Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 111 (Monday, August 2, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 111 (Monday, August 2, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9978-S9982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 1233, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1233) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I believe we have a unanimous consent
request now and some motions that we will need to make. It might take a
few minutes to get through this.
First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daschle be recognized to
offer his amendment relative to disaster assistance and, following the
reporting by the clerk, the amendment be laid aside and Senator Cochran
be recognized to offer his disaster assistance amendment. I further ask
unanimous consent that debate run concurrently on both amendments, with
the votes occurring in a stacked sequence at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, the
first in relation to the Cochran amendment to be followed by a vote in
relation to the Daschle amendment, as amended, if amended, with 2
minutes of debate prior to each vote. I further ask unanimous consent
that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes.
I ask unanimous consent that following those votes, Senator Jeffords
be recognized to offer his amendment relative to dairy and immediately
following the reporting by the clerk, Senator Lott be recognized to
send a cloture motion to the desk and that cloture vote occur at 9:30
a.m. on Wednesday, with the mandatory quorum being waived
notwithstanding rule XXII.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KOHL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. Since objection has been heard, I have no alternative other
than to offer a series of amendments. This is important because we do
need to move forward with the Agriculture appropriations bill. We
brought it up earlier, this past month. It became embroiled in an
unrelated issue, and we had to set it aside.
The farmers in America and the consumers of America and the children
of America are depending on this very important legislation going
through the process. We are talking about $60.7 billion, probably more
than that by the time it is completed, for agriculture in America. We
need to get it completed.
I know there are some issues that cause a lot of concern: How do you
deal with a disaster in America, when do you deal with it, and how
would any assistance be apportioned among the farmers that have been
impacted by disasters in a number of ways. And also, of course, we have
this very important dairy issue. I have advised Senator Cochran,
Senator Jeffords, Senator Kohl, and Senator Daschle to make sure
everybody understands what I am doing here. I am doing it because I do
think it is so important that we move forward on this bill.

Amendment No. 1499

(Purpose: To provide emergency and income loss assistance to
agricultural producers)

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Daschle and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Harkin,
for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wellstone,
Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an amendment
numbered 1499.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 1500 To Amendment No. 1499

(Purpose: To make a perfecting amendment)

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Cochran and others, I
send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S9979]]

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Cochran,
proposes an amendment numbered 1500 to amendment No. 1499.

Motion To Recommit With Amendment No. 1501

(Purpose: To restrict the use of certain funds appropriated to the
Agricultural Marketing Service)

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I now move to recommit the bill with
instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment, and I send the
motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion and the
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] moves to recommit
the pending bill to the Appropriations Committee with
instructions to report back forthwith with the following
amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 21, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel of the Department of Agriculture to implement--
(1) sections 143 or 147(3) of the Agricultural Market
Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7253, 7256(3));
(2) the final decision for the consolidation and reform of
Federal milk marketing orders, as published in the Federal
Register on April 2, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 16025); or
(3) section 738 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-30).

