia into this city is in need of 
repair.
  The initiative that provides grants to local law enforcement and 
first responders would also improve in our country. But we provide 
ourselves with an unlimited budget to fight foreign wars without a 
mechanism to pay for those costs. Enough already, Congress. How about 
an authorization for the use of force rather than the methods that are 
employed now for ongoing, undetermined, indefinite--it appears--wars?
  The solution to our current fiscal circumstances lies not in 
withholding of necessary funding for essential domestic programs, but 
in comprehensive reform that considers--yes, considers--tax increases 
in addition to entitlement and appropriations cuts. That is how we 
balanced the budget in 1994 and to a relative degree in 1997, and we 
had, at that time, 4 years of balanced budgets. Adherence to these 
Republican budget limits self-imposed by sequestration is ineffective, 
detrimental to our national progress, and just plain wrong.
  The Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations measure before us today 
is the instrument used to provide funding for many vital programs and 
agencies, such as the Department of Justice, Commerce, NASA, and the 
National Science Foundation. Despite the importance of fully funding 
these agencies, this bill is a prime example of the mindless austerity 
of sequestration and the misguided priorities of my Republican 
colleagues.
  Time won't permit to add context to how we got to sequestration, and 
my friend from Texas, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, is 
absolutely correct. The President did sign this measure, but that was 
at the instance of an awful lot of negotiations and the government 
being shut down.
  I don't stand here and point fingers at either side in this regard. I 
said yesterday in the Committee on Rules, and I repeat here, it is the 
fault of 435 voting Members of Congress that we allow for this measure 
to put us in the position that we are in on these two measures as well 
as others to come.
  For example, this bill fails to adequately fund several Department of 
Justice grant programs and outright eliminates others, programs and 
funding that are critical to many State and local law enforcement 
activities. Specifically, the bill cuts $180 million from the Community 
Oriented Policing Services hiring program. This effectively eliminates 
a program that would put an additional 1,300 police officers on the 
streets. At a time when the relationship between many of our 
communities and law enforcement is strained, why are we decimating a 
program dedicated to building trust and mutual respect between the 
police and the communities they serve?
  In another startling policy decision by the majority, this bill 
eliminates, in its entirety, several other important programs, 
including the substance abuse program.
  I come to the floor today from a meeting this morning dealing with 
institutions for mental disease in which the community of persons who 
work in substance abuse, addiction, and mental health are pleading for 
the changes necessary for them to be able to address the significant 
problem that our population faces from veterans, to civilians, to 
children, and to the elderly, and yet what we did in this measure is 
eliminate the Substance Abuse Treatment program.
  We eliminate the Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction initiative at a 
time when we are witnessing, in our Nation, serious gun violence, and 
many of us today are about the business of trying to highlight, at 
least on this one day, the epidemic of gun violence in our society and 
how it has cost lives and treasure.
  This program, as offered, eliminates the National Center for Campus 
Public Safety.
  Perhaps the most indicative of the misplaced funding priorities by 
the majority is the gun policy rider--yep, yep, a rider, not part of 
this bill, just kind of tacked on like we tacked on something having to 
do with Cuba. We just tack these riders on, and this has been attached 
to this legislation.
  Not only has the majority completely eviscerated important violence 
and gun crime reduction programs, they have attached a policy rider 
that cancels out a narrow, targeted reporting requirement on the sale 
of certain long guns sold in four border States. The purpose of this 
requirement is to discourage straw purchasers from buying weapons for 
Mexican drug cartels. This reporting requirement has been proven to be 
effective. Courts agreed that it does not restrict Second Amendment 
rights, so why is the majority including this irresponsible gun rider 
in a bill that largely funds public safety? The irony of this provision 
should not be lost on any of us.
  Finally, in addition to cutting funding to important public safety 
programs, this bill showcases my Republican colleagues' remarkable 
ability to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to climate 
change, employing their ill-conceived strategy of defunding any program 
that might help us understand and address this important issue. This 
legislation intentionally underfunds the Geosciences directorate at the 
National Science Foundation and the Earth Science Office at NASA, where 
scientists are studying the most effective ways to respond to climate 
change.
  The second bill, H.R. 2577, provides $55.3 billion in discretionary 
funding for transportation and housing programs for fiscal year 2016. 
While this allocation appears to be an increase from fiscal year 2015, 
after inflationary adjustments, including declining Federal Housing 
Administration receipts and increasing Section 8 renewal costs, this 
bill actually designates $1.5 billion less than last year's enacted 
level.
  The shortcomings of this piece of legislation are so numerous that I 
would far exceed the time allotted to me if I were to attempt to 
discuss them all. Instead, I will just graze the surface by addressing 
just a few of the most egregious provisions.
  This bill reduces funding for Amtrak by 18 percent from last year's 
level and $1.3 billion below the President's request. This reduction 
eliminates funding for positive train control, a technology that the 
Transportation Safety Board has stated publicly may have prevented last 
month's tragic Amtrak

