[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 131 (Tuesday, September 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11772-S11775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     A CHARGE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, over the weekend the country heard one of 
the more senior Members of this body, the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts, make a charge against the President of the United 
States, particularly with respect to the war in Iraq.
  The senior Senator from Massachusetts said the war in Iraq was 
``hatched in Texas'' in a conversation between the President of the 
United States and the Republican leadership and that the purpose of 
attacking Iraq was to help the Republicans politically in the 
congressional elections of 2002. The Senator from Massachusetts 
summarized the President's position with respect to the war in a single 
word. He called it a ``fraud.''
  To quote a comment from the Washington Post in another situation 
dealing with Iraq, this is a serious charge and it deserves a serious 
response. It is my attempt today to give a serious response to this 
charge.
  If the charge made by the senior Senator from Massachusetts is 
accurate, then the President is deserving of a serious rebuke. If in 
fact the charge is not accurate, the senior Senator from Massachusetts 
is deserving of a serious rebuke.
  I intend to examine whether or not the charge could be substantiated 
and give it the attention that I think it does in fact deserve.
  I will turn not to sources that are friendly to the President of the 
United States; I will go in my analysis to those who have been critical 
of President Bush with respect to Iraq and to his Presidency generally.
  Let me start by quoting a Presidential statement with respect to 
Iraq:

       Saddam Hussein's priorities are painfully clear, not caring 
     for his citizens but building weapons of mass destruction and 
     using them--using them not once, but repeatedly in the 
     terrible war Iraq fought with Iran, and not only against 
     combatants but against civilians, and not only against a 
     foreign adversary but against his own people, and he has 
     targeted Scud missiles against fellow Arabs in Iran, Saudi 
     Arabia, and Bahrain.
       Nobody wants to use force, but if Saddam Hussein refuses to 
     keep his commitments to the international community, we must 
     be prepared to deal directly with the threat these weapons 
     pose to the Iraqi people, to Iraq's neighbors, and to the 
     rest of the world. Either Saddam acts, or we will have to.

  As I say, that was a Presidential quote, but it was not from George 
W. Bush, and it was not after a meeting in Texas between George W. Bush 
and Republican leaders. That was a statement made by President William 
Jefferson Clinton on February 20, 1998--long before the congressional 
elections of 2002 and 2 years before George W. Bush became President of 
the United States.
  The suggestion that President Bush created the fraud or the specter 
that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction does not stand up 
against that statement by President Clinton.
  I make reference to the Washington Post. This is a newspaper that is 
not known for its support of either Republicans or President Bush. But 
they were a supporter of attacking Iraq and, as I have said, there were 
those who charged the Washington Post editors with a ``jingoistic rush 
to war,'' and the paper said, as I have noted:

       That is a serious charge and it deserves a serious 
     response.

  Then the paper goes on to make these comments:

       In fact, there is nothing sudden or precipitous about our 
     view that Saddam Hussein poses a grave danger.

  Quoting further:

       In 1997 and 1998, we strongly backed President Clinton when 
     he vowed that Iraq must finally honor its commitments to the 
     United Nations to give up its nuclear, biological, and 
     chemical weapons, and we strongly criticized him when he 
     retreated from those vows.

  Again, that was a comment made after the supposed meeting in Texas 
and made after the congressional elections of 2002. If, indeed, 
President Bush made the decision to go into Iraq for purely political 
reasons, why would the Washington Post, which is not one of President 
Bush's supporters, be commenting after those congressional elections in 
a way that makes it clear they came to the same conclusion that 
President Bush did?
  Would the Senator from Massachusetts suggest that the Washington Post 
was part of the conspiracy that went on in Texas prior to the 
congressional elections, and that the Washington Post was complicit in 
the fraud visited on the American people by the decision to go ahead in 
Iraq?
  The Post editorial goes on, and this was February 27, 2003:

       When we cite Mr. Clinton's perceptive but ultimately empty 
     comments, it is in part to chide him and other Democrats who 
     take a different view now that a Republican is in charge. But 
     it has a more serious purpose, too. Mr. Clinton could not 
     muster the will, or the domestic or international support, 
     to force Saddam Hussein to live up to the promises he had 
     made in 1991, though even then the danger was well 
     understood.

