[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7540-H7547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3823, DISASTER TAX RELIEF AND 
      AIRPORT AND AIRWAY EXTENSION ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR 
             CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 538 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 538

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House, without intervention of 
     any question of consideration, the bill (H.R. 3823) to amend 
     title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for 
     the airport improvement program, to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure 
     authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to provide 
     disaster tax relief, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution 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, with 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means and 20 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of September 28, 2017, 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), the ranking member, 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. SESSIONS. 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 Texas?

[[Page H7541]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 
3823, the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 
2017.
  Mr. Speaker, the whole world is aware of a series of storms that have 
hit not only America's shores but those shores of so many of our 
territories, including the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

                              {time}  1530

  A series of these hurricanes over the past few weeks has caused great 
devastation in Texas, Florida, Georgia, Puerto Rico, and, of course, 
again, the U.S. Virgin Islands. These are people who are American 
citizens, and they are in these territories, and they are suffering 
from loss and devastation, and we have never seen an occurrence like 
this with two storms in succession.
  While there remains much to be done and evaluated, this legislation 
takes important steps, I believe, that are necessary to begin providing 
relief to those individuals. We have had a lot of debate not only on 
this floor and not only at the Rules Committee, but certainly in the 
U.S. House of Representatives and the public media about what steps 
need to be taken, who needs to be there first, what FEMA's 
responsibility is, what the responsibility is for HUD, what the 
responsibility is for States, and what the responsibility is for 
citizens and their local communities. But the bottom line is that much 
of the evaluation, the undertaking of saving of lives, trying to work 
to save more property and to be there in support of people, is an 
ongoing project that will take a long period of time.
  Specifically, this underlying legislation helps to address five 
targeted and meaningful tax provisions that provide relief and make it 
easier for people to recover and to return to their homes and to make 
long-term decisions from a money and tax perspective.
  It will allow hurricane victims to keep more of their paychecks, 
deduct more of the cost of their expensive property damage, and provide 
more affordable and immediate access to retirement savings should 
people decide that they would choose to go that direction at this 
difficult time in their life.
  This legislation also encourages more Americans--Americans who see 
what is happening--and companies to be able to donate, to donate to 
those who are in need by temporarily suspending limitations on the 
deductions for charitable contributions for hurricane relief efforts 
this year. This is an important step, and it removes obstacles that 
might be in the way for the public to get involved and to help their 
fellow citizens.
  Taken together, these five tax provisions go a long way, we believe, 
in helping these people recover from these storms.
  The rule also makes clarifications to ensure Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands are treated equitably in all tax sections of this bill.
  I spent time this week speaking with the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico 
(Miss Gonzalez-Colon) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. 
Plaskett) in talking about not only their immediate needs, but also the 
long-term needs. Both were vigorous in not only their request for help, 
but also, equally, I think, balanced in their request for the 
legislation that would take place today.
  They represent so many hardworking people, people who are proud 
people in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and they are looking for 
a way to work through not only where they are, but, in looking forward 
over the long term, about how they are going to put their islands back 
together.
  I have had many phone conversations with both of them over the last 
48 hours. They have asked for our prayers, they have asked for our 
help, and I have pledged to do both. But I told them that I believe 
this House of Representatives would very carefully understand their 
special request at this time because the islands are under increased 
pressure simply to get planes that would land to allow not only the 
bringing in of emergency supplies, but also taking out people who would 
need to come ashore, for those that might be children, elderly people, 
or the sick.
  In addition to the tax provisions of H.R. 3823, which addresses some 
of the frailties of the Flood Insurance Program, we have included 
important reform pieces that are pro-consumer and increase competition 
at a very difficult time now that these hurricanes have landed on our 
shores. This provides options for all Americans.
  The language that passed out of the Financial Services Committee 58-0 
and on the floor of the House last year 419-0 has now been placed in 
this bill, also. We believe it is another example of bipartisan 
support, not only by the gentleman from the Financial Services 
Committee, Jeb Hensarling, but also his ranking member, Maxine Waters, 
who very carefully, last year, in preparation probably for what would 
lie ahead in the future, to provide a free market opportunity for more 
people to receive flood insurance. It is part of this package. It 
passed here last year 419-0. It is an integral part of what might be an 
answer maybe only for a few people, but it is an option and an 
opportunity, and I appreciate Chairman Hensarling and Maxine Waters for 
being a part of passing that last year out of the Financial Services 
Committee 58-0.
  This bill also reauthorizes the FAA, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, for 6 months, their funding levels, which would, I 
believe, be most important to all areas of the country. This is a 
bipartisan bill.
  This is an opportunity for people who live in rural areas and people 
who live in urban areas to note that the FAA, day in and day out, 24 
hours a day, is a vital part of the important transportation component 
of landing planes, bringing people to and from work and back safely. It 
also is a part of our families who travel the system, and the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the FAA, needs this money and needs the 
operational capacity to move forward.
  It also comes at a critical time when the radar system that is in 
Puerto Rico has failed, and it is necessary that we continue to fund 
the programs at the FAA so that they can get these systems back up and 
online to increase traffic to meet the needs of the islands and to make 
sure that this is done safely.
  Now is not a time to play games with an essential program, and I 
believe that this is very important for each of the Members to 
understand. This is a vital part of this package.
  Finally, the underlying legislation extends several expiring health 
programs that would be finishing at the end of the year, including the 
Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education program and the 
Special Diabetes Program for Native Americans.