[[Page 8269]]

derailment in Philadelphia, and provides no funding for intercity 
passenger rail or the installation of additional safety mechanisms.
  It also slashes funding for the Federal Transit Administration's 
Capital Investment Grant program, cuts TIGER funding by $400 million--
it does have a placeholder for something that may take place in the 
future--and it reduces the Federal Aviation Administration's capital 
program, which impedes the FAA's ability to implement its NextGen 
program as well as maintain and improve aging facilities.
  In addition to its funding inadequacies, as has become custom under 
Republican leadership, this bill offers up legislative handouts to the 
trucking industry and other powerful interests at the expense of the 
safety of our constituents. Specifically, it is going to allow trucks 
to carry longer trailers across the country, make it harder for the 
Department of Transportation to mandate that drivers get more rest 
before they hit the road, and forbid the Department from raising the 
minimum insurance it requires trucks and buses to carry.
  I wonder if we ever really talk to truckers and really ask them do 
they want to carry trains on roads--that is what it amounts to--and do 
they need the rest that they have requested for years. None of us are 
against the trucking industry, but these measures allow for something 
that should not occur. The latest data which is available shows that 
nearly 4,000 people died in accidents involving large trucks.

                              {time}  1300

  Last week, there were no less than three in the constituency I serve, 
including a 17-year-old extremely bright young girl who lost her life 
at the instance of a trucking incident.
  Most of these 4,000 people were riding in another vehicle or were 
pedestrians. That is a 17 percent increase from the year 2009.
  These provisions will make our highways less safe and do not belong 
in an appropriations bill. Trucking regulations should be openly 
debated as part of a comprehensive surface transportation bill, which, 
incidentally, we have been assured is on the horizon.
  Currently, one out of every nine bridges in our country is 
structurally deficient, and congestion has never been worse. At the 
same time, our population is expected to grow by 70 million over the 
next 30 years. Knowing this, we must not continue to wait for our 
bridges to collapse, our public transit systems to malfunction, and our 
highways to deteriorate before we agree to provide adequate funding.
  Just as it does for transportation and infrastructure initiatives, 
H.R. 2577 makes dramatic cuts to funding for housing support programs 
for poor and vulnerable individuals and families. One of the most 
striking of these reductions is the one levied against the public 
housing capital fund, making it only slightly higher than the monetary 
amount allocated in 1989, without accounting for inflation.
  I held a housing forum on Saturday in the congressional district that 
I am privileged to serve, and I saw the pain that was expressed by the 
people in long waiting lines for section 8 housing and in the 
deteriorating public housing that is in that 30-year at-risk period. It 
just pains me even to talk about it and then to come up here and in 
this very week do more, if we follow our Republican friends, to cut 
these programs.
  This bill also reduces funding for the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development's Choice Neighborhoods initiative. It slashes funding 
for Healthy Homes and lead hazard control grants, exposing the most 
underprivileged children to toxic lead poisoning.
  It transfers money from the housing trust fund to fund the HOME 
program, taking funding away from a program which is reserved for the 
most economically disadvantaged and in the most need of assistance, and 
does nothing to increase access to safe and affordable housing for the 
elderly or disabled.
  In short, this legislation undermines the continued viability of our 
