[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21795-21798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1308, TAX RELIEF, SIMPLIFICATION, 
                         AND EQUITY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Davis of Tennessee moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
     to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows:
       1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment 
     (not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate 
     payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by 
     reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were 
     entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
       2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment 
     (not included in the House amendment) that provides families 
     of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 
     combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the 
     individuals serving in the combat zone.
       3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report all of the other provisions of the 
     Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference 
     report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by 
     other provisions.
       4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of 
     conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to 
     include in the conference report other tax benefits for 
     military personnel and the families of the astronauts who 
     died in the Columbia disaster.
       5. The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after 
     the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the 
     Senate conferees and the House conferees shall file a 
     conference report consistent with the preceding provisions of 
     this instruction, not later than the second legislative day 
     after adoption of this motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7(b) of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes we ask ourselves, why would I introduce this 
motion to instruct the conference committee? Seventeen other times this 
motion has been here on the floor. And you think, really, would it make 
a difference? Maybe it will not. But there are a lot of people who live 
in my district that hope that this one will be successful.
  A few months ago, I voted for the $80 billion bill that included 
families in my district that have children that really would hope that 
they too would get the same treatment as those who make 10 or $15,000 
more than them, that make above the $26,000 level that basically were 
allowed the tax credit of $400 each. So you wonder if it has been here 
17 times, what is going to be magic about the 18th time? If it takes a 
thousand times, it is important to people who live in the district I 
represent.
  Recent surveys by different groups analyzed different congressional 
districts. The one that I represent in rural Tennessee is the fourth 
most rural district in America, which means when you take the folks who 
live inside an incorporated area and those outside, of the 435, mine is 
the fourth most rural district in America. I traveled that district 
through the August recess. I attended 92 different meetings. A lot of 
the folks that I met with, a lot of folks who came to open meetings 
that I set aside for constituents to come and visit with their 
Congressman, this was one of the issues that really was of great 
concern to them.
  But when you talk about being rural, then you look at the folks who 
work in the district that I represent. We have the third largest base 
of blue collar workers of any congressional district in America working 
in the fourth district, somewhat over 40 percent. Generally, you would 
assume blue collar would be the auto industry or some other industry 
that would pay higher wages. Yes, we have that in the district as well, 
but most of the ones I am talking about are individuals who fall in the 
criteria of the 10 to $26,000 bracket. They are the lower-wage income 
earners. They are the ones who get laid off first. They are the ones 
generally that their employer are not able to provide a health care 
policy for them.
  Many of those had high hopes as they saw us go through this process. 
There were times that I would be back in the district and they would 
say, why don't Democrats support a tax cut? What's the problem? Then 
when I explained to them what happened, they are saying, you left us 
out. You left us out of at least that opportunity to share in a tax cut 
that went to other folks. Some folks will say, you don't get a tax cut. 
This is a tax credit for people who work every day, every day, that 
earns a check, that owns a home, has an automobile, pays almost 40 
cents a gallon on gasoline when they drive to work.
  I have a nephew who works at a factory in Crossville, Tennessee, in 
the district that I represent. He married my niece. They have two 
little boys. This past weekend, those two little boys along with my 
niece, my brother, his other daughter and the nephew that works at that 
factory helped hauling tobacco all weekend. Those two little boys are 
saying, Uncle Lincoln, it's good to see you. But I talked to Marty 
Brown about his earnings. He earned above the $26,000 last year because 
he worked overtime. He checked at his factory on the 180 folks who work 
on that assembly line where he does, 40 of those were extremely 
disappointed that they were not included in the $400 tax credit, the 
child tax credit that he received. On the particular assembly line 
where he works, there were only two that received it, his supervisor 
and him. He got the $800 for his two children. But there were folks who 
worked with him that did not receive anything. They do not understand. 
They are hurt. They are disappointed. They are concerned.
  The question that I ask is why would I introduce this legislation to 
instruct the conferees in the House to meet with the Senate to resolve 
this issue? As a Democrat who voted for the initial $80 billion child 
tax credit, I am here appealing to the other side not to leave out 
those individuals that we included in the $80 billion tax cost over the 
10-year program. Let us at least work with the Senate for this year to 
make it possible, at least through 2004, to make it possible. That is 
what the Senate bill does. That is what the initial bill did, was only 
made it through 2004. The $350 billion tax cut that was given that had 
the inclusion of those who would get a child tax credit only goes 
through 2004. It does not go through 2010 as the tax cut did in 2001.
  Let us include, as the President asked us to and as the Senate has 
passed, a child tax credit for those individuals I am talking about, 
the 40 of that 180 who work in that one factory in my district, that 
are disappointed not only in just Lincoln Davis but on the other side 
as well that they were excluded from the fairness that I think this 
Chamber has about it and I think this Chamber will and I hope this 
Chamber will correct it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of the time on 
this side until the gentleman is down to his last speaker.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek). His mother served here in this 
Chamber for many years, and we are fortunate to have a young man like 
him that is here today that will be speaking on the child tax credit.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee 
for

