[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1355-H1362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4596, SMALL BUSINESS BROADBAND 
     DEPLOYMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3797, 
         SATISFYING ENERGY NEEDS AND SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT ACT

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 640 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 640

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4596) to 
     ensure that small business providers of broadband Internet 
     access service can devote resources to broadband deployment 
     rather than compliance with cumbersome regulatory 
     requirements. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the 
     time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  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. 
     3797) to establish the bases by which the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue, implement, 
     and enforce certain emission limitations and allocations for 
     existing electric utility steam generating units that convert 
     coal refuse into energy. 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 Energy and Commerce. 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 part B 
     of 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 Ohio is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the 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. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?

[[Page H1356]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Committee on Rules met and 
reported out a rule for H.R. 4596, the Small Business Broadband 
Deployment Act, and H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving 
the Environment Act. House Resolution 640 provides a structured rule 
for consideration of H.R. 4596 and H.R. 3797.
  The resolution provides each bill 1 hour of debate equally divided 
between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Additionally, the resolution provides for the consideration of five 
amendments offered to H.R. 3797, as well as one amendment offered to 
H.R. 4596.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for a motion to 
recommit for each bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution and the 
underlying legislation. The SENSE Act would modify the EPA's Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards as they 
apply to coal refuse-to-energy power plants, while still requiring 
those facilities to reduce their emissions.
  There are only 19 coal refuse-to-energy facilities in the United 
States, but they provide an estimated 1,200 direct and 4,000 indirect 
jobs, many of them in economically depressed areas.
  In addition to providing well-paying jobs and generating affordable 
energy, these power plants also address issues presented by coal refuse 
at no cost to the taxpayer.
  Coal refuse is a waste product of coal mining found near many 
abandoned coal mines, and they present environmental and safety hazards 
to communities around the country.
  They are a source of major fires. They pollute waters. They are 
eyesores that threaten economic development in the surrounding areas. 
In Pennsylvania alone, the cost of addressing coal refuse is estimated 
to be $2 billion.
  Coal refuse-to-energy plants use coal refuse as an energy to generate 
affordable and reliable electricity, and it is estimated that these 
facilities have removed 214 million tons of coal refuse from the 
environment, again, at no cost to the taxpayer, and they also generate 
electricity, in addition to removing this coal refuse.
  However, only a few of the most recently built coal refuse-to-energy 
plants can comply with the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and 
their Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, neither of which took the 
unique characteristics of these facilities into account.
  Because coal refuse is a waste product containing varying levels of 
sulfur and other regulated contaminants, the plants using it need rules 
that reflect this variability. The EPA refused to provide any 
flexibility, placing the continued operation of these coal refuse-to-
energy plants in doubt.
  One way the SENSE Act would correct this is by making adjustments to 
sulfur dioxide allowances for these plants, without lowering the 
overall cap on emissions.
  Forcing these plants to close would harm our communities, it would 
actually hurt jobs, it would make our environmental problems worse, not 
better, and it would cost our taxpayers more money.
  The other bill under consideration is the Small Business Broadband 
Deployment Act, and it would exempt Internet service providers with 
250,000 subscribers or fewer from having to implement the FCC's 
enhanced transparency requirements under the 2015 Open Internet Order.
  Under this legislation, the exemption would remain in effect for 5 
years, enabling these small Internet service providers to focus on 
expanding their networks and improving connectivity.
  This is a major issue for my congressional district, which includes a 
lot of rural communities, and they are in need of faster Internet. Many 
of the communities I serve in rural southeast and southwest Ohio do not 
have a 4G-like connection.
  I know that this is an issue that is shared by many districts across 
the country, many Members across the country, from both sides of the 
aisle. So I am hopeful that this measure will pass with strong 
bipartisan support.
  It is also important to note that the Small Business Broadband 
Deployment Act does not prevent consumers from accessing information, 
as the disclosure requirements from the 2010 Open Internet Order remain 
in effect.
  I look forward to debating these bills with my colleagues. I urge 
support for the rule and the underlying pieces of legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the first of the 
two underlying bills. The second one is largely uncontroversial. The 
first, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment bill--so-
called Saving the Environment bill--the SENSE Act, actually leads to 
greater risks and more contaminations I will discuss; and then the 
second, the noncontroversial bill, is called the Small Business 
Broadband Deployment Act.
  I'm a little curious as to why we are going through this particular 
rule process. This could be scheduled for a suspension vote. We could 
have possibly even done it with unanimous consent and probably finished 
it yesterday. But apparently the Republicans don't find that there is 
anything important that America wants Congress to address, so they have 
us debating bills that are largely not controversial that we could get 
done in a matter of minutes and, instead, are spending several hours 
debating these bills, one of which will go nowhere, the other of which 
we could have done very quickly to avoid this Congress having the real 
discussions that I believe the American people want us to undertake.
  When I go back home and have townhalls and hear from constituents, I 
hear people crying out for a Congress that will do something about our 
Federal budget deficit and that will actually pass a budget. You will 
see later in my remarks I will mention that our previous question 
motion will be one that would require Congress to stay in session until 
we pass a budget, because there has been discussion--I hope it is not 
true--that the Republicans are thinking of giving up on passing a 
budget in the House and simply sending all of Congress home for a 
vacation.
  I think, already, Congress is scheduled to finish Wednesday of next 
week. Most Americans have to work Thursday and Friday of next week. I 
don't know why Congress only has to work 2\1/2\ days. But that is what 
they are telling us. If we can't even accomplish a budget during those 
2\1/2\ days, I don't know what we expect the American people to think 
we are doing.
  So we should be talking about the tough decisions we need to make: 
How do we reduce the deficit and make the necessary investments in 
growth? How do we pass a budget? How do we fix our broken immigration 
system with one that works, one that secures our borders, unites 
families, and has a pathway to citizenship for those who work hard and 
contribute to our country? How do we make sure that we can improve and 
build upon the successes of the Affordable Care Act, recognize its 
shortcomings, and make the improvements necessary to move it forward?
  But, no, instead, we are not doing that. We are taking up a 
controversial bill, the SENSE Act, that won't become law. It has a 
misleading title. It won't do anything to satisfy American energy needs 
and certainly will not help the environment, which is why it is opposed 
by many environmental groups. The SENSE Act makes anything but sense.
  What would make sense, of course, is discussing and voting on a 
budget. What would make sense is passing immigration reform. What would 
make sense is making progress towards balancing our budget. What would 
make sense is investing in research to cure cancer. What would make 
sense is doing our best to make America secure.
  But, no, instead, we are discussing something that the Republicans 
have given the title the SENSE bill to, perhaps to overcompensate for 
the fact that it simply doesn't make sense.
  Now, Republicans know the SENSE Act won't become law. Instead, we are 
spending, I don't know, half a day, three-quarters of a day bringing up 
yet another partisan attack on the Environmental Protection Agency, 
whose job it is to protect our air. We all breathe the air. Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents, animals, and

