Aye. The ayes are 17. The nays are zero. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. Stated - 6/2/05 The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 040767.
An ordinance amending Section 19-2604 of the Philadelphia Code relating to tax rates, credits and alternate tax computation for Business Privilege Tax by reducing certain tax rates, all under certain terms and conditions.
This bill, having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
I'm sorry, Councilman. I didn't see your light on. Yes, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
As I understand it, this bill will, in due Stated - 6/2/05 course of the next few years, eliminate the taxes generally on business. That seems to be the main function of this Council is to find every way to eliminate taxes on all business. And in return for that, because even those that want to cut all the taxes know that you have to have some to run the city, they want to increase the real estate appraisals so the real property taxes in Philadelphia begin to assume wild proportions as they do in many other communities. So what we're talking about is not just cutting taxes for business, all businesses, but increasing at the same time the real estate taxes. And what does that mean? It means that many of our citizens, usually those less able to fend for themselves, will find themselves eventually living with their children or living on the streets. They're the two main realities. The same group that's advocating these tax cuts on business say that it is Stated - 6/2/05 a good sign when real estate values go up, and the reason it's a good sign is that then tax revenues from real estate taxes go up. And many of us are already worried in Philadelphia about what will happen when the Board of Revision of Taxes goes to a 100 percent valuation assessment on the worth of houses as a basis for taxation. I believe we've cut taxes more than enough to justify Philadelphia being considered a tax haven for those who don't want to pay business taxes. I think the rich are getting by with many wonderful features in Philadelphia they never enjoyed before when the City Council really represented the people rather than representing big business. And when I talk about business, I'm not including the small family businesses. I believe there's got to be a third class of taxpayer considered, and that is a business that lives in the environment of the residential area. The small mom and Stated - 6/2/05 pop stores have to be considered as residential businesses as a combination because they suffer the same way that the residents suffer. What it's going to mean -- and I'm talking to those in this Council particularly who always favor the biggest tax cuts for business, who when a business comes in and asks for a tip of a million dollars will, by their questions, indicate they think the business should have asked for at least double that amount; but that whenever anything is proposed with respect to the needs of ordinary human beings, they question it to the penny, but not when it comes to business. Now, residential businesses, that is, the businesses that make a neighborhood a real residence, should be considered at the same tax level as residents. But that's going to be for another bill. But I want to say I'm voting no on this bill. I think it's a bad bill. And the vote can be 16 to one or it can be a Stated - 6/2/05 thousand to one and I would be voting against it because it's the wrong way to go. What we need is a city that doesn't lose population. And the reason we lose population is that the city has, for example, potholes. The Mayor denies that there are potholes. But talk to the citizens and they'll tell you how, when they drive around Philadelphia, they suffer from enormous potholes. We need more services to retain a good population in Philadelphia. And a good population, to my dear colleagues on this Council, means not only rich colleagues. It means the ordinary people of working people, the poor people. They all go up to make the fabric of the community. Therefore, I say this bill itself is a highly discriminatory bill. It's good only for the big businesses, which will escape taxation in short order under the terms of this bill. And it's a bad bill Stated - 6/2/05 for Philadelphians. At one time we poo-pooed the loss of residents in the city. All we were worried about were the loss of businesses. But we've come to realize that loss of residents is also very severe.
We're now under a million and a half population, and that's getting to be a very dangerous sign for Philadelphia if it can't hold on to that kind of population that gives the city great diversification. So I'm saying from every point of view this is a bad bill and should be defeated. Thank you. )
Thank you, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
If I could Stated - 6/2/05 ask Councilman Nutter to step aside. I'd just like to ask Councilman Cohen if I could interrogate him on his remarks.
Thank you. Councilman Cohen, I'm just a little perplexed. Last year we were voting on massive cuts in the BPT over a 12-year period, hundreds of millions of dollars. You voted yes, yes, yes, even voted to override the Mayor's veto. This year we're voting on very tiny cuts, almost imperceptible in the budget that we have before us today. And I don't understand. Maybe you could enlighten me on what changed from last year to this year.
