[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 12070-12074]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1300

  Yet this rule denies any real substantive debate on one of the most 
important issues facing our military. The Republicans, despite making 
100 amendments in order, ducked this issue entirely. The rule makes in 
order one amendment on Syria, and that amendment simply reiterates 
current law. Despite the sheer number of amendments made in order, the 
Republican leadership has ducked a real important debate when it comes 
to Syria, and I hope that a few years down the road we don't look back 
on the fact that we avoided a debate on Syria and express regret that 
somehow we got sucked into this war without a real debate. I mean, 
that's what we're here for.
  So, when people say, ``Oh, these are tough issues,'' I'm sorry. We 
can't duck every tough issue. Maybe that has been the problem with a 
lot of our overseas policies--that we haven't talked about what needs 
to be done, that we haven't debated these issues. Sometimes we've 
gotten involved in wars that we've found are more complicated than 
originally thought. There is nothing wrong with debate, and it is 
incredibly important. In the people's House of Representatives, we 
ought to have a debate on this issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding to me.
  I want to also thank our ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), as well as to thank our 
mutual friend and colleague from Florida, Chairman Bill Young, for 
their hard work on this bill, which will benefit our Nation, our men 
and women in uniform, our Armed Forces, and all of those who are 
touched by what is contained in this legislation.
  Within the limits provided and despite severe cuts, this bill has 
been written in a bipartisan way by our subcommittee. I thank the 
members for working so collaboratively together. It is a model for this 
House and our committee on how to do the work necessary to meet the 
needs of the American people.
  The bill includes $125 million above the President's request for 
funding health research for traumatic brain injuries and posttraumatic 
stress conditions--the signature wounds of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The bill also includes $544 million for cancer research, 
including breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and lung 
cancer research, which are endured at a much higher percentage among 
our troops than among the population at large.
  The bill also contains continuing support for our NATO 
responsibilities, including continuing joint operations related to the 
Newly Independent States. The bill includes the requested amount in the 
budget for the Iron Dome missile defense partnership with Israel.
  The bill also includes $1.5 billion above the request for the 
National Guard and Reserve Equipment account to fund equipment 
requirements of the National Guard and Reserve components. During the 
last decade of war, our National Guard and Reserve units have proven 
themselves as the strategic partners for our Nation. Our subcommittee 
continues to provide the funding necessary for our Guard and Reserve 
units to continue their missions, which they do extremely well and much 
more cost-effectively than in the active forces.
  This legislation also continues the military's commitment to lead our 
Nation toward energy independence. The Pentagon, which is the largest 
petroleum user in the world, must lead our Nation forward toward energy 
independence. No challenge could be more vital to our national security 
and economic security than energy independence.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Congressman McGovern.
  High fuel costs are an enormous burden on America's families and our 
military. It is also a burden on every branch of the service in which 
it costs us $400 a gallon to deliver 1 gallon of gasoline--fully 
costed--to the troops at the front line.
  Thank you again to Chairman Bill Young and to Ranking Member 
Visclosky for their leadership and to our

[[Page 12071]]

ranking member on the full committee, the gentlelady from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey), and to the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for 
working with all of our members in order to meet the needs of our 
Nation and of our Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force--those who 
serve the American people every day so nobly.
  Mr. NUGENT. As to the thoughts of the gentlelady from Ohio, I 
appreciate her comments and her support for the military.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge people to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider 
the Van Hollen resolution, which calls on Speaker Boehner to proceed to 
a conference on the budget. It is time for the majority to follow 
regular order by immediately appointing conferees to negotiate the 2014 
budget conference agreement with the Senate.
  To discuss that proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of Mr. McGovern and Mr. Welch regarding the importance of this 
body's having a debate and a vote on whether or not we should be 
sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to engage and support the rebels in the 
civil war in Syria. After all, this budget supports the Defense 
Department, and it also supports the intelligence agency. So this is 
the time and place to have the debate about taxpayer dollars going to a 
civil war in Syria.
  It is also the time and high time that we get on with passing a 
Federal budget. We've heard a lot of talk on the floor today about the 
importance of supporting our military--absolutely true--but this 
legislation does nothing to turn off the sequester. So, unless the 
Congress comes together on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis to 
resolve the budget, this Defense appropriations bill is going to be cut 
by about $48 billion, just as the non-defense parts of the budget will 
be cut as a result of sequestration.
  I don't think the American people recognize that as of today--even 
though we're working on these spending bills--that the United States 
Congress has not passed a budget. There is no Federal budget in place 
today.
  Now, we've heard a lot from our Republican colleagues over the last 
couple of years about how the Senate was derelict in its duty for not 
having a budget. Guess what? The Senate passed a budget. It passed a 
budget 122 days ago. Ever since that time, we've said to our Republican 
colleagues, Let's take the next step in the process--let's have a 
conference. Senate, House, let's get together to work out those 
differences.
  In fact, Senator Murray, who is the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, has asked now 17 times for unanimous consent in the Senate 
to begin negotiations. We have called upon the Speaker of the House to 
appoint conferees to negotiate on the budget. He has refused. This 
motion is very simple. I'm just going to read the Resolved clause:

