[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4864-H4868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROHIBITION ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH COUNTRIES SUPPORTING
TERRORISM ACT OF 1997
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 748) to amend the prohibition of title 18, United States
Code, against financial transactions with terrorists, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 748
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 ``Prohibition on Financial
Transactions With Countries Supporting Terrorism Act of
1997''.
SEC. 2. FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH TERRORISTS.
Section 2332d of title 18, United States Code, (relating to
financial transactions) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``Except as provided in regulations issued
by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, whoever'' and inserting ``Whoever''; and
(B) by inserting ``of 1979'' after ``Export Administration
Act''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting after ``1956(c)(4)''
the following: ``, except that such term does not include any
transactions ordinarily incident to--
``(A) routine diplomatic relations among countries;
[[Page H4865]]
``(B) an official act by a representative of, or an act
which is authorized by and conducted on behalf of, the United
States Government;
``(C) the broadcasting or reporting of news by
organizations regularly engaged in such activity; or
``(D) the provision or purchase of assistance intended to
relieve human suffering, including medical services,
supplies, and equipment;
``(E) the receipt of emergency medical services;
``(F) any postal, telegraphic, or other personal
communication which does not involve a transfer of anything
of value;
``(G) the protection of intellectual property rights of any
United States person;
``(H) the performance of any contract or agreement that was
entered into before June 12, 1997, but not those renewed
after such date;
``(I) the provision of hospitality or transportation
services; or
``(J) the payment of a claim to any United States person''.
SEC. 3. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF ENACTMENT.
Beginning not later than one year after the date of
enactment to this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, shall issue an
annual report to Congress on--
(1) the impact of this prohibition on United States
businesses; and
(2) any means by which a negative impact might be
ameliorated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Delahunt] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
General Leave
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 748, the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 748, is an important addition to the
Federal Government's battle against international terrorists and
particularly those countries which have been identified as supporters
of terrorism.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Crime, and I introduced this bill for the purpose of
eliminating overly permissive regulations promulgated by the
administration last year which have effectively gutted the provisions
he and I offered successfully to the antiterrorism bill in the last
Congress.
The amendment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and I
successfully offered to the antiterrorism bill, now known as section
321, prohibited all financial transactions between U.S. persons and
governments which have been designated as supporters of terrorism.
Section 321 was drafted with a dual purpose in mind. First, by
prohibiting financial support from terrorist countries to terrorist
persons, it attempts to prevent the long arm of terrorism from reaching
the shores of the United States through domestic entities. Second, the
provision was intended to prohibit all financial transactions by U.S.
persons with these countries regardless of where these transactions
took place. This would have the effect of cutting off terrorist
sponsoring governments from economic benefits of doing business with
U.S. companies.
We agreed last year to authorize the Department of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Department of State, to issue regulations which
provided some exceptions to this ban. We intended that these
regulations exclude a variety of specific transactions such as those
which occur in the course of diplomatic activities and other related
official matters.
Instead, in August of last year, the Treasury Department published
regulations in relation to section 321 which essentially reversed the
effect of the new prohibition. These regulations permit all financial
transactions other than those which pose a risk of furthering domestic
terrorism. The regulations prohibit U.S. persons from receiving
unlicensed donations and from engaging in financial transactions with
respect to which the United States person knows or has reasonable cause
to believe that the financial transaction poses a risk of furthering
terrorist acts in the United States. Thus, these regulations completely
ignore the second purpose of the prohibition. They ensure a business as
usual policy and represent a step backwards in the effort to isolate
countries which provide support to terrorists.
H.R. 748 strips the executive branch of its authority to issue
regulations exempting transactions from the prohibition. It establishes
instead a legislative exception only for specified transactions. The
list of permitted activities and transactions incident thereto include:
routine diplomatic relations among countries; official acts by
representatives of the U.S. Government; news reporting; humanitarian
assistance; emergency medical services and the provision of medical
supplies; postal and telephone services; the protection of intellectual
property rights; hospitality or transportation services; payments of a
claim to U.S. persons; and transactions connected to contracts and
agreements entered into before the formal consideration of this
legislation.
As a result of sanctions currently in place involving Iran, Iraq,
North Korea, Libya, and Cuba, this bill has a more significant impact
on transactions between United States persons and the governments of
Sudan and Syria. These two countries are the only terrorist-list
countries not subject to economic sanctions under other provisions of
law.
