[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22282-22286]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1588, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

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

       Mr. Rodriguez moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1588 be 
     instructed to agree to the provisions contained in subtitle F 
     of title VI of the Senate amendment (relating to 
     naturalization and family protection for military members).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and a member from the majority 
party each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 22283]]

  I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my support for the 
brave men and women who are risking their lives to defend our Nation. I 
rise to urge my colleagues to express that support by voting in favor 
of my motion to instruct conferees.
  When hostilities broke out in Iraq, the first military member to die 
in combat was Marine Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, an immigrant from 
Guatemala who volunteered to serve his adopted country. He died an 
American hero, but he did not die an American citizen.
  Lance Corporal Gutierrez was only the first of 13 noncitizen soldiers 
killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thousands of noncitizen soldiers are 
currently serving in Iraq, and only 37,000 are noncitizen soldiers who 
serve in the Nation's Armed Forces.
  The motion I am offering today expresses the continued support of the 
House for the Armed Forces Naturalization Act which passed, by the way, 
on June 4 by a vote of 414 to 5. The House has already gone on record 
in support of the bill to give immigrants serving in our Armed Forces 
more rapid naturalization and to establish protections for their 
families if they are killed in action.
  The 37,000 immigrant soldiers have already met the same rigorous 
evaluation as U.S. citizens before their enlistment. In fact, the 
military's criteria are more challenging than the naturalization 
requirements demanded by the Department of Homeland Security.
  Besides meeting the qualifications for military service, noncitizen 
soldiers have passed an even more important test: they have proven 
their loyalty to the United States by pledging to defend our Nation and 
our values with their bodies, their minds, and their lives. Their 
service in defense of our Nation and our country and their willingness 
to put their lives on the line speaks to their devotion to the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this small token of 
gratitude as a demonstration to these 37,000 Americans who are brave 
soldiers, to show that we appreciate their patriotism.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to 
the motion, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees addresses the military 
naturalization provisions that were included in the Department of 
Defense authorization bill.
  On June 4, this Chamber passed H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces 
Naturalization Act of 2003, with overwhelming support from both sides 
of the aisle. This military naturalization measure has a number of good 
provisions. It was sent to the Senate for consideration where it was 
passed favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. While the 
Senate has not taken up H.R. 1954, similar provisions were included in 
the Senate-passed DOD authorization bill.
  The motion before us today urges conferees to adopt the provisions 
contained in the Senate-passed DOD authorization bill. I think this 
motion underscores the importance of this military naturalization 
legislation to both Houses and to Republicans and Democrats alike.
  However, the Senate should move this bill separately rather than 
include it in the DOD authorization. This would give the committees 
with relevant jurisdiction an opportunity to fully examine the 
differences between the House- and the Senate-passed version and to 
make informed decisions about these naturalization provisions.
  Most of us agree that we should expedite the naturalization process 
for those who have served our country and provide immigration benefits 
to family members of those who died. I believe H.R. 1954 accomplished 
those goals.
  I would like to point out, however, some of the reasons why I am 
concerned about supporting the Senate version contained in the DOD 
authorization bill. First, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, grants 
permanent resident status to the immediate relatives of U.S. citizen 
soldiers and soldiers granted posthumous citizenship if they die as a 
result of injuries incurred during active duty. The provisions 
supported by this motion to instruct conferees would only grant 
benefits to immediate family members if a soldier died in combat. The 
family of a soldier who died in training or in being transported to the 
front would not be granted these citizenship provisions.
  Second, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, allows the spouse of a 
soldier granted posthumous citizenship to immediately naturalize. This 
is another important provision omitted from the Senate provisions 
supported by this motion.
  Third, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, does not grant expedited 
naturalization during peacetime to a soldier who is discharged less 
than honorably. I do not believe we should extend the benefits of 
expedited naturalization to an individual discharged less than 
honorably, yet the Senate language does not make this distinction.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my concerns about the 
provisions that benefit illegal aliens in the Senate language supported 
by this motion. By contrast, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, does 
not grant benefits to illegal aliens. By adopting the motion to 
instruct conferees, we would grant benefits to those illegal aliens, 
and I do not think this sets a good precedent.
  I am heartened that many of us agree on providing important reforms 
to the naturalization process for military personnel. However, it is my 
hope that the Senate will take up this legislation separately so that 
we can resolve some important policy differences between these bills in 
an appropriate context.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for yielding me this time.
  Throughout the United States' history of armed conflict, noncitizens 
have worn our military uniforms and fought in our battles. In fact, one 
of my uncles served in the Korean War while a legal permanent resident.
  Today, approximately 3 percent of our military are legal permanent 
residents, but not citizens. Of that 3 percent, more than 37,000 
noncitizen soldiers are currently serving on active duty in the U.S. 
Armed Forces. Many of the U.S. casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom 
and many of the soldiers who continue to risk their lives to bring 
stability to Iraq are noncitizens.
  I am a strong supporter of measures that provide opportunities for 
legal permanent residents serving in our military to become U.S. 
citizens. These individuals are making enormous sacrifices. Without 
being citizens and without having the protection that that status gives 
them, these immigrant men and women are willing to risk their own lives 
to defend this Nation.

