[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              HONORING THE U.S. 1994 WORLD CUP SOCCER TEAM

  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 240, 
now at the desk; that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider laid upon the table, and the preamble agreed to without 
objection; I further ask that the Record remain open for the remainder 
of the day so that other Senators will have the opportunity to 
cosponsor this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the resolution (S. Res. 240) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, is as follows:

                              S. Res. 240

       Whereas soccer is the fastest growing team sport in the 
     United States;
       Whereas approximately 15,000,000 Americans participate in 
     organized soccer;
       Whereas both men and women play soccer;
       Whereas soccer promotes sportsmanship and mutual admiration 
     based on the talents, skills and determination of the 
     players, regardless of a person's race, gender, sex, national 
     origin, or socioeconomic background;
       Whereas the United States is the host country of the 1994 
     World Cup soccer tournament;
       Whereas approximately 31,000,000 people in the world will 
     view the 1994 52-game World Cup soccer tournament;
       Whereas the United States qualified for the Federation 
     Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup in 
     1930, 1934, 1950, 1990, and 1994;
       Whereas, in 1991, the United States women's soccer team 
     made history by winning the inaugural Federation 
     Internationale de Football Association Women's World 
     Championship in China;
       Whereas Tony Meola, Mike Lapper, Mike Burns, Cle Kooiman, 
     Thomas Dooley, John Harkes, Hugo Perez, Ernie Stewart, Tab 
     Ramos, Roy Wegerle, Eric Wynalda, Juergen Sommer, Cobi Jones, 
     Frank Klopas, Joe-Max Moore, Mike Sorber, Marcelo Balboa, 
     Brad Friedel, Claudio Reyna, Paul Caligiuri, Fernando 
     Clavijo, and Alexi Lalas are members of the United States 
     1994 World Cup soccer team;
       Whereas Bora Milutinovic is the head coach of the United 
     States 1994 World Cup soccer team;
       Whereas the United States 1994 World Cup soccer team staff 
     consists of general manager Bill Nuttall, assistant coach 
     Timo Liekoski, assistant coach Steve Sampson, assistant coach 
     Sigi Schmid, goalkeeping coach Milutin Soskic, team 
     administrator Renato Capobianco, press officer Dean Linke, 
     trainer Ander Rudawsky, assistant trainer Hughie O'Malley, 
     equipment manager Brian Fleming, assistant press officer 
     Aaron Heifetz, press liaison Lisa Higgins, and team doctor 
     Bert Mandelbaum, M.D.; and
       Whereas the United States 1994 World Cup soccer team has 
     represented America honorably and in the best spirit of 
     America: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the United States Senate commends the United 
     States 1994 World Cup soccer team for its participation and 
     outstanding efforts in the 1994 World Cup soccer tournament.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, today the U.S. Senate will vote 
on the motion to invoke cloture to proceed to S. 55, the Workplace 
Fairness Act. The time has come for the Members of the U.S. Senate to 
stand up and be counted. The time has come for all of us in this body 
to correct a significant imbalance that exists in labor law today, an 
imbalance that must be corrected if America is going to thrive in the 
increasingly competitive global marketplace.
  Under our Federal labor law, an employee cannot be fired for 
exercising the right to strike. Congress guaranteed that right in 1935, 
with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, which told every 
worker he or she had the right to organize labor unions, to bargain 
collectively with employers, and to strike in support of their 
bargaining demands, if necessary.
  Unfortunately, based on a Supreme Court decision in the case of 
National Labor Relations Board versus Mackay Radio and Telegraph Co., 
that same employee who can't be fired can be permanently replaced. Now, 
I have yet to figure out a way to console an employee who just lost her 
job for going out on strike by telling her that she hasn't really been 
fired, she's only been permanently replaced.
  This distinction makes absolutely no sense. It is newspeak--a 
distinction without a difference. Perhaps those in Congress who oppose 
this measure--those who plan to vote against cloture--could take a 
moment to explain the distinction to the Senate. Or, better yet, 
perhaps they can take a moment to explain this difference to Carol 
Little, a former employee of the Woodstock Die Cast Co. in Woodstock, 
IL.