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
     Speaker should follow regular House procedure and immediately 
     request a conference and appoint conferees to negotiate the 
     fiscal year 2014 budget resolution.

  Very simple. It's calling for exactly what our Republican colleagues 
have called for for the last 3 years. We've heard from you many times 
``no budget, no pay.'' We don't have a budget, but Members of Congress 
are getting paid.
  Now, Senator McCain and a lot of Republican Senators have made the 
point that it's insane not to go to conference on the budget. Here is 
what he said, Senator McCain:

       I think it's insane for Republicans who complain for 4 
     years about Harry Reid not having a budget, and now we're not 
     going to agree to conferees? That is beyond comprehension for 
     me.

  That sentiment was seconded by lots of other Republican Senators. In 
fact, I think my colleagues know that I've heard, quietly, from a lot 
of our House Republican colleagues, saying, frankly, that they're 
embarrassed at the fact that the House Republicans have refused to 
appoint conferees and take the next step in the budget process.
  Why is it important? We've got to get our economy moving in full 
gear. The Congressional Budget Office has told us that, as a result of 
the sequester, we're going to have 700,000 fewer jobs in this country 
by the end of this calendar year and that it's going to reduce our 
economic growth by one-third. The budget conference is where we work 
out our differences and try and remove the uncertainty in the economy.
  By not going to budget conference, let's be clear what our Republican 
colleagues are doing. They want to take us right up to the cliff of a 
government shutdown in the beginning of October, the next fiscal year. 
They are talking about, once again, rolling the dice and playing a game 
of chicken as to whether or not the United States pays its bills on 
time. That is no way for the Federal Government to conduct itself.
  I would ask my colleagues to put aside all of the gamesmanship and to 
simply, today, appoint conferees so that we can begin to work out these 
issues on the budget. Right now, as we head into the next school year, 
the kids of our soldiers who are at Fort Bragg are going to miss 5 days 
of school this fall because their teachers are going to be sequestered. 
Because of the sequester, they are going to be furloughed for 5 days 
this fall. These are the kids of men and women who are fighting to 
defend this country. That is wrong.
  Let's get on with replacing the sequester in a smart way, but we 
can't do that unless we get on with the budget conference. So I ask my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can go to conference.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it's always great to hear from Mr. Van Hollen. He has 
been in front of the Rules Committee, I think, a half a dozen times on 
this particular issue, but that's not the issue we're talking about 
today. Today, we are talking about a rule to bring forward two bills. 
One is the appropriations bill for the defense of this country.
  I appreciate his comments, but he also forgets to mention that, in 
the last Congress, this House passed two pieces of legislation to 
actually do what he was talking about doing. And guess what? It went 
over to that place where they have rocking chairs--where they do 
nothing. They didn't discuss it; they didn't debate it; they didn't 
even send it back to us, because they just didn't have the time to do 
it in their busy schedule, and I understand that.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUGENT. I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Look, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman notes, we're in a 
new Congress right now. In the new Congress, the law requires that we 
pass a Federal budget by April 15. We are obviously way overdue. It is 
indisputable that the Senate has passed a budget. Why not go to 
conference?
  Mr. NUGENT. In reclaiming my time, regarding shutting the government 
down, those are the gentleman's words, not ours. I don't think you've 
heard that at all from this side. It's not about shutting the 
government down; it's about passing 12 appropriations bills. That's 
really what we are supposed to be doing, and we are committed to doing 
that. We don't want to see a government shutdown, and I think our 
bringing appropriations bills to this House floor shows, in fact, that 
that's not the intent and that that's not the desire.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just to build on what my colleague Mr. Van Hollen was 
talking about, the reason we are so frustrated over here is that it 
seems

