[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 138 (Monday, October 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10682-S10685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5 p.m.
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to
proceed to H.R. 2506, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 2506) making
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2002, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for the edification of the Senator from
Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Senator McConnell asked that during the period of time prior
to the vote I represent him. I will be happy to do that. I assume that
since the proponent of the legislation is the Senator from Vermont, he
will want to begin, and I respect that.
I presume from the shrug, the Senator from Vermont does not wish to
move forward, in which case I will be happy to continue with the
discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will respond to a couple things the Senator
from Vermont had to say. I very much appreciate the burden he carries
as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the fact he was not in the
majority until June. However, I think it important to point out there
is a reason the chairman of the Judiciary Committee before him did not
hold hearings on nominees.
We will all recall that it took President Bush a little while to
secure his office this time, and he was probably a good 6 weeks or so
behind. I am not sure how that translates into making nominations to
the bench, but by early May he, indeed, was making nominations. There
are a whole number of nominations that were made on May 9, as a matter
of fact, and then following that, on May 25 and then in June, and so
on.
Very shortly after he was sworn in, he began the work of nominating
people to fill the vacancies on the court. It is important to point out
that, probably more than any of the last four Presidents, himself
included, he has acted with alacrity to fill vacancies. As a matter of
fact, by the beginning of the August recess, in the short time that
President Bush held office, the President had submitted to the Senate
44 judicial nominees. Let me put this in perspective.
President Reagan had submitted 8 nominees before the end of the
August recess, President Bush submitted 8 nominees before the August
recess, and President Clinton submitted 14 nominees before the August
recess. President Bush submitted, as I said, 44 nominees before the
August recess.
It is true that those were not submitted in February and March and
April. Obviously, he was just taking office at that time. To point out
no hearings were held before the distinguished Senator from Vermont
became chairman of the committee I think does not represent the
situation in any accurate way for us to take action now.
The fact is, we had 44 nominees pending prior to the August recess,
108 vacancies currently, and therefore it is time to act. Whatever the
situation was before June, we now know we have all of these nominees.
My question is, Why are we not acting on them?
In terms of hearings, it is true the Senator from Vermont has held
hearings, but the problem is he does not put very many judicial
nominations on the hearing calendar. In contrast to his predecessor,
Senator Hatch, who averaged 4.2 judicial nominees per confirmation
hearing, Senator Leahy has been moving at about a third of that place--
1.4 judicial nominees per confirmation hearing. It is a little hard to
fill these 108 vacancies when you are only having 1.4 nominees per
hearing and you only hold the hearings on the schedule they have been
held so far.
As a result, we have only confirmed eight judges. That is the reality
of where we are today.
The fact that we have 41 designated emergency judges as indicated by
the Administrative Office of the Courts does not concern anyone? It
certainly concerns me as a Senator representing a border State, where I
have three nominations pending, with no action being taken on those.
There are 21 nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee who are
slated to fill positions which have been declared judicial emergencies
by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Why are we not holding
hearings on these nominations? As far as I know, there is nothing to
prevent us from holding hearings, and if I am wrong, I ask the
distinguished chairman of the committee to tell me how I am wrong.
He says anyone who takes the position I have taken is utterly lacking
in judgment. I ask him to perhaps reconsider that comment. Perhaps I
can ask the Senator from Vermont who he thinks is acting like petulant
children in the schoolyard--the other comment he made.
The fact is, we have had time to hold hearings, and there are all of
these nominations pending. They were pending before the August recess.
There is nothing preventing us from holding the hearings. There is
nothing preventing us from voting on those nominations in the hearing,
nothing except politics, I submit, and that, at the end of the day, is
apparently where we are.
I do not like to hold up other business any more than anyone else. It
is important to get the foreign operations bill done. Clearly, we will
do that. But for those who say we are just so busy doing other things,
then I am forced to say, fine. Then let's stop until we can get some of
these nominations to the floor for a vote and acted on.
