[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1316-S1319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007--Continued

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are prepared to move ahead on the 
amendments. We have some that are in the Finance Committee, some in our 
HELP Committee. We are prepared to move ahead on the Chambliss 
amendment. We would hope that the Senator might come to the floor to 
debate it. We are prepared to proceed. Senator Feinstein is prepared to 
speak on it. I am prepared to debate it. The Finance Committee is in 
the process of working with Senator Kyl on some of the other matters. 
It is 3:15 in the afternoon, and we are prepared to move ahead.
  As I understand it, Senator DeMint chose not to offer his amendment. 
So the Chambliss amendment would be the one amendment that is germane 
postcloture. We are prepared to deal with that at this time. We invite 
the Senator to come and debate the amendment.
  We heard a great deal about how we want to move ahead, how we want to 
deal with the amendments. We are prepared to do so. I hope the good 
Senator will choose to come to the floor so we could continue to 
proceed with this legislation.
  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. TESTER. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a subject 
that involves common decency and economic fairness--raising the minimum 
wage. In my State of Montana, thousands of workers struggle just to 
make ends meet with less than the State's current minimum standard. 
Twelve counties in Montana have 9 percent of their workforce making 
less than the State's current minimum wage standard. That makes it 
virtually impossible for those folks to try to obtain the middle class.
  Raising the minimum wage is the first step to empowering the middle 
class, to making the middle class all it can be. We have talked about 
and for the last 6, 7 days we have heard about how important it is to 
raise the minimum wage. Let me tell my colleagues, if we are going to 
make this country all it can be, we need to show some attention to the 
middle class. This raising of the minimum wage, make no mistake about 
it, is the first step to empowering the middle class to make it vibrant 
once again. There are many things that can be done and I hope will be 
done when this 110th Congress goes forward. We are doing the right 
thing.
  The fact is, people deserve a fair wage for the work they do. The 
current minimum wage at $5.15 an hour translates into less than $11,000 
per year. One can't pay the bills with that kind of income.
  I can tell my colleagues that as I drove around the State of Montana 
over the last year and a half, one of the fellows who made one of the 
biggest impressions on me was at a truck stop, when he asked me what I 
was going to do for average workers in the State of Montana. I said: 
What do you have in mind? He said: Currently, I work three jobs, and I 
still have difficulty making ends meet. What kind of quality of life 
can a person have working three jobs, struggling every day just to pay 
basic bills like heating, lights, and insurance?
  The fact is that around this country, many States have passed minimum 
wage laws that have increased the minimum wage. Unfortunately, the 
leadership has not come from Washington, DC, on this issue; it has come 
from the States. And I think it is high time that this Congress--and it 
is unfortunate it hasn't happened before, but it is high time and it is 
welcomed that this Congress would step to the plate to increase the 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. It is the right thing to do, 
and it is a good first step. I will applaud the Senators if we, in 
fact, get this job done, which I think is entirely appropriate, to 
increase the minimum wage.
  My State of Montana is one of six States that passed initiatives last 
November raising the minimum wage to a wage higher than the Federal 
standard. It passed with 73 percent of Montana's voters favoring this 
minimum wage increase. It is now at $6.50 an hour, indexed for 
inflation with no tip credit, meal credit, or training wage. This means 
employers may not count tips or benefits as part of the employee's wage 
for minimum wage purposes. This is a significant step forward for our 
workforce, and I hope the Federal Government will follow suit with 
passing this bill to make the economic struggles of almost 15 million 
Americans, including 7.3 million children, a little easier.
  Raising the minimum wage is long overdue. It is about time, and it is 
about time we showed an appreciation for America's workforce.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I thank the 
Senator from Montana for his statement in support of the minimum wage. 
He comes from a very special part of this Nation, the northern part of 
the Rockies. It has great agriculture and farmlands. It has a number of 
communities--Butte, MT--where there is mining and a number of smaller 
communities where people have worked in manufacturing.
  I thank the Senator for his statement and for his support. He has 
been on the floor a good deal of the time during the course of this 
debate, and having been just elected he brings to the Senate that fresh 
perspective of what people are thinking about in the heartland of the 
Nation. His comments bring additional strength to the argument in 
support of the increase. I express my appreciation to him for his good 
comments and statement in support of an increase. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, 
Montana is no different from any other State in this Union. We have a 
lot of hard-working folks who work for every penny they get. Quite 
frankly, sometimes they feel pretty unappreciated. It wasn't many years 
ago that we talked about American-made products and how proud we were 
of them and how proud we were of the workers who made those American-
made products. We need to get back on that road once again.
  I will say, as I said a few minutes earlier, this is long overdue and 
is something on which I wish the Federal Government would have taken 
the lead. But better late than never.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                      Amendment No. 118 Withdrawn

