[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 147 (Monday, October 1, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12350-S12354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1585, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2008 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Nelson of Nebraska (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the
nature of a substitute.
Reid (for Kennedy) amendment No. 3058 (to amendment No.
2011), to provide for certain public-private competition
requirements.
Reid (for Kennedy) amendment No. 3109 (to amendment No.
3058), to provide for certain public-private competition
requirements.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that later in the afternoon
there will be probably two votes, one on the Mikulski-Kennedy amendment
and probably a vote on final passage; am I correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendments that are now
scheduled for a vote are the substitute amendment and final passage.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I was under
the impression we had a vote agreed upon.
Mr. President, I understand there has been an agreement with the
leadership that we will dispose of this amendment at the hour of 5:30.
In any event, is the time divided between now and 5:30?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time is not divided.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I desire to talk on the amendment that is
sponsored by Senator Mikulski, myself, and a number of others, which is
an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I see the ranking
member of the committee. If he had other business he wanted to deal
with, obviously, I would withhold.
Mr. President, at the end of last week, on Thursday evening, there
was an excellent presentation on this issue before the Senate by
Senator Mikulski. I addressed the Senate on Friday on this issue, and I
am going to take a few minutes this afternoon.
This is an exceedingly important issue. It relates to the underlying
concept of our national security and our national defense. In this
legislation, we are authorizing some $675 billion, which is essentially
the backbone of our defense. What this amendment deals with is the
personnel who will be working on the tanks, the planes, and the
military hardware which needs to be conditioned and updated and
improved so it is available and accessible to those men and women who
are involved in defending this country. These are the employees who
work primarily in the Defense Department.
There is a phenomenon that has arisen that works to discriminate
against these excellent workers. They are not only excellent workers
but a third of them are veterans. A third of them are veterans. These
are men and women who have worn the uniform of our country and have
decided that they want to continue in public service and so, therefore,
have brought their skills and their training they have achieved in the
military to give attention to the Defense Department. This is probably
the highest percentage of veterans in any undertaking or employment
base we have in this country, because these individuals, highly
patriotic, highly motivated, highly skilled, want to continue their
service to the country.
Basically, what they are asking is for an opportunity to continue
service within the Defense Department, working on the various
challenges and contracts which come before the Defense Department. This
chart shows that thousands of veterans could lose their
[[Page S12351]]
jobs under the outsourcing rules. That is what this amendment is about.
We are going to get fairness in competition so these workers are
treated fairly and the taxpayer is treated fairly, and we get the
dollar value for the taxes paid, and the workers will be treated
fairly.
Under the current system, the rules that have been developed by the
administration undermine that sense of fairness for these workers--a
third of whom, as I said, are veterans. That is the issue. Thirty-four
percent of the civilian defense employees are veterans. This amendment
ensures that these 226,620 dedicated Americans who have served our
country will not lose their jobs because of unfair outsourcing. That is
what we are talking about--unfair outsourcing.
Let me explain how this works. The chart probably demonstrates it as
well as it can be demonstrated. This is the Government here for some
particular Defense Department work. You can see from the green box that
the Government can provide a lower rate for the cost of providing the
service, and can also do it with higher skills than on the private bid.
But the fact that the Government employees have health insurance or
retirement benefits adds an additional cost to their proposal, which
puts them out of competition. So what we are finding now with these new
rules and regulations is the bids and contracts are going to companies
that are dropping their health care and dropping their pension programs
and dropping other security benefits so they can come up underneath the
Government contract. Essentially, this is a race to the bottom.
In a country where we have 47 million Americans who are uninsured,
and we are having a major national debate about covering children, why
are we providing more financial incentives to companies to drop their
health insurance? That is what we are doing. The ones who are losing
out are, by and large, the ones who have served in the Armed Forces of
our country.
This isn't only on Government bids; this could be a responsible
contractor and an irresponsible contractor. Maybe a responsible
contractor can do it more efficiently even than the Federal Government,
but look how it works. If you have a responsible contractor who is
trying to provide some benefits, limited benefits, or good benefits for
their employees--and that is the combination we are talking about,
health and retirement; those are the two, retirement and health--we are
seeing those contractors who can provide the services more efficiently
and better. Nonetheless, the bid will go to the irresponsible
contractor. So this works against responsible contractors and it works
against veterans working in the Defense Department.
What we are saying with this amendment--and there are other
provisions in the amendment--but what we are saying is let the
competition take place. Let the competition take place between the
workers in the Defense Department and the private sector, but let them
have an even playing ground. Let us exclude the health insurance and
retirement benefits. Let us have the competition out there and the best
person win. The best bid wins the contracts.
