[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 164 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H7320-H7323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HATCH ACT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2012
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 2170) to amend the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
which are commonly referred to as the ``Hatch Act'', to scale back the
provision forbidding certain State and local employees from seeking
elective office, clarify the application of certain provisions to the
District of Columbia, and modify the penalties which may be imposed for
certain violations under subchapter III of chapter 73 of that title.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 2170
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Hatch Act Modernization Act
of 2012''.
SEC. 2. PERMITTING STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES TO BE CANDIDATES
FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE.
Section 1502(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) if the salary of the employee is paid completely,
directly or indirectly, by loans or grants made by the United
States or a Federal agency, be a candidate for elective
office.''.
SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO STATE AND
LOCAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) State or Local Agency.--Section 1501(2) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or the
executive branch of the District of Columbia, or an agency or
department thereof'' before the semicolon.
(b) State or Local Officer or Employee.--Section 1501(4) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
``(B) an individual employed by an educational or research
institution, establishment, agency, or system which is
supported in whole or in part by--
``(i) a State or political subdivision thereof;
``(ii) the District of Columbia; or
``(iii) a recognized religious, philanthropic, or cultural
organization.''.
(c) Exception of Certain Officers.--Section 1502(c)(3) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking `` `or municipality'' and inserting ``,
municipality, or the District of Columbia' ''; and
(2) by striking `` `or municipal'' and inserting ``,
municipal, or the District of Columbia' ''.
(d) Merit Systems Protection Board Orders.--Section
1506(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``(or in the case of the District of Columbia, in
the District of Columbia)'' after ``the same State''.
(e) Provisions Relating to Federal Employees Made
Inapplicable.--Section 7322(1) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(4) by striking ``services;'' and inserting ``services or
an individual employed or holding office in the government of
the District of Columbia;''.
(f) Employees Residing in Certain Municipalities.--Section
7325(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) the municipality or political subdivision is--
``(A) the District of Columbia;
``(B) in Maryland or Virginia and in the immediate vicinity
of the District of Columbia; or
``(C) a municipality in which the majority of voters are
employed by the Government of the United States; and''.
SEC. 4. HATCH ACT PENALTIES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
Chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking section 7326 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 7326. Penalties
``An employee or individual who violates section 7323 or
7324 shall be subject to removal, reduction in grade,
debarment from Federal employment for a period not to exceed
5 years, suspension, reprimand, or an assessment of a civil
penalty not to exceed $1,000.''.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Applicability Rule.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendment made by section 4 shall apply with respect to any
violation occurring before, on, or after the effective date
of this Act.
(2) Exception.--The amendment made by section 4 shall not
apply with respect to an alleged violation if, before the
effective date of this Act--
(A) the Special Counsel has presented a complaint for
disciplinary action, under section 1215 of title 5, United
States Code, with respect to the alleged violation; or
(B) the employee alleged to have committed the violation
has entered into a signed settlement agreement with the
Special Counsel with respect to the alleged violation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Farenthold) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The adoption today of S. 2170 will mark an important step in the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee's long-term effort to
modernize the Hatch Act.
At its best, the Hatch Act keeps partisan politics out of the
workplace and prevents those in political power from abusing their
authority to advance partisan political causes. At its worst, however,
the Hatch Act causes the Federal Government to unnecessarily interfere
with the rights of well-qualified candidates to run for local office.
S. 2170 addresses these flaws by easing restrictions on State and
local government employees and on employees of the District of Columbia
Government who are covered by the Hatch Act. The bill also provides a
greater range of penalties, in addition to termination, for those
Federal employees who violate the law. S. 2170 will allow more
individuals the right to run for public office without violating the
Hatch Act.
Under current law, State and local government employees may not run
for partisan office if their jobs are connected to Federal funding. For
example, in Pennsylvania, a K-9 officer was not allowed to run for a
local school board because his partner, a black Labrador, was tied to
funding from the Department of Homeland Security. In another case, the
U.S. Office of Special Counsel advised an ambulance driver that he
would violate the Hatch Act if he ran for county coroner because some
of the patients he transported received Medicaid.