  I do want to note that this package is focused on health programs 
that are expiring, and Chairman Greg Walden from Hood River, Oregon, 
who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has every 
intent to make sure that he will move legislation extending funding for 
CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, because we know that it 
expires soon. The chairman has looked into this and certified back to 
me that the money that is necessary to keep this program going is not 
in jeopardy and that he looks forward to a time when he can move CHIP 
not only to where it is considered on the floor, but to the Rules 
Committee, where it can be equally and fairly debated.
  Before concluding my opening statements, I just want to affirm to the 
people in my home State of Texas and other areas affected by these 
disasters that this is the second of a series of responses to these 
natural disasters. On September 8, this body, the United States House 
of Representatives, passed initial emergency response legislation, 
providing $15.3 billion in aid.
  To provide some historical context, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit 
the United States in August, followed by Hurricanes Rita and Wilma in 
September and October. The House responded by passing an initial 
response in September to provide immediate emergency relief; then, 
after some evaluation, determined the actual needs on the ground, that 
is, by an analysis that took place, and that is when the House passed a 
more comprehensive package that included many of the provisions that 
are in here that we are doing, but they did that in December.
  There was some debate yesterday at the Rules Committee about the 
timing,

[[Page H7542]]

about delay, and I assured the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
who is a distinguished member of our committee, that, while I did not 
know the exact timing or delay, what might be a delay in that timing, 
that I believe that that is forthcoming; that, as there is a broader 
evaluation, as time moves on, as we go from saving people, trying to do 
recovery, to where we then move to the next phases of this opportunity, 
we will then know more specifically the needs of programs, the work 
that needs to be done by this Congress, and the help that we can 
provide to these areas.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) not only 
for his vigorous, what I believe, support of making sure that people--
albeit they might be in Florida, but where they were a part of these 
storms, I felt Mr. Hastings' care and concern for them, to make sure 
that what the House of Representatives did was well managed, and I 
appreciate his feedback.
  This body has every intention of providing further relief to our 
fellow Americans. We also understand that the Federal Government, while 
it has responsibilities, it does so by working with the States. It is 
done through FEMA.
  I have been personally very pleased not only with the actions of 
President Trump and this administration, but I want to add that I am 
proud of the House of Representatives. I believe the leadership that 
Paul Ryan has provided not only by being on the ground and looking at 
these areas, but also staying up to date on a day-to-day basis means 
that the House is nimble and able to move forward as we need to.
  What we are talking about today is targeted tax relief for those in 
need, ensuring the FAA can continue its functions allowing planes to 
land in Puerto Rico, and continuing our emergency responses.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, extending the Federal Aviation Administration's 
authority is traditionally something that gets bipartisan support. That 
hasn't been the case this time, as we saw on Monday when a prior 
version of this bill failed on suspension. It contained several 
extraneous provisions, but it didn't include some of the most important 
priorities that we face.
  September 30 is nearly upon us. That is the deadline to reauthorize 
programs that the American people depend on. That includes things like 
the Perkins student loan program, which helps low-income students to 
finance their education.
  There are 500,000 students across the country, including nearly 
50,000 from New York, relying on it right now, but the Perkins Loan 
Program isn't anywhere in this bill.
  The bill also does nothing to extend the Children's Health Insurance 
Program created in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. More than 9 
million children get their health insurance through this program. 
Without continued Federal funding, States are going to begin running 
out of money to take care of some of the most vulnerable kids, and they 
can't wait until the end of the year for us to act.
  Community health centers have also been left out of the bill, and 
they have told us that they will have problems from day one. If we 
don't extend their funding, an estimated 9 million people would lose 
access to healthcare.
  These are essential bipartisan programs, Mr. Speaker, and what does 
it say about the majority's leadership if they are not extended by the 
deadline? It does not bode well for our ability to fund the government 
later this year, to raise the debt ceiling, extend the Flood Insurance 
Program, or reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  This bill is an incredibly important one. No one in this Chamber or 
anywhere that I know of in the world wants the FAA program stopped and 
their employees furloughed or airport projects brought to a halt. We 
should work together and get it right.
  This package, however, has not been negotiated on a bipartisan basis. 
It didn't go through regular order. Committees have been shut out of 
the process, and Democrats, who represent half the population in the 
United States, didn't get a say.
  We are all glad to see provisions included here to provide some tax 
relief for victims of the recent hurricanes. With regular order and a 
more open process, this could be a more comprehensive package of 
extenders that provide more tax relief for victims to recover and to 
rebuild. After all, the Democrats did suggest 21 bipartisan tax 
provisions which were included in previous relief legislation after 
previous disasters.

