Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 88 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7565-S7573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RESTRUCTURING AND REFORM ACT OF 1998--
CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. LOTT. I now move to proceed to the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2676, the IRS reform bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R.
2676, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the
conferees.

The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of June 24, 1998.)
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, my reaction is, here we go again. Yet
another piece of legislation laid down without any opportunity----
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order? I make a point of order
the Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The minority
leader has the right to be heard. The Senate will come to order.
The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, I am very disappointed with the action just taken by
my good friend, the majority leader. He has filed cloture on one of the
most controversial, complex, far-reaching pieces of legal legislation
that we will address in this decade. We have done this before, and it
would seem to me that our colleagues would understand that when this
happens, we are denying the very function of the U.S. Senate, the right
of every Senator to offer amendments, the right to have a
deliberative----
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
(Mr. ALLARD assumed the Chair.)
Mr. DASCHLE. It is the right of all Senators to fulfill the functions
of their responsibilities as U.S. Senators to offer amendments, to have
a debate. For us to file cloture, for the Senate to file cloture on a
bill of this import, without one speech, without one amendment, without
any consideration, is absolutely reprehensible.
I am very, very disappointed that the majority leader has seen fit to
do it. I guess I would ask, What are they afraid of? What is it they
don't want us to offer? What is it about the amendment process that
worries our colleagues on the other side? What is it about not having a
good debate that so appeals to them? Mr. President, I don't know.
But I do know this. Senators on this side of the aisle will continue
to fight for our rights to offer amendments, regardless of
circumstance. There are many of our colleagues who may support this
bill on final passage, and I respect their rights even though I
disagree. I personally think this bill is as bad as all the others that
have been proposed, and I hope that we have a good debate about how
good or how bad this legislation truly is. But for us to start the
debate by saying that there will be little or no debate, especially
when it comes to our opportunity to offer amendments, precluding the
very right of every Senator to be heard, precluding the opportunity for
us to offer ways in which we think it could be improved.
So we will have this debate over and over and over again. But on so
many occasions now, our colleagues on the other side insist on denying
the rights of every Senator to be heard. That doesn't have to happen.
This is not the House of Representatives. This is not the most
deliberative body in the world so long as we continue to utilize this
practice. There is a time and a place for cloture, but that time and
that place is not as soon as the bill is laid down. Many of us could
have objected to the motion to proceed. We could have voted against
going to the motion to proceed. We could have even filibustered the
motion to proceed. We didn't do that. Why? Because, in good faith,

[[Page S7566]]

we felt it was important to get on to the bill. But now what do we
have? Another in a continued pattern by our Republican colleagues to
curtail debate, to curtail thoughtful consideration of a very important
issue.
I don't know of a more complicated bill that any one of us will have
to address in this session of Congress than product liability. We could
offer a pop quiz today, and I am sure many of our colleagues would
probably fail simply because we are not familiar with all the
ramifications of this issue. So for us, now, just at the beginning of
the debate to say we don't want amendments, we are not even sure we
want a lot of debate, we are just going to get this out of our way so
we can move on to other things, that is not the way the Senate ought to
work. That is not what we ought to be doing here.
What goes around comes around. This issue is going to come around
again and again and again. We will not be denied our rights.
So I am just very hopeful that even many of our Republican colleagues
who may have misgivings about this bill will join Democrats in
defeating cloture when the occasion arises on Thursday.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would simply ask the minority leader if
he might draw any parallel or distinction between the way this bill is
now being handled and other bills are handled, versus the tobacco
legislation and the question of cloture on that?
Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator from Massachusetts raises a very
important point. Exactly. We have seen this in a series of different
episodes over the course of the year. It is a dangerous precedent to be
setting. It is a remarkable admission from the other side that they are
unwilling to face the reality here, to face the opportunity to have a
good debate on key votes having to do with improvement of the bill,
having to do with different views on a bill. Just as we saw with
tobacco.
I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, am I correct that the Senator from South
Dakota had offered an amendment to the appropriations bill on the
Patients' Bill of Rights and that, if we had not had the majority
leader's requests at this time, tonight we in this body would be
debating the Patients' Bill of Rights? Am I correct?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts raises a very important
note here. It seems that our colleagues on the other side are reverting
to two practices: One is to file cloture as soon as a bill is laid
down. That is what they did in this case. That is what they did--what
they did on the Coverdell bill. The other practice is to offer a bill,
and as soon as we offer an amendment that is in disagreement with their
larger scheme, they pull the bill. That is what happened to the Ag
appropriations bill when we offered tobacco on Ag appropriations. That
is what just happened on the VA-HUD bill.
So it seems to me there are two actions taken by our Republican
colleagues with some frequency here: File cloture, deny the colleagues
the right to offer amendments because of cloture; or pull the bill and
move on to something else and never come back. So the Senator from
Massachusetts raises a very good point.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will further yield, as I understand it
now, as a result of the action of the majority leader, the Ag
appropriations bill has returned to the calendar and the VA-HUD
appropriations bill has returned to the calendar. So it appears, would
the Senator not agree with me, that it is not the Democrats who are
holding up the appropriations process and procedure--we were prepared
to move ahead--but evidently it is the majority leader who has sent
these matters back to the calendar when it is our responsibility to go
forward?
I am just wondering if the leader can tell us whether he has had any
opportunity to talk to the majority leader about when we will have an
opportunity to at least have discussion or debate on the measures that
evidently are objectionable to the majority leader? Are we going to
have any opportunity to debate these measures, or are we going to be
required to continue this charade and continue to try to offer these
amendments on other appropriations as well?
Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, I have to report to the Senator from
Massachusetts that there doesn't appear to be any end in sight to this
gagging of Democrats, to this notion that you either proceed on our
terms or we won't proceed at all.
As the Senator from Massachusetts just noted, we are no longer in a
position where the regular order is to go back to an appropriations
bill. They have been shelved. They have been put back on the calendar.
Now, we have to move to a motion to proceed to bring the bills back,
where at least before we had the bills as the regular order should we
fail to reach any kind of an agreement on how to proceed on a current
bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Just finally, and I thank the Senator, does he find it
somewhat ironic that the Republican leadership is effectively gagging
the Senate from debating rules on HMOs which are gagging doctors from
giving the best health care advice? That we are being gagged here on
the floor of the U.S. Senate, so to speak, as well, by Republican
leadership who have refused to permit a debate on this issue? There is
a certain irony in that.
Mr. DASCHLE. That is the irony, I would say to the Senator from
Massachusetts. And the real sad thing is that this goes beyond the
bill. This goes to the fact that 3,000 kids a day start smoking. It
goes to the tremendous number of victims of managed care abuses all
over this country, in every State of the Union, who have said if you do
anything in Congress this year, we want you to fix managed care. We
don't want you to wait until we lose more people. We want you to solve
this problem this year. And that is what we are trying to do. We have
10 weeks to go, fewer than 40 legislative days. If we don't do it now,
when are we going to do it?

