[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3814-S3818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to my good 
colleague from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation. 
There is--and the public knows this better than we do--a lot of 
legislation we debate on the floor of this body that might make sense 
in Washington, but does not make sense outside of Washington. We spend 
a lot of time debating legislation that does not make a difference in 
people's lives. This bill, S. 543, not only expresses American common 
sense--at least from my part of the country, Midwestern common sense--
but it also says no to Washington nonsense.
  This bill gives me an opportunity, at the same time, to compliment 
the Senator from Georgia for the outstanding work that he is doing in 
this area.
  Debate of legislation that solidly promotes voluntarism is an example 
of Congress spending some of its time to get something done where there 
is a real reward. It is an example of the taxpayers' money well spent, 
to pay us to write legislation that will encourage Americans to do what 
we have a tradition of doing in this country--volunteering.
  I am sure Alexis de Tocqueville has been quoted on the floor of the 
Senate often during the debate of this bill. One observation that the 
French nobleman made when he came to this country in the 1830's to 
study our new system of government, was the American tradition of 
voluntarism that he saw in our churches and in our volunteer 
societies--or as he termed them ``societies of cooperation.'' He 
believed that one of the wonderful and unique aspects of our society 
was that neighbor helps neighbor. Yet, now our society has impediments 
to this tradition of voluntarism, to this neighbor helping neighbor.
  Our good friend from Georgia has a solution that restores the 
voluntarism that de Tocqueville observed. This very important 
legislation will remove one impediment to voluntarism in America. This 
bill will lessen the threat of a lawsuit for volunteers and their 
organizations. So here we are today discussing some legislation that is 
common sense. We are wisely spending our time and energy debating 
legislation that would provide to the taxpayer, in volunteer hours, 
more return on the taxpayers' dollars than anything we do.
  I come here to support the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 and to 
compliment Senator Coverdell. This legislation has two important 
benefits. First, it promotes voluntarism. It promotes voluntarism at 
the time of the big volunteer crusade in Philadelphia. Praise the Lord 
for the people that were involved in that because that was a very 
worthwhile project and it was bipartisan. The Congress can do something 
through this legislation that will help that effort as well. So this 
legislation promotes voluntarism, and it also enacts much needed tort 
reform.
  Volunteers are vital to the health and welfare of our communities, 
States, and our Nation. We all rely on the kindness of friends and 
strangers. Volunteers are often these people, whether we see them or 
not, who bring meals to the homebound; who clean up trash along our 
highways; who respond to natural disasters. I will point out just a few 
recent examples.
  The United Way of Central Iowa rallied 2,500 volunteers--nearly twice 
as many as in 1995--to complete 97 projects. Among these volunteers was 
a troop of Brownies who baked brownies for the children and families at 
the local Ronald McDonald House.
  At the American Red Cross homeless shelter in Rockford, VT, 47 
volunteers, including 15 shelter residents, painted and cleaned the 
shelter, dug a new pathway in its yard, and picked up litter in the 
neighborhood.

  The George Washington High School swim team in Danville, VA, gave an 
hour of free swimming lessons to 60 nonswimmers in grades 2 through 4.
  In Detroit, MI, kids from University CAMP and Detroit Country Day 
School painted, cleaned, and removed graffiti and boarded up vacant 
homes.

[[Page S3815]]