Why would we want to continue to drive out these contracts? We can
show what has been happening over time to these workers. We saw in
2004, because of these new regulations, where Federal employees lost on
10 percent of these bids; in 2005, it went to 30 percent; and the best
estimate now is it is going all the way up to 78 percent, and basically
it is about this issue--not completely, but it is fundamentally about
this issue.
Now, in the amendment there are other provisions which I will mention
very briefly. Provisions of this amendment, which have been debated on
the floor and acted on in the Senate at other times, have also had
strong bipartisan support, and I will mention those very briefly.
At the present time, a private contractor can appeal an unfair
decision if there is a belief by the private contractor that there is
unfairness in terms of the decision in the competition with the Federal
workers. They are entitled to get an appeal. On the other hand, if the
Federal workers believe it is an unfair competition, they have no right
to do so. They have no right to do so. This restores that right. This
represents a very similar provision that was sponsored by Senator
Collins in 2004, and Senators Chambliss, Warner, Thomas, and Voinovich
have also supported appeal rights in the past for Federal employees in
previous appropriations legislation. I am not speaking for them, but it
is an indication that this is an issue that has been before the Senate
at other times and there has been bipartisan support for it.
On this point here--can renew a contract without recompetition--if
they have a follow-on contract, they can renew that, if it is a private
contract. With the Federal workers, they do not have that right to do
that at the present time. So under the outsourcing provisions, these
Federal workers are shortchanged.
The provision regarding the submission of the competitive bid that
requires the Federal workers to follow procedural and administrative
provisions actually increases the cost of their bids. Again, at the
request of the employees, all they wish to do is have the same kind of
``most competitive bid'' they can offer. They would like that one to be
on the table so we will get the best in terms of productivity and skill
and also get the best in terms of savings for the taxpayers. But they
are denied that right.
We provided, through the Appropriations Committee, those protections.
Those provisions had been added through the Appropriations Committee.
But what has happened is, as the Appropriations Committee process goes
along, these provisions expire, and so we have to come back to them. We
have to win them again every time. Because if they are added on the
appropriations, they do not continue to last and we have to refight
those issues.
Finally, there are what they call ``quota provisions,'' which have
been put on by OMB and require a certain amount of quotas in terms of
the private contracting, which obviously provides some unfairness to
the workers and, secondly, to the public and the taxpayers.
These are basically the provisions we have in the legislation. The
primary one we have talked about today has been on this competition we
have had for the benefit cost. This is the overarching issue and
question.
We are going to have a good national debate during the Presidential
elections of 2008 about how we are going to address the problems of
cost in this country on health care. We have gone from $1.3 trillion to
$2.3 trillion in the last 5 years. We have added $1 trillion worth of
spending in health care and have added 7 million more people who are
uninsured and there would have been a great deal more if we didn't have
the CHIP program.
We cannot continue that as a nation. We are not going to be able to
continue that. Our companies are not going to be able to; the costs in
terms of local communities have gotten prohibitive. These involve real
people and real sacrifices--real important considerations. We are
talking about families. We are talking about, by and large, fairly
treating people who served in the military. They had health care when
they were serving in the military. They could have the health care when
they retired. But the real question is going to be, now, when they are
continuing to be a part of the whole defense and security of this
country, whether we are going to treat them with the kind of respect
they need, understanding they have families and they need this health
care coverage. They are glad to pay for it and bargain for it. They
have to look down the road in terms of their security and the security
of their families, in terms of pensions in the future. They are glad to
pay for that. But why we should be able to effectively cut them loose
at a time of intense competition, I don't know.
I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, who has been
involved in the different phases. I mentioned half a dozen different
phases on this issue. He has been involved and engaged in these
different aspects since he has been on that committee. I enjoy serving
with him on the Armed Services Committee. He has been an eloquent and
effective voice and has given enormous support to this effort. I see
him on the floor and thank him for all of his help and assistance on
this issue.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
[[Page S12352]]
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his eloquent,
passionate statement and for his kind words. I appreciate it very much.
In a short while, I will be adding my own few words of support for this
amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from
Maryland, and others--including myself.
I am privileged to be managing the bill until the chairman, Senator
Levin arrives. I thought insofar as there are Members here on both
sides, we would go back and forth. I suggest Senator Sessions, who is
here now, go next. I will follow him.
