[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3656-S3660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1995
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 328
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 328.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 25, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be obligated or expended for
assistance to or programs in the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea, or for implementation of the October 21, 1994,
Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, unless specifically appropriated
for that purpose.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment that I offer today is
attached to H.R. 889, Department of Defense supplemental appropriations
bill.
Specifically, the amendment, which I offer on behalf of myself and
the majority leader, Senator Dole, requires that funds to be used under
this act for implementation of the framework agreement, which was dated
October 21, between the United States and the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea--that is North Korea--must be specifically
appropriated for that purpose.
What the amendment would prohibit in the future is the following: It
would prohibit using emergency provisions to implement provisions of
the agreed framework with North Korea; second, it would prohibit using
reprogrammed funds to implement the provisions of the agreed framework
with North Korea.
Mr. President, I feel the amendment is necessary because as my
colleagues will recall a number of Members joined Senator Dole and
myself in adding similar restrictive language in the last Congress to
the foreign aid appropriations bill and defense appropriations bill.
Although both of those measures passed overwhelmingly, they were
stripped at the conference on assurances from the administration that
the United States was not preparing to give aid to North Korea.
However, since signing of the agreed framework, the administration
has already seen fit to use $4.7 million in emergency Department of
Defense funds to pay for the provision of heavy oil for the benefit of
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Further, the administration has asked for $10 million in reprogrammed
Department of Energy funds to pay for the treatment of spent fuel in
North Korea associated with their existing nuclear reactors. I have
recently learned that the administration is prepared to ask for an
additional $5.4 million of State Department funds to pay for startup
costs of an international consortium known as KEDO.
Many of us were dismayed that the administration chose to use
emergency funds to pay for the provision of heavy oil--essentially
giving foreign aid to North Korea without congressional authorization,
and despite all the restrictions in law prohibiting any assistance to
the DPRK. The administration lawyers downtown found the only provision
they could to get around congressional approval.
[[Page S3657]] This amendment would prohibit such actions in the
future. The amendment prevents the administration from going around
Congress again to find additional funds to assist North Korea. If the
administration is firmly convinced that such expenditures are in the
national security interests of the United States, then the
administration should first come up and ask for specific appropriations
for that purpose.
The overall cost of the provision of the two light-water reactors and
hundreds of thousands of tons of interim energy to the North Koreans is
going to cost billions of dollars. The light-water reactors alone are
estimated to cost over $4 billion.
The administration has testified to committees of jurisdiction that
the U.S. portion of the costs of implementing the agreed framework will
be in the ``tens of millions of dollars.'' The President's fiscal year
1996 budget requests $22 million specifically for the Korean Energy
Development Organization, which is KEDO. I am informed that the
Department of Energy will seek to use fiscal year 1996 funds to support
spent fuel related activities in North Korea.
Mr. President, I intend to offer this amendment to all subsequent
appropriations bills, if necessary.
Mr. President, at this time, I would also like to call my colleagues'
attention to an event scheduled for tonight that will likely have far
reaching implications for whether the agreed framework with North Korea
will be successful.
Tonight, something called KEDO is supposed to kick off with a
cocktail party in New York. Some of my colleagues might be wondering
what KEDO is and why is the administration seeking $27 million for its
activities. KEDO, the Korean Energy Development Organization, is the
international consortium the administration pledged to put together
under the agreed framework. The agreed framework calls on the United
States ``to organize under its leadership an international consortium
to finance and supply'' the light water reactor project in North Korea.
As I mentioned, this light water project is expected to cost at least
$4 billion. Further, the United States ``representing the consortium,
will make arrangements to offset the energy foregone due to the
freeze'' of the existing North Korean nuclear power program. In other
words, we are expected to arrange to give North Korea free oil. Fifty
thousand tons were delivered on January 21. One hundred thousand tons
are scheduled to be delivered by October 21, 1995. Every year
thereafter North Korea is expected to receive 500,000 tons until the
light water reactor project is complete.
In addition to these substantial commitments, North Korea is
demanding that the United States pay for about $1 billion worth of
projects to upgrade the electrical grid to make the light water reactor
project worthwhile. It is still unclear whether North Korean demands
will be met.
If the United States agreed to put together the international
consortium, who agreed to pick up all the bills? That is where the
accountability gets cloudy. So far, only the United States has actually
signed any checks. First, the Department of Defense used nearly $5
million in Defense Department emergency funds to purchase the first
trench of oil. Then, the Department of Energy successfully sought $10
million in reprogrammed funds for treatment of spent fuel from the
graphite moderated reactors in North Korea. Now, additional funds are
being sought from the Department of State--and none of the really
expensive projects has even started.
