[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 2, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4663-S4666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                 Amendment No. 437 to Amendment No. 436

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 437 to amendment No. 436.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       In the amendment strike all after the first word and insert 
     the following:
       (a) Increase in Imminent Danger Special Pay.--Section 
     310(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``$150'' and inserting ``$250''.
       (b) Increase in Family Separation Allowance.--Section 
     427(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$250''.
       (c) Expiration.--(1) The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall expire on September 30, 2003.
       (2) Effective on September 30, 2003, sections 310(a) of 
     title 37, United States Code, and 427(a)(1) of title 37, 
     United States Code, as in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act are hereby revived.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as copies of the amendment are being 
made, I say to my colleagues that my amendment raises the combat pay, 
imminent danger pay for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and 
coast-guardsmen presently in combat from the figure of $225 a month 
suggested by Senator Stevens to $250 a month, and the family separation 
allowance from $200 a month to $250 a month.
  I have spoken to my colleagues, whom I respect very much and whom I 
acknowledge to be certainly doing the very best they can with an 
extraordinary bill at an extraordinary time, and urge them to consider 
this new figure. I have not pursued my original request, which was $500 
a month for both, nor a modification of it of $400 a month. I have come 
down to what I consider to be a reasonable increase in light of the 
reality of the circumstances.
  I do not know that any person in the Senate will stand before us and 
argue that he is going to find complaints from military families about 
this family separation allowance or even about combat pay. Thank God we 
have the very best people in America serving in our military. Their 
families are at home keeping the families together, praying for their 
safe return. They are not importuning and begging this Congress for 
more money. That has not happened. God bless them for not putting 
pressure on us to deal with that. But let us accept the reality of our 
responsibility. We have a responsibility not just to pass resolutions 
in support of the troops. We have a responsibility beyond the kind 
words which we offer in debate in this Senate. We have a specific 
responsibility to these men and women in uniform and their families.
  Look at what they are facing. They are facing the separation of 
families, which undoubtedly has to be traumatic and difficult. They are 
trying to raise their children in a circumstance that may be more 
challenging than ever because of the need for child care costs, which 
certainly are extraordinarily large even under the best circumstances. 
They are dealing sometimes with activated reservists and guardsmen who 
have left a good paying job and are now on military pay, taking a 
substantial economic cut. That is why I have started this debate. That 
is why I offered the amendment on the budget resolution. And that is 
why I bring this issue up today.
  I hope when my colleagues consider what I am offering today, they 
will remember the vote we cast last week. Last week, I asked my 
colleagues, with the support of Senator Warner, Senator Chambliss, and 
Senator Landrieu, to entertain an increase in combat pay and an 
increase in family separation allowance. I asked that $2 billion be set 
aside for that purpose in the budget resolution, and the record vote in 
this Senate was 100 to 0. That is a rare unanimous vote of the Senate 
in support of something that everyone agreed needed to be done.
  Now let's look at what I am offering today. The cost of $250 a month 
in combat pay and the cost of $250 a month in family separation 
allowance comes to barely $500 million for the remainder of this year. 
That shows that I am really coming with a request that is a little more 
than one-fourth of what the Senate approved by a 100-to-0 vote last 
week.
  So why would we stand here and say unanimously, by a 100-to-0 vote, 
that we are willing to spend four times as much in support of military 
personnel and now a week later, when the bill comes before us, we are 
saying, no, we will not?
  I say to my friend from Alaska, I thank him for acknowledging the 
need for an increase but I want him to seriously consider the second-
degree amendment which I have offered. This amendment does not reach my 
original goal of $500 or a compromise of $400 a month but comes to $250 
a month, which we are offering the families of servicemen who are 
struggling with childcare costs, additional medical expenses, the need 
to deal with additional family pressures. That is not too much for us 
to give. The current reimbursement of $100 is inadequate. Going to $250 
is not extravagant at all. It is important that we do it.

