To amend the Act entitled "An Act to regulate the height of buildings in the District of Columbia" to clarify the rules of the District of Columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses above the top story of the building upon which the penthouse is placed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I voted for the Affordable Care Act, I support the Affordable Care Act, and I believe in the Affordable Care Act. I believe every person in this country ought to have health care. I don't think that is a radical idea, but my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently do. I think everybody in this country is entitled to good, quality health insurance. I think when they get sick they ought to know they will be taken care of and not have to worry about whether they are going to get covered or not because of preexisting conditions or whether they are going to meet some sort of lifetime cap and be excluded from coverage.

That is what the Affordable Care Act is all about. That is what this big controversy that my friends on the other side of the aisle have decided to make on this issue is all about. So I am making sure that everybody in this country has health care. Boy, what a radical idea, what a radical idea.

I will also say that having supported the Affordable Care Act, it is not a perfect piece of legislation. I have never seen a perfect piece of legislation ever come out of Congress. Legislation, especially legislation that covers a subject as wide as this, at times will be tweaked. There will be unintended consequences that we will come and we will try to fix. That is what legislation is supposed to do: to try to fix the problems.

Democrats have said that from the beginning, that we want to make this bill work, work as well as it possibly can. We said we would be willing to work with Republicans and the administration to address the problems that have come about as a result of the implementation of this law. By no means does that mean that we should repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is something my Republican friends are obsessed with. To the contrary, we need to do everything we can to fix any challenges that this law may have to make sure that every American gets the benefit of the Affordable Care Act.

H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act, is trying to fix one problem with the law. My friend from Delaware (Mr. Carney) and others are attempting to try to fix a provision in the law that causes some problems with the ways that expatriates are treated under the ACA.

This is one example of how we--Democrats and Republicans--should be able to work together. This is one example of how we--supporters and opponents of the ACA--should be able to lay those differences aside as we try to find solutions and move our country forward.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that House and Senate Democrats and Republicans have been working with the White House to come up with a solution that can pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President. It is also my understanding that discussions were ongoing as late as yesterday afternoon when the House majority decided to go with the version before us today instead of waiting to continue negotiations in a bipartisan, bicameral way so that we can get a bill moved expeditiously through both Houses and signed into law by the President of the United States.

I am more than a little disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because I want to work with the majority to fix this problem. I am concerned that this bill, the bill before us that we are talking about right now, creates other problems, namely excluding green card holders and nonimmigrant workers from most of the coverage protections provided by the ACA. I am disappointed that this process was closed down even though negotiations were still ongoing.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas literally took my breath away when he talked about that this represents the Speaker's pledge to let the House work its will. This issue first came up under a suspension, which was totally closed, and it is coming to the floor today under a closed rule. Those of us who have some ideas on how we might be able to make this more palatable to address some of the concerns that we have will not have that opportunity. They have closed the process down. I hardly think that that can be described as an open process or as a transparent process. This is yet another closed rule, another closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, this process was flawed and this process could have been better. There are many of us on my side of the aisle who believe that we need to fix this flaw that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney) has brought to our attention, but we need to do it in the right way, and this is not the right way to do it.

I think what is going to happen here is--my friends on the other side of the aisle control most of the votes here so they will probably pass this bill--but what will happen then is that the Senate will then have negotiations with the White House and try to figure out how to fix this problem. They will pass it, then it will have to come back to the House again, and then we will have to deal with it separately.

I regret very much that my friends have decided to go this way. If they had waited a few more days we probably could have gotten a solution to this that could have received unanimous support. Instead, we are back at the same old-same old, where it is attack the ACA, attack the ACA, and pretend to try to fix it by addressing a legitimate concern, but adding to that a whole bunch of extraneous stuff that creates other problems.

I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote ``no'' on the bill. Let's wait until the Senate gets it right with the White House and we can revisit this issue.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What we are considering right now before the full House is very clear.

One, a closed rule. What a closed rule means is that you can't offer any amendments. So some of the concerns that have been raised about the underlying bill we can't fix. For the life of me, I don't understand why, if the gentleman claims that the Republican majority is committed to an open, transparent process where the House can work its will, I don't understand why you would approve a closed rule on this.