I ask, through the Chair, of my friend from Alabama, how much time he
would like to speak?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like 10 minutes.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Alabama go
next for 10 minutes and then I be recognized for 7 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
The Retirement of General Peter Pace
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had the honor today to be at the
retirement ceremony, a few hours ago, for the 16th Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed services of the United States, GEN
Peter Pace, and the installation of the 17th Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, ADM Mike Mullen. The weather was beautiful, indeed, in your
State of Virginia at Fort Myer, the brass shining in the Sun, the music
was stirring, and the uniforms of the services in their bright collars
gave appropriate recognition to the passing of the torch from a
Chairman proven to a new Chairman challenged.
It is always thus, I suppose. It was a thrill to see the commander of
the Honor Guard one last time advance and say: ``General Pace, the
Honor Guard of the United States is ready for your inspection.''
And General Pace did just that, it appeared with pleasure and
satisfaction. That he is admired within the military cannot be denied.
I understand last week they planned a surprise for him in the Pentagon.
He was invited to come to a meeting for some business, it was
suggested, and the halls filled with over 1,200 people who appeared and
applauded him for 20 minutes. It was a true expression of the
admiration and affection in which he is held throughout the military.
Such support is not a surprise for anyone who knows that wonderful man.
He made a number of remarks at his retirement or change of command.
He expressed his admiration for President Bush's willingness to listen
to his advice the entire time of his tenure. He made clear President
Bush did listen, and he was a regular briefer of the President; and
General Pace's admiration for the President for standing by his
commitments when he sent military men and women in uniform into harm's
way was quite personal and strong. In other words, General Pace is
there. General Pace has been part of this process. General Pace has
seen this Congress and this President authorize soldiers and send
soldiers into harm's way. He felt a sense of appreciation for President
Bush, I would say, for his willingness to not give lightly and to be
totally supportive of those troops once they had been sent in harm's
way.
He said the No. 1 question he is asked when he goes about with
military personnel: Does Congress still support us?
I remember not too many months ago, a gentleman right out there
caught me. His son was about to go to Iraq. He told me: Senator, make
no mistake, those soldiers over there and in training to go over there
are watching what you do like a hawk.
Secretary Gates, President Bush, Admiral Mullen were exceedingly
complimentary of General Pace. They discussed his bravery as a young
lieutenant at the battle of Hue in Vietnam. They lost quite a number of
officers. He was moved up as a second lieutenant to be in command of
the company they would have to have led. There was a bitter battle and
he lost a number of marines.
He said he felt a debt to those marines, that he had spent 40 years
of his career in the military attempting to pay off.
Several people made reference to that. He called those marines he
served with, who lost their lives there, by names at that retirement
ceremony. He indicated he still did not believe he had paid that debt
that he owed those people who had given their full measure to our
Nation's defense. But other speakers said he had, and they were most
complimentary of him.
Recently, at a hearing, he was encouraged--let me say it that way--to
retreat from a statement he had made that reflected his personal moral
and faith beliefs; but he admirably, I suggest, declined to pander or
to retreat from what he honestly believed, and he restated his personal
values. That is the kind of man you want leading us, I suggest.
Our Nation is in the debt, I think, of GEN Peter Pace. He has given
tirelessly of himself to support the policies of our country and to
make those policies successful.
I say: Well done, good marine, well done.
Mr. President, on a different subject, I want to take a few minutes
to note that on Friday, September 21, the Missile Defense Agency had a
highly successful missile defense intercept. A target vehicle was
launched from Kodiak, AK. It went into space. The interceptor missile
was launched at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. It was,
indeed, a realistic test of this capability. According to Rick Lehner,
the spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, ``This was a very
operationally realistic test.''
In those tests we want to determine whether our missile defense
capability will actually succeed in knocking down an intercontinental
missile. These two missiles were launched, the target vehicle on a
track not unlike what we would see if, for example, the North Koreans
launched an attack. We launched our defensive missile out of
California. And they collided and destroyed one another over the
Pacific, like we planned, a bullet to bullet. There were no explosives
in the ``kill'' vehicle. Just speed, guided by computers and
sophisticated guidance systems, allowed those two to collide and to
destroy the incoming missile.
The American people have a number of questions and misconceptions
about missile defense. Some think we already have a complete missile
defense system that can knock down incoming missiles. That is not so.
Some think we do not have any capability, that this is a bunch of money
being spent on programs that are never going to work. That is
absolutely not so. We now have proven the technology. General Obering
and his team at the Missile Defense Agency have continued to have
success after success. We know we have the capability to knock down an
incoming missile that threatens the people of the United States, who
knows--with a nuclear weapon or biological or chemical munition
contained within it.
This is an important matter for the United States that the President
can know. If he is negotiating with some extreme nation that threatens
to attack us with a missile and tries to use that threat as leverage or
bargaining power, he can say: We are not afraid of you. You send a
missile off and we will knock it down.
