[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3459-H3462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4775, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE 
                             UNITED STATES

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4775) making supplemental 
appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist 
attacks on the United States for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2002, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. OBEY moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to H.R. 4775 be instructed to insist, 
     for each item directly related to the war on terrorism or 
     homeland security, on the higher dollar amount in either the 
     House bill or the Senate amendment and to disagree to any 
     item that appropriates additional funds earmarked for a 
     specific project not related to the war on terrorism or 
     homeland security.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will 
be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees directs the House 
Members serving on the conference to convert what has been all too 
often merely a rhetorical assault on terrorism into a real war. It 
requires that we go to the higher dollar figure on any item directly 
related to the war on terrorism, and it also directs that we delete 
from the conference report funding for any item that is earmarked for a 
specific project or individual Member of Congress. That is to ensure 
that this supplemental remains focused on the job before us, fighting 
terrorism, and that those engaged in that war on behalf of the American 
people have the resources that they need to conduct that war.
  I find that ordinary people are somewhat amazed when they find that, 
despite all the rhetoric about a war on terrorism, we often continue to 
decline to provide the resources needed to actually conduct that 
effort. One example is the fact that the Pentagon called up 80,000 
Guard and Reservists following September 11.
  We need those Reserves because our regular force is overwhelmed with 
all of the requirements being placed on them. If you do not believe me, 
Secretary Rumsfeld has made that statement. We do not have enough 
mechanics to keep all of our planes in the air, we do not have enough 
MPs to protect our bases and guard prisoners. But, remarkably, when the 
Pentagon told the White House budget office that it would cost $5.8 
billion more than was contained in the regular fiscal 2003 
appropriation bill to pay the cost of those Guards and Reservists 
called up to active duty, the White House budget office told them they 
could only have $4.1 billion. As a result, many of those reserves will 
have to be sent home early, unless we appropriate a considerable amount 
above the White House request. In my view, this is ludicrous. It is one 
of those situations that continues because it is so outrageous that 
nobody really believes it is going on.
  The truth is that some of the same people at the other end of the 
avenue who give lectures about the war on terrorism, particularly in 
the OMB, are particularly stingy when it comes to providing cash that 
is actually needed to conduct the effort. As a result, the resources 
needed by those who are actually engaged in that effort are not getting 
there and will not get there unless Congress acts to reverse the 
request.
  I would give the House another example. We have heard a lot of talk 
in the last several days about a dirty bomb. The President and 
Secretary of Energy, a former Republican Senator, a man named to that 
office by the President and confirmed by the Senate when it was still 
in Republican hands, a man respected on both sides of the aisle, 
Secretary Abraham, has asked that we spend some money in this bill to 
deny terrorists access to the radioactive materials that could be used 
to build a dirty bomb. He asked that we clean up sites where we used to 
make nuclear weapons and increase security at those sites. He asked 
that we relocate low level radioactive materials in a central 
depository. He asked that we provide more security for the movement of 
nuclear weapons.
  This the White House Budget Director did not say no to, they said 
``hell,

[[Page H3460]]

no.'' I would like to insert in the Record at this point a letter 
written by the Assistant Secretary of Energy for the Budget to OMB in 
order to demonstrate what I just said.


