[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 54 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4244-S4247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RESTRUCTURING AND REFORM ACT OF 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of H.R. 2676 for debate only until 3 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may talk 
about an amendment I plan on offering after the debate time has 
expired. I would like to explain a little about the amendment, if I may 
have the time.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I didn't hear the distinguished Senator's 
request.
  Mr. GRAMS. I was asking unanimous consent to speak about an 
amendment. I am going to offer an amendment this afternoon following 
the time set aside for the debate.
  Mr. ROTH. It is the hope of the manager that upon the passage of 3 
p.m., we will move ahead with the managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to discuss his 
amendment at this time.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I just wanted to inform the Senate of my 
intentions today--later on, after this time for debate--to offer an 
amendment that would permanently exempt interest payments owed by 
disaster victims to the Internal Revenue Service.
  This is a very simple and straightforward amendment. The amendment is 
actually derived from the ``Disaster Victim Tax Extension Act,'' 
legislation I introduced on April 29, 1998 with Senators Coverdell, 
Frist, McCain, Hutchinson, Smith of Oregon, Graham of Florida, and 
D'Amato.
  As I stated in a Dear Colleague letter circulated on April 22, this 
amendment permanently exempts interest payments for disaster victims 
who reside in presidentially declared disaster areas and have been 
granted an extension for their tax filing.
  The reason for this amendment is very clear:
  Each year, our country is hit by natural disasters of all kinds--such 
as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, and ice storms--causing 
extreme hardship for hundreds of thousands of Americans.
  This year, 15 states have already been hit by deadly disasters:
  Starting March 7, severe storms and flooding struck the state of 
Alabama, damaging nearly 1,200 homes, and the city of Elba in Coffee 
County was evacuated as a result of a levee failure. Three deaths were 
attributed to the floods and one person was reported missing.
  On February 9, twenty-seven California counties were wracked by 
severe storms.
  During the period of January 28 through February 6, a series of 
severe winter storms hit communities in Sussex County in Delaware.
  Also in February, three southern Florida counties were victimized by 
tornadoes and other violent weather.
  In February, six counties in Georgia were struck by tornadoes. On 
March 20, amid flood recovery efforts, tornadoes and windstorms tore 
through northeast Georgia, adding to the overall devastation. Tornadoes 
again touched down in west Georgia, metro Atlanta, and southeast 
Georgia on April 9.
  In February, Atlantic and Cape May counties in southern New Jersey 
were hit by the coastal storm that lashed the area.
  On April 16, six Tennessee counties were ravaged by deadly tornadoes 
and other violent weather.
  And, Mr. President, on March 29, seven counties in my own state of 
Minnesota were hit by deadly tornadoes, damaging thousands of homes and 
businesses along an 86-mile path carved through the communities of St. 
Peter, Comfrey, and Le Center.
  Just days after the March storm, I traveled to the disaster site in 
south-central Minnesota to witness the destruction and meet with the 
Minnesotans--families, farmers, and other business owners--forced to 
cope with this tragedy. Mr. President, I've never witnessed devastation 
on such a scale. I have heard of tornado-damaged areas being compared 
to ``war zones,'' but had no idea how close that was to the truth. This 
was indeed a war zone, and the Minnesotans I met with that Friday and 
Saturday were very much its innocent victims.
  Two of those victims tragically lost their lives.
  The property damage was widespread. Grain storage bins were leveled, 
the fronts of homes were sheared off, farm fields were choked with 
debris, making it impossible to plant, rows of telephone poles snapped, 
brick houses leveled, countless trees were downed at Gustavus Adolphus 
College, and the spire of its church was torn off, vehicles were 
scattered by the winds, some landing in farm fields, the historic Bell 
Tower of the courthouse in downtown Saint Peter was destroyed.
  I am told the March tornadoes were some of the largest and longest in 
Minnesota's history. It's hard to imagine, but the Comfrey and Saint 
Peter tornadoes were a mile and a quarter wide--2,200 yards. That is 
nearly twice as wide as any previous tornado to hit my state, and far 
larger than the average tornado, which is only 100 yards wide. The 
tornado that destroyed Comfrey created a damage zone of 77 square 
miles. Just how large is that? Larger than the entire city of San 
Francisco, which is contained within 75.2 square miles.
  The estimated total dollar value of insured losses caused by the 
south-central Minnesota tornadoes has reached $175 million, exceeding 
insured losses incurred in my state during the floods one year ago. 
Minnesotans have come together to clean up and begin the rebuilding, as 
we always do when our neighbors need help, and I'm impressed with their 
spirit in facing this disaster. Still, it's going to take many months, 
perhaps years, before life returns to normal in those towns caught in 
the tornadoes' paths.
  Minnesota's experience is, unfortunately, not unique. Deadly natural 
disasters occur every year. Lives are lost, homes are demolished, 
property is destroyed, businesses are ruined, and