The Senator from Massachusetts makes a very important point. I yield
to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Democratic leader can yield for a
question, I ask the Senator from South Dakota--and I am looking around
the floor, and I see a number of Senators on the floor. I see only two
who have served here longer than I. I ask my question in the form of
that context.
In the 24 years I have been here, Democrats have been twice in the
majority, twice in the minority. Thus, the Republicans twice in the
minority and twice in the majority. Would it not be the experience of
the Senator from South Dakota, as it has been mine, that no matter
which party was in the majority, the Senate and the Senate rules and
those who have led the Senate have always reflected the need of the
Senate rules to protect both sides, both the majority and the minority,
so that the United States of America would know that there was a full
debate on real issues where all voices were heard, not just the voice
maybe of temporarily the majority, but all voices would be heard?
And would it not be the experience of the Senator from South Dakota
that this procedure, something I have not seen in my 24 years here,
this procedure is said to make sure there will not be a vote where all
Americans are heard, will make sure there is not a debate where all
Americans are heard, but will be done in such a way that only one
segment of our country will be heard? Will that not be the experience
of the Senator from South Dakota?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Vermont speaks with a wealth of
experience that goes well beyond what this Senator has had in his 12
years in the Senate. But like him, I have not seen this practice used
with the frequency and the amazing degree of persistence demonstrated
by the majority leader to cut off debate, to gag the Senate, to stop an
open opportunity for us to debate key issues, complicated issues such
as this.
The Senator is right, this experience is one that I think really
bears a great deal of explanation to the American people. Why on key
issue after issue--why on education, why on tobacco, why on all these
issues that we face this year--does the Senate majority persist in
precluding a good opportunity to have the kind of debate the American

[[Page S7567]]

people expect and want and need. The Senator from Vermont is absolutely
right.
This is not the Senate's brightest moment. This is a very, very
disappointing episode in what has been a pattern all year long, and it
is disappointing not only to us but the American people. I yield to the
Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator, I agree completely with his
comments.
If the Members of the U.S. Senate serving in the 2d session of the
105th Congress were charged in court with having passed meaningful
legislation to help America, I am afraid there is not enough evidence
to convict us, because if you look at what we have been about over the
last several months, with the exception of renaming Washington National
Airport, we have little to show for the time we have spent in
Washington and only 10 weeks to go.
The Senator is so correct, the President, in his State of the Union
Address, challenged this Congress, leaders on both sides of the aisle,
to address the issues America really cares about: Saving Social
Security, campaign finance reform, tobacco legislation, education,
child care, doing the things that American families would really
applaud, responding to their needs.
Yet, we stand here today in the first week of July and we hear,
again, an effort by the majority leader to not only stop the train in
an effort to stop legislation moving forward, but to stop the debate in
what is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body.
It is a disappointment to me, and I think to a lot of people who are
following this session of the U.S. Senate, that we are back here this
week and not about the business that people really care about across
America.
I stand in support of what our leader, Senator Daschle, said, that it
is a deprivation of our responsibility as U.S. Senators representing
States across this country and as representing families who expect us
to respond to these needs, when you think of the opportunities we have
already missed--the campaign finance reform bill killed on the floor of
the Senate by the Republican leadership, and then we turned around with
an opportunity to protect millions of our children from tobacco
addiction, killed on the floor of the U.S. Senate by the Republican
leadership time and time again.
Here is an effort by the Democrats to bring out legislation to
protect families and patients who go to their doctors wanting the very
best in medical care and find themselves twisted in knots by the
insurance industry and, once again, efforts on the Republican side to
stop us.
I am afraid that when all is said and done this will turn out to be
one of the worst Congresses in this century in terms of its
productivity. And if we are to be measured by our productivity, I am
not sure that many Senators can collect their paychecks and talk about
their pensions based on what we have been able to do or failed to do in
the last few months.
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, I remind Senators
on the floor that they must pose a question----
Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator agree?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. And then the speaker who has the floor will
yield. Otherwise, I request they go through the Chair.
The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair for the clarification. Let me just
say, the Senator from Illinois is absolutely right, he was asking if I
agreed with his characterization of the way this Senate has performed.
Sometime this year, our Republican colleagues will be asked, ``Tell
us what you did on tobacco.'' They will say nothing.
Our Republican colleagues will be asked, ``Tell us what you did on
campaign reform.'' Our colleagues will say nothing.
Our Republican colleagues will be asked, ``Well, tell us what you did
on education; what did you do to build infrastructure; what did you do
to reduce class size?'' And our Republican colleagues will have to say
nothing.
Our Republican colleagues are going to be asked, ``Well, tell us what
did you do, then, on trying to address one of the most important health
care questions our country is facing today in managed care?'' And,
again, our Republican colleagues will say nothing.
Mr. President, the list continues to grow. Why? Because they appear
to be afraid of a debate, appear to be afraid to take this issue to its
successful conclusion. If we don't go along, we don't do anything on
that particular issue. That isn't the way this Senate is supposed to
perform.
I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I inquire of the distinguished Democratic
leader if he is not aware of what the effect of this cloture motion may
be on the product liability legislation? I raise that question of the
Democratic leader because I am a cosponsor of this bill. I am one of a
handful of Democrats who have supported the work of my good friend,
Senator Gorton from the State of Washington, and Senator Jay
Rockefeller, our colleague from West Virginia, who are the lead
sponsors of this legislation.
I raise the point with the Democratic leader; I go back to the days
of Jack Danforth and working on a proposal some 10 years ago on product
liability legislation, tort reform. As someone who authored, along with
Senator Domenici, the securities litigation reform bill and uniform
standards, I am very interested in seeing us get a bill done here. We
have indications the White House is going to be supportive of this
legislation. For the first time, we might be able to do something about
this issue.
I am inclined to agree with the managers and principal authors of
this bill that we probably ought to keep this bill pretty clean. So I
am sympathetic to that notion.
But I cannot imagine at this point filing cloture on this bill. I
disagree with the majority of my colleagues on this side who disagree
with this bill, but I will fight with every power in me as a Member of
this body to see to it that any Member has a right to raise amendments
about this bill.
I may vote against all the amendments, but if we reach a point here,
Mr. President--and I say this to ask a question of the Democratic
leader--if we reach the level where we end up becoming sort of a mirror
image of the House, the other body, where we deprive the minority, as
the rules of the House allow, to cut off debate where the will of the
majority prevails, then we turn this institution into nothing more than
a mirror image of the institution down the hall. But in this body it is
something different. Here, the rights of the minority are to be
protected. And so the right to offer amendments, to be heard, is
sacrosanct when dealing with the U.S. Senate.

