[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S756-S760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 2, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2) to make certain laws applicable to the
legislative branch of the Federal Government.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] is recognized to offer an amendment, in which
there will be 20 minutes under the control of the Senator from New
Jersey and 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
Grassley].
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer.
Amendment No. 15
(Purpose: To reduce the pay of Members of Congress by the same
percentage as other spending is reduced in any sequester caused by the
failure of Congress to meet budget limitations on spending, or the
budget deficit)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an
amendment numbered 15.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following
new section:
SEC. . REDUCTION OF PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN EVENT OF
SEQUESTRATION.
(a) In General.--Section 601(a) of the Legislation
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking out ``as adjusted by
paragraph (2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``as adjusted
by paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new
paragraph:
``(3)(A) The annual rate of pay for each position described
under paragraph (1) shall be reduced (for the period
beginning on the effective date under subparagraph (B)(i)(I)
through the end of the fiscal year in which such adjustment
takes effect) by the percentage necessary to reduce the total
annual pay for such position by the uniform percentage
determined under--
``(i) section 251(a)(2) of the Balanced Budget Emergency
Deficit Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(a)(2)) in any fiscal year
in which there is a sequester under section 251 of such Act;
``(ii) section 252(c)(1)(C) of the Balanced Budget
Emergency Deficit Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(c)(1)(C)) in any
fiscal year in which there is a sequester under section 252
of such Act; and
``(iii) section 253(e) of the Balanced Budget Emergency
Deficit Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 903(e)) in any fiscal year in
which there is a sequester under section 253 of such Act.
``(B)(i)(I) An adjustment under subparagraph (A) shall take
effect on the first day of the first applicable pay period
beginning on or after the date on which an intervening
election of the Congress occurs following the sequester.
``(II) Effective on the first day of the first applicable
pay period beginning on or after October 1 of the fiscal year
following the fiscal year in which an adjustment to effect
under subclause (I), the rate of pay for each position
described under paragraph (1) shall be the rate of pay which
would be in effect if not for the provisions of this
paragraph.
``(ii) If more than one adjustment would take effect on the
same date in accordance with clause (i)(I), each applicable
percentage determined under subparagraph (A) (i), (ii), and
(iii) shall be added, and the resulting percentage shall be
used in making a single adjustment.''.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House of Representatives may prescribe regulations to
carry out the provisions of this Act relating to the
applicable Members of Congress.
[[Page S757]] (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this section.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment is fairly simple. It
would include Members of Congress in actions that result from missing
budget targets that have been set forth under the Budget Act. It would
say that if we miss the targets specified and a sequester takes place,
reductions in accounts across-the-board, or on a specific account, that
we would also include Members' salaries; that we would therefore cut,
on a like proportion basis, the salaries of Senators and
Congresspersons if the Congress failed to achieve its budgetary targets
of limits on Government spending.
The amendment would eliminate a defect in current law that excludes
congressional pay from across-the-board cuts or sequesters when
spending limits are exceeded.
Mr. President, the central purpose of the pending bill, the
congressional responsibility bill, is to create the same standards for
Members of Congress as those applying to other citizens. The bill says
that if we are going to impose laws on ordinary Americans, we are going
to have to live up to those laws we in the Congress, we in the Senate,
the same laws as we ask our constituents to obey. That is an important
principle, Mr. President, and it is why I strongly support the
underlying bill.
Unfortunately, the pending legislation does not put Congress and the
public on even par, at least in one very important respect. In fact,
one double standard in place would absolutely surprise the American
people if they were more aware of it. And I will take a moment to
explain.
Under the Budget Act, if Congress exceeds certain limits on spending
or fails to meet legally-established deficit targets, then the act may
mandate automatic across-the-board spending cuts to assure that we
maintain fiscal discipline. These across-the-board cuts are known as
sequesters and they can apply to a very broad range of Federal programs
and benefits.
Let us make no mistake. If Congress overspends under the Budget Act,
ordinary Americans get hurt in the process--veterans can lose benefits
they earned while fighting for our country; senior citizens with health
problems can lose services under Medicare; middle-class students can
lose the opportunities that student loans afford; and citizens living
constantly these days in fear can lose the protection of additional
law-enforcement personnel.
And yet, while ordinary Americans' programs are put on the chopping
block, when their health, their security, and their educations are put
at risk, guess who it is that gets off scot-free? That is right.