In enforcing the Hatch Act, the Office of Special Counsel routinely
advises deputy sheriffs they are ineligible to run for sheriff, and the
number of
[[Page H7321]]
local law enforcement Hatch Act cases has dramatically increased with
the influx of Federal dollars to local police departments as a result
of the attacks on September 11, 2001. The best candidates for local law
enforcement and other positions are often disqualified from
participating in local elections. The concern is especially acute in
rural areas, where the pool of candidates for elective office is
limited by the population.
Congressman Latta has led the way in championing Hatch Act reform for
State and local sheriffs. The National Sheriffs Association has noted
that the current law ``severely limits the number of qualified
candidates for sheriff.''
The OSC is required by law to intervene in State and local contests
hundreds of times a year through formal investigations. The OSC also
issues thousands of advisory opinions annually to potential State and
local candidates. Approximately 45 percent of the OSC's overall Hatch
Act case load, including more than 500 investigations over the past 2
years, involves State and local campaign cases. These cases do not
involve any allegations of coercive or abusive political conduct.
Investigating hundreds of State and local campaigns annually is a
poor use of the OSC's limited budget, and it creates a burden on States
and localities that must respond to these investigations. The U.S.
Office of Special Counsel should be spending its limited resources on
investigations of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. It
should not be spent interfering with State and local elections and
disqualifying qualified candidates from seeking elective office.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of S. 2170, the Hatch Act Modernization Act. This
needed bill is based on recommendations from the head of the U.S.
Office of Special Counsel, Carolyn Lerner. This legislation was
introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka, along with the ranking member of
the Oversight Committee, Elijah Cummings. This bill will make three key
reforms:
The first reform will allow State and local government workers to run
for political office. The Hatch Act prohibits any of these employees
from running in a partisan political election if their jobs involve
Federal funding. This creates problems for many government workers who
are otherwise well qualified to run for local office.
For example, Mr. Jon Greiner had to be fired as police chief of
Ogden, Utah, because he ran for a State senate seat and won. Ms.
Kristin DiCenso, an Illinois State employee, was prevented from running
for court clerk. In response to this barrier, she said, ``I was utterly
deflated. It's insanity.''
The second reform would institute a less severe range of penalties
for Hatch Act violations. Current law requires employees who violate
the Hatch Act to be terminated unless the Merit Systems Protection
Board unanimously votes for a lesser penalty. Jon Adler, the president
of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, testified that
this penalty system is draconian.
The third reform made by this bill is to treat District of Columbia
employees like State and local government employees under the Hatch
Act.
{time} 1550
This is a commonsense change.
In closing, I support the Hatch Act Modernization Act, and I hope
that every Member of the House will support this bill so that it can
become law.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that we pass the underlying bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes
to my friend and colleague, Mr. Chaffetz of Utah, a member of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I rise
in support of S. 2170, the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012. I'd
also like to thank and commend Ranking Member Cummings and his work
with Chairman Issa for bringing this bill to the floor on a bipartisan
and a bicameral basis.
I also want to commend Senator Mike Lee for his tireless work on
this, his concern, particularly on what happened in Utah, and his good
work with Senator Akaka. The bill wouldn't be here today without their
good work, and I commend them both for working, again, in a bipartisan
way.
I am also a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4152, sponsored by Ranking Member
Cummings--I'm glad to come together with him--which is the House
companion to S. 2170. S. 2170 makes commonsense, long overdue reforms
to the Hatch Act, which became law nearly 75 years ago. While the
numerous reforms this legislation includes are all important, I'd like
to highlight the critical reform made by section 2 of this bill.
In May of this year, the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee
with jurisdiction over the Federal workforce held a hearing where
members heard of the ongoing problems with the Hatch Act and options
for reform. At the hearing, the subcommittee heard from my fellow Utahn
Jon Greiner, an individual whose experience with the Hatch Act has
become far too common and is the reason why we're here today.
In 2006, Mr. Greiner, while serving as the chief of the Ogden City
Utah Police Department, was elected to the Utah State Senate. While
this occasion would presumably be joyous, unfortunately for Chief
Greiner, it was the beginning of a 5-year legal battle with the Federal
entities charged with the enforcing of the Hatch Act. At the end of the
long and costly legal battle, Chief Greiner was ultimately found by
these Federal entities to have violated the Hatch Act in December 2011.