                              {time}  1545

  But none of those, except five, I think, are included in this bill. 
That is a shame.
  We have said it before. This is, I think, the 44th closed rule this 
session, and that is just about all the bills we have done. This bill 
could either have been bipartisan extending the FAA authorization, or a 
comprehensive package of extenders that provided the tax relief 
necessary for hurricane victims to recover and rebuild. The bill before 
us is neither. I doubt many of us have had time to review the changes 
that were made last night.
  I have often said that a bad process leads to a bad product, and, Mr. 
Speaker, I am afraid that is what we see with this bill. Another 
opportunity for bipartisanship has been turned into another political 
fight.
  I, regretfully, reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream 
Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of 
young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.
  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 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, while my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle press forward with their partisan gimmicks, 800,000 young 
people are still holding their breath. With time quickly running out, 
they are wondering what their futures look like without DACA.
  Will they lose their jobs? Will they have to drop out of college 
after they have already paid tuition? Will they live in fear that ICE 
will be waiting for them at any corner?
  All these fears could be eliminated if Republican leadership allowed 
a vote on the bicameral, bipartisan Dream Act. Instead of living in 
fear or losing their job, the Dream Act would allow them to continue 
working and add $22.7 billion annually to our U.S. GDP. Passing the 
Dream Act will help our country reach the goal of 3 percent economic 
growth.
  The Dream Act would allow them to continue improving themselves and 
their education. In the process, they would add $728 billion 
cumulatively to our economy over a decade, due to an ``education 
bump.'' The Dream Act would allow current teachers, nurses, soldiers, 
engineers, high school and college students, and hundreds of thousands 
of others to continue contributing to our economy and our country.
  I call on my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and, 
instead, bring the Dream Act forward for a vote. We have the votes, and 
the urgency of passing the Dream Act is real.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the honorable and 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my friend.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, this bill has fundamental 
problems. Number one, the flood insurance provisions that are in this 
legislation are provisions that are related to flood insurance. The 
current program expires on December 9.
  Why are we dealing with this one component right now?
  I agree that this bill passed the House unanimously previously, but 
it has fundamental problems advancing in a vacuum outside of the larger 
reform. And mark my words: this provision is going to result in the 
insolvency

[[Page H7543]]