Mr. President, I wish to make one other comment. These are not my
words but the words of the distinguished Senator from Vermont. When
Bill Clinton was President and there were fewer than 85 vacancies--now
there are 108--Senator Leahy took the position that ``[a]ny week in
which the Senate does not confirm three judges is a week in which the
Senate is failing to address the vacancy crisis.''
When there were fewer than 70 judicial vacancies, the Senator told
the Judiciary Committee:
[W]e must redouble our efforts to work with the President
to end the longstanding vacancies that plague the Federal
courts and disadvantage all Americans. That is our
constitutional responsibility.
[[Page S10683]]
I certainly agree with the Senator.
Finally, in May of 2000 Senator Leahy argued that we should move more
judges than had been moved before at a time when they were being moved
faster than they are now. He said:
I have challenged the Senate to regain the pace met in 1998
when the committee held 13 hearings and the Senate confirmed
65 judges.
I suggest if it was an appropriate pace then, it is an appropriate
pace now. There is no reason not to do it. Therefore, we should get on
with that task.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak on this issue of
judicial nominations for a few moments. I urge us to get as many of
these judges reported as possible, but I do also think we need to stick
to some of the facts. I will put in the Record a few facts.
President Bush has submitted 60 nominees for confirmation to us this
year; we have confirmed 8. That is 13 percent. President Clinton
through all of 1993--the Senate confirmed 27; he submitted 47; so that
was a total of 57 percent.
The first President Bush, in 1989, in his first year, submitted 24.
We confirmed 15. So he had 62 percent of the judges he submitted to
Congress in his first year be confirmed.
President Reagan, in 1981, submitted 45. Forty-one were confirmed for
a confirmation rate of 91 percent. For President Reagan, we confirmed
91 percent of the judges he submitted in his first year in office;
President Bush, 62 percent; President Clinton, 57 percent. This year
with President George W. Bush, we have confirmed 8 out of 60--only 13
percent. So we are way behind compared to the three previous
Presidents. We have a lot of catching up to do.
Those are the facts. We are way behind on circuit court nominees. We
have had more circuit court nominees submitted this time than in the
past. We have only confirmed 4, but we have had 25 submitted. So we
have only confirmed 16 percent of the circuit court nominees. I just
mention that.
For the district court, 35 have been submitted, and we have only
confirmed 4. We have a few more in the pipeline, and hopefully we will
get those through, but we still have a lot.
My point is, out of 60 judges submitted by President Bush this year,
we have confirmed 8. That is only 13 percent. That is far behind the 57
percent for President Clinton's judges. Sixty-two percent of President
Bush's judges and 91 percent of President Reagan's judges were
confirmed in the first year. So we are moving very slowly. We need to
accelerate. That is the reason why some of us are saying wait a minute
before we agree to move forward on all the appropriations bills. Let us
try to see if we cannot come up with an agreement where we can have
expeditious consideration of these judges. They should not be
penalized.
This Congress should confirm the judges. I know Senator Daschle and
Senator Reid have told me they concur with that. So I hope in the very
near future we come up with an agreement on how to proceed that all
would say is a fair way of dealing with these judges.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Am I in control of the time on this side? If so, how
much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and a half minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have been a longtime friend of the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In fact, he and I have worked
together for some 9 years on the foreign operations bill, the bill that
will at some point in the future be before the Senate. Sometimes he has
been chairman and sometimes I have been chairman. Right now he is
chairman.
As an appropriator, I am mindful of the need to complete
appropriations bills in a timely fashion. This year, the Foreign
Operations Subcommittee has put together what I believe to be a good
bill, and I certainly support that bill and want to see it become law
at the earliest possible time. Nevertheless, I do intend to vote
against cloture on the motion to proceed because regretfully this seems
to be the only tool with which we are left to try to advance the
President's judicial nominations.
While I am aware of the importance of the timely completion of
appropriations bills, I am also cognizant of the need to make sure that
our Federal judiciary is adequately staffed. It is because I am
concerned that some of my colleagues do not fully appreciate the crisis
facing the Federal judiciary that I feel it is necessary to object
proceeding to this bill. I hope that by doing so, we can get a concrete
agreement on timely confirming the President's nominees and remedying
the situation facing the judiciary.
