[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 113 (Tuesday, September 10, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6133-H6137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3210, TERRORISM RISK PROTECTION 
                                  ACT

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees 
on the bill (H.R. 3210) to ensure the continued financial capacity of 
insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Fossella 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 the bill H.R. 3210 be 
     instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 11 
     of the Senate amendment, relating to satisfaction of 
     judgments from frozen assets of terrorists, terrorist 
     organizations, and state sponsors of terrorism.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXII, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) each 
will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).


                             General Leave

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3210.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, as we all know, tomorrow marks the first anniversary 
of the greatest attack on the soil of the United States of America. In 
that attack, both at the Pentagon in Virginia, in Pennsylvania, and in 
downtown Manhattan, the Nation lost thousands of innocent human lives.
  Since then I think our Nation has been on full alert and in the field 
combating the war on terrorism, seeking out those evil ones who 
committed those dastardly acts, so we can ensure that we can keep the 
peace for future generations. But at the same time, we need to get at 
the heart of these terrorist organizations in those states that sponsor 
terrorism.

[[Page H6134]]

  Believe it or not, if an American citizen seeks a judgment in a court 
of law and is successful against some of these terrorist organizations 
or states that sponsor terrorism, and assets are frozen by the United 
States Government, some of those victims who are successful in a court 
of law may not and indeed are not recovering those assets.
  It is a little ironic that American citizens can sue their neighbor 
for a mild act, obtain a judgment and recover, and yet we cannot sue a 
terrorist organization that killed people, and in this case thousands, 
and not recover unless the Federal Government on a petition or a case-
by-case basis determines that those successful plaintiffs should 
recover. This motion to instruct will attempt to right that wrong.
  Under current law, Americans who have been victimized by terrorist 
and state-subsidized terrorism and are eligible to enforce court 
judgments against the assets of a terrorist state have had to wait 
until Congress acts before they can receive their awarded funds. Some 
victims have gotten compensated, and many have not. As I mentioned 
today, thousands of Americans and their families are considering and 
have joined the class action lawsuit aimed at recovering and 
undermining the ability of these groups to perpetuate their acts of 
evil.
  American victims of international terrorism will all have equal 
access to the courts and to block assets of terrorists, terrorist 
organizations, and state sponsors of terror as a small but important 
token of justice. We impose immediate financial costs on terrorists and 
states that sponsor terrorism, freezing assets for 20 years or 25 years 
or 30 years or even 5 years, and then giving them back to the terrorist 
state does not impose such costs, and that seems to be the policy 
today, dangling this carrot before these evildoers as if they are going 
to stop their evil ways.
  At present, terrorism is a cheap way to pursue war against Americans. 
Unless America finds ways to make it more costly, terrorists and those 
states that sponsor terrorism have no economic incentive to stop. By 
imposing a direct and immediate cost, this provision represents one 
effective financial tool, one of many, against terrorists and those who 
help them, and this will seek to help the victims.
  Finally, terrorist-sponsored states will no longer be able to use 
their diplomatic and intelligence agencies to support terrorists with 
financial impunity. In other words, hiding behind this veil of 
diplomatic or intelligence immunity, something that is too often abused 
and flies in the face of justice.
  Terrorism-sponsoring states use those wholly owned and controlled 
agencies and instrumentalities to raise, to launder, and to distribute 
funds to terrorist cells, sometimes even in the United States of 
America. Ironically, these agencies and instrumentalities can claim 
foreign sovereign immunity against victims in U.S. courts because of 