  For combat pay, let me quickly add, there is no amount of money we 
could pay our men and women in uniform that would compensate them for 
putting their lives on the line for our country, but I hope what we do 
today will be an important message and symbol to them that we not only 
stand with them when it comes to holding our flag and saying kind words 
on the Senate floor but we stand with them when it comes to combat pay 
and imminent danger pay.
  When we look at the images of men and women on the television risking 
their lives, the prisoners of war, and all the horrors they face, $250 
a month in combat pay seems like something this Senate should approve 
without controversy, and $250 a month for their family back home should 
not be controversial. It is, in fact, an effort to accept the reality 
of family obligations.
  Senator Danny Inouye, one of my heroes in the Senate, last year gave 
a speech which I recall today as we stand and talk about this issue. He 
reminded us that back in World War II, when he served with such great 
distinction, over 80 percent of the men and women in uniform were not 
married, they were single. Today, we know that 60 percent of those 
serving in the Iraqi war, Afghanistan, and in combat zones have 
families back home. The face of the military has changed. Where family 
separation allowance used to apply to a very small group for very 
limited expenses, families today have additional expenses.
  A year or two ago, I had a detailee in my office from the U.S. Army, 
MAJ Pat Sargeant, who works with medical evacuation now and is 
currently serving our country with his wife. He recently sent an e-mail 
to my office. He noted an article in the Army Times, which said: 
``Legislators set out to boost war pays.''
  The article stated I had sponsored an amendment to include an 
increase in monthly imminent danger pay from $150 to $250 and family 
separation allowance from $100 to $250.
  Pat Sargeant--wherever you are--sent me the greatest note and said: 
You cannot believe what it did to morale for us to hear that the 
Members of Congress were going to try to help our families and try to 
help the individuals involved.
  Let's stand together today on a bipartisan basis for all the States, 
as we did last week; 100 to 0 should be the vote in favor of $250 a 
month for combat pay, $250 a month for family separation allowance. 
That is a reasonable amount. It is not an exorbitant amount.

  Some have argued that is just for the remainder of this fiscal year; 
we may have to face this expense in the future. I say, so be it. So be 
it. If we are going to activate guardsmen and reservists, if we are 
going to ask the men and women in uniform in this country to risk their 
lives, the first obligation we have is to them and their families 
before we discuss the myriad of other issues that will come before the 
Senate.

[[Page S4664]]