Let's be honest about this. It is not like my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing anything else. We have had multiple repeals of the Affordable Care Act before us. We have had lots of message issues that their pollsters say poll well, but the Republican majority hasn't really done very much to help the American people in any way, shape, or form. So it is not like the time doesn't exist to maybe have a little bit more debate on an issue like this and be able to perfect this bill. This is a closed rule. This is a closed rule, this is a closed process, and this has become a closed House.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule, reject this closed process, reject the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I remind the gentleman that the Speaker of the House said when the Republicans won the majority that they were going to conduct proceedings here in the most open way possible--this will be the most open and transparent House ever. And it has become the most closed House ever.

Because the gentleman brought up the Affordable Care Act, I want to make sure he understands the facts. While the bill we are talking about right now received 20 minutes of debate under suspension, let me read you the facts about the Affordable Care Act, in case my friend forgot.

The House held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 83 hours of committee markups. The House heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrats and Republicans. 239 amendments were considered in the three committees of jurisdiction, 121 of which were adopted. The bill was available for 72 hours before Members were asked to vote on it on the floor.

The process was just as open in the Senate. The Senate Finance Committee held more than 53 hearings. The Finance Committee also spent 8 days marking up the legislation, the longest markup in 22 years for the committee. The Senate Health Committee held 47 bipartisan hearings, roundtables, and walk-throughs on health care reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may have started out with a different bill number, but the fact remains hundreds of hours of hearings on the Affordable Care Act, hundreds of witnesses, hundreds of amendments considered in the committee, and countless hours of townhall meetings.

My friend on the other side of the aisle likes to say, well, there was a different bill number when we voted here on the floor, but as he knows, the process of using a different bill number is very common around here. In fact, the Republican majority has done it several times in the past 3 years. But regardless of the bill number, the work that went into forming this legislation was one of the most open processes in the history of Congress.

That is the facts on that.

But let me also make one other point. The problem my friends on the other side of the aisle have with the Affordable Care Act is not with the process. It is just they don't believe that people ought to have affordable health care in this country. They have spent countless hours on this floor trying to repeal a bill that eliminates preexisting conditions as a way to deny people insurance.

They have been fighting against a bill that helps senior citizens get free preventive care coverage, that helps close that doughnut hole in the Medicare prescription drug bill. They are fighting against a bill that has brought millions and millions and millions of more people into a process where they can afford health care. So they have been against this from the very beginning.

I think the American people have a very different view. Their view is that they want this bill to work. My friends on the other side of the aisle have just spent countless hours, countless days, countless weeks, countless months just trying to repeal it. It is just Johnny One Note: repeal, repeal, repeal.

This idea that everybody should have affordable health care is such a controversy in the Republican Congress, I can't quite understand why. Why is it such a bad idea that everybody in this Congress has access to good quality health care? Why is that an idea that causes such resentment on the other side of the aisle? I don't get it.

We ought to make sure that this law gets implemented properly, and we ought to do this the right way. My friends don't want to do it the right way, so we are going to have to wait for the Senate to work it out with the administration and then send it back to us. There really should be a better way to do this.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman have any other speakers?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider the Fair Minimum Wage Act. This week, the Senate will vote to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Now is the time for the House to act and to honor our commitment to the middle class by giving hard-working Americans fair pay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Again, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who like to talk about how the Republican majority is committed to allowing the House to work its will and is committed to an open and transparent process, to vote with us on this.

We have been trying to get the minimum wage bill to the floor forever, and we can't even get it up for a vote so that every Member has an opportunity to vote up or down. This is that opportunity so that we can have that vote, a vote to help lift people out of poverty and to help give people an opportunity to live better lives.

There are millions of workers in this country who are working full time--who are working hard at minimum wage jobs--and they are still stuck in poverty. There are millions and millions of people in this country who work hard full time at minimum wage jobs, but who earn so little that they still qualify for SNAP, and they rely on that program to put food on their tables because their paychecks don't provide enough.

This is an important issue, and I hope that my colleagues will support me on this. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4192) to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to regulate the height of buildings in the District of Columbia'' to clarify the rules of the District of Columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses above the top story of the building upon which the penthouse is placed, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill hereto under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, in 1910, the Height of Buildings Act was signed into Federal law. That bill, in fact, envisioned a prevention of New York- style skyscrapers from being erected here in the Nation's Capital. That bill is every bit as important today as it was in 1910.

The District of Columbia has a unique visual requirement. We should not, cannot, and will not obstruct the Mall and the major parts of this historic city.

It is important that we maintain the skyline and the access, and we do so in every single consideration in this city. The memorials and monuments and public safety must be considered.

However, over the last two Congresses, the committee has been working on several small modifications that, really, time has said its time has come. After 100 years, the current legislation makes a small but meaningful change. Let me put it in words the American people can easily understand.