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I have amendment No. 118 which is 
under consideration. After consultation with the Senator from 
Massachusetts, I am going to withdraw that amendment, but as I withdraw 
it, I want to say, as we move into the immigration debate, which we 
will do on the floor of the Senate hopefully sooner rather than later, 
this amendment will come up again. The importance of this amendment 
cannot be overstated. There are farmers and ranchers all across America 
who use a legal workforce versus an illegal workforce.

  Between now and the time this debate comes up on immigration, I am 
afraid that by not moving ahead with the adoption of this amendment, we 
are going to encourage farmers and ranchers in the use of illegal 
immigrants. But the fact is, we have been debating this minimum wage 
bill now for 2 weeks or more. It is time to conclude it. This amendment 
has stirred up some controversy--for the right reasons, because we do 
need to talk about the amount of money we pay to our workforce in the 
agricultural sector. But I do appreciate the Senator from 
Massachusetts, in his conversations and his commitment to me, that as 
we move into the immigration debate we will talk about this once again, 
as we did last year.
  Madam President, at this time I withdraw that amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Georgia.

[[Page S1317]]

  This is not a new issue. I know my friend and colleague from 
California is going to speak to the substance of it. The Senator from 
Georgia raised this during the last debate on the immigration bill. He 
has spoken about it a number of times earlier in the debate. These are 
complicated questions and issues that have enormous impact, these wage 
rate issues, in terms of agriculture across this country. He speaks for 
his State on this issue.
  I am grateful he is going to withdraw this amendment at this time. I 
am very hopeful we are going to get to the immigration issue in a 
timely way. We have it as a high priority on our side to address it. We 
are very hopeful we are going to get to it in March, this year, and we 
will have an opportunity both in the committee and on the floor to come 
to grips with the substance of this issue.
  I say, finally, the adverse wage goes back some 43 or 44 years. It 
goes back to a time when it was implemented and we had what they call 
the bracero program, which was a dark side of exploitation of workers 
from Mexico. It has been in effect, but the Senator is asking now that 
we get another look at this issue.
  I know the Senator from California will speak on the substance of it. 
This wage rate has been frozen at a level for the last few years as 
part of another bill, the AgJOBS bill. But this is an immigration-
related issue because we are talking about workers who are going to 
come from overseas. The Senator has spoken about it. I know he feels 
strongly about it. We know we are going to consider it in the course of 
that discussion and debate. But I appreciate the fact that he is not 
pressing it on this minimum wage bill. I thank him for it, and we look 
forward to trying to find a solution to it in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I listened carefully to the Senator 
from Massachusetts, and I very much agree with his remarks. I also 
thank the Senator from Georgia for withdrawing this amendment.
  This amendment muddies churning waters even more. I think it would be 
very difficult if put in at this time. The way to go about this is 
through something called the AgJOBS bill. I have seen the Senator from 
Idaho on the floor. The Senator from Idaho, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, and myself have all played a role in the AgJOBS bill.
  If I understand what the Senator from Georgia was trying to do, it 
was to substantially change the H-2A program, which is the temporary 
agricultural worker program. That is a visa program, codified under 
section 218 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Under current 
law, employers of H-2A guest workers must pay the State minimum wage, 
the Federal minimum wage, the State's adverse effect wage rate--which 
is the market rate or the local prevailing wage, whichever is highest.
  The Chambliss amendment would have required that H-2A employers pay 
the greater of either the Federal minimum wage or a newly defined 
prevailing wage.
  My staff called both departments mentioned on line 6 at page 2 of his 
amendment--that is the Occupational Employment Statistics Program and 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics--neither of which had a prevailing rate 
they could certify.
  This amendment, if promulgated, would have presented serious problems 
for our agricultural workers. For example, in my home State, the 
adverse effect wage rate is $9. This rate is higher than the Federal 