It has been suggested by some that this legislation comes at a time
when peace talks between Syria and Israel are a future possibility. We
have all got to hope that that occurs. In fact, I certainly hope that
that is true and that such talks will occur and be fruitful. Until such
time, however, we must all stand firm on the principle that terrorism
will not be tolerated and that countries giving shelter and support to
terrorists are acting against the well being of the world community.
If the passage of this legislation would detract from the peace
process, as some I think genuinely believe, I however do not, but as
some believe, then I would suggest that the peace that is at hand is
not really there and that it is a false hope rather than a reality. For
all this legislation does is simply say that we are enforcing the laws
of this land, that we are interested in making certain that those
countries that do engage in supporting terrorism to the extent that
they are placed on a terrorist list by our government as countries that
support these acts are not going to any longer be able to engage in
normal financial transactions with U.S. persons, U.S. citizens, U.S.
companies, and all that a country has to do to get off the list, to
avoid this sanction, is simply to stop those activities that have
gotten them on the list in the first place. While some of the countries
listed may engage more openly and more often and more frequently in
these acts that make them terrorist-list countries, all of the
countries are on the list for a reason. I would submit again that if
one or two of these nations are close to the line and only have to take
a few steps to come off the list that they proceed to do so. In fact
that is indeed the message of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 748 is a very important piece of legislation. There
should be no higher priority for the United States in the battle
against terrorism than the elimination of foreign government support
for terrorists. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would replace the existing rules and
procedures governing financial transactions with terrorism listed
governments with an absolute ban on such transactions unless they fit
in one of the 10 express exemptions provided by the bill. I want to
commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for his diligent
efforts on behalf of this measure. I want to associate myself with the
intent of his legislation.
While I join with him and the rest of the committee in reporting the
bill favorably, I do have a concern which I raised during the
committee's consideration of the bill as to what effect the bill might
have on the embargoes currently in place against 5 of the 7 countries
on the terrorism list. Specifically,
[[Page H4866]]
I was concerned about whether the bill leaves the executive branch
sufficient flexibility to address individual cases as they may arise
since it is impossible to fully anticipate all the myriad circumstances
which might require private citizens or the government itself to engage
in financial transactions in the midst of an embargo. I have since
received a letter from the Department of State which indicates that.
The effect on these embargoes would be significant,
including in ways that cannot be fully foreseen or assessed
at this time.
The letter which I would ask to have included in the Record goes on
to say that:
If H.R. 748 were adopted, the administration may no longer
be able, under the embargo authorities otherwise available to
it, to authorize transactions with terrorist-list
governments, other than those specifically exempted by H.R.
748. An example might be the repatriation of MIA remains from
North Korea.''
{time} 1545
The department's letter offers many other such examples, including
the payment of taxes and other fees to protect property interests in
terrorist listed countries, payments on claims negotiated before the
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, transactions made in connection
with the dismantlement of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and
transactions associated with humanitarian activities that may not fall
within the express exemptions in the bill.
I frankly do not know whether these particular horrors would come to
pass if the bill becomes law or not. I am not in a position to know,
but I think it should matter to us that those who are in a position to
know have raised questions of this magnitude. One thing that I do know
is that the gentleman from Florida is a thoughtful and reasonable
colleague and that he has attempted to work with the administration to
resolve these concerns, and I hope and trust and am confident that he
will continue to do so.
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, June 20, 1997.
Hon. William D. Delahunt,
House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Delahunt: Thank you for your question, raised at
the House Judiciary Committee meeting of June 18, whether
H.R. 748 would have an effect on the embargoes currently in
place against five of the seven terrorism-list countries
under the authorities that include the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.
(``IEEPA''), the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. App.
Sec. 1 et seq. (``TWEA''), and section 5 of the United
Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c) (``UNPA''). The
five countries are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya.
The effect on those embargoes would be significant, including
in ways that cannot be fully foreseen or assessed at this
time.
The Department of the Treasury regulations (31 C.F.R.
Sec. 596.503), currently in force under the authority of 18
U.S.C. 2332d, incorporate by reference the exemptions and
licensing policies applicable under each individual embargo,
so as to preserve the legislative mandates and executive
branch policies that apply under each program. H.R. 748 would
remove this regulatory authority and thus would appear to
have the effect of overriding any statutory or regulatory
provisions that may conflict. If H.R. 748 were adopted, the
Administration may no longer be able, under the embargo
authorities otherwise available to it, to authorize
transactions with terrorist-list governments, other than
those specifically exempted by H.R. 748. An example might be
the repatriation of MIA remains from North Korea.
