[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5553-H5556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESERVING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 2007
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 214) to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States
Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:
S. 214
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 ``Preserving United States
Attorney Independence Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. VACANCIES.
Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under
this section may serve until the earlier of--
``(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for
such district appointed by the President under section 541 of
this title; or
``(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the
Attorney General under this section.
``(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2),
the district court for such district may appoint a United
States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The
order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the
clerk of the court.''.
SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--Any person serving as a United States
attorney on the day before the date of enactment of this Act
who was appointed under section 546 of title 28, United
States Code, may serve until the earlier of--
(A) the qualification of a United States attorney for such
district appointed by the President under section 541 of that
title; or
(B) 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Expired appointments.--If an appointment expires under
paragraph (1), the district court for that district may
appoint a United States attorney for that district under
section 546(d) of title 28, United States Code, as added by
this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks and to give all Members 5 legislative days to include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to describe this measure, Senate bill 214,
as an important one that will restore historical checks and balances to
the process by which interim U.S. attorneys are appointed. It will
repair a breach in the law that has been a major contributing factor to
the recent termination of at least nine talented and experienced United
States attorneys and their replacement with interim appointments.
The full circumstances surrounding these terminations are still
coming to light. It is a process being given much attention by the
Committee on the Judiciary. But much of the information is well known,
and is also considerably troubling. One U.S. attorney was fired to make
way for a political operative who endeared himself to Mr. Karl Rove
doing opposition research in the Republican National Committee. Others
were apparently fired because they were not sufficiently partisan in
the way they used these powers to investigate and prosecute alleged
voting fraud. Now, I don't need to tell anybody in this body how
important voting is to the democratic process.
These reports are particularly troubling because of the awesome power
the United States attorneys, 93 of them in total, are entrusted with.
They seek convictions. They negotiate plea agreements. They can send
citizens to prison for years. They can tarnish reputations. They can
destroy careers with the mere disclosure that a person is under
criminal investigation. We, in this country, must have full confidence
that these powers are exercised with complete integrity and free from
improper political influence. Unfortunately, sometimes this is not the
case.
These troubling circumstances that have been revealed were made
possible by an obscure provision, quietly and secretly slipped into the
PATRIOT reauthorization conference report in March of last year at the
behest of the Justice Department's top political appointments, to
enable them to appoint interim temporary U.S. attorneys without the
customary safeguard of Senate confirmation.
Mr. Speaker, what this measure does is restore the checks and
balances that have historically provided a critical safeguard against
politicization of the Department of Justice and the United States
attorneys, limiting the Attorney General's interim appointments to 120
days only, then allowing the district court for that district to
appoint a U.S. attorney until the vacancy is filled, with Senate
confirmation required, as historically has been the case.
Now, Members of the House, we have already passed similar
legislation. While I would prefer to see our version enacted into law,
we are taking up the Senate-passed version in order to expedite the
enactment of this important step in restoring legal safeguards against
the abuse of executive power to politicize the Federal prosecutorial
function in the Department of Justice.
I wanted to single out my colleague from California, Howard Berman, a
senior member of the committee, for his role in fashioning not only the
original version, but the one that we have before you to agree upon.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, prior to 1986, the district court appointed interim U.S.
attorneys to fill vacancies until a replacement could be nominated by
the President and confirmed by the Senate. In 1986, the process was
changed to authorize the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S.
attorney for 120
[[Page H5554]]
days. After 120 days, the district court would appoint an interim to
serve until the Senate confirmed a permanent replacement.
Last year, Congress addressed concerns that allowing the judiciary to
appoint the prosecutors before their court created a conflict of
interest. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization eliminated the 120-day time
limit for an executive-appointed interim to serve, and eliminated the
authority for the district court to appoint an interim. S. 214 returns
the authority of the judiciary to appoint interim U.S. attorneys if a
permanent replacement is not confirmed within 120 days.
Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that the motivation behind this
legislation was the dismissal of several U.S. attorneys earlier this
year. Congress has been investigating the circumstances surrounding
those dismissals for several months now. Notwithstanding the heated
political rhetoric from some of my colleagues, this investigation has
turned up no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or obstruction of justice.