[[Page S4245]]

crops are wiped out. The survivors of these disasters need our help to 
get their feet back on the ground.
  Federal disaster assistance has been effective. In fact, almost all 
of the major disaster sites have been subsequently designated as 
presidentially declared disaster areas and are eligible to receive 
federal disaster assistance.
  However, there is one hurdle Congress must remove. Residents in 
presidentially declared disaster areas can often get an extension to 
file their tax returns. However, interest owed cannot be exempted by 
the IRS. The IRS charges an 8 percent interest rate for taxes owed, 
even if disaster victims get an extension for tax filing. So this is 
adding insult to injury.
  Exempting interest payments owed to the IRS requires congressional 
action. Many states, like Minnesota, immediately grant exemptions for 
interest payments on state taxes when disaster areas are declared. 
Although Congress has granted such federal waivers in the past, they 
must be done legislatively each time a disaster occurs, and appropriate 
vehicles are not always available. This creates one more uncertainty 
for disaster victims.
  My amendment would once and for all remove this barrier and give 
residents of presidentially declared disaster areas an interest payment 
exemption on any federal taxes owed. Under my amendment, the exemption 
is effective retroactively to tax year 1997, so that all of this year's 
disaster victims will be covered for their late filing.
  Mr. President, this may seem like a small matter, but for disaster 
survivors in Minnesota, Georgia, Alabama, California, Delaware, 
Florida, New Jersey, Tennessee, and every state devastated by events 
entirely and utterly out of their control, every dollar counts in their 
efforts to begin to repair and to rebuild their lives. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment to make sure that we put in place 
permanently an exemption so the IRS will not charge interest on taxes 
that are due and that are not paid on time because of extensions due to 
disasters.