                              {time}  1700

  The least we can do is give them something in return. What this 
motion to instruct does is instruct the conferees to accept the Senate 
provisions that expedite the naturalization process for members serving 
in the U.S. military and the selected reserves.
  The Senate provision also protects spouses, children, and parents of 
soldiers killed in action by preserving their ability to file for 
permanent residence in the United States.
  The provisions are an effective way to show those noncitizens serving 
in our Armed Services that their efforts are appreciated. The 
provisions provide noncitizen soldiers with the opportunity to apply 
for citizenship after 2 years of military service instead of the 3-year 
requirement currently in law.
  The provisions waive naturalization fees and provide for 
naturalization proceeds to take place overseas. It also allows for the 
spouse, children, and parents of legal permanent resident soldiers 
killed in action to apply for citizenship.
  I am pleased that the Senate provisions deem the parents of soldiers 
killed in action to petition for immediate family status. When the 
House

[[Page 22284]]

version of this bill was considered, I was concerned that parents of 
legal permanent resident soldiers killed in combat were not eligible 
for citizenship if they were outside the United States at the time 
their child was killed. Those same parents would be eligible if they 
were here in the United States and it made no sense. A parent is a 
parent whether they happen to have gone to their home country for a 
short time or whether they are in the process of waiting for a visa 
application renewal or whether some other circumstance prevented them 
from being in the United States when their child was killed in combat.
  I am pleased the Senate provision of this bill made these provisions 
an important part of their bill.
  Again, I support the motion to instruct conferees on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation and benefit noncitizens who are serving in our 
Armed Services and protecting the freedoms that we hold so dear.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis), who has also authored legislation in this area.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez) for putting this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1588, 
which I am in strong support of.
  Earlier in the year several Members of this House came together to 
work on legislation because we knew immediately that we were seeing 
many of our young soldiers coming back in body bags. But one thing that 
differentiated some of the soldiers, and I wanted to point out a 
photograph of one of the soldiers that was fallen in my district, 
Francisco Martinez Flores. He was 2 weeks shy of his citizenship.
  They granted him posthumous citizenship which means nothing. It stays 
there in the grave. It does nothing for his family who now has to go 
through hurdles to make sure that they at least get some semblance of 
assistance for their well-being here in our country. But if you ask 
their parents they did not say for one minute, son, do not go and serve 
your country. He took that upon himself, and they are very proud of 
him, and we are all very proud of him.
  We want to protect all of our soldiers. But there should not be any 
barriers when we send young men and women, as this 19-year-old went 
abroad in Iraq. In the first 2 weeks he was there he fell. That was it. 
His tank fell over the Euphrates River there and his parents never saw 
him again.
  We are working hard to see that these families stay whole, and one of 
the things that we can demonstrate through this legislation or this 
motion to instruct is to help preserve that family unit, that they also 
get the respect that their sons and daughters may not have. In this 
case, this young man.
  I have another picture over here that illustrates a family who is 
also in that predicament. They have a son who is serving right now in 
Iraq. The parents are not totally naturalized but they are going 
through the process. If their son is not returned, who knows what their 
fate will be as well. But we have thousands of soldiers like that.
  Our bill that we had originally proposed would have covered 37,000 
men and women who are legal permanent residents that are currently 
serving in the war, and a good number of our soldiers are also serving 
as reservists, over 23,000. Nobody is asking them why is it that you 
are serving? You are not here legally.