[[Page H1357]]

plants all breathe the air. What we need is common sense to improve our 
air quality and move forward. What we need are solutions to break 
through congressional gridlock.
  Again, this set of rules in this bill--which I call upon my 
colleagues to vote down--is clear that the Republicans are not serious. 
They are either unable or unwilling to bring forward fresh ideas or 
address the issues that our constituents are crying out that we need to 
deal with. This bill is simply another form of pandering when we should 
be taking advantage of the few remaining weeks we have of session to 
address the real problems of our Nation.
  Now, these two bills under one rule are completely unrelated. When 
the Speaker came into office, he promised we would move bills with 
regular order. I don't understand why we can't pass the 
noncontroversial one. I would have gotten it done already and then had 
more of an open process. We did an amendment in Rules Committee to 
allow for an open amendment process on the SENSE Act, but it was voted 
down on a partisan vote. Unfortunately, the two were combined under one 
rule, and I am very disappointed it is not an open rule.
  We need to move forward on FAA reform, making sure that we 
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration to keep our skies that 
we rely on for commerce and tourism safe and open. We face an imminent 
expiration of that. We need to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, the 
Higher Education Act, find a solution to the affordable housing crisis. 
And, yes, we need to pass a budget. All of those things should be done 
before Congress gives itself another vacation. I think that is common 
sense.
  We wonder why, in poll after poll, Congress has an approval rating of 
12 percent or 14 percent. I sometimes wonder who those 12 percent are. 
I wonder who those 12 percent are, because I haven't met any of my 
constituents that have said: ``Congress is doing great. Keep on doing 
what you are doing.'' I think they misunderstand the question and they 
are probably answering in the negative, because I don't understand how 
any American could be satisfied with a United States Congress that 
punts and punts and punts on issue after issue and instead spends its 
entire days and weeks, on the rare occasion when it is in session, 
debating bills that won't go anywhere and won't be signed into law and 
then promptly give themselves additional vacation time as an extra 
bonus while patting themselves on the back. That is not the Congress 
that the American people want.
  First, let me talk about the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act. 
Again, it is a bipartisan bill. I think we could have done it on 
suspension or unanimous consent on Monday. We could have finished it.
  I come from the private sector. I operated several businesses, grew 
them over time and played various roles. Do you know what? In the 
private sector, when you can get something done quickly, the last thing 
you want to do is draw it out, to spend a couple of days on it. So if 
we have something that Congress could have finished Monday evening so 
that we could get moving and discussing and debating the important 
issues that the American people are crying out for Congress to address, 
why didn't we do it then? Why didn't we do it then? If they are drawing 
out something and having us spend half a day on something, then I 
think, because of the hard work of many Members who collaborated on 
this, we could probably complete it in 10 or 15 minutes.
  This legislation is important, of course. I think we can pass it. The 
bill would make the temporary exemption that the FCC granted to ISPs 
with 100,000 or fewer subscribers and extend and expand the cap to ISPs 
with 250,000 or fewer subscribers that addresses bipartisan concerns 
about speeds and costs and gives regulatory certainty to Internet 
service providers, keeps the exemption level at a level that protects 
consumers, keeps the Internet free and open, doesn't allow large 
Internet service providers to act as gatekeepers that favor some 
content over others; and Congress should take notice of the 
administration's statement on this legislation, which cautions about 
bills that move towards threatening the open Internet. But on this 
exemption, specifically, I don't think we have enough information to 
know whether it needs to be made permanent, so I support the efforts of 
this bill to spur the FCC to provide needed information.
  Again, I think there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans who have 
worked hard on this bill. We probably could have dispensed with it on 
Monday. But, hey, here we are. We are dealing with it under this rule. 
I thought, if we are going through the rulemaking process, we should at 
least offer an open rule. Every piece of legislation, even if it is 
passable, ought to encourage ideas from Democrats and Republicans in 
amendments to make it better. But, no, under this rule, the Rules 
Committee shut down the open amendment process and is not allowing 
Democrats or Republicans to offer germane, relevant amendments on the 
floor to the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act.
  Now, moving on to the SENSE Act--or the non-SENSE act, as I like to 
call it--it won't become law. We spend a lot of time debating bills 
that won't become law. In fact, this House, apparently for lack of 
anything more important to do, has voted to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act over 60 times. The good news is we are not doing that again today. 
I thank the Speaker for not having us repeal the Affordable Care Act 
for the 65th time this week. That would have been a waste of time.
  Instead, the Republicans are being creative about how we are going to 
waste our time. This is a new way to waste our time. Rather than 
discussing the budget or the FAA reauthorization or childhood nutrition 
or balancing our budget or fixing our broken immigration system, rather 
than doing any of those important things, we found a new and clever way 
to waste the time of the United States Congress in debate of a bill 