Nation's infrastructure and threatens our country's economic 
competitiveness.
  I fear that without these necessary investments in transportation, 
housing, science, commerce, and justice programs, the negative 
implication of Representative Price's statement will become a reality. 
We will fail to remain a great Nation because we will fail to 
accommodate the demands of the future.
  For these very important reasons, and many more that I could express, 
I oppose both the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know that I see one of our colleagues from the Rules Committee who 
wants to come speak, but I want to take just a second and respond in 
kind for my party, and that is that my party does recognize that there 
is much that does get accomplished because of the efforts of this 
government and the efforts of this Congress that fund good ideas and do 
things.
  A number of years ago, we became faced with, however, a circumstance 
where what lies in our immediate future is too much spending, which 
means that this country has to borrow money. It is money that needs to 
be paid back.
  But in the process of taking money, setting priorities, and spending 
money, there also is something called interest on the debt. And that 
is, if money were free and you could just borrow money but not pay 
interest for it, I am sure we would not mind how much we borrowed.
  But the bottom line is that is not the reality. The reality is that 
we have to pay for money that we borrow. And that debt which we have to 
pay money back for means that every single year the amount of money 
that we pay and that comes out of the pot of money gets larger and 
larger and larger. And paying back debt competes against money that we 
can spend on behalf of people.
  And so, at some point, if you just buy off on that we have got to 
spend more and more and more, that means that we have to take more as 
debt and pay more of interest. And that competes in a marketplace, in a 
budget, against projects that we would like to do and that do actually 
help people and that do focus on the most needy and the most vulnerable 
in our society.
  But we are spending, Mr. Speaker, an incredible amount of money. And 
we are trying to learn over time how to become more efficient, how to 
make our cities even better, how to create jobs, and how to educate 
people and to bring them forth in a mature way. That is what every 
great nation really will be ultimately charged with: how can you make 
your country better not just today, but for the future.
  And so Republicans do stand for not spending more than what we make 
so that we have more that we can make in a balanced budget today and 
spend in a way that creates a better future for our children and 
grandchildren.
  The bottom line is, over the last 6 years, we have gone from a debt 
of $9 trillion to $18 trillion. Some could say that was while we slept, 
but that is not true. It happened while we were trying to offer better 
opportunities and resolve.
  So, for the last 5 years, Republicans have said we are going to quit 
this runaway spending, we are going to make tough decisions, and we are 
going to protect this great Nation at the same time. But we are asking 
for the American people to also recognize what we are doing, Mr. 
Speaker. And just as I speak to you today, I speak to people back home, 
as other Members of Congress do to their constituents, and say we are 
trying to balance what we do over time with the efficiencies that keep 
this great Nation great.
  I will be honest with you. We live in the greatest Nation in the 
world. And thank God we are Americans. We trust in God, but we also 
trust in discipline to make this great Nation even better. And that is 
what appropriations bills are about: priority, making this great Nation 
still great tomorrow with discipline. And discipline has a lot to do 
with our ability to be a great Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