minimum wage. Because we do not know what the prevailing wage would 
mean in the Chambliss amendment, it would most likely result in a major 
cut of wages for agricultural workers.
  Now, in AgJOBS, we have negotiated a 3 year freeze of the adverse 
wage rate so that a study could take place. It would give us a period 
of time to work this issue out. I think to do this as an amendment, 
without negotiation, without a real hearing, is a tremendous mistake. 
So I am very pleased the Senator chose to withdraw his amendment. I 
would have spoken as strongly as I possibly could against it had he not 
withdrawn it. I yield the floor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me join with my colleagues on this 
issue in thanking the Senator from Georgia for withdrawing the 
amendment. It is possible to say that the concept of adverse wage is an 
anomaly unto itself, specific to the H-2A program. That is not to 
suggest it is right. It is to suggest that it was there and it 
ratcheted up on an automatic basis to establish the wage base for H-2A 
workers in the guest worker program.
  The Senator from California is right. As we began to negotiate and 
create what is now known as AgJOBS, which she and I reintroduced 
earlier this year, in that was a back-off from the adverse wage and a 
holding of the line for a period of time to level out. What the Senator 
from Georgia is attempting to do is establish a new wage rate. I think 
the Senator from California is right; we are not sure where it would go 
or what it would mean.
  I am going to stand here and say that is not to suggest a new wage 
rate is not the right way to go, to establish equity between H-2A and 
non-H-2A workers who are doing the same job in the field, or somewhere 
else in agriculture. But there ought to be a consistency. If we are 
going to bring large groups of guest workers in--and we will, we always 
have; there are certain types of work only they will do--then I think 
we have to be sensitive to the uniqueness of that situation.
  But at the same time, it is important that we are sensitive to all of 
the other requirements we put upon the employer as a part of the total 
employment package. Is it housing? Certain other conditions along with 
the wage that they necessarily would not have to pay to a domestic 
worker who was doing comparable wage but was outside the H-2A program?
  There is a disparity today. That is why we backed it off in the 
negotiations. H-2A workers, by their definition, were becoming 
noncompetitive. Of course, in the environment in which we were working, 
they were becoming noncompetitive to the illegal who was in the market. 
So you have disparity across the board. I don't dispute what the 
Senator from Georgia is attempting to do. I visited with some labor 
attorneys who found it very problematic. If you are going to do this, 
we ought to work collectively, review it appropriately, apply it 
against a variety of workforces to see that it is uniform and just for 
all employees and employers who may, because of their uniqueness, 
provide certain conditions for the worker that otherwise would not be 
necessary to provide.
  I used to be in agriculture. We paid a certain wage. We provided a 
house and we provided fuel for the rig. We also provided certain 
grocery and food supplies. That was all viewed as a factor of 
employment with the employee. There are a variety of things we have to 
get correct. The Senator from California said it would have muddied the 
water a great deal. I think it would have frustrated it. I think it 
would have taken out part of the force that it is valuable that we keep 
together as we try to reform the H-2A program, deal with the problem we 
currently have to secure and stabilize a legal, transparent workforce 
for American agriculture, treat foreign nationals right who come here 
legally for the purpose of that kind of employment.
  I don't know that this would have accomplished it. Withdrawing it, 
coming together with us, trying to resolve this problem I think offers 
us an opportunity to get our work done on this portion of immigration 
reform this year. I hope and I know the Senator from California agrees 
with me. I hope we can accomplish that by the end of the year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, Madam President, I would make a statement 
and then ask the Senator from Idaho a question. This morning I was 
visited by a delegation from Tulare County, which is an agricultural 
county in the central valley of California. These were city and county 
officials who pointed out the enormous loss from the frost and the fact 
that it looks as though the citrus loss is going to be at least $800 
million and the total loss will be over $1 billion. Nobody knows the 
tree loss yet, let alone the avocado or nursery plant loss or the row 
crop loss of strawberries and lettuce and other crops. But this will 
also have an impact on