of the Flood Insurance Program much faster. It is going to increase the 
debt of the United States. Watch. I promise this is going to happen, 
and I am looking forward to talking about this more later.
  Number two, Mr. Speaker, explain to me the difference between a flood 
victim in Texas, a flood victim perhaps in Florida, and one in 
Louisiana. Explain to me how those are any different.
  We had a 1,000-year flood in my community just last year. We 
introduced legislation to provide this same tax relief to our citizens.
  Why are Texans better?
  I don't understand that.
  Now, look, I want to be clear. I think that Texas deserves--the 
hurricane victims absolutely deserve tax relief, there is no question, 
as do the victims in Florida, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere--the victims 
of Harvey, Irma, and Maria. But I don't understand this discrimination, 
and I certainly can't go back home and explain it or defend it.
  This is absurd. It is absolutely absurd that we have been waiting for 
13 months for this exact same tax relief, yet the victims of the other 
hurricanes get it within weeks. I would love for somebody to explain or 
justify that to me. You can't do it.
  Mr. Speaker, look, I will say it again. The FAA absolutely needs to 
be extended. If this Ross-Castor bill was so great, after it passed the 
House unanimously, the Senate would have taken it up; but they didn't 
because it shouldn't be done in a vacuum. It needs to be part of the 
larger reauthorization that expires on December 9, where we can 
incorporate it into there.
  The reason this is being done is because it is trying to artificially 
increase National Flood Insurance Program rates. It is trying to 
artificially expedite the insolvency of the program.
  Think about this for just a minute. We are getting ready to have one 
of the greatest demands upon the National Flood Insurance Program for 
claims from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, yet we are diverting 
the revenue stream.
  Why in the world would you do that? Where is the money going to come 
from to pay the claims from people who flooded?
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to say that there are some 
things in here that matter. The FAA needs to be extended. We need to 
provide disaster tax relief without question.
  This is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. We should be 
sending a clean FAA extension to the Senate and address these other 
things elsewhere.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I think the previous speaker made a very 
important statement, that we should treat all Americans alike.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, the President's decision to rescind 
DACA has brought fear to hundreds of thousands of DREAMers and their 
families.
  They are DREAMers like Saul Jimenez, who teaches special needs 
students in Los Angeles, and is just one example of how DREAMers 
contribute and add value to our country and our communities.
  DREAMers are American in every way except for their immigration 
status. To send DREAMers to a country they have never known would be 
tragic for them and our Nation, which will lose their valuable 
contributions.
  The American people overwhelmingly oppose deporting our DREAMers, and 
our faith-based community and business leaders are imploring Congress 
to pass the Dream Act. Yet the Republican leadership is ignoring their 
wishes and refusing to allow us a vote on this bipartisan, bicameral 
bill.
  To my Republican colleagues who say they want to protect our Nation's 
DREAMers: If that is true, this is your chance. Vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so we can vote on the Dream Act and put our DREAMers 
on the road to the security and future they have earned in the only 
country they know, the United States of America. The time to pass the 
Dream Act is now. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because there are nearly a 
million young men and women known as DREAMers who are depending on 
Congress to take action to protect them so they are not deported.
  DREAMers were brought to this country as children. Many barely 
remember their birth country. They are our teachers, our nurses, and 
our doctors. They are our neighbors, our friends, and for some of us, 
like me, they are our family.
  They also contribute to our economy. The Los Angeles Area Chamber of 
Commerce estimates that DREAMers in Los Angeles County alone contribute 
$5.5 billion annually to California's economy. Across the country, 
DREAMers would add billions to GDP over the next decade.
  Americans overwhelmingly want Congress to take action, and the vast 
majority of Members would support legislation to protect DREAMers.
  Let's not wait another moment. Let's bring the Dream Act to the floor 
for a vote so that we can protect these young men and women. I urge a 
``no'' vote on the previous question so we can bring the Dream Act to 
the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentlewoman, my 
colleague, that I have one more speaker left, so she may run down the 
time as she chooses.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this Chamber must act to protect DREAMers 
now in limbo because of President Trump's decision to end the DACA 
program.
  DACA recipients are rigorously vetted. They are high-contributing 
young people who were brought to this country as children. They are 
cherished members of communities across the country, and they are as 
American as any of us in all but their paperwork.
  President Trump's decision to end the program means that these 
inspiring young people stand to lose their futures. Soon they will be 
forced out of work and school, faced with the specter of deportation to 
nations many of them have no memory of. The President has created a 
moral emergency for our country.
  This House must allow a vote on a clean Dream Act. It is a bipartisan 
bill that gives these young people a real opportunity to get right with 
the law and earn a path to legal permanent residence.
  We all know that if this bill were put on the floor, it would pass. 
The bill deserves a vote. There is no doubt about the public support.
  Recent polls from CNN and ABC show that 82 to 86 percent of the 
American public supports Dream Act-type legislation; 82 to 86 percent. 
There is almost no issue we work on that has that much support from the 
American public.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with an urgent plea to my 
Republican colleagues. Not included in this legislation are the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, Community Health Centers, and 
Teaching Health Centers, whose authorization expires on September 30, 
this Saturday, after this House adjourns.
  They have known for 2 years about this date, yet, with no time left, 
the Republicans spent precious hours today debating among themselves a 
plan to cut taxes for the richest of Americans.
  Nine million children rely on CHIP for their healthcare. Twenty-three 
million Americans rely on Community Health Centers. That is 1 in 15 
Americans, and they rely on the doctors that are trained at those 
centers.
  If making sure that every child in America has access to healthcare, 
if that is not a priority, what is?
  This is a real crisis that still can be averted in just a few minutes 
of time now and not later. Families are waiting anxiously while their 
health security is hanging in the balance. It is time to vote now 
before it is too late.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the distinguished gentlewoman bringing this up. Perhaps, 
Mr. Speaker, she was not in the body on the floor earlier when I 
brought up

[[Page H7544]]

what I believe is an answer to this CHIP--Children's Health Insurance 
Program--reauthorization.
  I talked specifically with the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, Greg Walden, who is very excited about the opportunity to 
move the CHIP bill. The opportunity to do this is not dire or urgent. 
As a matter of fact, there is money in the bucket right now to fund, as 
it has been, the program to continue.
  Chairman Walden indicated that, while he does understand that the 
program is scheduled to run through September 30, that the analysis 
from the nonpartisan Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission 
shows that States have enough funds remaining in their accounts through 
the end of this year.

