[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 148 (Monday, September 23, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5603-H5606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 BUILDING CHIPS IN AMERICA ACT OF 2023

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(S. 2228) to amend the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 to clarify the scope of a major 
Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with 
respect to certain projects relating to the production of 
semiconductors, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                S. 2228

       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 ``Building Chips in America 
     Act of 2023''.

     SEC. 2. SEMICONDUCTOR PROGRAM.

       Title XCIX of division H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 
     U.S.C. 4651 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 9902 (15 U.S.C. 4652)--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections 
     (i) and (j), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Authority Relating to Environmental Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the provision by the Secretary of Federal financial 
     assistance for a project described in this section that 
     satisfies the requirements under subsection (a)(2)(C)(i) of 
     this section shall not be considered to be a major Federal 
     action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (referred to in this subsection as 
     `NEPA') or an undertaking for the purposes of division A of 
     subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, if--
       ``(A) the activity described in the application for that 
     project has commenced not later than December 31, 2024;
       ``(B) the Federal financial assistance provided is in the 
     form of a loan or loan guarantee; or
       ``(C) the Federal financial assistance provided, excluding 
     any loan or loan guarantee, comprises not more than 10 
     percent of the total estimated cost of the project.
       ``(2) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection may be 
     construed as altering whether an activity described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) is considered 
     to be a major Federal action under NEPA, or an undertaking 
     under division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States 
     Code, for a reason other than that the activity is eligible 
     for Federal financial assistance provided under this 
     section.''; and
       (2) in section 9909 (15 U.S.C. 4659), by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(c) Lead Federal Agency and Cooperating Agencies.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `lead 
     agency' has the meaning given the term in section 111 of NEPA 
     (42 U.S.C. 4336e).
       ``(2) Option to serve as lead agency.--With respect to a 
     covered activity that is a major Federal action under NEPA, 
     and with respect to which the Department of Commerce is 
     authorized or required by law to issue an authorization or 
     take action for or relating to that covered activity, the 
     Department of Commerce shall have the first right to serve as 
     the lead agency with respect to that covered activity under 
     NEPA.
       ``(d) Categorical Exclusions.--
       ``(1) Establishment of categorical exclusions.--Each of the 
     following categorical exclusions is established for the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology with respect 
     to a covered activity and, beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, is available for use by the Secretary 
     with respect to a covered activity:
       ``(A) Categorical exclusion 17.04.d (relating to the 
     acquisition of machinery and equipment) in the document 
     entitled `EDA Program to Implement the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 and Other Federal Environmental Mandates 
     As Required' (Directive No. 17.02-2; effective date October 
     14, 1992).
       ``(B) Categorical exclusion A9 in Appendix A to subpart D 
     of part 1021 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, or any 
     successor regulation.
       ``(C) Categorical exclusions B1.24, B1.31, B2.5, and B5.1 
     in Appendix B to subpart D of part 1021 of title 10, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
       ``(D) The categorical exclusions described in paragraphs 
     (4) and (13) of section 50.19(b) of title 24, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, or any successor regulation.
       ``(E) Categorical exclusion (c)(1) in Appendix B to part 
     651 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, or any 
     successor regulation.
       ``(F) Categorical exclusions A2.3.8 and A2.3.14 in Appendix 
     B to part 989 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
     any successor regulation.
       ``(2) Additional categorical exclusions.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, each of the following shall be 
     treated as a category of action categorically excluded from 
     the requirements relating to environmental assessments and 
     environmental impact statements under section 1501.4 of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation:
       ``(A) The provision by the Secretary of any Federal 
     financial assistance for a project described in section 9902, 
     if the facility that is the subject of the project is on or 
     adjacent to a site--
       ``(i) that is owned or leased by the covered entity to 
     which Federal financial assistance is provided for that 
     project; and
       ``(ii) on which, as of the date on which the Secretary 
     provides that Federal financial assistance, substantially 
     similar construction, expansion, or modernization is being or 
     has been carried out, such that the facility would not more 
     than double existing developed acreage or on-site supporting 
     infrastructure.
       ``(B) The provision by the Secretary of Defense of any 
     Federal financial assistance relating to--
       ``(i) the creation, expansion, or modernization of one or 
     more facilities described in the second sentence of section 
     9903(a)(1); or
       ``(ii) carrying out section 9903(b), as in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(C) Any activity undertaken by the Secretary relating to 
     carrying out section 9906, as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this subsection.
       ``(e) Incorporation of Prior Planning Decisions.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `prior 
     studies and decisions' means baseline data, planning 
     documents, studies, analyses, decisions, and documentation 
     that a Federal agency has completed for a project (or that 
     have been completed under the laws and procedures of a State 
     or Indian Tribe), including for determining the reasonable 
     range of alternatives for that project.
       ``(2) Reliance on prior studies and decisions.--In 
     completing an environmental review under NEPA for a covered 
     activity, the Secretary may consider and, as appropriate, 
     rely on or adopt prior studies and decisions, if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) those prior studies and decisions meet the standards 
     for an adequate statement, assessment, or determination under 
     applicable procedures of the Department of Commerce 
     implementing the requirements of NEPA;
       ``(B) in the case of prior studies and decisions completed 
     under the laws and procedures of a State or Indian Tribe, 
     those laws and procedures are of equal or greater rigor than 
     those of each applicable Federal law, including NEPA, 
     implementing procedures of the Department of Commerce; or
       ``(C) if applicable, the prior studies and decisions are 
     informed by other analysis or documentation that would have 
     been prepared if the prior studies and decisions were 
     prepared by the Secretary under NEPA.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Covered activity.--The term `covered activity' means 
     any activity relating to the construction, expansion, or 
     modernization of a facility, the investment in which is 
     eligible for Federal financial assistance under section 9902 
     or 9906.