Cloture Motion

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the cloture motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
motion regarding the dairy compact amendment:
Trent Lott, Jim Jeffords, Susan M. Collins, John H.
Chafee, Fred Thompson, Richard Shelby, Olympia J.
Snowe, Christopher Bond, Jesse Helms, Paul Coverdell,
John Ashcroft, Strom Thurmond, John Breaux, Jay
Rockefeller, Arlen Specter, and Patrick Leahy.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I now withdraw the motion to recommit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
Pending is the second-degree amendment offered by the majority leader
on behalf of Senator Cochran.
Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators who may have missed a
step or two there, a cloture motion was just filed on the dairy
amendment. The vote on the cloture motion will occur Wednesday under
Rule XXII, unless agreement can be reached to set a time certain for
that vote.
I encourage Senators on all sides of this issue to communicate with
each other and see if there is some accommodation that could be worked
out so that both sides can find it acceptable. In the meantime, it is
my hope that we can continue to debate the important disaster relief
amendments.
I thank my colleagues. I am delighted to yield the floor to the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi, or to Senator Daschle if he has
any comment at this time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will be very brief. I thank the
majority leader for moving this process along to accommodate a
procedure that takes into account a number of very important matters
that we hope to resolve this week. I think this procedure will do it. I
also note for my colleagues that I designate the Senator from Iowa, the
ranking member of the committee, to be my designee in offering the
amendment.
The yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, as I understand the parliamentary
situation at this time, pending before the Senate is a second-degree
amendment to an amendment offered on behalf of the Democratic leader to
provide disaster assistance and economic assistance to our Nation's
farmers.
The amendment, which is the amendment in the second degree offered by
the majority leader on my behalf, provides a wide range of benefits to
individual farmers and ranchers who, under the terms of this
legislation, are eligible for disaster assistance because of economic
losses and disasters that have occurred by reason of vagaries in the
weather and other conditions that will cause these farmers to undergo
unusual hardship.
We think this amendment is better and a more sensitive approach to
the real needs of those involved in production agriculture than the
proposal coming from the Democratic leader. Here is why. Most of the
funds that are appropriated in this amendment for economic and disaster
assistance go directly to the agriculture producer who has been
victimized by floods or drought or economic catastrophes affecting his
ability to earn a profit this year.
On the other hand, much of the assistance that is appropriated or
funded in the Democrats' package goes to continue or expand Federal
programs, to enlarge programs. In other words, the money is going to
the Government to expand and administer programs that either have to
work, in some cases, or really do nothing to improve the farmer's
ability to derive income from his labor. So that is a major distinction
that I hope Senators will consider as they try to decide which of these
proposals to support.

As Senators know, most of the funds that go to protect income, or
support the production of agriculture commodities in our country, are
in the form of assistance called AMTA payments. These payments are
transition payments that were begun under the last farm bill to prepare
farmers for the time when predictable subsidies under the old farm bill
program are reduced and then finally eliminated. Over this 5-year
period under this new farm law, the transition payments are made to
help support farmers as they become accustomed to agriculture without
the benefit of the old subsidy payments. Farmers are now free to make
planting decisions, for example, for themselves, as indicated by the
condition of the market and the likelihood of crops being productive
and efficiently produced, rather than what the Government tells them
they should produce under the restraints of Federal law.
Many farmers are beginning to make these decisions and shift from one
program crop to another, without running the risk of losing Federal
Government support. In order to show that the economic conditions and
the market conditions have been so severe as to cause farmers not to be
able to operate profitably under the new transition payment system,
that payment is doubled under the Cochran amendment. And so instead of
receiving $5,000 as a transition payment, a person who is entitled to
that benefit under existing law this year will get twice that amount as
an economic assistance payment from the Federal Government. A total of
$5.54 billion will be paid to agriculture producers for market
transition payments under the Cochran amendment. This is a 100 percent
increase in a producer's 1999 payment under the existing farm bill.
Other benefits that are available to agriculture producers under this
amendment would include $500 million in direct payments to soybean and
oilseed producers; $350 million in assistance to livestock and dairy
producers, to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. The
amendment would also suspend the budget deficit reduction assessment on
sugar producers for the remainder of the farm bill, as long as no
Federal budget deficit exists.
There will be a direct payment provided in this amendment to
producers of quota and non-quota peanuts, equal to 5 percent of the
current loan rate. The Cotton Step Two Export Program is reinstated in
this amendment. There is an increase in the current loan deficiency
payment limit from $75,000 to

[[Page S9980]]