Well, a lot of things changed. Like anybody else, I don't like taxes. I've heard complaints about taxes. And I was convinced last year, or whenever it was, that the taxes Stated - 6/2/05 were then too high. But I never under the wildest sense of imagination ever dreamt that anybody would try to eliminate the net profit version of the taxes on business. I thought this bill originally was a bill to eliminate the gross profits tax, a tax which I thought then and think now is unfair because it's a tax on the amount of business done without respect to whether the business is done at a profit or at a loss. And it wasn't until after the votes were in that I came to understand that the goal of tax-cutting was to eliminate taxes on businesses, including taxes on profits. That event occurred at the same time as President Bush's idea that it was more important to give over a trillion dollars in tax money back to very rich people who didn't need a penny of it. Instead of taking care of the men in Iraq and Afghanistan with proper equipment, instead of taking care of human needs, he gave tax money already paid by people under proper Stated - 6/2/05 laws in the United States, he gave that tax money back.
It shows me that at both the local and at the national level there was a drive on to make this country a country that cares solely and totally for the rich and not at all for those that need the government's help.
So last year you were confused? You understood what President Bush was doing in Washington but you didn't understand what we were doing here in City Council?
I thought it almost bordered on criminal for people in Philadelphia to think in terms of eliminating taxes on profitable businesses.
So when you Stated - 6/2/05 voted last year time and again to reduce the Business Privilege Tax by massive amounts and to override the Mayor's veto, you were confused as to what taxes we were trying to cut?
I was confused. I didn't understand it because nobody said then anything other than that we wanted to get rid of this unfair tax on businesses' revenue.
Thank you. The chair recognizes Councilman Kenney -- Nutter. I'm sorry. Councilman Nutter, then Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. We are often confused for each other, Councilman Kenney and I. (Laughter.)
Just a couple points. First, just to clear the record -- and I appreciate Councilman Stated - 6/2/05 O'Neill's inquiry. My colleague, Councilman Cohen, in his opening comments made reference to the bill eliminating the Business Privilege Tax in a mere couple years. That is not correct. The bill only provides incremental tax reduction for the next five years, and will not eliminate either component of the Business Privilege Tax within a couple years. That is not correct. Second, there is no bill in front of us that has anything to do with increasing real estate taxes. This Council has not changed the real estate millage rates since 1991. They have been the same. Homeowners or property owners do experience an increase in their assessment because of a very hot real estate market here in Philadelphia, and the Board of Revision of Taxes has the responsibility for assessing property values. When my colleague talks about residential businesses and somehow there's Stated - 6/2/05 a distinction between those businesses and I assume downtown businesses, the reality is that all of the businesses pay the same rate. They pay the same tax. And if large businesses are having difficulties with an onerous tax structure, I can only imagine the difficulty that small businesses are experiencing, whether downtown or in our neighborhoods. Many of our constituents work downtown. That's why public transportation is so important. Thousands of people use it every day, many of whom are either coming downtown for their job from a neighborhood or they are reverse commuting because they can't find jobs in our city in many instances and so they work in the suburbs from where they leave their residential home and go find work outside of the City of Philadelphia. My colleague talks about the need for city services. I agree with him. There's a desperate need for city services. But I don't know that anyone is moving from the Stated - 6/2/05 city to get better services out in the suburbs. I spent a little time out there. My district borders Montgomery County. I've hit a few potholes in Lower Merion. I think it's the environment. I think it's the tax environment. It may be the school environment. It may be open space. There may be a whole host of issues. But I don't know necessarily know that a whole lot of people are moving to get to the better services out in our suburban areas. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the City of Philadelphia last year lost 10,600 jobs. And as a result of that, some people probably left. So when my colleague expresses concern about the need to increase the population in Philadelphia, in many instances people follow the jobs and jobs also follow the people. Our onerous tax structure here is not conducive to keeping the residents that we have or encouraging people to come here. Stated - 6/2/05 Lastly, with regard to whether it was last year or this year, because this bill is the same bill that was introduced two times last year, approved by this Council twice, vetoed by the Mayor twice, and lost by one vote on an override twice, it is the exact same bill with decreases in rates in the gross receipts tax as well as the net income portion of the Business Privilege Tax. The only difference is the cuts are only guaranteed for five years and the schedule was significantly decreased on the net income portion so as to cut the cost. The FY '06 cost of the bill is $600,000. $600,000. I will not enter into the discussion about what the President was doing or what he does in foreign lands and whether it's Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else around the world. What I'm primarily interested in is what's going on in West Philly, North Philly, South Philly, the Northeast, the Northwest, and on our river Stated - 6/2/05 wards. That's where my focus is on a pretty regular basis. We need jobs, we absolutely need services, but what our constituents need most is the dignity of work.
