[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 176 (Wednesday, December 7, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H7288-H7292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5143, TRANSPARENT INSURANCE
STANDARDS ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM
DECEMBER 9, 2016, THROUGH JANUARY 3, 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 944 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 944
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5143) to
provide greater transparency and congressional oversight of
international insurance standards setting processes, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment recommended by
the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 114-68 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 Financial Services; (2) the
further amendment printed in 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 a
division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day of the second session of
the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress after December 8, 2016--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. Each day during the period addressed by section 2
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 5. Each day during the period addressed by section 2
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
Sec. 6. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of December 8, 2016, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The gentleman from Alabama is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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. BYRNE. 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 Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 944 provides for
consideration of H.R. 5143, the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of
2016. The resolution provides for a structured rule. This legislation
is an important effort to protect the U.S. model of insurance
supervision, provide for improved oversight,
[[Page H7289]]
and keep the U.S. insurance industry strong and competitive.
For over 150 years, individual States have successfully regulated
insurance and coordinated their activities. This model has worked and
ensured that the focus remains on the consumer.
Well, when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act back in 2010, the
Federal Government assumed a new role in the regulation of the
insurance industry. This change included the creation of the Federal
Insurance Office, otherwise known as FIO, and charged FIO with
representing the interests of U.S. insurers--not consumers, insurers--
during the negotiation of any international agreements.
The change also allowed for both the FIO Director and the Federal
Reserve to participate in an international organization known as the
International Association of Insurance Supervisors. Previously,
insurance regulators from the individual States participated in the
international discussions. Remember, the State insurance regulators are
there to protect consumers.
The International Association of Insurance Supervisors is responsible
for developing regulatory guidelines and best practices for insurance
supervisors around the world to adopt. Europe and the United States
have very different regulatory models for insurance.
Recently, the European Union has developed a regulatory protocol
known as Solvency II. Solvency II is significantly different from the
successful State-based insurance regulatory system that has been
successful in the U.S. for the last 150 years. The fear is that the
International Association of Insurance Supervisors will adopt Solvency
II as the gold standard, which would put U.S. insurers and consumers at
a severe disadvantage.
More alarming, the Treasury Department and the U.S. Trade
Representative are already engaged in negotiations with the European
Union regarding a ``covered agreement'' over insurance regulations. If
based on the Solvency II model, this could severely hurt the U.S.
insurance industry and consumers.
That is where our legislation comes in. The Transparent Insurance
Standards Act simply enhances Congress' oversight of international
deliberations relating to insurance standards. The bill sets reasonable
requirements that must be met before the United States can agree to
accept, establish, or enter into the adoption of any international
insurance standard. The same requirements would be followed throughout
any negotiations over a covered agreement with the European Union.
To be clear, this bill would not stop the international process. It
simply will ensure that the United States is leading on the issues
instead of being led by foreign governments.
This bill also requires that the Federal Insurance Office and the
Federal Reserve report and testify before Congress at least twice a
year about ongoing negotiations.
I appreciate Mr. Luetkemeyer and Chairman Hensarling for their
leadership on this very important issue, and I hope we can come
together to pass this very important legislation.
I just don't understand why anyone would be opposed to greater
congressional oversight over such an important issue. Adoption of these
standards or entering into an agreement with the European Union could
fundamentally alter the U.S. insurance industry and, yes, hurt
consumers. It only makes sense for the democratically elected Congress
to play a role in the process.
This legislation is simply about improving oversight and protecting
the State-based model of insurance regulation that has held up so well
in our country over the last 150 years and has enjoyed wide, bipartisan
support. Most importantly, this bill is about ensuring the concerns of
the American people come first, not the worries of some foreign
government or group.
I urge my colleagues to protect insurance consumers across America by
supporting House Resolution 944 and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding to me the customary
30 minutes for debate.
I rise to debate the rule for consideration of H.R. 5143, the
Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016. At best, this bill is
unnecessary. At worst, it will harm our ability to reach vital
international agreements to protect our financial system.