their relationship with the terrorist-sponsoring states.
  By exposing these agencies and instrumentalities to liability, the 
U.S. further increases the cost of sponsoring terrorism, and goes after 
the sources of funding for these organizations and cells.
  Madam Speaker, tragically and regrettably, I lost a lot of friends 
and a lot of neighbors; and America lost a lot of friends and a lot of 
neighbors and brothers and sisters, more than 200 people from Staten 
Island and almost another 100 from the Brooklyn portion of my district. 
Those families right now are suffering the shock of it, the shock of 
losing a father or a mother or a sister or brother or uncle or aunt, 
and tomorrow marks the anniversary.
  The notion that while brave men and women are fighting the war 
overseas in seeking out these terrorists and those who help them and 
harbor them and finance them because they are thinking of doing it 
again, the notion that this government, our government, could prevent 
my neighbors and friends one day, if successful in a court of law in 
obtaining judgment, to be unable to recover assets of a terrorist 
organization or a state that sponsors terrorism to me is the most 
unjust thing in this Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this motion to instruct, 
to be compatible with the other body and bring justice to these 
families, these victims of terrorism.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) 
for bringing this motion to instruct forward and pursuing a very good 
idea. I see that the gentleman has a number of speakers, so I am going 
to reserve my comments until some of his speakers can proceed.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon), a man who deserves much, if not all, of the credit 
for bringing this to the floor today.
  Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella) for moving this issue today and giving me an opportunity to 
speak.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees 
on H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, which provides for 
continued availability of insurance against terrorism risks and 
addresses multiple insurance and liability issues arising from the 
September 11 attacks.
  The Senate passed a similar version overwhelmingly supported by the 
House, and this motion will allow the House to show its support for the 
issue with a vote to instruct conferees. I would like to talk 
particularly about what I think is one of the most important issues in 
that bill which fell within the Committee on the Judiciary's 
jurisdiction.
  Under current law, Americans who have been victimized by state-
subsidized terrorism and are eligible to enforce court judgments 
against the assets of a terrorist state have had to wait for Congress 
to act before they could collect their awarded funds. Some victims have 
gotten compensated. However, most have not.
  Under the Fossella-Cannon language in section 15(e) of the Terrorism 
Risk Protection Act passed by the House, American victims of 
international terrorism will have equal access to the courts and to 
blocked assets of terrorists, terrorist organizations, and state 
sponsors of terror as a small but important token of justice.
  This language imposes immediate financial costs on the states that 
sponsor terrorism. Freezing assets for 20 years and then giving them 
back to the terrorist states does not impose such costs. At present, 
terrorism is a cheap way to pursue war against Americans. Unless the 
U.S. finds ways to make it more costly, terrorists and states which 
sponsor terrorism have less economic incentive to stop. By imposing a 
direct and immediate cost, this language represents one effective 
financial tool against terrorists and also helps their victims.
  After the Senate pulled the language from their version of the 
Terrorism Risk Protection Act, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella) and I introduced a stand-alone bill to ensure a solution to 
this problem. However, language identical to the bill introduced by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and me was added to the Senate 
bill on the floor by a vote of 81-3. With this provision now included 
in both the Senate and the House version of the Terrorism Risk 
Protection Act, there is no reason why we should not be able to 
preserve the express will of both houses in conference by maintaining 
this language.
  Madam Speaker, there are many people who would benefit from this, and 
with recent attacks on the World Trade Center, there are many from the 
district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) which this 
legislation would directly affect.

