[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 4, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7803-H7806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 6157, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by 
direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I have a motion at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cole moves that the House take from the Speaker's table 
     the bill, H.R. 6157, with the Senate amendment thereto, 
     disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference 
     with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary step to continue to move 
the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process forward under regular 
order.
  On June 28, the House passed H.R. 6157, the FY 2019 Defense 
Appropriations bill by a vote of 359-49. The Senate took up that bill 
and added the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill and has now sent H.R. 6157 
back to the House.
  With the appointment of these conferees, the House and the Senate may 
begin to resolve the differences with the goal of passing H.R. 6157 
before the end of the fiscal year. As such, I strongly support this 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the motion.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. DeLauro moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 6157 be 
     instructed to agree to division B (relating to appropriations 
     for Labor, Education, and Health and Human services) of the 
     matter proposed to be added by the Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.


                             General Leave

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have unfortunate circumstances. We do not have a bill 
that the majority has brought up for consideration, the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill, as I believe it is our duty. I will remind 
everyone that this bill was twice delayed in the markup for Labor-HHS, 
so we are trying to make the best of a bad situation.
  Meanwhile, the Senate has passed a Labor-HHS-Education bill. The 
Senate bill is not perfect. In fact, there is much to improve, but it 
provides a foundation for conference negotiations between the House and 
the Senate.
  The House bill, unfortunately, despite an increase of $18 billion in 
nondefense spending, the House Labor-HHS-Education bill is held to 
level funding. Out of a total increase of $18 billion, the Labor-HHS-
Education bill should receive an increase of about $5.5 billion, and 
yet we received a zero increase, and Chairman Cole has heard me say 
this over and over and over again.
  This allocation means that the House bill includes no new investments 
in the Child Care and Development Block Grant, nor new funding to help 
students afford a postsecondary education. The House bill also 
eliminates funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention 
programs, as well as health and safety grants. It even cuts funding for 
community health centers by $100 million, and the list goes on.
  In addition, the House Labor-HHS-Education bill is loaded with 
ideological poison pill riders, including riders to block funding for 
the Affordable Care Act, block funding for family planning, block 
funding for Planned Parenthood clinics, and it adds new riders to 
protect Monsanto and to allow religious discrimination in child welfare 
services.
  However, there is one crucially important issue that is addressed in 
the House bill that must be included in the final conference report. 
That is the President's manufactured crisis at the border. I speak, of 
course, of family separation, which has inflicted terrible trauma on 
children, their parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, and uncles.
  The administration's policy of separating families is child abuse. 
Experts have sounded the alarm on the lasting damage that we are doing 
to these children. Parents are the buffer. With them, the children can 
endure incredibly stressful circumstances. Without them, the children 
are at risk of lasting mental and physical damage, and they are 
suffering these wounds at our hands.
  Now, months and months later, approximately 500 children who were 
separated from their families remain in HHS custody. For most of these 
children, their parents were deported, and HHS has been unable to 
reunify these families, and unfathomably, may never be able to reunify 
them.
  The administration has tried to pass off responsibility of reunifying 
these families to third parties like nonprofits. It is unconscionable. 
In the House bill, Democrats advanced the first congressional action to 
address this manufactured crisis. The full committee, I might add, on a 
bipartisan basis, adopted 12 amendments. These amendments must be 
retained in the final conference report.
  These amendments, to discuss them very briefly, did a number of 
things. They expressed the sense of Congress that families should not 
be separated and that families should be reunited immediately. They 
required HHS to provide Congress a plan for swift reunification, to 
provide regular reporting, and to ensure the agency and its partners 
are upholding the highest standards with regards to care and privacy.

[[Page H7804]]