  The Men's Club of Oakland Methodist Church in Maryville, TN, 
installed carpeting and built a wheelchair ramp for a needy family 
whose 8-year-old daughter is in a wheelchair.
  These are only a few of the volunteers whose efforts have come to my 
attention. This is just a sampling of what volunteers give to our 
communities. We have an obligation to these volunteers and to their 
organizations beyond the casual ``thank you.'' If they are going to 
make these efforts, we must do everything in our power to enable and 
encourage them. We owe it to them to make their burden lighter and 
their jobs easier. We owe it to the organizations to make it as easy as 
possible for them to recruit volunteers. We must lower the risk 
incurred by volunteers and their organizations.
  This bill lowers the risk. It limits potential liability for 
volunteers and their organizations. It is only fitting that we pass 
this legislation for all of the volunteers and their organizations who 
put forth the sweat and the labor to accomplish so many good deeds. It 
is simply fair and equitable. That is what this legislation is all 
about.
  I am a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chairman 
of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over this issue. I can tell you 
from my experience in this position that this is badly needed reform. 
The purpose of our civil court system is to establish liability and to 
compensate the injured. It does not always accomplish this now. I 
believe that our court system needs reform, including punitive damage 
reform. Punitive damages are an unpredictable risk for companies and 
volunteer organizations. They are sometimes a windfall to those less 
injured, while the truly injured do not receive the same financial 
amount. Our court system should not be a lottery but, instead, should 
award all who are similarly injured with similar compensation. 
Likewise, those punished should be punished equally for similar 
transgressions.
  This bill does not accomplish all of the needed reforms for the 
system. However, it is a solid first step. It will give the volunteer 
community some certainty of the risks that it faces. It does not 
relieve anyone of liability for conduct that is criminal, grossly 
negligent or reckless. It continues to hold those who intentionally 
commit wrongdoing liable for such acts. It is a good, fair bill that 
will boost the volunteer community and volunteers.
  So I strongly urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
think of the volunteers that they know, the people represented by the 
President and ex-Presidents and by Colin Powell in Philadelphia, the 
people they have met along the way, as well, and perhaps even 
volunteers who personally helped them. That is what this bill is all 
about. It is about volunteers and not about trial lawyers.
  As everyone on this floor knows, the highly paid trial lawyers have 
set out to stop this bill. Of course, too many in this body, 
particularly a large majority on the other side of the aisle, are doing 
the trial lawyers' bidding, as you can see from the opposition to this 
bill. The trial lawyers want to stop this bill because it will cost 
them money. It will reduce their legal fees in most cases when they are 
suing a volunteer or volunteer organization. But this bill is not and 
should not be about trial lawyers and not about trial lawyers' 
compensation. This is a bill about what America is about, about 
volunteering and about volunteers. It is about the people who do things 
that they do not even want to be thanked for; it is about selfless 
people who give of their time and give it freely to those in need.