                              {time}  1030

  Others affected by it include people like Terry Anderson and other 
former hostages held by Hezbollah who successfully sued and won 
judgments against Iran but have not been able to collect from the 
seized assets. The provision in this bill today will allow access to 
the frozen assets of terrorists, terrorist organizations and terrorist-
sponsored states, and American victims of international terrorism who 
obtain judgments against those terrorists.
  I would like to once again thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman

[[Page H6135]]

Oxley); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner); my 
colleague and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella); and 
my colleague and friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), 
for their efforts on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees. 
Allowing victims to go directly after the frozen assets of terrorists 
and their sponsors will help us to allow our Nation and economy to go 
forward.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, again I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Utah for his leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Grucci).
  Mr. GRUCCI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt), for their leadership on this. I would like to thank our 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for his guidance and 
leadership on the Committee on Financial Services for bringing many 
pieces of legislation to reality that will help us to not only track 
the assets, to track the money of terrorists, but now, with this piece 
of legislation, hopefully we will be able to access that for the 
victims.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3210, in an 
attempt to locate the assets, to seize the assets, and to deliver them 
back to the victims of terrorists, terrorist nations, et cetera.
  Tomorrow we will stand around and we will be in solemn prayer in some 
places, we will be at services at other places, and remember the tragic 
attacks on America of almost a year ago. Many of us have borne the pain 
of seeing families torn apart by this terrible, terrible tragedy. I 
myself have had over 70 families in my district torn apart. Two of them 
I knew personally.
  It is a terrible ordeal for the families, not only to lose the ones 
they love, but then to face the uncertainty of what is going to happen 
to them economically. Their financial needs have all been torn apart. 
Their communities are reaching out to them, but they still do not have 
the strength of knowing what they have to go forward with.
  Hopefully, if we can get this legislation moving forward, if we can 
move this piece of legislation forward, hopefully we can bring some 
peace to their minds, knowing that they will have access to not only 
the love and the compassion that has been contributed from Americans, 
but also they will be able to punish the terrorists even more by 
seizing their assets, seizing their money, which in turn will slow down 
their operations.
  Madam Speaker, I could not be more in support of this legislation. 
Once again, I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, one 
who has been leading this effort, both before and after September 11, 
in tracking down the assets of terrorists and states that sponsor 
terrorism.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, let me first recognize the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) for their leadership on this very, very important issue.
  The whole concept of taking terrorist assets that have been seized 
and compensating victims seems so elemental to our system of justice 
that it has clearly been one that has been incorporated in this 
legislation, both in the House and in the Senate; and I would say 
without the leadership of these two gentlemen, we would not be here 
today.
  As we know, the House passed our version of the terrorism insurance 
legislation back last year. The Senate finally moved in June. We just 
appointed conferees right before the August recess. We are ready to go 
to work on this side.
  I will say I have had some discussions with participants from the 
other body. They seem ready and prepared to move forward. There is no 
reason why we cannot get this legislation, this conference committee 
work, completed and on the President's desk as quickly as possible, I 
would hope certainly by the end of September. That is not an 
unrealistic possibility.
  I just saw a study the other day that the amount of construction 
sites that are standing idle and the amount of money in those 
construction sites now is over $10.5 billion. That is an awful lot of 
jobs that we are losing as a result of this. Somebody once predicted 
without terrorism insurance we could have a loss of 1 percent of our 
Gross Domestic Product off the growth numbers. That is an awful lot of 
jobs, an awful lot of economic activity.
  So, Madam Speaker, let us dedicate ourselves today to first passing 
this excellent motion to instruct conferees. I want to assure both 
gentlemen that my main task over the next few weeks will be to bring 
this conference report to the floor of the House and get it signed by 
the President.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who again has been at the forefront and working 
closely with all of us to bring the terrorists to their heels.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and wish to express my appreciation to both the gentleman from New York 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) for their leadership on 
this important issue.
  Madam Speaker, in this country when we find someone engaged in the 
sale of drugs to minors, we think it is such a terrible offense that we 
not only give them jail time when convicted, we seize all their assets. 
We take the car from which the material was hauled; we take anything we 
can find related to that activity.
  How more appropriate when some state-sponsored activity takes the 
life of or tortures innocent individuals for no apparent reason, that 
we should go after not only those who commit the acts of terror, those 
who engage in it, but their assets as well?
  The United States Government has seized millions of dollars of assets 
that could be made available to the victims of these heinous acts, but 
the Congress must act.
  So I commend these individuals for taking the leadership in bringing 
forth this motion to instruct, which will, in some small way, bring 
relief to those who have been gravely harmed, and, more importantly, 
send a very strong message to those who engage in acts of terror: when 
you engage in these acts, there will be a very high price to pay. Money 
is not enough. We need more.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to express my thanks again to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Fossella), to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Grucci), to the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Baker), and to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), all of whom have 
viewed this issue as being important enough to come and support this 
motion to instruct conferees.
  I am personally not a big proponent of motions to instruct conferees, 
because our experience has shown that when we instruct the conferees, 
they seldom pay much attention to what we are instructing them to do 
anyway. They kind of have minds of their own. But this seems to me to 
be one of those situations where there is a growing sense of unanimity 
that this is a good idea; and I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Fossella), for picking up the idea and running with 
it.
  Let me kind of trace the history of how we got here so that my 
colleagues will understand it. There have been several kinds of odd 
references to me as one of the moving forces in this. My colleagues 
should know that this was an idea that I originated in a very crude 
amendment which I offered to the terrorism bill when it was being 
considered a year or so ago in the Committee on Financial Services.
  I had two objectives in offering the crudely drawn, quickly drawn 
amendment to that bill. One of those was the obvious kind of 
frustration and feeling of helplessness that all of us had in the 
aftermath of the events of September 11 and the feeling that, as the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) said, this was a pretty elementary 
notion, that if the Federal Government was going to freeze assets of 
terrorists