  Family separation is not the only crucial element of the conference 
committees. Student safety must also be paramount, and thus, it is also 
important to address the issue of guns in our schools.
  Arming teachers is not the answer to school shootings, and it is 
outrageous that Secretary DeVos would even consider using taxpayer 
dollars on such a dangerous proposal.
  If the Trump administration actually wants to keep students safe, it 
should allow the Federal Commission on School Safety to consider the 
role guns play in school violence, support funding for gun violence 
prevention research at the CDC, and fully fund the Student Support and 
Academic Enrichment Program to provide more mental health services and 
bullying prevention programs in our schools.
  The Secretary has said she has no intention of weighing in on whether 
funds can be used or cannot be used to arm teachers. However, she 
should say that this money is not there for guns in the classrooms.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we must make the best of a bad situation. 
Republicans are not operating under regular order and abdicating our 
responsibility as the House of Representatives. Yet, as we proceed, we 
need to ensure that we advance the best policy under the circumstances. 
I believe that we should have had the House Labor-HHS bill come before 
the floor of the House.
  I urge my colleagues on the conference committee to keep these 
priorities in mind as they work toward a final bill. The American 
people deserve nothing less. They are already getting too little. Let 
us not forget that our obligation and duty is to give people a better 
chance at a better life.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct 
conferees. As the House and Senate come together to find a path forward 
on funding the Federal Government, we will, no doubt, be faced with 
tough choices and fierce disagreements. But we agree that these two 
bills, funding the Department of Defense and funding the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, are two of the most 
important bills that we handle and, frankly, the two largest as well. 
They deserve thorough consideration and fair discussion amongst the 
conferees.
  We are all committed to getting this done and getting this done 
right. As we are currently doing with our first package of 
appropriations bills, this conference committee will negotiate fairly 
and respectfully to reach a final agreement on funding these critical 
Defense and Labor-HHS programs.
  I want to remind the body that, of course, we have done this before. 
We have begun in different places, and, to my friend's credit, we have 
worked together, have found common ground three times in a row, and 
have been able to support the final bill. It certainly would be my hope 
that we are able to do that again.
  So I just want people in the conference committee to feel free to 
bring up any topics that they think are important, and that we have a 
free and full discussion, and, hopefully, work ourselves to a 
resolution.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct conferees, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct 
conferees to reject the right-wing House Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill and, instead, support the Senate's bipartisan 
compromise.
  The Labor-HHS-Education bill funds some of the most important 
priorities for our country. It helps meet the needs of Americans at 
every stage of their lives. With this legislation, Congress funds 
childcare programs, Head Start, Pell Grants, job training, community 
health centers, NIH research, Social Security, Meals on Wheels. Yet, 
instead of robustly supporting these priorities, House Republicans have 
shortchanged all of these critical endeavors.
  Despite an $18 billion overall increase in the budget cap for 
nondefense discretionary spending, the House's fiscal year 2019 Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill does not include a single dime of 
additional funding.
  House Republicans have found $5 billion to pay for President Trump's 
wasteful border wall, yet they apparently cannot allocate anything to 
strengthen America's schools; help families afford college; ensure 
workplace safety; or expand quality, affordable healthcare.
  In fact, the policy provisions in the bill directly attack many of 
these priorities. Their riders sabotage the Affordable Care Act, 
threatening the health of tens of millions of Americans with 
preexisting conditions, and increasing costs for American families.
  This Republican bill undermines women's healthcare by eliminating 
Title X family planning, prohibits millions of women from choosing 
Planned Parenthood as their preferred healthcare provider, and attacks 
the dignity of LGBT families.
  The American people, my friends, deserve better than this partisan 
bill. The Senate has done good work, bipartisan work, to provide 
additional resources for the Labor-HHS-Education bill, while avoiding 
the kinds of right-wing riders that make the House bill completely 
unacceptable.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion. Reject House 
Republicans' misplaced priorities and extreme attacks on American 
families.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion 
to instruct, but also to call for the inclusion of one specific 
improvement to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that makes it clear 
that taxpayer money cannot be spent to arm teachers.
  Two weeks ago, news reports revealed the Department of Education was 
considering allowing States to use Federal education funding to 
purchase firearms and firearms training for teachers. The Department 
has since confirmed those reports.
  Last week, I was joined by 172 Members of the House to call on 
Secretary DeVos to issue formal guidance prohibiting the use of 
taxpayer money to put guns in classrooms. In response, the Secretary 
said she has no intention of taking any action on this issue.
  In refusing to act, the Secretary is setting a new and dangerous 
policy. That is, the Secretary is allowing funding provided under Title 
IV-A of the Every Student Succeeds Act to be used to arm teachers. This 
move by the Secretary is unprecedented, as Federal funding has never 
been allowed for this purpose.
  Secretary DeVos has pointed the finger at Congress and expressly 
called on us to clarify our intent, but congressional intent is already 
clear. Under the law, the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant 
Program authorized under Title IV-A affords local leaders the 
flexibility to tailor investments to meet local needs. It was designed 
to support a wide range of programs to help schools create a better 
learning environment by expanding students' access to important 
services like mental healthcare, art, and STEM classes, and new 
technology that better prepares students for the future.
  However, when writing and enacting the law, Congress never 
contemplated such flexibility allowing the purchase of firearms. In 
fact, Congress denounced the presence of firearms in schools in a 
section in ESEA that promotes programs that foster ``the creation and 
maintenance of a school environment free of weapons.''
  Mr. Speaker, Congress' opposition to taxpayer-funded guns in schools 
was reiterated in the STOP School Violence Act, which the House passed 
last March in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida, shooting. This 
legislation, which passed 407-10, explicitly prohibits the program 
funds from being used for the purchase of firearms or firearms 
training. Even the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary 
Nielsen has acted through executive authority to prohibit grant funds 
specifically intended for school security from being used to purchase 
guns.