The South Korean Government has repeatedly said it will play the
central role in the international consortium in financing the light
water reactor project. But, the South Koreans have wisely added that
this can only occur if North Korea agrees to accept South Korean
reactors and if North Korea engages in substantive dialog with the
South.
The Japanese Government has also said it will play an appropriate
role. But, the Japanese have been quick to add that their role is
dependent on having
widespread participation in KEDO, including a United States financial
role. I often remind my friends in Japan that we spend $2 billion per
year to keep 37,000 American troops on the Korean Peninsula. To this
Senator that is a big contribution.
Ambassador Robert Gallucci, the lead U.S. negotiator of the agreed
framework, has indicated that 20 nations are expected to attend the
inauguration of KEDO, but he admitted that not all of the countries
will actually join KEDO. In fact, the only additional contributions
announced thus far are from New Zealand and Australia.
The test for KEDO--and the State Department--is whether KEDO is
anything more than a convenient multinational cover for what could
become a costly and dangerous U.S. obligation. The North Korea nuclear
situation should certainly be a multilateral and a regional issue. I
have always felt that South Korea and Japan should have been original
signatories to the agreed framework. I believe that the ASEAN nations
should all contribute. I firmly believe that China should be playing a
significant financial role given China's historical role in aiding
North Korea. Has the United States simply taken over that aid role from
China?
But the most disturbing aspect of KEDO for this Senator is that if
KEDO fails to solicit the necessary funds, President Clinton has
already committed the United States to fulfilling the terms of the
agreed framework. On October 20, President Clinton sent a letter to Kim
Jong Il, the new leader of North Korea, pledging to use the full powers
of his office to provide the light water reactor project and interim
fuel from the United States if other means fail. I ask that a copy of
President Clinton's letter of assurance be submitted for the record.
The President acknowledged that his pledge was subject to ``the
approval of the U.S. Congress,'' but no Member of Congress that I know
was briefed on the contents of this letter before it was sent.
This Senator continues to believe that if the President must come to
Congress to seek funds for this multibillion-dollar deal, after having
ignored Congress in agreeing to the terms and conditions of the agreed
framework, then Congress has the right to reexamine the conditions
attached to that appropriation. I will continue to insist that North
Korea allow immediate inspection of the two suspected nuclear waste
sites that they have kept hidden from IAEA inspectors.
In addition, other issues should be addressed. I strongly believe
that North Korea must agree to joint recovery teams to search for the
8,177 service personnel still listed as MIA from the Korean war.
Second, North Korea must agree to stop exporting ballistic missiles.
Finally, North Korea must engage in meaningful dialog with South Korea.
But these are issues to take up at another day.
The purpose of my statement today is to urge my colleagues to remind
the administration of the congressional role in implementing the agreed
framework and to call your attention to the inauguration of KEDO.
Thank you, and I wish the Chair a good day.
I have no further statement, Mr. President. I believe that both sides
have looked at this, and I defer to my colleague, the senior Senator
from Alaska [Mr. Stevens].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Murkowski
amendment? The senior Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that the amendment offered
by my colleague has been discussed and is in a position now where it
can be accepted as an amendment to this bill.
I ask my friend from Hawaii if he agrees. I believe it applies to
funds in this act and, under that limitation, we are prepared to accept
it.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am personally prepared to accept the
amendment, but I just received a request from the Senator from Rhode
Island [Mr. Pell] that he would like to look over the amendment, and he
will be here shortly. So may I request that the acceptance be held up
for, say, 5 minutes?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is no objection on my part and, I
am sure, that of my colleague.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
[[Page S3658]] Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator just yield? I wonder
if the senior Senator will be on the floor and can proceed on my behalf
because I have a hearing.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I shall be glad to do that. I think the
Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Illinois want time. Does the
Senator from Iowa seek the floor to offer an amendment?
Mr. GRASSLEY. No, to speak on the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator from Iowa pardon me and allow me to
interrupt?
I am now informed that the amendment offered by my colleague from
Alaska can be adopted at this point. There is no further objection, as
I understand it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the junior Senator
from Alaska.
The amendment (No. 328) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my reasons for voting
for the bill, but also to state some concerns I have about the
direction that the Department of Defense is taking.
