[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1481

 (Purpose: To provide that a nongovernmental person may use a private 
   express for the private carriage of any letter determined by such 
person to be urgent without being penalized by the Postal Service, and 
                          for other purposes)

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator from Georgia will withhold, I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending Cochran amendment No. 1480 be 
temporarily laid aside so the Senator from Georgia may offer his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
  I now send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1481.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the committee substitute, add the following 
     new title:

             TITLE VII--PRIVATE CARRIAGE OF URGENT LETTERS

     SEC. 701. PRIVATE CARRIAGE OF URGENT LETTERS.

       (a) Postal Service Administration.--(1) Section 601(a) of 
     title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``A 
     letter'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Subject to the 
     provisions of section 607, a letter''.
       (2)(A) Chapter 6 of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after section 606 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 607. Administration relating to urgent letters

       ``In the administration of the provisions of this chapter, 
     chapter 4 of this title, and sections 1693 through 1699 of 
     title 18, the Postal Service or the Attorney General of the 
     United States may not--
       ``(1) fine or otherwise penalize any person who--
       ``(A) is not an entity of the United States Government; and
       ``(B) uses a private express for the private carriage of 
     any letter which such person determines is urgent; or
       ``(2)(A) create a presumption of a violation by a private 
     shipper or carrier with paragraph (1)(B) or any regulation 
     promulgated thereunder relating to the private carriage of an 
     urgent letter as determined under such paragraph; or
       ``(B) establish or shift a burden of establishing the fact 
     of compliance by a private shipper or carrier with paragraph 
     (1)(B) or any regulation promulgated thereunder relating to 
     the private carriage of an urgent letter as determined under 
     such paragraph.''.
       (B) The table of sections for chapter 6 of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 606 the following:

``607. Administration relating to urgent letters.''.

       (b) Private Express Provisions.--(1) Chapter 83 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     1699 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1699A. Application of postal service provisions

       ``The provisions of sections 1693 through 1699 of this 
     title shall be subject to the provisions of section 607 of 
     title 39.''.
       (2) The table of sections for chapter 83 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 1699 the following:

``1699A. Application of Postal Service provisions.''.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the amendment that I have sent to the 
desk clearly falls within the scope of competitiveness. As we and this 
Government endeavor to take steps to make American business, both small 
and large, more effective, one of the principal concerns we have to 
have is the degree to which the Government has become an obstacle, an 
intruder, not a partner, but a boss.
  There are many issues discussed in these Halls that are immensely 
complex. This is very simple. Very simple. We have the U.S. Postal 
Department that is engaged in a process that exceeds its authority, 
that is intrusive, and is an obstacle for sound business in our 
country.
  We have discovered in recent months the Postal Department has been 
engaged in a practice of isolating private businesses, intruding on 
that business, intimidating that business, and fining that business 
because it is concluding unilaterally that when the business uses a 
private carrier to deliver a message that it is not urgent.
  Under the current statutes and regulations, a private business may 
use a private carrier to deliver a message if it feels the message to 
be urgent--if it feels that the message is urgent. The Postal 
Department has concluded that it alone has the jurisdiction to 
determine whether the message was urgent or not. I would think that it 
would be prima facie evidence that if the private business was willing 
to spend double the money to send it, they thought it was urgent.
  The Postal Department should cease and desist. There should be no 
reason for this amendment. But repeated discussions have left us faced 
with the proposition that the Postal Department continues to pursue 
this erroneous policy. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Congress of 
the United States to clarify the policy for the U.S. Postal Department 
and cease and stop this egregious activity.
  If I might just take a few more moments, actually the whole matter 
ought to be moot and just proves to us how far behind the curve this 
arm of the Government is. I guess they are still in the fifties. Maybe 
they have never heard of a fax machine or E-mail or computer internets, 
or the telecommunications highways we are talking about. Maybe there is 
not an understanding that the delivery of messages on printed paper is 
probably only historical moments away from being moot.
  Instead of engaging in this intimidating practice, which is giving 
them another black eye, taking an arm of the Government that already 
has serious public relations problems and moving on to an investment in 
developing products that American business wants to use, they have 
engaged in a bully process of forcing American business to use a system 
they find flawed.
  It is wrong. They do not have the authority to do what they are 
doing. They are damaging their own public relations. They are 
interfering with sound business policy, and they are engaged in an 
activity that is being made moot by the advances in telecommunications.
  Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It is very narrow. It does 
not damage the monopoly of the U.S. Postal Department, but it tells 
them to disengage from this activity which they have admitted has no 
financial ramifications for the delivery of universal mail.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as our former President said, here we go 
again. I have the greatest regard for my distinguished colleague from 
Georgia, and I understand the idea that he has in mind. I used to serve 
on the Post Office Committee when I first came to the U.S. Senate. In 
fact, I was the chairman of the Postal Operations Subcommittee. When 
they said we are going to put it under Government Operations as a 
subcommittee, I said I need the staff that was provided at the time. 
You only have so much time you can give and real attention.
  It is a very, very important role. So I have some understanding about 
the fundamental policy and law itself; namely, that the Post Office 
system of the United States, which is the oldest department of 
Government, I say to the Senator from Georgia, the Postmaster General, 
has what you might call a monopoly on first-class mail. Everyone thinks 
their letter is urgent. I do not think it is whether it is urgent or 
not. It is whether or not you are going to have private carriage of the 
mail in America. And we know what competition does when you compete, 
compete, deregulate, deregulate.

