[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 76 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3612-S3615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to calendar No. 410,
S. 3220.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 410, S. 3220, a bill to
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more
effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 410, S. 3220, a bill to amend the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective
remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages
on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
Barbara A. Mikulski, Harry Reid, Maria Cantwell, Patty
Murray, Frank R. Lautenberg, Jeff Bingaman, Sheldon
Whitehouse, John F. Kerry, Kent Conrad, Jeanne Shaheen,
Bernard Sanders, Tom Udall, Amy Klobuchar, Carl Levin,
Mark R. Warner, Mark L. Pryor, Jack Reed, Kirsten E.
Gillibrand.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum under rule XXII be waived, and the vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3220 occur at 2:15 p.m., on
Tuesday, June 5.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are going to arrange a vote Monday night
on one of the nominees who is trying to become a judge.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments this
afternoon to do something that has become a bit of a ritual with me;
that is, to try to take some time each week to speak about the damage
we are doing to our atmosphere, to our oceans, and to our climate with
the relentless carbon pollution we are discharging.
As each week goes by, the information continues to pile up about the
harms we are causing.
A recent story says rising temperatures could eliminate two-thirds of
California's snowpack by the end of this century.
The snowpack that helps provide water for California cities
and farms could shrink by two-thirds because of climate
change, according to new research submitted to the state's
Energy Commission.
Higher temperatures appear likely to wipe out a third of
the Golden State's snowpack by 2050 and two-thirds by the end
of the century, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
found.
Science Daily reports:
Black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone, both
humanmade pollutants emitted predominantly in the Northern
Hemisphere's low- to mid-latitudes--
That is basically us--
are most likely pushing the boundary of the tropics further
poleward--
North and south--
in that hemisphere, new research by a team of scientists
shows. . . .
The lead climatologist, Robert J. Allen, says:
If the tropics are moving poleward, then the subtropics
will become even drier. If a poleward displacement of the
mid-latitude storm tracks also occurs, this will shift mid-
latitude precipitation poleward, impacting regional
agriculture, economy, and society.
The American people have not been taken in by the campaign of
propaganda that primarily the polluting industries have put out. There
have been significant reports in the past on ExxonMobil's funding of
essentially phony research agencies so they can offer their opinions on
this issue without having it be ExxonMobil's opinion. They either
create or take over or subsidize organizations that then put out the
message, and they sound legit--Heartland Institute, Annapolis Center.
But the American people are not fooled, it turns out. Seventy-one
percent of visitors who have come to the Nation's wildlife refuges say
they were personally concerned about climate change's effects on fish,
wildlife, and habitat. Seventy-four percent said that working to limit
climate's effects on fish, wildlife, and habitat would benefit future
generations. And 69 percent said doing so would improve the quality of
life today.
One of the original researchers on climate change--I quoted an
article earlier, describing how over time the facts have proven his
initial predictions accurate--is James Hansen. He wrote an article a
few weeks ago in the New York Times headlined ``Game Over for the
Climate.'' It begins with these two sentences:
Global warming isn't a prediction. It is happening.
Clearly we see that in measurements and observations around the
planet. But what happens if it keeps going? He is talking about the tar
sands up in Canada, and he says this:
If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and
continue to burn our conventional oil, gas, and coal
supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
would eventually reach levels higher than in the Pliocene
era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at
least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-
trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the
ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would
rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would
become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet's
species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be
at risk.
That is clearly, as he admits, a long-term outlook, but it is an
outlook that deserves our attention, because when he has given us long-
term outlooks in the past, as time has marched forward they have been
proven over and over to be true.
It is convenient around here to pretend that none of this is
happening. And it would be nice if we could wait until the disaster,
the wolf was at the door and then do something about it, but there is a
strong likelihood that by the time we take action, it will be too late.
In September of 1940, there was an American living in the Philippines
with his wife and son. He looked at what was happening over in Europe.
He looked at the threat to Britain. He cabled back to the United States
his recommendation. He said:
The history of failure in war can almost be summed up in
two words--``too late.'' Too late in comprehending the deadly
purpose of a potential enemy. Too late in realizing the
mortal danger. Too late in preparedness. Too late in uniting
all possible forces for resistance. Too late in standing by
one's friends.
The author of that cable was GEN George MacArthur. He continued later
on in the cable:
The greatest strategic mistake in all history will be made
if America fails to recognize the vital moment, if she
permits again the writing of that fatal epitaph ``too late.''