I want to commend, first of all, the Appropriations Committee and, of
course, its chairman, Senator Hatfield, for doing what I think is a
very responsible thing, and that is to offset the cost of the readiness
through rescissions, not from other Departments of Government, but from
Defense Department programs.
I recently requested both the CBO and the General Accounting Office,
GAO, to review the defense budget to determine whether there were
programs being funded that were not directly related to a strong
military and our national security operations and responsibilities.
CBO identified $64 billion falling into that category, and the GAO
identified $70 billion. Those are figures that cover the next 5 years.
They suggested that these programs were absolutely clearly not related
to our national security, but they identified these programs for review
to determine whether these programs should be continued in the defense
budget.
I am pleased to note that some of the programs contained in the
reports that I requested have been used by the Appropriations Committee
as offsets in this bill.
My view, in general, is that we should not only scrutinize nondefense
spending in the defense budget but many defense-related items as well.
So along that line, I commend specifically Senators McCain and Warner,
both of them very respected members of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, for their work in identifying defense programs that should
be cut or reduced, such as the B-2 bomber and the M-1 tank upgrade.
Because I firmly believe that we must closely scrutinize both
military programs, as Senator McCain and Senator Warner have suggested,
but also I go beyond that to other so-called nondefense spending, which
is in the defense budget, before we consider increasing defense
spending above this administration's proposed levels.
And I hope you remember that for the 5 years in this year's budget,
the President's proposing $25 billion above what it was in his first
budget.
Now, I think that scrutinizing these programs is exactly what the
Appropriations Committee has done in this bill. The committee found it
unnecessary to increase defense spending to meet the readiness needs
because it found alternative options to new spending.
Mr. President, last year I supported what we call in this body
defense firewalls so spending cannot be taken out of defense and spent
some place else. Many of my colleagues were concerned then that we
might rob the defense budget to pay for domestic programs. Rather, we
believe that if defense spending is reduced, it should be used to cut
the deficit, not to increase domestic spending.
I also believe there is another corollary, because I believe that
defense firewalls should work both ways. We should not rob funding for
domestic programs to pay for defense spending either. There is clearly
sufficient funding within the defense budget to meet readiness
concerns. It is simply a matter of the Pentagon prioritizing its
funding and improving its management. Because the Appropriations
Committee has not robbed the domestic spending accounts to pay for
defense readiness, I am willing to support this supplemental
appropriations bill, and I commend the committee's work. I strongly
urge the committee, however, to continue its good work and to resist in
conference any efforts by the other body to pay for defense programs
from domestic offsets.
Now, having said that, Mr. President, I wish to address briefly the
issue of the obligations and expenditures of public money that has not
been appropriated by the Congress and specifically to alert my
colleagues to some pending requests from the Department of Defense to
amend authorizing language, present statute, which I think gives them
the capability of spending money not appropriated by the Congress.
The bill before us, if approved, would provide $126.3 million to bail
out two Army fiscal year 1994 appropriations accounts. They would do it
this way: $3.3 million for the military personnel account and $123
million for the operation and maintenance account. These two accounts
are overobligated. They are overdrawn. They are in the red.
When the Army was ordered to deploy troops to Haiti, its financial
accounts contained insufficient funds to cover the cost of the
operation but we know that the Army deployed anyway. The Army spent
money that it did not have. As a result of that operation, those
accounts have negative balances. They are in the red to the tune of
$126.3 million. If the $126.3 million is needed to meet legitimate
obligations, then we in this Congress have no choice. We have to pony
up the money because we have to pay our bills.
Well, under the Constitution, as we know, that is not the way the
spending process of the Federal Government, including the Defense
Department, is supposed to work because under our Constitution Congress
has the sole authority to decide when and to what extent public moneys
are committed.
Now, Mr. President, I am not suggesting that the bill before us
contains unauthorized appropriations. Quite the contrary. The
Department of Defense is authorized under the law to spend money in
excess of available appropriations. That authority is contained in the
Feed and Forage Act that dates back to the Civil War.
The authority was justified in those days. Troops often went on long
periods without pay and had to forage to survive. Government chits were
issued to exchange for food and redeemed later on for cash. The Feed
and Forage Act is embodied in section 11 of title 41 of the United
States Code. The Feed and Forage Act was last invoked by the Department
of Defense on September 19, 1994. That decision generated the request
for these $126.3 million that are in this bill. The authorizing
documents were signed by Mr. Deutch, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and
Mr. Hamre, the Comptroller.