  Again, it may seem like a small matter, but to those people who have 
experienced these disasters, it is a lot.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I will be sending 
this to the desk as soon as the chairman's time on his debate has been 
concluded.
  I thank you very much.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me speak about the same issue which my colleague 
has spoken about. As I talk to other Senators, I think we are going to 
hear the same thing that Senator Cleland from Georgia, I say to the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, was saying--that in his State it is 
the same issue. In my State of Minnesota, it is the same issue. I have 
essentially the same amendment that Senator Grams has. I think we can 
all join in one effort. That is the way it should be. What we are 
saying--and what my colleague said happened in St. Peter really put it 
best--I make this appeal to colleagues. This is just a matter of, I 
guess, just trying to help people out. People have enough on their 
minds. There has been such devastation.
  The last time around when we dealt with the devastation of the 
flooding in Minnesota and a number of other States, we were able to get 
not only an extension on the filings of the IRS tax forms but also, in 
addition, an extension on the actual payment. Along with that, we had 
congressional action which led to a forgiveness on the interest for 
late payments. But that did not automatically exempt. So this effort 
that a number of us have been working on is a terribly important 
amendment.
  I think both Senators from Minnesota and other Senators from other 
States who have been hit with these disasters just in the last several 
months this year would provide some help to people. That is what it is 
all about--providing help to people. It is my hope--in talking with 
other Senators and we had a discussion in the caucus at lunch as we 
look at whether or not it is a relevant amendment--it is certainly my 
belief this meets that test. This deals with a specific provision 
already in this bill that deals with the forbearance on interest 
payments and, therefore, I think it would meet the test of relevant 
amendments. I know that will be one of the questions that will be 
raised by my colleagues.
  I join in with Senator Grams and with Senators from other States, all 
of whom really feel we want to try to get this done, and we want to try 
to get this done on this bill. We will have a chance later on to come 
out here and speak about our amendments, although I think the floor 
amendments will essentially merge into one amendment. I make an appeal 
to colleagues--Democrats and Republicans, Republicans and Democrats 
alike--to please give us your support. This is very important to the 
people in our State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. 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. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I will be offering, after the 3 o'clock 
timeframe, an amendment to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring 
and Reform Act. I commend the chairman of the committee and the members 
of the committee who have done so much good work in crafting a measure 
that I think is a strong measure that will do much to resolve the 
questions many citizens of America have about whether the IRS is 
treating them fairly, whether they are getting a fair shake.
  I have talked with a lot of people in my State, and I can tell you 
that there are a very large number of people in the IRS who have the 
confidence of the private sector folks, the taxpayers, and their 
representatives who work with them.
  Coming from Missouri, we can say that the overwhelming number of IRS 
agents who are dealing with the public are dealing on a fair, 
evenhanded basis. But we have had examples brought forth in the Finance 
Committee of abuses that are clearly outrageous. Something needs to be 
done to shape up the system so that a rogue agent cannot give the 
entire agency a bad name and that a rogue agent cannot impose or 
inflict upon a taxpayer burdens and penalties and requirements that are 
nowhere in the statutes.
  I will be offering an amendment which changes the proposed structure 
for the advisory board. I believe if you are going to have an advisory 
board, if you are going to put the IRS into some kind of board, then 
you need to do the job all the way. It is clear from the hearings and 
from the testimony that there is significant support for saying the IRS 
ought to be run by a board, it ought to have an insulation from 
political influence--it should be kept free from direct interference by 
the White House or even guidance out of the Treasury in terms of 
enforcement of the laws. Not tax policy. Tax policy is rightly one in 
which we expect the Secretary of the Treasury and the President to 
offer advice, counsel, and work with the Congress on carrying out the 
policy.
  But given the example of audits which at least raise the question of 
whether they have been conducted or directed by political influence, I 
think the only safeguard for the American people is to make the board a 
full-time professional board composed of five members--four from the 
private sector plus the Commissioner of IRS--and give it the full 
authority to run the day-to-day operations of the IRS. It would have a 
consultative role in developing tax policy. But let's take a look at 
it. We have full-time boards that conduct some agencies with very 
sensitive responsibilities--the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 
Federal Communications Commission. These are boards which run agencies 
with very important economic powers over the economy and over citizens 
in the economy. To the extent that we have entrusted powers to them, we 
see that they are able to provide a buffer between political influence 
and the work of the agency.
  On the other hand, if you are concerned about reforming an agency and 
you find that the agency is out of control, as the committee has found 
the IRS to be, then how can you expect a

[[Page S4246]]

part-time advisory board to get the job done? Nobody has been able to 
cite me an example where a part-time advisory board came in and got 
control of the agency. The purpose of a part-time advisory board is to 
give advice which can be accepted or ignored, and, from the hearings, 
we have seen that a part-time advisory board type of advice is not what 
the IRS needs.