And we need to expand our base here in Philadelphia so that we can put our residents to work and they'll get all the services that they need. Thank you, Madam President. )
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll be supporting this bill, gladly supporting it today. And with all due respect to Councilman Nutter and his hard work on this bill, it really isn't enough. We needed to do more in the cutting of taxes for business in the city. It is incorrect to say that without Stated - 6/2/05 the expansion of jobs and without the expansion of the population we're ever going to be able to afford adequate services that are necessary for our citizens. As people continue to leave and as jobs continue to leave, the service level goes down because the tax base is shrinking. It flies in the face of any common sense that cutting taxes to preserve jobs and residents will at some point not provide a larger tax base to provide the services necessary. If that were not correct, raising taxes would be the way to go and none of us are advocating that. With all due respect to Councilman Cohen, I think it's unfortunate and incorrect that he has linked the small, minuscule tax cut that we're contemplating here today to the rise in real estate taxes for senior citizens and others who have been long-time residents of the city. First of all, I don't think they're related, number one, as Councilman Nutter Stated - 6/2/05 talked about. But secondly, since 1985 the City of Philadelphia was given permission by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to provide tax relief for long-term residents living in what were known as gentrified areas. And there's still gentrification going on, as we speak. Gentrification is a good thing because we have people that are coming in and repairing homes, improving homes, building new homes. But we don't want people who were living in those neighborhoods when they were on the downside to suffer as a result of increased real estate taxes as a result of increased assessment in their property. We have the ability to do it now. Councilman Clarke and I have been talking, and Councilman Clarke has been looking and working and trying to figure out a way where we can adopt a formula that would trigger the notice of gentrification in an area and then allow the city to give those Stated - 6/2/05 long-term residents tax breaks. We have the authority and the ability to do it now. We just need to find the will and the formula to do it. But from my perspective, these miniscule tax cuts have nothing to do with increased real estate taxes for senior citizens or anyone else struggling to keep their homes. We have a responsibility to help them but at the same time growing the tax base, growing our job base, and then be able to provide services through the private sector taxes that we're now doing through the public sector. And I think that it's important that we vote on this bill today aye, in favor of it to pass it, but also important that we continue to look at the cutting of tax rates even more than we have already. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause.)
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Stated - 6/2/05 Cohen.
Thank you. Those who advocate this bill love to point out that there's been no increase in the tax rate for real estate in a number of years, and they believe that that's the only problem that exists, no increase in tax rates. Well, that's not at all their theory. The theory is that it is a good thing for values in real estate to rise. It indicates that land is desirable, that people want it, they pay more for it. That's fine for the people that are younger, that work hard, have a good income. But I ask what happens to those who live on Social Security, who don't have anything more than a very small cost of living increase, if they have that, each year. When the value of real estate gets great, your real estate taxes, not the rate of the tax but the actual dollars you pay increases. And when we raise that Stated - 6/2/05 with the people who are sponsoring this bill, they have one answer. Well, you know, if people can't pay the increased taxes, they can always get a reverse mortgage or they can move in with their children. Now, I submit to you that those of us who worked for many years -
The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney for a point of information.
