[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 22, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H976-H979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NATO SUPPORT ACT

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 676) to reiterate the support of the Congress of the United 
States for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 676

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``NATO Support Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that:
       (1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which 
     came into being through the North Atlantic Treaty, which 
     entered into force on April 4, 1949, between the United 
     States of America and the other founding members of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization, has served as a pillar of 
     international peace and stability, a critical component of 
     United States security, and a deterrent against adversaries 
     and external threats.
       (2) The House of Representatives affirmed in H. Res. 397, 
     on June 27, 2017, that--
       (A) NATO is one of the most successful military alliances 
     in history, deterring the outbreak of another world war, 
     protecting the territorial integrity of its members, and 
     seeing the Cold War through to a peaceful conclusion;
       (B) NATO remains the foundation of United States foreign 
     policy to promote a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace;
       (C) the United States is solemnly committed to the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization's principle of collective 
     defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty; and
       (D) the House of Representatives--
       (i) strongly supports the decision at the NATO Wales Summit 
     in 2014 that each alliance member would aim to spend at least 
     2 percent of its nation's gross domestic product on defense 
     by 2024;
       (ii) condemns any threat to the sovereignty, territorial 
     integrity, freedom and democracy of any NATO ally; and
       (iii) welcomes the Republic of Montenegro as the 29th 
     member of the NATO Alliance.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President shall not withdraw the United States from 
     NATO; and
       (2) the case Goldwater v. Carter is not controlling legal 
     precedent with respect to the withdrawal of the United States 
     from a treaty.

     SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to remain a member in good standing of NATO;
       (2) to reject any efforts to withdraw the United States 
     from NATO, or to indirectly withdraw from NATO by condemning 
     or reducing contributions to NATO structures, activities, or 
     operations, in a manner that creates a de facto withdrawal;
       (3) to continue to work with NATO members to meet their 
     2014 Wales Defense Investment Pledge commitments; and
       (4) to support robust United States funding for the 
     European Deterrence Initiative, which increases the ability 
     of the United States and its allies to deter and defend 
     against Russian aggression.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS TO WITHDRAW FROM 
                   NATO.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated, obligated, or expended to take 
     any action to withdraw the United States from the North 
     Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC on April 4, 1949, 
     between the United States of America and the other founding 
     members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 676, reiterating the support of the 
Congress of the United States for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the author of this bill, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta). I was glad to join him as an 
original cosponsor, and I am grateful as well to our ranking member, 
Mr. McCaul, for his strong support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, for nearly 70 years, the NATO alliance has been the 
bedrock of transatlantic peace, security, and stability. For seven 
decades, NATO has been synonymous with Western democracy.
  The organization's architects had a tremendous vision, and that 
vision translated into the most successful political military alliance 
in history, an alliance that won the Cold War, that brought peace to 
the Balkans, that fought terrorism in Afghanistan, that today is 
guarding against Russian aggression in Europe and training forces in 
Iraq and elsewhere.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard, most notably from the President, 
that NATO is obsolete, that it is ill-suited to 21st century 
challenges. That is just plain wrong.
  Would we be safer without Article 5, the principle that says an 
attack on one is an attack on all, an attack on one NATO member is an 
attack on all NATO members, the commitment that brought our NATO allies 
to fight at our side after September 11? Would we be better off without 
28 other countries that share our values and that know how to fight 
together effectively? Of course not.
  NATO is not a burden, Mr. Speaker. It is a bulwark against aggressive 
forces that seek to undermine democracy and the rule of law, against 
strongmen who flout international law and act as though might makes 
right.
  NATO is our greatest strategic advantage, one built over time and at 
great sacrifice. We simply cannot cede such an advantage. Past and 
future generations alike would never forgive the squandering of 
something so precious. We cannot betray our young soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines by sending them into battle alone, without capable 
allies to share the burden.
  So this bill, again, reiterates Congress' commitment to NATO. It 
would also prohibit any withdrawal from NATO.
  I am glad we are considering it so early in this Congress. It sends a 
clear message to our allies, to our adversaries, and to the 
administration that this branch of government fully supports the 
alliance, the collective defense of our allies, and peace across the 
North Atlantic region.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H977]]