                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2002.
     Hon. Mitchell Daniels, Jr.,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget, Eisenhower 
         Executive Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Daniels: This letter and accompanying enclosure 
     transmit the Department of Energy's proposal to request 
     supplemental funding to meet urgent and compelling 
     requirements for safeguards and security, emergency response, 
     and energy security and assurance activities.
       The Department of Energy is entrusted with the mission of 
     designing, developing, manufacturing, assembling, 
     stockpiling, refurbishing, decommissioning, and most 
     importantly protecting the Nation's critical nuclear complex. 
     To meet the Department's critical security mission, we are 
     storing vast amounts of materials that remain highly volatile 
     and subject to unthinkable consequences if placed in the 
     wrong hands. These materials permeate the Departmental 
     complex including sites under the programmatic jurisdiction 
     of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office 
     of Environmental Management, and the Office of Science.
       The events of September 11 resulted in heightened security 
     throughout the complex. Our sites were directed to conduct 
     vulnerability assessments based on an evaluation of potential 
     consequences of the type of event that occurred on September 
     11. These security vulnerabilities were assessed on a site-
     by-site basis and immediate action was taken to mitigate many 
     of the concerns. As a result, the Department issued Interim 
     Implementing Guidance to the Design Basis Threat document 
     that outlined the basis for initial physical security 
     measures. In conjunction with this guidance, I directed the 
     Departmental Elements to reassess their security requirements 
     and associated costs with a view towards maintaining the 
     highest level of security commensurate with the revised 
     threat and response strategy. Although the initial 
     supplemental and funds appropriated by Congress helped 
     respond to the most urgent near term security needs, the 
     Department now is unable to meet the next round of critical 
     security mission requirements.
       The funding request of $379.7 million identified in the 
     enclosure is a critical down payment to the safety and 
     security of our Nation and its people. Failure to support 
     these urgent security requirements is a risk that would be 
     unwise.
       I appreciate the time your staff has spent with us in 
     discussions about the Department's security concerns and 
     needs. However, as you can see, we need your financial 
     support to continue addressing the critical security 
     requirements that face the Department and our Nation. 
     Accordingly, if you and your senior staff need a more 
     detailed classified briefing of our requirements, threats, 
     and strategies, please have your staff contact Mr. Joseph 
     Mahaley, the Department's Director of Security, at 202-586-
     3345.
       My point of contact on the specifics of this funding 
     supplemental request is Dr. Bruce M. Carnes, the Director of 
     the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/Chief 
     Financial Officer, who can be reached on 202-586-4171.
           Sincerely,
     Spencer Abraham.
                                  ____



                                         Department of Energy,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Ms. Robin Cleveland,
     Program Associate Director, National Security Division, 
         Office of Management and Budget, Eisenhower Executive 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Cleveland: The Department of Energy is now at a 
     crucial juncture in executing our safeguards and security 
     program. The Department's remaining safeguards and security 
     budgets are not sufficient to implement the security posture 
     requirements that appropriately respond to the September 11th 
     attacks. On March 14, the Secretary transmitted to Director 
     Daniels supplemental funding proposals fro safeguards and 
     security, emergency response, and energy security. The 
     Secretary's transmittal letter described the underlying need 
     to increase our response capabilities for emergencies and 
     improve the security posture of Department in order to 
     adequately protect the public, our workers, and the 
     environment. We appreciate your support for our $26.4 million 
     supplemental request to increase emergency response efforts, 
     however, we are very disappointed that we did not get your 
     support for supplemental security funding.
       We are disconcerted that OMB refused our security 
     supplemental request. I would have much preferred to have 
     heard this from you personally, and been given an opportunity 
     to discuss, not to mention, appeal your decision. We were 
     told by Energy Branch staff that the Department's security 
     supplemental proposals were not supported because the revised 
     Design Basis Threat, the document that outlines the basis for 
     physical security measures, has not been completed. This 
     isn't a tenable position for you to take, in my view. We are 
     not operating, and cannot operate under Interim Implementing 
     Guidance, and you have not provided resources to enable us to 
     do so.
       Given our current security funding and the physical 
     security situation we face today, Mr. Joseph Mahaley, our 
     Security Director, and I would like to meet with you to 
     discuss our fiscal year 2002 and 2003 safeguards and security 
     concerns. I can be contacted on (202) 586-4171 to arrange 
     this discussion.
           Sincerely,

                                              Bruce M. Carnes,

                                   Director, Office of Management,
                                        Budget and Evaluation/CFO.