  We need not stay within our shores to find those who believe the 
President made the right decision in Iraq. Let us go overseas. I had 
occasion to visit with a group of European Parliamentarians. One of 
them, who came from Great Britain, made this comment to me. He said 
they have never had a politician in Great Britain who is as poll-driven 
as Tony Blair, and they never had one who pays so much attention to 
focus groups. The man said Tony Blair almost allows focus groups to 
determine what kind of tie he will wear in the morning. Yet when we 
come to this Iraq business, said this particular Parliamentarian, Tony 
Blair is going against all of the polls and all of the focus groups. He 
is acting in a manner that is completely uncharacteristic for him as a 
politician. He is actually willing to risk his position as Prime 
Minister in order to make sure we go after Saddam Hussein. He said they 
cannot understand it, except on one possible basis, and that is that 
Tony Blair must be completely convinced that the information is 
correct, that the intelligence is right, and that Saddam Hussein does 
indeed pose a threat. He said that there is otherwise no explanation 
for the way he is behaving, that it is contrary to his entire political 
experience.
  Would the senior Senator from Massachusetts suggest that Tony Blair 
was

[[Page S11773]]

part of a conspiracy in Texas prior to the 2002 elections, and that 
Tony Blair was convinced by the President of the United States he 
should help him win a Republican victory in the congressional elections 
by supporting the action in Iraq?
  It is interesting when we are talking about Tony Blair we can once 
again turn to the words of William Jefferson Clinton. On March 18, 
2003, once again, after the congressional elections had taken place, 
President Clinton had this to say in the Guardian Newspaper, published 
in Great Britain. He talked about those in America who were calling for 
action. Then he says:

       On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly 
     opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on 
     Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe 
     that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will 
     not use or give away its chemical and biological stock and 
     therefore no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose 
     a threat sufficient to justify invasion.

  Here is President Clinton using a phrase that is now current in the 
Democratic Presidential race: ``He does not pose a threat sufficient to 
justify invasion.''
  Then President Clinton goes on and responds to that statement by 
saying this:

       The problem with their position is that only the threat of 
     force from the US and the UK got inspectors back into Iraq in 
     the first place. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam 
     will not disarm.

  Then President Clinton goes on to conclude:

       If we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, 
     after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that 
     one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put 
     many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing 
     Saddam.
       . . . Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes 
     to be right. I trust him to do that and hope the labor MP's 
     and the British people will, too.

  This is President Clinton supporting Prime Minister Blair in his 
support of President Bush after the congressional elections of 2002 
have taken place.
  Are we suggesting again that President Clinton and Prime Minister 
Blair and the Washington Post were all part of the conspiracy to 
perpetuate a fraud on the American people? I don't think so.
  Now, I come to my final comment that I wish to make, again, from a 
source not friendly to the President. Once again, it is the Washington 
Post. I began with them and I shall conclude with them. This is an 
editorial published on August 10, 2003, almost a year after the 
congressional elections are over. They are referring to a speech made 
by the former Vice President, Al Gore:

       The notion--that we were all somehow bamboozled into war--
     is part of Mr. Gore's larger conviction that Mr. Bush has put 
     one over on the nation, and not just with regard to Iraq.

  That is essentially what the senior Senator from Massachusetts said, 
and which the former Vice President said, and the Washington Post 
repeats that. This is the comment they make, referring to that proposal 
President Bush ``put one over on the nation.''
  The Washington Post says of that idea that it is:

       . . . one that many Americans might find a tad insulting: 
     The administration has developed a highly effective 
     propaganda machine to embed in the public mind mythologies . 
     . .

  Again, that is Vice President Gore's comment, and that was the gist 
of what the senior Senator from Massachusetts said.
  Back to the Washington Post:

       Thus, Mr. Gore maintains, we were all under the ``false 
     impression'' that Saddam Hussein was ``on the verge of 
     building nuclear bombs,'' that he was ``about to give the 
     terrorists poison gas and deadly germs,'' that he was partly 
     responsible for the 9/11 attacks. And because of these 
     ``false impressions,'' the nation didn't conduct a proper 
     debate about the war. But there was extensive debate going 
     back many years; last fall and winter the nation debated 
     little else. Mr. Bush took his case to the United Nations. 
     Congress argued about and approved a resolution authorizing 
     war. And the approval did not come, as Mr. Gore and other 
     Democrats now maintain, because people were deceived into 
     believing that Saddam Hussein was an ``imminent'' threat who 
     had attacked the World Trade Center or was about to do so.

  They conclude:

       It would certainly be fair now to argue that the logic was 
     wrong. There was a cogent case to be made against the war, 
     and even those who supported it might now say that the 
     absence of any uncovered weapons of mass destruction, or the 
     continuing violence against Americans, gives them, in 
     hindsight, a different view. There's plenty to criticize in 
     the administration's postwar effort, too. What isn't 
     persuasive, or even very smart politically, is to pretend to 
     have been fooled by what Mr. Gore breathlessly calls the Bush 
     ``systematic effort to manipulate facts . . .''

