[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 66 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5588-S5591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor 
be granted to the following members of the Senators staffs. I send the 
list to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, what you have is, as the Senator from 
Washington just talked about, punitive damages. You have a procedure 
whereby you might have willful misconduct, but under this particular 
section, 107(2):

       Inadmissibility of evidence relative only to a claim of 
     punitive damages in a proceeding concerning compensatory 
     damages. If either party requests a separate proceeding under 
     paragraph (1), in any proceeding to determine whether the 
     claimant may be awarded compensatory damages, any evidence 
     that is relevant only to the claim of punitive damages as 
     determined by applicable State law, shall be inadmissible.

  That tells you they have really worked this measure over, and they 
want to keep out the evidence in the regular trial of a case of willful 
misconduct. They want to keep that out of the attention of the jury 
hearing the case.
  Right to the point of punitive damages, Mr. President. I have 
listened to Jonathan S. Massey, an attorney who testified in our recent 
hearings as having handled punitive damage awards before the U.S. 
Supreme Court. I asked him, ``You know, I was just thinking that the 
award of punitive damages in the Pennzoil versus Texaco case of $3 
billion in punitive damages, how did that compare to all product 
liability cases?''
  Just go back 30 years to 1965 and see what we really can find out. I 
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to me, 
along with punitive damage awards from 1965 to the present.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   April 13, 1995.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: At the hearing on April 4, 1995 
     before the Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism 
     Committee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation on S. 565, the Product Liability Fairness Act 
     of 1995, you asked me to compare the $3 billion in punitive 
     damages awarded in the Pennzoil v. Texaco case with the sum 
     of punitive damage awards in all product liability cases 
     since 1965.
       The attached pages show that punitive damage awards in 
     products liability cases since 1965 come to a fraction of the 
     $3 billion figure. For products liability cases in which the 
     punitive damage award is known, the total comes to 
     $953,073,079. There are 109 additional cases in which the 
     punitive damage award was not reported by the court or either 
     party, most likely because it was not large. If one were 
     extrapolate for those 109 cases by taking the average award 
     in cases in which the punitive award is known--which would 
     err on the side of inflating punitive damage awards in 
     products liability cases--the total of punitive damage awards 
     in all products liability cases--the total of punitive damage 
     awards in all products liability cases since 1965 would come 
     to only $1,337,832,211--less than half the award in Pennzoil 
     v. Texaco.
       I hope this information is of assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                               Jonathan S. Massey.
            Product Liability Punitive Awards, 1965-Present

       AL, 20 cases, $58,604,000; 9 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       AK, 2 cases, $2,520,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       AZ, 6 cases, $3,362,500; 3 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       AL, 1 cases, $25,000,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       AK, 1 cases, $1,000,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       AR, 2 cases, $6,000,000; 3 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       CA, 17 cases, $35,854,281; 9 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       FL, 1 cases, $1,000,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       CT, 1 cases, $688,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       FL, 1 cases, $519,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       CA, 4 cases, $3,618,653; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       FL, 1 cases, $750,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       CA, 3 cases, $2,425,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       CO, 3 cases, $7,350,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       CT, 0 cases, $0; 1 additional cases with unknown amounts.
       DE, 2 cases, $75,120,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       FL, 26 cases, $40,607,000; 9 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       CA, 1 case, $30,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       FL, 2 cases, $3,500,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       GA, 10 cases, $43,378,333; 3 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       HI, 1 case, $11,250,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       ID, 0 cases, $0; 1 additional case with unknown amounts.
       IL, 16 cases, $44,149,827; 3 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       MN, 1 case, $7,000,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       IL, 3 cases, $5,000,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       IN, 1 case, $500,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       IA, 1 case, $50,000; 2 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       [[Page S5589]] KS, 7 cases, $47,521,500; 1 additional case 
     with unknown amounts.
       KY, 2 cases, $6,500,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       LA, 2 cases, $8,171,885; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       ME, 3 cases, $5,112,500; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       MD, 3 cases, $77,200,000; 2 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       MI, 2 cases, $400,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       MN, 4 cases, $10,000,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       MS, 4 cases, $2,790,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       MO, 9 cases, $20,785,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       MT, 2 cases, $1,600,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       NV, 1 cases, $40,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       NJ, 4 cases, $900,000; 5 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       NM, 4 cases, $1,715,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       NY, 7 cases, $6,019,000; 6 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       NC, 2 cases, $4,500,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       OH, 6 cases, $4,395,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       OK, 6 cases, $15,390,000; 1 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       OR, 3 cases, $62,700,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       PA, 5 cases, $16,298,000; 8 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       RI, 1 case, $9,700,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       SC, 5 cases, $2,945,500; 4 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       RI, 1 case, $100,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       SD, 1 case, $2,500,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       TN, 4 cases, $4,720,000; 3 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       TX, 38 cases, $217,098,000; 19 additional cases with 
     unknown amounts.
