[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 154 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7047-H7050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1937, NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND
CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2015
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 481 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 481
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1937) to require the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop
domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of
strategic and critical importance to United States economic
and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the good gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
{time} 1330
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, just yesterday, the Rules
Committee met and reported a rule for House Resolution 481, providing
for the consideration of an important piece of legislation--H.R. 1937,
the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015.
This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1937 under a
structured rule, with five amendments made in order, four of which, I
might point out, were offered by Democratic Members of this body.
Therefore, this rule provides for a balanced, deliberative, and open
debate if we focus our remarks on the merits of the National Strategic
and Critical Minerals Production Act and don't go off on unnecessary
tangents.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support both House Resolution 481 and
the underlying bill, H.R. 1937. I would like to congratulate the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) for sponsoring this legislation, and
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Rob
Bishop, for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider the National
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, an important bill that
will streamline our country's mine permitting processes to remove
unnecessary and burdensome bureaucratic hurdles, which can delay some
mining activities and projects by up to a decade--10 years--which is an
outrageous amount of time that is indicative of the problem we seek to
address here today.
The permitting system the Federal Government currently uses to
provide for the extraction of rare earth minerals in the U.S. is
outdated, unproductive, and, more often than not, hinders our ability
to extract these critical resources. This red tape has a devastating
impact on communities across the country and in the West, particularly,
that rely on the ability to obtain and develop these minerals for
economic growth and our Nation's security.
Our country is blessed with a myriad of rare earth minerals that are
increasingly used to manufacture high-tech equipment as well as many
other everyday applications and products. Many countries around the
world are already working to improve their infrastructure, providing
the United States with an exceptional opportunity to play a major role
in the growing minerals marketplace by supplying foreign countries and
businesses, as well as domestic companies, with the resources necessary
to remain competitive in the international economy. However, a lack of
communication between local, State, and Federal permitting agencies
exists, and it creates a bureaucratic backlog of applications that
delays mining activity by approximately, like I said, 7 to 10 years,
which, if not addressed, will impede the ability of U.S. mineral
companies to increase their share of the global marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, due to onerous government red tape, the frivolous
lawsuits that result, and a burdensome permitting process, good-paying
jobs in the United States mining industry have moved overseas and have
put domestic manufacturing jobs at the mercy of our foreign
competitors. H.R. 1937 would fix
[[Page H7048]]
our outdated and uncertain bureaucratic permitting system, which
negatively impacts investment in our economy by discouraging domestic
companies from extracting and developing these critical minerals.
This is especially unfortunate given that we have only begun to
scratch the surface of what we can potentially develop from our
abundant natural resources, which have played such a critical role in
making the U.S. a leading world economy and industrial power. Our
Nation has vast energy potential from sources such as coal, oil shale,
and natural gas, as well as numerous critical minerals that we should
be developing. Yet the development of our domestic minerals resources
has been obstructed time and time again under this administration,
which, unfortunately, places the political goals of special interests
over the welfare and well-being of hardworking Americans.
Mr. Speaker, simply put, the Federal Government should promote
investments in the U.S. and in American companies by creating a
regulatory framework that encourages the safe development of domestic
resources. If we are going to address the growing mineral trade
imbalance--with more U.S. mining jobs moving overseas and higher energy
and commodity prices here at home--we must first put a stop to the
bureaucratic delays that are at the root of the problem.
This legislation does just that by telling Federal agencies to make a
decision about whether a project should move forward or not--a simple
``yes'' or ``no''--and do it in a timely manner. Give people certainty.