that will not become law.
  Now, thank goodness it won't become law because the non-SENSE act is 
bad for Americans and poor for our health. It is a convoluted, 
senseless manner going after the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which is called CSAPR, and going after 
the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which is called MATS. 
Specifically, this bill would change the requirements for plants that 
use coal refuse.
  Now, there are about 20 of these coal refuse plants in the entire 
country. What this bill would do is it would abandon the market-based 
approach for sulfur dioxide emission allowances in favor of a one-size-
fits-all Federal Government approach. So this bill is effectively a 
Federal takeover of the regulatory structure around our coal refuse 
plants.
  Again, it is a particularly creative way to waste Congress' time, and 
it is ironic because the Republicans often attack efforts to take away 
control from the States. They say: How dare you Democrats suggest that 
anything can be done better at the national level. How dare you suggest 
that. How dare you suggest something that contravenes the 10th 
Amendment.
  Do you know what? In this bill, the Republicans are proposing taking 
away State authority and a Federal takeover, because currently States 
have control over the incentives and work with coal refuse plants, but 
this simply says the Federal Government should override that work.
  Now, that seems hypocritical. It seems against the philosophy that 
many Republicans have come here arguing, and it leads me to believe 
that many proponents of this bill seem to value their special interest 
pork over their philosophical integrity.
  Now, this bill would create a system that the government picks 
winners and losers rather than markets. CSAPR has a trading program 
that allows plants to conform to emissions standards in different ways, 
like trading emission allowances; and that program, that market-based 
program, would be thrown out of the window with this legislation and 
the keys would be handed over to the Federal Government. Even more 
astonishing is allowing coal refuse plants to slip through loopholes in 
order to balance our credits actually makes it harder for regular coal 
plants to meet their pollution reduction goals.
  I honestly don't know if the Republicans have thought about the 
impact of this bill or what it would do.
  Now, again, knowing that it won't become law is simply a creative way

[[Page H1358]]

for Congress to waste its time as congressional approval sinks even 
lower. I know that the Republicans have often accused some Democrats of 
engaging in a war on coal, but with this particular bill, they are the 
ones attacking the coal industry.
  The Republicans claim that this legislation is needed to allow coal 
refuse plants to be able to meet various air quality standards under 
the MATS rule, yet throughout the entire rulemaking process there 
hasn't been any evidence that they can't meet the standards that are 
already in place. That was recently confirmed by the D.C. circuit 
court.
  Now, it is apparent that both CSAPR and MATS are workable, smart 
rules that approximately 20 coal refuse plants in our country can abide 
by in flexible, market-oriented ways. I want to be clear. Leaving coal 
refuse to spontaneously combust or seep into the ground via acid rain 
is simply unacceptable, and we need to be cleaning it up; but allowing 
the plants that are processing it to do so with a weak compliance 
system is harmful to our health, our homes, our communities, and the 
environment.
  Simply put, this bill is an unnecessary, imprudent bill that does 
nothing to help our environment or put our country on the right track. 
I oppose the rule, in addition to H.R. 3797.
  Today we could have shown the American people that Congress can come 
together and do something to solve important issues in a bipartisan 
manner, to keep our skies safe and open, protecting commerce, by 
reauthorizing the FAA to pass a bipartisan budget which balances our 
budget and deals with our deficit; to improve the Child Nutrition Act, 
the Higher Education Act, any of the myriad challenges that I hear 
about and, frankly, I believe my Republicans hear about in their 
townhalls.
  I don't think when we are home and hearing from our constituents--by 
the way, I haven't received a single letter about this coal refuse 
bill. I haven't heard it in any of my townhalls or gotten calls from 
any of my constituents. They want us dealing with the pressing issues 
facing the American people.
  We have 84 days of session left in this Congress. By the way, 
Congress works 84 days. Most Americans have at least 145 days that they 
go to work. As an example of that, Congress is scheduled to leave town 
next Wednesday, will have 2 days off that week, then 2 weeks off, then 
another day off. So that is the type of schedule we are running here.
  People wonder what Congress is doing. The answer is we are not doing 
anything. When we are here, we are spending more time than necessary on 
uncontroversial bills and we are debating bills that won't become law, 
and then we all go home and take a vacation. That is the Republican 
Congress. That is the image of what the Republican Congress is and how 
they are running this institution. It spends a lot of time debating 
something that you don't even need to. It spends other time debating 
things that aren't going to become law, like repealing the Affordable 
Care Act over 60 times and like this non-SENSE Act, and then gives 
Congress much greater vacation time than the American people enjoy 
because, apparently, Republicans think this Congress is doing so well 
that we all deserve a lot of vacation.
  Democrats want to stay here and work on the budget. That is going to 
be our previous question. We believe we should get a budget done. We 
would like it to be a bipartisan budget. It certainly is a governing 
majority. We encourage Republicans to pass a budget, but if they don't 
have the votes, then, by all means, let's do a bipartisan budget that 
makes sense for our country.