One hundred years ago, they put a limit on the height of these buildings, and then they put 20 feet beyond that limit of occupancy for water towers, coal stacks for the chimneys, and, of course, the tops of elevators. Those water towers, elevator shafts, chimneys, they were certainly pretty hideous, but they were necessary.

It is now 100 years later, and, in fact, the absence of other uses for these buildings often means that these tops of these buildings are not considered to be an aesthetically important part, and there is no funding and no source of revenue to make them better.

Under this modification to the Height Act, we allow for what have been called penthouses but, in fact, are simply industrial rooftop air conditioners and the like to be covered, wrapped, if you will, by architecturally pleasing structures.

These structures may be occupied. They may be offices, cafeterias, or, in the case of a residential apartment complex, it could be a top apartment.

Under the legislation, they have to have a setback. The setback is roughly 1 foot per foot of height, or 20 feet of setback if they go to the full 20 feet. So these are not a monolithic increase and, in fact, a setback consistent with that 100-year-old law.

Last Congress, the committee held numerous hearings on the Height Act and listened to countless witnesses. I subsequently wrote to the National Capital Planning Commission, often called the NCPC, and the mayor's office, asking them to jointly study modifications to the Height Act and recommend any changes they saw appropriate. For those who are unaware, NCPC is the regional planning commission that includes representatives of both the Federal interests and local interests.

The Height Act study is impressive. Aside from the research work, a series of meetings were held featuring considerable input from experts and the general public alike. Afterward, the mayor's office and NCPC provided separate recommendations.

The mayor's specific recommendation: increase the height limits in downtown. The mayor also recommended that the city and NCPC work together to be able to use the city comprehensive plan as a tool to adjust height limits outside the L'Enfant city region.

This is not in today's proposal. Ultimately, only after considering these broader changes, NCPC's only recommendation from the overall plan submitted by the mayor is, in fact, the modest proposal before you today.

Let's understand: the height of buildings in this city will not change by 1 foot under this act, but the beauty of the tops of buildings and the usability will.

The revenue to the city can increase because of the value of these top floors, and, yet, we will cover up mechanical penthouses that, today, are simply elevator shafts, rooftop air conditioners, water towers and the like.

So long as that ratio of setback and the other provisions of the 100- year-old act are maintained, the city will have the ability to approve structures.

But let's understand: those structures will still go through a rigorous program before they can be approved, and they will continue to be consistent with the 1910 Height Act.

NCPC itself recommended that human occupancy be allowed in such rooftop penthouses, so long as the setback ratio was maintained and that the penthouse does not exceed one story and that no more than 20 feet of height be maintained.

Our bill does everything in the NCPC recommendation. So this bill simply gives the city a little more latitude in

allowing human occupancy in penthouses where ugly mechanical penthouses already exist and are allowed.

I would like to have gone a little further on this bill, and I am very candid. There are areas well outside the city, as most people interpret it, far up in Northeast, where there are railroad tracks and industrial buildings, and down in Southeast, an area that Eleanor Holmes Norton has worked tirelessly to improve, that could have been given additional options for higher buildings because they are outside of the area of concern for the Mall and monuments.

The city is not prepared to take that authority yet, and Congress is not prepared to give authority that, in fact, its city council is not prepared to handle. That is the consensus that came from the city council in their own resolution, and we respect that if the city does not want an authority, we are not going to thrust an authority on them.

So, with respect to the Height Act, let me close by saying there will always be somebody who doesn't want a law changed, who, in fact, wants the buildings shorter. There are people who want their private home to be able to see all the way to the Mall. I would love to own one of those homes, quite frankly.

A few feet away from here I would like to be able to walk out onto the Speaker's deck, his balcony. I would like to be able to see the White House, but I can't because the Treasury building was built in front of it and others.

This legislation will not cause any of those shortcomings that have occurred in the past; just the opposite. It will beautify the tops of buildings if the city approves those specific projects, while maintaining the absolute limit that has been on these buildings since 1910.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I want to urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 4192, and I want to close by reminding people that this is, in fact, the best vetted piece of legislation for Congress to pass in cooperation with the city in my tenure.

Thirteen D.C. city councilmen signed on to a sense of council- introduced resolution in November that stated: The Height Act should not be amended at this time.

All 13 now support this modest recommendation, and I understand the additional member also would. I am glad that the city council is seeing this modest reform as in their favor--their benefit to enhancing the beauty of those buildings, those few buildings that reach the maximum of the Height Act.