[[Page 21796]]

his eloquent opening remarks as it relates to this child tax credit. I 
think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we look at the reason why 
we are here for the 18th time. One would assume in this country, in 
this great country of America as it relates to financially challenged 
families that make under $26,000 a year and also those men and women 
that are fighting on behalf of the freedom that we enjoy every day, 
that we would not even have to come to the floor on their behalf and on 
behalf of their families to be able to receive a fair share from this 
government that they look up to.
  This issue is not a new issue to this House. As my colleague from 
Tennessee references, this is the 18th time that Democrats have come to 
the floor to ask for fair play and equal justice for these individuals. 
I want to say that this issue as it relates to just months ago, we were 
here on this floor, Members sat in this Chamber, we voted for this tax 
credit, we wanted to make sure that every American was able to enjoy 
it; but until this day, they still cannot. Checks have been mailed out. 
They have not been mailed out to the low-income individuals in our 
country. I think it is important that we remember them.
  Since we are on the eve of 9/11, I think it is important for me to 
point this out. I turn on the television, and I am seeing not only 
Members of this body but also members of the executive branch flying 
around, draping themselves in the flag, saying that we stand with our 
military families.

                              {time}  2115

  I believe they do, to a certain extent, only when it comes down to 
their families being able to receive a child tax credit.
  Those men and women that are out there in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 
even here domestically in the United States working with our various 
military operations, those individuals that are in combat zones are 
going to receive combat pay. And, guess what? They are going to receive 
a tax increase due to that combat pay. Will they be able to celebrate a 
tax credit? No, they will not, not unless this motion to instruct 
actually passes and we are able to fight on their behalf.
  I think it is important for us when we talk about coming together as 
Americans to make sure that we fight on behalf of 20,000 military 
families who were left out of the Republican new tax law. I think we 
should do as the other body has done. They have moved in the right 
direction to make sure many families, not only in my State of Florida, 
are able to receive a tax credit. I think it is important that we do 
not muddy the water as it relates to what this Congress has done for 
low-income families.
  My colleague from Tennessee mentioned my mother, Carrie Meek, who 
served in this body, and I am glad I have had the opportunity to follow 
in her footsteps. She was one that stood for the individuals that we 
may say are the least of these, hard-working Americans that are just 
trying to make their way in this free democracy.
  I believe America is all about fair play. I believe America is all 
about individuals receiving their fair share for a hard day's work. 
But, unfortunately, many times I hear Members rise to their feet when 
we raise the question of the have's and have not's, and class warfare, 
and blue collar versus white collar, whatever the case may be.
  But this is a perfect example as we are here in this Chamber today 
for the eighteenth time saying that just because someone makes under 
$26,000 a year, that they cannot receive the same credit as those that 
are at a higher income bracket. Something is fundamentally wrong with 
that. I think it is important as we are here for the eighteenth time, 
and I look forward to this hopefully being the last time that we have 
to come to this floor and to this Congress to ask for justice on behalf 
of these families.
  I cannot help but think of those individuals in Florida and 
throughout this Nation that have loved ones that are in a tent or out 