Members of Congress. Their pay is protected, no matter what happens.
Mr. President, there is something wrong with saying that, if Congress
violates the Budget Act, benefits for ordinary citizens should be cut,
veterans' services should be cut, senior citizens' Medicare should be
cut, student loans should be cut; the unemployed job training should be
cut, but congressional salaries, those are sacrosanct, not to be
touched.
It is not right. If the public knew more about it, they would perhaps
be even angrier than they already are.Mr. President, I have been
bothered by this double standard for some time. In the last Congress, I
introduced legislation to eliminate this double standard. I called it
the Congressional Overspending Pay Accountability Act. It was designed
to do what its name suggested: Hold Members of Congress accountable if
they overspend and if they violate their own budget rules.
This amendment is based generally on that earlier bill. I offer it
today because the Congressional Accountability Act is the ideal vehicle
for solving this problem. After all, this bill is about eliminating
double standards. And the loophole that protects Members' salaries from
spending cuts is the ultimate double standard. Unfortunately, in its
current form, this bill does nothing about it unless this amendment is
adopted.
So the amendment is very simple. It says that if Congress overspends,
the pay of each Member of Congress shall be reduced by the same amount
as all other affected spending. For example, if we exceed discretionary
spending targets and trigger a sequester of 5 percent, Member pay for
that next year will be cut 5 percent, as well. If the sequester cuts
other programs by 1 percent, then the pay of Members of Congress will
be reduced by 1 percent. I think it is important that if a target is
missed, the pain be distributed equally. When cuts are made in
programs, opportunities for education or health care are reduced. I
think, somehow or other, we in the United States Congress ought to feel
it some way other than putting a pencil to the paper.
We are recommending this amendment. I hope all of my colleagues will
support it. I think it is a show of good faith. I think, otherwise, it
smacks a little bit of hypocrisy to say we do not want our pay cuts,
but we want everybody else's programs cut. I think it does not ring a
very true signal for the American people. This amendment proposes to
treat Members of Congress just like all other ordinary Americans who
get hurt when the Budget Act mandates across-the-board cuts. I believe
that is only fair.
We have not heard a lot about sequesters lately, Mr. President. In
the past, we have seen sequesters as high as 5 percent, such as the one
that reduced the military budget by that amount in 1986. Recently,
Congress has complied with the Budget Act and has made a lot of tough
choices. The threat of sequester has now increased substantially. Many
in this town are intent on both increasing military spending and
providing huge tax breaks to the wealthy at the same time we have heard
promises of huge cuts in total Government spending. Apart from a few
small symbolic programs proposed for elimination, we have not heard
much of the details. We do not know whose benefits will be cut. We do
not know whose programs will be eliminated.
Mr. President, if Congress locks itself in too tightly in overall
spending caps, and then refuses to make the tough decisions to cut
specific programs, what will happen? Well, one likely result will be a
sequester. That possibility looms larger now than it has in many years.
Mr. President, there is a lot of debate now going on about a balanced
budget amendment. The reason that that has developed is because all of
us, whether one is a supporter of the balanced budget amendment or not,
are anxious to bring this budget of ours under control. So we are
resorting to techniques, we are resorting to programs instead of
thoughtful planning on how to do it.
What we are saying is let us pass the balancing on to an amorphous
structure, something that says if we cannot do it--and I think it is a
blink of the eye, because we can do it--if we cannot do it, let them do
it.
The case of the balanced budget amendment obviously, at one point
along the line, falls to the courts to pick up the responsibilities. So
I want to establish the fact--and I think my colleagues will agree--
that we, too, are at risk in some way if we fail to do what we tell the
public we want to do.
Mr. President, there will be handouts to the rich. They will be paid
for in the end. There is a good chance that they will be paid for by
ordinary Americans, whose Medicare and other benefits are subject to
significant across-the-board cuts. The question I ask is, will Members
of Congress feel their pain? Under the present structure, it does not
look that way. The meat ax may fall, but our heads will not be in the
guillotine. The blood on the floor will be the blood of lots of
ordinary folks who have worked hard, played by the rules, and tried to
make ends meet; but, once again, they will be asked to make or told
that they are the ones who will make the sacrifice.
Mr. President, I am hopeful the reason we will prevail and we will
avoid that kind of fiscal irresponsibility is the threat is real. If
the ax falls, Members of Congress should risk their necks, as well. Mr.