                              {time}  1245

  You will find us willing to roll up our sleeves and get to work, stay 
here this weekend, stay here next Thursday and Friday, stay here the 
following week. Let's get this done. This is the work the American 
people want to see done.
  They want to see a budget. They want to see competence. We need to 
show people that Congress and competence are not mutually exclusive; 
yet, we continue to do the exact opposite by this course under this 
rule of debating a bill--and wasting a day--that won't even become law.
  Now, look, we have an opportunity here. A vote on this rule is an 
important vote for that reason. If we defeat this rule--and I call upon 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so--we can truly send 
the message that we want to spend time debating the issues that the 
American people care about.
  We want to fix the budget, the deficit, immigration, health care. 
Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work rather than continue to blame 
the President for this or that or blame the Democrats for this or that.
  I am honestly curious. If we can't blame the President because he was 
on time with his budget and you can't blame the Democrats because we 
are willing to roll up our sleeves and work with you on a budget deal, 
who are the Republicans going to blame if they can't deliver a budget?
  I remember the Republicans assailing the Democrats for not delivering 
budgets. I am sure my colleague will remind me of that yet again. But, 
again, that is something that you criticized us on.
  If you can't deliver a budget yourself, what is the use of the 
American people even having the Republicans here? What use was that 
criticism of the Democrats for not delivering budgets on time if the 
Republicans themselves don't have the ability to deliver a budget?
  Now, look, we can deliver a budget with you. If the Republicans are 
unable to because there is freedom this or liberty that or all these 
different buzzwords out there for people who don't want to vote for a 
budget, we are happy to work with the Republicans on a budget.
  Ultimately, what comes out of this process between the House and the 
Senate is usually some bipartisan buy-in into the budget, anyway.
  We are happy to start here with you. The perfect time to do that is 
now. The perfect time to do that is next Thursday and Friday and the 
following week. I think we owe the American people a budget rather than 
an enormous vacation, a paid vacation, for Members of Congress.
  Look, we can do better by voting down this rule. I promise you we 
will do better.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the calendar, the 
budget, the rule, and the SENSE Act.
  With regard to the calendar, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the 
gentleman from Colorado manages his calendar. But when I go home to my 
district--and I won't speak for every Member of Congress--it is 
certainly not a vacation.
  I am home meeting with constituents, touring businesses, and letting 
my constituents talk to me so that I know what they think so that I can 
do my job of representing them. That is how most of the 435 Members of 
this Chamber treat the district workweeks.
  To assume that we are only working when we are in Washington, the 
other side of the aisle might love Washington, but I prefer to be home 
in my district working with people and then come back to Washington to 
represent them.
  With regard to things we have done, the gentleman talked about the 
Affordable Care Act, but he ignored the fact that I believe--and I may 
get this wrong, but I am close--seven of the changes to the Affordable 
Care Act were signed into law.
  The gentleman talked about a budget. He did finally acknowledge that, 
when the Democrats were in charge, Mr. Speaker, they didn't pass a 
budget.
  I have been here since 2011, when we took over the majority, and we 
have passed a budget every year and have passed a budget that balances.
  I believe we are going to pass a budget this year. I hope not to be 
proved wrong, Mr. Speaker, but we are working hard at it.
  With regard to the rule, the gentleman seems to want to have it both 
ways. He says that the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act should 
have been done on suspension, on the one hand, and then he wants an 
open rule that would eat up even more time, on the other hand. I am not 
sure which it is he wants here, but let's have it one way or the other.
  And then, finally, on the SENSE Act, the gentleman from Colorado 
ignores the fact that this bill does not change