$150,000. There is, additionally, a provision in this bill that
expresses the sense of the Congress, encouraging the President to be
more aggressive in strengthening trade negotiating authority for
American agriculture and expressing the Congress' objectives for future
agriculture trade negotiations. The amendment also requests that the
President evaluate and make recommendations on the effectiveness of our
existing export and food aid programs.
If you add up all of the direct benefits that are payable, they have
been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as amounting to a total
of $6.67 billion for fiscal year 2000. The added cost over the next 3
years, from 2000 to 2004, would add another $309 million to the cost of
the bill, for a total of $6.979 billion in total cost from fiscal year
2000 to 2004, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
Madam President, Senators will remember that when we first brought
this bill from the committee to the floor of the Senate, there was a
great deal of concern about whether or not there should be a disaster
program included in a title of the bill. We had asked the
administration to submit a budget request for any funds that were
expected to be needed. We have had no response whatsoever from the
administration to that request. We attached that as an amendment in the
Committee on Appropriations. We discussed it on the floor of the Senate
when this bill was before the Senate earlier, and I am very distressed
that we have yet to hear any request made by the administration for
this assistance. So in spite of the absence of cooperation in trying to
identify and work together on a program that would be sensitive to the
problems in production agriculture, we are moving to suggest to the
Senate that this is a program that ought to be adopted.
I have additional comments to make. I will be glad to respond to
questions that may arise from Senators on the content of this
legislation to try to answer any questions that others may have. But I
know we will soon have a vote that is scheduled to occur on another
bill that was debated in the Senate earlier today. In an effort to
accommodate friends who have asked for time to talk on their amendment,
I will yield the floor at this time so other Senators may speak.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will yield. I
would like to ask the Senator a question.
Mr. COCHRAN. I would be happy to respond to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. I didn't get a copy of the amendment. What is the bottom
line? What is the total package?
Mr. COCHRAN. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the items I
discussed at $6.67 billion for fiscal year 2000, and the total cost
during fiscal years 2000 to 2004 is scored at $6.979 billion.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, today all across America most people are
doing pretty well. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in years. The
stock market keeps going up. Our gross national product is going up at
a great rate. As we now know, we have a surplus for the first time in
almost 30 years in the Federal budget. We just had a lengthy debate
last week on what we are going to do with that surplus. Our friends on
the other side want to take most of it and give it, through a tax
break, to people mostly in the upper-income brackets.
If you just looked at that, you would think we shouldn't be worried
too much about what is happening in America; things look pretty good.
Out of the glare of Wall Street, far from the floor of the New York
Stock Exchange, sort of silently and quietly, American farmers and
ranchers are losing their businesses. They are at the end of their
rope. Our small towns and communities that dot our countryside are
facing a bleak winter, with the prospect that things will get even
worse after the harvest is in and the snow falls.
The situation facing American agriculture today--according to
bankers, farm economists, and agricultural economists from many of our
universities--is the worst it has been since the Great Depression. We
have to respond to that. We have to respond in a way that is
meaningful. That is what our first-degree amendment does.
I listened to my friend from Mississippi describe this amendment. I
guess my response basically would be, ``Nice try.'' Would it help
farmers? Would the Republican amendment help farmers? Why, sure. Any
little bit would help. Does it get to the underlying problem? Does it
really help get our farmers through this winter and into next year? The
answer is no. It is hopelessly too short.
While I appreciate the effort by my friends on the Republican side to
come up with a last-minute amendment to perhaps put out a smokescreen
on what is really happening in agriculture and what we need to do to
respond to the crisis, it is a nice effort, but it really doesn't do
it. Our hard-working, dedicated, progressive farmers and ranchers
across this country don't just need a little bit of a handout that the
Republican amendment will give them. What they need is a package of
help that will not only get them through this summer and this fall but
through next winter so they can get back on their feet again next year.
You will hear a lot of talk about how one of the problems is our lack
of exports. I just want to point out that even though the United States
has a trade deficit, one sector that earns us money and that has a
positive trade balance is agriculture. But there are those who would
have you believe it is because of the lack of exports that our farmers
are in such bad shape. Here is the chart that puts the lie to that.

For wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans--the major commodities we
export--the exports are fully up this year over what they were in the
previous couple of years. We are exporting more. If we are exporting
more, what is the problem? The problem is, there is no price and
farmers aren't getting anything for their commodities.
Here is what has happened to soybeans just in my State of Iowa since
the fall of 1997: Basically about a 45-percent decrease in the value of
that crop. The same is true with corn. There have been precipitous
drops just in the last year and a half. It is not a lack of total
exports. It is a lack of the money and the price that farmers are
getting.
While we need to get an emergency package of money out to farmers, we
need to do it now. We also have to be about changing the farm policy.
We cannot go on another year under the Freedom to Farm bill and be back
here again next year looking at another package of several billion
dollars. The Freedom to Farm bill has failed miserably. It has failed
our Nation. It has failed our farmers. It has failed our rural
communities.
I have an article that was in the Kansas paper back in 1995 when we
passed the Freedom to Farm bill by my friend from Kansas, Senator
Roberts. He said:

Finally, Freedom to Farm enhances the farmer's total
economic situation. In fact, the bill results in the highest
net farm income over the next seven years of any proposal
before Congress.