  In that context, yes, it is like the old saying, you hunt where the 
ducks are. The competition goes where the money is. And where the money 
is, in the concentrated, easily delivered metropolitan areas of 
America. Otherwise, in rural Georgia and rural South Carolina and rural 
Montana, up in Alaska and other places, you just could not afford to 
deliver.
  So in essence we have all over again the long distance telephonic 
communications supporting the local. We come around now and we find 
that the post office balances off all folks' in order to make possible 
universal, affordable mail service here in America.
  Now, break that down under the amendment of the distinguished 
Senator--and I had not really thought it through recently, but this 
comes from a memory over 20 years--to the effect that, yes, the private 
entities that come in, they are very enterprising and they have certain 
ways of carriage as we know now with the packages, with respect to 
Federal Express, United Parcel Service, and so on. If you get right 
into that first-class mail, then the ordinary little family letter, 
little postcard, little happy birthday card, Christmas card or 
whatever, to have those things delivered, the price is going to go 
right through the roof. I think they have now a proposal something like 
33 cents for first class mail.
  Mr. BURNS. Thirty-two cents.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Thirty-two cents. I stand corrected. I can tell you, of 
what I understand it to be an initiative or foot in the door, whatever 
it is, it goes to $2 and $3 to deliver just a regular letter, and that 
is why they have had this provision in law. It is well-founded. It has 
been tried and true over the many, many years. Under the quasi-
governmental entity now of the Postal Service, we have had many a post 
offices closed. It is for you and me in the Senate to leave it alone. 
People still do not understand it is a Federal crime, a felony, for me 
to recommend you to be the postmaster, say, of Charleston or for you to 
recommend me to be the postmaster of Atlanta, GA. We wanted to make 
sure that we got politics out of the Postal Service, and we went to 
that extreme, that we would not even have any part in actually 
recommending those to be the postmaster.
  But otherwise, to the substance of the amendment of the distinguished 
Senator, it could well be heard, debated at another time on a bill by 
itself in that you see we have over 130 pages here of the Advanced 
Technology Program, with no mention of any Postal Service or carriage 
or delivery of mail. We have provisions with relation to the 
manufacturing centers. We have the intern program of the distinguished 
Senator from Montana. We have the matter of the information 
superhighway, some initiatives there for the libraries, the schools, 
public entities of that nature. We have really a well-conceived bill 
under the rubric of technology competitiveness, advanced technology 
program, the commercialization of our technology, and we would like to 
try to hold it to that.
  The Senator has me, in a sense, off base. The Senator is familiar 
with his subject. He knows what he is talking about. But we do not have 
this subject matter in the Committee of Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. And as a result here we go again. Open sesame. I think 
that is really what gets us bogged down as we were yesterday, day 
before yesterday, and now apparently today in ancillary matters that 
our colleagues are interested in, vitally interested in, and yet not 
germane at this particular time on this particular bill.
  I do appreciate the Senator coming over because I was asking for an 
amendment. I was asking for an amendment to the bill and not on post 
office matters. But let me yield the floor and see if there is further 
debate.
  I wish to make sure that everyone has time to consider it and any 
speakers that he has in support or otherwise be heard. We are not 
trying to be arbitrary. But as the majority leader said late last 
night--we sat around here late last night, and that was in the second 
day, without a vote--now we have to start moving to take these matters 
up and, if necessary, force a vote by way of tabling and then, if it is 
carried, fine, put it on the bill, accept it or otherwise. But I think 
everyone understands the rules of the game. I appreciate the Senator's 
interest and his leadership on this particular score. I just have to, 
as the manager of this bill, try to just hold it to this particular 
subject matter.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina for his remarks. I understand the issues with which he 
is confronted in terms of the management of this bill. I also know that 
he has not had a full opportunity to review the scope of this 
amendment.
  I am not challenging the monopoly statute as related to the Postal 