                              {time}  1600

  Chairman Walden is interested in looking at it again and gaining 
information about it to see what sorts of changes, additions, or 
updates that we choose to do. He intends to do that in and through the 
committee providing information on a bipartisan basis. I trust not only 
what Greg Walden said, but I also know of his desire to deal 
effectively in this manner.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for bringing up this 
important question, and I want to provide a timely answer to her, and I 
appreciate her very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
my friend.
  I appreciate the information that the gentleman just gave us. We have 
been told the community health service will be in trouble from day one.
  Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the gentleman whether he has the same kind 
of information about them?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentlewoman, I do not, 
but I will talk to Chairman Walden immediately, and I will come and 
find you during the vote, or as we end here, and I will let you know.
  I appreciate, once again, Mr. Speaker, that the gentlewoman is very 
concerned, as is her committee, about children's programs, women's 
programs, and she would expect me to respond accordingly, and I will 
talk to Chairman Walden and get back to her with an answer.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that 
because millions of people use the community health services, and the 
children, we cannot let them go unattended.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, it has been 3 weeks since 
President Trump announced he would be ending DACA; 3 weeks of fear in 
homes, classrooms, and offices where DREAMers wonder if they still have 
a future here in the only home they have ever known; 3 weeks for 
Congress to answer President Trump's request for a bill that would stop 
him from executing his own cruel order.
  Here is that bill. Members from both parties have said they want to 
do something to protect DREAMers. Here is that something. Over 80 
percent of Americans believe DREAMers who live, work, contribute, and 
follow the law should stay here. Here is our chance to show we are 
listening.
  We must pass the Dream Act because of people like Jose Antonio 
Vargas, an immigrant from the Philippines, who never knew he was 
undocumented until he applied for his learner's permit. But being 
undocumented didn't stop his pursuit of the American Dream. He worked 
hard and became a journalist, ultimately winning the Pulitzer Prize for 
his articles.
  Let's act to bring DREAMers like Jose out of the shadows. Let act to 
encourage more to achieve what he did. Let's right this wrong, stop the 
cruel end of DACA, and finally pass the Dream Act today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). Members are reminded to 
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is full of provisions that could pass in 
regular order, and I am afraid of using the FAA reauthorization, 
running out of time, again, because the planes can't fly if controllers 
are not in the air.
  The FAA bill contains a lot of important provisions that our 
constituents are crying out for. Among them, airplane noise, which is 
ruining communities across the United States. A study of the health 
impact of that noise is as important as DACA, which we should pass, and 
I think could pass. And there are other provisions which would pass on 
regular order.
  The FAA reauthorization bill is not the bill to fool around with. We 
have had too many near misses by letting these short-term extensions 
pile up on us. Pass a straight FAA reauthorization bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
New York for her leadership. I thank my fellow Texan on this effort.
  I am not on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but I do 
believe the FAA should have this extension. I do believe I should 
advocate for the many employees and consumers of aviation needs, that 
the air traffic controllers should not be privatized. And I understand 
that this particular bill does not have that provision.
  The focus should be on extending a number of these health matters 
that are very important to us, and particularly, the inspiring health 
programs dealing with the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical 
Education Program, the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, and the 
Medicare Intravenous Immune Globulin Demonstration project, a number of 
these.
  I do take concern with the diminishing of the Medicare Improvement 
Fund by $50 million and, frankly, I believe that we should move forward 
on these emergencies, particularly as it relates to hurricane victims 
or areas.