[[Page H1359]]

the overall emissions cap. He wants to talk about how it loosens the 
overall emissions cap. It does not.
  Let's be clear. It does not change the overall emissions cap. It 
provides flexibility for only 19 refuse-to-power plants across this 
country, and it saves money because it would cost $2 billion in 
Pennsylvania alone just to clean up that refuse around these coal 
mines.
  It is dangerous and it is bad for the environment. Providing this 
flexibility does not change our overall emissions, but it does help get 
those reclamation sites cleaned up cheaper, not as a cost to the 
taxpayer, and provides an additional benefit of jobs in energy. That 
sounds pretty American to me.
  I think it is time to end this war on coal that some people in this 
administration and the other side of the aisle have. That is what the 
SENSE Act would do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Ohio talked about what we do when we are back 
home. Of course we tour businesses, meet with people, and do all of 
those wonderful things. What I hear from them is: Why aren't you back 
in Washington solving problems?
  Look, I represent one of the most beautiful districts in the entire 
country: Winter Park, Vail, the beautiful Flatirons near Boulder, Rocky 
Mountain National Park, Estes Park, the great Arts Center in Loveland, 
and Fort Collins. I love nothing more than going home.
  But when we got elected to this position, Mr. Speaker, we promised 
our constituents that we will make a sacrifice. Part of that sacrifice 
is saying: You know what. We are going to take some time away, leave 
our friends and family, to work for the good of the country, to roll up 
our sleeves and actually solve problems.
  As much as I would like to be back in Colorado, in my beautiful 
district, right now and I would rather personally be hiking in the 
hills above our home in north Boulder than I would be debating the 
finer points of coal refuse policy with the gentleman from Ohio, that 
is what I signed up for.
  I know, Mr. Speaker, that that is what he signed up for, too. We 
signed up to do work. We owe the American people a budget. We should 
stay here until we complete that budget, even if it means canceling the 
vacation that we have scheduled.
  And, yes, that vacation--when we are back home, we can't do 
legislative work. Sure, we can put on an apron and visit a local 
kitchen. We do, and I do. And you know what, it is part of the job. I 
am happy to do it.
  But we can't pass a single law while we are back home. It is 
impossible, Mr. Speaker, to pass a budget while we are all back home 
and Congress is not in session. It is not possible if Congress is not 
in session.
  The gentleman asked: What is a better way to proceed with this 
noncontroversial bill and the controversial bill? Look, either way is 
fine if we had an open rulemaking process, an open rule.
  At least there would be some point to these discussions on the floor. 
There would be Republicans and Democrats who might have ideas to make 
these bills better that would be bringing them forward. At least there 
would be some point to it.
  But, no, there is no point to it. Because we are debating it, we know 
the outcome, and Republicans and Democrats can't even offer their bills 
to enhance it.
  We are prohibited during all of this time debating one bill that is 
largely noncontroversial and one bill that isn't going anywhere and 
won't become law.
  We are spending the entire week debating these bills--or most of the 
week. I know we will be back to discuss another court case relating to 
immigration later this week.
  But the bulk of the week is debating this rather than the budget, 
securing our border, keeping the American people safe, growing the 
economy, creating jobs, investing in infrastructure, FAA authorization, 
any of those issues.
  But when I am back home and visiting businesses, I hear about it from 
my constituents. You would think that, with all the time we spend back 
home that the gentleman from Ohio calls nonvacation time because we are 
always listening to people, we would listen more and actually do what 
the American people say.
  Are the American people saying to address the miniscule aspects of 
the coal refuse plant and CSAPR and MATS?
  Let me be honest, Mr. Speaker. Until this debate, I thought CSAPR was 
just a friendly ghost, because the American people back in my district 
are not really about CSAPR and MATS.
  In fact, once I understood them, I thought they sounded good. They 
are market-based approaches. I don't think this Federal takeover that 
the Republicans are proposing is a good idea.
  Instead, if we are spending all this time listening back home, which 
we certainly are because Congress is hardly working here, then at least 
let's listen to what the American people say.
  I believe they are speaking strongly with one voice, whether they are 
Republican or Democratic. I hear the same things from my constituents, 
the unaffiliated constituents, the Republicans, the Democrats, the 
Greens, the Libertarians. What they all tend to say, what they all say, 
is: Go do your job. Pass a budget. Pass a budget.
  Democrats believe that. Republicans believe that. Unaffiliated voters 
believe that. Greens, Libertarians, and the American Constitution Party 
believe that. If I have left out any other parties, I am pretty sure in 
saying that they also think that Americans should have a budget.
  We have budgets for our households. I have a budget for my household. 
We have budgets for our States. Doesn't the American Congress owe the 
American people a budget?
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to prohibit the House from going on recess next 
week until we do our job and pass a budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with the extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to remind the gentleman from Colorado that, when 
the Democrats were in charge of Congress, they went on--I will use his 
word--vacation 4 years in a row without passing a single budget, not a 
single budget.
  We have passed a budget every year, and I believe we are going to 
pass a budget this year, just as a reminder to the gentleman of what 
happened. I think he wants to have it both ways again, and I would just 
like to remind him, Mr. Speaker.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), 
who listened to his constituents to deal with an issue that is very 
important to him. I will let him address it.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In addition to listening to my constituents, I have been listening to 
my good friend from Colorado about wanting to come here to solve 
problems. Well, the SENSE Act is about solving a problem.
  I, too, have a beautiful district. I consider it the most beautiful 
district in the country. You get on top of some of those mountain 
vistas and it is breathtaking.
  But unlike the gentleman from Colorado, there are some scars when you 
look up at some of those vistas. The scars are a vestige of ages-ago 
mining.
  That is why the SENSE Act, Mr. Speaker, is a smart and important 
legislative fix to ensure that the coal refuse-to-energy facilities can 
be held to strict, but achievable, standards.
  Coal refuse, as some of you may know--and perhaps this is an 
educational moment for people in this country to learn more about what 
we have up there in Pennsylvania--is a byproduct of historic coal-
mining operations. Anyone who has driven through coal country has seen 
the towering black mounds of this material that loom beside cities and 
towns and countrysides.
  These mounds catch fire, burning uncontrollably and sending hazardous 
smoke into the air. Rainwater leaches terrible chemicals from those 
mounds, polluting nearby rivers and streams.