  From these sources outside of the Republican base and outside of the 
administration, it is clear the senior Senator from Massachusetts has 
made a charge he cannot substantiate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I compliment my distinguished 
colleague from Utah. The Bennett family has given two generations of 
service to the Senate, and the Senator can speak with a background and 
understanding of this institution and a conscience for this institution 
to follow. I commend my distinguished colleague.
  I join this morning in speaking out about this situation, and indeed, 
if I may say, the responsibility of this Chamber, each individually and 
collectively, as we deal with these issues. I have been privileged to 
be a member of this Chamber for a quarter of a century. I, too, was 
gravely concerned to hear remarks from several of our colleagues 
regarding criticism of this operation in Iraq. Criticism is welcome. 
Our President welcomes it. It is freedom of speech. But there seems to 
be a responsibility, if you criticize, answer the question, Are we as a 
nation--is the world better off today, having deposed Saddam Hussein 
and his regime of terrorism, or should we have left it as it was?
  That question has to be answered by those who wish to employ this 
strident rhetoric, but they fail to do so.
  Throughout the military history of this country, from World War I, 
World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, our military planners 
have done their best--a clear victory in World War I, a clear victory 
in World War II, an indecisive conclusion in Korea--still there is no 
armistice as such--and an indecisive and somewhat tragic conclusion in 
Vietnam. So as we look at the records in Afghanistan, militarily, it 
clearly was a success. Could the planning have been more comprehensive? 
Possibly so. And there will come a time--and I wish to stress that--
there will come a time when this Chamber and the House of 
Representatives and the Congress as a whole can determine the 
accountability for these operations.
  At this time, our focus should be behind the Commander in Chief, our 
President, who at this very moment is addressing the United Nations on 
the policies and the goals of our Nation working with a coalition of 
forces in Iraq.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator is the military historian and 
has served as Secretary of the Navy. Could the Senator confirm my 
recollection that General Eisenhower once said, before the attack: The 
plan is everything? After the attack starts, the plan goes out the 
window.

  Is that a correct quote? And does that apply in this situation?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that carefully paraphrases what 
that brilliant strategist and President said. There is no doubt about 
it. And there will be a time to determine what went right, what did not 
go according to plan, and such deficiencies, and the accountability. 
But right now our obligation is owing to the men and the women who are 
fighting there and their families at home. Stop to think of the 
reaction of a young wife, surrounded by small children, not knowing 
from day to day whether her husband will survive another day's 
engagement in Afghanistan or Iraq, and they hear this whole thing has 
been a fraud perpetrated upon this family and was made up in Texas. I 
find that very painful.
  I have had the privilege of almost a lifetime of association with the 
men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States--over half a 
century. Modest was my contribution on active duty, but through this 
half century I have learned much from these men and women with whom I 
have been privileged to work and support now as a Member of the Senate.

[[Page S11774]]