[[Page 12072]]

that the Republican leadership is hellbent on doing nothing--on 
stopping everything. We have 16 legislative days left until the end of 
the fiscal year.
  You've only passed three appropriations bills. Notwithstanding the 
fact that the House passed a budget and the Senate passed a budget, 
there has been no conference on the budget. We have a debt limit 
looming, and I hear rumors that you're trying to figure out what pound 
of flesh you can obtain in order to avoid our defaulting on our 
financial obligations. This is not the way to run a government.
  I would just plead with my colleagues on the other side that you need 
to get serious about sitting down and negotiating our differences. One 
of the things about a conference is you don't get everything you want, 
and they don't get everything they want.
  As to these appropriations bills that you are bringing to the floor, 
their allocations are so low that they are unamendable on the House 
floor, and they would do great damage to our economy. This THUD bill I 
don't think will ever see the light of day any more than I think the Ag 
approps bill, which we gave a rule to, will ever see the light of day. 
Within that THUD bill are cuts in the Community Development Block 
Grants, which you cut in half. The devastation on cities all across 
this country and communities all across this country would be so bad. 
People are going to lose jobs. The gentleman from Maryland talked about 
the furloughs and about people losing their jobs because of the 
sequester, and you sit back and say, Oh, it's not our fault.
  This is the body that voted for it. I mean, the people of this House 
voted for it. I didn't, but the majority of my friends on the other 
side voted for sequester. It is now the law of the land. That's part of 
what Congress did. Congress has to change the law so we get our economy 
back on the right track, and one way to begin is to do what you're 
supposed to do and go to conference with the Senate on the budget.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all the Members of an 
essential rule of decorum in the House. Under clause I of rule XVII, 
Members are to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to other 
Members in the second person.
  Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has?
  Mr. NUGENT. I have none.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 16 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I don't have a problem with what's in this rule; I have a problem 
with what's being left out of the rule.
  We have some serious issues to discuss: the NSA surveillance program, 
limited debate in this rule. We need to talk about Syria and whether 
we're going to get sucked into another war. Multiple amendments were 
offered. All of them were denied, except one that basically reinstates 
current law.
  There are issues about Egypt that ought to be discussed on the floor. 
And when I hear my colleagues say these are sensitive issues, we 
shouldn't talk about them on the floor, then where should we talk about 
them? This is the appropriate bill to talk about those things; yet many 
of these amendments were not made in order. That's why an open rule 
would have been more appropriate.
  In terms of debate, I don't know why we have to limit debate on the 
NSA down to 15 minutes a piece. Everybody is concerned about this.
  I will just close, Mr. Speaker, by again urging my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can offer an 
amendment to allow Mr. Van Hollen's language to be made in order that 
the Republican leadership agree to go to conference with the Senate 
over the budget.
  This sequester and these budget numbers that you are bringing to the 
floor on these various appropriation bills are destructive. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hurting this economy. 
This gamesmanship that my friends on the other side are playing is 
doing great damage to this country.
  We have to stop this. We have to be grownups here and do what we're 
supposed to do. The most important thing that can happen right now, 
given the fact there's only 16 legislative days left to the end of this 
fiscal year, is for my friends on the other side of the aisle to go to 
conference on the budget and work out a deal so that we don't have 
these devastating cuts that will impact every city and town in this 
country, that will throw tens of thousands, if not hundreds of 
thousands, of people out of work, that will do further damage to our 
infrastructure.
  National security means the quality of life that people have here in 
the United States. It means whether they can have good health care or 
good education, whether they have good and safe roads to drive on. It 
means whether they have a job. National security begins right here at 
home; and the numbers that my Republican friends have been bringing to 
the floor, in terms of allocations for these appropriation bills on 
domestic spending, would be devastating to this economy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, 
and I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. We should have an open rule 
where we can talk about all these major issues that are confronting our 
Nation and the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do appreciate the comments my friend from Massachusetts has made in 
a lot of areas, particularly as it relates to the open rule.
  I do want to remind him--and I wasn't here in 2010--but the Rules 
Committee that my good friend sat on made a determination in regards to 
a structured rule, and that structured rule only allowed for 16 
amendments to come to the House floor. That structured rule locked out 
a lot of folks' ideas in regards to how to better the appropriation 
bill for the Department of Defense 2011 fiscal year.
  I agree with my good friend that this rule is not perfect, but I do 
want to point out that it does make over 100 amendments in order that 
are going to be debated here on this floor: an amendment on Syria; an 
amendment on Egypt; two amendments on the NSA, which are appropriate to 
have a debate here. And as we talk about authorization, particularly as 
we look at the NSA, that debate is going to come up in a very robust 
way because I truly believe that we need to have that.
  As it relates to Syria, I have three sons that currently serve in the 
United States military. The last thing I want to do is see us arm 
rebels where my sons may have to face those arms at some point in time. 
I've had sons deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; and as a Member of this 
House, there are very few of us that have served in the military in the 
same way as it relates to having our family members serve in harm's 
way. So I take it right to heart that we want to make sure that we 
don't put our sons or daughters in any jeopardy, particularly as it 
relates to arming those that we have no idea who they are.
  I think I've said enough, but my position on arming the Syrian 
rebels, those that we don't even know who they are or what we're doing 
in Egypt or what's going on within the NSA as it relates to our civil 
liberties here in the United States as American citizens, we certainly 
are going to address those issues as we move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to do 
so, as well. As a father of three sons in the military, I'm 
disappointed that we've gotten to this point where ideological factions 
have divided this House so deeply that we're forced to put a structured 
rule in place in order to simply consider a bill that funds our 
Department of Defense.
  Just to note, 2 years ago when we were having this discussion, I got 
a call