Let me just try to lay this issue out as fairly as I can. Some of my
colleagues still have concerns about allowing a judge to appoint the
prosecutors before their court because they feel that is a conflict of
interest. On the other hand, some of my equally smart colleagues have
suggested that we should return to the way interim U.S. attorneys were
appointed for 20 years, from 1986 to 2006, before the recent PATRIOT
Act changes, to ensure that the process is not used to circumvent the
Senate confirmation process.
The House Judiciary Committee has held hearings on this matter. We
held a markup on the companion legislation, H.R. 580. The Justice
Department does not object to this legislation, and I will be
supporting it myself personally.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce and give as much
time as he may consume to the chairman of the Intellectual Property
Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Howard Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank my chairman for helping to bring this bill and
this issue to the floor twice now, and for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, last month, the House passed H.R. 580 to restore the
checks and balances to the U.S. attorney appointment process. The bill
we are considering today takes a slightly different path to nearly the
same end.
Last year, during the conference process on reauthorization of the
PATRIOT Act, a provision was added to the report authorizing the
Attorney General to unilaterally appoint interim U.S. attorneys for
indefinite periods of time, making it possible for the administration
to circumvent the Senate confirmation process.
The only disagreement I would have with my friend from Florida's
comments was the notion that the Congress considered that change. This
was put in in a conference committee, unbeknownst to, I think, just
about every Senator on that conference committee, certainly all House
Members, other than perhaps the chairman of the committee; and the
Congress didn't consider that change.
When the Judiciary Committee began its investigation into the U.S.
attorney firings early this year, DOJ representatives were quick to
assure members of the committee that getting around the confirmation
process was never their intent in pushing for this proposal.
As the Department began producing e-mails and other materials in
response to the Judiciary Committee's inquiry, it became clear that
whether or not it was the original intent of the administration, DOJ
and White House employees quickly figured out that the provision
created the possibility of circumventing the Senate and decided to
exploit that authority.
As I said when we passed H.R. 580 last month, the ongoing
investigation may uncover many issues within the Department that we
want to examine. In the meantime, we should quickly address the problem
we know about.
{time} 1215
The bill we are considering today would reinstate a system that
encourages politics to be left at the door during the appointment
process and creates a check on the system if the executive branch
cannot bring itself to do that.
The reason we are considering a second bill on this topic is that
Republicans in the other body have blocked the House-passed bill from
progressing. The only difference between these two bills is that the
House bill specifically precluded the administration from using the
Vacancy Reform Act to extend interim appointments for another 210 days.
This is a provision that the Bush administration used nearly 30 times
in its first 5 years to replace U.S. attorneys. If this avenue remains
open, we are permitting the practice of circumventing Senate
confirmation to continue. A temporary appointee could serve for nearly
a year without a Presidential nomination or going through the
confirmation process.
It's ironic, isn't it? We hear the arguments all the time about the
Senate not acting fast enough to confirm judicial appointments. There
is rarely an emergency to get a district judge confirmed. U.S.
attorneys are different. In any given district, there is only one U.S.
attorney. If the administration can simply use extended temporary
appointments, the problem will continue.
This bill shouldn't be our last word on the matter. In the progress
of the investigation in the Judiciary Committee, we have learned that a
second provision removing residency requirements for U.S. attorneys was
likely put into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to make way for certain
particular interim appointees. We should repeal that provision, and I
intend to introduce legislation to do so.
Communities in this country should feel assured that their U.S.
attorney wasn't put in for purely political purposes. These positions
shouldn't be used to ``develop the bench'' or to send in someone who
had no connection to the community whatsoever just because he needed a
job.
We should fix the system completely, and we will, but because of
threatened holds in the other body, we are only doing a partial fix
today.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) a
subcommittee chair of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, last year, during the conference process on
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, a check on executive power simply
disappeared. In its place, the Republican majority overseeing the
conference put in a provision removing the court from the process of
appointment and authorizing the Attorney General to appoint interim
U.S. attorneys indefinitely.
The Senator who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time
said recently that he did not realize the provision was in the bill
passed last year until a colleague alerted him to it last month. I
don't think anyone was surprised to learn that after the investigation,
the former chairman learned that the language had been requested by the
Department of Justice. The language was apparently presented by a DOJ
employee who is now the U.S. attorney in Utah. Before Senator Specter
made these comments, the only legislative history of this amendment was
one sentence in the conference report that said the new section
``addresses an inconsistency in the appointment process of U.S.
attorneys.''