  

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to endorse the NATO Support Act. We are 
rapidly approaching the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, a fitting time for the House to reaffirm the importance 
of the transatlantic alliance.
  NATO was born out of the chaos of World War II and built to fortify 
European democracies against Soviet totalitarianism. Time and again, 
the alliance has proven that the free peoples of the world are 
strongest when they stand together.
  From the confrontation with communism during the Cold War, to the 
defeat of Milosevic in Kosovo, to the battlefields of Afghanistan, 
American soldiers and those of her NATO allies have fought and bled 
together to protect our country and to make others free.
  This alliance has enhanced our military capability, increased our 
intelligence collection, and created a bulwark against international 
terror. NATO is critical to our national security and to the 
preservation of our military prowess around the world.
  It solidifies our friendship with the individual countries in the 
alliance. But friends also must be honest with each other. That is why 
I am glad that this bill strongly supports the decision of the Wales 
Summit in 2014, that each member country should ramp up defense 
spending to 2 percent of their GDP.
  An alliance of mutual defense is only as strong as each country's 
commitment to its spending goals. While some member countries have made 
great strides toward this commitment, others are still lagging behind.
  Statements of support, like this bill, are important in affirming our 
relationships around the world. But actions speak louder than words. No 
statement about the importance of NATO speaks as loudly as the tangible 
commitment each country makes to ensuring the strength of the alliance.
  In the meantime, I am glad to join this effort to reaffirm the 
continuing importance of NATO, which deserves our full support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Panetta), the author of this legislation who has worked 
very hard on this legislation.
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. Obviously, I 
would like to share my appreciation of Chairman Engel for everything 
that he has done as a leader of all of his constituents in his district 
and, more importantly, all of our fellow countrymen and -women here in 
the United States of America; as well as Ranking Member McCaul; and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd), my good friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 676, the NATO Support 
Act. This is a bipartisan bill that allows Congress to assert our 
Nation's support for NATO; to answer anybody who questions the purpose 
of this alliance; and to reaffirm the NATO pledge, that an armed attack 
on one of us is an attack on all of us.