  I think the time has come, if we are going to fulfill the mandate 
given to us by our constituents to do something about the IRS, to 
reform it, then we ought to set up a full-time board so the members do 
not have to split their time between private activities--between their 
own jobs and their own responsibilities--and looking over the IRS on a 
day-or-two-a-month basis. It just does not make any sense.
  As a former chief executive of my State, I know that agencies can run 
a unit of Government and they can do so without political interference. 
In my experience, sometimes agencies of State government were too 
immune to interference or guidance or leadership from the Governor. But 
if the question here is to make sure that there is not improper 
influence on tax audits and tax investigation targets, the only way to 
do the job and to do it properly is to put the management and the 
authority over the work of the IRS in the control of a board with full-
time members on an equal footing with the Commissioner so that they can 
insulate the IRS from any political influence. I believe this is a very 
logical step to ensure that the reformed IRS meets the standards we 
would all expect to see for this agency. If we are going to go for a 
board, let's go big time. Either go for an independent, full-time board 
with executive authority or get back up on the porch and let the 
existing agency run itself.
  Mr. President, I look forward to discussing this amendment when the 
time ripens for its consideration in the Chamber. I appreciate the 
chairman and the manager on the other side bringing to the floor a very 
good bill. I believe this provision will make it an even better bill, 
and I look forward to debating it, I hope this afternoon.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. 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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I assume that we are on the IRS 
restructuring legislation; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are here today in the second day of 
debate on this legislation to discuss a very important issue, and that 
is the restructuring of the Internal Revenue Service. As my colleagues 
know, I have worked very hard on this issue--serving on the National 
Commission on Restructuring of the IRS and joining Senator Kerrey of 
Nebraska in introducing the first piece of comprehensive legislation 
that would comprehensively restructure the IRS. In addition, Senators 
Reid, Kerrey and I introduced the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights III earlier 
this year.
  There are real problems in dealing with the IRS, and there are real 
problems at that agency, as shown in the Senate Finance Committee 
hearings--which were so ably chaired by Senator Roth from Delaware, the 
chairman of that committee--and not only the recent ones which were 
probably the most shocking, but also starting last September with 
hearings that brought out horror stories.
  These hearings about the horror stories were about our Government's 
treatment of taxpayers. Every time I go home I hear from constituents 
who tell me about their firsthand experiences with the IRS. Rarely are 
they good. For this reason, it is not good enough to just try. We have 
to succeed in this reform.
  I would like to tell you what I learned about this issue in the 
Restructuring Commission's hearings and deliberations that took place 
during the fall of 1996 carrying over to the first 9 months of 1997, at 
these hearings and our deliberations there--but also, as I have already 
alluded to, the Finance Committee hearings which also were a very good 
basis for this legislation. Then we have all had some of our own 
studies of this issue as well. This is what I have learned: The IRS 
routinely abuses taxpayers, and the rules the IRS lives by are unfair 
to the taxpayers and not according to the rule of law.
  The structure of the IRS was not set up with its consumer, the 
taxpayer, in mind. The IRS functions without accountability. The IRS 
agents are not held accountable for their acts. This breeds a culture 
of abuse and a culture of coverup, and this is where we stand today. We 
have a chance to fix this culture. We have one chance to enact real, 
solid, IRS reform. We in the Senate are supposed to be in the business 
of improving people's lives. We must pass real, solid and lasting IRS 
reform. We must set up a system that makes the IRS accountable for its 
actions, and then we in the Congress, who have constitutional 
responsibilities of oversight, have, over the next several months, with 
intensity, but on an ongoing basis, a responsibility to make sure that 
we continue the oversight work that has been done. We bear some 
responsibility in the Congress for an out-of-control agency. But I 
think with proper congressional oversight we will make sure that this 
does not happen again.
  This legislation before us now makes many strides towards fixing the 
IRS. For starters, it strengthens oversight of the IRS. It creates an 
IRS Oversight Board. This Board will be  made up of nine individuals 
who will oversee the administration, the management, the conduct, the 
direction and even the budget of the IRS. The IRS Commissioner and a 
representative of the National Taxpayers Employees Union will also 
serve on this Board. The union representative is especially important. 
Our IRS Restructuring Commission had a union representative on it. Bob 
Tobias, the president of the NTEU, was instrumental in the Commission's 
work. The Commission would not have made recommendations for such 
strong reforms and made them by such a strong majority if it were not 
for his involvement. Working with him, I learned that the union also 
wants strong reforms within the IRS.

  Another important provision of this bill that increases IRS oversight 
is the creation of a new Treasury Inspector General who will be devoted 
exclusively to IRS matters. This office will have all the powers and 
authority granted under the Inspector General Act, resources dedicated 
specifically and only to the IRS oversight, and independence from being 
in the Treasury Department rather than being at the IRS.
  This bill also takes an important step in helping Congress' oversight 
efforts and in making sure that the public and press can assist us in 
these efforts. This bill requires a new Inspector General for Tax 
Administration to randomly audit 1 percent of all IRS documents that 
the IRS redacts before it releases those documents. In our 
Restructuring Commission hearings we learned that the IRS uses its 
privacy privilege to hide its own wrongdoing from us in the Congress 
and, hence, from the public and also from the press. This is illegal, 
but more important it is deceitful. This bill requires that a small 
percentage of documents be audited to ensure that the IRS can't hide 
behind laws designed to protect the taxpayers.
  These provisions, although great, are still not enough. In addition, 
Congress must continue its diligent oversight efforts. The IRS is 
important to us now, but will it be important to us even 5 years from 
now? Or will we be focused on another issue of the day then? We need to 
commit to have strong, thorough oversight hearings on an ongoing basis.
  This bill also gives taxpayers important new rights. It helps 
taxpayers know their rights and to navigate the tax collection system. 
I believe that Americans are smart people. If you give Americans enough 
information, and if you treat Americans fairly, they can usually take 
care of themselves.
  This bill empowers taxpayers with important new rights and puts the 
taxpayers on a more equal footing with the IRS. I say a more equal 
footing. I think it would be intellectually dishonest for me to say 
with the passage of this legislation that we have totally leveled the 
playing field, which the