As we receive more information about the Department of Justice and
White House interaction leading up to the dismissal of eight, now nine,
U.S. attorneys, the appearance of a political basis for the removals
becomes more clear. U.S. attorneys are the chief Federal law
enforcement officers in their districts. We rely on them to enforce the
law without political prejudice.
One of the former U.S. attorneys who testified before our Judiciary
subcommittee recently said that former Attorney General Ashcroft made a
point in their first conversation to say that U.S. attorneys have to
leave politics at the door. This bill that is before the House today
would reinstate a system that encourages politics to be left at the
door during the appointment process and creates a check on the system
if the executive branch cannot bring itself to do that.
[[Page H5555]]
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to add that I have been dismayed in
reviewing some of the terms provided to the Judiciary Committee
relative to communications between the DOJ. Historically the American
people have been able to rely on the Department of Justice to stay
above the political fray, especially when it comes to prosecutors.
Watergate should have indelibly impressed this lesson upon future
administrations, but clearly in this case it did not.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and to refute Kyle
Sampson's statement when he said, ``The only thing at risk here is a
repeal of the AG's appointment authority. House Members won't care
about this at all. All we need is for one Senator to object to the
language.''
The House of Representatives does care about political independence.
We do believe that the executive branch should not ignore legislative
branch authority. We should refute the Department's slow march to
cooperating with our oversight efforts, and we need to reinstate this
important check on the executive branch authority to appoint U.S.
attorneys.
Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that our colleague from the
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis, would
be able to join us in this debate because he worked very diligently
with Mr. Berman and Ms. Lofgren.
Mr. Speaker, while United States attorneys owe their appointments to
the President, once they are appointed, their enforcement decisions
must be unquestionably above politics. This is an irony that exists,
but it is something that must be zealously complied with if we are to
have a law enforcement system that can be regarded as faithful to the
Constitution and to the laws of the land and to protect the American
people.
The Senate confirmation in an open and public process is one way we
safeguard against politicizing the prosecutors in the Department of
Justice. That safeguard was severely compromised by the secret change
in section 546. What we will do now is restore that safeguard and honor
the system of checks and balances.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle will support this important consideration.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
S. 214, a bill that will revoke the Attorney General's unfettered
authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys indefinitely.
During the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization conference, Republicans
slipped a small provision into the conference report with enormous
repercussions. That provision removed the 120-day limit for interim
appointments of U.S. Attorneys, thereby allowing interim appointees to
serve indefinitely and without confirmation.
After months of investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, we
have learned that the Bush administration exploited this newly created
loophole to purge high-performing Federal prosecutors while they were
in the midst of high-profile public corruption investigations involving
Republican officials. And while the administration has insisted it
never intended to use this loophole to bypass Senate confirmation for
appointing U.S. Attorneys, our investigation has uncovered
communications and testimony that suggest otherwise.
We also learned, for example, that in an e-mail to former White House
Counsel, Harriet Miers, former Attorney General Chief of Staff, Kyle
Sampson wrote: ``I strongly recommend that, as a matter of
administration policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that
authorize the Attorney General to make U.S. Attorney appointments.''
Mr. Sampson further said that by using the new provision, the Justice
Department could ``give far less deference to home-State Senators and
thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster
and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.''
Referring to the new authority to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys
indefinitely, Mr. Sampson also said, ``If we don't ever exercise it
then what's the point of having it?''
The Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007
provides the necessary legislative response to restore checks and
balances in the U.S. Attorney appointment process by reinstating the
120-day limit on the interim appointment. Additionally, the bill would
apply retroactively to all U.S. Attorneys currently serving in an
interim capacity. This would ensure that interim U.S. Attorneys
appointed since the purge scheme was hatched are not permitted to serve
indefinitely and without Senate confirmation.
This is a common sense solution that has received strong support from
the President of the National Association of Former U.S. Attorneys as
well as from a former Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney who testified
before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. It is
also important to note that the Attorney General himself has expressed
that he is not opposed to rolling back this provision of the USA
PATRIOT Act.