President, even if we never have another sequester, we should eliminate
the loophole for Members' pay. It is a matter of principle. It is the
exact same principle, the principle that motivates this bill. Members
of Congress are citizens, like everybody else. When we violate our own
budget rules, we should not give ourselves any special exemptions.
The staff that joins us here in this room, that supports Senators in
their offices and supports Senators in their
[[Page S758]] committees--hard-working people, people who want to do a
job and get a decent day's pay--wants to know that their pensions are
secure when it comes time to retire. If there is a sequester, they feel
it in their paychecks when the legislative budgets are reduced. That
risk ought to be applied to those who are writing the bills. We ought
to cut our pay to the same extent that anyone else who works for the
Government might get cut if a sequester takes place.
Mr. President, if we are serious about reform, this amendment should
pass overwhelmingly. I think that as each of the Members comes up to
the well and announces their vote, that it is important the public be
aware of the fact that if they vote ``no,'' or vote against this
amendment, that what they are saying is the old expression that kicks
around here, ``Do not tax you and do not tax me, tax the guy behind the
tree.'' That is what we are saying if this amendment fails to pass. I
am hopeful that we will see it pass, because I think it is an important
declaration of principle to the American people. I think it says to
them that we are in the same boat as they are.
It is a privilege to serve in this body. We are privileged and
honored to have the responsibility of writing the laws that make this
country a better place to live. We will be able to put our imprimatur,
our signature on this, if we adopt this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, how much time is
remaining on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If a quorum call is put in place, how is the time
charged?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It requires unanimous consent at this time to
put in the quorum call. The Senator must specify how the time would be
split.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I
have pledged to the majority leader that he will have 5 minutes, I
think it is, to make his remarks. We will have the time run on our side
of the clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object. I did not hear the
unanimous-consent request. Was there one?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. There is. The unanimous-consent request is, if I may,
Mr. President, that a quorum call be fully charged to our side because
the majority leader has a commitment under the previous order of a 5-
minute response.
Mr. GRASSLEY. That is OK with me.
Mr. President, I have 5 minutes under my control?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is my understanding of the unanimous-
consent agreement, yes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I allocate myself such time as I may consume out of the
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey withhold his
quorum call?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Has the Senator yielded the floor?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, from the standpoint of a
philosophical approach to what the Senator from New Jersey is trying to
espouse, as his amendment does, I have affiliated myself in the past
with some attempts--this is the first time I have heard this approach
used--but I have offered amendments or cosponsored amendments myself
that would say there should be no pay raise for Members of Congress
until we get the budget balanced.
I think the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] has offered an
amendment on the floor of this body before that I voted for that
probably would have cut our salary a certain period of time until we
got to a balanced budget. I voted for that. So I am not unsympathetic
with what the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is trying to
accomplish. But I can say this in regard to the underlying legislation:
The underlying legislation attempts to, and I think successfully does,
apply the laws to Congress that we have exempted ourselves from that
presently and for, in some instances, five decades have applied to the
private sector, so that we no longer have a system of a double standard
in America: One set of laws is for Congress and another set of laws is
for the rest of the Nation.
That principle underlying this legislation then is the main argument
for our not agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey,
because he imposes the requirement of sequestration on the rest of the
budget to the salaries of Members of Congress. We are dealing totally
within the public sector here. It has nothing to do with the
application of laws that apply to the private sector on Congress from
which laws we have been exempt, because the Federal budget, as an
instrumentality of public policy, does not apply to the private sector.
So, basically, the same argument can be used against the amendment of
the Senator from New Jersey that has been used against the amendments
that have been proposed from the other side of the aisle on Thursday
and Friday of last week, Monday and Tuesday of this week and now we are
in the fifth day of discussing a bill. It is unrelated. It is a subject
worthy of discussion, what the Senator brings to our attention, but not
on this legislation. So, consequently, not this time. In the first week
of April, according to the Senator from New Mexico, the distinguished
chairman of the Budget Committee, the budget will be discussed in this
body, and that is the appropriate place for the Senator from New Jersey
to offer his amendment.
It gives me an opportunity to emphasize then, as I said once today,
and I have said each and every day this bill has been up, that we are
on our fifth day on a bill that the House of Representatives passed in
20 minutes on their first day of the session. If there was one clear
message in the last election, it was that we should no longer have
business as usual, and particularly this issue of the applicability of
laws that Congress has exempted itself from to Capitol Hill. That was a
major issue in the last campaign.