I have great respect for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who
is also chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, but the cold,
hard fact is there are 108 judicial vacancies, almost 13 percent of the
Federal bench, which means that the Federal judiciary is woefully
understaffed. And we are running out of time in this fall session.
It will do us precious little good to pass important counter-
terrorism legislation, for example, if there are not enough judges to
review search warrants and to try cases in a timely fashion. We are
engaged in a massive war on terrorism with, as we have seen today, new
fronts emerging each and every day. With such a massive law enforcement
operation, we need U.S. Attorneys, and we need Federal judges.
I am particularly puzzled that my colleagues across the aisle, who
have cried for adequate judicial safeguards in our counter-terrorism
package, would not support our request for the expeditious
consideration of the President's judicial nominees.
If we look at the first year of the last three administrations, all
but one of the judges nominated before the August recess were
confirmed. Clearly, for whatever reason, we are not getting the job
done in the Judiciary Committee.
We need to have an adequate complement of Federal judges on the
bench. Given the sorry state of the vacancy situation, timely
consideration is certainly needed. It is the middle of October, and the
President has only eight judicial nominees confirmed. By contrast, at
the end of his first year in office, President Clinton had 27 or 28
judges confirmed.
This is not President Bush's fault. He submitted 44 nominees before
the August recess. Indeed, President Bush submitted his first batch of
nominees back in May. This, again, is another record, at least for the
last couple of decades.
Rather, the reason for this delay is that while we have had some
hearings, we have not come close to getting the most out of these
hearings. I expect this afternoon there has been a lot of talk about
hearings, but the fact is we have gotten the least out of the most.
Specifically, while from 1998 to 2000 the Judiciary Committee
averaged 4.2 judicial nominees per hearing, this year we have averaged
only 1.4 judicial nominees per hearing. That is a pace that is three
times as slow as was the case from 1998 to 2000.
We can do better than that. We must do better than that. The chairman
of the Judiciary Committee and my friend, Senator Leahy, was constantly
complaining prior to this year about the slow pace of the previous
Senate. The fact is, it was moving a lot more rapidly than we are at
the moment.
Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say,
``McConnell, you got it all wrong. You need to look at `this.' And you
need to look at `that.' And you need to look at the other.' '' Well, I
and my colleagues are not going to be distracted by ``this, that, and
the other,'' and we are going to make sure the American public is not
either. We are going to keep our eyes fixed on the bottom line, and the
bottom line is that President Bush's 8 judicial nominees is woefully
inadequate when compared to his predecessors, and particularly
President Clinton who got 28 judges confirmed in his first year.
So I urge my colleagues to support the President, the Federal
judiciary, and the law enforcement community, which is on the front
lines of our nation's war against terrorism. Vote no on this motion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 15 minutes.
[[Page S10684]]
Mr. LEAHY. Then do we vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 5:30, by agreement, there will be a cloture
vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Chair. The former Governor of
Nebraska has spent an enormous amount of time in that chair. I know he
is now giving up the chair, but he has done the Senate a great service
with the amount of time he has spent there. I have a feeling the
Senator from Nebraska, when he came from the executive branch, never
thought he would be presiding as much, but he has done the Senate a
great service.
I love to hear quotes, especially those taken out of context. Back
when the Republicans controlled the Senate I urged that they move
quicker on judicial nominations. I think it is because they left an
extraordinary number of President Clinton's nominees at the end of his
term on which they never even allowed a vote. He had women, Hispanics,
others who would wait 3, 4, 5 years and never even get a hearing. That
created a real problem. Now, having created all of those vacancies,
they come in and say, oh, my gosh, we have judicial vacancies.
President Clinton tried to fill those judicial vacancies, as my
colleagues may recall, and the Republican-controlled Senate refused to
allow him. Time and time again, they would hold them up. They would
keep sending more questions to them. They would not allow them to come
forward. They would not have a hearing. They would not have a vote, and
finally the nominations died. So, of course, there were vacancies. All
the vacancies would have been filled if they had even allowed votes on
these because, when on the rare occasions they would allow a vote, the
person would get 90 votes, 95 votes, sometimes 100 votes. They would go
through easily, but they would not allow them to have a vote. So the
vacancies occurred.