[[Page 8270]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 12 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before making my remarks, I just want to say in a challenging way to 
the chairman of the Rules Committee that if we were to fix a bridge, it 
takes people to fix that bridge. And the people who fix that bridge 
spend their money in the local areas and pay taxes, which brings 
revenue back in. And that is why we need to fix bridges, in my 
judgment.
  I am pleased at this time to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend with whom 
it is a pleasure to serve with on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and I 
want to associate myself with his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, which 
provides for consideration of the Transportation-HUD and CJS 
appropriations bills.
  First, let me express my astonishment at the big giveaways to the 
trucking industry in this Transportation-HUD bill. This bill is loaded 
up with pet projects of the trucking industry that threaten the health 
and safety of the traveling public.
  The lack of regard for the safety and well-being of those on the 
roads and bridges is stunning. It is hard to believe that some of the 
provisions that are contained as policy riders in these appropriations 
bills are actually there.
  This bill should focus on strengthening America's infrastructure, 
repairing crumbling bridges, investing in public transportation, and 
making our roads safer, but instead puts the trucking industry in the 
driving seat, leaving the average American left behind.
  The bill would, one, increase truck weights in Idaho and Kansas; two, 
allow twin 33-foot trailers on interstates; three, delay full 
implementation of DOT's hours of service rule, which requires minimum 
rest periods for truckers; and, four, prohibit the Department of 
Transportation from increasing minimum insurance requirements for big 
trucks and motor coaches.
  Mr. Speaker, with all that we know, it is simply outrageous that we 
would allow bigger and heavier trucks on our highways.
  Today's bill is intended specifically to appropriate funds, not 
authorize new policy. Yet this is exactly what these policy riders are 
doing. They don't belong on this bill.
  Furthermore, there was not a single hearing on these trucking riders: 
not one subcommittee hearing, not one full committee hearing. These 
issues are important enough where they should be openly debated as part 
of a comprehensive surface transportation authorization bill, not 
tacked on to an appropriations bill. They don't belong here. But this 
process has become so corrupted that anything goes. Committees of 
jurisdiction are routinely disregarded and disrespected.
  Making these controversial policy changes before the Department of 
Transportation finishes their comprehensive truck size and weight study 
that was required by MAP-21 would be irresponsible. We should allow the 
Department of Transportation the time it needs to get their study 
right.
  Simply put, these trucking industry riders will make our highways 
less safe at a time when our infrastructure funding is woefully 
inadequate and our roads and bridges are crumbling.
  In just the past 4 years, we have seen a dramatic 17 percent increase 
in the number of truck crash deaths and an alarming 28 percent increase 
in injuries. Instead of advancing safety measures to make our roads 
safer, Congress is about to roll back significant safety laws and 
regulations that will result in more deaths and more injuries on our 
roads and highways. In fatal truck and car crashes, 96 percent of the 
fatalities are occupants of the passenger car.
  Mr. Speaker, public opinion is clear: Americans do not want bigger 
trucks or tired truck drivers on the road. Seventy-six percent of 
Americans opposed longer and heavier trucks, and 80 percent were 
opposed to increasing truck driver working and driving hours.
  Yet here we are with authorizing language on an appropriations bill 
to make our roads less safe. Why are my friends doing this? It might be 
good policy for fundraising purposes, but it is lousy policy for the 
American people.
  These dangerous riders don't belong here. They threaten the safety of 
everyday Americans on the road, and we ought to insist that they be 
removed.
  Mr. Speaker, I also wish to express my concern about the dangerous 
and backward-thinking riders that are included in both the CJS and 
Transportation-HUD Appropriations bills regarding Cuba.
  Obviously, there are several Members here in this House who are 
nostalgic for the cold war, who are still living in the past. I just 
want to say, thanks to the leadership of President Obama and this 
administration, we are making real progress in normalizing relations 
with Cuba and connecting them with a 21st century economy. We are 
ending an embarrassing, dumb, and counterproductive policy that by all 
accounts has been a miserable failure for the last five decades.
  In 2011, after President Obama reinstated the rules allowing Cuban 
Americans to visit their relatives on the island and permitting all 
Americans to send remittances to Cuba, hard-liners used the 
appropriations process to prevent the policies from being implemented. 
Thankfully, Senate Democrats kept the hard-liners' provisions out of 
the omnibus bill, and legislation reversing the modest but hopeful 
travel and remittance reforms never reached the President's desk.