We are reaching that point in our capability. Intelligence tells us
Iran also continues to build its systems and produces greater
capability.
I would say, we need a site in Europe. I hope we continue to work
toward that. We need to maintain steady appropriations and
authorizations in this Senate to make sure our missile system that we
have committed so many years to, and so many dollars to, is now
completed, since it has been proven to be a good investment from the
beginning.
I thank the Chair for giving me this opportunity and note I am
excited about this test's success. I do believe it is important for all
of us in Congress to note that and make sure about our funding--which I
think this year is a bit tight. The President took some money down out
of missile defense. The Congress has taken some more. But I believe we
have enough funding to keep this program on track.
I see my colleague, Senator Lieberman. I note there are few in the
Senate who have studied the issue more or who have been engaged in it
longer than he. I know he and Senator Thad Cochran offered the
resolution, not long after I came to the Senate, to
[[Page S12353]]
deploy a national missile defense system ``as soon as technologically
feasible.'' That was the language, wasn't it, Senator Lieberman?
Indeed, we are now deploying it. We are already deploying the system,
and the American people took comfort last July 4, when the North
Koreans launched missiles to demonstrate their power--they took comfort
because of you and others, before I even came into the Senate--such as
Senator Shelby, my colleague from Alabama--who were pioneers moving
that forward. We can now take comfort that we do have ability. It means
a lot for our people and for the safety of America.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my
statement, which I will now offer for 10 minutes instead of 7; to be
followed by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, for 10 minutes;
followed by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, for 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I extend my time to respond to two
things my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions--one of my two friends
from Alabama, Senator Sessions, mentioned.
The first is the good news from the Missile Defense Program of the
successful test last Friday. We wish we did not have to spend money
building a missile defense, but the truth is that the number of powers,
including a lot of hostile anti-American countries that have the
capacity to fire missiles at us and our allies, carrying both
conventional weapons and potentially weapons of mass destruction, is
increasing and has increased.
The creation of this program has been controversial. The funding of
it is controversial. But I believe, just as deeply as anyone can
believe anything, that we will, particularly as we hear the success of
the testing, look back on the investments we have made in this program
and be very thankful we did it because it will protect the security of
the United States from attack via a missile from the enemies that exist
to our country and to our values.
I wish to just briefly echo what Senator Sessions said about General
Pace, who has just ended his time as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. I put an extensive statement in the Record last week without
being on the floor. I just say now that this is a good man, a patriot
who has served his country with a tremendous sense of excellence, of
bravery, of honor, taking on risks and burdens to himself for the
defense of America.
When he was appointed and confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, there were two pieces of history, two firsts. We are a
country that loves firsts because when people do something for the
first time, it talks about the increasing openness, the reality of what
we call the American dream. The one that was greatly commented on was
Peter Pace was the first marine to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. That was a historic first. The other--perhaps less commented
on but a great story of America--Pete Pace was the first Italian
American to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--yet another
extraordinary accomplishment and act of service to our country from its
Italian-American community.
Pete Pace served during a difficult time. He served with honor and
integrity. He was intensely devoted to the men and women who serve all
of us, and their families. He has maintained the fighting edge of our
military going through a very difficult time, oversaw two extraordinary
victories in Afghanistan and Iraq and then the post-Saddam war
increasingly against al-Qaida in Iran and Iraq--very difficult times.
But he leaves office now at a moment when, obviously thanks to the
skill and bravery of the American military, there are some reasons for
encouragement in Iraq, good reasons.
I thank General Pace, his wife, and his family for their service to
America. We wish them well in the years ahead.
Amendment No. 3058
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by
Senator Kennedy and Senator Mikulski and others, including myself,
which will be voted on later today. This amendment would bring some
commonsense reforms to the process by which agencies decide whether to
outsource Federal jobs to contractors.
Sometimes, obviously, it makes a lot of sense for agencies to turn to
contractors because they are able to perform certain functions more
efficiently than the agencies could themselves. That is in everybody's
interest, including the taxpayers'. However, in many cases, experience
has shown Federal employees can perform the work just as efficiently or
more efficiently than the contractors and deserve the right to bid when
work is proposed to be outsourced. Additionally, agencies must ensure
that inherently governmental work--in other words, work which is
intimately related to the public interest--is performed by Federal
employees and not by private contractors. That is why the Government
was created.
The process for deciding when to outsource jobs has to be a careful
one, it has to be fair to contractors, and it has to be fair to Federal
employees. Of course, it has to be fair, most of all, to America's
taxpayers.