[[Page 12073]]

from one of my sons who was deployed to Iraq, worried that his troopers 
were not going to get paid because that's what they were being told, 
because of actions of this House.
  The last thing is that when our sons and daughters go off to fight, 
the last thing they should have to worry about is how they're going to 
take care of the car payment or feed their children back here at home. 
They should have one focus, and that's the fight ahead of them and 
returning back to their families and loved ones in the best possible 
condition they can be.
  To me it's about as pathetic as it gets when these men and women are 
putting their lives on the line each day and we're playing politics 
with our national defense and we can't put differences aside long 
enough not to even agree to a funding bill, but just to agree that we 
should debate the funding bill at all.
  I wish we could have an open rule on both of these appropriation 
measures. You know I do. But when it comes to funding the Pentagon and 
when it comes to funding our military, the issue at hand is too 
important to leave this subject to the political whims of select 
Members who could tie up the debate for days and end with irresponsible 
amendments that might ultimately put this Nation and its citizens at 
risk. That's why we're here. That's why we've taken the three most hot-
button politicized issues and selected specific amendments to address 
each of these concerns while still making in order every other 
amendment that would not otherwise be subject to a point of order.
  I welcome debate on how we need to change the laws of this land. I'm 
an active proponent in having it. Millions of Americans, including me, 
are questioning many of the laws right now, especially when it comes to 
the use of military force and the powers given to the NSA under the 
PATRIOT Act. It's clear that those are conversations that must happen 
in this forum here, but we can't let it derail the basic funding of our 
troops. That's what it comes down to.
  This bill cannot possibly give the issues at hand the justice they 
deserve. It's an imperfect tool, and with only 10 minutes per debate 
per amendment, it would cut short the conversations that we have. That 
is why, although it is a departure from the normal appropriation 
process, this resolution brings up H.R. 2397 under a structured rule.
  That said, the second half of House Resolution 312 is proof that this 
House is still dedicated to the open process. We fulfill our promise to 
both our constituents and ourselves by providing an open rule on 
Transportation and Housing appropriations. It's a reminder to us that 
the Defense bill is an example of extraordinary times calling for 
extraordinary measures. At the end of the day, what's most important is 
that we fulfill our core mission. As anybody in the military will tell 
you, sometimes we have to adapt.
  It's not perfect, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the 
good, especially when we're talking about keeping our troops and our 
citizens safe. For that reason, I'm proud to support the rule, and I 
encourage all my colleagues to do the same.
  When the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 113-170) to 
accompany House Resolution 312 the summary of amendment numbered 43 was 
inadvertently omitted. The summary of amendments should have included 
the following:
  43. Cole (OK), Kilmer (WA), McCarthy, Kevin (CA), Bishop, Rob (UT), 
Jones (NC), Loebsack (IA), McCollum (MN), Scott, Austin (GA): Provides 
that none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to 
implement a furlough of Department of Defense federal employees who are 
paid from the Working Capital Fund (WCF) Account, which is a revolving 
fund and does not receive direct funding from Congressional 
appropriations to finance its operations. (10 minutes)
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An amendment to H. Res. 312 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the resolution 
     (H. Res. 174) expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the Speaker should immediately request a 
     conference and appoint conferees to complete work on a fiscal 
     year 2014 budget resolution with the Senate. The first 
     reading of the resolution shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the resolution and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 
     After general debate the resolution shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the resolution for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble 
     to adoption without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the resolution, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the resolution.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the resolution specified in section 7 of 
     this resolution.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote abut what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 12074]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________