We have streamlined and improved this process for other domestic
industries, and it is now time to do it for our rare earth minerals
sector, which is responsible for some of the highest paying middle
class jobs across the country. It is illogical and irrational that red
tape and delayed permit approvals can lead to 10 years of deliberation
over whether or not to approve a mining permit or project. Actually, it
borders on insanity.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the
consideration of an important piece of legislation that will provide
the U.S. with a unique opportunity to tap into the growing global
marketplace for rare earth minerals by supplying both foreign and
domestic companies with the resources they need to remain competitive.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my colleagues
to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill--the so-called Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
My colleague from Washington mentioned what is not being discussed
here today. Again, to be clear, it feels like we are at Groundhog Day
here. We have 8 legislative days until we hit the debt limit and
default on our Nation's debt. In 6 legislative days, the Federal
transportation authorization will expire. In 22 legislative days, we
will be on the brink of yet another government shutdown. To a certain
extent, I feel like we are fiddling while Rome burns. Here we are,
talking about an issue which, I am sure, deserves its day in the Sun. I
will talk about some of the deficiencies in this bill, but we are
tackling a recycled bill that in similar form has already passed this
body and that doesn't address any of these urgent deadline items that
we are actually facing.
In fact, as I travel across my district in Colorado, I don't hear a
lot of my constituents crying out for access to sand and clay. I do
hear them saying, ``Don't default on the national debt.'' ``Do
something about the budget.'' ``Make sure that we prevent another
government shutdown.'' Yet all of those deadlines are looming while we
are fiddling here with other bills that aren't going anywhere and
aren't becoming law and have already passed this body in similar form.
So, for the fourth time in three Congresses, we are going to consider a
nearly identical measure that the Republicans have brought to the floor
despite the Senate's unwillingness to pick it up and the President's
opposition.
The so-called Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act promotes
industry interests over the American people's health and welfare. The
biggest conceptual problem with it is the definition that it gives of
``strategic and critical minerals.'' The bill not only expands the
mining companies' ability to mine on public lands for minerals like
gold and copper, but also materials that one would think, by no stretch
of common sense, are rare, like sand and clay.
If we include sand from the beach or from my kids' sandbox as a
mineral of critical development and if we include the gravel from my
driveway as a mineral of critical development, I am not sure what we
are excluding. I think this applies to almost everything. In fact, I am
not even sure how we are even saying the term ``critical and
strategic'' can even apply here when we are talking about sand and
gravel and some of the most common natural resources that we have.
This bill permits nearly all mining operations to circumvent the
important public health and environmental review processes that are
required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Instead of maintaining a reasonable threshold to ensure that we focus
on resources and developing resources that are actually critical for
our defense or for our economy, this bill expands our definition of
``strategic and critical,'' effectively making it worthless. By
including everything and by saying everything is strategic and
critical, you are effectively saying that nothing is strategic and
critical. That is what this bill does while we are 8 days from hitting
the debt limit, while we are 6 days from expiring on the Federal
transportation authorization.
By the way, I have to talk about how these ``days'' work because we
are 8 days from the debt limit and 6 days from the transportation
authorization. Those aren't real days that Americans know. That is
because the Republicans always send this Congress on vacation nearly
every week. So it might be 6 legislative days. I think it is, actually,
15 or 20 days, but Congress isn't working for most of those. While
these deadlines tick, Members of Congress are actually at home most of
the time because the Republican leadership won't let us work. They
won't let us come here. They are adjourning the session. That is why,
when something is 20 days off, we are sounding alarm bells, saying it
is 6 days off--because they are only letting us work 6 of those 20
days. I would be happy to show up for the other 14, Mr. Speaker, but
you wouldn't be here to gavel us into session.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. What would happen if I showed up and you were not here to
gavel us down into session?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to a hypothetical
question.
Mr. POLIS. Maybe we will just have to try that sometime when we are 2
or 3 days from the expiration of our transportation funding or from
defaulting on our national debt. I will be happy to come here to an
empty Chamber.
I recall one time, Mr. Speaker, when you and the Republican majority
accidentally left the cameras on, and our Democratic whip, Steny Hoyer,
was on the floor, demanding why we couldn't bring up a bill. Maybe, if
I am here and if you are not here, Mr. Speaker, we can get those C-SPAN
cameras turned on when we are 2 or 3 days from a deadline so that the
American people understand this funny math, where somehow 20 days is
only 6 legislative days because you don't let us work the other 14,
when hardworking Americans have to go to work every day to support
their families.
This bill's impacts are far reaching. As drafted, it makes the term
``critical and strategic'' meaningless. The legislation would increase
the pollution of our water resources for States dealing with extreme
drought conditions and deadly blazes. The last thing we need is to
jeopardize our already scarce sources of water. We can't afford to do
any more harm to the quality of our limited water supplies and to risk
the jobs that are created across the West
[[Page H7049]]
through outdoor recreation, leisure, and agriculture.