  It is to these people that we owe something. That is what the 
Philadelphia conference was all about. We owe it to the volunteers to 
make their jobs easier. That is what this bill does. I ask my 
colleagues to put volunteers ahead of trial lawyers and to support this 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa for his 
long work in this area of legal reform and for his comments here today. 
They were particularly thoughtful.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute, twenty seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, a very brief rebuttal to the argument 
we just heard from the Senator from New Mexico. He said the holding of 
this Cabinet nominee was unprecedented. I cannot speak to that one way 
or another. I have only been here 4 years, but I can say that the 
actions of his President, our President, are also unprecedented. An 
Executive order that totally rewrites labor law and obviates the 
Constitution is unprecedented and has no standing, in my judgment, in 
this debate--none.
  I think the Senator from Iowa said it eloquently. This is one we do 
for the volunteers.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I said yesterday, I believe that the 
goal of encouraging voluntarism is a laudable one. I stand ready to 
work with others on a bipartisan or nonpartisan approach to doing so. 
This bill, S. 543, is not the answer and appears not even to ask the 
right question. It is flawed and would benefit from attention through 
the normal legislative process of hearing, public comment, review, 
committee consideration, amendment and report, and Senate action. 
Instead, the majority is trying to force this bill through the Senate 
to catch the train of press coverage on the Presidents' summit on 
America's future.
  The contrast between what has taken place in Philadelphia and here in 
Washington could not be more stark. In Philadelphia, thousands of 
volunteers and activists are joining with leaders who have served as 
Presidents from both major political parties, First Ladies, involved 
celebrities, and corporate sponsors. The summit may well spark a 
renewed dedication among the millions of Americans to get involved to 
make a difference.
  Ours is a tradition rich in neighbor helping neighbor and citizen 
service. The honest involvement of so many and the commitment to 
improve the lives and futures of 15 million children is extraordinary.
  By contrast, this week the Republican controlled Senate simply cannot 
abide the nonpartisan events in Philadelphia. I do not know whether it 
is the involvement of Gen. Colin Powell, Nancy Reagan, George and 
Barbara Bush, or President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton that is driving the 
Republican leadership bonkers, but something has. Is it not possible 
that something happening outside of Washington can have meaning to 
millions of Americans without congressional Republicans having to 
insert themselves for partisan gain. I asked yesterday why we are being 
forced to take up the ill-considered S. 543. The answer is because the 
Republican leadership says so. Otherwise, they might miss out on 
claiming credit in connection with this week's activities in 
Philadelphia. I guess in their minds nothing happens that does not 
involve their political agenda. Voluntarism should not be about 
politics. The summit was not partisan and about politics. 
Unfortunately, this heavyhanded effort is purely partisan.
  I suggest that the 130 cosponsors of all political persuasion who 
have joined in the approach outlined by H.R. 911 may have a better 
idea. It is much less of the Federal Government knows best approach 
that is embodied in S. 543. Indeed, I suspect that sometime soon the 
Republican majority will try to snuff out this alternative approach to 
the excesses of S. 543. The House bill is too acceptable an 
alternative, too widely supported to be tolerated in these partisan 
times. Only a bill with a pure Republican pedigree will be tolerated in 
this 105th Congress. How quickly the Republican leadership has 
forgotten the lessons of legislating through bipartisan cooperation for 
the good of the country.
  Why is the Federal incursion into State law and local volunteer 
activity needed? Why is this bill the top priority for Congress? Why 
has the majority leader threatened to shut down the Senate until this 
particular bill is passed and devoted an entire week to it? Well, the 
bill purports to protect volunteers from ``liability abuses.'' 
Voluntarism is at an all-time high according to the Wall Street 
Journal--and that was before the summit in Philadelphia. This morning 
the principal sponsor of the bill and the majority leader clarified 
that it is not so much that judgments are being awarded against 
volunteers or volunteer organizations but that there is a threat of 
suit. If that is so then why are we being forced to adopt broad-based 
Federal standards, which by the way will

[[Page S3816]]

not prevent the filing of lawsuits but only provide a series of Federal 
law defenses based on factual proof after hearings?
  Why not, instead, encourage the States in their efforts to allow or 
require indemnification of volunteers for the costs of suit? That is 
what Georgia and Vermont and many other States have already done.
  Where are the outrageous jury awards against charitable organizations 
that threaten voluntarism in America? This morning the proponents of 
this legislation admit that they do not exist. Nonetheless, purportedly 
in the interests of the beneficiaries of their services, we are being 
asked to adopt a Federal standard other than the exercise of due care 
that such activities otherwise might be held to under 200 years of 
State law development even though the behaviors we are discussing will 
affect the most vulnerable among us.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statement 
of administration policy received from the administration.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 1997.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