Mr. Speaker, the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Great
Recession was the worst financial disaster in our Nation's history
since the Great Depression. Nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs,
doubling the unemployment rate. More than 11 million Americans lost
their homes to foreclosures. Home values dropped more than 30 percent.
Our Nation lost more than $13 trillion in economic output. To put that
in perspective, that is the equivalent of losing a year's gross
domestic product.
From this disaster, we learned many lessons and passed the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to ensure that we are
better able to prevent such a financial calamity from occurring again.
One lesson we learned was the significant risk posed to our financial
system by potentially unstable, large, globally active insurance
companies, as demonstrated by the near collapse of AIG. As a result,
commonsense reforms to the insurance industry were put in place,
including the creation of the Federal Insurance Office to coordinate
Federal efforts, develop policy, and represent the United States in the
International Association of Insurance Supervisors.
This office, along with new authorities for the Federal Reserve and
the Department of the Treasury, allow our regulators to work to ensure
that our unique insurance regulatory regime provides stability in our
financial system, both nationally and globally. Now, however, the
majority seems to have forgotten the lessons of the 2008 financial
crisis.
Mr. Speaker, at best, this legislation is unnecessary. Under the
guise of transparency, H.R. 5143 would require additional public notice
and comment regarding potential agreements on international insurance
standards. But such international agreements would only take effect
domestically after regulations were promulgated in accordance with U.S.
law, which already includes a notice and comment period. The
transparency this bill is seeking is already enshrined in our
rulemaking process.
Then, at worst, this bill will harm U.S. negotiators by tying their
hands and making setting workable insurance standards nearly impossible
to achieve. Mr. Speaker, by requiring our negotiators to seek consensus
positions with all 50 State insurance commissioners, this bill weakens
the United States' ability to work with other countries to improve the
regulation of large global insurance companies. By placing unnecessary,
counterproductive, and overly cumbersome reporting and negotiating
requirements on the Federal Reserve and Treasury, we will not be able
to achieve the global insurance stability we need to prevent future
financial disasters.
As we approach the end of the 114th Congress, I am dismayed to see
that consideration of this bill is how the majority has decided we
should spend what few precious legislative days remain. I guess my
dismay carries over from last night's so-called impeachment
consideration of the IRS Commissioner, who will be gone from office by
the time they could get through this process. I was pleased to see the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee refer it to his committee, where I
am sure it will die.
It just seems that we get to this important juncture and we find
ourselves caught up in bumper sticker politics, as we have for most of
the session of the 114th Congress. It appears that, in the final hours
of this Congress, the majority is attempting to throw up roadblocks to
prevent commonsense financial regulations aimed at preventing large
insurance companies from once again threatening the stability of our
economy.
The American people--all of them, Republican and Democrat--deserve
better. Assuredly, we can anticipate that if this measure were to
become law--and I predict it won't--but if it were to become law, then
I can see us, at some point, faced with another serious financial
crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H7290]]
I have listened to my colleague from Florida's remarks, and I
certainly understand the concern that we all have with the aftermath of
the Great Recession of 2008. But there are many of us who believe that
the Dodd-Frank law, which contains the provision that we are trying to
affect here, really did things that went way outside of what we should
have been doing to try to prevent another recession from happening
again.
How does ceding control over the U.S. insurance market to foreign
governments and groups help our economy or help prevent a future
recession? How does a bill like the underlying bill, that protects
consumers and provides congressional oversight, hurt our economy? How
does that not help our economy, help the consumers?
{time} 1245
This bill is necessary because the United States faces losing control
over our insurance that is so very important to everybody in the United
States of America.
My colleague talked about State insurance departments. One thing we
have seen these last several years is a steady effort to take power
away from State governments, which is, frankly, contrary to the intent
of our Constitution.
Our State governments do very important things, like they are the
primary providers for public education. But they are also the primary
regulators for insurance, and they have done a good job of that. We
have 150 years of experience with that. We have bipartisan support for
that. Why would we be taking power away from them? Why isn't continuing
to allow them to have that power and utilize it as each State sees fit,
why isn't that a good thing?