So it is with a deep sense of regret that I inform my colleagues, who
have worked hard on this bill, that I will oppose a cloture motion. I
hope other Democrats who support this bill will do likewise, so that we
can get back to the business of debating this bill, take the day or 2
that it needs to be debated here, let the amendments be offered, let us
defeat them if we have a majority here, and get about the business of
passing this legislation so that this Congress might deal with product
liability legislation.
I raise that, Mr. President, in the form of a question to my
colleague, the Democratic leader, because I am saddened by this. Why
are we filing cloture on this bill? We are coming this close to, for
the first time, dealing with tort reform, really dealing with this
issue, not in as comprehensive a way as some would like, but a real
chance for the first time ever. And you are taking people like me who
support this bill and asking me to vote in a way that would disallow my
colleagues from offering amendments on this legislation and thereby
killing this bill. It will destroy this bill on tort reform over this
procedure.
So I raise the question to the Democratic leader, if in fact it is
not unwittingly maybe what the majority leader, who has offered the
cloture motion, is achieving by forcing those of us who support this
bill to oppose a cloture motion and then depriving us of legislation
being heard and fully debated?
Mr. DASCHLE. Well, the Senator from Connecticut has demonstrated his
characteristic eloquence again. I would answer in the affirmative. I do
not

[[Page S7568]]