I want to be clear that the consideration of S. 214 will not stop the
Judiciary Committee's ongoing investigation of the U.S. Attorney purge
scheme and the politicization of the Justice Department. After months
of investigations, it is clear that the answers can only be found in
the White House. We have spoken to every senior Justice Department
official involved in the firing process and we still have not gotten
the answers to two critical questions: Who made the decision to mass
fire U.S. Attorneys, and why were these particular U.S. Attorneys
targeted?
Mr. Speaker, the American people need to be assured that political
calculations do not determine whether an individual is arrested or
prosecuted. We must ensure that the integrity and honor of the Justice
Department will be reinstated. I hope my colleagues will join me in the
first critical step in this process by closing the loophole in the USA
PATRIOT Act that this administration has improperly exploited for
political purposes and supporting S. 214.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 214,
which is the Senate version of H.R. 580, which the Judiciary Committee
favorably reported on March 15, 2007. This much needed and timely
legislation amends chapter 35 of title 28 of the United States Code to
restore the 120-day limit on the term of a United States Attorney
appointed on an interim basis by the Attorney General. The shocking
revelations regarding the unprecedented firings of several United
States Attorneys provide all the justification needed to adopt this
salutary measure promptly and by an overwhelming margin.
United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate. Each United States Attorney so
appointed is authorized to serve a 4-year term but is subject to
removal by the President without cause. The Senate's advise and consent
process formally checks the power of the President by requiring the
United States Attorney nominee to go through a confirmation process.
In addition, Senators also play a particularly influential informal
role in the nomination of United States Attorneys. Typically, a
President, prior to appointing a new United States Attorney, consults
with the Senators from the State where the vacancy exists if they are
members of the President's political party. The President usually
accepts the nominee recommended by the Senator or other official. This
tradition, called ``Senatorial courtesy,'' serves as an informal check
on the President's appointment power.
Since the Civil War, the judiciary has been empowered to fill
vacancies in the office of the United States Attorney. In 1966, that
authority was codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 546. When a United States
Attorney position became vacant, the district court in the district
where the vacancy occurred named a temporary replacement to serve until
the vacancy was filled. In 1986, in response to a request by the
Attorney General that its office be vested with authority to appoint
interim United States Attorneys, Congress amended the statute to add
former section 546(d).
Pursuant to this authority, the Attorney General was authorized to
appoint an interim United States Attorney for 120 days and, if the
Senate did not confirm a new United States Attorney within such period,
the district court was then authorized to appoint an interim United
States Attorney to serve until a permanent replacement was confirmed.
By having the district court play a role in the selection of an interim
United States Attorney, former section 546(d) allowed the judicial
branch to act as a check on executive power. In practice, if a vacancy
was expected, the Attorney General would solicit the opinion of the
chief judge of the relevant district regarding possible temporary
appointments.
Twenty years later, section 546 was amended again in the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. This legislation amended
section 546(c) to provide that ``[a] person appointed as United States
attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a
United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President''
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. The extent of the legislative history of this
provision is one sentence appearing in the conference report
accompanying the Act: ``Section 502 [effecting the amendments to
section 546] is a new section and addresses an inconsistency in the
appointment process of United States Attorneys.''
Although the legislative purpose is unclear, the practical effect is
not. The Act amended
[[Page H5556]]
section 546 in two critical respects. First, it effectively removed
district court judges from the interim appointment process and vested
the Attorney General with the sole power to appoint interim United
States Attorneys. Second, the Act eliminated the 120-day limit on the
term of an interim United States Attorney appointed by the Attorney
General. As a result, judicial input in the interim appointment process
was eliminated. Even more problematic, it created a possible loophole
that permit United States Attorneys appointed on an interim basis to
serve indefinitely without ever being subjected to Senate confirmation
process, which is plainly a result not contemplated by the Framers.
Mr. Speaker, excluding changes in administration, it is rare for a
United States Attorney to not complete his or her 4-year term of
appointment. According to the Congressional Research Service, only 54
United States Attorneys between 1981 and 2006 did not complete their 4-
year terms. Of these, 30 obtained other public sector positions or
sought elective office, 15 entered or returned to private practice, and
one died. Of the remaining eight United States Attorneys, two were
apparently dismissed by the President, and three apparently resigned
after news reports indicated they had engaged in questionable personal
actions.