Chief Greiner was not only fired by Ogden City for his violation, but
was also banned by the Federal Government from serving as a law
enforcement officer in Utah for 18 months.
And what did Chief Greiner do to deserve such punishment? He simply
signed a required quarterly report for a Federal technology grant
awarded to upgrade the Weber and Morgan County, Utah, emergency
dispatch center--a Federal grant that didn't even directly benefit the
Ogden City Police Department but, instead, was designed to enhance the
dispatch capabilities for the entire county. Chief Greiner didn't
receive a cent of the money in his paycheck nor did his department. He
was simply the department and city's point of contact after one pen
stroke ended an exemplary career of nearly four decades of
distinguished public service.
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, section 2 of S. 2170 will now make it
possible for State and local public servants whose job is connected to
Federal funding to be able to run for office--while still preventing
those who are paid completely by the Federal Government from running
for office.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, Chief Greiner's Hatch Act violation, while
absurd, has occurred all over the country. I'm happy to say, after this
legislation is passed, it should never, ever happen again. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan, bicameral piece of
legislation.
Again, I thank Chairman Issa for making this happen and for the work
of Ranking Member Cummings.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings, the chief sponsor of the
bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in strong support of the Hatch Act Modernization Act.
Senator Akaka and I introduced this legislation, along with a number
of our distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The bill
incorporates recommendations for reform that the Special Counsel
Carolyn Lerner sent to Congress last year. I want to thank Senator
Akaka not only for his work on this bill, but for everything he has
done for Federal workers.
I would also like to take a moment to thank my good friend
Representative Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the National Security
Subcommittee, for his very hard work in support of this legislation, as
well as Chairman Issa for helping to bring this bill to the floor
today.
This legislation makes commonsense reforms to the Hatch Act that are
much needed. The Hatch Act was passed to ensure that Federal Government
employees work on behalf of the American people rather than whatever
political party is in power. The law works well most of the time, but
it has had some unintended consequences.
[[Page H7322]]
Currently, the Hatch Act prohibits State and local government
employees from running for partisan political office if they work on
programs that receive Federal funding. This can and has led to some
unfair and absurd results. For example, Matthew Arlen, a transit
officer in Philadelphia, was barred from running for his school board
because his canine partner was paid for by a Federal grant. Officer
Arlen told The Washington Post:
I was upset because I truly believed I had something to
offer my community.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times op-ed by
Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. In her op-ed, Special Counsel Lerner
wrote:
Increasingly, the act is being used as a political weapon
to disqualify otherwise well-qualified candidates even when
there is no indication of wrongdoing.
This bill will fix that.
The Hatch Act Modernization Act also creates a range of penalties for
Hatch Act violations. Currently, the only available penalty for
violation of the Hatch Act, no matter how minor the violation, is
termination, unless the Merit Systems Protections Board votes
unanimously to impose a lesser penalty. Under this legislation, the
Board will have the ability to impose a punishment that fits the crime.
This legislation also ensures that the District of Columbia employees
are treated similarly to State and local government employees rather
than as Federal employees.
The Hatch Act Modernization Act makes reforms that are much needed,
that are bipartisan, noncontroversial, and widely supported. I urge my
colleagues to support the bill and send it to the President for his
signature.
Again, I want to thank all of my colleagues for joining in on this
effort to make this commonsense bill law.
[From the New York Times, Oct. 30, 2011]
A Law Misused for Political Ends
(By Carolyn N. Lerner)
Washington.--The federal agency I lead, the United States
Office of Special Counsel, enforces a law that is broken and
needs to be fixed.
The law, the Hatch Act of 1939, was intended to keep
improper politics out of the federal workplace. At its best,
it prevents people in political power from abusing their
positions. It prohibits coercion by a government supervisor--
such as pressuring employees to volunteer for or contribute
to a campaign--and shields the civil service and the federal
workplace from politicking.
But at its worst, the law prevents would-be candidates in
state and local races from running because they are in some
way, no matter how trivially, tied to a source of federal
funds in their professional lives. Our caseload in these
matters quintupled to 526 complaints in the 2010 fiscal year,
from 98 in 2000. We advised individuals on this law 4,320
times in 2010.