[[Page H1360]]

  The coal refuse-to-energy industry turns this material into energy 
and uses the profits and beneficial residual material to remediate 
these formerly polluted sites at no cost to the taxpayer. It is really 
the only feasible solution to this massive environmental problem.
  I have seen the tremendous work done by the hardworking men and women 
in this industry firsthand. I have stood on coal refuse piles in the 
process of remediation. I have walked on the restored sites. Parks and 
meadows now are regarded as community assets rather than liabilities.
  Despite all the good that this industry does for Pennsylvania, coal 
refuse-to-energy facilities are under attack from the EPA. The people 
of my State and other coal States expect us to stand up for them as 
their environment and livelihoods come under threat from Washington.
  As we debate the rule for this legislation and prepare for general 
and amendment debate, I want to share a few stories from the people in 
this industry. These are people who are proud of the great work they 
have done for their communities. Unfortunately, their way of life is 
currently endangered.
  Bill Turner is a shift supervisor at the A/C Colver coal refuse 
facility in Cambria County. Bill has served at Colver for 22 years. He 
is a long-term resident of western Pennsylvania and has lived alongside 
coal refuse piles for many years.
  Bill and his colleagues are proud of the reclamation work that his 
plant and others in the area have been able to complete over the years.
  He was able to put three kids through college, thanks to his job at 
Colver, and I should mention that these kids grew up playing soccer on 
a field reclaimed from a coal refuse site.