  They are here legally. They have their green cards. But one thing 
differentiates them. They do not have that citizenship. They leave 
their jobs as teachers, as firefighters, as plumbers, as people who 
helped to build our country. They do not know if they are going to come 
back and their families are contacting us.
  What we would like to see is that there is some assurance, that there 
is some guarantee for them and their families that they are granted the 
ability to become naturalized citizens. When I hear the word 
``illegal'' it breaks my heart because we do not ask these soldiers to 
come forward whether or not they are illegal. They were legal 
residents. They are technically legal residents. And if their families 
give us the opportunity for their sons and daughters to serve, should 
we not at least give them the opportunity to grant them some 
protections that our great country can offer because they are fighting 
for our freedom every single day. At this moment we know that there are 
many that are in harm's way.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) from the Committee on the Judiciary for his work in 
recognizing this issue. We worked very hard with several other Members 
of this House on a bipartisan level, and I would like to thank him for 
his concerted effort in working with us.
  I am also concerned now that this bill or components of the bill are 
now being placed on hold. And I would ask that Members of our House 
consider the bigger picture here, and that is these soldiers that are 
waiting to see that we take action on this motion, and that we do 
something, that we do the right thing. We sent them out in harm's way, 
and now it is time for us to take care of them.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers, 
and I yield back the balance of my time with the understanding that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) has the right to close.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity first of all 
to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). I want to appeal to him. 
I know that even in the case of the example that I had indicated and 
that is Marine Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, who came here illegally, 
who was one of the first killed, he came here illegally. We also have 
another young man, the majority of who are here, by the way, legally.
  We have another young man, and I want to pinpoint in case because 
this is a sad story. This is Army Private Juan Escalante. It just came 
out in the paper in Seattle. The young man served in Iraq, and I want 
to give the gentleman a copy of the article because I think it is 
important to note. He is a 19-year-old. And I will read part of this.
  He is like many of the other soldiers, sailors and airmen settling 
into civilian life except for the one key fact that Private Escalante 
is an illegal immigrant. Unlike the tens and thousands of noncitizen 
soldiers, of which we have 37,000 soldiers that have served our country 
with so-called green cards, military folks, President Bush has also 
praised their service, by the way, according to the newspaper. And 
Escalante fits into an entirely new separate area and I would hope that 
you would kind of take these cases into consideration.
  Here we have a soldier who at the age of 4, at the age of 4 he was 
brought here by his parents. So he has been here and he is now 19 
serving our country in Iraq. He has gotten the combat patch and the 
whole thing. And now his parents and himself are being looked at for 
being sent back.
  When he graduated from high school he bought a fake green card and 
joined the Army. And you might say, well, that is fraudulent. But we 
have had a lot of other fraudulent cases in which people have joined 
the Army and lied about their age. And he trained as a mechanic, and he 
later on was deployed to Iraq. Escalante says that he has volunteered 
and he has enjoyed the work and is extremely proud to have served our 
country during Iraq and during that particular war. And now he finds 
himself in a situation where his family is being sent back.
  Immigration lawyers and experts argue that the law has long allowed 
noncitizens who have served honorably during a time of combat, and I 
know the gentleman is familiar with this, to be eligible for 
naturalization under Executive Order 13269 signed by President Bush on 
July 3, 2002. It provides for expedient naturalization for those active 
during Operation Enduring Freedom.
  I would ask the gentleman on that particular case that he please look 
at

[[Page 22285]]