Matthew P. Arlen is a police officer for the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. A Republican, he
wanted to run for the school board, but we told him in June
he could not because his bomb-sniffing dog is funded through
the Department of Homeland Security.
The Port of Albany, in New York, got stimulus funds to
rebuild its dock and wharf, so we told Terrence P. Hurley,
who is the port's chief financial officer, that he could not
run in last month's Democratic primary for the county
legislature.
Increasingly, the act is being used as a political weapon
to disqualify otherwise well-qualified candidates, even when
there is no indication of wrongdoing. An allegation that a
candidate has violated federal law--simply by stepping
forward to run--can cast a cloud.
Of course, the would-be candidate could give up his day
job. But the day job usually pays the rent, and many of the
elective offices being sought pay little or nothing. Forcing
people to resign in order to participate in the democratic
process is unfair and bad policy.
Sheriffs' offices are especially affected. Since 9/11,
federal grants to state and local law enforcement have
soared. Deputies are commonly the most knowledgeable and
capable potential candidates, but they are ineligible to
succeed their bosses because of the influx of federal money.
Anthony C. Nelson is on next month's ballot for sheriff in
Lowndes County, Miss. He stepped up after the previous
Democratic nominee, an acting police chief, left the race
over a Hatch Act problem. Then Mr. Nelson, the head of the
local juvenile detention center, was himself accused of
violating the act. An investigation by our office found that
the center got no federal funding, so he remains on the
ballot.
I have sent Congress proposed legislation to fix the Hatch
Act by removing restrictions on state and local government
workers who want to run for elected office. This would not
cost taxpayers anything. It would demonstrate respect for the
independence of state and local elections, and would allow
qualified candidates to serve their communities as elected
officials.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today in support of the Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012. I
want to applaud Chairman Issa for the oversight and work he has done on
the Hatch Act reform during this Congress and thank him for working
with me. I'm particularly pleased that the legislation before us today
contains a major piece of my legislation, H.R. 498, the State and Local
Law Enforcement Hatch Act Reform Act.
Currently, more than six decades since the enactment of the original
Hatch Act, there is virtually no law enforcement agency that does not
receive some amount or type of Federal funds. Consequently, almost all
State or local law enforcement officers are covered under the Hatch Act
and must quit their jobs to run for the office of sheriff. This reality
discourages experienced individuals from running for the position and
places a serious financial burden on them.
Reform to the current version of the Hatch Act is sorely needed. With
the passage of the Hatch Act Modernization Act, we will ensure that
citizens have the opportunity to elect the best candidate as their
sheriff.
Further reform to the Hatch Act is still needed, but the Hatch Act
Modernization Act is a step in the right direction and will do a great
deal to make sure that highly qualified men and women are able to run
for the office of sheriff or other elected positions.
I want to thank Congressman Tim Holden for his partnership with me in
this Congress on my legislation, Hatch Act reform for State and local
law enforcement officers, and I look forward to continuing to work on
this issue in the upcoming Congress.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
{time} 1600
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his work in helping to bring this bill to the floor today.
I especially want to thank the ranking member of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, Elijah Cummings, who introduced the Hatch
Act Modernization Act of 2012 in the House, and to thank Senator Daniel
Akaka, who introduced the bill in the Senate.
I want to especially thank Chairman Darrell Issa, who held very
productive and revealing hearings on the Hatch Act during this session,
without which this bill could not have come to the floor today.
And I thank our friends in the Senate, Senators Joseph Lieberman and
Susan Collins, who had their own hearings to modernize the Hatch Act,
and who supported the provisions of this bill that pertain to the
District of Columbia only.
The Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012 contains two of our longtime
priority bills for the district--the District of Columbia Hatch Act
Reform Act and the Hatch Act National Capital Region Parity Act--giving
D.C. full equality under the Federal Hatch Act.
Our first bill, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act, which
is included in this bill, passed the House in the last Congress but
stalled in the Senate. I have been fighting for the bill for most of my
term of service in the Congress.
