[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 166 (Tuesday, December 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12340-S12344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE RETIREMENT SECURITY AND PENSION REFORM ACT OF 2001--
Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 10) to provide pension reform and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Daschle (for Hatch/Baucus) Amendment No. 2170, in the
nature of a substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Chair indicate how much time is
remaining on this matter?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 14 hours 40 minutes.
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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2202 to Amendment No. 2170
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2202 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an
amendment numbered 2202 to amendment No. 2170.
(Purpose: To strike the provision related to directed scorekeeping)
Strike section 105(c).
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I put before the Senate an interesting,
simple amendment that we as a Senate should adopt. I hope this
amendment is aired for a while. Because Senators have asked me not to,
I do not have any intention to move rapidly. Other Senators are
presently indisposed and they might come and perhaps become cosponsors.
We will see what we can do.
But I want to make sure the Domenici amendment No. 2202 will not be
mistaken for anything other than what it is. This amendment is not a
killer amendment with reference to the underlying amendment. The
railroad retirement bill will in no way be damaged by this amendment.
This amendment is just a very simple recognition that the bill has some
language in it that shouldn't be in it. As much as we want to do for
the railroad retirees and for all of those who have joined in a rather
mass number of Senators who want to see this happen--that is, passage
of the bill--they actually should join in saying we want to do this.
But we want to be honest with the American people in terms of what the
bill costs and how you should score the actual costs against the
Treasury.
My amendment would strike what we call directed scorekeeping language
out of section 105. This technical language inserted just before the
House passed the bill instructs the Office of Management and Budget to
deviate--let me go slow here so everybody will get it--from the
standard accounting practice when implementing this bill.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the provision allowing
private investment in equities would increase outlays by $15.3 billion
in 2002. That means, if you follow the way we do things in a normal
manner pursuant to the rules and guidelines in the law, this bill adds
$15.3 billion in increased outlays.
That is a matter of the Congressional Budget Office doing its work
and telling us the answer when they are asked
[[Page S12341]]
the question, How much does the bill cost? What do you put on the books
of the United States?
They did their work. Now this bill, at the last minute, deviates from
the standard accounting to the extent of $15.3 billion.
If my amendment is agreed to, which strikes the language permitting
the deviation and permitting the violation of the Congressional Budget
Office, it does nothing, except it puts before us the reality, the
truth. It doesn't cause the bill to be any more or any less in
conformance with the rules and the Congressional Budget Office. It
doesn't make the bill subject to a point of order. It is already
subject to that. That has nothing to do with this amendment that I am
offering to clarify and make consistent this bill, and make it
consistent with what we ought to do in following the language and
process and past procedures with reference to the estimated cost.
Once again, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the
provision allowing private investment in equities would increase
outlays by $15.3 billion in 2002. It doesn't say you can't do it. It
doesn't say you shouldn't do it. It just says if you do it, report it.
Just put it in here. Ask the Congressional Budget Office and report
their answer. Don't ask the Congressional Budget Office and then say,
regardless of their answer, which we are supposed to follow, we are
going to determine and declare that we are not going to follow it.
That is called directed scoring--telling them how to score things
contrary to the rules, contrary to reality, and contrary to the way we
have been doing it.
That is pathetic. We shouldn't do that on any bill.
I repeat that it does not kill the bill. It does not damage the bill.
It just reports the reality of the bill for bookkeeping and
scorekeeping, which I believe the American people want. They don't want
one bill, as good as it is, to have inserted in it just before it
passes the House language saying that whatever the reality and the
truth is, don't report it this time for this bill. Just report it
another way.
All I do is strike that language saying report it that way. It is a
very simple idea. It is simple to understand. Just take that language
out, return it to language which an ordinary, everyday bill of this
type would have had in it and should be expected to be part of what we
do.