  The mutual defense pledge is why NATO has been the most successful 
military alliance in human history. It is an interdependency that has 
stood as a sturdy, strong, and sound anchor for peace that has 
prevented new world wars, fostered Western prosperity, and advanced 
democratic governance.
  It has been the will of our Nation, the United States of America, to 
lead and to finance the defense of other nations, which has allowed 
them to develop and prosper economically, and to expand and evolve 
democratically.
  Yet, at the same time, Moscow never went to war with a NATO partner. 
We got bases and a guarantee that we would not have to fight alone. 
Europe became our largest trading and investment partner and our chief 
diplomatic and military companion. And everybody on the European 
Continent got stability and peace to strengthen their democracies.
  Now, all of us agree that we can continue to put pressure on our NATO 
partners to pay their self-stated goal of 2 percent of their GDP to 
this alliance. But that doesn't mean that we want to get out of NATO. 
In fact, doing such would be a historic mistake.
  NATO is not--is not--a transactional relationship. Our sole focus 
can't be just on who pays and who gets what. Being a part of NATO is 
not like being a part of a country club. Instead, we value our NATO 
partners, and more importantly, we realize that the power of the NATO 
partnership is absolutely--absolutely--invaluable. The tangible results 
prove it, not just what we have seen in the past, but what we are 
seeing now.
  In our enduring fight against terrorism, our NATO partners' will to 
join that effort was demonstrated just hours after the attack on 9/11, 
as partner nations volunteered to invoke Article 5.
  Now, I served alongside many troops from many NATO countries during 
my service in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008. I left that country in 
2008, but I can tell you, after 17 years of war, NATO troops are still 
there, serving alongside our sons and daughters who are serving in 
uniform.
  When it comes to Russia, our NATO partners will continue to play an 
important role as a deterrent for their aggression, and they will 
continue to coordinate and collaborate with us as we not only ready for 
a conventional war but also push back against Russia's use of hybrid 
warfare.
  NATO is instrumental in setting us apart from Russia. Why? We have 
allies that will stand by us; Russia does not. That is the foundation 
for our NATO partnership, and that is the foundation for the NATO 
Support Act, an act that rejects efforts to withdraw from NATO and 
prohibits any funds to be used as such.
  It supports increased defense spending by NATO partners, as well as 
the funding of the European Deterrence Initiative to deter against 
Russian aggression. It reaffirms our unwavering support of NATO, not 
only as a defense pledge, not only as a partnership, but as a proven 
core for an international order that favors democracy and peace.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Engel. I also thank Daniel 
Silverberg from Majority Leader Hoyer's staff, Jacqueline Ramos from 
the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Matt Manning and Jay Hernandez from 
my office.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully thank and ask all of my colleagues, 
Republican and Democrat, for their support on H.R. 676, the bipartisan 
NATO Support Act.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the bipartisanship behind 
supporting this bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I do want to take a moment to clarify a 
conversation we had here on the floor last week on sanctions 
legislation against Mr. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch. My remarks were 
passionate and aimed at the administration's proposed policy to lift 
sanctions on that individual. In no way did my remarks intend to 
reflect on the integrity of my friend from Texas, who was, in fact, 
comanaging the bill to oppose that action.
  As my friend from Texas knows, I admire him deeply, and I believe 
that he is a leader of integrity. Nothing I said last week was meant in 
any way to deflect from that. I wanted to clarify that publicly on the 
floor.
  I thank my good friend for yielding me time, and I look forward to 
talking about the issue at hand. I, again, thank my good friend from 
Texas.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a very respected member of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the distinguished 
chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I thank my friend, 
the distinguished ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee, for helping Mr. Panetta bring this bill to the floor.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 676, the NATO Support Act, 
reiterating congressional support for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization and prohibiting U.S. withdrawal from that organization.
  As we mark 70 years of the NATO alliance this year, it is critical we 
recognize the invaluable role that NATO has played in protecting U.S. 
national interests and global stability.
  NATO remains the foundation of U.S. foreign policy to promote a 
Europe that is whole, free, and at peace. NATO

[[Page H978]]

has invoked Article 5, the commitment to collective defense, only once 
in 70 years, and that invocation was on behalf of the United States 
after we were attacked on 9/11.
  As a result, nearly one-third of the fatalities suffered by coalition 
forces when we fought in Afghanistan to rid that country of al-Qaida 
and the Taliban--one-third of the casualties--were from non-U.S. NATO 
member and partner countries.