A further related concern is whether H.R. 748 is meant to
take precedence over more specific laws such as the Cuban
Democracy Act of 1992, 22 U.S.C. 6001 et seq. (``the CDA or
Torricelli Act) which authorizes various forms of support for
the Cuban people ``notwithstanding any other provision of
law,'' or the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act of
1996, 22 U.S.C. 6021 et seq. (``the Libertad Act'' or ``the
Helms-Burton Act'') which codifies the pre-existing Cuban
embargo, including licensing authorities.
Your question highlights the difficulty that the Judiciary
Committee and the Administration would face in trying to
develop a specific and comprehensive list of exemptions that
would be necessary if a complete ban on financial
transactions with terrorism-list governments were adopted.
While the exemptions that have been added to H.R. 748 are
helpful, they are by no means adequate. Enclosed is a list of
examples that we have developed within the Department of
State to identify some of the more obvious and troublesome
consequences if H.R. 748, as amended, were enacted into law.
(Other Departments and agencies may have additional concerns
for their programs.)
We do not know the full range of transactions which U.S.
citizens or residents may be required to engage in with the
individual terrorism-list governments, nor can we anticipate
all the activities, whether governmental or private, that may
require some form of financial transaction with a terrorism-
list government in the future. No enumeration of specific
exemptions would be adequate to meet all the unforeseen
circumstances that inevitably arise in the administration of
a sanctions regime. Unless the Administration is entrusted
with the discretion to address specific circumstances, as in
current law, any list of exemptions would necessarily be
inadequate to protect the interests of the United States.
We appreciate your consideration of these views.
Sincerely,
Barbara Larkin,
Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.
____
H.R. 748 as Amended
description
H.R. 748, as amended by the House Judiciary Committee,
prohibits financial transactions with terrorism-list
governments, unless specifically exempted by its terms. The
ten exemptions included thus far, however, are inadequate to
alleviate a wide range of adverse consequences for American
citizens and the civilian population of the countries
concerned, as well as for the conduct of foreign policy and
other governmental and intergovernmental functions. It strips
the Executive Branch of all regulatory and licensing
flexibility now contained in section 321 of the 1996
Antiterrorism Act and other embargo authorities. By so doing,
its potential impact would exceed that of any existing
embargo.
We appreciate the effort made by the Judiciary Committee to
accommodate certain limited concerns; however the minimal
exceptions reflected in the H.R. 748, as amended, are
inadequate. We do not know the full range of incidental
transactions which Americans may be required to engage in
with individual terrorism-list governments, nor can we
anticipate all the activities, whether governmental or
private, that may require some form of financial transaction
with a terrorism-list government in the future. As a result,
it is impossible to provide a comprehensive list of cases
that could serve as the basis for developing exemptions to
this provision.
Unless the Executive Branch is entrusted with the
discretion to address individual circumstances, as under
current law, any list of exceptions would necessarily be
inadequate to protect the interests of the United States.
Among the consequences of such a rigid legislative approach
could be the following:
The U.S. might no longer be able to meet certain binding
legal obligations undertaken in the past with Iran, including
implementation of the Algiers Accords through the Iran-U.S.
Claims Tribunal in the Hague, and implementation of the
agreement settling the 1988 Iran Air shootdown and certain
Tribunal bank claims. These obligations may extend beyond the
more limited exceptions provided for payments incident to
official acts by the USG or on its behalf or payments of
claims to Americans, to include, for example:
Payments by U.S. claimants of Tribunal awards to the
Government of Iran (Under the Algiers Accords, these awards
are enforceable in foreign courts.)
Payments by Iran for the warehousing arrangement it has
with Victory Van in Virginia, which stores Iran's equipment
that the USG refuses to license for export to Iran.
Payments via government-controlled banks to Iranian
relatives of victims of the Iran Air shootdown; and
Private payments for expenses that are not necessarily on
behalf of the USG the denial of which could result in USG
liability under the Accords or other agreements;
Payments by Iran necessary to enforce its awards or bring
other claims in U.S. courts (also as provided for in the
Algiers Accords);
Payments by terrorism list governments generally to defend
lawsuits and property interests in the U.S., which may raise
constitutional issues.
It is unclear whether the provision is meant to override
the basic scheme of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
(FSIA) by denying American attorneys payment for
representation of terrorism list governments sued in the
United States.
(Under the FSIA, foreign states are not immune from actions
arising from a broad range of activities, including terrorist
acts by the 6(j) countries against U.S. nationals. The Act
assumes the issues of immunity and liability will be resolved
through U.S. court proceedings. Deprivation of counsel for
6(j) government defendants may raise constitutional issues,
call into question the fairness of the U.S. legal system, and
generally discourage foreign governments from participation
in suits under the FSIA, thus impeding USG efforts to
persuade foreign states to adopt the restrictive theory of
sovereign immunity and honor U.S. court judgments.)