  Secretary DeVos has both the authority and the responsibility to 
follow legal precedent, congressional intent,

[[Page H7805]]

as well as common sense about gun violence by prohibiting taxpayer-
funded guns in schools. But seeing as the Secretary is shirking that 
responsibility, Congress must take immediate action to protect students 
and teachers from a policy that will recklessly endanger students and 
teachers.
  The final version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill must make 
clear that no taxpayer money can be used to arm teachers. This has not 
been a partisan issue in the past and should not be a partisan issue 
today.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if my friend is 
prepared to close.
  Ms. DeLAURO. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman 
needs to yield back, and then I close.
  Mr. COLE. Correct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to begin by thanking my friends. They always bring interesting 
points to the floor, particularly the ranking member of the full 
committee, but also my friend Mr. Scott. I just want to assure them 
that, when we sit down to bargain, we will bargain in good faith, and 
all these things will--and I think appropriately should be--on the 
table and open for a fair discussion.
  I do point out to the body that, frankly, when we have done this 
before, we have been able to find common ground and been able to arrive 
at a final solution that had substantial bipartisan support for the 
last 3 years. I am confident that we can do that again this year and, 
frankly, it is very much my hope that we can do it before the end of 
the fiscal year.
  I think that is important that the domestic programs that we fund in 
the Labor-HHS bill, which my friend, the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, so ably advances and defends, that we do that without 
having a continuing resolution, something that interrupts the progress. 
That is even more important in the area of defense, that we avoid a 
continuing resolution.
  So I think there will be considerable goodwill on both sides and a 
considerable effort to come together in common ground.
  Having said that, I continue to oppose instructions to the committee 
because the conferees have proven before they can work together to 
produce a product. It is my hope that we will be able to do that.
  So I urge the body to reject the effort to instruct the conferees, 
and I invite my friends, as I know they will, to sit down in good faith 
to work with us to arrive at a bill that both sides of the rotunda and 
both parties can support in substantial numbers.
  I look forward to that process with my good friend the ranking member 
from Connecticut and, obviously, with my good friend the full committee 
ranking member as well. I have every confidence that, working together 
in good faith, as we have in the past, we will get to a place that we 
both can be pleased with, if not perfectly satisfied with.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the instruction, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, let me again urge the House conferees to look at the 
Senate Labor-HHS bill as a base for improvement, and I mean seriously 
to improve it.
  I ask them again to please pay close attention to the priorities that 
we have outlined here today. The work of the Labor-HHS bill has always 
reflected our priorities as a Nation, helping to provide services that 
meet our most basic needs, our health, our children's education, and 
the scientific research that uncovers the cures of tomorrow. These are 
challenges that only the Federal Government has the ability, the 
capacity, and the resources to help us meet.
  The central problem of the House bill is that it fails to meet that 
threshold. The American people are tired of Congress spending trillions 
in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while telling families and 
working people that we simply do not have the resources to invest in 
things that impact their daily lives. We can make those investments, 
but only if we make them a priority.
  I want to say to the chairman of the subcommittee, to Mr. Cole, that 
we have been able to bargain in good faith over the last several years, 
and that ought to be our goal in this effort, so that we can meet the 
mission of what this Labor-HHS bill has at its core. It is about the 
people of this country and meeting their needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. 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 the motion to instruct will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 6439.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 171, 
nays 221, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 380]

                               YEAS--171

     Adams
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--221

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant

[[Page H7806]]


     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Aguilar
     Blackburn
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Castor (FL)
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Gallego
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     Jenkins (WV)
     Jones
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Maloney, Sean
     McNerney
     Neal
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Poe (TX)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Rush
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Walz
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1853

  Messrs. COLLINS of New York, BYRNE, GUTHRIE, COLLINS of Georgia, 
MULLIN, HUDSON, NEWHOUSE, ABRAHAM, Mrs. BLACK, Messrs. ALLEN, 
LUETKEMEYER, WESTERMAN, MEADOWS, SESSIONS, KING of New York, SCALISE, 
SMITH of New Jersey, MARCHANT, and LOUDERMILK changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. LEE changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________