     (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
         concerned agencies.)
     S. 543--Volunteer Protection Act of 1997--(Coverdell (R) 
         Georgia and 10 cosponsors)
       Although the Administration strongly supports national and 
     community service and volunteerism, it opposes S. 543.
       The President has a deep commitment to volunteer and 
     service activities and supports efforts to encourage 
     Americans to engage in these activities. The Administration 
     will work with Congress on proposals that, while respecting 
     state law, help provide reasonable liability protection to 
     volunteers involved in the delivery of needed services.
       S. 543 is not such a bill. Without any hearings 
     demonstrating the inadequacy of state law in this area, S. 
     543 effects a sweeping preemption of state law in cases 
     involving ``non-profit organizations'' and ``volunteers.'' 
     The over-broad definitions in the bill--which might apply to 
     hate groups, street gangs, or violent militia--make this 
     takeover of state law potentially troubling.
       As with broader tort reform measures, the Administration is 
     also troubled by the legislation's one-way preemption--state 
     laws would be preempted if they favor plaintiffs, but not if 
     they favor defendants--and by Section 5 of the Bill, which 
     would totally abolish joint-and-several liability for 
     noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering). This 
     provision would unfairly discriminate against the most 
     vulnerable members of our society--the elderly, the poor, 
     children, and nonworking women--whose injuries often involve 
     mostly noneconomic losses. Noneconomic damages are as 
     important to victims as economic damages and must not be 
     relegated to second-class status.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the statement notes the President's deep 
commitment to volunteer and service activities, indeed his AmeriCorps 
initiation and participation at the summit are both noteworthy examples 
of his commitment. The statement notes as I have the overbroad 
definitions in the bill and its unnecessary takeover of State law, 
among other serious problems.
  The principal sponsor came to the floor this morning to say that the 
Ku Klux Klan is not included within the bill's definition of nonprofit 
organizations that would be covered by its provisions. Unfortunately, 
he did not say why. Wishing does not change the words of the bill.
  To my colleagues who believe S. 543 could not immunize the Ku Klux 
Klan from liability, let me refer you to a letter to me from Morris 
Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center. As many of us know, this 
organization has been on the front lines in the battle against hate 
groups like the KKK. The Southern Poverty Law Center is acutely aware, 
probably more so that most of my colleagues, of the hateful acts 
perpetrated by groups like the KKK. Yet the Senate is considering a 
bill that would potentially bestow liability immunity upon the KKK.
  I know that every one of my colleagues violently opposes the KKK and 
would not support liability protection for them, but because we have 
not been given adequate time to consider this bill, flawed provisions 
like this overbroad definition remain.
  The definition of nonprofit organizations includes the Government and 
not-for-profit organizations. Not-for-profit organizations appear to be 
self-defined to include any organization ``conducted for public benefit 
and operated primarily for charitable, civic, educational, religious, 
welfare, or health purposes.''
  Who decides which groups qualify for limited liability under this 
definition and what happens when groups like the KKK declare themselves 
a noncommercial, nonprofit volunteer organization?
  The Southern Poverty Law Center realizes this and opposes S. 543 
because they know the Senate bill before us would make it more 
difficult to prosecute hate groups like the KKK. To quote Morris Dees, 
the highly respected director of the Southern Poverty Law Center:

       We strongly urge you to withdraw this legislation and vote 
     against any law that limits the ability of our civil justice 
     system to punish those people and organizations that inflict 
     unspeakable injuries on our friends, neighbors, family 
     members and communities. Please, do not help protect white 
     supremacists, neo-Nazi organizations, violence-prone militia 
     groups and others who commit hate crimes.

  Mr. President, I don't know about my colleagues, but when Morris Dees 
speaks, I think we should pause and listen. I ask unanimous consent 
that Mr. Dees' letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      The Southern


                                           Poverty Law Center,

                                   Montgomery, AL, April 29, 1997.
     Sen. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: The Southern Poverty Law Center opposes 
     Senate Bill 543, legislation that would make it more 
     difficult to sue non-profit organizations. Because the bill 
     broadly covers all non-profit organizations, it would protect 
     white supremacists, neo-Nazi and violent militia groups. 
     These are the types of organizations the Southern Poverty Law 
     Center has crippled over the past ten years through the use 
     of both federal and state tort laws.
       Senate Bill 543 raises the standard of care and the 
     standard of proof in punitive damages cases, making it harder 
     for the victims of hate activity and racial attacks to punish 
     wrongdoers. For example, it would allow punitive damages 
     against non-profit organizations or its volunteers if their 
     misconduct constituted ``willful or criminal misconduct, or a 
     conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of 
     the individual harmed.'' However, misconduct that constitutes 
     ``gross neligence'' or ``recklessness'' would be exempt from 
     such damages. In other words, if a cross burning were legally 
     held on Ku Klux Klan property and a larger fire ensued, 
     spreading to a neighbor's home and killing the neighbor, the 
     KKK would be immune from punitive damages if its conduct 
     constituted ``recklessness'' or ``gross negligence.''
       The bill does contain a number of narrow exceptions for 
     volunteers, including misconduct that constitutes a crime of 
     violence, hate crime, sexual offense or civil rights 
     violation. However, these kinds of misconduct are only exempt 
     from the bill's restrictions if the defendant was first 
     convicted in a criminal court. Our cases against Klan and 
     White Aryan Resistance leaders would not have fallen under 
     Senate Bill 543's exemptions, since these individuals had no 
     prior criminal convictions. Moreover, the $12.5 million 
     judgment we obtained against the White Aryan Resistance, 
     which put this group out of business, consisted mostly of 
     punitive damages which may have been subject to Senate Bill 
     543's limitations.
       Important questions relating to a non-profit organization's 
     responsibility and conduct are liability issues judges and 
     juries should decide, not Congress. We strongly support your 
     opposition to this legislation that would limit the ability 
     of our civil justice system to punish those people and 
     organizations that inflict unspeakable injuries on our 
     friends, neighbors, family members and communities. Thank you 
     for not helping to protect white supremacists, neo-Nazi 
     organizations, violence-prone militia groups and others who 
     commit hate crimes.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Morris Dees.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, 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. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor prior to 
the vote to respond briefly to the distinguished majority leader. We 
have had the good fortune to work together