[[Page S1318]]

the ability to find agricultural labor, and I think the Senator agrees, 
I know I agree, that we must pass the AgJOBS bill.
  Madam President, an estimated 90 percent of agricultural labor in 
this country--the picker part of it, not necessarily the processing and 
canning part of it, but the picking part, the field work--an estimated 
90 percent is by undocumented people. What we have tried to do is 
develop a plan, which actually passed the Senate once before as part of 
the comprehensive immigration bill, called AgJOBS. This also reformed 
the H-2A program.
  We have been trying to get that bill up before this body for a vote. 
This next year is going to be a singularly difficult year for 
agriculture, and with the inability to get a consistent workforce, 
farmers don't know if they can plant, they don't know if they can 
prune, they don't know if they can pick, because they don't know if 
they will have enough labor.
  My question to the Senator from Idaho through the Chair is, Do you 
agree with the statement I made?
  Mr. CRAIG. I agree totally and I agree for all the reasons the 
Senator from California put forward--and a couple more. One of the 
things the Congress is committed to--both the Senators on the floor at 
this moment have voted for it--is to secure our Southwest border. We 
are investing heavily on that at this moment, and we should be. There 
is no question about that. We may argue about how many miles of fence, 
but we all recognize an unsecured border is a very problematic thing. 
It is closing. It is becoming secure and we are going to continue to 
invest in it. As we are doing that, all of these other problems are 
beginning to happen because that workforce is moving around and they 
are not staying with agriculture. The Senator lost a tremendous amount 
this year in the San Joaquin, in the greater agricultural area of 
California.