It is a little bit like the young person who is before the court. He
is there for murdering his parents and he says, Your Honor, you have to
have mercy on me. I am an orphan. Well, this is the same thing.
Republicans spent 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years creating enormous judicial
vacancies and then they come in and say we have to fill these judicial
vacancies.
We are going to have hearings for five judges on Thursday. We will
have a hearing for them. So there are five judges on Thursday alone who
are coming up. As we wait for them to finish their questionnaires, I
think it is good if we can find out if they have criminal records or
things such as that before we go forward. If they fit at least a basic
level of competence before they go forward, we will continue to have
those hearings. I am not going to do what the Republicans did and have
34 months without having any hearings at all. We have been having
hearings every month.
It is an interesting complaint they make, when they had 6 months that
they controlled the Senate and did not have any confirmation hearings
of judges or votes. We started having them within a week after taking
over the Senate.
Be that as it may, maybe someone sits in a room somewhere and thinks
we don't have enough work to do. After all, we spent 3 weeks putting
together an antiterrorism bill--which did take up a little bit of time.
I remember the number of times I was here late at night, and then to
hear complaints we have not had Judiciary hearings--actually, we had a
couple while we were working on the antiterrorism bill.
Some things have happened in the last month in this country that have
needed our attention. We have been trying to move U.S. attorneys as
fast as they come up, but it is like pulling teeth to get them out of
the White House so we can move them. I don't know if we have had any
marshal nominations come up, but a week ago we had not had a single
one. I have never known a President in my term to take that long.
Holding up the foreign aid bill is an interesting tactic. I cannot
figure out why. If Senators want to criticize me on judges, I am happy
to make a commitment to move as fast as they moved the nominees of
President Clinton, but I have a feeling no one would be happy if I, as
chairman, were to treat President Bush's judicial nominees the way they
treated President Clinton's. If I did that, we would hear screams. I
think we would hear screams from Democrats, too, because it would be so
patently unfair if we did to them what the Republicans did to President
Clinton. I am not going to do that. I don't believe in doing that. When
we get done, whatever time I am chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we
will find President Bush's nominees were handled far more fairly than
those of President Clinton.
Having said that, I wonder what in Heaven's name is the masochistic
attitude that is holding up this bill so they can make political points
on the weekend talk shows. I cannot understand that. Secretary Powell
is overseas now trying to solidify our antiterrorism coalition.
Democrats have united behind the President and the Secretary of State
in helping to bring together the support of leaders of other countries.
The distinguished majority leader has pushed hard to get through money
and authorization for President Bush to fight terrorism. We went the
extra mile to get the antiterrorism bill completed.
Having done that, we are now saying to the President: Look, Mr.
President, you can call on all these people overseas, ask them to
support us in our antiterrorism activities, but we are not going to
give you your foreign aid bill. We will not give you the money you are
now promising the foreign leaders for their help. We are not going to
give you the money that goes to NATO allies. We will not give you the
money that goes to the Middle East Camp David signers. We will not give
you the money to fight AIDS in Africa. We are not going to give you the
money to give child immunizations. We are not going to give you the
money, apparently, to help feed the Afghanistan people after this war
ends.
It is a sad day when, for partisan reasons, an important
appropriations bill is sabotaged. Even the ranking member of the
foreign appropriations subcommittee will vote against proceeding to the
appropriations bill. It is unfortunate, unjustified, especially after I
have bent over backwards to work with him on this bill. Our economy is
intricately intertwined with the global economy. Our health depends on
our ability and the ability of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America to control the spread of deadly infectious diseases. Our
security is linked to the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons and our ability to stop terrorism and narcotrafficking and
organized crime. These threats are prevalent from as far away as China
to our own cities.