  In 1988, Woodstock workers went on strike to protest severe company 
cutbacks. At issue were a proposed reduction in wages and health 
insurance benefits, as well as a complete elimination of pension 
benefits, all at a time when the company was making a profit.
  Many strike participants had 30 to 40 years of service in the plant 
and a majority had over 10 years of service. Carol Little, one of the 
370 workers who went on strike was a typical Woodstock Die Cast worker. 
A 22-year veteran of the plant, she began working at Woodstock Die Cast 
in 1966. The job made it possible for her to support her children and 
disabled husband, while putting one son through college. As the 
family's primary breadwinner, she depended on the fair wages and 
benefits historically provided by Woodstock Die Co.
  Within 2 days of the beginning of the strike, the company began 
advertising for and hiring permanent replacement workers. The company 
ultimately replaced 220 of the 370 strikers.
  While the union provided hardship payments to workers facing severe 
financial problems, a number of strikers still lost their homes. 
Several of the striking Woodstock Die Cast workers were forced to file 
for bankruptcy. In addition, the practice of replacing strikers had 
severe repercussions throughout the community. The stress caused by the 
strike and the ensuring job losses contributed to an increase in the 
divorce rate among former Woodstock Die Cast employees. The most 
poignant example of tragic personal loss, however, is that of a 26-
year-old striker who, in an act of hopelessness, took his own life 
after his wife left him.
  Fortunately everything turned out OK for Carol Little. She was able 
to find another job and continue to support her family. But that does 
not obviate the strain of being replaced in a job where she had spent 
22 years. And, unfortunately, not everyone was as fortunate as Carol 
Little.
  But the tragic stories are not unique, Madam President. Similar 
stories could be told by the 85 workers replaced by Capitol Engineering 
in 1983; the 100 workers replaced by Calumet Steel in 1986; the 160 
workers permanently replaced by Aircraft Gear Corp., in Chicago, IL, in 
1990; and the 338 members of the Chicago Beer Wholesalers Association 
who were permanently replaced--to cite just a few examples.
  The fact of the matter is, Madam President, there is no difference 
between permanently replacing a striking worker, or firing a striking 
worker. It is absolutely the same thing. As Thomas Donahue, secretary-
treasurer of the AFL-CIO stated:

       Stripped of the legal niceties, the Mackay doctrine is a 
     grant to employers of the ``right'' to punish employees for 
     doing no more than unionizing and engaging in collective 
     bargaining. Mackay takes back a large part of the Federal 
     labor law's broad promise to employees that they promise to 
     employees that they are protected against employer 
     retaliation if they choose to exercise their freedom to 
     associate in unions. And it does so when that promise would 
     have the most meaning: during a collective bargaining 
     dispute. At that critical time, the Mackay doctrine 
     sacrifices basic workers' rights in the interest of 
     aggrandizing employer prerogatives.

  Passing the striker replacement bill, S. 55, would correct this 
imbalance. For all the rhetoric that surrounds this debate over S. 55, 
the issue at stake is simple--should an employee have the right to 
strike without losing his or her job? It is that simple and 
straightforward. I believe, and S. 55 states, that the only possible 
answer to that question is yes.
  Someday in the near future--I hope sooner rather than later--this 
body will send to the President for his signature a bill to reduce 
violent crime. And while the final form of this legislation has yet to 
be determined, it is certain to contain the so-called three strikes and 
you're out provision.
  For workers, one might have to modify this slogan, since without S. 
55 the rule will continue to be one strike and you're out--out of your 
job, out of your salary, out of your benefits, and out of hope.
  This situation must change.
  Madam President, since being elected to the Senate I have had the 
opportunity to speak to hundreds of workers about the importance of S. 
55. Every time I do so I am, of course, preaching to the choir. Telling 
a group of UAW members, for example, about the importance of passing 
the striker replacement bill is like telling South Africans the 
importance of voting.
  But I have also tried to get the same message through to members of 
the business community in Illinois. I hope I have been successful. 