I'm just curious as to what member of this Council ever made that statement. It's fine in a debate -
I wanted to make sure the record was clear that none of us said that people should move in with their kids.
I did not mean -- I never heard members of Council say that because we're too wise in the way Stated - 6/2/05 of politics ever to say that. We let the outsiders who don't run for office point out those things. They point it out that if a woman is, say, a widow and she can't keep up with her payments, then she can get a reverse mortgage. You know, that's the newest, most popular thing. You pay off your home mortgage. You feel you've worked for 30, 40, 50 years, you now are safe, and then you find you can't make your payments and then the world of business comes up with these very attractive ideas. Change your after-death plans. Don't leave your family an estate. Leave them a mortgage to pay off on your house. Don't give them a free house. So you get a reverse mortgage, which pays you money as long as you live in that house, all the time the debt and mortgage on the house is increasing.
Now, to tell Stated - 6/2/05 an older person whose goal in life often after finishing work is to leave something to the children that now you've achieved the goal where you're going to take away from your children and leave them nothing is to give them a tale of defeat, not of the victory that ought to follow a good hard-working life.
Madam President, I feel like I've fallen through the looking glass. What we need is high taxes and low real estate values and then we'll all be fine. So thank you, Madam President.
I don't think, Madam President, that that's the answer, to tell the people living on -barely making it on Social Security today that what they're going to look forward to in the future is either homelessness or not leaving anything to their children except an increased debt on the home. Stated - 6/2/05
Thank you, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll be very brief. For those of you who have not traveled to the 7200 block of Ogontz Avenue and beyond, I encourage you to do so. For the last 20 years, it's been a revitalization of that business corridor led by my state representative, Dwight Evans. But if you travel and visit at that area, you will see a small number of -- a number of small businesses which have moved into that community. I applaud Paul Bill, who has maintained his flower shop on Ogontz Avenue during the blight and now through the revitalization, who has served that community as well as the city as a small business person. He employs neighborhood people in his business as well as the other businesses in the Stated - 6/2/05 community. I support this bill because I agree with Kenney it's not enough, but it does send a signal that we do understand the concerns of small neighborhood businesses who are struggling to stay in the city and provide services and employment for our community. At one point I was somewhat concerned about the bill. But as we went through the budget process and looked at all of the detailed financial information provided to us by our technician, Charlie McPherson, I was amazed to find that we were not at the doom and gloom and all services were going to stop because we passed this bill. And I really find it disingenuous of efforts to try to scare us into looking at possible cuts in services and cutbacks in the departments because we might pass a small -- or accelerate what we tried to do. So I will be supporting this bill because I do think it sends a signal. Stated - 6/2/05 Philadelphia is a great city. It needs to grow. It needs to thrive. We need to encourage businesses to come here so that we can provide jobs for the people who live here, because if they do go to the suburbs, we lose that tax base for the city. So I think I will be supporting the bill. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. I will be supporting this bill as well. Essentially, I enjoy these debates and discussions on strategies for economic growth. And the discussions we had at the Economic Development Summit several months ago led to a predominant recommendation that we do need to do something about business taxes. While we share different strategies Stated - 6/2/05 at times and have different philosophies, I sometimes also think we live in different realities. In my reality, I recognize that real estate does not move. People move. Businesses move. And when businesses move, jobs move. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