No less a threat but potentially the trigger that ignites many others
is poverty. We are surrounded by a sea of desperate people. Two billion
people, a third of the world's inhabitants, live on the edge of
starvation. They barely survive on whatever scraps they can scavenge.
Many children die before the age of 5. This grinding, hopeless,
desperate existence is overladen with despair. That despair fuels
hatred, fear, violence, and even the terrorism that hit this country a
month ago. We see it on many continents, including today in Pakistan,
where thousands of people are threatening to overthrow their own
government if it gives American troops access to Pakistani territory.
We see it across Africa and in Colombia and Indonesia. We see it in the
form of refugees and people displaced from their homes who number in
the tens of millions.
The world is on fire in too many places to count, and in most of
those flashpoints poverty and the injustice that perpetuates it are at
the root of instability.
Our foreign assistance programs provide economic support to poor
countries, health care to the world's neediest women and children, food
and shelter to refugees and victims of natural and manmade disasters,
and technical expertise to promote democracy, free markets, human
rights, and the rule of law. This is as it should be. But as important
as this is, what we give is a pittance when considered in terms of our
wealth and the seriousness of the threats we face. Even this pittance,
the other side doesn't want us to even vote on. Stand up and say we are
all against terrorism. Of course we are. Wave the flag and say you want
to protect America. Of course we do. But to say we might do something
to actually stop some of the root causes of terrorism--
[[Page S10685]]
well, not if it interferes with the partisan political agenda; we can't
do that.
The approximately $10 billion we provide in this type of assistance--
whether through the State Department and the Agency for International
Development or as contributions to the World Bank, the U.N. Development
Program, the World Food Program, and other organizations--amounts to
less than $40 per person in this country.
We are all willing to give far more money than that--we were in my
family--for the victims of terrorism. But at least give something that
maybe will stop the terrorism from happening in the first place. We are
also trying to help people in our country because our economy is
suffering. But we cannot bury our heads in the sand and protect our
national interests, in today's complex and dangerous world, on a
foreign assistance budget that is less in real terms than it was 15
years ago.
Our world is not simply our towns and our States and our country, it
is the whole world. We live in a global economy. The Ebola virus is
like a terrorist--the terrorists could get on a plane in one part of
the world and could be in our backyard hours later. We can try our best
to control our borders, but we cannot hide behind an impenetrable wall.
We have to go to the source of the problem, to the countries that are
failing from ignorance, poverty, and injustice.
Almost 60 percent of the world's people live in Asia. That number is
growing. Seventy percent of the world's people are nonwhite, 70 percent
are non-Christian, 5 percent own more than half the world's wealth,
half the world's people suffer from malnutrition, and 70 percent are
illiterate.
These people may not knock down skyscrapers that kill 6,000 Americans
in a single day. But they pose immense long-term threats to our way of
life: Extreme poverty on a massive scale in countries that cannot feed
their people today, and the poisoning of our environment. All of these
things should be attacked by us just as much as we attack the networks
of Osama bin Laden.
We give no credit to the Senate--the greatest parliamentary body--we
give no credit to this great body if we block the foreign aid bill from
going forward.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The 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,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 147, H.R. 2506, the foreign
operations appropriations bill, 2002:
Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, Ron Wyden,
Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel K. Akaka, Russell D.
Feingold, Jack Reed, Zell Miller, Tim Johnson, Paul S.
Sarbanes, Jean Carnahan, Daniel K. Inouye, Barbara
Boxer, Ernest F. Hollings, Patty Murray, Edward M.
Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call under the rule is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 2506, an act making appropriations for
foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, shall be
brought to a close.
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cleland). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--46
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Kyl
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--4
Cantwell
Inhofe
Lott
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The 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,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to
proceed to H.R. 2506, the Foreign Operations Appropriations
bill.
Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Ben Nelson of
Nebraska, Kent Conrad, Zell Miller, Byron L. Dorgan,
Russell D. Feingold, Paul Wellstone, Joseph Lieberman,
Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson of Florida, Max Cleland,
Patty Murray, Mark Dayton, Jack Reed of Rhode Island,
Barbara Mikulski, and Herb Kohl.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________