By preventing the OMB from reporting that expenditure as an outlay,
this, in fact, deviates from; it distorts. It makes us look at
something and say it isn't what it is. That is a good way to say it. We
just put language in saying no matter what it is, it isn't. I am saying
no matter what it is, it is, in taking out the language that would do
the contrary.
The Government has always recorded any investment from equities to
research and development and to education and training as an outlay.
The Government should get a good rate of return on all types of
investments. In contrast to private sector accounting, we record these
investments as an expenditure because the Government operates under
cash accounting rules. We certainly cannot use that fact as a reason
for changing it. If we are going to choose to change that system of
accounting, we shouldn't do it selectively for one bill, no matter how
good the bill is, and no matter how much support it has. You ought to
change the whole system after a thoughtful evaluation of whether we
should continue to use that kind of an approach.
I will not go into the reasons why the Federal Government uses the
cash accounting system instead of an accrual accounting system. But I
will say that the Federal Government has operated under cash accounting
rules since 1789, the first year Congress appropriated $639,000 to
cover the expenses of our new government. This isn't the time to change
the rules. Obviously, it is neither the time, nor the bill. It is a
bill with great support. I am going to support it. It seems to have
huge support. We will get it done, but we ought not choose the bill to
change the rules of accounting that have existed for our Government
since 1789, the first time Congress appropriated $639,000 as our
expenditure.
We know, from example, in the private sector that bending the
accounting rules creates confusion for the same reason we should not
bend the accounting rules of the Federal Government to suit our
purpose. Doing so reduces transparency and misleads the public.
If my amendment is not agreed to, this bill will set a troubling
precedent for Social Security. Under current accounting practices, both
the Government and the privately controlled investments of Social
Security funds in stocks are treated consistently. They would increase
outlays. If Government-controlled investments were not reported as
outlay proposals to collectively invest in Social Security, the assets
would have a significant advantage over proposals to create individual
accounts. I don't think that should be done. Certainly we wouldn't want
to use this as a precedent for that.
That is one of the problems when you violate precedent and pluck
something out and say, we are not going to use it now, for whatever
reason. We would rather not show the accounting as it is or for real.
Specifically, the proposals to have the Government invest in Social
Security assets would be free, whereas proposals to establish
individual accounts would cost trillions of dollars.
We understand that is not justified. This bill should not be used as
something that gives impetus to that conclusion in a completely
different area of huge confusion.
Regardless of whether you support individual accounts for Social
Security, as the President's commission is about to propose, or
collective investments such as President Clinton proposed, it doesn't
make much sense for budget rules to save one policy over another. That
is why I think we should be consistent, and do what is right.
Finally, the directed scorekeeping language in the bill creates a 306
budget point of order against the entire Railroad Retirement Act.
The point of order prevents Congress from changing the budget rules
unless the proposal is reported from the Budget Committee. My
amendment, by dropping the directed scorekeeping language, will ensure
that we follow the right accounting proposals.
But understand, I do not make a point of order. There are plenty of
votes for this bill. But I think plenty of those votes ought to be used
to correct the accounting so there is no black mark that follows this
bill around as to why did we have to do that. We do not have to do
that. We just do not have to do it.
At the point it went through the House, maybe it was some way to
affect the cost and make it easier to get through because we were not
going to charge so much against the surplus of the country. All of
those kinds of problems have long gone away. As the occupant of the
chair knows, we have been spending the surplus for many months. All of
the spending that took place on behalf of the New York incident was out
of the surplus there. We began to break the bank, so to speak.
So if there was some reason to manage or distort the real cost, it
does not exist any longer. In fact, we should not have done it anyway.
But if that was the reason, it is not needed and we ought to fix it.
That one change will not kill this bill. It has nothing to do with the
life. Whether it is good or not so good, this action just gets rid of
something that puts a little black mark or maybe even a big black mark
on this bill as seeking some superattention by way of the budget rules
that follow this.