I ask unanimous consent that those be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, September 19, 1994.
Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commander in
Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.
Subject: Obligations in Excess of Appropriations for
Restoration of Democracy in Haiti.
The Department of Defense is likely to incur, in accordance
with applicable law, obligations in excess of available
appropriations to ensure the necessary funding to support
units of the U.S. Armed Forces conducting military operations
in connection with the restoration of democracy in Haiti.
I authorize the incurring of deficiencies for clothing,
subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, and
medical and hospital supplies, not in excess of the
necessities of the current year, under the authority of
Section 3732 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 11), known as
the Feed and Forage Act. On my behalf, the Comptroller of the
Department of Defense shall make the reports to Congress
required by law with respect to the use of this authority.
[[Page S3659]] Also, pursuant to Section 2201(c) of Title
10 of the United States Code and the necessity based on
Presidential determination to increase the number of members
of the Armed Forces on active duty beyond the number for
which funds were provided in Appropriations acts for the
Department of Defense, I authorize the incurring of
deficiencies for costs of such personnel under Section
3732(a) of the Revised Statutes.
The Comptroller of the Department of Defense shall issue
such instructions as may be necessary to implement this
memorandum, including prescription of the dollar levels for
deficiencies by appropriations account.
John Deutch.
____
Comptroller of the
Department of Defense,
Washington, DC, September 20, 1994.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the Secretary of Defense,
this is to advise that the Secretary of Defense has invoked
the authority granted by Section 3732 of the Revised Statutes
(41 U.S.C. 11) to authorize the Military Departments to incur
obligations in excess of available appropriations for
clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters,
transportation, and medical and hospital supplies, not in
excess of the necessities of the current year in support of
U.S. military. He has also invoked the authority granted by
Section 2201(c) of Title 10 U.S.C. to authorize incurring
deficiencies for the costs of additional members of the Armed
Forces. This action will ensure that the Department of
Defense can support U.S. military operations in connection
with the restoration of democracy in Haiti.
Sincerely,
John J. Hamre.
Mr. GRASSLEY. The Feed and Forage Act allows military services to
make contracts and to purchase in advance of appropriations for
clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, and
medical supplies. The Feed and Forage Act gives the Department of
Defense an open-ended authority to spend money almost without limits.
The Department of Defense can invoke the authority whenever it sees
fit. No special condition or no special circumstances must be met
before that law can be invoked. We need not be at war. We need not be
engaged in military combat overseas for the Department of Defense to
tap the Treasury without an appropriation. And there is essentially no
limit on the amount of money that can be spent. It is like, you might
say, Mr. President, an open line of credit.
Now, thank God, no other agency of the Federal Government has this
kind of authority. Admittedly, in wartime, when our national security
is threatened, this kind of authority may be essential. But, Mr.
President, I am concerned about the use of this authority in peacetime,
like today. My concerns are fueled by a Pentagon proposal to expand the
authority beyond existing law. And remember, I just said that I wish to
tell you what I am concerned about what the Department of Defense is
thinking about doing.
The original fiscal year 1995 defense supplemental bill as submitted
to Congress included a request for special legislative authority. It
would be numbered section 1863. Secretary of Defense Perry has referred
to section 1863, and these are his words, as his ``readiness
preservation authority.'' Readiness preservation authority. I ask
unanimous consent to print that language in the Record, too, for my
colleagues to study.
There being no obligation, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Excerpt From the 1995 Supplemental Budget
(Supplemental language now requested, existing legislation)
Sec. 1863. During the last two quarters of the current
fiscal year, upon determination by the Secretary of Defense
that such action is necessary in the national interest, he
may, with the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget, incur necessary obligations to preserve the readiness
of the Armed Forces in excess of contract authority and
amounts available in appropriations of the Department of
Defense during the current fiscal year: Provided, That
obligations incurred shall be limited to those which are
required for essential readiness functions and activities of
the Armed Forces, including activities associated with
mission critical proficiency training, scheduled unit
exercises, the acquisition of spare parts that are critical
to the missions of the Armed Forces and such other activities
that the Secretary of Defense determines cannot be postponed
without a major impact on the readiness of the Armed Forces:
Provided further, That obligations incurred under the
foregoing authority shall not be more than 50 percent of the
total amount appropriated to the Department of Defense for
Operation and Maintenance, Budget Activity 1: Provided
further, That any proposal transmitted by the President to
the Congress to liquidate costs incurred under the provisions
of this section shall be accompanied by offsetting rescission
proposals, unless the President determines that emergency
conditions exist which preclude such rescissions: Provided
further, That the Congress shall be notified when funds are
made available for obligations under this authority.