Of course, General MacArthur was talking about what was becoming
World War II, he was not talking about climate change. Yet his warning
rings very true against this threat as well. ``Too late'' will be the
epitaph if we do not prepare now. And I very much regret that we are in
a situation in which we do not seem able as a body to take this threat
seriously. The House shows no indication whatsoever of taking this
threat seriously. Even the White House has dialed back its expressions
of interest and concern on this issue, probably for the practical
reason that the Republican-controlled House does not
[[Page S3613]]
want to deal with this issue at all. Period. End of story. But it is
happening out there. It is happening out there.
People see the dying forests of the West as the pine bark beetle
works its way more and more north because winters are no longer cold
enough to kill off the larvae. People see the habitat of quail, of
trout, of pheasant, of game animals, change in their lifetimes.
They see the places where they used to be able to go to fish with
their grandchildren no longer available. Farmers see changes. Gardeners
see changes. Plants that could not grow in certain zones now can.
Tropical plants can grow in northern areas because of changes. In Rhode
Island we have had winter blooms of some of our fruit trees because it
has gotten so warm.
My wife did her dissertation on the species called the winter
flounder, which was a very significant cash crop for the Rhode Island
fishing industry. It was not very long ago. She wrote her dissertation
about it because it was such an important part of the Rhode Island
fishing industry, and because it had an interesting connection with a
shrimp, Crangon septemspinosa, in which one fed on the other until it
got big enough, and then the predatory cycle reversed itself and the
winter flounder began to eat the shrimp instead of vice versa.
Well, landings of winter flounder in Rhode Island have crashed
catastrophically. The reason? The mean winter water temperature of
Narragansett Bay is up about 4 degrees. That is enough of an ecosystem
shift that the winter flounder is gone. Fishermen now catch scup
instead, which is a far less remunerative crop and frankly not as good
a fish to eat, in my opinion anyway.
So these changes are happening. It is regrettable that we are unable
to address them. The science has been discredited by propaganda
campaigns that are deliberately and strategically designed to create
doubt in the minds of the public where no doubt should exist. The fact
is this science is rock solid.
The notion that when you put lots of carbon dioxide up into the
atmosphere it warms the atmosphere has been around since the Civil War.
The scientist who discovered it was an English-Irish scientist named
John Tyndall. He first reported this phenomenon in 1863. For 150 years
we have known this. This is nothing new. We can measure the gigatons of
carbon that we are discharging into the atmosphere. Of course, it is
going to make a difference. The notion that it does not has been a
public relations and propaganda campaign by well-heeled special
interests to protect pollution, because it makes money for those
companies. But with the damage it is doing to our future, it is very
hard to honestly look my children in the eye and say I am doing my job
for them here in Washington while we do nothing on carbon pollution.
In fact, we continue to subsidize the biggest polluters. ExxonMobil
makes more money than any corporation has in the history of the world
and they still claim a subsidy from the American taxpayer. It is a
ridiculous subsidy. And yet we subsidize them. I see the distinguished
chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is
here on the floor. I want to conclude my remarks and thank him for the
amazing work he and the ranking member, Michael Enzi, did on the FDA
bill we just passed with such a strong vote, virtually a unanimous
vote. There was a lot of very good work that was done there, so that
proves there are areas where we can do good work.
I hope the day comes when we can begin to do good work on the damage
we are doing to our atmosphere and to our oceans with our relentless
discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, with our relentless
subsidy of the polluters. One day we will be called into account for
our inaction, and we will have earned the condemnation of history.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Rhode
Island for a very eloquent speech--elegant speech too--eloquent and
elegant--in portraying what is so frustrating. And that is science
knows what is happening. The scientists know what is happening. We have
good data points about what is happening to our climate, our
atmosphere, our oceans, and yet it seems we cannot do anything about
it.
I say to my friend from Rhode Island, I think I was reading recently
in a Scientific American magazine, which I love to read every month,
that in terms of this whole global climate change, what is happening is
that by the time we recognize it is happening--that is broadly, not
just the scientists and others who do know what is happening--by the
time it is broadly accepted, it will be too late, that we will have
reached that tipping point. But the evidence is there for all to see.
It is a shame that we cannot do something about it.