That is all I have to say. But I note the presence of the chairman of
the Budget Committee in this Chamber. From my standpoint, I am ready to
proceed. But I do not want to cut anybody out of either joining me as a
cosponsor or speaking.
So with that, I make a parliamentary inquiry. Was there a certain
amount of time allocated to the Senator from New Mexico for this
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under cloture, the Senator is limited to 1
hour. The Senator has consumed about 14 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe tried to arrange some time
last week to speak when we had lots of time. The time is a little more
constrained today, but he has always been
[[Page S12342]]
so easy to work with, and I ask unanimous consent that following my
remarks and those of Senator Conrad, the Senator from Oklahoma be
recognized for up to 40 minutes. Of course, the time would be charged
against the 30 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for me to speak against Senator Domenici and
Senator Conrad is difficult. I work very closely with Senator Domenici.
We have been on the Appropriations Committee working side by side on a
number of issues, including the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee, of which I have been chairman and he has been chairman,
back and forth. Of course, Senator Conrad and I came to the Senate
together. There is no one I have more respect for than Senator Conrad
and for his integrity and his absolute brilliance. So for me to speak
against something on which they agree is difficult. But as much respect
as I have for both of these outstanding men, it does not mean they are
always right. I respectfully submit that what they are trying to
accomplish now is wrong.
Leave it in the bill is basically what my message is. I know I speak
for the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and I know I
speak for the majority leader, Senator Daschle, when I say this.
The House-passed bill includes directed scorekeeping language. This
language would require the CBO and OMB to treat the purchase of private
sector securities by the new railroad retirement trust as a means of
financing rather than as an outlay. OMB sets the official rules right
now. Under those rules, the purchase of private sector securities is
scored as an outlay just as any other purchase of goods and services
would be scored.
However, the issue of how to score the purchase of private sector
securities is really a very gray area. Unlike the purchase of goods and
services, the purchase of private sector securities does not diminish
the financial and budgetary wealth of the Government. So a case could
be made that these purchases should not be scored as outlays. In such a
case, a means of financing Federal deficits is a technical term for the
budgetary category of the purchases. The primary means of financing
Federal deficits historically has been Federal borrowing.
Those who would like to continue the current OMB scoring rules would
argue that almost all the Federal budget is on a cash basis. From that
perspective, the purchase of private sector securities requires cash
and should be treated the same as any purchase of goods and services.
I do not have an opinion as to which is the best approach, which is
superior. I think they both work. However, from a pragmatic point of
view--and that is where I am today--this legislative session is winding
down. We are facing a serious time constraint if we are going to be
able to enact this important legislation this year.
The railroads have been working and trying to get something such as
this done for decades. For once, now we have victory in our grasp. The
railroad companies and the unions, which rarely agree on the time of
day, have agreed on this package. I think it is a victory that we
should not let fall from our grasp.
If this amendment passes, it is gone. Everyone should understand, it
is gone. Why? Because this bill will not pass this year.
There are very few days left in the calendar. The House has already
passed this legislation, the legislation that is basically before us,
that includes directed scorekeeping, by a vote of 384 to 33. It was not
a close call in the House: 384 to 33.
If we pass a bill that does not have directed scorekeeping, then we
face one of three scenarios. No. 1, we have to go to conference. If
this happens, curtains this year, this legislation is all through. No.
2, the House could send back our bill with an amendment in
disagreement. In that case, there would not be enough time on the
Senate floor to deal with this possibility. No. 3, the House could
agree with our bill.
Under two of the three outcomes, the bill would not be enacted this
year. We do not know which of the three outcomes will occur, but I have
an idea. It is just too risky to proceed in this way. The prudent
course of action is to leave the directed scorekeeping language in this
bill, the legislation before us.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. President, we have come a long way to arrive at a point where we
actually have in our grasp this bill on which we can vote. I hope this
amendment, while well intentioned by two fine Senators, both of whom
want to protect their budget jurisdiction--I just think, in this
instance, they are wrong. I think it would be much better if we went
through with this legislation, followed the lead of the House.