[[Page S3817]]

on a number of issues, and I am disappointed that at least to date on 
this matter we have not been able to find common agreement.
  I am disappointed with his announcement that we would not be taking 
up additional legislation, which I assume he meant even the emergency 
supplemental disaster assistance legislation until we dispose of this 
bill. I have expressed my concerns already about the need to expedite 
consideration of disaster help to 23 States who are waiting for us to 
respond quickly.
  The situation all through the country, but especially in the upper 
Midwest, is very severe. There are thousands of people who are homeless 
today as a result of the floods and natural disasters that they have 
had to face, thousands of people without businesses, thousands of 
people without homes, and thousands of people without schools. These 
thousands of people, hopefully, will be able to get through in spite of 
these difficulties and who still have hope that we can respond as 
quickly as possible.
  I do not know who the anonymous donor was, but apparently an 
anonymous donor has agreed to provide $2,000 to every person living in 
Grand Forks and East Grand Forks to help them get through these 
difficulties. We estimate that is at least a $10 million contribution. 
Well, if somebody, anonymously, can do that, it seems to me that this 
Congress can also respond--obviously, without anonymity--but as quickly 
and as effectively as this donor has.

  So I hope that we can move this. I hope we are not going to subject 
this to extraneous legislation and I hope that, regardless of whether 
we agree or disagree on this particular bill, we recognize the urgency 
with which we have to deal with this issue and come to grips with it 
and respond, as we have in other emergency situations.
  We ought to recognize that it is not Democrats or Republicans who are 
going to suffer the consequences of delay; it is farmers, businesses, 
children, hospitals, and so many people who await our decision--not by 
the week or the day, but by the hour. So we don't have much 
opportunity. South Dakota was hit, Mississippi was hit, North Dakota 
was hit--23 States. So we all know the dramatic repercussions that 
natural disasters can have, and we know how critical it is that we 
respond as quickly as possible.
  On this particular piece of legislation, I have a great respect for 
the distinguished Senator from Georgia. I differ with him on this 
particular bill, in part, because I, frankly, think there is a better 
way to do it. Congressman Porter, Senator Leahy, and others have worked 
on legislation that would allow us to deal with the legitimate 
circumstances presented by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, but 
in a way that also protects individuals who may be physically abused or 
sexually abused, or who may be victims of circumstance and have no 
recourse if this legislation were to pass. We want to be sure that we 
can provide a meaningful way with which to provide the balance, I 
guess, between the need of victims to address problems and the need for 
volunteer organizations to be protected from lawsuits that, in many 
cases, are frivolous. So we are seeking balance here. I think we can 
provide better balance in the Porter-Leahy legislation.
  The majority leader came to the floor this morning and put a new 
urgency on this bill that I had not heard before. If there was such 
urgency, it is somewhat surprising to me that our Republican colleagues 
did not see fit to move it through the legislative process with the 
same degree of urgency. Why didn't we hold hearings immediately upon 
the introduction of the bill? Why didn't we have a markup in the 
committee if it was so urgent? Why hasn't there been more discussion? 
And why wasn't the Democratic leader consulted about the urgency and 
the nature of this legislation weeks ago, to say this week we are going 
to take this up because it is urgent? No one said anything to me about 
urgency. I first heard about urgency today. I am puzzled by the urgency 
that we have now attributed to this legislation, given the record.
  So I hope, Mr. President, that we can figure out a way to compromise 
on this legislation in a way that would allow us to expeditiously move 
this process along. Regardless of circumstance, I hope that we will not 
hold hostage the emergency disaster legislation in an effort to 