[[Page H5604]]

       ``(2) NEPA.--The term `NEPA' means the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on S. 2228, the bill now under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2228, the Building Chips in 
America Act. This is a companion to H.R. 4549, which was introduced in 
the House by Representative Kiggans along with Representatives Peters, 
Williams, Allred, and McCaul.
  The Building Chips in America Act is fundamentally about our 
competitiveness and national security.
  Semiconductor chips have become essential to the way we live and 
work. They power our phones, medical devices, cars, and computers. They 
are not only essential to our economic security but our national 
security, as well. Yet, the U.S. is dependent on foreign countries for 
access to chips.
  The Chinese Communist Party has made it clear that it wants to 
dominate the globe in key technology areas, and part of their strategy 
is to increase China's share of the semiconductor market through both 
investment and acquisition.
  U.S. technology companies obtain as much as 90 percent of their 
semiconductor chips from Taiwan, which is a huge risk given the 
geopolitical situation in the region.
  When Congress passed the CHIPS for America Act in 2020 and the CHIPS 
and Science Act in 2022, the intention was to address this lack of 
domestic chip production to make us more competitive, and it is 
starting to work. Since we passed these bills, we have seen companies 
throughout the supply chain announcing billions of dollars in new 
investments in domestic chip manufacturing.
  Unfortunately, these projects are being required to undergo a lengthy 
National Environmental Policy Act review. These reviews drag on for a 
long time. The Council on Environmental Quality reports that it takes 
an average of 4\1/2\ years to complete this process. That defeats the 
goal of quickly scaling up chips production in the United States.
  Not only do NEPA reviews delay ongoing construction, but they also 
discourage future investments in chip production. This bill addresses 
that issue by streamlining the permit requirements so we can quickly 
build up our semiconductor manufacturing. It clarifies that certain 
CHIPS projects are not subject to NEPA reviews, and it improves 
efficiency by ensuring that the Commerce Department is the lead agency 
to carry out NEPA reviews for the projects that are subject to these 
requirements.
  It also gives Commerce more tools to complete environmental reviews.
  Finally, it limits the timeline for court challenges to these 
reviews.
  In short, it allows Commerce to be flexible in how it promotes growth 
while still ensuring environmental protections.
  We cannot afford to stunt our own progress in chip manufacturing 
because we are following a flawed bureaucratic process.
  Mr. Speaker, I also note that addressing environmental permitting is 
an issue that extends well beyond chip production. My colleague Bruce 
Westerman, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, has championed 
the need to comprehensively address NEPA and its unintended 
consequences. I appreciate his effort to make NEPA work better for the 
American people.
  Today's bill is narrower in scope than what Chairman Westerman has 
proposed. While it doesn't address NEPA in its entirety, I believe this 
is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House who have sponsored 
this bill, as well as our Senate counterparts, and I urge everyone to 
support this important reform. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2228, the Building Chips in 
America Act.
  I can't begin to tell you how frustrating it is that we are here 
considering a bill that hasn't had a single hearing or the slightest 
bit of real scrutiny, but here we are because Speaker Johnson thinks it 
is a priority.
  Now we need to set the record straight for the sake of our 
communities' health and safety and basic common sense.
  Let's talk about the history of semiconductor manufacturing for a 
second. In 1947, Silicon Valley was the birthplace of the modern 
semiconductor, the backbone of our tech industry, but that birth left 
behind some pretty deep scars.
  Semiconductor manufacturing has never been clean. It has left behind 
pollution, toxic waste, and even poisoned workers. Silicon Valley still 
holds the record for the most Superfund sites in the country. We are 
talking miscarriages, cancer, and entire communities still dealing with 
the fallout today. It is serious.