  In this supplemental appropriations bill, there is a substantial 
amount of money to pursue this war in Iraq. I believe it will receive a 
unanimous vote in the Senate. There is also $9 billion in this bill for 
foreign aid, which I will support.
  Put in perspective what we are asking for: $500 million first and 
foremost to the men and women in uniform and to their families. That is 
not an unreasonable request in a bill that may total $80 billion; $500 
million for the men and women in uniform so that $250 a month in combat 
pay will be there for them, $250 a month will be there to help their 
families get through this very difficult time.
  I hope the Senators who have considered this issue will consider my 
second-degree amendment in friendly terms and accept it so we can vote 
for this on a bipartisan basis. The Senate should stand together. I 
urge my colleagues to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I must state my surprise at the 
distinguished chairman having offered an amendment that would provide 
for an open-ended increase in the national debt. I didn't even know 
this was going to happen. No one spoke to me about this. Yet this is 
open ended.
  I had hoped to finish this bill tomorrow night, by tomorrow night. I 
don't think that I would ever offer an amendment of this nature without 
consulting with my colleague.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry. It is my memory we discussed that ceiling 
problem and the Senator said he did not want to take it up.
  Mr. BYRD. I don't have that memory.
  Mr. STEVENS. We don't have the same memory, as a practical matter.
  I understand the Senator's position. I did introduce it and set it 
aside because I wanted people to understand I believe it is my duty to 
see to it that this subject is addressed during the consideration of 
this bill. I am informed we will reach this problem sometime in June, 
July, or August, unless we do lift the debt ceiling. I do not think we 
can go through this period of war and have that hanging out there and 
be a subject that might constrain defense spending.
  What I have done is introduced an amendment to this bill that says we 
will increase the debt ceiling by the amount we have spent since 
September 11 to meet the interests of our Department of Defense, 
homeland security, and reaction to September 11. If the Senator says 
that is open ended, I don't think it is open ended. I can figure it out 
fast and we will be glad to put the number in there if that will 
satisfy the Senator's objection. I do think it will be an interesting 
debate. We, undoubtedly, will have to raise the question, but based on 
our long friendship, I sincerely apologize if my memory is incorrect.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, ours has been a long friendship. It is 
going to continue. But I expect to be a partner in this fight. I expect 
to be told at least by the chairman that he anticipates calling up an 
amendment of this nature.
  A point of order would lie against this amendment. That would have 
been the very reaction I would have had if he had mentioned such an 
amendment to me. I would say a point of order might lie against it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Unless it is perfected as the Senator suggests in terms 
of a problem with regard to the money.
  Mr. BYRD. That constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. The whole bill is legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, I know.
  I hope in the future I will not be taken by this kind of surprise.
  Mr. STEVENS. I repeat my apology. My memory is we discussed whether 
we should address it, the debt ceiling.
  Mr. BYRD. When did we discuss it; I ask where did we discuss it?
  Mr. STEVENS. In my office, sir.
  I apologize. I have addressed this with several other Senators. I 
apologize and I have taken it upon myself to say it is my error, but 
the amendment is there and it is my duty to raise the subject of the 
debt ceiling.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, that is quite all right, but I would at least like to 
know in advance that it is being done, that is No. 1.
  No. 2, this is an open-ended increase in the debt ceiling.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is the reason I introduced it and had it set aside 
so we could address the question of whether we should make it a closed 
subject. We can calculate that amount right now. But it may be changed 
before this bill is over. The bill keeps going up. It is already up 
more than the President asked for, and I believe it to be another $5 or 
$6 billion before we get the bill to conference.
  In any event, the problem is, what are we going to do? Do we proceed 
with the three wars we have going up on, and then, my God, we may not 
be able to do that because if we do that we will exceed the debt 
ceiling.
  The President has the power--under food and forage--to start spending 
money. We have a program for other purposes, for the conduct of these 
three wars. I take the position he should not be constrained at all by 
a debt ceiling. It is my duty to raise that debt ceiling.
  Again, I apologize to my friend. I would like to address, when the 
Senator is finished, Senator Durbin's comment about the pending 
amendment. This is not the pending amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have spoken to the manager of the bill 
and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, and I am going to speak on an 
amendment I will offer at some subsequent time. Senator Stevens has 
indicated the amendment that is the first one that was offered here 
today will not be discussed until after we have the cloture vote on the 
Estrada nomination. That will be at around 2 o'clock. After that time, 
we will again discuss that, if necessary.
  Madam President, as I indicated, at some subsequent time, I will 
offer an amendment. The Democratic leader has indicated he wants just a 
few amendments offered. He has gone over the amendments he feels would 
be appropriate, and this is one of them.
  So I would just simply say, if you watch television--as we all do 
every night--you see the explosions going off in Baghdad and other 
places in Iraq. Lights coming up, flashes--they go away very quickly. 
These violent occurrences we see on television are tiny, little babies 
compared to what this amendment is all about.
  A nuclear explosion makes everything that has happened in Iraq appear 
as if it is nothing. For everything that has happened in Iraq to this 
point, one nuclear explosion would be far more devastating than 
everything that has taken place throughout the country of Iraq these 
past 2 weeks.
  We have some knowledge in Nevada of the violence of a nuclear 
explosion. For those who have been to the Nevada test site, as you 
drive through the very remote area, you see holes in the ground that 
are bigger than the United States Capitol, where a nuclear explosion 
has taken place--bigger than the United States Capitol.
  You see where they have done aboveground tests. They still have the 
remnants of a small town that was destroyed. There are parts of it 
left, but not much.
  And then throughout the desert, where you do not see the large holes 
bigger than the United States Capitol, there are almost 1,000 
indentations in the land where shafts have been sunk and these nuclear 
devices set off far in the ground, thousands of feet into the ground--
not hundreds, thousands of feet in the ground--but yet the ground 
settles. And as you drive through it, it is like the landscape of the 
moon.
  And then, things you cannot see are the tunnels. There are tunnels 
all over those mountains in the Nevada test site, where scores of 
nuclear explosions have been set off. We cannot see the devastation 
that takes place inside the earth, but it has taken place.