in a field, have sand in their teeth right now, fighting on behalf of 
this country and standing against terrorism, that we have to come and 
speak on their behalf, when it should be something that is automatic.
  I must say to even those families that are not military families, I 
want to say it again, these are people that work every day. These are 
individuals that want to provide for their families every day. These 
are families working every day. I think it is important that we 
understand that we are not talking about people that are sitting at 
home with a bag of Lay's potato chips watching cable television. I 
think it is important we understand that these are people that punch in 
and punch out, they are catching a bus, driving their cars. They are 
paying the same $2 a gallon for gas as I pay $2 a gallon for gas.
  So I think it is important that they receive the tax credit. I think 
it is important that this Congress stands up on behalf of these 
individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Tennessee for coming 
to the floor once again and being courageous on behalf of working 
families in the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from California continues to reserve his time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. Every single 
American should be represented here. Unfortunately, the Republican 
majority has turned this House over to the powerful and the privileged. 
Week in and week out, the Republican leadership neglects middle and 
lower income Americans, and there is perhaps no better example of this 
intentional neglect than the child tax credit.
  How many nights will we as Democrats have to come to this floor to 
fight to provide for 12 million children of low income parents who were 
neglected by Republicans in their latest tax bill? Unfortunately, 
according to this morning's Roll Call newspaper, which I have here, we 
may be forced to continue our fight indefinitely. Why? Well, the 
chairman of the committee on Ways and Means, who is here on the floor, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), according to the article, 
refuses to work out the differences between separate House and Senate 
bills passed earlier this summer.
  I have a quote here from the paper. Senator Chuck Grassley, the 
chairman of the conference, ``Complained that Mr. Thomas has been 
unresponsive to his entreaties to work out the differences between the 
House and Senate versions of the bill.'' That is in this morning's Roll 
Call on the first page.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership just cannot be 
bothered. These 12 million children do not have any power. These 12 
million children are not among the privileged. Therefore, why should 
the Republican leadership represent them? Why bother? Why can the 
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), not respond to 
the letter from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley 
attempting to work out differences between bills passed in the two 
Chambers?
  I heard the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), say 
that he was going to address the House later this evening, and I hope 
he does answer the reason why he has not been responsive to the Senate 
chairman's letter.
  In the article, Chairman Grassley is quoted as saying, ``I suppose I 
could call a conference meeting, but I'm not going to do that unless it 
is going to be productive. And right now, it doesn't look like it would 
be.''
  Chairman Grassley concluded that the only way negotiations would 
begin was if Republicans felt some heat here on the floor from 
Democrats.
  Well, they are going to get it. We are going to be here every night, 
and we are going to keep making these motions to instruct, and I 
commend my colleague for bringing this up.
  Again, quoting Republican Chairman Grassley, ``The Democrats won't 
let it be dead, and I don't blame them. If I was them and the majority 
party wasn't doing something about it, I would make an issue of it 
too.''
  Well, I am glad that Chairman Grassley feels that way, because that

[[Page 21797]]