In closing, I think it is important that we echo what Delegate Norton just said. The vast majority of homes and buildings in the District of Columbia are far lower than the Height Act. In fact, it is a relatively small part of what some people sometimes call K Street and some other corridors, where the infrastructure of the city has pressed to occupy more densely.

My hope is, by maintaining the height, the total occupancy, these penthouses will enhance that property, in many cases, with cafeteria or public access areas while still continuing to induce people to make reasonable changes in outlying areas if, in fact, additional capacity is needed either for residents of this city or, in fact, the thriving businesses of this city.

Madam Speaker, we seldom come to you with a 100-year-old bill that hasn't been dusted off. We come to you today with a 104-year-old bill, which has not been dusted off and not for a lack of a reason.

The water towers of 1910 are gone. It is time for us to use this space to maintain a view that is unmarred by highrises, but is, in fact, enhanced by the architectural creation, invention, and ingenuity of the architects who work and strive to make the buildings of Washington, D.C., pleasant and functional.

With that, I urge passage and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 555 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 555 provides for the consideration to fix yet another flaw that has to be corrected in the Affordable Care Act due to the rushed process by which the bill was passed in March of 2010.

As a direct result of the hasty legislation, experts have estimated that over 1,000 Americans will lose their jobs unless Congress takes immediate action to correct and clarify the Affordable Care Act's impact on expatriate health care plans.

This bill before us today will do just that, putting Americans above partisan politics and helping yet another subset of people in our country who currently are being harmed by the President's takeover of our health care system.

The rule before us today provides for one full hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and Means. Further, the rule provides for the adoption of an amendment by the bill's authors, Representatives Nunes from California and Carney from Delaware, which addresses a number of concerns the minority expressed during debate of this legislation several weeks ago.

True to the Speaker's commitment of letting the House work its will, Republicans listened to those concerns and crafted a bipartisan amendment to improve the legislation. In addition, the rule provides the minority the standard motion to recommit.

H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014, addresses the problem caused by the Affordable Care Act, which could result in those Americans who live abroad for a substantial portion of the year, those individuals referred to as expatriates, that could cause them to lose their health care coverage because of the one-size- fits-all approach to our health care system, which was employed by the wizards who wrote the Affordable Care Act.

Expatriate health care providers have traditionally offered tailored, specialized insurance plans to meet the needs of Americans who spend their time overseas. These citizens simply cannot rely on a local general practitioner or neighborhood clinic because, so often, they are far away from home.

However, the Affordable Care Act does not provide an avenue by which these plans can continue to be offered. Instead, Senator Reid, Kathleen Sebelius, and Barack Obama decided it was up to them to decide how Americans' health insurance plans should be structured.

The legislation before us today is a clear example of why a top-down Federal approach to health care does not work. Consumers should be in the driver's seat deciding what works best for them, what works best for themselves and their families, not someone sitting in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

This bill was brought to the floor under suspension of the rules prior to the Easter recess. So it has been available for consideration, for staff work to occur, for some period of time. The fact of the matter is that it is an imminent problem facing people who are working

outside of the country, and for that reason it was important to get it solved.

If the gentleman feels that more work should have been done prior to that time, perhaps they should have worked with the majority prior to it being brought up under suspension. I don't know the answer to that. But I do know where we are today is that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, and the Republican majority is seeing to it that it is fixed, bringing it to the floor under a rule. The minority will have an opportunity to amend during a motion to recommit, and I certainly look forward to a lively discussion during that time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

This, this was brought to the House floor as a closed rule in March of 2010. This coercive, partisan piece of legislation which is going to affect health care in this country for every man, woman, and child for the next three generations, this was brought under a closed rule.

We are trying to fix one very narrow problem contained within these pages. It seems to me that there has been ample discussion. A bill was debated under suspension. It did not receive the required two-thirds vote, so it is being brought back today under a rule, and the minority will have an opportunity to offer an amendment during the motion to recommit. This was a closed rule which was very damaging to the country. Today's closed rule is simply to fix one of the many problems contained herein.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

As much as I would like to continue this lively back-and-forth, we both know each other's positions on this extremely well.

No, I have no other speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical bill to ensure Americans who are being hurt by the Affordable Care Act can have some relief.

Americans and their families who live abroad for part of the year face losing this specialized health insurance coverage on which they have come to rely. In addition, the men and women who operate on these health care plans face having their jobs outsourced overseas in order for companies to comply with regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services.