Finally, my colleague talked about how, at the end of this Congress,
we are doing bumper sticker things. Well, I believe that passing, with
a huge bipartisan vote, the National Defense Authorization Act last
week was a good thing. If that is a bumper sticker, I want that bumper
sticker.
We passed, last week, the 21st Century Cures Act that I really
believe is going to save lives. If that is a bumper sticker, I want
that bumper sticker.
And I predict on the floor tomorrow we are going to take a WRDA bill
for everybody in the United States that is going to enhance the well-
being of people all over this country. That is another bumper sticker I
will be happy to have on my car.
So I appreciate my colleague's remarks. He knows the tremendous
respect that I have for him, but I respectfully disagree with the
premise for his arguments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague from Alabama and I do have mutual respect for each
other, and I agree with him the three measures that he cited, and I can
cite others during the course of the 114th that were substantive
legislation that rightly we should have bipartisan support for and did,
and I agree with him that the WRDA bill will be one that we could
equally wear proudly on our bumper stickers.
The point that I was making was that we spent a good portion of the
114th Congress, number one, doing nothing. We didn't even make any
bumper stickers because we weren't here that often to undertake to do
anything. At the very same time, many of the things that we did fell in
the category, at least as I perceive it, of being bumper sticker
measures: 60-plus times repealing the Affordable Care Act, knowing full
well that the sitting President was not going to sign anything, so all
we did it for was for certain people to have talking points. Now, we
are entitled; that is a part of what politics is. But make no mistake
about it: we did a lot of bumper sticker legislation in the last
session because a lot of it went nowhere, and a lot of it was done
during a period that we should have been about the business of
substantive legislation.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would close a tax
loophole that rewards companies for moving jobs overseas and would,
instead, provide a tax credit for companies that move jobs back to the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the bill's
sponsor and my good friend, to discuss our proposal.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
In the waning days of the 114th Congress, here we are debating a bill
once again to roll back Wall Street reforms. This is what it comes down
to.
How tone deaf can we be? Here is a news flash: the whole country is
focused on defending blue-collar jobs, bolstering our industrial
manufacturing base. Folks are zoned in on that, focused on that issue.
So we need to stop outsourcing now.
This Congress should start by defeating the previous question and
bringing up the Bring Jobs Home Act. Around 5 million United States
manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1994, good-paying jobs. Their
loss has led to a somewhat demise of the middle class in America. Just
ask folks in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, who have seen steel
mills and rubber factories shipped overseas. My hometown of Paterson,
New Jersey, was formerly the hub of the textile manufacturing industry,
which no longer exists.
So why are we subsidizing it? Why are we subsidizing American
companies to move to other shores? That is what we are doing. Right
now, when companies move overseas, they can take a tax deduction for
the cost of the move. That is a huge tax break. How do we defend it and
why do we defend it?
So the bill that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) referred
to eliminates this tax deduction and gives a tax credit of up to 20
percent of the cost of moving businesses, bringing businesses back to
the United States of America through U.S. companies. That seems to me
to make more sense. Why are we paying folks to leave when we could be
paying them to get back into this country? I don't know how you
disagree with that.
The companies would have to add jobs to claim the tax credit. That is
the caveat. I think it works. I ask you to consider it. Let's stop
subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas and start bringing jobs
back to our shores. Let's stop talking about it. Let's do something
about it. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't get much simpler than that.
This is not a new idea at all. President Obama and the Democrats in
Congress have raised this bill for years, and the Republican Congress
has blocked the bill at every turn. Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads
this bill in the Senate, where it cleared a procedural vote 93-7 in
2014.
I challenge you today to take up and pass the bill, to stand up for
American manufacturing and the workers here at home who need help.
Don't be all talk. Step up to the plate. Take a stand where it counts.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can bring up the
Bring Jobs Home Act and start bringing jobs back to the United States
of America, the greatest country in the world.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill, the underlying bill, has nothing to do with Wall Street
and everything to do with consumers, so I respectfully disagree with my
colleague from New Jersey. I know that it would be good for them to try
to characterize this bill as something having to do with Wall Street,
but it really has to do with you and me and the average people in this
country.