Why the House Republicans see a need for legislation to further
promote mining interests at the expense of public health continues to
be mystifying. The industry already has free rein to extract mineral
resources. Under the antiquated 1872 mining law, Federal land managers
are actually barred from denying hard rock mining proposals. The Bureau
of Land Management and the Forest Service have almost never denied a
large mining process. Why exempt them further from all environmental
review for sand and gravel, which aren't even rare elements?
This bill fails to update the antiquated legal framework. It fails to
address the reforms needed. It fails to protect our environment. It
doesn't change the fact that mining companies currently enjoy--guess
what, Mr. Speaker. What do you think--a 3 percent royalty rate? What do
they pay--a 2 percent royalty rate? Do they pay a 1 percent royalty
rate? No. They pay a zero percent royalty rate on Federal land. This
bill fails to address that. It doesn't change the fact that mining
companies have left an estimated half a million mines. That is nearly
one for every person in my district, Mr. Speaker. Half a million mines
all across the country have been abandoned, most of which are in dire
need of cleanup or restoration, which this bill fails to address.
I had the opportunity to introduce a bill with Ranking Member
Grijalva earlier this year that would have addressed many of these
ongoing failures in mining accountability, but it hasn't been brought
up before the committee. Instead, legislation like this, the so-called
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, is rocketed to the
floor even though it has passed four times in the last three sessions.
Instead of confronting real challenges facing our economy, facing
American families, we continue to line the pockets of the mining
industry, which already has one of the fattest profit margins of any,
while risking the health of the American people and exploiting our
natural resources without adequate return and royalties to the
taxpayers, who own our public lands.
I oppose the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
am prepared to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would permanently
authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water
Conservation Fund supports the protection of public lands and waters,
such as natural parks, forests, and recreation areas.
Many conservation organizations from my district and nationally have
been in to meet with me on this important topic, and I know they have
reached out to other Members on the Hill as well.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the Strategic and Critical Minerals
Production Act--again, it is hard to say that name with a straight face
when they are defining strategic and critical minerals in such a broad
way that it involves basically the dirt under our feet, the sand under
our feet, the gravel in our drive. When you define something like that
and try to mean everything, you wind up meaning nothing.
Rather than actually doing something to protect minerals that are
critical for our defense, for our economy, this bill waters that down
by expanding this access to sand and dirt and gravel, maximizing mining
companies' profits at the expense of our health, our water, our land,
and our natural resources.
Furthermore, the underlying bill would damage our economy by placing
the use of the mining industry above the many other important economic
uses of our public lands. I will give you some examples. How about
hunting? angling? hiking? biking? These are the economic drivers in my
district, Mr. Speaker.
If we didn't have an environmental review process and large gravel
pits and silver mines were put in place with wild abandon, we would
lose jobs. We would lose most jobs in Eagle and Summit Counties which
relate to the tourism industry. The beautiful, pristine, outdoor public
lands that attract visitors from across the country--probably from your
district, Mr. Speaker--Vail, Breckenridge, Winter Park, and Rocky
Mountain National Park, we would love to have you; but you better come
quickly before this bill becomes law, because there won't be much to
see if it does.
When visiting my constituents in Colorado this summer, expanding
mining access was not one of the issues that they brought up. In fact,
they asked me to ensure that mining companies are held accountable to
greater levels of accountability and transparency. They asked me to
develop environmental safeguards to make sure that disasters and
tragedies don't occur and that abandoned mines are cleaned up and that
our extraction industry can be done in a thoughtful way, and to make
sure it doesn't destroy jobs by conflicting with other higher and
better economic uses of some parcels of public land.
Look, Members on both sides of the aisle support the development of
rare earth and critical mineral policy. There is no disagreement about
that. I would be happy to work with my colleague, Mr. Speaker, from
Washington State and others on putting together a commonsense bill that
defines rare earth and critical minerals in a commonsense way. Not the
dirt beneath our feet, not the sand in my kid's sandbox, but in a
commonsense way where we look at the needs of industry, our supply, we
define it, and we come up with a targeted access plan, including access
to our public lands in appropriate ways, that is expedited for national
priority items. That is not what this bill does.