It is unclear that an exception for provision of
humanitarian assistance would be sufficient to enable U.S.
nationals to pay the incidental government fees and personal
expenses necessary to enable them to travel to or subsist in
terrorism list countries to support or work in humanitarian
programs in these countries;
It is unclear whether an exception for the provision of
assistance intended to relieve human suffering is sufficient,
for example, to allow Americans to repatriate the remains of
family members who die in terrorism list countries, to settle
decedents' estates, or to relieve other personal hardships
that may arise in these countries;
[[Page H4867]]
Nor is it clear that an exception strictly limited to
official transactions by the USG or conducted on its behalf
would be sufficient to permit the continuation of
transactions by intergovernmental or non-governmental
organizations or of private individuals in furtherance of on-
going programs serving important U.S. interests, including
repatriation of MIA remains from North Korea, dismantlement
of North Korea's and Iraq's nuclear weapons' programs, and
promotion of freer communication with the Cuban population;
The exception for transactions ``incident to routine
diplomatic relations among countries'' may not clearly
encompass the maintenance of interest sections and protecting
power arrangements, which are not generally viewed as
``routine diplomatic relations;''
Nor is it clear whether the provision's diplomatic
exception applies to multilateral representation, for
example, the ability of terrorism-list governments to
maintain missions to international organizations
headquartered in the United States (even where the USG has
relevant treaty obligations such as the obligation under the
U.N. Headquarters Agreement not to impede the functioning of
these missions).
The protection of intellectual property rights of Americans
is a welcome exception, but does not adequately resolve
binding legal obligation of the United States under various
multilateral intellectual property agreements to protect the
rights of property owners in other member states;
Nor do the exceptions adequately provide for taxes and
other fees that Americans may be required to pay to protect
real or other property interests in terrorism-list countries;
It is unclear how Americans are to interpret the scope of
the various exceptions on their own without administrative or
regulatory guidance from a designated federal agency, as is
normally the practice under embargoes; the net result may be
a chilling effect on even those transactions that the
Congress seeks to protect from interruption through these
exemptions.
In sum, the Government already has a wide range of economic
sanctions against countries that support international
terrorism including Syria and Sudan. Sanctions are most
effectively used in dealing with specific events or problems.
They are a tool, not an end in themselves. To impose such
sweeping mandatory sanctions, particularly in the absence of
a precipitating event, does not strengthen our counter-
terrorism efforts or other foreign policy goals with these
individual countries. Indeed, it weakens them. It uses up the
remaining economic arrows, leaving little ammunition in
reserve.
Such sweeping measures, make it more difficult to maintain
the contacts and dialogue needed to get necessary cooperation
on specific situations, as we have in the past been able to
obtain from Syria and Sudan. We have even had limited success
with certain embargoed countries which would not have been
possible without the flexibility and discretion available to
the Executive branch under existing laws to create a climate
for encouraging positive change within those countries.
The Administration has sufficient authority to deal with
specific situations as necessary.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to respond to the gentleman only to state a couple of
things. One is that the concerns that he has expressed through the
letter of the State Department of June 20, 1997, I have examined with
my staff. We do not believe that the specific concerns listed in the
letter are concerns that are not addressed in the bill. They are
addressed in the bill.
For example, if there is a repatriation of MIA remains that would be
involved from North Korea, they are covered because the language that
we have in the exemption of the bill says it does not include any
transaction ordinarily incident to an official act by a representative
of or an act which is authorized by and conducted on behalf of the
United States Government. And I have spent some considerable time with
staff of other committees making certain that this covers activities
that we might delegate out through our communities, both in defense and
intelligence, as well as those which the State Department may be doing.
The same would be true with regard to the Cuban Democracy Act and the
concern which was expressed in that letter about it because the act
itself on its face, the Cuban Democracy Act, says notwithstanding any
other provision of law, and this bill, 748, does not override that
concern, is still the express view of the bill on its face that was
passed before the Cuban act that I am talking about.
I would also add that while of course we cannot list every possible
exception, and the ideal was what we passed in the legislation that is
currently law, where we give full discretion to the Treasury and the
State Departments to make exceptions as they see fit. The fact is they
abused it grossly, and if we are going to restrict the terrorist list
countries and restrict financial transactions of U.S. citizens from
doing such things as going out and developing oil fields and investing
in those countries that are terrorist list nations and giving them then
the means and the resources to fuel terrorist acts around the world by
their support of terrorist activities, then the whole exercise that we
had in the antiterrorism bill is futile and useless and not workable.