       UT, 1 case, $300,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       VA, 2 cases, $340,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       WV, 3 cases, $2,433,100; 4 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       WI, 7 cases, $10,622,000; 4 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       FL, 1 case, $2,500,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       WI, 2 cases, $26,000,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       DC, 1 case, $2,500,000; 0 additional cases with unknown 
     amounts.
       Grand total 270 cases, $953,073,079; 109 additional cases 
     with unknown amounts.
       Average punitive award; $3,529,900; Extrapolated total of 
     all awards, $1,337,832,211.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, that goes right to the heart of what 
they are really concerned about. They are concerned about these 
manufacturers making more money. They are not concerned about punitive 
damages. If they were concerned about punitive damages--and we will 
list, when we have more of the Senators in town here that are not 
present here on this Monday afternoon, we will list the punitive damage 
awards with respect to these corporations suing corporations.
  My understanding of punitive damages is willful misconduct. But if 
there is an abuse of the awards of punitive damages to justify this 
national concern, it would be at the manufacturer or the business or 
the contract level, not that of individuals injured on account of the 
defective product bringing their cases in tort for product liability. 
There is no question about it.
  Now, the distinguished Senator points out how he is concerned about 
consumers. He says this money goes to consumers, consumers, consumers. 
I refer to the distinguished chairman of our Judiciary Committee, the 
Senator from Utah, my good friend, for whom I have the greatest regard.
  We have listed and already put into the Record certain organizations, 
and among those organizations opposing S. 565, is the American Council 
on Consumer Awareness, the Arizona Consumers Council, the Coalition for 
Consumer Rights, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer 
Federation of California, Consumers for Civil Justice, Consumers League 
of New Jersey, Consumer Protection Association, Consumers Union, 
Florida Consumer Action Network, Massachusetts Consumer Association, 
Michigan Consumer Federation, the National Consumers League, the New 
York Consumer Assembly, the Oregon Consumer League, Pennsylvania 
Citizens Consumer Council, and it goes right on down to Virginia 
Citizens Consumer Council. I can keep reading on and on.
  Every responsible consumer organization in this country opposes this 
bill. So we should not say that we are trying to protect consumers with 
this particular measure. The sponsors are trying to make more money for 
the manufacturer. They are not looking after consumers. Consumers know 
differently.
  As the distinguished Senator from Utah points out in his studied 
presentation, in the prepared comments--I know, as the Senator knows, 
how we get these prepared comments. Senators tell the staff--and he has 
a Judiciary Committee staff and a personal staff--``Get out and find 
the most horrendous cases. I want to take these trial lawyers and put 
them to rout, and I want to find the most egregious kind of claims that 
can be thought of so in my prepared remarks I can show there is a 
national need.''
  Heavens above, look what he comes up with. If I try a law case I 
would win before a fair jury.
  This is a fixed jury, the U.S. Senate, Mr. President. This jury is 
fixed. We have 60,000 lawyers downtown here--billable hours--they come 
in and lobby for fixes. But if I had an unfettered jury and found out 
that the best of the best, the chairman of our Judiciary Committee, 
that conducted hearings, came up with the milk shake case of 1994 and 
found out it went all the way to the Supreme Court of New Jersey 
against McDonald's, and they were vindicated, that tells me that there 
is an incompetent lawyer or he has nothing else to do. I know unless I 
have a pretty good, strong case, I am not going to be bringing suits 
and appealing all the way about ``a milk shake that popped the top open 
as I put it between my legs as I drove off from McDonald's.'' I have 
real work to do.
  That case is in my favor. That shows the law is working, and it is 
working in the State of New Jersey. One other case he had, and that was 
a New York State case in 1989, and again the defendant was vindicated.
  Now, is that the best they can bring to the U.S. Senate on a national 
need? Come on here, we can cite cases like contracts, if we want to. We 
will list a few of them. We have that, if that is the basis on which 
they want to argue.