America's employers have nothing to fear from the passage of S. 55. In 
the end, labor and management's interests really are the same. We will 
rise or fall, sink or swim together.

  Workers are the most important asset that a business has. Without the 
business being viable the workers have no job. So we all have an 
interest in seeing to it that there is a healthy vital business climate 
that will allow American companies to employ people to create jobs and 
to be competitive. Passing S. 55 will not encourage workers to strike, 
nor will it have an anticompetitive effect. It will only restore 
balance to their relations with employers.
  I have had employers write and tell me to vote against this bill 
because, if it passes, workers will start going out on strike at the 
drop of a hat. They fear workers strikes because they are being asked 
to work too much overtime or because they do not like the color of 
paint in the lunchroom or because they have nothing better to do that 
day. Those arguments trivialize the gravity of a strike and suggest 
that going out on strike is fun. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. Anyone who has ever been out on strike, or anyone who has had 
experience with working on a day-to-day job in a plant, or the like, 
knows the truth of the matter.
  For the average American worker, going out on strike is not fund; it 
is a real risk, a risk to your economic security, your car, your home, 
your future, your children's futures and even in some cases as I have 
indicated your own life. All of it can be on the line. But striking is 
at times a necessary and important tool to enforce collective 
bargaining. Without the right to strike, collective bargaining has no 
``teeth.'' The right to withhold one's labor is in the final analysis 
the most significant power a worker has to enforce other rights given 
by the law. Strikes are a last resort, used only after all other 
bargaining tools have failed, but they are also a legitimate resort, 
and they must remain a viable option, Collective bargaining cannot and 
will not be productive so long as management can, the minute employees 
exercise their right to strike, completely eliminate the entire work 
force. That is what the law recognized before NLRB versus Mackay. That 
is what S. 55 will recognize, again.
  This bill does not prevent employers whose workers choose to strike 
from carrying on with their business. A company faced with a strike has 
a number of options. It can hire temporary replacements. It can rely on 
supervisory or management personnel to complete jobs. It can transfer 
work to another plant, subcontract work, or stockpile in advance of a 
strike.

  In the final analysis, it hopefully will give rise to better labor-
management relations because people will be brought to the table to 
talk to each other to work out their problems and to recognize the 
commonality of their interests and resolve these last ditch disputes in 
favor of working together in everyone's best interest.
  In addition, the Supreme Court has long held that an employer 
lawfully may lock out his employees as a means of controlling the time 
of a work stoppage and gaining an advantage in bargaining. S. 55 will 
not take away any of those alternatives.
  There are, of course, those who say that passage of the Workplace 
Fairness Act is unnecessary, that employers are no more likely to hire 
permanent replacement for their workers now than they were when the 
Mackay decision was originally issued. The facts, however, tell another 
story. Since 1980, employers have made far more frequent use of 
permanent replacements.
  In 1990 the General Accounting Office released a study of the use of 
permanent replacements by employers in labor disputes covered by the 
NLRA in 1985 and 1989, The study found that in fully one-third of 
strikes examined employers indicated they intended to hire permanent 
replacements. In approximately 17 percent of strikes, employers 
actually did hire permanent replacements. The GAO estimated that 
approximately 14,000 striking workers were replaced in 1985, and 14,000 
more in 1989. Of course, this figure doesn't cover employees covered by 
the Rail Labor Act, or RLA, such as the 8,000 pilots, machinists, and 
flight attendants replaced by Continental Airlines in 1985, or the 
7,000 employees replaced by Eastern Airlines in 1989. An AFL-CIO study 
found that 11 percent of striking workers--26,450 individuals in all--
were permanently replaced in 1990 alone.
  And there is no indication that the use of permanent replacements is 
decreasing. In fact, in a 1992 survey conducted by the Bureau of 
National Affairs, 79 percent of employers polled stated that if a 
strike occurred in their business, they would either seek to replace 
the work force, or would seriously consider doing so.
  Madam President, that is hardly modern management.