First of all, I'd like to incorporate those remarks as my own. I couldn't have said it any more succinctly. Having supported the total abolition of this tax last year, I find it impossible not to support these miniscule cuts. And I also agree with my colleagues that we have to do more. But this is a start at least. But I was glad to hear from Councilman Cohen about his concern about Stated - 6/2/05 real estate appreciation causing tax assessment increases and tax bills that'll be more than people can afford. I welcome it because last year I had a 4 percent cap bill that would have needed state authorization and I was one vote short. It would have capped the amount you would have to pay on your increased assessment to no more than 4 percent a year, and Councilman Cohen was a no vote on that. So I welcome his conversion. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to vote against this bill along with Councilman Cohen. Although I like his point about sending people to Iraq and not giving them the proper equipment, we could spend hours on that. He was absolutely right about that. That Stated - 6/2/05 has something to do with all this. And what George Bush does has something to do with what goes on in Juniata Park and anywhere in the City of Philadelphia. But the main thing here that everybody is missing is as long as nobody in this Council is sitting on the second floor and doing that budget -- I mean, you may like that guy. You may dislike that guy. Your face may get red when his name comes up. You may take his face and make it a white face with blond hair and put it in your magazine. You may write articles. You can do whatever you want. He is still the Mayor. He's the one that's doing the budget. Many of my colleagues here last week, Councilman DiCicco for one of them, worked hard to save them firehouses and I applaud him for that. It's simple. If we cut taxes, no matter how symbolic, no matter who gets the cut, rich people or poor people, we're all people trying to survive. What happens is services will Stated - 6/2/05 suffer. The very thing that we fought for, the fire stations, the recreation centers, the libraries, the Art Museum, all those places, it's simple. It is really simple. And it's simple as keep it simple, stupid. That's me. It's simple. If you cut taxes, you have to cut services. We can sit here and litigate and talk about and pontificate about different things that are going to go on. But as long as he's calling the shots on the second floor and we cut taxes for no matter who -- I like the people in the chamber. They came in with Bruce Crawley's wife. It was a great presentation. I told them that. I can't be for it. You touch one recreation center in my neighborhood, I have to go back and look at those people that live in my neighborhood. That's what Councilman Cohen is trying to tell us. So I'll be voting with Councilman Cohen to oppose this bill, and everyone else here Stated - 6/2/05 with a conscience should do that. (Applause.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I will be voting in support of this bill for all the reasons that have been acknowledged by my colleagues who are supporting it as well. I think it's a great opportunity. I know there have been a number of debates in this Council, and I suspect we will have in the future even more debates when we talk about doing TIF's and/or certain types of tax incentives to specific projects. My colleague, Councilman Cohen, has made an argument eloquently on a number of occasions about why we're playing favorites with certain types of corporations, these big corporations don't Stated - 6/2/05 need these tax breaks. So that debate goes on and has gone on for a long time, and I suspect will continue to go on. I think this is an opportunity for us to offer all the businesses in the City of Philadelphia, not any specific corporation or entity, an opportunity to realize some significant -- or not significant. It's rather insignificant in terms of numbers. But it's a signal that we're sending that we mean business in this town, that we want to reduce taxes because we know that it's important to create and grow jobs. So, again, this is an opportunity to give tax relief to all business, not one or two specific corporations. That has always been the argument for debate in this Council for as long as I've been here. So I will be voting yes in support of this bill. (Applause.)
Thank you. Again, I will repeat, this bill Stated - 6/2/05 having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 050001.
An ordinance to adopt the capital program for the six fiscal years 2006 to 2011 inclusive.
This bill, having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
Councilman DiCicco. Stated - 6/2/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye.
Aye. The ayes are 17. The nays are zero. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 050002.
This bill, having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
Aye. The ayes are 17. The nays are zero. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for Stated - 6/2/05 consideration is Bill No. 050003.
An ordinance adopting the operating budget for fiscal year 2006.
This bill, having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
It's not on. Now it is. Do we do this in the middle of a roll call vote? I would suggest that you ask that the rules of Council be suspended.