leverage passage of this bill. We can do better than that. There ought 
to be ways with which to work this out, as we have found the ability to 
work out so many other somewhat controversial and, at times, 
complicated pieces of legislation. Two weeks ago, we got a unanimous 
consent agreement that was four pages long. If we can pass a unanimous 
consent agreement that is that complex, taking us four pages, on a 
treaty as controversial as chemical weapons was just last week, it 
seems to me that we ought to take something for which there ought to be 
broad-based interest and support and find a way to compromise this in a 
way that allows us to move it along.
  Quite clearly, there is another matter involved here. The papers 
addressed it this morning. We are equally troubled by the fact that Ms. 
Herman has been subjected to an amazing array of practices that I hope 
will cease. She has had her hearing. She has been investigated, 
reinvestigated, and subjected to an array of questions. She has been 
brought in for special meetings and special explanations. She has been 
the subject of a great deal of rumor, innuendo, and media outlets 
across the country. She has presented herself in a way that I think is 
as professional as any I have ever seen. The President deserves the 
right to have his advisers, to have his Cabinet working with him. Once 
we have decided that she is qualified--and I guess that based upon the 
unanimity with which she was approved in the committee, there is a 
bipartisan recognition of her qualifications--that should be it. She 
has dispelled all the questions. She has responded as affirmatively as 
she knows how to do. The President has made public his choice. What is 
there left that must be done to advance her nomination?

  We have tried to negotiate. We have tried in as many ways as possible 
to work through this. We are left with no recourse but to oppose 
cloture so long as we can't get some understanding of what there is 
left to do in the case of the nomination of Alexis Herman to be 
Secretary of Labor. So we want to move that, too. We want to find a way 
to resolve that impediment as well. It is not our desire to hold things 
up. But when we bypass the committees and then don't take up 
legislation or nominations that certainly warrant consideration on the 
Senate floor in an expeditious manner, whether it is the emergency 
supplemental or the nomination of a Labor Secretary who has been 
confirmed now for some time by the committee itself, then the question 
comes, what options do we have left?
  At least the volunteer bill gets a cloture vote. Maybe we ought to 
subject Ms. Herman to a vote, and if there is a certain degree of 
opposition to that, we can have a cloture vote on her nomination. But 
we don't even get that. So this isn't the way I hoped we could achieve 
more meaningful bipartisanship on a whole array of issues. I hope we 
can do that on all of the bills I mentioned and all of the nominations 
still pending on the Executive Calendar.
  I might say, Mr. President--on the number of nominations--the other 
day when I looked, there were four pages of them on the Senate 
Calendar. I see now on page 11, ``Nominations Placed on the Secretary's 
Desk,'' are now such that we have virtually 11 pages of them, of people 
that await confirmation, await a decision by the Senate, people whose 
lives are affected by delay, just as my disaster victims are affected 
by delay.
  The question is, how much longer will they wait? What is it they must 
wait for? Is it a concern about their qualifications? Is it a concern 
about something in their background? Is it simply an unwillingness on 
the part of the majority to deal with the business that we have 
available to us, which we must address? Every President has the right 
to make nominations and to make decisions with regard to the personnel 
in his or her administration. That is the least we can afford this 
administration, but more importantly, the least we ought to be able to 
afford those people whose names are on these 11 pages.
  So let's get on with the business and let's move ahead. Let's find a 
compromise on this bill. Let's confirm Ms. Herman. And above and beyond 
everything else, let's make absolutely certain that we pass the 
disaster bill as quickly as possible.

[[Page S3818]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________