know what motivation there may have been on the part of the majority
leader, but I must say this, that it complicates dramatically the
position of those who support this legislation, complicates it
dramatically. As the Senator from Connecticut correctly points out, it
could actually kill the very bill they are trying to pass.
Now, for those of us who want to protect Senators' rights, we are
surprised and I guess somewhat amazed at the actions just taken by the
majority. Keep in mind, if we pass cloture, all relevant amendments
will be barred. And yet our Republican colleagues have already laid an
amendment down, an amendment, I might add, that nobody has seen. You
talk about a legislative pig in a poke; there isn't a Senator on this
side, maybe with one exception, who has seen the amendment just laid
down by the majority leader--not one, with one exception perhaps. I
have not talked to Senator Rockefeller.
So I am astounded that our Republican colleagues would say, ``We want
our amendments, but we don't want you to have any. We're going to pass
our amendment, but on the chance that you could pass one of yours,
we're going to preclude them all.''
Mr. President, the Senate cannot work that way. As the Senator from
Connecticut just pointed out, we are acting more and more like the
House of Representatives. If any one of our colleagues wishes to run,
let them declare their candidacy. There are all kinds of open seats,
uncontested seats, on the other side. Go run. But if you want to be a
U.S. Senator, live up to the responsibilities of the U.S. Senate. This
is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world.
How deliberative can we be when, vote after vote, amendment after
amendment, bill after bill, this side is precluded from offering
amendments either because the majority leader pulls the bill or they
file cloture immediately upon filing? That cannot work, Mr. President.
So I appreciate the wisdom of the Senator from Connecticut, and I
must say the courage, because clearly there could be Senators who
misinterpret, were it not for his eloquent explanation just now, why he
is going to work to protect Senators' rights.
I must say, there will be Senators on the other side who will want
their rights protected at some point. Majority or minority, it does not
matter, it happens to all of us.
So I appreciate the position taken by the Senator from Connecticut. I
hope all of our colleagues have heard his explanation and his reasons.
And I hope a lot of our Republican colleagues will join us. Cloture
must be defeated. We must protect Senators' rights, and we must protect
the institution of the U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this Senator is puzzled, truly puzzled, by
the remarks which he has just had the privilege of hearing. The
minority leader protests that we cannot have a debate on product
liability because cloture has been filed on this substitute amendment.
He is joined by one of the supporters of the bill, the senior Senator
from Connecticut, who evidently wants a debate on product liability.
But it is overwhelmingly evident from the remarks of the Senator from
Massachusetts, the Senator from Illinois, and the responses to those
remarks on the part of the minority leader, that they do not have the
slightest interest in a debate on product liability--not the slightest
interest in a debate on product liability.
They want a debate on their agenda. And they want a debate on their
agenda whether it has already occupied weeks of the Senate's time or
not, whether they have already been offered a debate on that agenda or
not in a reasonable time, at which they could be taken up as individual
matters.
No. The net result, Mr. President, of the remarks of the minority
leader is that they wish the right, at any time and under any set of
circumstances, to set the agenda of the Senate, the subject matter that
the Senate will be debating, and they want to engage in that agenda not
once, not twice, but on an unlimited basis whenever they wish to bring
it up.
The Senator from Illinois implied, at least, that he wanted another
debate on what he calls ``campaign reform,'' on a proposal blatantly
unconstitutional, a proposal clearly violating the free speech
guarantees in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, a debate which the Senate had for more than 2 weeks and a
debate which the Senator from Illinois and the minority leader lost--
lost only after threatening a filibuster themselves against any
campaign reform advocated by a majority of the Members on this side,
campaign reforms based on seeing to it that individuals did not have to
contribute to campaigns with which they did not agree, campaign reform
based on bringing light into the source of the kind of money that so
devastated and discredited the Presidential election of 1996.
Then the Senator from Illinois, and I believe the Senator from
Massachusetts, spoke about tobacco legislation. Tobacco legislation,
Mr. President? Does my memory fail me? Did we not debate tobacco
legislation for the better part of 4 weeks on a bill relating to
tobacco? I believe that we did. And I believe that the positions taken
by most of the Members on the other side of the aisle ended up
unsuccessful. And so what have we had since then? Four weeks is not
enough?
Immediately thereafter, they attempted to redebate tobacco on another
issue important to the people of the United States. They have now
destroyed the debate on a bill for the support of the Department of
Agriculture and all of our agricultural across the United States by
insisting that we can't debate agriculture for 2 days and pass a bill
without having another 4, 6 or 8 weeks on their tobacco agenda.
The Senator from Illinois says that nothing was done with respect to
education. I seem to remember at least a week, maybe 2 weeks, debating
the subject of reform of education in the United States. In fact, I
believe it was just 2 weeks ago that we passed a bill on that subject
and sent it to the President who has determined that he will veto. This
Senator proposed to this body a true reform in the way in which we deal
with education, one that would have trusted our State education
officials, our local education officials, our teachers and our parents
to make decisions about the education of their children without the
constant interference of bureaucrats in Washington, DC, who impose more
than half of the rules regulating the conduct in our schools, while
coming up with 7 or 8 percent of the money. Not a single Member on that
side of the aisle was willing to vote for that proposal, and they said
the entire education reform bill would be filibustered to death if it
were included in any bill sent to the President of the United States.
Oh, no, Mr. President, we have debated education reform. We have
passed in this body true education reform. I don't think at this point
that there is much point in going over it again.
Here today we were debating a vitally important appropriations bill
for veterans, for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We
had a thoughtful debate, dividing both parties on the space station. We
were about to debate mortgage limitations and do the business of the
Senate when the minority leader says, oh, no; we are not going to let
the majority of the Appropriations Committee go through an
appropriations bill. We will debate our proposal for health care
changes, and we will do it right now.
Now, he did that in spite of the fact that when I was sitting in your
seat as the acting President of the Senate, the majority leader 3 weeks
ago came down here and offered a full opportunity to the minority to
debate their health care proposals together with our health care
proposals and to have direct votes on those proposals before the end of
this month of July 1998. That offer was totally rejected by the very
people who now demand we engage in that debate today as a part of an
important bill on a totally and completely different subject.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GORTON. No, the Senator will not yield. The Senator will not
yield.
So this Senate has debated a change in our campaign reform laws. It
has debated education reform and passed a bill on the subject. It has
debated tobacco legislation. And it is more than

[[Page S7569]]