                              {time}  1315

  As a result, hundreds of thousands of trips between the U.S. and Cuba 
have taken place every year since, reuniting families and increasing 
the number of Cubans receiving the economic support they need to run 
their own businesses and lead more independent lives.
  Instead of celebrating the progress, hard-liners are once again 
trying to shut down the new openings for greater citizen diplomacy 
created by this administration. This is the wrong thing to do for 
America; this is the wrong thing to do for American companies, and it 
is the wrong thing to do for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, for the first time in six decades, the United States 
Government is encouraging citizen diplomacy, greater travel and trade, 
and telecommunications and other industries to build relationships and 
stronger ties with counterparts among the Cuban people and new 
entrepreneurs.
  American businesses are already seeing the potential for economic 
growth. That is why JetBlue and other airlines are expanding charter 
services and planning commercial routes, why ferry companies are 
planning to set sail for Havana, why Airbnb and Netflix are hoping to 
build real businesses in the Cuban market, why Governors in red and 
blue States alike are trying to position companies in their States to 
succeed.
  The provisions in these bills are antibusiness. Airlines and maritime 
businesses have already taken steps to initiate travel service to and 
from Cuba based on the administration's December 17, 2014, 
announcement, and these provisions in these bills will block them.
  Even the United States Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes these 
provisions, and they have sent a letter to Congress basically making 
the case why we ought to have better and more open travel and trade 
with Cuba.
  It is why Americans across the country and Cuban Americans in 
communities where they live are so deeply committed to a policy that 
puts the cold war behind us and puts our country on a path to creating 
a new and brighter future with Cuba.
  Simply put, these provisions in these appropriations bills are trying 
to pull the plug on new efforts by U.S. citizens and U.S. companies to 
expand their presence in Cuba. As the policy moves forward, they keep 
trying to pull us back into the cold war and a policy that has failed 
for over 50 years.

[[Page 8271]]