  Let me, however, focus on what is of devastating need in the areas of 
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and make mention of the fact that 
the U.S. Virgin Islands is included in these tax benefits, and Puerto 
Rico, agreed to by the Members representing that area.
  It is important that people do not have a penalty on their account 
tax provisions. I hope this can move quickly through the Senate. The 
employee retention credit for employees: the bill provides a tax credit 
for 40 percent of wages, up to $6,000 per employee, paid by a disaster-
affected employer to an employee from a core disaster area.
  Charitable deductions: the bill suspends limitations on charitable 
contributions.
  In our community, there are people who don't have the gap to survive. 
They are working. Their job is closed down because of Hurricane Harvey. 
I imagine in other areas they may be receiving charitable moneys. Those 
who give the charitable contributions need to be helped.
  The disaster-related personal casualty losses and the special rule 
for determining the earned income tax credit is extremely important.
  We want more. We are desperate, and we need more, Mr. Speaker. I hope 
that we will be able to work together to get more for those who are 
desperate from these hurricanes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A good bit of the dialogue that is occurring today has been an active 
discussion for a long period of time in the Financial Services 
Committee--Jeb Hensarling from Dallas, Texas, the chairman of that 
committee.
  One of our bright young stars is from Tampa, Florida, and his name is 
Dennis Ross. And Mr. Ross has heard the debate going on and came down 
here. He has been an active part of not only understanding the needs of 
communities, but, more importantly, how we are going to have a fix and 
answer in a long-term way to look at this flooding problem and the 
Federal flood program.

[[Page H7545]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, for over 50 years, the only game in town for 
flood insurance has been the Federal Government through the National 
Flood Insurance Program. That means that for over 50 years, if you want 
flood insurance, your best bet is to go to the Federal Government, 
which, by the way, especially after these two successive storms that 
have just hit Texas and Florida, is going to be over $30 billion in 
debt.
  If we don't do something to save the taxpayers of this program that 
cannot actuarially support itself, we are doing a total disservice to 
our constituency and to our country. So what is part of the underlying 
bill that this rule will allow is the Market Parity and Modernization 
Act that will allow consumers to have a choice between the existing 
Flood Insurance Program, which is significantly in debt, or to have the 
private sector bring in their flood insurance programs to insure those 
risks.
  In Florida, back in 2004, we had successive hurricanes that came 
through my district, and we had billions of dollars paid by FEMA, paid 
by NFIP, but we had $39 billion paid by the private sector because we 
had private windstorm insurance. The private sector does a much better 
job of doing business and managing risks than the Federal Government.
  What I am asking for this body to accept, what the American people 
are craving for, is competition in the products they seek to have to 
protect them with their valuable assets. It is kind of like the Flood 
Insurance Program is a boat, and after 50 years of plugging holes, it 
is taking on water more and more.
  One of the suggestions is, let's just keep bailing. I submit to you 
that to any logical person, the first step would be to plug that hole. 
We are going to continue to bail. We need to continue to bail, but we 
need to plug that hole so we don't get deeper and deeper in debt.
  So the underlying bill, the FAA reauthorization, has the Ross-Castor 
bill in there for a reason, so that we can invite a private market to 
come to the rescue of those consumers out there who need to not only be 
able to have options greater than what the National Flood Insurance 
Program provides, because they don't provide business interruption. 
They don't provide temporary housing, but the private sector will. More 
importantly, the private sector will mitigate and will manage that 
risk.
  There is no mitigation program that is effective in the Federal 
Government right now. It is a flowing of dollars to say: Here, do this; 
or, do that.
  Private risk management will help consumers mitigate, lessen their 
risks, have more resilient homes.
  What I am suggesting to you is that this is a paradigm shift for this 
country. That if we are going to say that the business of the United 
States should be left to business, and government should do what 
government should do, then this is a move in that direction because 
government should not be in the business of insurance. It is in the 
business of relief.
  There is no question about that, but relief is post-event help. 
Insurance is pre-event. It is calculating that risk. It is managing 
that risk. And that is what the private sector does so well. We owe it 
to our consumers and we owe it to our taxpayers who are bailing out the 
NFIP, that we give consumers this choice.
  I would just submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we have a chance to 
finally make a paradigm shift when we take the burden of bailouts off 
the shoulders of taxpayers and allow those who do best what they do 
best in managing capital and managing risk, do so for the benefit of 
the consumers, that this underlying bill and the FAA reauthorization 
allows for that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the 
previous speaker that my understanding is the fallback provision on 
flood insurance came to the Federal Government because the private 
insurers didn't want to do it.
  If we can get them to take it over, I think everybody would be 
relieved.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say in the strongest 
possible terms that this body must do what the majority of the American 
people want and pass the Dream Act. The Dream Act is smart policy that 
combines American values of compassion and humanity with what is best 
for our economy and our society. This bill will protect 1.5 million 
undocumented Americans from deportation.
  Every day that we fail to act is another day that 800,000 DACAmented 
young people live with an unshakable fear that they will lose their 
ability to live without fear of deportation, be able to support 
themselves and their families, to know that they can plan for the 
future, whether that be attending school or buying a home, or a car, or 
starting a new business.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, this bill will help all Americans 
regardless of legal status. Nationally, the cruel end of this program 
will cost $460 billion in GDP over the next 10 years; whereas passing 
the Dream Act would actually bring $22 billion in income to our country 
every year.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about more than economics. It is about human 
lives, and I urge my colleagues to do what is right. Pass the Dream 
Act. Let's help these young people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this discussion that we are having here on point that we 
have now had two speakers from my side, Mr. Ross and Mr. Graves, who 
have come down to talk about the debate that has been well alive across 
the country, about how we deal with emergencies, how we deal with 
flooding, how we deal with the opportunity for States, and communities, 
and citizens, the free enterprise system, and what I would say FEMA, or 
the Federal Government, to get closer in understanding the needs of 
communities, and the answers to long-term decisions that take place.
  What you heard Mr. Ross talk about was a bill that he worked on with 
the gentlewoman, a Democratic colleague from Tampa, and they worked on 
this piece of legislation, got it passed 58-0 out of the Financial 
Services Committee, 419-0 on this vote. We need to pass--we need to 
include this. We need to put this as part of the options, an option 
that would be available for people back home, no matter where that is, 
to have a chance to have more control of their own lives, to work in 
their own communities.