The Senator mentioned the fish catch in Rhode Island. I think also in
the recent issue of Scientific American was a story about the fisheries
and oceans at large, and there were three pictures. One was a picture
taken on a pier in Key West in the 1950s showing the size of the fish
that were caught. Big. I think the average weight was like 30-some
pounds. Then there was a picture taken in the 1970s--late 1970s, early
1980s--now it is down to maybe 15 pounds. Same pictures, same pier,
same dock and everything, and now the catch is down to teeny little
fish. Same place, same ocean, same waters.
The article went on to point out how, if you look at the first
picture, people are very happy. They are happy with this big fish. Then
the second page, people are happy with what they caught. And now you
have got this little teeny fish and people are still happy, because we
kind of tend to accept what it is right now and be happy with what we
have got without realizing what we have lost in the past.
Again, I thank the Senator for his speech. We need to do more of that
around here. We need to focus on this. We seem to be drifting. You are
right, our grandkids are going to wonder why we did not do something.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would suggest that it is more than just that we are
drifting. I would suggest we are being drifted by politics and by the
money in politics, particularly the big money the big polluters can
throw into politics, not only directly by giving campaign contributions
to people but by flooding money into phony so-called scientific
organizations that then parrot their message, but without people being
able to say: Wait a minute, this is ExxonMobil telling me; maybe I
should be a little more guarded about it. So they launder it through a
legitimate-sounding organization--not one, dozens--and we get bombarded
with false propaganda. Scientists are not good at propaganda. It is not
why they went to graduate school. It is not why they got their Ph.D. It
is not what they do when they are out in the field taking measurements.
So you put them up against a company such as ExxonMobil with all of its
money and its propaganda skills and it is not an even contest.
As the Chairman points out, by the time we are looking around and
seeing, oh, my gosh, what have we allowed to happen--now we are awake--
we reject the propaganda. We have to do something about this, and it
will probably be, as General MacArthur said, too late. That is the
great danger.
I thank the chairman for his recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
honoring senator james abdnor
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a former Member
of this body and my long-time friend and mentor, Senator Jim Abdnor of
South Dakota. Senator Abdnor passed away last Wednesday, May 16, 2012,
in South Dakota in the company of friends and family.
We are both products of the dusty short-grass country just west of
the Missouri River on the plains of central South Dakota. Jim was a
product of the active and civically-minded political culture of Lyman
County and I was from next door Jones County. Despite these counties'
sports rivalries over the years, Jim took me under his wing and
introduced me to the American political process. If not for Jim Abdnor,
I would not be standing here today.
[[Page S3614]]
After a basketball game when I was a freshman in high school, Jim
struck up a conversation with me that would change the course of my
life. I went to work for Jim as a legislative assistant when he was a
Senator and later at the Small Business Administration. When I first
ran for office, Jim's guidance and support were invaluable to me.
This past weekend, hundreds of South Dakotans came out to honor Jim
Abdnor and remember his great love for them and his state. His funeral
was held in a Lutheran church in the shadow of the State capital in
Pierre, where Jim first served in statewide office as Lieutenant
Governor. Jim was buried just outside of his small hometown of Kennebec
near where his immigrant father first homesteaded.
Mr. President, Jim leaves us with many legacies and I want to mention
a few of them here today.
First and foremost, Jim's was an American story. It started as the
tale of an immigrant who boarded a ship for the United States not even
knowing the English language but knowing he was heading for the land of
opportunity. That immigrant, Jim's father Sam Abdelnour, wanted to
escape the growing authoritarianism of his native Lebanon, for American
freedom.
Jim's story is also a frontier story. His father Sam settled in Lyman
County, South Dakota. Sam Abdnor became a homesteader and planted corn
and wheat. He also peddled his wares to the other farmers in the area
and when Kennebec was organized as a town, Sam was one of the first
people to establish a business on main street. Jim grew up learning how
to balance the books in a small town store and knowing how to work the
family farm. He learned financial responsibility and hard work and how
one can climb the ladder of success in America.
Jim's story is also a story of the land and farming. Some of us who
knew Jim through politics may forget that before he was elected to
Congress Jim had owned and run the family farm for three decades. Jim
was very proud of the fact that he was good at representing South
Dakota agriculture because he was an active farmer who did the planting
and hauled his grain to the elevator in the fall. When he was in
Congress, South Dakota was ranked as the most agricultural state in the
Nation and Jim was the first farmer elected to Congress from South
Dakota. Jim was proud of that correlation and he never forgot his
farming roots.
During the 1970s, when people were organizing sit-ins and teach-ins
and other protests, Jim helped organize a ``beef-in.'' He brought 100
West River ranchers to Washington, DC, to talk about farm issues. They
set up pens of cattle on the Washington mall and met with agriculture
officials. Jim didn't rest until these ranchers had their voices heard.