and see if he can help that young man, in addition to helping the 
37,000 that are here. But I would also want to just go back and say 
that Mr. Escalante indicated that in the dialogue on this issue is 
something that is extremely of concern to a lot of other veterans that 
are out there.
  So as we postpone and continue to postpone this, it is important.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to clarify for the 
record that only a legal permanent resident can serve in the Armed 
Services. Someone who is in the country illegally cannot serve in the 
armed forces. They have to be a legal permanent resident. We may have 
given the impression that some individuals were here illegally and were 
allowed to serve but that is not government policy.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I know that might not be government 
policy, but we do have them and we do have the cases. I mentioned to 
the gentleman Mr. Escalante who served and defended and he has been 
here since the age of 4. His parents might have violated the law but he 
has been here since the age of 4. And wherever he came from, I am not 
sure if he is from Mexico or Central America or whatever, but I know 
that when you look at a person at the age of 4, are you going go to say 
that he violated the law?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman would continue to yield, we have 
looked at some of those cases and have found in almost every instance 
they had taken advantage of some legalization program so that when they 
actually enlisted they were legal permanent residents. I just would not 
want us to give the false impression that people who were in the 
country illegally can expect to enlist in the Armed Services.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I understand that, but the fact is the reality is that 
we do have and there is 37,000. By the way, that is nothing new. For 
example, similar action has been taken in past history where we had 
143,000 noncitizen military participants in World War I and World War 
II. We had 31,000 members in the Korean War. We had an additional 
100,000 who fought in Vietnam and in the Persian Gulf. These have all 
been noncitizens.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that is 
exactly right, but they are all legal permanent residents. They are not 
illegal immigrants.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. But the majority of them, those 37,000, are still not 
citizens.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I understand that, I acknowledge that. They are 
legal permanent residents. They are not citizens, but they also are not 
in the country illegally.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The gentleman is correct in that, but I did want to 
mention this, too. But for all the others, the 37,000 that are here, 
the legal permanent residents that are here and fighting and defending, 
we want to be able to not give them anything extra except expedite what 
everyone else has to go through. That is to also help them through 
their waivers in allowing them an opportunity to waive the fees, and I 
think the gentleman would be supportive of that. The gentleman would 
also, I think, be supportive of reducing the waiting period for 
citizenship, and I think the gentleman would also be supportive of 
allowing them to proceed as quickly as possible when they are overseas.
  One of the problems when they are overseas is that they cannot move 
forward on their citizenship. So it is important for us to do that. I 
think we owe them at least that amount to be able to do that. I would 
hope the gentleman would help us out in that way, in terms of that.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to help out, and I 
have to point out to the gentleman that all of the provisions which we 
support were in the House-passed bill, and I am surprised that this 
motion we are considering now would actually endorse some provisions 
that I consider to be not as good for individuals who are serving in 
the military who we want to grant citizenship to.
  I mentioned in my opening statement a while ago, for example, that 
the Senate bill that is endorsed by this motion requires them to have 
served in the military 2 years. The House bill that I support requires 
them to have only served 1 year. The House bill says that they could be 
killed while in training, while on their way to the front lines. The 
Senate bill that this motion endorses says they have to be killed in 
combat, and the Senate bill that this motion supports says they can be 
awarded citizenship even if they were dishonorably discharged.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know what the 
differences are, but there is a game that is being played, and the 
reason why we are doing this is we need to push forward on this, both 
the Senate and the House is controlled by Republicans, and so my 
colleagues can make it happen. We can move forward on this, and we can 
push forward on this, and the importance is to look at those 37,000, 
and as the gentleman indicated, these are persons, the majority, with 
the exception maybe of one or two or three of the two that I mentioned, 
that are all permanent residents and here now legally but need to move 
forward on the citizenship.
  What we are saying is we have got to go and do everything we can to 
help them out since they have been willing to come forward. The reason 
why we have this motion is to basically also indicate the importance of 
moving forward on this act instead of playing games with the Senate and 
arguing that the Senate has 2 years and we have 1 year, et cetera.
  The bottom line is that will not get them the opportunity to move 
forward and become citizens, and we have got to make that happen.
  So the responsibility falls on the leadership both in the House and 
in the Senate, and in this case, they are both controlled by 
Republicans. So it becomes real important that we move forward.
  The other thing is that the Senate version contains the reservists. 
We have 12,000 reservists that also fall in that category, and as my 
colleague well knows, we have reservists doing full-time duty now, and 
it is important for us to also recognize that. So we have soldiers that 
we have asked to be weekend soldiers, but they are spending time down 
there all year. So it becomes real important that we move forward on 
this as quickly as possible, and I want to ask that my colleagues 
consider the motion and ask that we come because when all is said and 
done, if this does not occur, then the only ones we can hold 
responsible is both the House and the Senate and, in this case, 
controlled by the Republican party and the administration.
  So I would ask my colleagues for serious consideration of some 
passage that would allow expediting the citizenship process because 
they have to qualify even more so. To be in the military, they have to 
have had a GED or high school diploma. They have to have, as I already 
indicated, the leadership and loyalty to this country and demonstrated 
that, and so I think we have a unique opportunity to send a real 
positive message to both the people that are serving our military, and 
both the reservists as well as the active duty, because they have all 
been out there for us and are willing to continue to defend our 
country, and we ought to be willing to move forward, and if they served 
honorably, then we ought to see what we can do to help them out in the 
process of becoming citizens and to have 37,000 people in the military 
that are not citizens yet and have trouble as the case that I have here 
before on Private Escalante, then we need to see how we can make some 
exceptions in those cases, and I would hope that we have that 
flexibility in order for that to happen.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to join my colleagues in 
asking the House conferees of the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 
1588) to accept the Citizenship for America's troop's provision that 
Senator Kennedy included in the Senate's bill.
  Ever since the war against Saddam Hussein began, politicians and 
commentators have