  I spoke with young farmers and ranchers of the Idaho Farm Bureau this 
weekend. We have lost hundreds of millions--nowhere near what the 
Senator from California has lost, but we have a different kind of 
agriculture. The intensity of ours, the hand labor of ours is simply 
not as great as the Senator's. But there is a real problem and that 
problem is quite simple. If we don't get this corrected, we may well be 
looking at $5 billion worth of agricultural loss this year, and half of 
that or more will come from California alone, let alone all the other 
areas, and I may even be conservative in my guesstimate.
  So the Senator is absolutely right. Now we are coupled with the 
natural weather disasters that have hit California and could hit my 
State at some time in the future. That is typical of agriculture. But, 
if we provide a stable and secure workforce that is legal, then we have 
helped our agriculture a great deal in knowing that when they do 
produce a crop, they have the people there to help them get it out of 
the field, get it to the processor and ultimately to the retail shelves 
of America.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. My 
plea, and I know the Senator joins with me, is that the people of 
America will weigh in and say: Get this bill passed; that agricultural 
labor will weigh in, corn and citrus, potatoes, apples, wherever it is 
in the United States, wherever they need a consistent, legal workforce, 
will please weigh in and say to this body: Get that bill up and get it 
passed, and will say to the other body: Get that bill up and get it 
passed. Senator Craig and I have been coming to the floor from time to 
time to plead to give us time. I believe the majority leader will give 
us time--I am uncertain as to when, but I believe it is going to 
happen. My hope is that it happens sooner rather than later because the 
predictability is so important. Here we are, we are at the end of 
January, we are going into February. People are getting their loans to 
plant and that kind of thing, and they need to know they can deliver a 
crop. They need to know they can get the workforce to deliver that 
crop. So this is a huge issue economically for America and for the 
agricultural industry.
  So I wish to say to the Senator from Idaho and to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, I thank them so much for their work on this issue. I 
wish that the Senator from Georgia would be with us on AgJOBS, because 
I believe it is the right way to go, and I believe his State--Georgia--
will also be benefited by the H-2A reforms in the bill. For California, 
the H-2A reforms mean that this program, which hasn't been used by 
agriculture because it was so cumbersome, will now be used by 
agriculture. It, in effect, is the guest worker program. So passing 
AgJOBS secures a legal guest worker program for agriculture and also a 
path to legalization for those who have engaged in agricultural labor 
who will pay a fine, who will pay their taxes, who will commit to work 
in agricultural labor for another 3 years, thereby providing that 
consistent workforce.
  So I very much hope that the day will not be far distant when the 
Senator from Idaho and I will be on the floor and will, hopefully, be 
able to mount a substantial vote for this important bill.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I come to the floor today to support a 
long overdue raise for America's lowest paid workers from $5.15 an hour 
to $7.25 an hour.
  As you know, more than 6 million hourly workers currently earn less 
than $7.25 an hour. They work hard, they pay taxes, they try to raise 
strong families. For a few them, it is a first job, they are young, and 
they do not have to support anyone else. But 80 percent of them are 
adults, and about half of them are their household's primary 
breadwinner. Forty-seven percent of them are poor, and many have to 
work two or three jobs just to make ends meet.
  Work should keep Americans out of poverty. It should make it possible 
for you to live with dignity and respect, to have a comfortable place 
to live in a safe neighborhood, to see a doctor, to have a shot at 
education, to save a little money, to enjoy the opportunities of this 
great country. But that's out of reach for most people at $5.15 and 
hour. It is time that we do better by those in our workforce who make 
the least.
  The Federal minimum wage is at its lowest inflation-adjusted level 
since 1955, and it has been stagnant for almost a decade. That does not 
reflect well on our country and Americans are overwhelmingly supportive 
of an increase. In fact 29 States and countless cities have taken 
action and set higher minimums of their own. It is time for the Federal 
Government to do the same. And I know we can achieve that in a 
bipartisan way.
  We have had a vigorous debate about the impact of the minimum wage on 
employment levels and on small businesses. And I agree that all policy 
decisions must be made with full consideration of possible unintended 
consequences. But the evidence clearly indicates that raising the 
minimum wage is good for workers and that the effects on small 
businesses are negligible.
  Following the most recent increase in the Federal minimum wage in 
1997, the low-wage labor market actually performed better than it had 
in decades, with lower unemployment rates, higher average hourly wages, 
higher family income and lower rates of poverty. And most studies of 
State minimum wage increases have found no measurable negative impact 
on employment.
  A group of 650 economists, including several Nobel laureates, 
recently issued a statement, saying: ``We believe that a modest 
increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage 
workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have 
claimed.''
  They further note:

       While controversy about the precise employment effects of 
     the minimum wage continues, research has shown that most of 
     the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast 
     majority are members of low-income working families.