Jim's story is also about water. We all live comfortably now with
running water and hot showers, but that's not how Jim grew up. He grew
up on his family's windy, dry-land farm in Lyman County. He lived
through the droughts of the 1930s. He understood the importance of
water. He never stopped working on the issues of water access--
including being a champion of the WEB water project in Walworth,
Edmunds, and Brown counties in north central South Dakota that began in
1983.
The question of water was never far from Jim's mind and I think it
had something to do with his heritage. That's certainly true of his
Lyman County roots, which is where the humid Midwest begins to turn
into the arid High Plains, but also of his roots in Lebanon, where
water is also scarce. His family's home village of Ain Arab was founded
because it was a watering hole. Ain Arab literally means ``spring'' or
``well.'' More specifically, it means ``spring of the Arab.'' When they
had enough water in Ain Arab they would grow wheat, just like the
Abdnors would do out in Lyman County.
Jim's is also a story about organizing. As soon as he came home from
college, he started organizing Republicans in Lyman County and became
head of the Lyman County Young Republicans. He helped organize and
found the Elks lodge in Pierre in 1953. He joined every organization he
could and he brought as many people into community affairs and politics
and civic organizations as he could.
Jim also pushed other people to organize. He liked to tell the story
of the people in Faith, SD, who wanted a new grandstand at their rodeo
grounds. They took one look at the Federal regulations involved with
some grant program and promptly did everything themselves, raising all
the money they needed from local sources and fundraisers and did it at
10 percent of the cost. They put in 4,000 hours of their own time and
made it happen themselves and Jim appreciated that. He liked
communities working together to solve their own problems.
During the 1970s, when tensions in the Middle East worsened, Jim
called for his fellow Arab-Americans to become more involved in the
political process. He opposed what he saw as their tendency toward
isolation and self-segregation. He said his ethnic compatriots should
``get out and mix.'' ``They should become more involved,'' he said,
``become part of the community.'' Jim never stopped believing in the
importance of being involved and working with others to make life
better.
This is why Jim had so many friends. He never stopped working to meet
people and bring them together around issues and simply to socialize. A
friend of mine says that he doesn't think anyone in the State of South
Dakota has ever attended more weddings, graduations, ceremonial
dinners, or basketball, baseball, and football games than Jim.
As someone from the wide open plains who wanted groups of people to
come together to solve problems on their own, Jim was always resisting
Federal encroachment on local control. As the son of a small
businessman, Jim was sensitive to the growing encroachment of Federal
regulations and how much this encroachment cost small businesses. For
many years, Jim was especially incensed about OSHA mandating rules for
small stores on South Dakota main streets. In the 1970s, Jim also had a
big fight with OSHA because it was trying to mandate that South Dakota
wheat farmers maintain porta-potties in the fields, which a practicing
wheat farmer from Lyman County, South Dakota knew was the definition of
absurd.
As a small businessman and farmer, Jim was always worried about the
bottom line and he constantly tried to apply these concerns in the area
of the Federal budget. Jim was sounding the alarm bell in the 1970s
when the Federal Government spent less than $400 billion a year, which
today seems laughably small given our current state of affairs. Back
then, he was attacking deficits of $70 billion. He was also adamantly
opposed to the Federal Government bailing out New York City in the
1970s because he said it would set a bad precedent. He attacked a
Federal debt ceiling limit of $500 billion as being highly
irresponsible. He criticized the fact that each American owed $2,000
because of the Federal Government's debt. Jim liked to quote the editor
of the Freeman Courier, who asked ``how can it be that a government
which is unable to balance its own budget and lives far beyond its
means, has the authority to tell a businessman'' how to run his
business.
Jim wasn't afraid to make hard votes to fix our problems, votes that
probably cost him his Senate seat. But Jim Abdnor had the moral courage
to make the tough decisions.
Mr. President, Jim Abdnor leaves us with a critical reminder. He
embodied the American dream. He was the son of a poor Lebanese peddler
who built a successful business and raised a great family, including a
son who ascended the heights of American politics and became a U.S.
Senator. Jim Abdnor shows how hard work and diligence can pay off.