is certainly what we are going to do. We demand a response. It is not 
fair for the Republican leadership to be unresponsive.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members not to make 
reference to individual Members of the other body.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, that last sentence that I quoted says it 
all. House Republicans do not want to help these 1 million children. If 
they did, the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) would have 
responded to this letter.
  It is also clear that President Bush does not want to help these 
children either. It has been 99 days since President Bush advised House 
Republicans to pass this child tax credit legislation and send it to 
him so he could sign it. The urgency the President showed in June has 
clearly dissipated. Not once since then has the President urged 
Congress to send him a bill that would provide these 12 million 
children a tax credit. If that silence is not an indication of the 
President's true intentions, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Speaker, this a simple question of fairness. How can Republicans 
say it is fair to give a millionaire a tax break of more than $90,000, 
while giving nothing to millions of working families? Unfortunately, 
the simple answer is that as long as the Republicans remain in control 
of this House, we will not see fairness, for the simple reason that 
fairness can only occur when all Americans are represented, and under 
the control of the Republican leadership, unless you are part of the 
powerful privileged elite, your voice will simply not be listened to 
here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California continue 
to reserve his time?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his 
effort tonight, the eighteenth time that the Democrats in this House 
have tried to do the right thing, the fair thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of this House now for 9 months, and 
I discovered in that 9 months that the issues that I face, the 
difficult issues that we all face, fall into three categories:
  Category number one are the issues that I understand and I agree 
with, the solutions that are brought forward by this Congress.
  Category number two are the issues that I understand, and I disagree 
with the solutions that are brought forward by this Congress. Those two 
categories we can all appreciate.
  It is category number three that bothers me the most, and that is the 
category of things that I just do not understand at all, no matter how 
long I stay on the floor of this House, no matter how long I listen to 
the arguments, no matter how long I try to understand what is the 
motivation of somebody for doing or not doing something.
  Now, hopefully over time category number three will diminish with the 
time that I spend in this House. But I have been in this House now for 
9 months, and this issue clearly falls into category number three, and 
I do not think it is ever going to exit category number three until we 
pass this child tax credit.
  I have tried to understand, why are we not passing this? What is the 
problem? What is the big deal? What is so hard to understand about the 
fact that we have 12 million kids that are not covered by this credit, 
that we have families that are not covered by this credit, that we have 
poor people that are not covered by this credit, that we have soldiers 
coming back from overseas that are not covered by this credit?
  I get letters from my constituents. I try to understand from my 
constituents and translate for them what is going on in Congress. 
Sometimes I can translate and say I understand and I agree, and we all 
agree on this, or I understand and I disagree. But this one throws me 
for a loop.
  Here is just one of those communications, from a gentleman named 
Peter Gorham in Hawaii. He writes me, ``Dear Representative Case, my 
wife and I recently adopted two orphans from Kazakhstan. The children 
are doing well and it is a joy to see them grow stronger every day as 
they recover from the terrible situation they were in.
  ``I write you today for this reason: We are shocked to find that our 
tax refund has been shortchanged by the sudden rescission of the child 
tax credit. As you know, adoption costs are very high and the Federal 
tax credits for adoption and the child tax credit are a welcome relief 
from a portion of these costs. It is a painful blow to take this from a 
Congress and administration that has prided itself on spoken words of 
tax reform, when in fact, the results appear to be the opposite. Please 
accept the responsibility to work for the reform of these egregious tax 
laws.''
  Mr. Gorham, I have no way of explaining to you what we are doing here 
tonight and what we continue to do, because I do not understand it 
myself.
  Can it be that we do not have the money? That would be a pretty 
common explanation. Sorry, we cannot apply $3.5 billion to a child tax 
credit that is fair after we have already spent multi-billions of 
dollars on a child tax credit for everybody else. Can that be it? 
Frankly, I am not sure I have heard anybody say that yet, and how could 
they say it? We just gave away hundreds of billions of dollars in tax 
cuts that people that do not need it. We just gave away multi-billions 
of dollars, $500 billion now and climbing, in a deficit that does not 
seem to matter to anybody.
  I guess you could say well, why do we not just add another $3.5 
billion to the deficit. But we do not appear to be ready to do that.
  We seem to be ready to spend another $87 billion on Iraq and 
Afghanistan that is not even accounted for. And who thinks for one 
minute that that is the last amount of money we are going to spend in 
Iraq and Afghanistan? But we cannot spend $3.5 billion on a child tax 
credit.
  What else can it be? Can it be some rationale in our Tax Code that 
says somehow low income people should not be helped, whereas middle 
income people should be and higher income people should be? I cannot 
see that. I have heard the argument made on the floor. I have heard the 
argument made well, low income people do not pay taxes, and therefore 
they should not have a credit. I do not buy that argument. I do not 
understand it, and I do not think anybody else understands it too.
  So what is it? What is the explanation? Why are we sitting here again 
for the eighteenth time trying to pass something that, to me, makes so 
much sense, that in the context of what we consider, in the context of 
who we are trying to help, makes so much sense?
  When I walk back into my district back in Hawaii and I say, I wish I 
could explain this to you in a context that you can understand, I 
cannot do it.
  So I am left with this question, so I ask this question, and I come 
up with this answer, and this is the best I can do for you: Because 
they do not want to. Because they do not want to.
  It is not a matter of affordability, it is not a matter of tax 
policy, and it is certainly not a matter of caring about the people 
that are impacted. This issue has risen above all of that, and it is 
now just about winning. It is about not giving in. It is about 
maintaining face, as we call it, keeping face, and that is the wrong 
reason to not do the right thing.
  I urge that we pass this motion and end this, and finish this once 
and for all.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do want to indicate that as to the 
statements that were made in terms of not understanding some third 
category as to why certain things have not been done, the gentleman 
really needs to simply examine the Congressional Record.