  We always have to focus on that family and their reaction to every 
word we say on this floor, every word that is said in the Congress. How 
does it affect that young wife or spouse of a female serving in 
uniform, as many are in these troubled areas of the world? How is that 
family affected, and not only the children but the parents?
  By and large, people who go into uniform do so solely for patriotism. 
It is an all-volunteer force. There is no draft. No one is compelled to 
do this. They volunteer. They volunteer as a consequence of the 
inspiration of their older brothers and sisters, their fathers, their 
uncles, their grandfathers who have served in previous military 
conflicts.
  They look upon the Congress as that bastion that safeguards--
safeguards--those who are put in harm's way. I ask, do these comments 
constitute embracing, as we should, those families, those children? Is 
that safeguarding those put in harm's way? I say no.
  I simply say the goal of this operation in Iraq and the goal of the 
operation in Afghanistan is to bring to those troubled regions of the 
world, at long last, a measure of freedom for the peoples of those 
nations, a measure of their ability to govern themselves.
  I am proud the United States, behind our President, has taken that 
leadership to bring about that measure of freedom and democracy in 
those foreign lands. Yes, each of us is paying by the loss of life, the 
loss of limb, but history will record, in this hour of world history, 
America stands strong. It is committed to its goals. I am confident 
this body will support our President on measures that he needs to 
fulfill these objectives.
  The decision to confront Saddam Hussein was not without careful 
deliberation, extensive diplomacy, and substantial effort to find a 
peaceful solution. It had been the conclusion of three consecutive 
American administrations, countless other nations, and the United 
Nations that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime had weapons of mass 
destruction, had used them on his own people and neighboring countries, 
and was a clear and present danger to regional and world peace. It had 
been the conclusion of the Clinton administration that Saddam Hussein 
had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, was actively seeking 
more, and would ultimately use them again. The United Nations Security 
Council had passed 17 resolutions, stretching back to 1991--12 years--
requiring full cooperation in disarming itself of weapons of mass 
destruction. Saddam Hussein's response was defiance and deception.
  In October 2002, after an unprecedented amount of debate, the Senate 
voted 77-23 to authorize the President to use force in Iraq. The House 
of Representatives also voted overwhelmingly in favor of authorizing 
the use of force. By that act, it became our war and the American 
people's war, not the President's war. At this critical juncture, it is 
our responsibility to provide the resources necessary to finish the 
job.
  American armed forces, joined by a robust coalition, achieved 
extraordinary, rapid military success in Iraq, with minimum casualties 
and damage. This is a clear tribute to the professionalism and 
dedication of our young men and women in uniform and those who support 
them. We have succeeded in ridding the world of a brutal tyrant and 
have revealed the extent of his barbarism. We should be congratulating 
our President and our armed forces on a job well done, not criticizing 
and undermining their heroic efforts.
  Extensive planning was done for combat operations, as well as post 
conflict stability operations. We all know that no plan survives its 
initial confrontation with reality on the battlefield. Plans must be 
flexible and adapt to conditions as they are encountered. No one could 
have anticipated the complete disintegration of Iraqi security and 
governance institutions. No one knew how badly the Iraqi infrastructure 
had deteriorated under Saddam Hussein's 30-plus years of mismanagement.
  American forces and coalition partners have done a remarkable job of 
restoring basic services, rebuilding schools and hospitals, preventing 
ethnic violence and creating an environment where reconstruction can 
succeed. This is being done in a difficult environment of harsh 
conditions and significant risk, as those who have been removed from 
power seek to delay inevitable defeat and as terrorists lash out at the 
loss of another haven.
  What is the best way to reduce U.S. casualties and create the 
conditions for withdrawing U.S. troops? The key is to improve the 
security situation by restoring essential services, recruiting and 
training dependable, indigenous Iraqi security forces, and repairing 
the infrastructure so that real economic growth and opportunity can 
flourish. The emergency supplemental request of $87 billion submitted 
by President Bush specifically addresses this need.
  It is imperative that we give our President and our troops the 
resources they need to complete their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The faster the money gets to these countries, the faster conditions 
will improve, and the faster our troops will come home. We must, and we 
will, stay the course and achieve our goals. This is also a clear 
message of support and resolve to our troops, their families, and the 
neighborhoods and communities that support them.
  Lasting peace and security in Iraq will be achieved when we establish 
the environment for a democratic, economically viable Iraq. The 
supplemental request now before the Congress will ensure such an 
environment and is the best path to the earliest possible return of our 
troops. Half a century ago, the Marshall plan brought peace and 
prosperity to a war-ravaged continent. That modest investment has been 
repaid a hundredfold or more. The funding we are being asked to provide 
for this important region is an equally important investment that will, 
likewise, be repaid many times over in the decades to come. I urge my 
colleagues to support and rapidly approve the President's request and 
send a message of overwhelming bipartisan support to our troops, and to 
all American citizens, of the need to stay the course and secure this 
important victory in the war on terrorism.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it was my understanding that the 
Democratic side had from 9:30 to 10, and the Republican side from 10 to 
10:30. Could you clarify where we stand at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There were 60 minutes divided starting at 9:38 
a.m. Currently on the majority side there are 6\1/2\ minutes; on the 
minority side there are 7 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to ask, then, that the 
minority take its time, after which I would like to reserve the 
remainder of our time for Senator Santorum.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are not going to take our time now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me clarify that. What is the 
status, then, of the minority's time allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 7 minutes 41 seconds. The majority 
has 6 minutes 25 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it was my understanding that----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no agreement. The time is just 
equally divided.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. May I ask the distinguished minority leader what his 
intentions are, then, with regard to the minority time, because we had 
thought we had a division that is the tradition here where the minority 
takes the last 30 minutes on one day and then the majority the next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas is correct. What 
happened this morning is the majority went ahead of their normal time. 
I say to my friend, the Senator from Texas, we are going to ask for 
more time, anyway. Quite frankly, we didn't know when morning business 
was scheduled that the purpose was to attack another Senator. Based 
upon that, we are going to ask, when all time expires, for more time. 
So we should all have time to state our respective positions.
  We have a number of Senators who are on their way to the Chamber now. 
Senator Dodd is here now to say a word regarding the statements that 
have been made by the majority. So we are going to ask for more time.