                              {time}  1715

  They put their blood and their flesh on the line on behalf of this 
country as part of that alliance.
  Despite these sacrifices, unfortunately, our President has questioned 
the value of NATO and falsely claimed that NATO allies owe the United 
States money.
  As head of the United States delegation to the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly and rapporteur for the political committee of that assembly, I 
can attest to the anxiety within NATO regarding this administration's 
commitment to the alliance.
  Case in point: one can't talk about the U.S. commitment to Article 5 
in 2019 without mentioning President Trump's failure to embrace it in 
full view of our NATO allies during his first Presidential trip to 
Brussels in 2017.
  This past summer at NATO's annual summit in Brussels, President Trump 
injected further discord into the alliance by calling our NATO ally, 
Germany, a ``captive of Russia'' and demanding that ``delinquent'' 
alliance members increase their defense spending ``immediately.''
  The President's provocative comments undermined the summit's goal of 
projecting unity in the face of renewed Russian aggression, especially 
given that they occurred just days before what turned out to be a very 
difficult, if not disastrous, Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin.
  Meanwhile, Russia continues its forcible and illegal occupation in 
the Crimea, eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and 
parts of Moldova, and its attack on democracies throughout Europe and 
even in our own country.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to support Mr. 
Panetta's bill. This bill affirms the U.S. support for NATO and 
preempts any attempts to withdraw from the same.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, let me first say to Mr. Connolly, we have a 
lot of passionate partisan debates on this floor, but I have to say, 
that was a class act on his part, and I thank him for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hurd), an original cosponsor of the bill.
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my colleagues 
to introduce this bipartisan bill to reaffirm the commitment of 
Congress to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as we know it. We 
call it NATO.
  For 70 years now, almost 1 billion people from Los Angeles and 
London, to Tallinn and Thessaloniki have lived in peace and prosperity, 
in no small part due to the security provided by NATO.
  As a CIA officer in Afghanistan, like my friend and colleague from 
California, I had the opportunity to serve side by side with NATO 
forces in the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban. I saw every day 
the professionalism and dedication of these brave men and women who, 
like our soldiers, were fighting to protect their nations and way of 
life.
  More than 1,000 NATO soldiers paid the ultimate sacrifice fighting 
alongside the United States in Afghanistan.
  In the global fight against terrorism, NATO allies have stood with us 
time and time again. As my friend from the Commonwealth of Virginia 
noted, in NATO's entire history, 9/11 was the first time the alliance 
invoked Article 5, the commitment that an attack against one ally is an 
attack against all.
  In our darkest hour, every member of NATO answered the call to fight 
terror at home and abroad.
  In Europe, NATO countries continued to deter Russia from threatening 
our democratic partners. Through military exercises in forward 
deployments in Eastern Europe, we have demonstrated our shared resolve 
against the aggressive ambitions of Vladimir Putin. That includes a 
stronger commitment by our allies to provide for their own defense. 
They have spent over $2.8 trillion on defense in the last decade, with 
spending increasing for the fourth straight year in 2018.
  These partners, not Russia, are our true friends, and we must always 
stand with them.
  We face many shared challenges, and the only way we can overcome them 
is by working together and continuing the strong transatlantic bond 
that unites our Nations.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation. It is an honor to work alongside my friend from the great 
State of California, Mr. Panetta, the chairman, and the ranking member 
of this important committee.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to 
close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot overstate the critical role that NATO has 
played in the history of the 20th century, and for 7 decades, it has 
been the cornerstone of international security and a force for freedom 
around the world.
  I look forward to its continued vitality in defending America and our 
allies for another 70 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me again, in closing, thank my friend from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul); Mr. Panetta; our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer; and all of 
this bill's sponsors.
  As this debate has made perfectly clear, there is no partisan 
disagreement in this body when it comes to the importance of NATO.
  Right now, we are dealing with an adversary in Russia that desires 
nothing more than to see the western alliance splinter. Vladimir 
Putin's aim is to undermine democracy, to split us apart from our 
allies, to drive division in the organizations that have kept Russia in 
check.
  The last thing the United States should do is send mixed signals 
about our commitment, as this President, unfortunately, has done. It 
plays right into Putin's hands.
  From Congress, you will get no such ambiguity. We hope our allies 
hear that and we hope Putin hears it as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill strongly, I urge 
Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
676, critical legislation that expresses the unified opposition of 
Congress to any attempt by the President to withdraw from the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and reaffirms that it is the policy 
of the United States to remain a member in good standing of NATO and 
its commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and its 
principle of collective defense.
  In the aftermath of World War II, the greatest conflict in all of 
human history, the United States, Canada, and their Western Europe 
allies founded the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) on April 
14, 1949 in Washington, D.C.
  Founded on the principle of collective defense, Article 5 of the 
North Atlantic Treaty states that, ``The Parties agree that an armed 
attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be 
considered an attack against them all.''
  In the 69 years since the Treaty's ratification, Article 5 has only 
been invoked once, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001, when NATO members came to the aid of the United States.
  NATO sent seven planes with 830 crewmen from 13 countries to protect 
American skies until May 2002, marking the first time in American 
history that the continental United States was protected by foreign 
forces.
  NATO allies and partners have stood with the United States in joint 
operations in the Western Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere 
around the world.
  Until the current President took office, every American president 
since the treaty's signing in 1949--Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, 
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George 
W. Bush, and Obama--has publicly reaffirmed the American commitment to 
Article 5.
  American presidents have affirmed this nation's commitment to come to 
the aid of any NATO member that is under attack.
  That is the symbolic meaning of the immortal words spoken by 
President Kennedy in