[[Page S4247]]

taxpayers ought to expect and which I hope I am surprised some day and 
I can say that we have, but I don't want to categorically say that 
today.
  This bill also has innocent spouse reforms so that innocent spouses 
are treated exactly as they are, and that is they are innocent.
  This bill limits the seizure authority of the IRS. It allows 
taxpayers to sue the IRS if its agents are negligent in violating the 
code and the constitutional rights of our citizens. It prohibits the 
IRS from contacting third parties without prior notification to the 
taxpayer. It requires that the IRS exhaust all collection options, 
including installment agreements, before seizing a business or a 
principal place of residence.
  I could go on and on, but the point is that the bill before us is 
strong, comprehensive reform. This bill is stronger than its House-
passed companion, and we can all thank Chairman Roth and the Finance 
Committee generally--but without his leadership, it would not have 
happened--for making this strong, because we do need to pass this 
legislation. We need to insist that the conference report be equally as 
strong. And then we need to get it on the President's desk as soon as 
possible.
  The American people deserve to be treated with respect, especially by 
their own Government. The American people deserve this bill, and the 
American people deserve to be represented by Senators who have the 
courage and foresight to not only enact this legislation, but after it 
is enacted, to see, through the constitutional responsibilities of 
oversight, that it is actually carried out.
  When this legislation is passed, I want to be able to say to the 
American people, ``We're on the road to eliminating the culture of 
intimidation within that agency.'' I want to be able to say to the 
American people, ``On April 15th next that you're treated by the IRS 
with the same courtesy, with the same accurate information and with the 
same timely response that they expect out of you, the taxpayer, on 
April the 15th.''
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, Senator Grassley not only was on the 
National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, along with myself and 
Congressman Portman and Congressman Cardin on the House side, but long 
before I ever became interested in this issue, Senator Grassley, along 
with Senator Pryor--indeed, Senator Grassley may want to offer some 
historical reflections on this--has been involved with trying to change 
the law and put the law on the side of the taxpayers, to give them more 
rights.
  I believe, I say to the Senator, the first taxpayers' bill of rights 
legislation was enacted, was it 1994? I ask the Senator from Iowa, the 
first taxpayers' bill of rights--I know Taxpayers' Bill of Rights II 
was 1996.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I think the first one would have been in 1988 or 1989.
  Mr. KERREY. The Senator from Iowa and Senator Pryor were partners in 
developing that legislation. Did the two of you work together on the 
Taxpayers' Bill of Rights II?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. KERREY. Both of those pieces of legislation were landmark bills. 
The reason they were landmark bills is they laid a foundation upon 
which we are building this legislation. All of title III, which adds 
additional powers to what the taxpayers will be granted, was added as a 
consequence of evaluating whether or not the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights 
II has gone as far as we want to go.
  I say that because a lot of colleagues have come up and said, ``Well, 
does this legislation go too far; does it give taxpayers so many new 
rights that the IRS will not be able to do their job?'' which is to 
collect taxes? ``Is there any power left in the IRS?'' And the answer 
is yes.
  All through this we have been conscious of the need to balance, and 
what we have been able to do is look at the impact of Taxpayers' Bill 
of Rights II. We can see additional authority needs to be granted to 
taxpayers. I think it is an admirable balance, and it would not have 
been possible to get it done without Senator Grassley's longstanding 
interest and understanding and leadership on this issue. I publicly 
thank him for making certain that we extend additional rights without 
undercutting the authority of the IRS to do what we have asked it to 
do.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska very 
much for his kind remarks and for the background of the Taxpayers' Bill 
of Rights I and II, but most importantly for his thoughtful leadership 
on the Commission, because that was 1 year of very hard work for 
Senator Kerrey. He gave it the attention that this problem deserves. 
The strong piece of legislation that has gone through the House of 
Representatives and now strengthened by the Senate Finance Committee 
under Senator Roth's leadership would not have been possible without 
the digging and leadership that Senator Kerrey has shown.
  Mr. KERREY. Now let's do trade.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We will do trade. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. Likewise, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. 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. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
continue H.R. 2676 for debate only until 3:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Kempthorne). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. 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. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
continue the debate on H.R. 2676 for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask permission to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________