The House, as I indicated, passed this bill overwhelmingly. I think
if we did that, we would have a lot of happy widows, we would have a
lot of happy railroad retirees; of course, we would have a railroad
industry that would be much stronger and firmer.
I know in Nevada we have watched the railroads come through our
State. We had a merger of Union Pacific coming through the northern
part of the State on very shaky ground. But they were able to pull
themselves out. We have done a number of remarkable things with the
railroad to help them move more traffic because of the merger. One
example is that they have come forward and we are building a depressed
railroad sector through Reno to make it a much better, quieter program
than we have had with railroads in the entire history of railroads
coming through Nevada. All this amendment will do is set that back, and
then many other things we have been able to accomplish. But of course
the thing that really hurts has to do with the railroad retirees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment of
the Senator from New Mexico, the distinguished ranking member of the
Budget Committee. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to
his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Conrad. As chairman of
the Budget Committee, it is really welcome that he would join me in
this endeavor.
As a matter of fact, I believe by his joining, he makes the case that
we are not trying to kill this bill. He has been a staunch advocate. I
just told railroad retirees I am voting for the bill. I didn't tell
them, nor did I tell the Senator, that I used to work for the railroad.
I was a baggage clerk when I was 22. It was a fun job. I didn't work
long enough to be part of any of this program. I want everybody to
know, I have no interest. It was a great summer job. I became friends
with some wonderful railroaders.
I repeat, so that nobody misunderstands the Senator's views, this
takes out of the bill some language that is not needed for this bill
and that in essence treats this bill in a way that says what is isn't;
it is going to cost this much, but it is not going to cost it because
we wrote language in the bill saying it isn't.
That is not the way to pass a bill. We don't do that for anybody on
anything.
I welcome the Senator's support. I think it is a good way for him to
start his chairmanship, saying that he is going to watch the rules
carefully and abide by them. I thank the Senator so much for joining
me.
(Mrs. CARNAHAN assumed the chair.)
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. My great-grandfather was a foreman
on the railroad. My great-grandparents, when they went on their
honeymoon, went on a pushcart for 100 miles on the railroad.
I do strongly favor this bill. I have to answer to my responsibility
as chairman of the Budget Committee and as a Member of this body to be
accurate with our colleagues as to the scoring of this legislation.
Directed scoring, if we are to be blunt about it, is to say something
doesn't cost when we know that it does. I have an obligation to my
colleagues to report accurately to them this legislation. I have been a
staunch supporter of this bill the entire time it
[[Page S12343]]
has been before the Senate. It represents an extraordinary effort by
the rail companies and their employees and labor to work together to
improve the lives of thousands and thousands of rail workers and their
families.
I agree this legislation provides an important opportunity to
modernize the rail pension program. I have received countless e-mails,
phone calls, faxes, and letters from North Dakota rail workers and
their spouses who have told me how important this legislation is to
them and their families.
Some of my dearest friends and strongest supporters are in favor of
this legislation. I am in favor of the legislation. But I have a
special responsibility as chairman of the Budget Committee to give an
accurate assessment to our colleagues of the cost of legislation that
moves through this Chamber. That is an obligation I take seriously.
The directed scorekeeping provision creates the impression that the
cost of this legislation in fiscal year 2002 has dropped from $16
billion to $250 million. In reality, with or without directed
scorekeeping, the impact on the budget in 2002 is precisely the same.
It is not $250 million; it is $16 billion.
That is the reality. That is the fact. With this amendment, the
Senator from New Mexico has provided us with a second chance to review
the directed scorekeeping provision of this bill. He is right to do so.
That is why I have joined him in this effort.
Traditionally, those of us with special responsibility for the budget
have vigorously opposed directed scorekeeping because it fundamentally
undercuts the entire system of budget controls and budget discipline
that is so important to the United States being fiscally prudent and
wise. We cannot do our job of being stewards of the finances of this
country if we don't report accurately and honestly to our colleagues
the cost of legislation.