  Mr. Speaker, we have much the same situation with the FBI. They have 
had a huge problem with respect to their computers. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and I have tried to do everything possible to solve 
that problem, both last year and this.
  The FBI is ages behind in both the overall architecture of their 
computer system and the security of that system. As a result, they have 
failed to convert massive amounts of information into a digital format 
so that it can be stored in a safe and remote location and so that it 
can be shared with agents working in other parts of the country or 
shared with other agencies, such as the CIA. The FBI has been asking 
for the resources to make that happen. But, again, there apparently are 
people running the Justice Department or people in OMB who think it 
would be too expensive.
  In my view, you do not have to have a master's in public policy from 
Harvard or any other school to know that that is just plain nuts. 
Almost any person you would meet on the street would tell you that the 
$100 million the FBI is asking for to fix that system is cheap compared 
to the cost of letting one of those creeps get through the system with 
a dirty bomb or biological weapon or any one of the things that could 
bring havoc to our cities.
  I would oppose spending any money that is not needed, but it is 
ridiculous to go down the road we are traveling now, short-sheeting 
some of the agencies who need more money now, not next year or the year 
after, in order to get the job done. You do not kill terrorists just by 
moving boxes on an organizational chart. You also need to back up 
whatever changes you make in reorganization with adequate resources. 
Those resources cost money, and we ought to provide it.
  Now, the differences between the House and the Senate bills are not 
large, Mr. Speaker, at least not in relative terms. They have included 
earmarks for certain Members which we did not do in the House bill and 
which we should not do in the conference report. They have excluded 
several of the savings that are in our bill, and some of those we are 
going to disagree with. But, to me it is important to keep the Guard 
and Reserve funds and the other needed defense funds in this bill, and 
this motion would help to do that.
  There are other small but important differences. The Senate is above 
the House by $5 million for U.S. Attorneys. I ordinarily would not be 
standing here asking for more money for U.S. Attorneys, but my 
information is that we are putting a real load on prosecutors with all 
of the arrests and detentions that we have engaged in, and that that 
money is needed.

                              {time}  1515

  They are below us on the U.S. Marshals, and I know that the marshals 
also need the money.
  What this instruction says is take a look at the needs and go forward 
with the conference report that recognizes that we are, in fact, at 
war, and ought to be providing these higher levels.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, the White House released a document calling 
for a new Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps the most compelling 
page in that document was an organization chart showing how many 
different portions of the government were engaged in the war on terror. 
I have a copy of that chart directly from the White House; but I would 
point out that what the White House neglected to provide to Congress, 
the press, or the American people, was a copy of what the organization 
of the war on terror would look like after that reorganization plan was 
adopted. What those charts will show is that most of the government 
activities related to homeland security will still be untouched.
  Now, the debate on reorganization can wait for another day. We 
certainly have to have reorganization; and in some areas I think we 
have to go further than the administration has so far

[[Page H3461]]