willing and will debate health care legislation with the proposals of
both parties considered in that connection.
But no majority party, no majority leader, has ever permitted a set
of circumstances under which the minority not only determines the
agenda, but when the agenda is to be debated and how many times it is
to be debated, even though that prevents a debate on vitally important
appropriations bills for the conduct of the government, and in this
case a debate on an important product liability bill. As the manager of
that bill, had the minority leader said we would like to do what we did
just 2 years ago and have a debate and several amendments about product
liability, the way that the senior Senator from Connecticut was
speaking about the subject a few moments ago, I have no doubt that that
desire would be granted. I have no doubt that proposed changes in the
substitute bill that is now before the Senate would have been debated.
I think those proposed changes would have been defeated.
Two years ago this Congress did spend, I think, a full week or more
on a much broader and more all-encompassing product liability bill. It
was debated then by the minority party as a product liability bill
without the attempt to move on to a totally and completely unrelated
subject. It was passed. It was sent to the President of the United
States for reasons that this Senator did not consider to be
particularly persuasive. The President of the United States vetoed that
bill.
Then the junior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and
I worked diligently for almost 2 years in coming up with a bill to be
proposed here on that subject with which the President of the United
States would agree and with which the President of the United States
does agree. We are now told that an attempt actually to debate that
subject and to vote on this bill is somehow or another an infringement
on the rights of the minority party.
I heard during the course of the last week over this, the minority
party does want one change in the bill on product liability having to
do with guns. That amendment, I am informed by the Parliamentarian,
will be germane after cloture. It can be debated and it can be voted
upon. For all practical purposes, any limitation of an already modest
bill on product liability can be debated and voted upon after cloture.
It is difficult to persuade this Senator that anyone on this side of
the aisle wants to expand this product liability bill and cause it to
cover a greater field related to product liability than it does at the
present time.
That was the pretense set forth in the initial remarks of the
minority leader, that he wishes a fuller and more complete debate on
product liability. But that pretense was shattered instantly by the
Senators who asked him to yield to questions and simply stated, and I
repeat it again, that they wanted to debate subjects totally unrelated
to product liability. Three of the four subjects they mentioned have
already been debated at length on the floor of this Senate and
decided--decided in a way they don't like--but decided pursuant to the
rules of the Senate of the United States.
The fourth will clearly be debated, will be debated on its own
merits, and will be debated at a time at which both the members of the
minority party and the members of the majority party can set forth
their proposals and have the merits of their proposal both fully
debated and determined and decided under the rules of the Senate.
This artificial fury that we have listened to here for most of the
last hour is directed partly at party politics and partly as a highly
skillful way of destroying a product liability bill to which the
President of the United States, the leader of their party, has agreed.
It may well be successful. The Senator from Connecticut is right if he
refuses to support a bill that he has supported through his entire
career because it won't also carry debates on campaign laws, health
care, education, and tobacco, then unfortunately all of the work of
which he was a part, and the Senator from West Virginia was a part, and
many of us were a part of on this side, and the President of the United
States was a part, may be wasted.
I think that may very well be the goal of those who engage in this
artificial outrage about whether or not we should deal with product
liability for a few days and debate that issue, finish it, have a vote
on it, finish our appropriations bills, have votes on each of them, and
deal with a health care debate before the end of this month. That only
is the desire of the majority leader in the normal management of the
Senate, just as it was the desire under identical circumstances when
the majority leader was on the other side of the aisle.
It is probably a more open debate on issues of interest to the
minority than I could remember during the course of Congresses in which
my party was in the minority. But this rhetoric this afternoon here has
little, if anything, to do with product liability, or a debate on this
product liability bill, or attempts to improve or to amend this product
liability bill with product liability provisions. It has to do with the
demand of the minority leader that he determine not only the agenda,
not only the subjects that the Senate will debate, but the length of
time that debate will take, the number of times the debates on
particular subjects will be taken.
The Senate cannot operate under those sets of circumstances. It ought
not to operate under those circumstances. I have little hope for those
who simply oppose any legal reform whatsoever, even when the President
has agreed to it. I do hope that those who believe in product
liability, those who were on the other side on each of the three issues
that have already been debated, and those who will have the opportunity
to debate health care when they wish to do so, will have the courage to
see to it that we are able to debate this product liability bill and
reach a conclusion on it in a reasonable period of time, so that we can
go on to other subjects that are of importance to the Senate and to the
American people.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague. I am
disappointed in the minority leader's statement, and also its tone. A
lot of us came back from the one-week break for the Fourth of July and
said we have work to do, we have appropriations bills to pass, we have
product liability reform bill to pass, we have the IRS reform bill. And
then somebody says this is an unbelievable procedure. No, it is not. We
are moving to a conference report. That has priority under the rules of
the Senate. We are moving to a conference report on a bill that already
passed the House and the Senate, and, hopefully, the President will
sign it. I think it may be one of the most notable and significant
achievements of this Congress.
Then our colleagues say, wait a minute, you are denying us an
opportunity to offer an amendment. I disagree. The Senator from
Arkansas had an amendment on the space station that lasted most of the
afternoon. We were clearly willing to take amendments. We had an
amendment that Senator Kohl from Wisconsin and I were going to offer
dealing with FHA. That was bipartisan. We were trying to do the
Senate's work. As a matter of fact, the Senate was planning on staying
on the VA appropriations bill so we could finish tonight, tomorrow, or
the next day, to do our work. The minority leader tried to place an
amendment--or did file an amendment called the Patients' Bill of Rights
on the appropriations bill. He has a right to do so, but he knows it is
not the time or place to do it.
For the information of our colleagues and the viewing public, the
majority leader has already said we will take up the so-called issue
dealing with health care and the regulation of managed care, with the
very nice title of ``The Patients' Bill of Rights.'' We will take it up
this month. But in the meantime, let's finish our work, let's pass the
IRS reform bill, let's pass appropriations bills.
We are willing to have a decent amount of time on the so-called
Patients' Bill of Rights this month and to consider alternatives. The
Senator from Massachusetts has an alternative. I am working on an
alternative. I may have a couple of other ideas. And we are willing to
consider relevant amendments. I think it is a mistake to do it

[[Page S7570]]

all month. Maybe some want to. Maybe they think there is political
fodder to be gained. Some of us know we have some work to do. That is
our intention.
The majority leader made it clear that we have work to do. We are
going to be voting on Mondays and Fridays. We should be passing bills.
We have only passed 2 appropriations bills; we have 13 to do. The House
passed five, and next week they will probably pass another five. We
are, in the meantime, hoping to get two bills done this week.
Unfortunately, instead, the minority said we need to put the Patients'
Bill of Rights on one and then the smoking bill--even though we have
spent 4 weeks on the tobacco bill. Maybe if they came up with a better
alternative, we could pass a bill. But they came up with one that would
cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and I think we rightfully
rejected it.
They said, ``We don't have an opportunity to debate our issues.''
They had 4 weeks on the so-called tobacco bill. Campaign finance reform
has been in the Senate on numerous occasions, including this Congress.
We insisted on having one amendment that said campaign contributions
would be voluntary. Most of our colleagues on the Democrat side said,
``No, no, we can't have voluntary campaign contributions. That would be
unheard of. We can't have that kind of reform.''