That is the most fundamental responsibility of any Budget Committee
chairman and ranking member. Senator Domenici and I are meeting our
responsibility by saying to our colleagues the simple fact is, this
bill is going to cost $16 billion in fiscal year 2002 no matter what
the directed scorekeeping provision says. You can make it up, but it is
not true. The fact is, the impact on the federal budget will be $16
billion.
That is a cost for which I am willing to vote and support, but I am
not willing to say it is something it is not. That is not, in my view,
the appropriate role for any Budget Committee chairman.
It is not just a matter of $16 billion in fiscal year 2002; it has
much greater significance than that. If we establish the precedent that
through directed scorekeeping we can say a $16 billion expense is
really a $250 million expense, what is next? I predict what is next is:
When we get to the reform of Social Security, some will say we can
simply take a trillion dollars of the Social Security trust fund and
move it over into private accounts and say there has been no
expenditure. That is the implication of this vote and why it matters.
If we say on this bill you can take something that cost $16 billion
and, by legislative language, direct the scorekeeping and say it
doesn't cost $16 billion, it costs $250 million, then others may try to
take a $1 trillion transfer of Social Security money and say it is cost
free.
If we start down that path, we will rue the day, if we go down the
path of creating fiscal fictions in this Chamber in order to accomplish
even the best of intentions.
This is a good bill. It is worthy of support. But the price cannot
be, should not be, must not be that we say to the American people that
a bill that costs $16 billion only costs $250 million. That cannot be
the way we do business in the Senate.
If that is the direction we take, I repeat to my colleagues the
implication because I believe the next step will be in the Social
Security reform debate, that others will try to say: A trillion dollars
taken out of the Social Security trust fund and moved into private
accounts doesn't cost anything. It is cost free.
That would not be true. That would be totally misleading. The money
that is in the Social Security trust fund that has been credited to the
Social Security trust fund, to be more accurate, has been credited to
that fund to meet current promises, promises already made. We can't
take that money and make a new set of promises and use the money that
was raised to keep the previous promises. It won't work. We can't use
the same money twice.
You can't use the same money twice. That is what will lead us into
the swamp of deficits and debt and disastrous economic decline. Make no
mistake, what is at stake here is a big deal. This matters. This is not
a free vote. I remain committed to this legislation, but I also remain
committed to being straight with our colleagues and our countrymen as
to the cost of the legislation that is before us.
Our friends in the House included this directed scorekeeping back in
July. It was a mistake then; it would be a mistake for us to repeat it
here. Those who say, well, this kills the bill --I don't accept that.
This legislation has to go back for further action in the House in any
event because of the way it has come before us. It has to go back to
the House for action in any event.
Let's pass this legislation, but let's do it right and let's do it by
being straight with our colleagues and our countrymen as to its cost.
Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. CARPER. I, too, am a strong advocate of this legislation. I have
spoken for it in the Chamber and in our caucus meetings as well. As the
Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from New Mexico have
indicated about their relatives, my grandfather was also on the
railroad. My grandmother lived many years on a survivor's pension from
his service. Whenever the chairman of the Budget Committee and the
ranking member on the Budget Committee stand to endorse an amendment,
it gives me pause. I want to make sure in the next several minutes--
maybe hours--that we consider this legislation I understand the full
ramifications of the amendment or the failure to adopt the amendment.
Let me ask the chairman of the Budget Committee this. When I first
learned of the directed scorekeeping in the House of Representatives,
which, as he said, is an extraordinary act, I tried to understand why
they may have done that. Was it chicanery or was there real logic
behind it?