I hate to say it to my friend from Kansas, but net farm income in key
farming areas is down dramatically. For the principal field crops, net
farm income is going to be down about 29 percent this year from the
average of the last 5 years. That is why we are facing one of the
greatest depressions in agriculture since the 1930s. That is why
halfhearted measures are not going to work. That is why the bill we
have come up with really does address the magnitude of the problem. It
is deep, and it is a very large problem and one that has to be
addressed efficiently.
The amendment that Senator Daschle and I, along with Senator Dorgan,
Senator Kerrey, Senator Johnson, Senator Conrad, Senator Baucus,
Senator Durbin, Senator Wellstone, Senator Lincoln, and Senator
Sarbanes have just sent to the desk provides for a total of $10.79
billion to farmers and ranchers for this next year.
There is a great gulf of difference between what the Republicans have
set up and what we are proposing. First, the Republicans are proposing
that we send all of this money out in a direct payment to farmers; an
AMTA payment, it is called, a market transition payment. Our payments
go out in supplemental loan deficiency payments,

[[Page S9981]]

which means they are based upon a farmer's production--what that farmer
actually produced this year, not what they did 10 or 20 years ago. In
that way, it is more fair and it is more direct to the actual farmers
this year. We include $2.6 billion for disaster assistance.
We include a number of other measures such as $212 million for
emergency conservation. We have had a lot of floods and a lot of
damages in a lot of States. We need to repair the damage to farm and
ranch land and enhance our conservation. For emergency trade provision,
we have $978 million for purchases of commodities for humanitarian
assistance. We have people starving all over the world. We have a
Public Law 480 food assistance program and related programs. Our bill
provides about $1 billion to take the surplus food we have and send it
around the world to starving people. The Republican proposal does not
include that.
We include money for emergency economic development for our rural
towns, small towns, and communities that are hit hard. Our total
package of $10.79 billion addresses the magnitude of the problem. It is
that big.
I say to the people who think $10.79 billion is a lot of money, we
passed a tax break bill last week for $792 billion, most of which goes
to upper-income people in this country. Very little will ever go to our
farmers and our ranchers around America.
This point in time is going to decide what happens to rural America
this winter. That is why it is so important to act now. That is why it
is so important that we get the money out that is needed--not some
halfhearted measure in a way that doesn't address the real and
devastating economic problems that farmers have all over America.
I will have more to say about my amendment later.
Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. COCHRAN. My colleague asked me whether the Congressional Budget
Office had scored the amendment that I offered. I ask my colleague the
same question: What does the Congressional Budget Office say the
amendment that the Democratic leader has offered will cost the American
taxpayer over the next few years?
Mr. HARKIN. I answer to my friend from Mississippi that all of the
items in our amendment are direct appropriations for next year. The
only items that are not are the Cotton Step Two Export Program, and
that is scored by CBO at $439 million for 3 years, and the adjustment
to the payment limitations.
Mr. COCHRAN. Does that mean that the exact dollar amount set aside
for each of the programs such as the Wetlands Restoration Program, the
EQIP program--which is an emergency conservation program--emergency
watershed program, all total $212 million in the bill?
Mr. HARKIN. That is the amount of money provided for those items.
Mr. COCHRAN. Emergency trade provisions, humanitarian assistance,
cooperator program, for a total of $988 million; is that what the
Senator is saying the CBO has verified the cost to be?
Mr. HARKIN. That is the amount of money we specifically provide in
the amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield, and I want to thank the Senator
from North Dakota with whom I serve on the agriculture appropriations
subcommittee.
I appreciate the very strong help in putting this package together.
It has been a very difficult year for farmers in North Dakota as well
as Iowa and I can say without fear of contradiction the Senator from
North Dakota has been one of the instrumental people in actually
putting this package together.
I appreciate the support.
Mr. DORGAN. I want to address the question to the Senator from Iowa.
The discussion we had about income support for family farmers in the
nature of a disaster program being income support in the form of a
transition payment or AMTA, the whole notion of a transition payment is
to transition farmers out of a farm program into the free market.
This chart shows what has happened to the price of wheat since 1996.
This chart is similar to the corn chart and the price of corn which the
Senator from Iowa shared. This is what has happened to the so-called