  But what is even more important for us to realize is that the real 
issue is not ultimately how often the permanent replacement weapon is 
used. The truth is that the mere availability of this weapon to 
management distorts the collective bargaining process in many, many 
more labor disputes than those in which it is actually used. The mere 
existence of that threat, whether or not it is carried out, is enough 
to undermine the bargaining power of labor unions.
  Madam President, I find it ironic that just last week President 
Clinton flew to Poland to meet with that country's president, a former 
shipyard worker named Lech Walesa. In 1981, a group of Polish ship 
workers in Gdansk, led by Mr. Walesa, staged a strike that was a 
precursor to the current democracy movement in Eastern Europe. Those 
strikes made explicitly clear what all of us in this body should know--
the right to strike, to protest unfair wages or hours or working 
conditions--is fundamental to a truly democratic society. Yet while the 
President paid homage to this brave leader, workers in this country 
fear losing their jobs should they exercise those same rights.
  Now I was not in the Senate at the time of the solidarity strikes in 
Poland. But I am certain that many of my colleagues who were took the 
floor of this Chamber and made eloquent speeches praising the courage 
of those striking workers. And they were certainly right to do so, 
Madam President. But they are today saying just the opposite when it 
comes to the fate of workers here in the United States. I only hope 
those same people will support the workers of America--just as they 
supported the workers of Poland--in the exercise of their democratic 
rights.

  After 12 years of antagonism during previous administrations, the 
time has come to forge a new direction. The time has come for labor and 
management to work together. Our major industrial competitors, 
including Canada, Japan, Germany, and France, have recognized that 
banning the permanent replacement of strikers restores balance in the 
collective bargaining process and makes good economic sense. The time 
has come for us to do the same.
  America's union workers are not simply another cost to be cut. They 
are human beings who are often times struggling to provide for their 
families, to make ends meet. And under our Nation's labor laws, they 
have certain rights, including the right to strike. Congress thought 
they guaranteed that in 1935, when the National Labor Relations Act was 
passed. Unfortunately, they were wrong. But we can guarantee that 
today. We can acknowledge what everyone knows to be true: that absent 
the right to strike without being permanently replaced, collective 
bargaining does not work. If management can replace workers the minute 
they take to the picket line, workers do not have a right to bargain. 
They walk into every negotiation with a loaded gun at their heads.
  Madam President, we are entering a new era in economic competition. 
All over the world, barriers to trade between nations are falling. We 
are witnessing the development of a truly global marketplace. I believe 
that America can lead the way in this marketplace. But if we are to 
succeed, if we are to retain our competitiveness into the 21st 
century, there must be a symbiosis between labor and management and 
government. By symbiosis I mean a mutually dependent relationship in 
which everyone benefits.

  Passing this bill is the first step in restoring that delicate 
balance, a balance that will allow America to retain its competitive 
edge.
  Among America's workers, all eyes are on the U.S. Senate. The time 
has come for us in this body to let our workers know where we stand.
  I urge my colleagues to take the simple step to restore balance in 
collective bargaining and to support S. 55 and to support the working 
people of this country.
  Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we have heard much in the debate on S. 
55 about the balance of power between labor and management in the 
American workplace. We have heard arguments about who has more power 
today, and how that balance of power might change if S. 55 were to be 
enacted. Such arguments fail to recognize the historic opportunity that 
is before us to improve the nature of labor-management relations in the 
United States.
  The point of this entire debate is and should be to create a level 
playing field that contributes to labor-management peace and fairness 
in the workplace.
  In order to do that, we need to build an environment of trust in the 
workplace, not an adversarial relationship between labor and 
management. That is why I have submitted an amendment that I believe 
would contribute to fairness and trust in the workplace and better 
enable labor and management to protect their legitimate rights and 
concerns.
  Unfortunately, the Senate finds itself in a situation where there has 
not been any opportunity to discuss compromises. And if the cloture 
motion fails to pass, we will lose any opportunity to debate such 
compromises on the floor and lose an important opportunity to improve 
labor-management relations in our country.
  It is my hope that those who voted against cloture today will 
reconsider their votes and allow us to at least proceed to the bill. 