proposed. But the point I am trying to make is that we can pass all of 
the reorganizations in the world, and we will still not deal with the 
problem, unless we adequately provide the financial resources necessary 
to demonstrate that we really mean business in closing the security 
gaps that now face this country on the homeland defense front, and that 
is the purpose of this motion. It simply says again, and I repeat, it 
says that in each instance we should adopt the higher of the two 
numbers between the Senate and the House in dealing with gaps in our 
homeland defenses, and it says that we should eliminate or not include 
in the conference report any dollar items that are meant for the 
purpose of what are known as ``Member earmarks.''
  I think that is a very plain explanation, and I would ask for a 
``yes'' vote on the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
for offering this motion to instruct, for it gives us an opportunity to 
remind our colleagues what it is that we are doing here. We are dealing 
with an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to provide for the 
defense of the Nation and our homeland security. What we are talking 
about is repaying to the military services the funds that they have 
expended already on the war in Afghanistan. The services have used 
considerable amounts of money that normally would have been reserved 
for their fourth quarter training activities and maintenance 
activities, quality-of-life activities. So in effect, we are paying 
back money that has already been spent because of the war in 
Afghanistan.
  So our troops are involved, our intelligence community is involved. 
We are talking about paying for the safety and security of the United 
States, at home and abroad. We are talking about recovery in New York 
City; and we are talking about promoting U.S. foreign policy to prevent 
future terrorist attacks. In other words, we were a government 
mobilized after the terrible, terrible attack on September 11 to 
protect America, to protect Americans, and to do everything humanly 
possible to guarantee that those tragedies are not allowed to happen 
again.
  So I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for giving us the 
opportunity to discuss this. But I cannot support his motion to 
instruct for a very simple reason, and it is not that I disagree with 
some of the items that he has spoken of and that he would like to see 
done. I know the gentleman from Wisconsin and I both have visited the 
agencies that he has mentioned and we both understand the needs that 
they have to bring their technology into the 21st century, for example.
  But the gentleman from Wisconsin is an experienced expert negotiator; 
and I think because of that expertise, he understands that if we were 
to pass this motion to instruct, we would take away much of the 
flexibility of the conference committee to resolve many of the 
differences that exist between the House and the Senate.
  The Senate bill is approximately $3 billion higher than the House 
bill. It does contain some special projects that were added in the 
other body which I would like to see taken from the bill, and I would 
like to have the opportunity to negotiate some of those special 
projects out of the bill, because from what I have seen of the bill so 
far, there are numerous projects that were added there that I do not 
think belong in this bill. But we have to have the ability and the 
opportunity to negotiate with our counterparts in the other body to 
reach a conference agreement that we can bring back to both Houses and 
pass quickly and get this bill to the President.
  What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that here we are in the middle of 
June. If the services do not have these monies replaced by July 1, 
their planning is already set to stand down training operations, to 
stand down sailing Navy ships, Navy vessels, to stand down flight 
hours, training hours for pilots. I do not want that to happen. So we 
need to expedite this, and we need to have the ability to conduct 
negotiations that are necessary to get this conference completed, and 
then passed by the House and the Senate, and then sent to the President 
for his approval.
  So I think the gentleman's motion is well intended, but I think it 
really ties our hands behind our backs on the part of those of us who 
will be part of this conference that will be leading the negotiations 
with the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I know my good friend from Florida, the chairman of the 
committee, and I do not think that he is any happier to have to fight 
this war on terrorism, at least in terms of resources, with one hand 
tied behind his back, any more than I am. And I think it is fair at 
this point to state what the record has been in the past on this issue.
  After the tragic events of September 11, we were asked by the White 
House Budget Office to provide emergency funding of an unlimited nature 
for an unlimited number of years, a blank check. Both the chairman and 
I said no, we were not going to write a blank check to anybody; and we 
sat down and immediately worked out a compromise. Within 10 days, we 
had sent to the White House a bill that contained $40 billion in 
emergency resources to deal with those events.
  We then proceeded to, as he said, visit security agencies all over 
town. We spent almost 5 days gathering information from the security 
agencies: NSA, CIA, Centers for Disease Control, FBI. You name it, we 
talked to them about what their emergency needs were, and we tried to 
meet them. In the end, over the threat of a veto from the White House, 
we were able to put almost $4 billion in additional funds into the 
appropriation bill to fight terrorism.
  If we had listened to the OMB rather than our own instincts and 
rather than listening to the agencies who were charged with the 
responsibility for fighting that war, if we had done that instead of 
listening to those agencies, we would not have fixed the problem that 
the FBI had with its computer system. They had a problem under which 
more than 50 percent of their computers could not even send a picture 
of a terrorist to another FBI computer around the country. We fixed 
that, because we appropriated more money than was requested. We added 
to the security of our ports and our borders by providing more money 
than was requested. So we did not have to rely on traffic cones as 
deterrants on the U.S.-Canadian border in the unguarded checkpoints on 
that border. We took care of that problem.
  In the supplemental which is now before us, this committee has tried 
to respond, even though the White House Budget Office did not. We tried 
to respond fully to the request of the FBI that they be given 
additional funds in order to hire the translators that are necessary so 
that some of the information which is lying on the floor in some of our 
security agencies can actually be reviewed. The Immigration and 
Naturalization Service asked for money for which they were at least 
partially denied; they asked for money so that they could institute a 
new system so that they would actually know when someone had overstayed 
their visa and had been asked to leave the country and had declined to 
do so. The Immigration and Naturalization Service wanted a system which 
would enable them to track those people so that we can give them the 
thumb and get them out of the country. Our bill corrected the oversight 
of OMB.
  Air marshals. They still are not able to communicate directly with 
the ground. The House bill makes an attempt to fix that. It also made 
an attempt to correct the problem created by the White House Budget 
Office declining to approve the Pentagon request for the funds needed 
to reimburse them fully for the activation of the Guard and Reserves to 
fill in until we can train additional personnel.
  So I fully admit that this motion would cost more money than the 
administration has asked for. I make no apology for it. I think it is 
needed. I think the average citizen would too, and I would urge Members 
to vote ``yes'' on the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

[[Page H3462]]