  But raising the minimum wage is not just good economics, it is also a 
statement of our commitment to each other as Americans. I am convinced 
that most Americans agree that the person who serves your food or 
handles your checkout at the grocery store deserves to be paid a decent 
wage. Most people agree that parents working full time--no matter what 
their job or occupation--should not have to raise their children in 
poverty.
  In fact, I think that most Americans worry, as I do, that even $7.25 
an hour

[[Page S1319]]

is not enough in many parts of the country where a living wage that 
would cover housing, schooling and healthcare needs might have to be 
twice as high or more.
  But the increase to $7.25 would restore the value of the minimum wage 
that inflation has eroded since the last increase nearly a decade ago. 
It would mean an additional $4,200 in annual earnings for a full-time, 
minimum wage worker. It would trigger additional increases in the 
earned-income tax credit for low-income parents.
  Today, a family of four with one minimum-wage earner lives in 
poverty. With the increase in the minimum wage, that family would be 
lifted 5 percent above the poverty line instead of being 11 percent 
below the poverty line in 2009, as it would be under current law.
  The minimum wage cannot be the end of our commitment to help working 
families. But it is an important place to start.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I voted in opposition to the Gregg 
amendment, No. 101, which he said would establish a legislative line-
item veto.
  However, the Gregg amendment is not a line-item veto at all. It is an 
enhanced rescission proposal that would give the President 
unprecedented powers to wait for up to 1 full year before unilaterally 
deciding to rescind areas of spending that Congress has previously 
determined are in the public interest.
  That is not what I call a line-item veto.
  A line-item veto would give the President short term authority when 
he is signing legislation to extract certain portions of that 
legislation. But to suggest the President should have the power to 
decide, up to 1 year after the appropriations process has been 
completed, that he wishes to withhold certain areas of expenditures is 
one of the most unusual transfers of power from the legislative branch 
to the President that I have ever seen proposed.
  The power of the purse belongs to the legislative branch, and I am 
willing to work with the legislative branch and the White House to try 
to find a way to reduce inappropriate Federal spending. But I am not 
willing to give the President the authority that would allow him to use 
a fast track process or enhanced recission authority to undermine 
Social Security or take any number of other actions that would give a 
President virtually unlimited powers of the purse.
  That is not the way the Constitution intended the separation of 
powers to work and I could not support the overreaching amendment 
offered by Senator Gregg.


                           order of procedure

  Madam President, if I may, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:10 p.m., 
the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc Executive 
Calendar nominations 6 and 7; that there be 10 minutes for debate 
equally divided between Senators Leahy and Specter or their designees; 
and that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed 
to vote on the nomination of Lisa Godbey Wood to be United States 
District Judge, to be followed immediately by a vote on the nomination 
of Philip S. Gutierrez to be a United States District Judge; that 
motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return 
to legislative business; that all time consumed in executive session 
count postcloture; and that there be 2 minutes between each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                     Nomination of Lisa Godbey Wood

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, one of these judges, Philip 
Gutierrez, is for the central district of California. Vice Judge Terry 
Hatter, who at one point was the chief judge, a very good chief judge, 
has retired. Mr. Gutierrez is one of two judicial emergencies we need 
to fill. His nomination went through the special commission that we 
have, which is Republicans and Democrats who screen these judicial 
nominations. He has served on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. He 
also served on the municipal court. He is a Los Angeles native. He 
graduated from Notre Dame and UCLA Law School. I strongly support his 
nomination.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   nomination of philip s. gutierrez

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, in a few moments the Senate will be 
considering the vote on the confirmation of Lisa Godbey Wood as a judge 
in the State of Georgia. First of all, I wish to thank the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for all the commitments he made 
last year as ranking member and that he has followed through on this 
year as chairman to bring this judge's confirmation to the full Senate 
for a vote. Senator Leahy has been a gentleman. He has been diligent. 
He has lived up to every responsibility he accepted. I, personally, 
along with Senator Chambliss, am very grateful for the opportunity to 
confirm this outstanding jurist.
  I also wish to say that Lisa Godbey Wood brings to the bench for the 
Federal courts of the United States of America the integrity, the 
intellect, the sense, and the judgment that all of us seek in a fine 
judge. I am pleased to stand before the Senate today to commend her to 
each and every Member of the Senate, and my sincerest hope is that her 
confirmation will be a unanimous vote.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________