  Here in 1989 Uncle Ben's sued General Foods over advertisements 
claiming that Minute Rice outperformed Uncle Ben's in the slotted spoon 
test.
  In 1989, Walt Disney Co. sued to force a public apology from the 
Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts, and Sciences, for an unflattering 
representation of Snow White in the opening sequence of the 1989 
Academy Awards ceremony.
  In 1987, Kellogg filed a $100 million suit against General Mills 
arguing that Post natural raisin bran was not natural as advertised 
because it is coated with coconut oil and that comparative television 
ads were misleading because ``extraneous material that would cling to 
the raisins had been cleaned off.''
 Here is Kellogg suing General Mills. People here are talking about 
individuals bringing ridiculous suits--look at these cases here. I 
think we ought to look at these manufacturers.

  Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. In 1986, the producer of Minute Maid Orange Juice, 
Coca-Cola, sued Procter & Gamble, charging that ads for Citrus Hills 
Select falsely claimed that the juice was made from the heart--heart--
of the orange.
  In 1982, McDonald's sought a temporary restraining order to prevent 
the airing of ads comparing McDonald's Big Mac unfavorably with the 
Burger King's Whopper.
  Come on. Is that what we are going to consider? We have work to do up 
here. The plea here about the interstate commerce clause, taken at the 
Senator's insistence, just repeals the 10th amendment and the 
responsibility of the several States for tort litigation. I agree with 
him. I agree with him. Let us extend the interstate commerce clause. 
But let us extend it to insurance companies which are, all of them, 
engaged in interstate commerce. I had one, an insurance company before 
the Securities and Exchange Commission. I guess the year was around 
1960 or 1961. I know Manny Cohen was the Chairman of the Securities and 
Exchange Commission. And I asked that that company be able to operate 
in several States. I got it approved in 13 days. I know about 
interstate commerce and insurance.
  I can tell you here and now, you put in a bill--if you want to see 
the insurance lawyers all fill up that hall outside, put in there, 
under the interstate 
[[Page S5590]] commerce clause, an Insurance Commission for the United 
States of America, and say, ``Quit having to file your policies and 
hire lawyers racing around to the capitals of 50 States, every one of 
your policies must be justified and administered in that particular 
State under that particular law; what we are going to have is 
uniformity. We are going to have a Federal Insurance Commission.'' Oh 
boy, talk about acting under the interstate commerce clause--you will 
see them fight it.
  We have to expose this fraud that has been going on for 14 to 15 
years. Jerry Ford was right. President Ford put it to the study 
commission and he said leave it to the States. In the 15-year period, 
the States have all acted and they have revised their laws and come up 
with responsible provisions as time evolves with respect to the conduct 
of product liability litigation. But it is certainly not a national 
problem. This thing about competitiveness, it is just totally out of 
whole cloth.
  I have been in the game, and we can name the industries, one after 
the other. Not long ago, I was at Bosch, which is a German company that 
is located just outside of my hometown of Charleston, SC. They have a 
10-year contract to make the antilock brakes for all the General Motors 
cars. They make the antilock brakes for the Toyota; they make the 
antilock brakes for the Mercedes-Benz--foreign cars as well as 
domestic.
  When you go in to inspect their plant, they put covering over your 
shoes and a smock all the way around that you have to wear over your 
clothing, and a headpiece to make sure no dust or any kind of solutions 
come from your hair into their particular product. In fact, it is much 
like going through a pharmaceutical company, or film. Incidentally, I 
got Fuji Film in South Carolina, and Fuji Film from Japan is now 
doubling the size of their plant. They have had one there for the last 
10 years. Now they are doubling the size. They are not worried about 
product liability.
  But I turn to the Bosch man--because we are awfully proud. I put in a 
system for technical training and have expanded upon it by sending my 
teams, having graduated, to Munich, Germany, where they--in this 
particular case, Stuttgart--go over the German apprenticeship system 
and then instruct the employees in the German apprenticeship system in 
my own backyard.
  I know about productivity. I said to the gentleman who is the head of 
Bosch there, ``What about product liability?''
  He said, ``Senator, what is that?''
  I said, ``Product liability claims; have you had any claims against 
any of these antilock brakes for defective brakes?''
  ``Oh, no, no,'' he said. ``We have never had a claim.''
  He said, ``If we did--'' he reached over and pulled one off the line. 