And while I would continue to work with the gentleman from
Massachusetts as well as those at the State Department and our
Government in the period of time between the House floor activity today
and any final bill that comes out of both bodies in conference to see
if there are other issues that we might need to resolve, it is
certainly my intent and, I believe, the members of the subcommittee by
and large and the full Committee on the Judiciary to see that the House
passes this bill today, as I believe it will be the will of the House,
and that we send a clear and unmistakable message that doing business
with terrorist organizations and in support of terrorism and being on
the terrorist lists by our State Department, if they are a country
doing that, then they are not going to get the benefits of ordinary,
everyday financial transactions with United States citizens. It is
simply not common sense to let that happen, it is not good American
policy, and I believe that this legislation needs to be adopted and
should be adopted.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, combating international terrorism is in the
vital national interest of the United States. There can be no mistake
about that. Nor can there be any question that the Clinton
administration has worked tirelessly in pursuit of this objective.
While the purpose of H.R. 748 is to assist in this effort, the ultimate
consequence, albeit unintended, may very well be the opposite.
If passed, H.R. 748 will prevent the administration from acting on
foreign policy objectives and conducting basic diplomacy. In his
opening remarks, Representative McCollum stated clearly, ``The bill
strips the executive branch of the authority to issue regulations
exempting transactions from the prohibition. It establishes instead a
legislative exception * * *.'' By removing any flexibility the
Executive branch has in implementing economic sanctions or prohibitions
on financial transactions, the President is stripped of his ability to
conduct the foreign policy affairs of the United States--a
responsibility granted him by the Constitution.
In addition, while this bill may be touted as a safeguard against
loopholes in existing legislation, it is vital to point out that the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is an effective
tool employed by the President to advance our counter-terrorism agenda
in a manner he deems most appropriate, country by country. This
restrictive legislation has serious implications--ultimately tying the
President's hands in waging the war on international terrorism.
While the bill may have an effect on various regions of the world,
one can look to the Middle East peace process as a clear example of how
it will restrict the President's foreign policy. Without the ability to
engage Syria, the United States can not be viewed as a balanced
intermediary between the parties to the process. The peace process
itself, a critical foreign policy objective, would be hindered by such
action because the bill would impede the Administration's ability to
advance stated peace process objectives.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 748,
which, in the name of stopping terrorism, would mandate an automatic
one-size-fits-all foreign policy and restrict the rights of American
citizens and companies to do business in some countries overseas.
We all agree that terrorism is abhorrent, and that stopping it must
be a top foreign policy priority for the United States.
The tough question, though, is how best to meet that goal. Are we
better off adopting multilateral policies to deal with individual state
sponsors of terrorism? Or should we automatically impose unilateral
sanctions on every nation deemed a sponsor of terrorism?
The bill before us today chooses the second answer to this question:
Automatic sanctions. This is a tempting solution. After all, we're
talking about countries like Iran, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea. There
are few defenders of these regimes anywhere in the world.
Unfortunately, there are three major costs associated with imposing
unilateral sanctions.
First, unilateral sanctions are rarely, if ever, an effective
punishment. When
[[Page H4868]]
American companies are barred from entering foreign markets,
competitors from Asia and Europe are poised to take advantage. Without
multilateral support for sanctions, then, the punitive effect of
banning American business from a country may be minimal at best.
Second, imposing unilateral sanctions means lost American jobs. It is
self-evident that keeping American companies out of foreign markets
means lost American wealth.
Third, imposing unilateral sanctions will not necessarily end a
foreign government's use of terrorism. In fact, in cases where
terrorist regimes are generally supported by their subjects, imposing
sanctions is likely only to increase anti-American sentiment and
strengthen the hold of those in power.
I do support unilateral sanctions in certain targeted instances, for
example with Iran. But taking away the President's prerogative to
choose, and Congress's ability to assess whether to use this blunt
policy tool, as the bill before us would do, will make our
antiterrorism foreign policy worse, not better.
Mr. Speaker, we should do everything in our power to end all forms of
terrorism. We are right to lead international efforts to isolate and
punish terrorists. But imposing the automatic one-size-fits-all
response to terrorism contained in H.R. 748 will be ineffective and
costly. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. If the
gentleman does not, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I do not, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the
gentleman from Florida for his reassurances.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodling). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 748, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________