  Let's be clear. The Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill would 
ground new commercial or charter flights that came into being after 
March 15, 2015. JetBlue and Tampa International Airport are just two 
beneficiaries of the President's new policy who would be adversely 
affected.
  With new ferries leaving port, as much as $340 million would be 
pumped into Florida's economy. These provisions would hold back that 
economic growth, hurting American businesses in Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, 
Orlando, and Miami.
  Mr. Speaker, the CJS bill would shut down U.S. exports to Cuba in 
ways that will affect telecommunications firms now in negotiations to 
open up phone and Internet connections on the island.
  Do we want Cubans to be better connected to the outside world? I 
thought the answer was a huge bipartisan yes, but apparently not. The 
ugly truth is that these provisions in these bills are hiding their 
real intent, and that is to shut down the growing connections between 
Cuba and the United States and our citizens and U.S. companies.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues that these provisions, 
first of all, do not belong in appropriations bills. They are 
authorizing language. They don't belong even in this debate.
  I would suggest to them that these appropriations bills aren't going 
to see the light of day as long as these provisions are in this bill. I 
would urge my colleagues to put the cold war behind them and to get rid 
of these provisions, and let's move on to a better and more productive 
relationship.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the beautiful part about these last two 
speakers is that the rule allows them to come to the floor and to 
present an amendment to strike or to add anything that they would like 
to add into this bill. That is the beauty of what we are trying to do 
here today, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I would just respond to the chairman by saying the 
thing about this rule that is so frustrating is that important 
amendments are only given 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes on each side. 
Some of these issues are important and deserve more than 5 minutes of 
debate.
  We are not going to have debates. We are going to offer amendments 
and then, essentially, vote. I am not so excited about the way this 
rule has been constructed, especially given the fact that very little 
time is being allotted to discuss some of these important issues.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you ask my good friend, 
the chairman of the Rules Committee, if he is ready to close. I have no 
additional speakers at this time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman asking. I have 
no further speakers and, in fact, would, as we have done many times, 
allow the gentleman to offer his close, and then I would also.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  These bills exemplify the recklessness and the foolishness of the 
majority's almost exclusive focus on domestic appropriations for 
deficit reduction, while leaving the main drivers of the deficit 
unaddressed. We cannot continue on this path if we intend to maintain 
our country's economic competitiveness.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and underlying bills, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my two colleagues who 
serve on the Rules Committee, the gentleman Mr. McGovern and the 
gentleman Mr. Hastings.
  They are both not only extremely committed men to their constituency, 
but also to bettering this House of Representatives. Their voice and 
their words and their opportunities of which they stand up for, I have 
great respect for, and want to thank them for the character in which 
they have come after today's not only debate, but yesterday's debate 
that took a number of hours as we heard from four Members of this body 
about their ideas about how we should pursue these two appropriations 
bills today.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to confine my comments to a perspective, and that 
is satisfaction that I have for the way in which this process is 
working today. I understand, as acknowledged in the very beginning, we 
have an issue with how much money we are going to spend.
  I recognize we are back at 2008 levels in 2015 in most of these 
bills. I do acknowledge that. I do acknowledge that we are asking--
requiring--on government a chance to run their agencies--spend money 
back at 2008 spending levels.
  I think that the process that we are going through will also be an 
advantage ultimately, sure, in the short-term, but ultimately, where we 
will look at this as a prioritization basis, where we will empower the 
government, if they work with us and if we work with them, to 
understand how we can keep this country great--even spending less 
money--how we can continue to prioritize the decisionmaking to where we 
can pick and choose what needs to be done.
  Look, it doesn't make me happy. It makes no Member of this body 
happy. Certainly, the Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, would 
recognize--you have needs in your district. I do, from Dallas, Texas, 
have needs in my immediate district and districts that are around.
  The overwhelming need is all of us--and that is not to spend more 
than we can say and justify for our future because the dollars that we 
spend are borrowed. The dollars that we borrow and spend show up on our 
bottom-line debt, and it impacts everybody.
  The bottom line is we have to pay back interest on that money, just 
like any family that takes out money on a home loan or a credit card or 
something else. They have to be able to understand that takes away 
because they are paying for that, their ability to spend money in a 
different way.
  Our Republican majority is well aware of the demand that is placed on 
us, that we cannot go and do all the things that we would wish to do, 
but we have accepted and taken a pledge that we have given to the 
American people that they do get an understanding--that is we are not 
going to keep in the circumstance of spending money based upon taking 
out a loan because it is not good for our children, our grandchildren. 
It is not good for our future.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we have had a chance to debate these two bills in 
this one rule. I think, once again, as I stated earlier, it is a 
commitment to transparency and openness that this body has and every 
Member retains here on the floor. You saw part of it today.
  Through this open modified rule, each Member will have the 
opportunity to submit their ideas to two underlying bills, H.R. 2578 
and H.R. 2577. Through this rule, the House will be able to work its 
way through majority rule floor votes and to make sure that the vital 
appropriations process is vigorous, is timely, and reflects the will of 
this body.
  When this rule is adopted, a robust debate will take place in a way 
that will allow us to fund these important measures, over $100 billion.
  I think that, as we talk about this, you can see, Mr. Speaker, that 
this body is getting its work done. It is getting its work done. We 
passed a budget. We will pass the appropriations bills.
  We go home every weekend; we look our constituents in the eye, and we 
have to justify what we are doing. We are following a process that we 
said we would do. It is for the betterment of this country, to keep 
this country strong.
  I am proud of the Members of this body; and, as a Republican member 
of our leadership team, I can tell you that we intend to follow through 
with the process, the promise that we make to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the underlying bills, for this rule.
  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 (Mr. Jolly). The question is on the 
resolution.

[[Page 8272]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. 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 adoption of this resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 180, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 268]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--180

     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Adams
     Clyburn
     Delaney
     Fitzpatrick
     Hudson
     Jackson Lee
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Neugebauer
     Roe (TN)
     Yoho

                              {time}  1353

  Mr. BILIRAKIS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________