[[Page S11775]]

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in that case, I will withhold for our 
majority leader to make a decision about what the time allocation would 
be, and I yield up to 5 minutes to Senator Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from 
Texas.
  Having reflected on this debate on Iraq and postwar Iraq, a lot of 
what I am hearing--the rhetoric I am hearing about this administration 
not having a plan, this administration not preparing for all the 
contingencies, this administration not having an exit strategy or an 
end strategy--reminds me of a couple of things. No. 1, it reminds me 
about the same people making the same criticism about the same 
administration about a month into the war that the generals didn't 
consider all the different problems they were going to confront, they 
didn't have a plan, didn't have an exit strategy, et cetera--and then 2 
weeks later the war was over.
  I am not suggesting that 2 weeks from now everything in Iraq is going 
to be settled, but this idea that every contingency had to be 
considered is ridiculous. No one is smart enough anywhere to consider 
every contingency. What you are smart enough to do is put a basic game 
plan in place, and then, as things develop, have that game plan 
flexible enough to adjust and meet those contingencies. It is exactly 
what Tommy Franks did when he put the game plan together for the war in 
Iraq. As things changed and developed, as new things came up, they 
adjusted. It is exactly what is going on with Jerry Bremer over in Iraq 
today.
  I also harken back to postwar Germany after World War II. A lot of 
analogies are being made by both sides about the importance of this 
reconstruction of Iraq as was the reconstruction of the Axis powers 
after World War II. I remind my colleagues that this plan Truman gets a 
lot of credit for, Marshall gets a lot of credit for, was not in place 
until 2 years--2 years--after Germany fell. It was not passed in the 
Congress until 3 years after Germany fell.
  I remind my colleagues of some of the comments some Members of this 
body made and some Members of the House made back then. A House Member, 
a Mr. Vursell, from Illinois, said--this is in the Congressional 
Record--

       There is little question in my mind but that the launching 
     of the Marshall plan asking 16 nations to gather in 
     conference and determine how much aid they needed from the 
     United States was a colossal blunder in the very beginning.

  Does this sound familiar--``a colossal blunder''?
  He said:

       It will be less disastrous to this country if the Members 
     of this Congress will now take over and have the courage to 
     try to salvage what we can in the interest of our Government 
     and the [American] people.

  Now you are hearing the same thing today.
  History proved that great leadership and great vision have their 
place in the world. Sometimes Members of Congress, with very narrow 
vision and very parochial interests, don't necessarily do what is in 
the best interest of the Nation or the best interest of the world.
  What the President is doing is providing true leadership at a time 
when leadership is at a premium. He provided in the Iraq war a great 
plan. He stuck to it in spite of criticism and followed that plan to 
its successful conclusion.
  There were speeches in the Senate, both sides of the aisle, about how 
difficult not the war was going to be but how difficult postwar Iraq 
was going to be, that it would be the difficult and long challenge. Yet 
here we are a few months afterwards and we are already carping, saying 
it is not finished, it has not been accomplished. Yet by every measure, 
we are doing much better in postwar Iraq than they did with the most 
successful reconstruction plan in the history of the world, the 
Marshall plan. We are moving forward with economic reforms, currency 
reforms, banking reforms, money to be put in to restore their 
infrastructure at a much faster and more effective rate than what 
occurred after World War II. This is a plan that needs time to work.
  I understand the pressures of the 24-hour news cycle. Thankfully, in 
1947 they didn't have that. But we have it today. And so the need is 
always immediate. There can be no room for delay or failure. We are in 
a push-button world, and we have to solve the problems today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what is the status of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 14 seconds left.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. For the majority side. And how much on the minority 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes 41 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to use the 1 minute 14 
seconds to say that there is one thing I must object to that was said 
recently by Senator Kennedy, when he said that the war is ``a fraud 
that was made up in Texas to give the President a political boost.'' I 
have great respect for Senator Kennedy and every Senator who represents 
his or her State in this body. But that is a slur on my home State of 
Texas, to say this plot was made up in Texas.
  I remind the people of America that Texas is a patriotic State, that 
Texas has 1 in 10 Active-Duty military. On the very day that statement 
was made, a plot in Texas to help a political campaign of a President, 
in fact, on that very day, three Texas soldiers were ambushed in Iraq 
and lost their lives serving our country. Those are great Texans. The 
4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, TX, is there now, as we speak.
  As I traveled through Afghanistan and Iraq, I met Texans who were 
serving their country. I don't think there should ever be a slur on 
another State when we are talking about foreign policy or the policies 
of a President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________