[[Page 22286]]

noted that many brave soldiers were risking their lives for America 
despite the fact that they are not citizens. As many have pointed out, 
some of these non-citizen soldiers were among the first brave men and 
women to fall. Some were born in Mexico before joining the U.S. 
military--like Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Cpl. Jose Angel Garibay 
and Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar. Others were born in Guatemala--
like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez. But all died fighting for a country 
where they couldn't even cast a vote.
  Of course, this is not a new problem. In the last Congress--in May of 
2002, to be precise--I first introduced legislation to help remove the 
obstacles these brave soldiers face on their path to citizenship. And I 
re-introduced my bill in this Congress one week before our country went 
to war in Iraq.
  But months and months have passed, and still this Congress has not 
acted. So while the citizenship provision in the Senate bill is not 
identical to my original legislation, I fully support it. It is the 
quickest way to honor the brave soldiers who have shown the willingness 
to make the ultimate sacrifice for the country they dearly wish to be 
citizens of. Members of the military who risk their lives to defend 
this Nation deserve better than the bureaucratic and financial burdens 
that now stand between them and citizenship. And they deserve better 
than the waiting game they've had to endure since I first proposed 
legislation like this more than a year ago.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I again urge the House managers to not play politics 
with this issue. Accept the Kennedy language and do the right thing for 
our troops.
  It is the only way to get this done in a timely fashion. Our legal 
permanent resident troops have already waited for far too long.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rodriguez motion to 
instruct the conferees on the Defense Reauthorization Act.
  I support his motion because I strongly believe that we must expedite 
the citizenship process for immigrants that serve in the United States 
military.
  If they wear the American flag on their uniform everyday and proudly 
fight for this nation then I believe offering them citizenship is the 
least we can do.
  Thirty-seven thousand immigrants soldiers risk their lives everyday 
in defense of our Nation. These patriots may be of different 
nationalities but they share the same commitment to defend the United 
States.
  As a Nation, we must respect and honor those who are willing to fight 
and die for ideals of democracy and the ideals of the United States of 
America, regardless of their nationality. If we trust immigrants to die 
protecting this Nation then we must trust them to become American 
citizens.
  The Senate bill has provisions to allow these immigrant soldiers to 
become citizens after two years, rather than three and I support that.
  The Senate provision also allows immigrant soldiers to fulfill 
citizen requirements at U.S. facilities abroad and I support that.
  Currently, immigrant soldiers serving over-seas are required to take 
leave, spend their own money and travel back to the U.S. to fulfill 
their citizenship requirements. The process is slow archaic, and wrong. 
No one should be punished for serving this Nation.
  I served this Nation proudly and I am the child of immigrants. I know 
the love that my parents had for this Nation, and I know the love that 
I have for this Nation, and no one should be punished for wanting to 
proudly serve this country. No one should be punished simply because 
they were not lucky enough to be born on United States soil.
  We owe anyone who is willing to fight for this Nation the opportunity 
to quickly and expeditiously become a United States citizen.
  We are asking something simple--allow these proud immigrants to 
become citizens. At a time when we are fighting enemies abroad and at 
home, why deny those that are the most loyal their wish to become 
Americans.
  On behalf of the 37,000 immigrant soldiers and families, I urge my 
colleagues to support the Rodriguez motion to instruct.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of the time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. 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, and the 
earlier order of the House of today, further proceedings on this motion 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________