There is hardly a freshman Member of this body that has not told me
that in every one of their campaigns--I am talking about the people
that were newly elected on November 8--there is not a one that said
this was not a centerpiece of their campaign. Do not take it from those
of us who have been in this body a while. Take it from those who bring
some inspiration to this body to show the people of this country that
this body is not going to continue to act business as usual, ignore the
will of the people and do our own agenda, because the agenda was set by
the American people in this election--and this bill, this underlying
piece of legislation that we are dealing with and will hopefully pass
at 5 o'clock this afternoon, the Congressional Accountability Act,
where we cover ourselves by the laws we have exempted ourselves from in
the past.
So, I am asking my colleagues not to reject the substance of what the
Senator says, the author of this amendment, but to reject it for the
time being, and consider it again when the budget comes up the first
week in April.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time on this amendment has
expired. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the
Senator from Iowa because he is someone who is very thoughtful. We
served together on the Budget Committee. He is concerned about what
takes place in terms of our acts related to the budget. I know that he
is sincere when he makes the case for having this done at a later time.
I respectfully, however, disagree with my friend from Iowa because I
think, A, that there will be no delay in terms of final consideration
of this bill. There is a unanimous-consent order that is for this
evening, and any single Senator can prevent that order from being
altered in any way. So the vote will take place. So there is no further
delay that is going to be caused by this amendment.
I think that it is quite clear that now--and I once again agree with
the
[[Page S759]] distinguished Senator from Iowa--that we now are saying
that this House, this body is subject to the same laws that we write
for everybody else, and I agree with that. Therefore, in my view, this
is the perfect opportunity to say not only will we obey the laws, in
terms of our performance of our functions within our offices, but we
are also going to take a personal hit if something goes awry if we do
not plan carefully enough to meet the budget targets that we have set.
That law has been in place now I guess for 7 years--1986, I am
reminded, 8 years, 9 years now--and we have had a couple of sequester
years. But we have not had as much of a likelihood that a sequester ax
will fall as we have facing the next year's budget, because everyone
knows that we are trying to squeeze things down. In the process, if we
miss those targets, we are going to have a sequester.
Once again, to overstate the case perhaps, I think that if the
American people's programs--and we are not necessarily talking about
the private sector, we are talking about the public sector, we are
talking about senior citizens, we are talking about veterans, we are
talking about students--if those programs are diminished, then I see no
earthly reason why our salaries should not reflect some adjustment for
that year that corresponds with the reduction in programmatic dollars
that might be available.
So, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks. I yield back the remainder
of my time and hope that we will adopt this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back his time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, under the unanimous-consent agreement, what
is the next order of business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business will be the Senator
from Nevada will be recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we will check and see if he is on the way
over, and while he is on the way over I might make some remarks
particularly addressed to people on our side of the aisle in that we on
the Democratic side are the ones who have had the amendments on this
legislation.
The distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, was able on his side
to convince everyone to keep amendments off, with the idea of treating
this whole thing expeditiously and getting it through. I certainly
share his desire.
At the same time, it is within the right of every Senator to put
forward amendments under Senate rules, whether germane or not. And I do
personally think there will come a time in the future when we do adopt
germaneness rules so we can keep a lot of extraneous legislation off of
the floor.
What I wanted to say in addressing our side of the aisle in
particular on this bill, we had a number of amendments and people lost
on those amendments. We did not succeed in passing any of them.
Sometimes when you get into debate in the Chamber, it gets into a
rather heartfelt situation. We have issues about which people care very
strongly, and they are not willing to give up easily. And there is a
tendency sometimes to vote against the underlying legislation because
people are in a state of semipique or disagreement or unhappiness
because their particular amendment, which may or may not have been
germane, did not pass.
Now, I hope if we have anyone on our side of the aisle who is taking
that attitude and plans to vote against this bill because their
particular amendment was not accepted, we can convince them to put
aside that attitude and vote for this bill.
I think this bill is right. I think it is fair. There are a couple of
things that are addressed by this bill. One is the perception out there
in the country that somehow we are above the law; that we treat
ourselves differently, and that is a perception, of course, about which
we all must be concerned.