[[Page H979]]

West Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate in 1963: ``Ich bien ein Berliner.''
  Mr. Speaker, the principle of collective defense is the core of 
NATO's founding treaty and the NATO alliance has been the backbone of 
American national security and foreign policy for nearly 70 years.
  The strength and solidarity of this western alliance kept Western 
Europe whole, prosperous, and free and paved the way for the collapse 
of the Soviet Union and the liberation of the nations of Eastern and 
Central Europe, many of which have now been integrated into NATO.
  The Constitution of the United States grants Congress the sole power 
to declare war, but Article 5 does not increase the chance of war.
  Rather, NATO is a bulwark against the outbreak of war because it 
deters aggression by any adversary.
  As a result, NATO is the most successful military alliance in world 
history, successfully deterring the outbreak of a third world war, 
seeing the Cold War to a victorious conclusion, and protecting the 
principle of territorial integrity.
  This is why I strongly support H.R. 676, which reaffirms the 
commitment of the Congress to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
  The legislation also expresses support for the agreement reached at 
the 2014 NATO Wales Summit calling upon each NATO member nation to 
allocate at least two percent of its gross domestic product to defense 
by 2024.
  The legislation also expresses congressional support for robust 
United States funding for the European Deterrence Initiative, which 
increases the ability of the United States and its allies to deter and 
defend against Russian aggression.
  Finally, H.R. 676 provides that no funds are authorized to be 
appropriated, obligated, or expended to take any action to withdraw the 
United States from the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 14, 1949, 
in Washington, D.C., between the United States of America and the other 
15 founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty 16 Organization.
  I urge all Members to join me in affirming the commitment of the 
United States to the North Atlantic Treaty, which has kept the peace on 
the European continent for nearly 70 years and continues to serve as a 
bulwark and deterrent to Russian aggression and its long-held strategic 
objective of splitting the Western Alliance that has done more than any 
other collective enterprise in history to preserve and maintain 
international peace.
  Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 676, the 
NATO Support Act.
  For almost 70 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has 
formed the cornerstone of national security policy for the postwar 
world order. Through this alliance, we have successfully defeated 
communism, halted genocide in the Balkans, defended against threats 
from terrorism in Afghanistan, and maintained cohesion with our like-
minded democratic partners. By forming these relationships, we have 
successfully defended our values and principles in the face of 
repression and tyranny. While we no longer face the same existential 
threat posed by the Soviet Union, NATO's resolve and stability has 
helped maintain peace in a world drowning with strongmen. That is why I 
stand in support this bipartisan legislation.
  H.R. 676 codifies Congressional support of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, while calling on our allies to modernize their 
capabilities and meet the Wales Defense Investment Pledge. Five years 
ago, NATO members agreed to reverse their declining defense budgets and 
balance the responsibilities that come with our partnership. While it 
was an ambitious goal, we have already seen many of our partners 
increase their commitments to our mutual security by meeting the agreed 
upon threshold of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense.
  As part of our commitment, we must continue to support the European 
Deterrence Initiative, by maintaining a robust U.S. presence throughout 
the European theater. Most importantly, this legislation would ensure 
that no matter which way the political winds blow no administration 
could use funds to withdraw from this treaty without the consent of the 
coequal branch of government in Congress.
  NATO is not some outdated relic from past conflicts. We are living in 
a world where repression is on the rise, and human freedom is 
increasingly in jeopardy. What our partnership stands for, what NATO 
defends--it gives hope to the repressed. That is why I urge my 
colleagues in joining me in passing this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 676.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. ENGEL. 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 motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________