The Kennedy amendment provides Federal employees the same right
contractors currently possess to appeal outsourcing decisions. In other
words, when a particular function is proposed for outsourcing, open to
bidding by private contractors, there is a process--and a good one--
that has been created where Federal employees themselves may bid
against those contractors for that outsourcing work. What the Kennedy
amendment says is Federal employees should have the same rights
contractors have to appeal outsourcing decisions. Why just have one of
the competitors for the outsourcing have the right to appeal and the
other one does not? To me, that is simply a fundamental issue of
fairness.
The amendment also contains a provision to ensure that contractors
competing for Department of Defense work do not receive an unfair
advantage because they offer inferior health or retirement benefits to
what we are offering to Federal employees. I do not think any Member of
this Chamber would want employees of the Department of Defense to be at
a disadvantage in competing for their jobs because they receive health
and retirement benefits that we authorize and ordain from the Federal
Government.
This amendment also addresses a concern I have had for quite a long
time; that is, it sometimes appears as if the Office of Management and
Budget pushes agencies to meet arbitrary numerical targets for the
outsourcing of jobs. Decisions on outsourcing should be made on a case-
by-case basis where it makes sense for agencies to outsource the jobs
as opposed to giving them a quota of outsourcing and say they have to
hit that quota.
Arbitrary numerical targets, I am afraid, take agencies off the path
of pursuing other means of cutting costs. They overtax agencies already
struggling to monitor work performed by contractors. I believe they
sometimes, without cause, undermine the civil service, which we ought
to be elevating as it is elevated in so many of the other
industrialized developed democracies. Those types of numerical targets
were prohibited by Congress in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
appropriations bill, but the Office of Management and Budget seems to
be continuing to pressure agencies to conduct competitions between
Federal employees and contractors on a certain number of jobs each
year. That is not right. The amendment before us makes clear that use
of such quotas at the Department of Defense is impermissible.
These are all, in my opinion, sensible, modest reforms. They do not
and they are not intended to prohibit the outsourcing of Federal jobs,
which I support when it makes sense, but, rather, ensure that the
process is objective, fair. It essentially puts both parties here on a
level playing field.
The core provisions of this amendment have, in fact, received
bipartisan support in the Senate over the last few years. I hope we can
continue that support when the amendment comes to the vote today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Vermont.
[[Page S12354]]
Amendment No. 2905
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to say
a few words about an amendment I have offered, No. 2905, that is
cosponsored by Senators Sununu, Kerry, Harkin, and Brown. This
amendment addresses a problem that is huge, that is going to continue
to grow in coming years, and is something the Congress must address.
All across our country, veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are
going to come home with what we believe to be very high levels of post-
traumatic stress disorder as well as traumatic brain injury. These are
the signature injuries of the war in Iraq. I worry very much that we
are not yet prepared to address this serious problem which not only
impacts the returning soldiers, it impacts their wives, their kids, and
their communities.
The amendment I have offered would develop a pilot program for State-
based outreach to assist servicemembers and their families. The concern
I have is that those who return home with TBI or PTSD are not going to
get the care they need unless somebody makes contact with them and
makes them aware of services and help that might be available. We can
have all of the money we want allocated to addressing TBI or PTSD, but
unless somebody goes out and brings those people into the system, that
money is not going to do any good. I worry about that, especially for
those returning soldiers who are in the National Guard who are not part
of the active duty, who do not have a military infrastructure in front
of them. I worry about soldiers coming home to small towns in Vermont
and all across this country who suddenly find that their world is very
different than the world they left, that they have nightmares, cold
sweats, panic attacks when they go through a tunnel, and they don't
know how to address those very serious symptoms of post-traumatic
stress disorder.
What this amendment does uniquely is create an outreach effort by
which trained personnel from the National Guard or elsewhere are
literally going to knock on doors and chat with the individual
returning soldier and his or her family and get a sense of what is
going on in the family, letting those veterans understand that what
they are experiencing is something being experienced by tens of
thousands of other soldiers, and there is nothing to be ashamed of
about the kinds of problems that individual is having.
The essence of this program is its nature as an outreach effort, not
to sit back but to aggressively go out, knock on doors, have dialog,
and bring people into the system which might be able to help them.
This amendment is supported by the National Guard Association of the
United States. They have pointed out that this amendment, with its
unique emphasis on outreach, is a perfect compliment to the
reintegration and readjustment policies laid out by the Yellow Ribbon
Program in the previously adopted Chambliss amendment to the Defense
authorization bill.
This is a very strong amendment. I look forward to having support on
both sides of the aisle. If we are serious about addressing the
problems of PTSD and TBI, we have to be aggressive in outreach. That is
what this amendment does.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. KYL. 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.
____________________