Mr. Speaker, in the past few months disturbing stories appeared in
the news media reporting that several United States Attorneys had been
asked to resign by the Justice Department. It has now been confirmed
that at least seven United States Attorneys were asked to resign on
December 7, 2006. An eighth United States Attorney was subsequently
asked to resign. And we learned on May 10, the day the Attorney General
testified before the House Judiciary Committee, we learned that a ninth
United States Attorney had been asked to resign as part of the purge.
The names of the fired United States Attorneys are as follows:
H.E. (``Bud'') Cummins, III, U.S. Attorney (E.D. Ark.); John McKay,
U.S. Attorney (W.D. Wash.); David Iglesias, U.S. Attorney (D. N.M.);
Paul K. Charlton, U.S. Attorney (D. Ariz.); Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney
(S.D. Calif.); Daniel Bogden, U.S. Attorney (D. Nev.); Kevin Ryan, U.S.
Attorney (N.D. Calif.); Margaret Chiara, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Mich.);
and Todd P. Graves, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Mo.).
Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2007, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee
on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing entitled,
``Restoring Checks and Balances in the Confirmation Process of United
States Attorneys.'' Witnesses at the hearing included six of the eight
former United States Attorneys and William Moschella, Principal
Associate Deputy Attorney General, among other witnesses.
Six of the eight former United States Attorneys testified at the
hearing and each testified that he or she was not told in advance why
he or she was being asked to resign. Upon further inquiry, however,
Messrs. Charlton and Bogden were advised by the then Acting Assistant
Attorney General William Mercer that they were terminated essentially
to make way for other Republicans to enhance their credential and pad
their resumes. In addition, Messrs. Iglesias and McKay testified about
inappropriate inquiries they received from Members of Congress
concerning pending investigation, which they surmised may have led to
their forced resignations.
Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization provision on interim
United States Attorneys should be repealed for two reasons. First,
Members of Congress did not get an opportunity to vet or debate the
provision that is current law. Rather, the Republican leadership of the
109th Congress slipped the provision into the Conference Report at the
request of the Department of Justice. Not even Senate Judiciary
Chairman Arlen Specter, whose chief of staff was responsible for
inserting the provision, knew about its existence.
Second, it is now clear that the manifest intention of the provision
was to allow interim appointees to serve indefinitely and to circumvent
Senate confirmation. We know now, for example, that in a September 13,
2006 e-mail to former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, Attorney
General Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson wrote:
I strongly recommend that, as a matter of Administration
policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that
authorize the Attorney General to make U.S. Attorney
appointments.
Mr. Sampson further said that by using the new provision, DOJ could
``give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1)
our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more
efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.''
Regarding the interim appointment of Tim Griffin at the request of
Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, Mr. Sampson wrote to Monica Goodling,
Senior Counsel to the White House and Liaison to the White House on
December 19, 2006 the following:
I think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators to
give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in
office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say,
`no never' (and the longer we can forestall that, the
better), then we can tell them we'll look for other
candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this
should be done in `good faith,' of course.
Finally, we now know that after gaining this increased authority to
appoint interim United States Attorneys indefinitely, the
administration has exploited the provision to fire United States
Attorneys for political reasons. A mass purge of this sort is
unprecedented in recent history. The Department of Justice and the
White House coordinated this purge. According to an administration
``hit list'' released in March of this year, United States Attorneys
were targets for the purge based on their rankings. The ranking relied
in large part on whether the United States Attorneys ``exhibit[ed]
loyalty to the President and Attorney General.''
Mr. Speaker, until exposed by this unfortunate episode, United States
Attorneys were expected to, and in fact did exercise, wide discretion
in the use of resources to further the priorities of their districts.
Largely a result of its origins as a distinct prosecutorial branch of
the Federal Government, the office of the United States Attorney
traditionally operated with an unusual level of independence from the
Justice Department in a broad range of daily activities. That practice
served the Nation well for more than 200 years. The practice that has
been in place for less than 2 years has served the Nation poorly. It
needs to end. That is why I vote to report H.R. 580 favorably to the
House. That is why I will vote for S. 214. I urge all Members to do
likewise.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 214.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. CONYERS. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________