[[Page H6136]]

and terrorist groups, that it should not necessarily be the Federal 
Government that benefited from freezing those assets, but that those 
assets ultimately should be available to the individuals whose lives 
had been taken, the families of those individuals and the individuals 
who had been injured by acts of terrorism.
  So the first reason that I had was just a sense of frustration and 
wanting to do something in response to the acts of September 11 and to 
other acts of terrorism.
  The second rationale I had, really I have to reveal to my colleagues 
in honesty, was kind of to make a point, because when we were debating 
the terrorism reinsurance bill, one of the issues that came up in the 
committee was whether we would do some kind of tort reform in the 
context of the terrorism reinsurance bill.
  I was frustrated by the notion that my colleagues would take a 
terrorism reinsurance bill and inject a highly political issue of tort 
reform in that bill, and I wanted to try to demonstrate to my 
colleagues how unreasonable I thought this whole concept of tort reform 
was. I thought the best way to do that was to point out to them that if 
they did tort reform, they would be capping as part of that tort reform 
the recoveries that individual citizens could obtain for acts of 
terrorism.
  I could not imagine that my colleagues would want to put an arbitrary 
cap of $250,000 in punitive damages, or any kind of arbitrary cap, on 
the recovery by the family of a constituent of mine who had been killed 
in the violence on the U.S.S. Cole. My constituent, Lakeina Francis, 
who had lost her life, her family was there in North Carolina, and my 
colleagues were playing politics with this bill. I thought that one of 
the ways I could illustrate to them that what they were doing was 
unreasonable was to offer this amendment in the context of that 
terrorism reinsurance bill, and I did.
  Of course, as I thought, it did put my colleagues who were supporting 
tort reform in a pretty tough position. They finally started to 
understand that these arbitrary caps that they were talking about in 
this bill did not make sense when somebody gets blown up, or when 
somebody gets injured by extreme negligence of another party. My 
colleagues thought this was a good idea, and they adopted this 
amendment in the terrorism reinsurance bill. They adopted my amendment 
to the bill.
  Well, I conceded at the outset that this was a crude effort, an 
effort that started to build steam right there in the committee. After 
the committee markup and the passage of the House terrorism reinsurance 
bill, I am happy to say that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) 
and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) picked up on this idea and 
introduced a free-standing bill that was much, much better than the 
crude language that I had offered in the committee; and when the bill 
was considered in the Senate, the Senators put the language in the bill 
which was much better than I had introduced in the Committee on 
Financial Services and much better even than the free-standing bill 
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon) introduced, which is why we are here with the motion 
to instruct conferees, to leave the provision in the bill.