As I studied the issue more, my understanding is if we were not on a
cash basis of accounting, but an accrual basis, this probably would not
be an issue. Most States used to be on a cash basis of accounting. The
majority of States now use the accrual basis, and most States direct
the retirement funds into U.S. Treasury obligations. Today, it is a
whole array of investments, including equities, or stocks, bonds, and
the kinds of things envisioned here under this legislation. There are,
as we know, tier 1 benefits under the railroad and tier 2.
This is my question: The tier 1 benefits mirror Social Security
benefits. Tier 2 are more private sector benefits. The moneys that go
into those tier 2 funds for payout come from the railroad companies
themselves--from the tax assessed on them--and also a payment by the
railroad employees themselves. My understanding is that those monies
that go into that retirement fund, paid into by the railroad companies
and by the employees through the payroll deduction--those monies in the
future will be invested not in U.S. Treasury obligations, but in a wide
variety of investment options. But because of the peculiarity of our
accounting rules, because those monies will now be not spent for roads
or any other purpose, and not for space exploration, they will still be
invested in the same pension benefits, but because of our accounting
rules, those monies--simply by saying you can now invest those pension
monies, the trust fund monies, in non-Treasury obligations triggers a
$15 billion outlay. Is that what this is all about? I know that is a
long question, but let me lay that question at the feet of our Budget
Committee chairman.
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to respond. First of all, we use a cash method
of accounting for the Federal budget. We do not use an accrual system.
You can't mix the two or you start misleading people. That is No. 1.
No. 2, the Senator's question sounds as though it is prospective in
nature; as though simply going forward, Tier II
[[Page S12344]]
revenues would not be invested in Treasurys. That is not the case in
this bill. In this bill, CBO estimates that approximately $16 billion
currently invested in Treasurys by the Federal Government would be sold
and instead invested through an investment trust in private-sector
assets. Again, the amount is $16 billion and they would be free to
invest it in other ways. I support that.
But we have to be straight with people. It costs $16 billion to the
Federal Government in the fiscal year 2002 under the accounting rules
that apply to every program of the Federal Government. It doesn't cost
$250 million; it costs $16 billion. The money moves out of Government
Treasuries and moves into a railroad investment trust, with the ability
under a board, to invest those moneys in higher rate of return assets.
I support that basic notion.
But the hard fact is that it costs the Federal Government $16
billion. It means the fact is the Federal Government will have to
borrow $16 billion more in fiscal year 2002 than it was otherwise going
to borrow.
Mr. CARPER. If the Senator will continue to yield, I have two glasses
of water here. We will say one is the railroad pension fund as it
currently exists, and it is full of U.S. Treasury obligations. There is
another glass here and we will pretend it is empty for our purposes.
What I think we are talking about doing is taking some of the moneys
invested in these Treasury obligations in this one pension fund and,
presumably, the railroad retirement fund would have to sell those
obligations and then use the money from the sale of those obligations
to put in their new pension fund. When they sell those, they are going
to sell them to somebody--individuals, funds, banks, corporations. It
is difficult for me to understand how that transaction I have just
described should cost the Treasury $16 billion. A lot of us are
struggling on this one.
Mr. CONRAD. Let me say it as simply as I can state it. The reason it
costs the U.S. Treasury $16 billion is because the money moves out of
U.S. Government Treasurys and moves over to the control of a board that
is run by private sector representatives to be invested in non-
governmental assets. That is about as easy as I can make it.
The fact is that the Federal Government is going to have to borrow,
as a result of that transaction, not $250 million more, but $16 billion
more in 2002. For us to have our colleagues say ``but it really doesn't
mean that'' is not accurate and it is not factual. To say to our
colleagues, by direct scorekeeping, by legislative fiat, that it won't
cost $16 billion, that it won't mean the Federal Government has to
borrow $16 billion more in 2002, that it is only going to cost $250
million more, is just not the truth. I don't know how more direct I can
be.
Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
statement of Senator Inhofe, Senator Stabenow be recognized for up to
15 minutes, and the time be charged against the 30 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for
40 minutes.
____________________