I certainly want to thank Mr. Nunes and Mr. Carney for their thoughtful legislation. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 4192, and I appreciate the initiative of the chairman, Chairman Issa, who has just spoken, who has always observed the self-government rights of the District of Columbia, and puts forward this bill in the same spirit of home rule.

This legislation will amend the Height Act of 1910, which limits the height of all building in the District of Columbia. The District is prohibited, under the Home Rule Act, from permitting any structure anywhere in the city in excess of the height limitations contained in the Height Act.

The current law permits structures above the top story of buildings, including so-called penthouses, to exceed the height limitations, but no human occupancy is permitted in mechanical penthouses, and it gives the District the authority to set the maximum height for such structures.

Currently, the structures have a height limit of 18.6 feet. The legislation will allow human occupancy of these penthouses. In addition, the legislation will mandate a 20-foot maximum height, one story, and a 1 to 1 setback for penthouses. The absolute height of any penthouse used for human occupancy will be 20 feet.

I thank Chairman Issa for examining the Height Act when he saw that it had received little congressional oversight in the century of its existence.

I supported Chairman Issa's request that the District of Columbia and the National Capital Planning Commission conduct a joint study of the Height Act because more than 100 years had passed since the heights of D.C. buildings were systematically discussed in the Halls of Congress.

The District and the NCPC came to different conclusions as to whether or how the Height Act should be amended, but agreed with respect to removing the prohibition on human occupancy of penthouses, and setting a maximum height of 20 feet, or one story, for penthouses.

The mayor and D.C. Council expressed divergent views, but I encouraged them to work together to find common ground. I am pleased that the mayor and council chairman reached an agreement with regard to penthouses, and that agreement, in essence, is before the Congress today.

Under today's bill, the city, through its local zoning process, will have the home rule ability to permit human occupancy of penthouses if it would desire. However, this bill is not a mandate directing the city to make any changes to penthouses or to its existing comprehensive plan, or local zoning laws, more generally.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Issa for working to give the District of Columbia more authority. I also deeply appreciate the chairman's work in so many other ways, for budget autonomy, and his strong support on many occasions for home rule, which he has raised as a factor in connection with the Height Act as well.

I support the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for speaking in favor of the bill.

I understand his concern. I do want to indicate that no exception is really being made in this bill. The height can go no higher than it can go right now, and somebody in the District of Columbia can't make an exception because the Congress of the United States controls heights still under this bill.

Of course, we have our local zoning laws in the District, so there are many, many parts of the District where you can't begin to go as high as the Height Act.

I am a third-generation Washingtonian, and I must say that I adore the residential quality of this city, which is essentially built on the notion of private homes and not large-scale apartments. The city really did not want to dislodge that, and that has not occurred here.

There may still be some disagreement among residents, but I do know that when the council, which expressed some real disquiet at any change, has finally been able to come to an agreement, that there is not enough of a change here to warrant dissent within

the city and had come to an agreement that--and when, in addition, those who have been most adamant about maintaining the Height Act, including the organization which has been the real guardian of the Height Act, the Committee of 100, says it has no objection to this compromise, I think we have finally reached a compromise of the kind that we would like to see more often occur right here in the House of Representatives.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues. I am extremely pleased with the sensitivity that is expressed for the people of Washington, D.C., because that is what we should have here.

This is an amendment to the bill regarding the height of Washington, D.C., buildings that passed in 1910, as changing the height restrictions that were put in place in 1899; and as my colleague from the District of Columbia had pointed out, this really hasn't been discussed in detail in over 100 years.

I recently had someone here in Washington tell me that: Gee, as property gets so valuable here in Washington, you are going to see, at first, exceptions made to the height restrictions, then soon followed by a lifting of those restrictions because the money will be just too much for either party to turn down.

I am so grateful that the height is not being changed, as the chairman said, by one inch; but I am very concerned about beginning to make these exceptions for residence levels, even though ``residence'' is the change, basically, in essence, and I have looked at the change. I have reviewed the prior law.

But, Madam Speaker, I am concerned that this is the camel's nose going under the tent. You are beginning to put residences above the height that was previously allowed. It may dress some up, it may change some in ways that we are not crazy about, but I am just concerned about changing the height restrictions, even with these exceptions, after 114 years of being in existence.

So as a result, I thank the chairman and my friend from the District of Columbia, like I say, for their sensitivity, but I like the height restriction because of the emphasis that continues to be pushed.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I am concerned about beginning the exceptions that may move in a direction that we don't wish to have. The chairman mentioned that no one is granting that kind of authority, and nobody is seeking it, yet; and I want us to stop it before we have to get to that ``yet.''

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.