I move that the rules of Council be suspended in order that I may be able to address this issue. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the rules of Council be suspended in order that Councilman Kelly have an opportunity to speak on Bill No. 050003. Stated - 6/2/05 All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this. Now, this is an issue which probably the media doesn't give a damn about and maybe most people in this room don't care about that much. But I think it's very, very important. I know with the heightening controversy surrounding the ethics bills and the smoking bills and whatnot it's understandable that they could probably miss this issue. And the issue is the closings of two mini-city halls, one in North Philadelphia, one in Northeast Philadelphia. Stated - 6/2/05 Now, this, to me, is a quality of life issue. It affects many thousands of people who use the services provided by those offices. And I know that right now that Councilwoman Miller, Councilman Mariano and Councilwoman Krajewski have been and will be negotiating with the administration on reopening these offices. Now, that's one of the reasons why I offered an amendment last week. The amendment would have restored the money, the funding, the appropriate funding for if and when they do open this office they would have no financial obstacle blocking their way. And I fully support their efforts in reopening these facilities. I think it is important. You have to remember the two offices probably cost no more than $400,000 in this budget. To the give you an idea, the overhead on the Northeast office alone, that includes the real estate, that includes the electrical and heating and everything else, the overhead on that Stated - 6/2/05 building is $45,000. That's not much to ask for in a 3.4 billion dollar budget. To give you an idea, that office brings in about 38 million dollars in real estate taxes alone. So I think that this is a service that does a great or provides a great service to the people up there. Now, I, along with many other of my colleagues in Council, have supported and fought for the restoration of funding for the Art Museum, the Atwater Kent, the libraries, the recreation centers and the fire department. And I'll tell you that if the mini-city halls was included, I would be a very big advocate for this budget. I would be promoting this budget. I would be supporting it and I'd be voting for it. But I think at this point, because of this omission, which, to me, I think is a blatant slap to the people who use this, who use these offices, and I think that someone has to speak out on their behalf and I am doing that. In fact, I think my Stated - 6/2/05 actions will speak louder than my words because there's no way in hell that I'm voting for this budget because of that omission. I thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Madam President, I will be voting no for the same reasons as Councilman Kelly, on the Northeast office. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just wanted to commend you and your leadership on pulling together this budget process. It was a very difficult budget. There were substantial amount of cuts proposed by the Stated - 6/2/05 administration, and you've set up a process involving all Council members. Although all of us don't agree on this particular budget, I think it was a fair process. And I would like to publicly commend you for the process that you set up.
I know my good friend, Councilman DiCicco, probably doesn't want me to say this. But I want to commend him on his dogged persistence on the restorations of the fire department and the deployment issue. And I just want to publicly commend him for his great work. It actually assisted some restorations at three of the fire stations in my Counsilmanic District. I also want to thank all of the other members of Council, in spite of your ultimate position, for the process and participating in the process. Thank you.
Thank Stated - 6/2/05 you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to commend all members of Council for their hard work in this budget process, including those already mentioned by Councilman Clarke. However, I'm voting no on this budget because I believe that this entire crisis was contrived. This entire budget crisis, when the budget first got to this room in the beginning of this process, this entire budget was a contrived crisis to link tax reform to service cuts. Now, in the end the Mayor finds the money magically after we go through months of rallies and meetings and letters and complaints and protests about everything from libraries to fire stations to rec centers and mini-city halls. And all of a sudden now, at the 11th hour, the money magically appears. Stated - 6/2/05 So I am voting no because of the way this Council has been treated. I think the Council members responded appropriately by working hard, by attending rallies, by coming to hearings, by going to meetings. And in the end the Mayor dangles the money right back at us and says, By the way, I think I'll put it back. As a matter of fact, I'll give you more money for the libraries than you wanted in the first place. I believe this is not the way we should be treated. And I will continue to vote no on budgets that treat this Council in this manner. And again, I don't have a problem with any of my colleagues and the way they've acted throughout the course of this. They've performed as they thought they needed to perform because they were trying to protect their constituents on those issues. But in the end he knew he was going to put the money back and he was just trying simply to link tax reform to Stated - 6/2/05 budget cuts. And that hasn't worked obviously because we passed more tax reforms. So I will be voting no.
Thank you. I would ask the Chief Clerk perhaps we should start over again with the roll call.