Service. I am ratifying and certifying what I believe already to be the 
law. I believe the postal department has a right to audit private 
carriers, but I do not believe it has the right to audit private 
companies with regard to its control over monopoly.
  We are talking about a situation where a private business, primarily, 
is making a decision over whether to pay double or more the price to 
forward a message to another party. And I do not believe that will wrap 
its arms around the Christmas card or the wish to your family. Clearly, 
you are not going to pay double. Our citizens are stepping forward and 
in a sense paying a special price, which I think is definitional that 
they have concluded it is an emergency. But I do appreciate the 
Senator's knowledge of this area, his history in it, and for the 
purpose of clarification I ask that we temporarily set the amendment 
aside so we might have further discussion between us on it.
  I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set it aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me ask, even though it might be set 
aside, just as a matter of interest and education, how do you determine 
the urgency?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the urgency is not defined in the 
postal department's own clarification, just that they sometime--I guess 
it was in 1978--in 1978, in deference to the emergence of private 
carriers, concluded that they could be used if it was an urgent matter; 
in other words, needed to arrive within 24 or 48 hours or something of 
that nature. But at that time it was clearly left up to the user to 
determine whether it was urgent or not. And to ratify or certify my 
point, you had to pay at least double to do that. So the Postal Service 
was setting a standard which was monetary. Now they come forward and 
say even though you met that standard, you paid the additional money, 
we still do not think it is urgent. They are claiming the right, and I 
do not believe this Government has given them that prerogative. So all 
this does is you do not take on the issue of monopoly, but we go back 
to the original premise that if the private citizen or business was 
willing to pay the added cost, they therefore had identified it as 
urgent.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with the set-aside of the Coverdell 
amendment, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Cochran amendment is the pending business.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I think we almost have enough time. I am double 
checking to find exactly where it is. Pending that check, I think, once 
again, in answering questions relative to this particular measure, the 
studious and very deliberate approach to the actual financing of this 
program and awards to be made cannot be overemphasized.
  It is unfortunate that the distinguished Senator from Missouri, my 
ranking member, in the early stages used the word ``pork,'' even 
winners and losers. For the truth of it is, whether it is the industry 
itself, there are not any losers. That industry has to come in and pick 
itself, not the politician picking. That is absolutely crystal clear. 
There is no misunderstanding in this particular bill.
  With respect to the matter of pork, we also said, No. 1, the industry 
has to put up at least 50 percent. And under the past 2 years, they 
have averaged nearer a 65 to 70 percent industry share in the 
particular endeavor. Then there is the final hurdle of approval by the 
Academy of Engineering.
  Right to the point: I have the subcommittee of State, Justice, 
Commerce. I have the subcommittee of appropriations. I have been in 
this appropriations work for over 20 years. I know how it works. I know 
how the demands come to put in a particular project. In fact, I have 
had good colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, put this in, 
put that in, and I have said we are not going to have a bill if we 
start including anything.
  I worked this out with Senator Danforth, my ranking member, and other 
interested Senators. You have to go on the regular merit basis and peer 
review basis if you are going to get a center. It has to come through a 
competitive fashion, and go through all the particular hoops there if 
you are going to get an advanced technology program. It has to be peer 
reviewed by the National Academy of Engineering.
  So I have been sort of standing there saying, no, it is not going to 
be. That is why I am very sensitive about somebody claiming that we 
have a bill here that will deal out moneys ``hither and yon.'' It 
cannot be dealt out in that fashion. Otherwise, there are really not 
those amounts involved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the schedule of a summary 
of appropriations in S. 4 be printed in the Record at this particular 
point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

  SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATIONS IN S. 4 FLOOR VERSION, WITH COMPARISONS TO FISCAL YEAR 1994 APPROPRIATIONS AND THE  
                                            FISCAL YEAR 1995 REQUESTS                                           
                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 FY1994appro.  BillFY1994  FY1995request  BillFY1995  BillFY1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  DOC PROGRAMS                                                                                  
                                                                                                                
Under sec tech.................................          6           20            11           75          83  
Under sec......................................         (6)          (6)          (11)         (11)        (14) 
Additional\1\..................................         (0)         (12)           (0)         (14)        (19) 
Financing......................................         (0)          (2)           (0)         (50)        (50) 
National tech info service.....................          0            0            18           20          20  
NIST funding...................................        520          548           935          991       1,150  
Laboratory.....................................       (226)        (241)         (316)        (320)       (350) 
ATP............................................       (199)        (200)         (451)        (475)       (575) 
Extension......................................     \2\(30)         (40)          (61)         (70)       (100) 
Quality........................................         (3)          (2)           (7)         (10)        (10) 
Facilities.....................................        (62)         (62)         (100)        (110)       (112) 
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
Wind engr and environ constr...................         (0)          (3)           (0)          (6)         (3) 
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOC subtotal...............................        526          568           964        1,086       1,253  
                                                                                                                
                 OTHER PROGRAMS                                                                                 
                                                                                                                
New NSF manuf..................................          0           50             0           75          75  
Info tech\3\...................................          0          108    .............       209         150  
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       526          726    .............     1,370       1,478  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Additional Technology Administration activities includes technology training clearinghouse, policy           
  experiments related to intelligent manufacturing, and competitiveness assessment and technology monitoring.   
\2\During fiscal year 1994, NIST also will manage approximately $33 million worth of extension/deployment       
  projects funded by DOD's Technology Reinvestment Project.                                                     
\3\New authorizations (do not include cases in which sums are authorized out of the amounts already authorized):
  fiscal year 1995 request numbers is forthcoming.                                                              

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, just noting from that summary, the bill 
for 1994 over 1995, the laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards, 
there is no pork there. But that goes up from $241 million to $316 
million. But that is not going out to South Carolina or to California 
or to anybody that helps them in the election or any pork.
  The Advanced Technology Program, yes, it goes up from $200 million to 
$451 million. But as I said, it is not the Senator from South Carolina 
or the Secretary of Commerce or somebody saying it is good to put some 
money in South Carolina or California to help politically in that 
regard. Not at all. On the contrary, the request has to come from the 
industry. It might not have any requests from the State of South 
Carolina. It might have them all from the State of Wisconsin.
  So, fine, business. If an industry located in Wisconsin feels that 
way and thinks they have a valid project for the advanced technology 
and need a little assistance from the Government, and if the National 
Academy of Engineering and its peer review also finds that is the case, 
then they go forward with it.
  There they are. That is the extension services. It is not pork. I 
mean that is just to get the matters out there from $40 million to $61 
million. Of course, they have some other projects in here relative to 
assistance with the Information Highway. But these are the increases 
here. Overall, it goes from $726 million to $1.37 billion and still is 
less than 22 percent of the entire $70 billion spent on research.
  Admittedly, some of those programs have found themselves into what 
people might call pork in that they have been written into certain 
bills to have it at this particular college or that university or 
whatever else it is. But these programs have really been virtuous, you 
might say, in the context of these hurdles and the study and the 
competitiveness of the very nature in which an award is made.
  I truly want to emphasize that because I keep asking about this bill 
that you have that is going to help you do this or help you do that. 
The truth of the matter is it is going to help all of industry. It is 
no particular industry. Since they asked me about the principal 
industry in my State, I want to tell you the actual experience in the 
textile industry making application to the Advanced Technology Program. 
Year before last and last year in the early part of the year, they were 
turned down. They did not pass peer review. Their program involved a 
computerized approach to the actual flow of goods to eliminate 
excessive manufacture of textile products or apparel wear.
  I was a little chagrined because, as I say, here I am the chairman of 
the Commerce Committee, here I am the chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee, here I am really the author of the bill. But you live by 
the sword, you die by the sword. It is a well-conceived program. I went 
along, obviously having to go along, with the peer review process, and 
the project proposed at the Department of Commerce last year in my own 
backyard was refused. It was not just for South Carolina textiles, but 
textiles all over the country. But I would have been a principal 
beneficiary if that had gone through.
  Mr. President, they went to the Department of Energy. Over at the 
Department of Energy they went out to the Livermore Lab in California. 
If you look at the Energy Department, they have in excess of $6 billion 
in research there, and then on a matching deal fashioned together a 
$350 million research program. Heavens above. For the entire country 
under this little program right now of the ETP, $200 million going to 
$451 million for all of America and all of the program peer review; 
here is this one program. They put it in; got together with the 
Livermore for a $350 million program.
  If colleagues on the floor are interested in pork and the politics of 
legislation, I would yield to them on going ahead and review some in 
the Department of Defense, review some in the Department of Energy or 
wherever it is. But this is a program that was initiated only on the 
trade bill with overwhelming support. It passed unanimously year before 
last because it was not pork. There was not any earmarking. There could 
not be any earmarking of the funds under this law.
  I have the same concern that others have with respect to just writing 
in these particular projects and programs, but as not just of the 
Commerce Committee, the author of the bill, but as chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee, I said, ``No way, Jose.'' We are not 
playing that game on this one. It is up to industry and peer review. 
And this chairman, who is supposed to be in charge politically, finds 
out that you are not in charge of anything. But you ought to have a 
little bit of influence. That did not work at all. I supported that 
application. But it did not pass muster. But they did go to the 
Department of Energy.
  So do not come around and ask me about pork in the Commerce 
Department on the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing 
Extension Centers. There is none in this bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum--I will withhold that.
  Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the distinguished Senator will refrain for a 
moment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Arkansas.