But second, the importance of this bill, quite apart from dealing
with perceptions, it seems to me, is that you come back to the
question, is it right or is it wrong that we pass this legislation? And
I say it is right because what it does, it gives the same protection to
our own Hill employees, those who work for us on Capitol Hill, that we
have passed here in years past and said it is good for the rest of the
country; we want to protect the workers out there with OSHA laws and we
want fair employment laws and the right to organize--all these things
that we say, yes, sir, under the American justice system, this is right
for the rest of the country. I would say if it is right for the rest of
the country and if people need that kind of protection out there or
have rights that need protection, then our Hill employees have those
same rights and to treat them fairly we need to pass this kind of
legislation.
Mr. President, I was asked earlier today by one of the leading
reporters here that covers the House and covers the Senate on a regular
basis, just what difference does this bill make? Well, I think in some
areas it makes a substantial change and in some areas it does not.
Through the years, we have provided some protections in laws in a
rather haphazard manner, and the haphazard manner has extended also to
the process by which an employee could file a grievance of some kind
and have it dealt with, with various procedures.
So what this bill does is to two things. One, it takes all of these
different laws--in fact, under the antidiscrimination laws we apply
four laws, some of which were covered before, some of which were not:
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination, Americans With
Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, all under antidiscrimination;
under public services and accommodations under ADA: title II, Americans
With Disabilities; title III, Americans With Disabilities; workplace
protection laws: Fair Labor Standards Act regulations to be promulgated
that will track executive branch regulations on people that work
irregular schedules or whose schedules depend directly on the Senate
schedule, OSHA laws, Family and Medical Leave Act, Employee Polygraph
Protection Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, Veterans
Reemployment Act. Under labor-management relations, chapter 71 of title
V will apply now.
So all of these are laws that we now say will apply, and we give a
very specific grievance process that employees can use to address
whatever problem they are having or however they feel they are being
discriminated against or dealt with unfairly.
So it covers everything. And second, it provides this grievance
process which we have not had before that takes care of some of the
objections our Members have had through the years about this separation
of powers from one branch of Government to the other.
Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from Nevada in the
Chamber, and I am happy to yield to him anytime he is ready to go. I
was filling in momentarily here with some comments to people on our
side of the aisle while the Senator prepared.
Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GLENN. Yes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment to commend the
Senator from Ohio for his statement urging his colleagues to support
this legislation notwithstanding the defeat of a number of amendments
that were offered and rejected.
I might say, just speaking for myself, that a number of the
amendments which were offered, were they to be offered as free-standing
legislation, probably would enjoy broad bipartisan support. But we
should be clear about what is taking place. There is a momentum that
has started in the House of Representatives. There is the Contract with
America that the majority in the House and the Senate would like to see
brought to the floor for debate and disposition. The majority is
determined during that first 100 days to do whatever it can to
facilitate that.
Now, given the fact that we have different rules in the Senate than
in the House, they can act much more expeditiously than we can in the
Senate. The Senate was not designed to act in that fashion. In fact,
this institution was designed to slow things down so we could have more
careful deliberation than the other body.
I must say that even though amendments were offered and rejected, it
did
[[Page S760]] not necessarily reflect upon their respective merits. I
would hope that the Senator's colleagues would heed his call for
support for the underlying legislation, not only, as he indicated,
because if a law is right for others it should be right for us. We
should also recognize that the motivation for this legislation was not
only to impose a sense of equity but also a sense of reality.
Someone once described Washington as being a city of marble
surrounded on four sides by reality. That is what has been missing for
the most part in terms of the reality of the consequences of what we
do. We pass legislation from the very highest of motivations. We are
trying to help people who are in need of help. We are trying to improve
workplace safety; we are trying to improve the health and well-being of
our constituents; we are trying to do many things on behalf of other
people. Yet we do not necessarily do so in a way that is reflective
enough of the consequences that must be borne by others that we do not
have to bear ourselves.
So this is not only an issue of equity. I think it really is
motivated principally from an issue of reality--that we will be more
aware of the consequences of what we are about to do if we are forced
to live under the same rules. So I would urge my colleagues to support
the recommendation of the Senator from Ohio that, notwithstanding the
rejection of the amendments which were offered, they lend their support
to this measure.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments of my
distinguished colleague from Maine.
Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Nevada is ready and
I think he was awaiting the arrival of the distinguished majority
leader, who was to have a colleague with him, on the subject that he
will present.
Until the majority leader arrives, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.
____________________