Let them filibuster the bill if they insist, but at least let us 
proceed to its consideration. Let us consider compromises like mine, as 
well as other potential compromises that have been discussed among 
various Members of the Senate. Without cloture, none of these proposals 
will ever see the light of day.
  My amendment is a modified version of the Packwood compromise that 
was offered the last time the Senate considered striker replacement 
legislation. The amendment is the kind of compromise the Senate should 
at least have the opportunity to debate.
  The amendment I have filed is quite simple. It provides an 
opportunity for mediation of labor disputes in an effort to diffuse 
labor-management disputes. The amendment works in the following way:
  First, the union must notify the employer and the Federal Mediation 
Service 7 days before commencing a strike that it agrees to accept the 
formation of a fact-finding panel consisting of three members--one 
chosen by the union, one by management, and the third member jointly by 
both parties. The panel has 45 days to hold the necessary meetings and 
issue its findings and recommendations.
  Second, if the union does not give the 7 days notification, it does 
not receive the protection of the permanent replacement prohibition 
afforded to it in S. 55. If management does not accept the creation of 
the mediation panel, it is prohibited from hiring permanent replacement 
workers.
  Third, if both labor and management agree to allow the panel to 
conduct hearings and issue a decision, then the current collective 
bargaining agreement, if any, or existing terms and conditions of 
employment, hold until 7 days after the panel reports. A strike by the 
union and a lockout or hiring of permanent replacement workers by the 
employer are prohibited during this period.
  Fourth, the labor organization and the employer have 7 days after the 
panel's report to accept the panel's recommendations.
  If both accept the recommendations of the panel to settle unresolved 
issues, the new collective bargaining agreement is effective 
immediately.
  If the labor organization accepts and management does not, then 
management is prohibited from hiring permanent replacement workers 
during a strike.
  If labor does not accept the panel's recommendations and then goes on 
strike, the employer may hire permanent replacements during a strike.
  If both management and labor reject the panel's recommendations, then 
either side may request an additional 30 days of mediation by the 
special mediator, the mediator selected jointly by both parties for the 
panel.
  If the additional 30 day mediation is successful, the dispute is 
resolved; if labor accepts the special mediator's recommendations, no 
replacements can be hired; if labor rejects the special mediator's 
recommendations, replacements can be hired. If both sides reject the 
panel and the special mediator's recommendations and if labor goes on 
strike, the employer may hire permanent replacement workers.
  Finally, in cases where the union initially rejects the 
recommendations of the mediating panel or of the special mediator, if 
labor reverses its decision and decides to accept the recommendations, 
then the employer must stop hiring permanent replacements. Any 
replacements hired by the employer after that time cannot receive 
permanent status.
  Madam President, this is too important an issue to be defeated by a 
no-compromises philosophy. It is clear that the votes are not there for 
cloture on S. 55 as it is currently before the Senate.
  Madam President, I hope that we can proceed to the bill and get down 
to the work of hammering out an agreement that is fair to labor, an 
agreement that is fair to management, and an agreement that holds out 
the prospect of promoting labor peace in America. That would be in the 
best interest of all of the American people.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been noted. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I want to speak in strong opposition to 
the striker replacement legislation which we will deal with again 
tomorrow. The Senate, of course, today and yesterday debated this 
highly extraordinary special-interest legislation. I am very interested 
in being a part of the effort to derail it. I think it is a cynical 
special-interest piece of legislation. And let me say why--because 
today, in so many of our industries, American workers play a very key 
role in the strategic decisions of their employing firms. Many workers 
are realizing that the long-term stability of the firm is the best way 
to achieve real job security--and most of those in management are 
realizing that a top-down, rigid management style is simply not the way 
to increase worker productivity.
  I think, in these latter years, there has never been more of an 
accord between management and labor as to how you keep the door open, 
how you receive a good salary, and it is not the time for 
confrontation. But, sadly, the leaders of the ailing unions in America 
have decided that the only way to make their unions stronger is to 
resurrect the ``we versus them'' mentality, which most certainly makes 
America weaker.