I listened to his remarks about his proposal regarding doing things
to try to keep American companies from going abroad and doing
everything we can to attract other companies abroad, whether they are
U.S. based or not, to come back here. That sounds a whole lot like what
President-elect Trump is saying, and I think it is pretty clear that
that is going to be a big priority for him when we come back in
January.
Now, we had been talking about tax reform here in this House, and
there is
[[Page H7291]]
a proposal moving forward that is comprehensive that will not only
provide the appropriate incentives for American companies to stay here,
but also provide incentives for companies that are in other countries
to come here and provide jobs for the American people, which is really
what this is all about.
Our tax reform proposal would actually lower tax rates for everybody
in America, and we should be about that as well. Instead, our friends
on the other side of the aisle, every time we talk about tax reform,
they want to stick some tax increases in there.
The American people don't want a tax increase. They are tired of tax
increases. They are tired of the overextension of the Federal
Government, and they are tired of ceding control over things in America
to international governments and groups. What the underlying bill does
is it keeps control over our domestic insurance market here in America
and doesn't give that control, doesn't give any of that authority to
people in other countries.
I listened with interest to the remarks that were just made. I am
looking forward to President-elect Trump being President Trump so that
we can have a comprehensive approach to keeping American businesses
here and attracting more businesses here for more jobs. I believe that
is exactly what we are going to see during this very exciting year to
come.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As my friend from Alabama knows, we are currently debating the rule.
This is a tool used to set the House's agenda and to prioritize
consideration of legislation. For that very reason, this is, in fact,
the appropriate time for us to explain to the American people what
legislation we would like to prioritize and what agenda we would like
to pursue in this House. That is why we have a previous question.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will also be pleased to learn that our
amendment does not prevent the House from considering the majority's
bill. Our amendment simply allows the House to consider our bill as
well. As Mr. Pascrell pointed out, it is not as if this isn't something
that hasn't been brought up for the last 2 years; and therefore, I join
the gentleman in his excitement about the possibilities going forward
of us being able to address this legislation, but now is the time that
we can do it if we were to vote the previous question as requested.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me reiterate that the bill before us is
unnecessary; it is a waste of valuable time; and if it were ever to be
enacted into law, which I predict it won't, it would be harmful to our
country's fiscal well-being. Let me go back and put a caveat there. It
won't become the law in the 114th session. It may very well pass the
115th session.
We need to protect and wisely continue to implement commonsense
regulations and oversight passed in the wake of the 2008 financial
crisis to ensure it doesn't happen again. I urge my colleagues to
oppose the rule and the underlying measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I want to go back to some remarks I made at the very
beginning. No one wants to see a repeat of the Great Recession. It
harmed everybody in this country. But in response to it, by passing the
Dodd-Frank law, which this provision is going to try to affect, we
essentially took a liberal grab bag of ideas that have been hanging
around for years and just threw it into a bill and then tried to
pretend that somehow that was going to have something to do with
preventing a future recession.
{time} 1300
Virtually everything that is in the Dodd-Frank law has nothing to do
with preventing a future recession, and the particular provision that
we are talking about with the underlying bill has nothing to do with
preventing a future recession. What it does do is take the bill we have
right now--not the underlying bill but the law we have right now--and
take authority away from the American people.
We have sat back the last several years and watched this
administration go through negotiation and agreement after agreement
that were bad for the American people. My colleague and I have agreed
over and over again that the Iran deal was a bad deal for the American
people. So why would we continue to cede control to foreign governments
and groups?
I think the election that we just had was, in part, about taking
control of our country back--taking it back from Federal overreach and
taking it back from ceding authority to people in other countries.
This bill, the underlying bill that this rule deals with, gets that
authority back for the American people and gets the control back to the
States, where it has been successful for 150 years. That is what is
good for the American people, and that is why we have chosen to bring
this bill forward.
Mr. Speaker, I, again, urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
944 and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 944 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 7. 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.
2963) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage
domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. 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 Ways and
Means. 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. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2963.
____
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 lime 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
[[Page H7292]]
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. BYRNE. 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on
this question will be postponed.
____________________