[[Page S4665]]

  We were concerned here in the Capitol when Senator Daschle's office 
was anthraxed. Somebody sent him some poisonous material, and it took 
millions of dollars to clean up the building the anthrax was in, the 
Hart Office Building--millions of dollars. It took several months to 
clean that up.
  We hear so much about dirty bombs. The explosion in most dirty bombs 
would not be real big. It would be plenty big, but not as big as what I 
have described at the Nevada test site. But one dirty bomb would so 
contaminate a building, a neighborhood, a community, that it would be 
basically useless for scores of years.
  The amendment I am going to offer provides $400 million to the 
Department of Energy to safeguard nuclear weapons and nuclear material 
in the United States and throughout the world.

  I want to make sure that Members in the Senate understand what I am 
doing, what this amendment is attempting to do. The amendment provides 
$300 million for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Program and $100 million 
in additional funding to the Department of Energy to fund enhanced 
safeguards and security programs at the Nation's nuclear weapons 
laboratories and plants, at environmental management cleanup sites 
throughout the Nation, and at DOE Office of Science laboratories. All 
of these sites are home to nuclear material which needs to be 
protected.
  There are large amounts of money in the supplemental appropriations 
package for the Department of Homeland Security. And I supported that. 
It is for first responder training and chem-bio detection and related 
activities. It is a good thing. There will be efforts made to increase 
that.
  However, most of our Nation's nonproliferation activities and nuclear 
detection activities are not housed within the Department of Homeland 
Security. These activities are funded under the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, a semiautonomous organization within the 
Department of Energy. The administration request for nonproliferation 
and nuclear security was zero--nothing.
  The broad authority to transfer funds to meet homeland security needs 
would placate me a little bit if it were not for the fact that the 
transfer authority is only available within the Department of Homeland 
Security, and the Department of Homeland Security is not in a position 
to transfer funds to the National Nuclear Security Administration for 
nuclear nonproliferation or security activities.
  This is really a big concern. The GAO issued a Weapons of Mass 
Destruction report last week concerning the faltering cooperation the 
United States is receiving from Russia in terms of securing fissile 
nuclear material, and other weapons of mass destruction, in the former 
Soviet Republics. After years of effort, the United States is still 
struggling to get access to most locations where nuclear material is 
stored. The ramifications of this report should frighten everyone. More 
importantly, it is time for Congress to get moving on doing something 
about this problem.
  We have not even talked much about it, let alone done anything about 
it. It is incumbent upon this and all future administrations to get the 
material secured as quickly as possible just as it is critical to 
ensure that we do a better job protecting nuclear material in the 
country. However, since September 11, it has been like pulling teeth, 
for lack of a better description, to get this administration to request 
supplemental funding to better secure nuclear material at our weapons 
labs and plants, DOE sites, and other laboratories run by the 
Department of Energy.
  The administration has paid little heed to calls from within the 
Department to do a better job of transporting this stuff safely. Last 
year, the Department requested hundreds of millions of dollars but OMB 
simply wouldn't approve anything other than $26 million. In response, 
Congress appropriated $300 million in contingent emergency funding. The 
President refused to release this.
  These moneys go to making a safer world. The reason we are doing this 
is to try to make sure that homeland security really means something 
and we have a program to do something about nuclear materials.
  The neglect we have shown as a country is frightening. I am grateful 
to my colleagues and good friends, Senators Domenici and Stevens, for 
adding almost $100 million to this supplemental for many activities 
about which I have spoken. They also added $54 million in additional 
safeguards for Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation 