One of our colleagues said that the Senate can't work this way.
Really, what they are trying to say is, ``We want to have product
liability reform on the floor, and we want to dump our entire Democrat
agenda on,'' half of which they tried and could not get passed
previously. They want to dump it on this bill or on the appropriations
bills, and they will keep trying until maybe something will stick.
And then they said, ``Wait a minute, if you file cloture''--cloture,
for the information of people not aware of the Senate rules, it would
eliminate a lot of extraneous amendments. They are acting like that
hasn't happened before. George Mitchell, as majority leader, was the
instigator of the quick-draw cloture motion. He would file cloture so
fast, it would make your head spin. He did it time and time again. I
don't like cloture. I think it happens to be too restrictive.
The Senator from Washington, who was managing the bill, has said we
are perfectly willing to work with colleagues if they have amendments
they want to discuss on product liability. We can work that up and come
up with an agreement. Obviously, our colleagues on the minority side
said, ``No. We want to put our whole agenda on. We want another debate
on tobacco and the Patients' Bill of Rights, and debate on schools or
education''--you name it. They want to put everything on there except
product liability.
In other words, they don't really want product liability. They have
that right, but we also have a right to try to get the Senate's
business done. So we are going to pass the conference report on IRS
reform. We are going to take that up tomorrow. Again, I hope all of my
colleagues will support that. We are going to have a vote on cloture on
product liability reform. If colleagues are really interested in having
legitimate amendments dealing with that issue, they could make a
proposal and we could probably work that out--if we keep the amendments
relevant. Are we going to say you can dump your entire agenda on it?
No. At least it is my hope that we don't do that. That is the reason we
have cloture--to keep amendments germane, finish our work, and be done
with it.
So I am disappointed in the rhetoric and the tone that we heard
tonight. I hope we will come back and say, wait a minute, we only have
4 weeks this month and a few weeks in September--all of the month of
September, and maybe part of October to finish the Senate's business.
We have to pass a lot of appropriations bills. I still hope we will get
a budget. I hope we will pass tax relief. So we have some significant
reform that needs to happen, and we need to do the work of the Senate.
I notice my friend from Massachusetts on the floor. He has a bill
called the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am perfectly willing to debate
that issue. We are willing to spend some time on that issue and give
colleagues a vote on the Democrat proposal, which has been recently
introduced--I guess today--on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. It
doesn't belong on an appropriations bill. There is a point of order.
That is legislation on an appropriations bill. That is the reason we
have the rule. It does not belong there. The majority leader said we
will take it up sometime this month, and with some amendments dealing
with that issue, relevant health care amendments.

If our colleagues are just interested in rhetorical flourishes and
maybe campaign issues, they can make that attempt. But that won't
legislate. That won't change the law. If they are interested in
changing the law, I urge them to work with us. Let's come up with an
agreement where we can bring the issue up, have an adequate amount of
debate on the so-called Patients' Bill of Rights, and have different
alternatives considered and voted on.
I make that point. This side is willing. We had a significant debate
on tobacco. We are willing to have a debate on the so-called Patients'
Bill of Rights. We have had debate on campaign reform. We have had
debate on education. Now we have to finish the appropriations bills. We
have to do the work of the Senate. It is going to take both sides
working together to make that happen.
I hope we will have greater cooperation exhibited in the future for
the Senate to really get its work done in a timely, efficient, and
productive manner.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am encouraged certainly by the comments
of the acting floor leader now that he says we will have an opportunity
to debate the issues on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We look forward
to that opportunity. But I will just take a few moments of the Senate's
time--I will not take a great deal of time--to really correct the
Record.
As the Senator from Oklahoma remembers, and should remember very
clearly, the U.S. Senate overturned in 1995 the longstanding rule that
we would not have legislation on appropriations. And it was the
Republican Party that overturned that concept. Every single Republican,
including the Senator from Oklahoma, voted to overturn the ruling of
the chair and allow legislation on appropriations. So, now we have
legislation on appropriations. I think it is regrettable, and should
the Republican leader want to alter and change that, I think he would
find that there would be strong support for that.
But, Mr. President, I want to get back and talk for just a moment or
two about what the issues really are. We have just listened to our
friends from the States of Washington and Oklahoma speak on the floor
about what cannot be done, or what should not be done.
Earlier this afternoon, in a time-honored process and procedure, the
minority leader, Senator Daschle, sent to the desk of the U.S. Senate
an amendment to provide for a Patients' Bill of Rights, a recognition
that in this country too often those who are making health care
decisions are actually insurance company accountants rather than
doctors. Too often the doctors, who represent the best interests of the
patients, are caught in this extraordinary dilemma and understand that
they are put between a rock and a hard place. Too often in our country
we find that managed care is mismanaged care. And we have heard
examples of this on the Senate floor time and time again over the
period of these past weeks. I dare say that we have had few days that
have gone by when Senators have not spoken about particular tragedies
that have been experienced in their States.
Senator Daschle's amendment should have allowed the Senate to debate
the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights, debate it this afternoon,
debate it this evening, debate it tomorrow, but debate it and reach
some kind of a conclusion on the issue. The President has spoken. He
spoke as recently as this afternoon in support of the legislation that
was included in Senator Daschle's proposal.
That is what this is about. We have that opportunity to debate
managed care reform. The Democratic leader offered the Patients' Bill
of Rights. It is an issue that Republicans and Democrats across the
country want us to do

[[Page S7571]]