This provision would allow the Department of Defense, with
OMB approval and Congressional notification, to make
obligations in excess of its total budget authority during
the last two quarters of 1995 to fund essential readiness
activities and functions. Excess obligations incurred under
this provision are limited to 50 percent of Budget Activity 1
under the Operation and Maintenance title. Any proposal to
liquidate excess obligations incurred under this provision
must be accompanied by offsetting rescission proposals unless
the President determines that emergency conditions exist
which preclude rescissions.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Section 1863 is intended to build on and to expand the
authority granted in the Feed and Forage Act. The Department of Defense
would be authorized to obligate and authorized to spend money, in
advance of and in excess of congressional appropriations, in a great
big, broad area well beyond anything that the Feed and Forage Act has
ever done. That area is defined then in 1863 as follows, and I quote.
Essential readiness functions and activities of the Armed
Forces.
``Essential readiness functions and activities of the Armed Forces''
obviously covers a lot of territory. That conceivably covers just about
anything and everything that the Department of Defense wants. I am
thankful to report that section 1863 is not included in either version
of the fiscal year 1995 supplemental bill, the bill that is before us
now in this body, the bill that passed the House of Representatives.
But I understand the issue will be revisited during consideration of
the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization bill. That is why I want my
colleagues to study this issue, and if it is in there you can assume
that I am going to bring it to your attention and to highlight it and
to make sure we are responsible as we consider that.
The practice of spending public money before it is appropriated by
Congress in peacetime--I want to emphasize in peacetime as opposed to
wartime--that practice needs to be reexamined. It needs scrutiny.
First, the practice is inconsistent with the Constitution. Section 9
of article I of the Constitution says, ``No money shall be drawn from
the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriation made by law.'' That
ought to be crystal clear to everyone.
Second, the practice of doing this is inconsistent with the Anti-
Deficiency Act, section 1341, title 31. This law, the Anti-Deficiency
Act, causes it to be a felony to obligate or expend money before an
appropriation is made, or in excess of amounts available in an
appropriation account.
When Congress discovered, as we did in the late 1980's, that the
Pentagon was using $50 billion--what was called M accounts, nothing but
a slush fund--to circumvent the law and to hide the Anti-Deficiency Act
violations, the Congress shut down those M accounts. That year was
1990.
The Department of Defense is always going to find some way to give
just a little bit more freedom on the shuffling around of money. So I
am afraid, with this new 1863, that DOD may try to use the Feed and
Forage Act and the proposed Readiness Preservation Authority, that is
1863, for another end run around the Constitution and around the law. I
am afraid the Pentagon may use this authority to hide deficient
accounts that they are very qualified at doing.
In order to better understand this whole issue, for the benefit of my
colleagues, I am taking three specific steps. I have already started
this process.
First, I have asked the American Law Division at CRS for an opinion
on all pertinent legal points involved.
Second, I have asked the General Accounting Office to follow the
audit trail on the $126.3 million in this bill to make sure the
disbursements are properly recorded in the books.
Third, I have asked the Department of Defense to tell me how much
money has been spent under the Feed and Forage Act over the last 25
years.
Once I have all this information, I should be in a better position to
make a final judgment about this matter,
[[Page S3660]] about 1863, and the intent of the Secretary of Defense.
I will say this. He has tried to assure me that he is not trying to
reestablish an M account sort of approach. That may be his sincere
motive, but I question whether or not the language of 1863 is
specifically tight enough so that will not happen. It might not happen
under his watch, but once it is on the books, there will be some
Secretary of Defense who will find a way of doing it, because we had
these M accounts evolve over a period of the 1950's to 1990.
The idea of spending money before it is appropriated ought to bother
every one of us. It surely bothers me. It seems to undermine our
control of the purse strings and our system of checks and balances.
With a simple stroke of the pen, a Pentagon bureaucrat can write checks
with public money which has not been appropriated and then, thereafter,
practically extort the funds from Congress to pay the bills.
Bureaucrats demand the money, and Congress coughs it up. That is just
not right. If we are ever to balance the budget--and that debate was
last week but the problem is still ahead of us--we need to put a tight
lid on this kind of behavior, whether it is in the Department of
Defense that I have spoken about or any agency of the Federal
Government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________