                              {time}  2130

  On June 12 of this year, the House passed a tax relief measure 
providing tax relief for astronauts, suspending the tax exempt status 
of designated

[[Page 21798]]

terrorist organizations, providing tax relief and enhancing tax 
fairness for members of the Armed Forces. That has passed this House. 
It passed it in June. But it not only did that, it accelerated the 
increase in the refundable child credit. The provision that passed on 
June 12 cost $3.5 billion over 11 years.
  As the very point of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) where 
he said he cannot understand why it has not been addressed, we have 
addressed it. I do not happen to know how he voted on the measure, but 
clearly enough Members of the House were concerned about that child 
credit provision, were concerned about the members of the Armed Forces, 
that that measure passed.
  It is now over in the Senate. The Senate is the body that has not 
responded to these concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about entreaties, as was indicated in the 
quote from the other body, first of all, the other body is the Chair of 
the conference on the tax credit. All the other body has to do is 
simply call for a conference. They can moan, they can groan, they can 
complain. All they have to do is call for a conference. That call has 
not been made.
  In terms of the reference to the 18th time that we have dealt with 
this issue, Mr. Speaker, I refer to my statement on the floor in regard 
to the nonbinding nature of this motion to instruct and the tax 
applicability argument offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) on page H5340 and H5341 of the Congressional Record of June 12, 
2003.
  Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the statement I made on the floor in 
response to the motion to instruct offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) on page H6828 of the Congressional Record of 
June 2003. Repeatedly, this motion has failed.
  I do want to indicate so that everyone understands that on the 18th 
try or the 19th try or the 20th try, every page in the Congressional 
Record cost the taxpayers $575. Quite a sum in terms of showing how 
many times they are willing to refuse to admit this House passed tax 
relief for child credit on the amount they stated and aid to armed 
services.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the question I asked is why would I come here for the 
18th time. There is a reason. The $500 or whatever it cost today or 
whatever it cost for those 18 times, I guarantee the folks sitting back 
home expect me and expect those of us in this Chamber to be fair with 
them as well.
  As we talk about the 6.5 million lower-income families, this is a 
comment made today in one of the publications, If it ain't dead, it is 
doing a pretty good impression, said one Senate GOP aid about the bill 
which caught fire in June when the media reported that about 6.5 
million lower-income individual families had been left out of President 
Bush's $350 billion tax cut.
  The reference was made that we have not had a conference committee 
nor a call. On the Senate side the chairman said, ``I suppose I could 
call a conference meeting, but I am not going to do that unless it is 
going to be productive. And right now it does not look like it would 
be.'' We have not gotten a response from them to our letter about the 
conference that we sent this summer.
  As I said earlier, I voted for the $80 billion tax package on June 
12. That included the families I mentioned a moment ago that I 
personally know and that each of us knows.
  Now, when we talk about those folks, we are not talking about 
Democrats and Republicans; my colleagues have not heard me make 
reference today to either political party. My hope and my request is 
that all of us will realize that this is not a Democrat or Republican 
issue, that really what it is is an issue about people back home who 
really feel they have been left out. And do my colleagues know 
something? I agree with them; they have been left out. And I think 
those of us in this Chamber, when we talk about we have passed the 
bill, we have done what we should do, we did not do what the President 
asked us to do. That does not necessarily mean we have to. But he asked 
that these families be covered with the child tax credit, and the 
Senate passed a $3.5 billion bill that did just exactly that. They went 
above the $350 billion agreement that they had agreed on, but they 
still passed that shortly after the $350 billion tax cut was passed in 
this Chamber, which reduced dividend earnings to 15 percent and capital 
gains to 15 percent, I believe. These individuals who work every day, 
we did not give them anything. We have left them out.
  So as we talk about why are we back, in number five of this motion to 
instruct, ``The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable, after 
the adoption of this motion, meet in open session,'' and it says 
please, basically, meet in open session with the Senate conferees and 
the House conferees shall file a conference report consistent with the 
provisions of this instruction not later than the second legislative 
day after adoption of this motion.
  In essence, what we are trying to do is get within a short period of 
time, perhaps no more than 2 days after passage, a gathering of those 
folks in the House and the Senate who will compose a conference 
committee that will reach out, as the Senate has done, to those lower 
wage-earners who live in our districts. Who do they vote for? Someone 
voted for me. Someone voted for my opponent. Who did they vote for in 
anybody else's district? Some voted for Republicans, and some voted for 
Democrats. This is not an issue about who we are helping, it is who we 
are hurting; and the ones we are hurting are the low-income families 
who have children at home and who go to work every day.
  My request is that we pass this instruction to the conferees and that 
we get on with business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. 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.

                          ____________________