The D.C. Hatch Act Reform Act eliminates discriminatory treatment of
the District of Columbia, which, alone among U.S. jurisdictions, still
falls under the Federal Hatch Act, as it did before Congress made the
District an independent jurisdiction in 1973 able to enact its own
local laws.
My provision retains Federal Hatch Act authority concerning
prohibited partisan and political activity that applies to every
locality upon receipt of Federal funds or functions, and requires the
District to enact its own local Hatch Act barring similar local
violations. And I'm pleased to say that the District has already done
that and is waiting only for passage of this bill and for signing by
the President.
Hatch Act violations in the District are rare, but the District needs
to be
[[Page H7323]]
able to enforce its own Hatch Act to be fully accountable and
responsible for local violations, with which only a local objective
body would be familiar.
The present treatment of District employees under the Hatch Act, as
if these employees of a local government were employees of a Federal
agency, has led to confusion for the Office of Special Counsel, or OSC,
which enforces the Hatch Act.
In a recent case, an advisory neighborhood commissioner, elected by
the people of the District of Columbia, was cited for violations of the
Hatch Act when he ran for higher office, even though these
commissioners are elected officials under local D.C. law.
Or to cite another absurdity, the District of Columbia will have its
first election for a partisan attorney general in 2014. Under current
law, the winner of that election would be treated as if he were a
Federal employee. That would mean that the person who won the office of
attorney general for the District of Columbia would have to resign that
office in order to seek reelection in 2018. And this is not what the
Federal Hatch Act, let alone a local Hatch Act, would have intended.
As a result of the failure to clear up the confusion between local
and Federal jurisdictions, the application of the Hatch Act to D.C.
government employees has been inconsistent by the OSC. The present law
leaves the OSC with local responsibility when Federal jurisdiction is
not indicated. This fix, therefore, is long overdue.
Our second bill, the Hatch Act National Capital Region Parity Act,
allows OPM to permit Federal employees who reside in the District to
run as independent candidates in local partisan elections. Under the
Hatch Act, Federal employees generally may not be candidates in
partisan elections.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CLAY. I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman.
Ms. NORTON. In the 1940s, Congress gave OPM the authority to exempt
Federal employees living in towns in Maryland, Virginia, and the
immediate vicinity of the District from the Hatch Act's prohibition on
Federal employees running in partisan elections, so that towns with a
high concentration of Federal employees would not be deprived by having
a significant percentage of their residents unable to participate in
local affairs.
However, OPM was not given the authority to exempt Federal employees
living in D.C. because the city did not have local elections before the
Home Rule Act of 1973. The Hatch Act Modernization Act includes these
two bills and brings the District one step closer to equal treatment
and self-government, and implements these and other commonsense
revisions to the Hatch Act.
I applaud the chairman and the ranking member for the entire Act, and
I thank them very much that our bills are included.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers at this time,
and continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this bill. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this one final
opportunity to urge my colleagues to support the Hatch Act
Modernization Act of 2012. We've heard from speakers on both sides of
the aisle indicating some of the absurd results that we have seen as a
result of this act, none more glaring than the officer whose canine
partner, a Labrador named Haynes, was prohibited from running for
office.
With that, and all the other examples, I think it's clear we need to
support passage of S. 2170.
I see the chairman has asked for some time. If my colleague on the
other side of the aisle doesn't object, I would like to yield 2 minutes
to the chairman, Mr. Issa.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, particularly my friend, Mr. Clay.
It is not often that we get to come here as a committee and talk
about something that, in fact, affects perceived government cronyism
and misconduct, a law that protects the American people against
politics getting into your government, and then say, but we need to
reduce it a little. We need to make it a little tighter.
This is an example where, as many of my colleagues have said,
unintended consequences have made a good bill into a bill that stifles
the opportunity and legitimate political activity that occurs by people
serving in State and local office.
So I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, with my good
friend from the District of Columbia, and say this is the time in which
we're making small technical changes that make a big difference to our
political landscape around the country, and in a good way.
We want to make sure that we have the opportunity to have everyone
participate, and I want to thank Members of both parties for bringing
this bill. And I want to particularly thank my colleague, Mr. Cummings,
for his effort throughout the entire Congress to get us where we are
here today.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. I do urge all Members to join me in support of this
bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 2170.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________