something about. We are being denied that opportunity because the
majority leader pulled the bill down and put it back on the calendar,
as was his wont to do, and we are again denied the opportunity to
debate this critically important issue.
So our efforts to move toward that debate have been temporarily
deferred--deferred perhaps for a day or two, but certainly not longer
than a day or two. We are going to come back to that issue and keep
coming back. And our friends on the majority side better get used to
it. They may get into a situation where they are going to put
appropriations bill after appropriations bill after appropriations bill
back on the calendar because the Senate will want to debate a Patients'
Bill of Rights, and the Republican Leadership will want to continue to
deny us that opportunity. Mr. President, we will continue to demand
debate because the American people are demanding it.
You can say, Why are we in this kind of a situation? Why aren't we
following a regular order, the procedure that everyone learns in civics
class and in their study of American history, that says when
legislation is introduced, it goes to the committee, the committee
marks it up, it comes to the floor, it is acted upon on the floor, the
two bodies get together in a conference, and, if they agree, they send
it to the President of the United States?
The reason the Senator from South Dakota offered the amendment is
because we could not get a markup and we could not get a hearing in the
appropriate committee. We were denied that opportunity--denied it,
turned down, thumbs down to the Senators who supported that
legislation. No, you can't have a hearing on that legislation in our
committee. The Republicans told those of us on the Labor and Human
Resources Committee that not only can't you have that hearing, but, if
you introduce the legislation, we will not give you a markup on it. We
will not let you have a debate in the committee. We are going to
obstruct the whole committee process so you will not be able to advance
your issues, and the issues of the American people.
I did not hear that talked about by the Senator from Washington. I
did not hear that talked about from the Senator from Oklahoma. The
majority leader has put forward several lists of his priorities for the
session, and the Patients' Bill of Rights is not on any one of them--
not on any one of them. The Republican leadership wants to stonewall--
stonewall on this issue, which is of such great importance to families
all across the country. That is why the Democratic leader offered this
amendment, because the Republican leadership is trying to stonewall it.
So, Mr. President, are we going to say--those of us who favor patient
protection legislation--that we are going to be denied consideration of
the committee, we are going to be denied a markup in the committee, and
we are going to be denied floor debate by the majority leader and the
Republican leadership, that we are not even going to consider this
issue in the U.S. Senate?
No. That is not the kind of U.S. Senate that our Founding Fathers
intended, nor has today been one of our best and greatest days. But we
are going to debate this issue, and we are going to act on it. Make no
mistake about it.
And we are going to come right back after that and consider an
increase in the minimum wage. Our Republican friends better hear that
as well. We can't get the markup on the increase in the minimum wage
for workers in this country--workers who have not benefited by the
extraordinary explosion of the stock markets and the extraordinary
increase in the accumulation of wealth. These are men and women who are
working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, primarily single women,
primarily women who are heads of households with children. This is a
women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is a fairness issue. And we
are going to consider it this year. We know Republican leaders are
opposed to that.
What else is new? They were opposed to it last time. And we were able
to be successful. It wasn't on the Republican agenda the last time we
saw an increase in the minimum wage. The increase in the minimum wage
has never been on the Republican agenda. Yet we have been successful in
doing so. And we will be successful in doing so this time.
So that is why we find ourselves where we do this evening. And here
the Democratic leader offers our amendment, makes a brief comment--a
brief comment--about it. And then, bingo, the bill is pulled. Now we
hear from the Republican leadership that, Oh, well, you objected to a
consent agreement that could get this proposal before the Senate and to
act on it.
I would love to take the time of the Senate to go through this, but
let me just include the appropriate parts of this proposal. Let me just
mention a very interesting aspect of the consent agreement, to which
the Senator from Washington referred. I asked him to yield so we could
go through this agreement together. He refused the opportunity to do
so. I can understand why, too. I might have wanted to do the same if I
had to defend this proposed agreement. This is what was included in the
agreement. And I will include the whole agreement. But let me read a
section:

I ask unanimous consent that the Chair not entertain a
motion to adjourn or recess for the August recess prior to a
vote on or in relation to the majority leader's bill and the
minority leader's amendment.

And that following those votes:

It be in order for the majority leader--

Listen to this--

to return the legislation to the calendar.

``Return the legislation to the calendar.''
And the Senator from Washington has the audacity to say on the floor
of the Senate that the consent that was offered by the majority leader
would have actually gotten these measures up?
You know what this proposal is effectively saying? This says that
after the votes, even if we win the Patients' Bill of Rights with a
majority of the Members of the Senate, it will be in order for the
majority leader to--send it to the President of the United States if
the House has already acted on it? No. To send it to the House of
Representatives if they have not acted on it? No. Under the majority
leader's proposal, if we pass it, after a debate, the majority leader
sends it right back up there to the desk. It is over. Good-bye,
farewell, so long, to protections for the patients of this country.
Now, that is a farce, an absolute farce. I could go through the whole
consent agreement, but it should not be given any more attention
because it is a farce offered, evidently, only to make a political
point.
The Patients' Bill of Rights is a commonsense plan that guarantees
fundamental protections that every good insurance company already
provides and that every American who pays insurance premiums deserves
to have when serious illness strikes.
But the Republican leader's position is to protect the insurance
industry instead of protecting the patients. They know they cannot do
that in the light of day, so their strategy is to work behind closed
doors to kill the bill, keep it bottled up in committee, no markup, no
floor debate, no vote. That has been the strategy. Ask any Member of
this body whether they can contest that. They cannot. No markup, no
floor debate, no vote, no fair time agreement.
Mr. Willis Gradison, the head of the Health Insurance Association of
America, when asked in an interview published in the Rocky Mountain
News to sum up the strategy of the businesses opposed to patient
protections, replied:

There's a lot to be said for ``just say no.''

``Just say no.'' The author of the article goes on to report that at
a strategy session last month called by a top aide to Senator Don
Nickles, Gradison advised Republicans to avoid taking public positions
that could draw fire during the election campaign. Opponents will rely
on Republican leaders in both Chambers to keep managed care legislation
bottled up.
Well, they have done a good job of bottling it up tonight. We would
have had an opportunity for debate if they had not pulled down the
underlying legislation. But, no, they bottled it up by sending the bill
right back to the calendar.
That has been the strategy for the past year--keep the Patients' Bill
of Rights bottled up, engage in a campaign of misinformation and
disinformation, cater to the special interests, ignore insurance
company abuses, and ignore the will of the

[[Page S7572]]