facilities. That was important. My amendment seeks to build on that 
base. This amendment pays for everything in the underlying amendment 
Senator Domenici worked to put in this and then funds many additional 
activities that are crucial to our Nation's efforts to keep nuclear 
materials safe and secure.
  The $400 million in this amendment is spread out as follows: The 
largest proportion of this money goes to nuclear detectors at mega-
seaports around the world, not here in the United States necessarily. 
The global shipping system can deliver a containerized weapon of mass 
destruction more accurately than a missile from the Soviet Union, 
according to the Department of Energy. This isn't something I am making 
up. Vessels move 90 percent of our warfare fighting material and the 
bulk of goods our Nation purchases from abroad. Current U.S.-based 
systems for protecting radioactive weapons are not oriented toward when 
a port itself is a target of a weapon of mass destruction.
  The Department of Energy has performed an analysis of shipping in the 
United States and has identified 60 foreign mega-seaports overseas 
where goods/containers from many nations first go before they are 
shipped to the United States. DOE indicates that, for example, about 10 
percent of all containers shipping to the United States go through Hong 
Kong and about 6 percent go through Shanghai and Singapore.
  DOE has developed nuclear detectors that can be given to port 
authorities in such mega-seaports in conjunction with U.S. Customs 
which provide port-wide alert of nuclear material. Detecting and 
impounding illicit nuclear material before it is even sent to the 
United States provides the best protection we can get.
  We have the technology; it is just expensive. This amendment would 
pay for our going to Shanghai, to Singapore, to Hong Kong, these mega-
ports where we get so much of our material, and determine if any of 
those shipments are nuclear in nature before they get here.
  DOE is in the process of deploying the first radiological detection 
system to a foreign mega-seaport, but it has no funds appropriated in 
the 2003 fiscal year or even budgeted for 2004 to do this. They are in 
the process of deploying, but you can't deploy if you have no money. 
This additional $135 million would provide protection for nine mega-
seaports. It would not get all of them, but it would get the big ones. 
This would be for a total of 10--the 1 they are trying to work out and 
the 9. This additional money would allow screening of approximately 
half of all containerized shipping entering the United States. Right 
now, we basically check none of it. This amendment would allow us to 
check 50 percent of it. This is something that is vitally important.
  I talked about dirty bombs; radiological dispersal devices is the 
technical name. On March 11, Secretary Abraham addressed an 
International Atomic Energy Agency meeting, which he initiated to 
discuss the menace of radiological dispersal devices, with over 600 
people from 100 nations in attendance. It was our meeting, the United 
States of America. The use of radioactive sources for peaceful purposes 
is widespread. They have many beneficial industrial, agricultural, 
research, and medical applications, but terrorists also may seek such 
devices for their radiological content to construct dirty bombs and 
cause panic and economic disruption by spreading radioactive material 
over a wide area and detonating high explosives. I repeat, what 
happened in the Hart Building with anthrax is nothing compared to any 
dirty bomb.
  The Secretary said at that international gathering:

       ``It is our critically important job to deny terrorists the 
     radioactive sources they need to construct such weapons. The 
     threat requires a determined and comprehensive international 
     response. Our governments must act, individually and 
     collectively, to

[[Page S4666]]

     identify all the high-risk radioactive sources that are being 
     used and have been abandoned.'' The Secretary told the 
     conference ``We are ready to assist other interested 
     countries to speed the needed improvements, and we want to 
     begin immediately.''

  I am sure his heart was in the right place, but he had no ability to 
deliver on the statement he made to this conference.
  He went on to say:

       We are prepared to work with other countries to locate, 
     consolidate, secure, and dispose of high risk radiological 
     sources by developing a system of national regional 
     repositories to consolidate and securely store these sources.