                              {time}  1300

  When I asked him about the prospect that his industry might be 
destroyed by the EPA, he remarked, ``To see it disappear would be a 
travesty.''
  Tim is an operations shift supervisor--a younger man, in his early 
thirties, with a wife and two small kids. Wages at his plant are well 
above the area average, and he is planning on building a new house near 
the plant for his young family.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, these plants are in economically challenged 
areas. These jobs that these individuals have are not replaceable. 
Allowing inflexible EPA orthodoxy to shutter his plant, a plant that 
supports family-sustaining jobs and that repairs the local environment, 
would be a disaster for Tim and his family.
  At least 5,200 jobs are at stake, and each one of those jobs is more 
than just a number. Each job lost is a Tim or a Bill. Each job lost 
represents a major hardship for an American family.
  As we debate the SENSE Act, please keep in mind what the bill's 
supporters are fighting for. The SENSE Act is about protecting family-
sustaining jobs and is about ensuring the continuation of the 
environmental success story of the coal refuse-to-energy industry.
  I urge all Members to support this rule and the SENSE Act today so 
that we can begin to solve problems.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would, of course, like to remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
that my mountains are higher than his mountains. I also want to let the 
gentleman know that my district is no stranger to coal mining as well. 
Coal mines in northern Colorado existed throughout my district and near 
my district in Marshall, Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, Erie, Dacono, 
Frederick, and Firestone. The mines employ thousands of people.
  Just 2 years ago, we observed the 100th anniversary of the Ludlow 
Massacre, which was an attack by the Colorado National Guard and the 
Colorado Fuel and Iron Company guards on a tent colony of 1,200 
striking coal miners and their families in Ludlow, Colorado, on April 
20, 1914.
  Unfortunately, in that tragedy, two-dozen people were killed in that 
black mark on our Nation's labor history. I would like to think how far 
the United Mine Workers have come and how far we have come in 
protecting workers' rights.
  Certainly we understand the legacy of not just coal mining in my 
district. The gentleman mentioned abandoned mines in the mountain 
territory of our district. We have many abandoned silver and gold 
mines. We have an active molybdenum mine right near my district. Many 
workers live in my district and, of course, mining remains an important 
part of the West and, of course, of the East as well.
  Again, I would certainly advance the argument that even coming from a 
mining district, Congress spending an entire week, basically, debating 
these two bills is not something that justifies our time here.
  The gentleman from Ohio rightly mentioned that Democrats did not 
produce a budget, and yes, that might have been one of the reasons the 
American people said, ``Okay. Republicans, we will give you a chance. 
You guys produce a budget.''
  Do you know what?
  If you guys don't produce a budget, you guys are blowing that 
opportunity, Mr. Speaker. If the Republicans can't deliver a budget, I 
think the Democrats have learned from experience.
  I certainly will go out and campaign on--and I think many of my 
colleagues will say--``Look. The Republicans could not deliver a 
budget.''
  Most Democrats have learned our lesson. We are going to get back in 
the majority and we are going to deliver a budget to the American 
people. I certainly will work very hard to do that.
  I am proud to be one of about 16 Democrats and a similar number of 
Republicans who voted for a bipartisan budget in the last Congress. It 
didn't pass. It was the only budget that had Democrats and Republicans 
supporting it. Of course, it also had Democrats and Republicans 
opposing it in greater numbers, unfortunately; but that is at least the 
spark--the kind of idea we need to pursue--to be able to work together 
to govern this country.
  Rather than spinning our wheels and spending a lot of time debating a 
bill that isn't controversial and a lot of time debating a bill that 
isn't going anywhere, we should take up important legislation. We 
should address comprehensive immigration reform; securing our borders, 
making sure that workers who are important to our country have a way 
out of the shadows; uniting families; and protecting the security of 
the American people rather than wasting time in trying to change 
commonsense rules for 20 coal refuse plants--rules that are working and 
that have been affirmed by the district court.
  We could be addressing the Nation's pressing issues like climate 
change and carbon emissions and out-of-control student debt or how we 
can improve opportunities for the struggling middle class.
  Rather than wasting the American people's time and taxpayer dollars 
on debating a special interest provision, we could take up the Email 
Privacy Act, which would protect the American people's privacy and 
which has 312 cosponsors--more than any other bill in this Congress and 
which has a solid veto-proof majority.
  We could take up criminal justice reform, which I know many people on 
both sides of the aisle feel very strongly about and which I strongly 
support, which could improve our economy, reduce crime, reduce costs, 
and is a moral imperative; or as I mentioned, we could take up our 
budget, as is the duty and responsibility of Congress, rather than all 
go back to our districts and put on aprons and serve lattes and meet 
people in our local diners.
  I urge the House majority to take up these important pieces of 
legislation, which are supported by a majority of Americans, that are 
critical to our economy and align with our values rather than to debate 
stale, unnecessary miner bills that won't even become law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to remind the gentleman from Colorado that it is 
not a ``minor'' bill for the 5,200 people whose jobs are on the line 
every day right now.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. It is a ``miner'' bill. I was spelling ``miner'' a 
different way than you.
  Mr. STIVERS. Okay. That kind of ``miner'' I am good with. I thank the 
gentleman.