                              {time}  1745

  As we work to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S., we 
must do it right this time. We cannot afford to repeat the devastating 
mistakes of the past, and we don't need to.
  What does this bill want us to do?
  It intends to throw all those lessons out the window and bring back 
the same toxic mess we saw in Silicon Valley, only bigger.
  Are we really going to let this disaster play out again in places 
like Palm Bay, Florida; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Clay, New York; or 
St. Peters, Missouri?
  These are the communities on the line, all home to semiconductor 
plants getting funding under the CHIPS and Science Act.
  Polluting our communities and putting families in harm's way is a 
policy choice. We have cleaned up a lot of the mess in Silicon Valley, 
and we have proven that semiconductor manufacturing can be done without 
hurting workers or the environment.
  Democrats worked to pass the CHIPS and Science Act to ensure that 
when we invest in America's future, we do it the right way.
  We made sure these investments benefit all Americans, not just a 
select few, and we have Secretary Raimondo and the Biden-Harris 
administration making sure that taxpayer dollars being spent on this 
are stewarded with care.
  So far, those investments are already showing results across the 
country, and it is just the beginning, but this bill wants to scrap all 
that progress.
  It would wipe out environmental reviews and public input under the 
National Environmental Policy Act for semiconductor facilities.
  That means no guarantees, no checks to make sure companies aren't 
using our money to harm the very people paying those taxes.
  Let me tell you something else: The rush is fake. Republicans keep 
saying that environmental red tape is slowing down progress, but that 
is just not true.
  Secretary Raimondo has testified that things are moving along just 
fine. We even made sure the agency got enough funding to handle the 
workload.
  What we are looking at is a dangerous, pointless bill that doesn't 
solve any real problems. In fact, it creates new ones, ones that could 
put the health and safety of countless Americans at risk.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with me in 
opposing this bill so we can do it the right way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Kiggans) to speak on the bill.
  Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 
2228, the Building Chips in America

[[Page H5605]]