American people. We are seeing that strategy in this Chamber this
evening.
Now, Mr. President, the rights that are included in our legislation
are commonsense components of quality care that every family believes
they were promised when they signed up for insurance coverage and paid
their premiums. Virtually all of the protections that this legislation
provides already apply to Medicare, are recommended by the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners, which is a bipartisan group, or
were recommended by the President's Advisory Commission, another
nonpartisan group, or even established as voluntary standards by the
managed care industry itself through their trade association.
These commonsense rights include access to appropriate specialists
when a patient's condition requires specialty care. It would allow
people with chronic illnesses or disabilities to have referrals to the
specialists they need on a regular basis.
It assures that patients whose plans cover prescription drugs can
have access to drugs needed to save their life or protect their health
even if the drugs are not included on their plan's restricted list.
They are assured that persons suffering from serious symptoms can go
to the nearest emergency room without worrying that their plan will
deny coverage. No patients with the symptoms of a heart attack should
be forced to put their life at risk by driving past the emergency room
down the street to the managed care hospital farther away, and that is
happening here in the United States tonight.
No patient with symptoms of a stroke should be forced to delay
treatment to the point where paralysis and disability are permanent
because an accountant in the managed care headquarters does not respond
promptly and appropriately.
Reforms must protect the integrity of the doctor-patient
relationship. Gag clauses and improper incentive arrangements should
have no place in American medicine. They are absolutely appalling, Mr.
President.
This amendment only says that any reform worthy of the name must
guarantee that insurance plans meet the special needs of women and
children. Women should have access to gynecologists for needed
services. No woman with breast cancer should be forced to endure a
drive-through mastectomy against the advice of her doctor or be denied
reconstructive surgery following breast cancer surgery if that is her
choice.
No child with a childhood cancer should be told that a urologist who
happens to be in the plan's network will treat him, even if that
urologist has no experience or expertise with children or with that
type of cancer.
Patients should have the right to appeal their plans' decisions to
independent third parties. Today, if a health plan breaks its promise,
the only recourse for most patients is to go to court, a time-
consuming, costly process that may not provide relief in time to save a
life or prevent a disability.
Independent review was recommended unanimously by the President's
Commission. Republicans and Democrats alike recommended independent
review unanimously. It has worked successfully in Medicare for more
than three decades. Families deserve the basic fairness that only a
timely, impartial appeal can provide.
Without such a mechanism, any rights guaranteed to patients exist on
paper only, and they are often worth no more than the paper on which
they are printed. When the issues are sickness and health, and often as
serious as life and death, no health insurance company should be
allowed to be both judge and jury.
When health plan's misconduct results in serious injury or death,
patients and their families should be able to hold those plans
accountable for their actions. Every other industry in America can be
held responsible for its actions. Why should health plans whose
decisions can truly mean the difference between life and death enjoy
this unique immunity?
We had a debate on the issues of immunity not long ago with regard to
the tobacco industry, and this body voted overwhelmingly not to give
immunity to tobacco. These health plans have immunity today under the
ERISA provisions. That is not right and we ought to address it. Every
day and every night that we delay it, the health, the good health of
American families is threatened. You would think, when you listen to
the Republican leadership talk about scheduling, that it doesn't matter
a twiddle whether this debate goes on today or tomorrow or next week or
next month or next year. It does. And every day we delay means that
more families' health protections are threatened.
Under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act, patients whose
lives have been devastated or destroyed by the reckless behavior of
their health plan have no ability to go to court to obtain appropriate
redress. ERISA preempts all State remedies, so patients are limited to
Federal ERISA remedies, which will only cover the cost of the procedure
for which the plan failed to pay.
Just the cost of the procedure--some remedy. You can be crippled for
life by cancer of the spine because the plan refused to authorize a
test costing a few hundred dollars to detect the cancer in its early
stages, and all you can get back to help support your family is the
cost of the test. That is no remedy. That is wrong. And our bill does
something about it.
During the debate on the tobacco legislation, as I mentioned,
Republicans and Democrats alike voted overwhelmingly to support the
proposition that no industry in America should be exempt from
accountability because of its actions, but because of the ERISA
preemption, one industry alone--the health insurance industry--enjoys
this protection. That is wrong and today the Senate should have the
opportunity to say it is wrong.
ERISA preemption applies to the millions of Americans who get their
coverage through a private employer, but it does not apply to 23
million State and local employees and their families. It does not apply
to Medicaid patients. It does not apply to Medicare. And we have not
heard a shred of evidence that the ability of State and local
employees, Medicaid patients and Medicare patients to sue their health
plans has imposed significant costs on those plans. That case has not
been made.
Mr. President, 23 million State and county employees have that kind
of ability to sue, and we have not seen that the costs of their plans
have been higher than others. So I challenge my colleagues who oppose
this provision to explain to the American people why State and local
government employees should be able to hold their taxpayer-financed
health plans accountable if they are injured or killed by the plan's
behavior, but equally hard-working Americans employed by private
companies should be denied this basic right. Explain that to me.
Our legislation simply removes the Federal preemption provision. It
creates no Federal right to sue and lets States take whatever steps
they see fit. So many of those who oppose this legislation are fond of
talking about the need to keep Washington out of decisions by States,
but when the profits of special interests are at stake, it suddenly
becomes better for bureaucrats in Washington rather than elected State
and local officials to decide what is best for people in their State.
This amendment should not be controversial for any Member of the Senate
who is serious about protecting patients from insurance company abuse.
It is supported by the American Medical Association--and more than 170
other organizations, Mr. President. Let me just give you a few.
The Patients' Bill of Rights is supported by the American Medical
Association, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the American
Cancer Society, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the
National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Association
of Children's Hospitals, the AFL-CIO, the American Association of
Retired Persons and many other groups representing physicians, health
care providers, children, women, families, consumers, persons with
disabilities, small businesses, Americans with serious illnesses,
religious organizations, and working families.
Find me another piece of pending legislation that has that kind of
support. But we are told we cannot even debate it tonight. We are told
we cannot even consider it tonight. We are told we cannot even move
this legislation to have

[[Page S7573]]

a rollcall vote to see who is for it and who is against it.
It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to come together in
support of legislation. But they have done so to end the flagrant
abuses that hurt so many families. The choice is clear. The Senate
should stand with patients, families and physicians, not the well-
heeled special interests that put profits ahead of patients.
The American people know what is going on. Movie audiences across the
country erupt in cheers when actress Helen Hunt attacks the abuses of
managed care in the film ``As Good As It Gets.'' Helen Hunt won an
Oscar for that performance, but managed care is not winning any Oscars
from the American people. Everyone knows that managed care today is not
as good as it gets.
It is time for Congress to end the abuses of patients and physicians
by HMOs and managed care health plans. Too often, managed care is
mismanaged care. No amount of distortions or smokescreens by insurance
companies can change those facts. A Patients' Bill of Rights can stop
these abuses, and let's pass it before more patients have to suffer.
We want to tell our friends on the other side of the aisle that they
are going to see this amendment day after day after day after day,
until this body has a chance to debate it and vote on it. Let me give
the assurance of that.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. I ask that I be allowed to proceed as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________