                              {time}  1615

  I really appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Ross, coming to talk to us 
today. The hard work that he and Kathy Castor, the gentlewoman from 
Tampa, did on a bipartisan basis comes to play. Even though they did it 
a year ago, it would be in play today, and it will be in play 1 year 
from now, when storms come back, as an option and opportunity. Instead 
of us searching for answers, it would be one of the answers available.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Torres).
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, this is a country that was built on dreams. 
Our country was founded to protect not just the right to life and 
liberty but also to pursuit of happiness.
  Sadly, the dreams of the thousands of young DREAMers who were brought 
here as children have been put on hold by President Trump's decision to 
end the DACA program and Congress' inaction to pass the Dream Act. 
These young DREAMers have created a life for themselves here in the 
U.S., and many know no other home other than the U.S.
  Today, I want to tell you about one special DREAMer from my district. 
Jose is an extremely intelligent young man. He works 6 days a week and 
still finds time to volunteer in his community. His parents, 
unfortunately, did not tell him that he was undocumented, in an effort 
to protect him. He didn't find out about his status until it was time 
to apply for college. He was extremely upset, but he didn't give up. 
His dream is to go to college and study business. He has so much to 
contribute to our country.
  These young people have become part of the American quilt, a quilt 
that reflects the diversity of our history, our

[[Page H7546]]