Act, the Senate version of bipartisan legislation I introduced last 
year to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States.
  Last year, 120 Members of Congress signed a letter to House and 
Senate leadership urging its inclusion in the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  Semiconductors go in everything from cell phones to innovative 
technologies that support American energy, powerful new AI tools, key 
weapons systems keeping Americans safe at home and abroad, and the list 
goes on. Despite this, the U.S. is home to only 10 percent of global 
semiconductor production.
  Thankfully, the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act authorized nearly $40 
billion in grant funding to reshore this critical manufacturing 
capability for which we have historically relied almost entirely on 
China.
  This monumental investment in our domestic industry has spurred 
companies up and down the semiconductor supply chain to start bringing 
new manufacturing projects to our shores.
  However, existing requirements by the National Environmental Policy 
Act, NEPA, threaten to delay semiconductor projects already underway 
and discourage future investment in domestic semiconductor 
manufacturing.
  A recent study from Georgetown University found the United States 
builds semiconductor fabs at a slower rate than the rest of the world.
  To put it simply, we cannot allow Federal bureaucracy to hold up 
critical CHIPS Act projects while the Chinese Communist Party spends 
billions of dollars to become the world's leading producer of advanced 
semiconductors.
  One of the greatest national security threats we face today is 
China's choke hold on our defense industrial base. We must be able to 
produce these components critical to our economy and national security 
here on American soil.
  Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Silicon Valley with the 
House Armed Services Committee. We did a field hearing there, and we 
heard time and time again the importance of expediting the process for 
building semiconductor chips here domestically. This was an ask from 
that defense industry in the Silicon Valley.
  The Building Chips in America Act would address this issue by 
clarifying how NEPA applies to projects that receive funding from the 
CHIPS Act.
  This bipartisan bill would ensure these projects can move forward in 
a timely fashion while still obtaining all necessary permits and 
requiring projects to undergo necessary environmental reviews at the 
State and local level.
  This approach streamlines our domestic semiconductor manufacturing 
without changing the environmental requirements and standards these 
projects need to meet.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent coastal southeast Virginia, which is one of 
the heaviest military congressional districts in the country. We know 
how to be good stewards of the environment without sacrificing our 
economy or our national security.
  If we want to ensure American economic and national security in 
today's dangerous world, we must reduce our dangerous reliance on 
Chinese supply chains and increase our domestic production of these 
critical technologies.
  Our military men and women need secure, reliable electronics to carry 
out their missions safely. Relying on adversarial nations that directly 
seek to undermine our national security is not an option.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and allow our 
country to restore chip manufacturing on American soil, which we can do 
while maintaining our basic environmental laws. We cannot afford to 
lose this race with China.
  Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2228, the 
so-called Building Chips in America Act.
  This bill simply should not be coming up under a suspension of the 
rules. All three ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction are 
adamantly opposed to it.
  When the CHIPS and Science Act passed the House in July of 2022, it 
passed by a vote of 243-187. All 187 votes against the bill were 
Republicans.
  In fact, only 24 Republicans voted for the bill, and a lot of them 
are no longer here. If Republicans had controlled the House last 
Congress, the $52 billion that we invested to ensure semiconductors 
were produced here in the United States instead of China simply would 
have never become law.
  I was one of the leaders who pushed the CHIPS and Science Act through 
the House, and so I, unlike many of my Republican colleagues, am 
invested in making this program work as intended.
  As we created this program, we did so with the intention of ending 
our reliance on other countries for microchips that are used in 
automobiles, consumer electronics, and washing machines. We did all 
this while also making sure we protected the environment.
  The CHIPS and Science Act is a success, but we cannot deflect from 
that success by once again attacking one of the most important 
environmental laws that protects all of our communities from corporate 
malfeasance.
  I oppose this bill because it would needlessly eliminate 
environmental review and public input under the National Environmental 
Policy Act, or NEPA, for semiconductor facilities receiving funding 
under the CHIPS and Science Act.
  Now, this bill simply is not necessary because NEPA review is not a 
barrier to moving semiconductor projects forward.
  Commerce Secretary Raimondo, who oversees the CHIPS and Science Act, 
and who had initially voiced concern about NEPA reviews, acknowledged 
at an Energy and Commerce hearing: I can report to you today that we 
have made a lot of progress on that, and we are on track to complete 
environmental reviews for all these companies before we issue any 
awards.
  There is simply no need for wholesale exemptions from NEPA reviews, 
given the steps that Congress has already taken to increase the speed, 
efficiency, and management of permitting for this industry.
  We made semiconductor manufacturing eligible for the abbreviated 
permitting process under the FAST-41 Act. This ensured that reviews do 
not drag out for the most serious environmental impact statements.
  We also, under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, eliminated NEPA review 
for loans, loan guarantees, or other forms of financial assistance for 
similar activities, and we gave the Department of Commerce the ability 
to adopt categorical exclusions from other agencies.
  This is really, Mr. Speaker, a bill that is a solution in search of a 
problem that doesn't exist.
  Now Republican leadership is bypassing regular order to ram through 
an anti-environment bill that didn't go through any of the committees 
here in the House before being rushed to the House floor on the 
suspension calendar.
  The phenomenal work of the CHIPS Program Office is a cause for 
celebration, and the program has produced critical wins for countless 
domestic industries worth highlighting.
  It is clear that NEPA reviews are not a barrier to moving these 
projects forward. Fundamentally, NEPA requires us to look before we 
leap, which is just common sense, and failing to do so could create 
many new problems for our environment.
  My colleague mentioned the Superfund sites in Silicon Valley. Do we 
want those again?
  This affects our water supply, our worker safety, and our 
communities, and ignoring these impacts is not going to make them 
disappear, Mr. Speaker.
  I thank Ranking Member Lofgren from the Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology and Ranking Member Grijalva from the Natural Resources 
Committee for joining me in leading the effort to oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no''.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, the chairman of the House Rules Committee (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of S. 2228, the Building 
Chips in America Act. Last week, Members of the Texas delegation sent a 
letter to our leadership requesting that we prioritize this crucial 
piece of legislation.
  I certainly thank, of course, Chairman Lucas as well as Speaker 
Johnson