[[Page H1361]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), an esteemed member of both the Rules and 
Budget Committees.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on coming down here. I know we are on 
a clock and we are trying to get some things done, but I heard the 
passionate words of my friend from Colorado--and he is my friend from 
Colorado.
  I think about what is, sadly, the sometimes short list of folks who 
are on the other side of the aisle with whom you can grapple with the 
really difficult issues of the day in this institution.
  Mr. Polis is one of those folks to whom you can always go and have a 
very candid and serious conversation about things, even those things on 
which you disagree, which I think is why it has so distressed me to 
hear some of the words that he had to share today.
  Now, I confess that this is sometimes part of the show down here on 
Rules Committee day, and sometimes folks have the talking points, and 
they are obligated to go through those talking points. Yet, as a member 
of the Budget Committee and as a relatively young Member in this 
institution, I would say to my friend from Colorado that the reason 
approval ratings in this institution are so low is that you and I stand 
up here and we tell our constituents that they are supposed to be so 
low.
  Instead of telling our constituents that we have been working on a 
budget the way we are supposed to work on a budget--line by line, word 
by word because it is a serious challenge that deserves a serious 
solution--we tell folks we have just thrown up our hands and quit. Not 
true.
  I sit on the Budget Committee. Tomorrow, from dawn until dusk, we 
will be in that hearing room doing nothing but budgeting. We will hear 
every single idea, every single alternative. Every choice that can be 
made, we are going to make tomorrow. Now, that is not just one day of 
budgeting; that is the culmination of days, weeks, and months of 
working together, trying to get this budget done.
  My friend is right. When I hear constructive criticism about how 
Republicans ought to work to pass budgets, I know that doesn't come 
from this decade, because Democrats have not passed a budget this 
decade. This House has. Together we have, and I am very proud of that.
  Every year since I have come to this institution--5 years ago--we 
have come together and we have passed a budget. Last year, we came 
together and we passed a budget for the entire United States of 
America. For the first time in a long time, we got the Senate to move.
  This is a cooperative exercise, and I am proud to be in it; but we 
can't tell people that we are letting them down when, in fact, we are 
delivering.
  I look at my friend from Pennsylvania who is delivering on the SENSE 
Act. I think the non-SENSE Act is a clever term, but the truth is the 
``nonsense'' is suggesting that he is doing anything except the job his 
constituents sent him to do. He has facilities in his district that are 
closing down. He has families in his district who are losing their 
jobs. He has people who are depending on him, his bosses back home in 
the district depending on him to come and make a difference for them.
  I get it. Folks over here might not like it, folks over here might 
not like it, folks over there might not like it, but it is what he gets 
paid to do. To suggest that bringing his ideas down here is a waste of 
time is something I reject in the most forceful terms. He is doing what 
he is supposed to do.
  I would tell you that, if we all spent less time being focused on 
being good Republicans and less time on being good Democrats and more 
on being good servants to the people who sent us here, those approval 
ratings would take care of themselves.
  These campaign seasons drive me crazy. Folks spend 18 months not 
doing their jobs and 6 months raising money, trying to convince people 
they were. I believe if we do our jobs, we are going to get rewarded 
for it; and if we don't do our jobs, we are going to be punished for 
it; but we have got to be clear about what our job is.
  Keith Rothfus' job is not to make anybody in the great State of 
Georgia happy or anybody in the great State of Colorado happy. His job 
is to stand up for families who can't stand up for themselves in 
Pennsylvania, and I applaud him for it. His job is to do the things 
that nobody else in this institution is going to do, because he works 
for them.
  This is not a waste of time today. This is exactly what we are 
supposed to be doing. Don't you worry about that budget. Your Budget 
Committee is going to deliver for you, and you are going to be proud of 
the work product that we do; but we have got to tell folks that 
representative government still works. We have got to tell folks that 
Congress still works. We have got to tell folks that they are still the 
boss of the United States of America.
  You look at this Bernie Sanders phenomenon and this Donald Trump 
phenomenon. Folks think they are no longer the boss. I look at Keith 
Rothfus' State, and I know of the good men and women of Pennsylvania 
who sent him here to stand up in the face of attacks from all sides. He 
is delivering for his people back home. Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' It 
is your voting card--do what you want to with it--but let's never 
impugn one of our colleagues for doing exactly what he was sent here to 
do, and that is to stand up for the men and women we represent back 
home.
  Again, I say to my friend from Colorado, when it comes to the really 
hard issues of the day, there is no one who I am more comfortable 
working with. There is no one who is more willing to reach across the 
aisle, and I admire that vote on the bipartisan budget that he took. 
That was the very first year that I arrived here. Yet we can't let 
these political seasons turn into telling each other why everybody up 
here is a scoundrel and a cheat. There are some good men and women up 
here. The gentleman from Colorado is one, the gentleman from Ohio is 
one, and the gentleman who brings the SENSE Act here before us today is 
absolutely one. I am proud to serve with each of you.
  Mr. POLIS. Does the gentleman from Ohio have any remaining speakers?
  Mr. STIVERS. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his thoughtful remarks. 
Certainly there is no one in this debate who has called anybody a 
scoundrel or anything of the sort.
  The specific concerns of Mr. Rothfus would best be addressed in 
Harrisburg. For the Republicans, that is the capital of Pennsylvania. 
Don't worry. I had to ask as well. That is where this could best be 
addressed. The Republicans have talked a lot about empowering the 
States to solve problems rather than always coming to Washington to 
solve our problems for us.
  Guess what?
  Harrisburg is empowered to deal with this issue today, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania would be best served in spending time with 
his Governor, the State regulators, and the State legislature to 
address the very issues for which he is trying to do this end run in 
coming to Congress to spend our time here, debating.
  The gentleman from Georgia also mentioned that they are hard at work 
on the Budget Committee. I hope so. I mean, I trust the gentleman. I am 
sure they are. They are working. I hope that this Congress will stay in 
session long enough to see the results of that and to pass a budget. 
That is what our ``previous question'' motion would do. It would simply 
say that we prohibit the House from going into recess until we do our 
job and pass a budget. It is entirely consistent with the work that the 
Budget Committee is doing that will ultimately have to then be 
reflected in the rank-and-file membership on both sides being a part of 
that process as well, and we owe it to the American people to let that 
process be completed and to pass a budget.
  I urge the Republicans to take up these important pieces of 
legislation that I have talked about--a budget, the FAA 
reauthorization, the Child Nutrition Act, securing our border and 
fixing our broken immigration system, balancing our budget, investing 
in infrastructure, tax reform. These are actions that I hear about back 
home every day I am back, and I think it is important that we act on 
them. They are important to our economy and they

[[Page H1362]]

are important to our values as Americans--rather than debating bills 
that might feel good but won't become law and ultimately are not the 
right way to solve our problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to urge my 
colleague from Colorado to use his 5 legislative days to ensure the 
Congressional Record does appropriately say it is a miner act--M-I-N-E-
R instead of M-I-N-O-R act--where he said it was a minor act. I think 
that is a very important distinction, and it is a distinction with a 
difference. He made the statement earlier, so I hope he does use his 5 
legislative days to correct the Record on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 640 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. It shall not be in order to consider a motion that 
     the House adjourn on the legislative day of March 23, 2016, 
     unless the House has adopted a concurrent resolution 
     establishing the budget for the United States government for 
     fiscal year 2017.
                                  ____


        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. STIVERS. 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.

                          ____________________