  In an attempt to ban ``permanent'' replacements, this bill would 
drive a permanent wedge between labor and management. An employer's 
right to seek to continue to operate, to continue to keep the door open 
during an economic strike, has always been a fundamental principle in 
U.S. labor relations. Of course, it is also recognized that employees 
have the right to engage in an economic strike in connection with 
collective bargaining. The issue this bill presents is whether an 
employer should continue to be allowed to hire permanent replacement 
workers during an economic strike.
  And for 55 years the answer supplied by the U.S. Supreme Court to 
that question has unequivocally been ``yes.'' The AFL-CIO, which in 
1953 represented 35 percent of the private sector work force, now 
represents only 11.8 percent of the work force, and they want the 
answer to be ``no.''
  The primary effect of S. 55 would be to disrupt the labor-management 
balance, restrain management from continuing its operations during an 
economic strike.
  Madam President, if enacted, we will be exhibiting a blatant 
disregard for the legislative and judicial efforts that have maintained 
60 years of stability and responsiveness in labor-management relations. 
Furthermore, we will be unleashing some truly greatly destructive 
forces on our economy.
  I am proud to be a Senator representing a ``right to work" State. 
There are 22 States, if I recall, which embrace the right-to-work laws, 
much to the chagrin of the AFL-CIO. Wyoming favors the rights of union 
and nonunion workers to decide whether--or not--to follow union orders 
to strike. S. 55 hurts the rights of nonstriking employees--including 
managers, supervisors, nonunion workers, and those who choose not to 
strike--by jeopardizing an employer's ability to continue operations 
during such a strike.
  To attract replacement workers, especially considering the possible 
intimidation and physical dangers of crossing a picket line, an 
employer often must offer permanent employment. If the employer is 
barred from attracting replacement workers, the detrimental effects on 
business and its nonstriking employees could be devastating.
  Madam President, I have alluded to acts of violence and intimidation 
by striking workers. There are honest, hardworking men and women who 
only seek the opportunity to work, and put food on their families' 
tables who are subjected to jeers, threats, ugly remarks, obscenities, 
demeaning labels and much worse. For instance, last year a man was shot 
to death for crossing a United Mine Workers picket line in West 
Virginia. In a civilized society, that is most repugnant and truly 
defies common sense.

  Most of our Democratic colleagues have blindly accepted the AFL-CIO's 
assertion that ``during the eighties''--they usually add ``during the 
Reagan eighties,'' with their eyes bulging from their sockets--``during 
the Reagan eighties permanent replacements went through the roof.''
  It has a very nice political ring to it, but it is just not true. 
Nevertheless, it has become the sublime motivation for the proponents 
of this bill, and here are the facts. One paragraph. Robert Reich would 
tell you it is as true as Alan Simpson of Wyoming will tell you it is 
true: A review of National Labor Relations Board cases in 1938 through 
1989 reveals that there were 251 NLRB, National Labor Relations Board, 
cases involving permanent replacements; 229 of those occurred prior to 
1981, and only 22 occurred between 1981 and 1989. In fact, the year 
1948 represents the high watermark for permanent replacement cases. So 
there is no current ``crisis'' in the area of permanent replacement 
cases.
  This is not some Republican orgy. You will note the rollcall vote 
earlier in the day. Very thoughtful Democrats, who I respect greatly, 
voted with the Republicans, and some very thoughtful Republicans, who I 
respect greatly, voted with the Democrats.
  So I will conclude by stating that what is truly at stake here is 
nothing less than American competitiveness. To compete globally, 
management and labor have to start playing on the same team. That means 
trying to achieve commitments by both management and labor to bargain 
in good faith, to begin to understand and trust one another. But in 
trying to get rid of ``permanent replacements,'' the striker 
replacement bill will only create permanent suspicion and permanent 
hospitality between labor and management.
  I urge my colleagues to continue to oppose the bill and defeat the 
motion to invoke cloture.
  I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is it in order for the Senator from New 
Mexico to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Pastore rule has expired in this instance, 
and the Senator may, therefore, speak for as long as he wishes on any 
subject.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________