[[Page H5606]]

and Majority Leader Scalise for considering bringing the Building Chips 
in America Act to the floor this week.
  We have heard over and over how semiconductors are necessary for some 
of the most vital technology we have today.
  Let's also be clear. The NEPA process is valuable. The environmental 
impact assessments and reviews that are conducted in this country are a 
pragmatic symbol of the American people's commitment to environmental 
conservatism and land management. However, efficiency is sometimes 
lacking.

  My friend, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
Mr. Pallone, the gentleman from New Jersey, said this is a solution in 
search of a problem. Hardly. Hardly.
  NEPA's red tape means that many semiconductor projects are delayed, 
manufacturers are becoming discouraged in developing domestic 
manufacturing projects, and certainly that is evident in my home State 
of Texas.
  This legislation is important to Texas, and we have remained at the 
forefront of a national resurgence in high-tech manufacturing.
  Streamlining the NEPA process will help companies in the 
semiconductor industry bring great economic prosperity to our State.
  Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
  Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2228, the Building 
Chips in America Act. Two years ago, Congress wisely passed the CHIPS 
and Science Act, bringing about a resurgence in domestic manufacturing, 
particularly in my home State of Arizona.
  Some of the world's leading semiconductor companies have invested 
hundreds of billions of dollars in Arizona to build new fabrication 
plants, or fabs, creating thousands and thousands of high-wage jobs.
  Many of these projects have already broken ground. If you drive 
around my district in Arizona, cranes dot the skyline, the clearest 
sign of America's advanced manufacturing boom.
  In North Phoenix, TSMC will soon begin producing the world's most 
advanced semiconductors by the end of this decade.
  In Chandler, Intel is building its largest manufacturing complex, 
which opens next year. It will churn out semiconductor chips at a time 
when America needs a secure supply more than ever. It is critical for 
our national defense.
  Make no mistake. These projects are being constructed in compliance 
with Federal, State, and local environmental regulations, protecting 
Arizonans' clean air and water.
  In fact, we have worked in partnership with semiconductor giants to 
invest in water recycling and reclamation projects in record numbers.
  Because these projects are benefiting from the CHIPS and Science Act, 
many companies must now, for the first time, complete a secondary 
Federal and environmental review that could slow or even stop 
construction for months or years.
  This bipartisan bill, led by Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona on the 
Senate side, would streamline that review process to ensure these fabs 
can be built on time so we don't lose a single day in the global 
semiconductor arms race.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 2228.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on S. 2228, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Building Chips in America Act is pragmatic 
legislation that ensures we aren't sacrificing our growth in chip 
production because of unwieldy permitting processes.
  The changes we are making here today won't compromise the laws that 
protect our clean air and water, but they do allow us to move forward 
with semiconductor manufacturing. That is why this bill has strong 
bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, S. 2228.
  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. STAUBER. 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.

                          ____________________