On this occasion of remembrance and during this time of honoring my
good friend Jim Abdnor, I hope we can remember our solemn duty to
protect the American dream that the Abdnor family represented.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S3615]]
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5652
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last month, the Senate passed the Violence
Against Women Act Reauthorization on a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to
31. Fifteen Republican Senators--including all the women on the other
side of the aisle--joined Senate Democrats to support this important
legislation. Senate Democrats strongly stand behind the bill we passed.
It makes clear that all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault
should enjoy the protections of the Violence Against Women Act. We
don't believe we should be in the business of picking and choosing
which victims deserve protection.
In contrast, the bill passed by House Republicans fails to include
crucial protections for Native American women--I have 22 tribal
organizations in my State, for example--gay and lesbian victims,
battered immigrant women, and victims on college campuses and in
subsidized housing. The House bill would roll back many important and
longstanding protections in current law for abused immigrant victims--
protections that have never been controversial and previously have
enjoyed widespread bipartisan support.
So there are many differences to be worked out between the House and
the Senate in this crucial piece of legislation. The right place to
work out these differences is in conference. That is why we seek today
to go to conference with the House on this important legislation, and
that is why we object to simply passing the House bill that has been
sent to us.
The House has raised, I think unfortunately, the so-called blue slip
problem, which seems to be an issue they raise all the time when there
is a bill they do not like.
Having said that, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed
to the consideration of H.R. 5652, Calendar No. 398; that all after the
enacting clause be stricken and the language of S. 1925, the Violence
Against Women Act Reauthorization, as passed by the Senate on April 26
by a vote of 68 to 31, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the Senate
insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with all the above
occurring with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4970
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me make a few observations and then
I intend to offer a consent request myself.
This is a problem that has been created by the majority, and I am
sorry they will not accept our offer to fix their problem so we can
move forward on this legislation. We have all known for literally years
when the Violence Against Women Act was going to expire. We have known
that for years. During this time, Democrats controlled the Senate. Yet
our friends on the other side waited until February of this year--
nearly 6 months after the current authorization expired--before they
even reported a bill out of committee, and they chose to wait almost 3
months more to bring a bill to the floor.
I don't know why that decision was made. Press reports indicate that
members of the Democratic leadership thought they could use VAWA as a
campaign issue. When they finally chose to bring this bill to the
Senate floor, Republicans consented to going to the bill, Republicans
consented to bringing the debate to a close, and Republicans consented
to limiting ourselves to just two amendments--just two. Our Democratic
colleagues also added an amendment. It was a complete substitute. They
offered it at the last minute.
This substitute was a couple hundred pages long and it added new
sections to the bill. One of those sections would generate revenue by
assessing new fees on immigration visas. I gather our Democratic
colleagues did this because their bill, unlike the Hutchison-Grassley
bill, would add over $100 million to the debt.
Including this provision is obviously a problem, in that adding a
revenue provision in a Senate bill violates the Origination Clause of
the U.S. Constitution. If we sent the Senate bill to the House in its
current form, it would trigger a blue slip point of order, as it always
does.
It is not our fault Senate Democrats waited until well after VAWA
expired to start moving a bill. It is not our fault their bill would
add to the debt. It is not our fault our friends waited until the last
minute to try to fix the problem, and, in the course of doing so, they
created yet another problem. We have offered to help them fix their
problem. They do not have to accept our help, but they should stop
demagoguing the issue and blaming others.
Therefore, I would offer another consent: I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 406, H.R.
4970, the House-passed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act;
provided further that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the
text of the Senate-passed Violence Against Women bill, S. 1925, with a
modification that strikes sections 805 and 810 related to the
immigration provisions; that the bill be read three times and passed,
the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of
the Senate with a ratio agreed to by both leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the
Republican leader is now proposing an amendment to the Senate-passed
bill--a Senate-passed bill that we are very proud of. It has been
engineered and advocated by all Democratic Senators but mainly by the
12 women who are part of our caucus. This is an important piece of
legislation. We all feel very strongly about this.
I haven't looked at all the details of this amendment, but I
understand it. My first response is that the amendment is something the
conferees should be working on. We can't do that without the proper
input from all the interested parties, and we have 52, other than
myself, on my side of the Capitol. That is why I have sought to go to
conference with the product the Senate passed.
It may be that sometime in the future, after we evaluate all these
pieces that have been suggested by my friend, the Republican leader, we
may be able to proceed along this route, if, in fact, we get to
conference. But we have to get to conference, and we have to have wider
discussions airing the proposed amendment we have had just a little
time to look at, at this stage.
I understand my friend's proposal, and I object to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________