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me speak briefly to the motion that is before us 
insofar as it relates to parts of the supplemental that are not the 
military branch part; specifically, the Transportation Security 
Administration, which our subcommittee deals with. The House-passed 
bill includes some $3.8 billion in the supplemental for the TSA. We 
have yet to receive from the TSA the justifications for those figures. 
Yet the Senate bill, if we go along with this motion, if this motion 
passes and we have to go to the higher figure in the Senate bill, some 
$4.7 billion, we have no justifications for it. I cannot show to my 
colleagues the documents that say, this is what we actually have to 
have.
  In the House-passed bill, we already gave more than was requested for 
several items. For example, we said, here is $20 million. Replace all 
of the magnetometers in 429 airports in the country, because the new 
state-of-the-art magnetometers will save the need for a lot of hand 
wands that are now searching you as you go through. The new machines 
will do that work for us. It will save many of us taking our shoes off 
as we go through the airport and having somebody, a federally paid 
employee, carry your shoes to be searched.

                              {time}  1530

  Those requests were not in the administration request. Yet, we put it 
in there, because we think it will save money down the pike. But we 
have yet to receive the justifications for the monies that we included 
in the House-passed version of the bill, which is significantly less 
for TSA than the Senate figures.
  If this motion should pass and we have to go to the higher levels in 
the Senate bill, then who knows how many employees they are going to 
hire. At first they said, we need 33,000 people. A few weeks later they 
said, no, it is going to be more like 60,000. By the time we had our 
hearing, they were up to 73,000.
  We said, whoa, let us stand back and talk about this. So we put a 
level in our House-passed bill that they cannot exceed in terms of the 
numbers of employees of TSA during the remainder of this fiscal year, 
45,000 people, max. If we have to go to the higher Senate figure, then 
that personnel level is out the window.
  We think it is wise to have some discipline, I say to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on that hiring process during the remainder 
of this fiscal year that is covered by the supplemental.
  In addition, we also put in the bill monies to allow the air marshals 
that are flying in the planes to be able to communicate independently 
to ground stations. That was not requested, and yet we think it is a 
very important thing at a modest cost. So I think there are a lot of 
items in the House-passed bill that perhaps would be negated if we were 
to have to go to the higher levels on the Senate bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would simply like to say that I completely agree with the remarks 
made by the gentleman with respect to the Transportation Security 
Agency. There is no question that that agency so far has been without a 
clue, and they are out of control. I think the gentleman has played an 
excellent role in trying to introduce them to reality.
  Let me simply say that obviously that agency needs to be straightened 
out, but I am sure that he understands as well that eventually that 
agency is going to have to receive more money than is in either bill, 
probably.
  I would be, for instance, very interested in working out a proposal 
under which we would appropriate the money that is needed to that 
agency, but hold it in reserve until they meet the standards that the 
gentleman has laid out, because I think both of us want to deal with 
the problem. We simply want to make sure we are not throwing money at 
an agency that does not know what to do with it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
thoughts, and he is correct. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We 
are right now, as the gentleman knows, in the process of gearing up for 
the 2003 appropriations bills. In fact, I just got off the phone with 
the Secretary of Transportation about this bill and the 2003 bills 
coming up. In fact, we hope to mark up the 2003 bills in a few days, 
even, which will give us the chance to take a second look and see what 
is needed down the pike in 2003 without having to address that at this 
particular moment in time.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's idea about the need for more funds in 
homeland security TSA next year, but I do not think we need it now.
  I would hope that we would not pass this motion and tie the hands of 
the gentlemen as they negotiate with the other body. I appreciate the 
gentleman bringing this motion up because it gives us a chance to talk 
about the issue, but I would hope that it would not pass, because I do 
not want to tie the chairman and the ranking member's hands when they 
go to do battle with the other body.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), another subcommittee 
chairman on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I believe that such a 
motion would prompt almost a guaranteed, if you will, veto, and would 
absolutely unnecessarily restrict the ability of the conferees in 
negotiating with the other body.
  This is probably the most important bill that we will pass in this 
Congress, and in some respects, if we were to do this, it may very well 
jeopardize the passage, or if not jeopardize, certainly bog down the 
process.
  The President has already indicated that he would veto the bill as 
being too costly, and if we move forward with this motion and go to all 
those higher levels, then the bill would go well beyond and above the 
funding level proposed by the Senate.
  So for those reasons and the reasons that the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) had covered, and the chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), I would urge Members to vote no on the motion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on the motion to instruct, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________