He said, ``Do you see this little number?'' He said, ``We mark every 
one of those brakes on every wheel on a car. We have a number. We would 
know immediately, if there was a defect, where it comes from.''
  That, Mr. President, is the quality production that has been brought 
about by trial lawyers. They can cuss them; they can fuss. They can 
talk about getting the fees. These cases read by the distinguished 
Senator from Utah, the two cases he had, one in New York, for the 
supermarket; and in New Jersey, for McDonald's--those lawyers did not 
get a red cent. They wasted 3 years in time. Lawyers do make mistakes. 
I guess they made a mistake. But do not put that down as a reason for 
nationalization of product liability up here at the Washington level.
  What happens here is that we have quality production. Companies have 
come south to my State, having learned you have to really be outgoing 
toward your employee force--I have watched with a certain amusement 
over the years, where we called them workers; then we called them 
employees; now we have to call them associates. You do not dare refer 
to the work force other than as associates. Rather than the head of the 
plant parking right up at the front door, they have the Associate of 
the Month. He parks up at the front door, or she parks up at the front 
door, and the manager of the plant parks way down in the boondocks. 
They know how to do it.
  When they eat--and I have eaten in these restaurants; they do not 
have a Senators' eating place, and the regular folks eating otherwise, 
like we have here. Oh, no; this is not on productivity up here. They 
all eat in the same restaurant. Yes, we know about productivity.
  All of that has come about by not only the treatment of the work 
force on the one hand, but the absolute care that has come about in 
relation to the Occupational Safety and Health Act: safe machinery; 
safe working place; and, yes, the assumption that the product, for 
whatever particular use it is designated, is going to be a safe 
product. We can count on that. That housewife does not have to run home 
and test it on her children and see if it is going to blow up in their 
faces or make them sick or any of those other things. We count on it in 
our society and it has worked and is working, and is working well.
  To come now with this charade here that has been going on for 14 
years, because they can grab us Senators up in campaigns and say, ``Are 
you for or against product liability?'' and get 15 organizations, the 
Business Roundtable, the chamber of commerce, and they are all coming 
in and saying, ``Are you going to be for that product liability?'' 
Product liability? You are interested in votes, and trying to move on 
and get something done. And so, yes, you say so, and that ends that. 
And I am having to talk against a fixed jury.
  But I hope some of them are listening and someone will engage in the 
debate as we have over the past 15 years so that we can hold up this 
bad mistake. Because if we make this mistake relative to product 
liability, then we should federalize medical malpractice; we should 
federalize automobile wreck cases; we should federalize the whole 
thing. Then we will have to build some more courthouses.
  I think we just cut the construction money for courthouses. But let 
us--in the name of trying to bring down the size of the Government here 
in Washington, and the bureaucracy--let us build some more courthouses. 
Let us get some more Federal judges. We can all give them a lifetime 
job, we Senators. And we can have more clerks of court. Man, I am 
telling you, we have a growth industry up here. The best way I know to 
get this growth industry going is to federalize product liability.
  It is a sham. It is a bad mistake. The American Bar Association 
opposes it absolutely. They came up again and testified against it. All 
the different consumer organizations are against it. Yet the sponsors 
come here and act like they are for the consumers. They know 
differently. The State legislatures that handle this problem, the 
Conference of State Legislatures, testified against it; the Conference 
of State Supreme Court Justices is against it.
  Later on I will include in the Record more than 100 deans and law 
professors from over the entire country who will go into detail and 
analyze this particular bill, and show how instead of this really 
giving uniformity it gives complexity, and how, instead of saving money 
and the procedures and the bureaucracy, it increases it. And if they 
have such a thing as the lawyers' full employment act, this would be 
the one because you have all kinds of motions to make now under this 
particular bill and meetings to be had, and everything else of that 
kind at the Federal level and at the State level. It is just 
fundamentally flawed; bad law. They know it, and they try to doctor it 
up so they can get this into a particular conference committee. And 
then, of course, go right into what they call the English rule that 
they have over in the House bill.
  That really shows how garish this Congress can get; to take a system 
where people without means can have their day in court in civil 
litigation and now are going to be denied, which I myself have taken on 
as a trial lawyer. Let me divert for a second.