                           amendment no. 1481

  Mr. PRYOR. I want to speak just a moment, Mr. President, on an 
amendment that has recently been sent to the desk--I think, within the 
last few minutes--offered by the distinguished Senator from Georgia 
[Mr. Coverdell].
  Mr. President, I am urging my colleagues right now to look very, very 
carefully at the Coverdell amendment. We do not know what the Coverdell 
amendment does. We do not know what the ramifications of the Coverdell 
amendment might be. We do not know what real threat to the revenue base 
the Coverdell amendment might have to the U.S. Postal Service. We have 
no way of knowing what the Coverdell amendment, if adopted, if enacted, 
would have on, for example, the vitality of our hundreds and hundreds 
of rural post offices in America.
  So, Mr. President, I am asking my colleagues to pause a moment, to 
take a second look at the Coverdell amendment, and to ultimately, when 
we get the opportunity later, vote to table this particular proposal.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. President, only 2 days ago, I prepared a 
letter to the Honorable Charles Bowsher, the Comptroller General, 
asking him--the GAO--to take a very thorough look into the postal 
fairness, which is basically what the Senator from Georgia is 
attempting to weave into what we now know as the Competitiveness Act, 
S. 4, the pending major legislation on the floor.
  I think that we should, one, wait for the General Accounting Office 
report on all facets of what would result should such an amendment or 
such a proposal be integrated into this legislation.
  Second, I have asked Senator Coverdell--and he has been asked by 
others--to appear before the Governmental Affairs Committee on March 
24, 2 weeks from now, to testify on his proposal. Have we had a hearing 
on this legislation? No. Have we had any sort of a discussion, an in-
depth discussion, on what might happen if private carriers could 
basically carry and deliver the mail? No. We have no way of knowing, 
Mr. President, what we would be stepping off to should the Coverdell 
amendment be enacted.
  Let us have this hearing on March 24. Let us look at the pros and 
cons of what the distinguished Senator from Georgia is proposing. Let 
us get a response from the General Accounting Office, which we have 
requested Dr. Charles Bowsher to engage in. Then, let us put the facts 
on the table and let the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives 
and the process itself govern what we should do about this particular 
proposal and this particular theory of delivering mail to the 260 
million people in this country.
  Mr. President, I am not saying today that I am going to ultimately, 
for the rest of my life, oppose what Senator Coverdell is doing. I may 
join him at a later time, but I am not sure I will do that. I certainly 
want to see the facts. I think each of my colleagues on the floor of 
the Senate, who will be voting on this very major change in the Postal 
Reorganization Act of 1973, are going to want to seriously study what 
the Senator from Georgia is doing. It is not going to really hurt 
anyone or hurt anything for us to just pause a moment, Mr. President, 
and to relook at what the Senator is proposing.
  I urge my colleagues to ultimately vote for the motion to table the 
Senator's amendment.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama. I think he was on 
his feet before me, and he allowed me to precede him. I am indebted to 
him.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Shelby pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed as if in morning business for not to exceed 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________