``free market'' for wheat. The price of wheat has collapsed. The notion
of a transition was philosophically by those in this Chamber who said
let's transition people out of a farm program.
Isn't that the base of an AMTA payment?
Mr. HARKIN. As I read the debate and all the talk on the Freedom to
Farm bill when it passed, the idea was that we would transition out of
farm programs with AMTA payments.
Mr. DORGAN. This is the right subject and the right time; we are
debating the right issues. The Senator said it well. We have an economy
that is growing and prospering, more people are working, fewer people
are unemployed, fewer people on welfare, inflation is down. So many
good things are going on in this country, but in rural America family
farmers are in desperate trouble through no fault of their own.
If any group of Americans found their income had collapsed, or if the
salary for Members of Congress had fallen where income for family
farmers had fallen, we would have dealt with this immediately and a
long time ago. The same is true with corporate earnings.
However, we are here through no fault of the family farmers but
because they are trying to do business in a marketplace where prices
have just collapsed. If we don't take action soon, we won't have many
family farmers left across the bread basket of the country.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely correct. The Freedom to Farm
bill was premised that we would put farmers on the free market. As the
Senator from Kansas said, they would have high net income for the next
several years. However, Freedom to Farm ripped the safety net out from
agriculture.
As I pointed out, our exports are up. We are exporting more of our
key commodities, but there is no price. The safety net has been taken
out from underneath agriculture. Farmers all across America recognize
that Freedom to Farm has been a total and absolute disaster when it
comes to protecting farm income, and it has to be changed. That is why
the first thing we need to do is get the emergency package, but then we
have to address the end-of-the-line problem of Freedom to Farm.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I have a question.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield for a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I actually have three quick questions. First of all,
dealing with the urgency of now, is it not true that the Senator from
Iowa and other Democrat Senators have tried to pass an emergency
assistance package and we have been working on this for some time?
Would the Senator from Iowa give a little bit of a historical
background? I think farmers are wondering how much more has to happen
to them before there is some assistance.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Minnesota. I also thank him for
his help in putting this package together.
The Senator is right. We started this spring, in the emergency
supplemental appropriations bill, trying to add some money. We got beat
on a nearly straight party-line vote. All but one Republican voted no;
Democrats voted yes.
We then came back, as the Senator from Minnesota knows, and tried it
again in the subcommittee on this bill. We again lost on a straight
party-line vote.
Now we are on the floor. I will say we are making some progress. At
least now our friends on the other side recognize there is a problem.
At least they are willing to address it somewhat. The amendment that
the Senator from Mississippi sent to the desk is better than nothing,
but it is not going to do enough to help get our farmers through this
winter. It is only a little more than half of what is needed.
Mr. WELLSTONE. If I might ask my colleague from Iowa a second
question to be clear about what is at stake--we will all have a chance
to speak later. My colleague from Iowa says that what the Senator from
Mississippi introduces is an emergency assistance package for farmers
to try to get some income out there to families, and my colleague says
it does about half the job.

[[Page S9982]]

Mr. HARKIN. A little bit over half. Give them the benefit of the
doubt-- about half, though.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Where are the gaps? In other words, I think people
assume, if we pass something that we say is going to enable them to
continue to stay on the farm until we deal with the structural
problems, it is going to help them. Again, could the Senator emphasize
the difference?
Mr. HARKIN. I will be delighted to respond to the Senator, but I
understand our time is up.
Madam President, if I might inquire what the parliamentary situation
is right now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate resumes consideration of S. 335 in
15 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand there is a vote at 5:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry. After that vote is over,
will we return then to the Agriculture appropriations bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the end
of that vote, when we return to this bill, the Senator from Iowa be
recognized to complete his statement. It will not take very long to
complete my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none. It is so ordered.

____________________