  Let me say I represented the bus company or the South Carolina 
Electric and Gas. So I represented the defendant in numerous cases of 
tort claims as well as plaintiff. But tell the average citizen who 
cannot pay for billable hours, and tell them they have no claim? And, 
yes. We had the contingent basis whereby, as I reiterated and I 
reiterate because I cannot emphasize it too much, I take on the cost as 
a 
[[Page S5591]] trial lawyer. I assume that for the investigation, for 
the interrogatories, for the discovery proceedings, for the actual 
trial, the settlement, conferences that we had, the actual trial of the 
case, the appeal, the printing of the briefs, the appearances, the 
entire time spent. Yes. These cases take--in serious cases--2 or 3 
years to get them finally determined. This trial lawyer assumes all of 
those costs. If I win, I get a third. If I lose, I get nothing. I paid 
those costs. That is the system that has worked.
  If you are going to have the loser pay all, I am going to say, ``Now, 
wait a minute. I have a wife and children. Now I have grandchildren. I 
like to help. But unless you can get me a bargain and assume the cost, 
I cannot go totally broke in this business. I have to have you take 
care of the costs in case we don't prevail. I think you have better 
than an even chance to prevail.''
  However, I never can tell in the draw of a jury. That is what Judge 
Ito is having to deal with now, the mindset of jurors. I cannot tell 
the mindset. They could come in with selection of a jury, and I not 
know it and they have some peculiar feel or prejudice, and I get 11 but 
I do not get that 12th juror. I end up losing the case, and I have to 
pay it all. I think that at least you ought to be able to take care of 
your costs if you believe in your case that much. Yes. That is the day 
in court, the trial jury.
  The distinguished Senator from Washington says they all get their 
trial by jury. But you read this bill based on what evidence can be 
submitted, you read the test to be used and the thrust that they have 
and how they allocate some of these provisions not to manufacturers. 
You can read on page 36, line 7, ``actions excluded.'' Here is the 
unmitigated gall of this draftsmanship.

       Actions for damage to product or commercial loss, a civil 
     action brought for loss of, or damage to, a product itself, 
     or for commercial loss, shall not be subject to the 
     provisions of this title governing product liability actions 
     but shall be subject to any applicable commercial or contract 
     law.

  The States have their volition as to the Uniform Commercial Code and 
how much and how they interpret it. They have their volition in the 50 
States as to contract law. Yes. When it comes to manufacturers under 
this particular section, yes. We believe in States' rights there. But 
when it comes to injured parties, you do as we say to do. They talk 
about a fair and balanced reasonable bill. Come on. They know better. 
They can read. We pointed this out at the hearings. They had no excuse 
for it. We pointed it out at the markup. They continue to insist upon 
it, and we will have amendments. We will have to come along I guess, if 
they get cloture because they do not want to have debate. They will 
have to have these amendments and we will have to vote on them.
  But I think the original document itself is a pretty good example of 
what they have in mind. It is not a balanced bill. They had no caps 
heretofore in previous Congresses on punitive damages. They have it in 
this one. They say they are going in a reasonable fashion, a more 
restrictive fashion. They have the misuse provision in here now that 
they never had before in the three previous Congresses. We will be able 
to go down on those things and see if they want to insist upon them.
  But I can tell you what we ought to do, in this Senator's opinion, is 
table this bill and move on to those problems that are national 
problems. The State of Idaho is looking out for its people. It has a 
Governor. It has a legislature. It has juries that are sworn to listen 
to the facts and bring in a verdict in accordance with the facts. It 
has the option of the trial judge to set aside punitive damages, to 
restrict the actual damages.
  I am sure the States of Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington would 
much rather have its law than a national law up here wherein they 
think, yes, with the Contract With America crowd in town, that we are 
going to start being conservative. I can tell you here and now, that 
might last for a little while. But after a few years go you are going 
to find the liberal National Government--which has been persistent 
throughout the years as compared to the State government, State law, 
and State practices in tort, and with respect to criminal law and 
otherwise--you are going to find there is a much more conservative 
government at the State level, and more responsible in my opinion, than 
the National Government.
  We do not have a national problem. That is the point. Yet. They have 
really been on a roll up here for big industry and against the 
individuals. They know how to handle the lawyers downtown.
  I hope to have perhaps an amendment on the interests of companies. 
Perhaps we ought to have that, and maybe some of my distinguished 
colleagues would like to sponsor an amendment on billable hours in 
addition to caps on punitive damages. Let us have caps on billable 
hours here in this town. Let us see if that lawyer crowd that is out 
trying to fix the U.S. Senate can go back to work and try their cases 
in court before a jury of 12 jurors without meddling with the State 
precedents here in the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PELL. 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. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________