culture, and heritage of this great country. We can't just throw them 
and toss them out of our Nation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  They say that success has many fathers, and you could say many 
mothers. Success is, many times, in the eye of the beholder. But when 
lots of people see it, they can get better prepared, and then people 
see that as a model.
  I would like to take just a minute, if I can, and talk about a model 
of success that I use. Back home, I have an opportunity to meet with a 
number of subject matter experts on issues and ideas. One of them is a 
man named Bill Dewey. Bill Dewey is an air traffic controller at DFW 
Airport in Dallas, Texas. Mr. Dewey and I take time to sit down and 
understand the intricacies of his job, the FAA air traffic controller--
safety, planes.
  DFW is home to American Airlines. Mr. Dewey handles traffic that goes 
to Dallas Love Field, home for Southwest Airlines.
  What Mr. Dewey has done with me is given me, from a working 
professional relationship that he has as not only a former member of 
the United States military as an air traffic controller but real live 
in the tower at DFW Airport, day after day, seeing how important the 
FAA is.
  We should remember, Mr. Speaker, that it is not just money and time 
that we are doing here. We are patting the employees of these agencies. 
The FAA has so many dedicated employees--just like Bill Dewey, my dear 
friend, who is at DFW Airport. This also is a support for those 
employees to let them know that we are going to fund their programs and 
we are going to take care of them. So we should, at the same time we do 
that, say ``thank you'' to the men and women who are there 24 hours 
around the clock to provide safety.
  We have now been a number of years where we have not had a plane 
crash with a fatality, and we are lucky. Part of it goes to the safety 
of the system at the FAA.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's decision to end DACA was 
one of the most callous and cruel acts of his Presidency so far--and 
that is saying something.
  Mr. Speaker, ending the DACA program means betraying our Nation's 
promise to protect 800,000 young people who are in America right now 
and American in every way except on paper, including many thousands who 
have served in the military. It means exposing them to deportation from 
the only home they have ever known and robbing our Nation of their 
exceptional talent, work ethic, and patriotism.
  We cannot allow this President to play politics with so many young 
lives. Congress must pass the Dream Act now and as soon as possible to 
protect these outstanding young people, offer them the chance to become 
citizens, and empower them to give back to the country they know and 
love.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can end this 
Republican obstructionism and bring this critical bill to the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are, once again, reminded to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what a shock it is to see the President 
attacked when he is the one who is going to make sure, by challenging 
Congress, that we get this issue done.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a question the gentlewoman, my dear colleague, 
Ms. Slaughter, asked. The question is timely and important, and I would 
like to respond back to her. She asked about the health center program, 
and the answer I have gotten back from the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden, the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon, 
who is a phenomenal leader to this conference, is that it will not have 
to access mandatory appropriations until early December, and that 
Chairman Walden understands and appreciates that the gentlewoman, the 
ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, has asked a 
question, and he thanks you for asking that. He understands that we do 
have a timing issue and is preparing quickly to address this issue. He 
wanted me to thank the gentlewoman for bringing that up at this time.
  I want to thank Chairman Walden for that message.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the chairman for giving me that answer, and I 
yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is our 44th closed rule for this session of 
Congress which prevents Members from offering amendments to the floor. 
This has put this Congress well on its way to becoming the most closed 
Congress in modern history. Democrats have been routinely unable to do 
the job we were elected to do and amend bills to represent the concerns 
of the people of the United States which we are both privileged and 
obligated to serve.
  Despite his promises, Speaker Ryan has shown a complete disregard for 
regular order since assuming the gavel. Bills routinely come before the 
Rules Committee that haven't even been considered by the relevant 
committees. The majority even moved a healthcare repeal bill through 
this Chamber earlier this year without a score from the nonpartisan 
experts at the Congressional Budget Office.
  This measure would impact one-sixth of our Nation's economy and tens 
of millions of people if it became law.
  This is no way to run the people's House. The public expects more, 
and it is high time that we heed those calls.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, 
and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank my colleague not only for this long week that we have 
had at the Rules Committee, but I also want to thank her other members, 
the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for not only their vigorous 
debate and conversations that we have had, but actually trying to 
prepare us at the Rules Committee for that which we believe would lie 
ahead.
  Today, you heard the gentlewoman ask about several important issues. 
Part of our job is to kind of pitch and catch, and that is to catch the 
things that come our way. But she is using her vision to look ahead, 
and I admire that. I do owe her answers, and her background and 
experience would tell her, let's get moving on these things if we are 
going to get them done. I hope that I have provided her with feedback 
from the gentleman, Mr. Walden, saying exactly that.
  Mr. Speaker, as the hurricane was still over Houston, Texas, dumping 
50 inches of rain, I received a conference call from a number of people 
in Houston as they were preparing to reestablish not only their own 
communities within Houston, but also the livelihood of the business 
community, and to be prepared.
  I got a conference call from a group of gentlemen, Mr. Tom 
Singletary, Mr. Kevin Hedges, Mr. Steve Kessling, Mr. Wallace B. 
Livesay, and Mr. Steve Raben from Houston. They called me and said: We 
need, as quickly as we can, to get information about taxes, about 
people pulling money out of their IRAs, and what the rules and 
regulations would be for that.
  Mr. Speaker, part of my job is to respond to people, to listen to 
them, and to listen to their needs. I will tell you that the Houston 
delegation, on a bipartisan basis, up and down the coast, going down to 
Blake Farenthold in Corpus Christi, all the way up to Garret Graves who 
is in Louisiana, felt the fury of Mother Nature. But it didn't mean 
that it had to divide us or to defeat us.
  I have seen nothing but resolve that has come from not only those in 
Texas but also those in Florida, our two colleagues, Jenniffer Gonzalez 
who is located in Puerto Rico, and Stacey Plaskett who is a fine young 
Delegate out of the Virgin Islands. They have asked for help. They have 
asked for the things that would be necessary.
  But our ability to effectively listen and turn around in the form of 
legislation, our ability to be able to schedule meetings and, on a 
bipartisan basis, be able to talk and sometimes agree and sometimes 
disagree but to get our work done is an amazing part of this experiment 
that we are engaged in.

[[Page H7547]]

  I, myself, Mr. Speaker, want to thank you for not only your hard work 
of being here today but being a part of this process. As all of us work 
together, we can make this process work and give confidence to the 
American people. That confidence is expressed with what we do today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 538 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children and for other purposes. 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 the Judiciary. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        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. SESSIONS. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

                          ____________________