  The administration has never requested a penny for this purpose. It 
seems now that this supplemental appropriations bill is where we should 
make the Secretary's offer of assistance to the international community 
credible.
  This bill calls for $20 million for nonproliferation assistance to 
nations other than the former Soviet Union. The Materials, Protection, 
Controls, and Accounting Agency nuclear nonproliferation programs to 
date have only targeted nations of the former Soviet Union. There is no 
money to do anything about it, to assist countries all over the world, 
especially in Southeast Asia--no money. Obviously, the point is made 
there.
  We have $20 million in this bill for funds that are needed to develop 
the analytical capability to determine the nature and origin of a 
stolen nuclear weapon or captured improvised nuclear device or what 
happened and who did it in the event of nuclear detonation on U.S. 
soil.
  We need research and development. If a nuclear device is found, we 
need to be able to determine what kind of a device it is, how it will 
detonate, how to defuse it. We have $20 million, a relatively small 
amount, the Department needs to improve material and radiochemical 
analysis methods, the sampling and modeling of nuclear explosion 
debris, and the implications of nuclear weapons design.
  Our weapons labs around this country have the best scientists in the 
world. I have been to the weapons labs: Livermore, Sandia, Los Alamos. 
They have the best and the brightest. But they can't do anything to 
help us unless they have money to do the research. That is what this 
will do.
  In this amendment, we have $15 million for nuclear nonproliferation 
verification, $12 million for nonproliferation assistance to Russian 
strategic rocket forces. What is this amount? Certain elements of the 
Russian military prefer to deal with our Department of Energy rather 
than the Department of Defense. For example, all work by the United 
States to secure Russian Navy warheads has been done by DOE. The fiscal 
year 2004 budget proposes for the first time for DOE to assist the 
Russian strategic rocket force ICBMs to secure its weapons. It contains 
funds to secure 2 of the first 10 most viable sites. Additional funds 
in the supplemental would start the program much earlier and increase 
the number of sites to be protected.
  I have worked with Senator Domenici for many years, as the ranking 
member and chairman--going back and forth--of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee on Appropriations. We have the responsibility to take care 
of our nuclear weapons. Large amounts of money are appropriated every 
year. We in the United States appropriate large sums of money to make 
sure our nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. A nuclear stockpile is 
not like storing a car. It is not like storing canned goods. These 
weapons have elements that go bad, and you need to constantly review, 
examine these weapons to find if they are safe and reliable. The 
Russians know this. But they have not had the resources to help. It is 
in our best interest to work with them, with Nunn-Lugar and other such 
methods, to try to help them make their stockpile safe and reliable. 
Here is $12 million for additional funds that, as I have indicated, 
would help the ICBMs in Russia be safe and reliable.
  When the war with Iraq ends and we find weapons of mass destruction 
in with nuclear material, we need to make sure we will have some way of 
disposing of them. We have provided in this bill for that. We want to 
make sure there is money for nuclear material detection regarding 
materials and devices.
  Funds are also needed to help develop advanced materials that will 
enable the fielding of room-temperature, high-resolution, hand-held and 
portable radiation detection and identification equipment. Our labs can 
do that with the scientific community, many of which are in the private 
sector.
  We have another problem. We need to be able to detect any nuclear 
explosion from proliferant countries that have very low yield. We don't 
have the equipment to do that. We need $10 million to do that. What we 
have in this amendment is a number of efforts to simply make our 
country safer, to make homeland security apply also to things nuclear.
  I am going to offer this amendment when we get the parliamentary 
problem worked out. The threat of loose nukes worldwide scares me as 
much as anything that I am afraid of. We have to do something about it. 
We have not talked about it. It is like the perennial ostrich sticking 
his head underground so he cannot see what is going on. I see what is 
going on, and the Senate must see what is going on. This bill, which is 
extremely important--as important as anything we do for homeland 
security--contains $400 million, directed totally to things nuclear.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________