We could work together, Mr. Speaker. And this body needs to work
together, not just on this bill, but to avoid defaulting on our
national debt, to continue to fund our highways and infrastructure, in
fact, to keep government open. We might only have 11 legislative days
to try to keep government open.
By the way, I think that is 30-some actual days for most Americans,
Mr. Speaker. As we talked about, you won't be here, Mr. Speaker. If
there is a way that I can be here and advance an agenda of keeping
government open, I would be happy to, but I am afraid it requires a
Speaker to gavel us in.
Now, there are bills that seek to balance the challenges of mining
with its impact on surrounding communities, but, unfortunately, Mr.
Speaker, my colleagues weren't interested in discussing those. Instead
we are discussing a recycled bill for the fourth time that would
eliminate environmental review, allow for the unfettered mining of
public lands, define critical minerals in such a way that it means the
dirt between your toes and the sand in your kid's sandbox. It would
likely not be brought up by the Senate and dead on arrival at the
President's desk.
This is a job-destroying bill that the American people are not even
asking Congress to take up. It takes a simple concept--preserving
access to critical resources, which would have strong bipartisan
support--and contorts it into a divisive job-destroying, health-
destroying, commonsense-defying issue that doesn't appear anywhere on
the priority list of struggling families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 481 is a fair rule allowing for
balanced, deliberative, and open debate, just as my colleague is
asking, as well as numerous amendment opportunities from both parties.
It provides for the consideration of a bill that is critical to the
economic
[[Page H7050]]
well-being of mining communities across the country, which are reeling
from the continual impacts of Federal regulation and the bureaucratic
permitting process we have in place.
This regulatory environment has led to lost jobs and wages in the
mining industry, ultimately hurting the middle class families that many
of these rules and regulations claim they are intended to protect.
H.R. 1937 streamlines our country's mine permitting process by
removing unnecessary and onerous hurdles, which can lead to decades-
long delays for mining activities and projects. The current Federal
permitting system for the extraction of rare earth minerals is
outdated, unproductive, and often impedes our ability to extract these
critical minerals.
You know, our country is blessed with a myriad of rare earth
minerals, but this Federal red tape has had a devastating impact on the
mining communities in our country whose livelihoods depend on the
ability to obtain and develop these resources.
We must stop punishing middle class Americans with these heavyhanded
and poorly considered regulations that more often than not have
unintended consequences and serious negative economic impacts.
Mr. Speaker, already many countries around the world are looking to
improve their infrastructure, which provides the U.S. with the unique
opportunity to tap into this growing global market. Due to strong
international demand for rare earth minerals, allowing for greater
development of domestic resources also creates a unique opportunity to
further American trade relationships and decrease our trade deficit.
Additionally, by increasing the available supply of these rare earth
minerals, manufacturing companies will be able to more efficiently
produce their products, which could reduce consumer costs and open the
door to greater innovation. Further, our outdated permitting system
negatively impacts investment in our economy that hinders our ability
to take on this expanded role in the global marketplace for these
mineral resources.
The Federal Government should be promoting investment in the U.S. by
creating a regulatory framework that encourages the safe development of
domestic resources. If we want to address the growing minerals trade
imbalance, as we see more and more U.S. mining jobs moving overseas and
higher energy and commodity prices here at home, then we must fix these
delays which are at the root of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of an important piece
of legislation that will address the burdensome permitting and
regulatory hurdles that are harmful to this vital industry. Yet, while
this legislation allows for greater utilization of domestic resources,
it also maintains important environmental safeguards designed to ensure
the health of our constituents and ecosystems, striking an important
balance that has been absent far too long.
While my colleague from Colorado and I may have a few differences of
opinion, I firmly believe this rule and the underlying bill are strong
measures that are critically important to our country's future, both
for my State as well as his and many, many others in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my colleague
to support House Resolution 481, and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 481 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1814) to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1814.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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 question will be postponed.
____________________