                              {time}  1045

  That is how we got here. This is a great idea. Not because I started 
with the idea but just because of what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley) said, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, this 
is so elemental. Why would we freeze the assets of a terrorist group, a 
terrorist country, terrorist, and not make those assets available to 
satisfy a judgment that an individual who has been injured or the 
family of an individual who has been killed in a terrorist attack, why 
would we freeze the assets if we were not doing it for this honorable 
purpose?
  So I just think this is something whose time has come. I do not think 
it is going to be controversial. The U.S. Treasury has blocked over $3 
billion from organizations or countries designated as terrorists or 
state sponsors of terrorism. Blocking this money may cripple these 
organizations and these terrorist states, but it does little to assist 
the victims of their terrorist acts unless we put this provision in the 
bill. The bill allows Americans who have suffered as a result of 
terrorist acts to receive compensation from these blocked assets. 
Compensating victims will not end terrorism as we know it, but it does 
raise the price, and it sends a message to terrorist organizations and 
the states that sponsor them, we will not stand for the murder of 
innocent Americans. Those who target Americans will be punished and not 
only will you be punished criminally, you will be punished financially 
as a result of this language. Using terrorists' assets to compensate 
victims punishes terrorists and deters future acts of violence, 
hopefully; maybe, may not, but whether it does or does not, we want 
them to pay for what they have done. Terrorist states and organizations 
should not go unpunished for murdering innocent Americans.
  Just this past summer, five Americans were murdered in the cafeteria 
at Hebrew University, and the organization that claims responsibility 
for that has funds blocked by the U.S. Treasury. Those people ought to 
have access to those funds and be able to get to them.
  The gentleman from New York's bill is fair. It gives all American 
victims of terrorism an opportunity to receive compensation from 
terrorist assets, and I urge my colleagues to retain this important 
provision in the final version of the terrorism insurance bill. By 
doing so, we demonstrate our commitment to the victim of terrorist acts 
and show our resolve to punish those states and organizations that 
sponsor terrorism. This language holds terrorists accountable for their 
crimes against Americans. It is a great idea. I applaud the gentleman 
from New York and all of the people who picked it up and ran with it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  At the outset, let me really thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt). We really would not be here but for his efforts, his ideas, 
his support, and his leadership. And the victims of terrorism owe 
thanks to the gentleman from North Carolina as well as the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Grucci), and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who 
really brought us here today.
  And underscore what we have all said, and I am not going to repeat 
it, but every day and especially tomorrow, September 11, 2002, we honor 
the heroes and the victims who perished last year, our fellow American 
citizens, those who just want an ordinary way of life, a peaceful life, 
who sought to raise a family in this great Nation, who sought to do a 
job and do it right, and those valiant heroes from EMS and the police 
department and the port authority and especially the firefighters, 78 
of whom were from Staten Island alone, and names like Egan and Olsen 
and Curatola and Esposito and Siller and Leahy and Doyle, and 
tragically thousands of others. They are names, yes, but they are 
families. They have left behind children, they have left behind wives, 
husbands, parents, and grandparents, and what they were seeking is all 
what I think we are all about, the right to live in freedom with 
liberty and in peace, and that was robbed from them. That was robbed 
from them. It was robbed from their families. And, yes, we are a 
stronger and better country, and we are fortunate to have brave men and 
women to wear the uniform to go get those people, wherever they may be 
across the globe, with the commander in chief, President Bush, leading 
the way.
  But at the same time, I think it is unbelievable that these families 
down the road, in the event that they will obtain a judgment, would 
have to come back to Congress or to their own government to petition 
against a terrorist organization or a state that sponsors terrorism to 
recover some of those assets.
  We should not be here next year or 10 years from now debating this. 
We should end the subject right now, put it to a close, and bring 
justice to those victims who suffer today and will be suffering for a 
long time. But at least this Congress is speaking with one

[[Page H6137]]

voice and saying that we are going to right that wrong and provide 
equity for all.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York and the gentlemen from North 
Carolina.
  Now and then, a proposal comes before Congress that makes such good 
sense, it's a wonder no one though of it sooner. We have just such a 
proposal before us today.
  Under Section 11 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, Americans who 
are victims of cowardly terrorist acts will get the justice they 
deserve--not just an IOU.
  Allowing victims to enforce judgments against terrorists and state 
sponsors of terrorism will serve two vital purposes. First, it will 
compensate the victims of terrorism and their families. These brave men 
and women have suffered unimaginable losses, and they shouldn't have to 
worry about whether the State Department will release frozen terrorist 
assets in the event they prevail in a lawsuit and be awarded funds.
  Second, this provision will cut financing for terrorism off at the 
knees. The assets of terrorist states shouldn't simply be frozen--they 
should be seized. That's what we're doing here today.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Mike Oxley for his 
commitment to this legislation, and urge all of my colleagues to vote 
for this common-sense motion to instruct.
  Mr. FOSELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam 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 question will be postponed.

                          ____________________