[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17257-17261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued


                           Amendment No. 1583

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of my 
colleagues Senator Clinton, Senator Schumer, Senator Dorgan, Senator 
Warner, and others, an amendment and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mrs. 
     Clinton, for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Edwards, 
     Mr. Biden, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Shelby, Ms. 
     Stabenow, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Crapo, 
     Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Helms, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
     Chafee, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 1583.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Heroes Stamp Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT A SPECIAL COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE 
                   STAMP BE DESIGNED AND ISSUED.

       (a) In General.--In order to afford the public a direct and 
     tangible way to provide assistance to the families of 
     emergency relief personnel killed or permanently disabled in 
     the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks 
     against the United States on September 11, 2001, the United 
     States Postal Service shall issue a semipostal in accordance 
     with sub-section (b).
       (b) Requirements.--The provisions of section 416 of title 
     39, United States Code, shall apply as practicable with 
     respect to the semipostal described in subsection (a), 
     subject to the following:
       (c) Rate of Postage.--Section 414(b) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``of not to exceed 25 
     percent'' and inserting ``of not less than 15 percent''; and
       (2) by adding after the sentence following paragraph (3) 
     the following: ``The special rate of postage of an individual 
     stamp under this section shall be an amount that is evenly 
     divisible by 5.''.
       (2) Disposition of amounts becoming available.--All amounts 
     becoming available from the sale of the semipostal (as 
     determined under such section) shall be transferred to the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency under such arrangements 
     as the Postal Service shall be mutual agreement with such 
     agency establish in order to carry out the purposes of this 
     Act.
       (3) Commencement and termination dates.--Stamps under this 
     section shall be issued--
       (A) beginning on the earliest date practicable; and
       (B) for such period of time as the Postal Service considers 
     necessary and appropriate, but in no event less than 2 years.
       ``(g) For purposes of section 416 (including any regulation 
     prescribed under subsection

[[Page 17258]]

     (e)(1)(C) of that section), the special postage stamp issued 
     under this section shall not apply to any limitation relating 
     to whether more than 1 semipostal may be offered for sale at 
     the same time.''
       (c) Design.--It is the sense of the Congress that the 
     semipostal issued under this section should depict, by such 
     design as the Postal Service considers to be most 
     appropriate, the efforts of emergency relief personnel at the 
     site of the World Trade Center in New York City and the 
     Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``emergency relief personnel'' means 
     firefighters, law enforcement officers, paramedics, emergency 
     medical technicians, members of the clergy, and other 
     individuals (including employees of legally organized and 
     recognized volunteer organizations, whether compensated or 
     not) who, in the course of professional duties, respond to 
     fire, medical, hazardous material, or other similar 
     emergencies; and
       (2) the term ``semipostal'' has the meaning given such term 
     by section 416 of title 39, United States Code.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by myself 
and our side. Also, I understand it has been cleared by the Republican 
side. I ask the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the adoption of the 
amendment?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Hearing no objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1583) was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is we are waiting for 
Senator Hatch who will be offering an amendment. That amendment is on 
the way to the floor. We have discussed that amendment. We will be 
accepting it. I expect it will take just a few moments. And when that 
amendment is accepted, I think at this point we are ready to go to 
third reading of the bill. We will see at that point whether we need a 
recorded vote on the bill. It would be nice to be able to finish this 
appropriations bill this evening.
  As soon as we receive the amendment, it is our intention to accept 
the amendment and move to third reading.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I concur with the chairman. If we can 
finish this last amendment, I don't know if there are any other 
outstanding issues. If not, we are now checking with the leadership to 
see if it will be accepted to move this bill tonight.
  Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1584

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Campbell and I, on behalf of our 
colleague, Senator Hatch, send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will state the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1584.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To designate the State of Utah as a High Intensity Drug 
                           Trafficking Area)

       On page 36, line 7, after the semicolon insert the 
     following: ``of which $2,500,000 shall be used for a newly 
     designated HIDTA in the State of Utah.''

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment and have no 
objection on this side.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. We have no objection on our side.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There being no objection to the immediate 
consideration of the amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1584) was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe the amendment we just considered 
by Senator Hatch is the last amendment to be offered to this bill. I 
believe on our side there are no further amendments. I believe that is 
the case on the Republican side.


                     issuance of semipostal stamps

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the chairman of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Subcommittee. First, I would like to commend the Chairman for his good 
work on this bill. I appreciate his leadership and commitment.
  I would like to confirm with the chairman my understanding of an 
amendment offered by the chairman and Senators Clinton and Schumer. The 
amendment proposes that a special commemorative semipostal stamp be 
issued to recognize the efforts of the brave emergency relief personnel 
who were killed in connection with last week's terrorist attacks.
  Existing Postal Service regulations state that the Postal Service 
will offer only one semipostal stamp for sale at any given time. It is 
my understanding that it would be consistent with these regulations for 
the Postal Service to designate the commemorative stamp created by the 
amendment as the one semipostal stamp to be offered, pursuant to the 
said regulations, for the period specified in the amendment, with the 
exception of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp previously exempted by 
law.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The Postal Service 
could choose to designate the emergency relief semipostal as the one 
semipostal stamp to be offered for the period specified in the 
amendment, pursuant to Postal Service regulations.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of contraceptive 
coverage for almost 9 million Federal employees and their dependents 
who receive their health care coverage through the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program. At a negligible cost, this coverage has been 
included in the past three Treasury-Postal appropriations bills and is 
in the House passed bill and as well as the legislation before us 
today.
  This provision enjoys broad bipartisan support among members of the 
Senate as demonstrated by a letter sent by over half of the Members of 
the Senate to the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.
  This contraceptive coverage provision was adapted from legislation I 
originally authored back in 1997, the bipartisan Equity in Prescription 
Contraceptive Coverage Act, or EPICC, which currently has 42 
cosponsors, and which was the subject of a hearing in the Senate 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on September 10. 
Throughout this effort, I have had the good fortune of being joined by 
Senator Reid who has been a partner with me in this effort, and I thank 
him for his ongoing leadership on this issue. We both agree this is 
commonsense public policy whose time has long since come.
  The facts are not in dispute, contraceptives are an essential part of 
not only a woman's health, but that of her children and her future 
children. The lack of equitable coverage of prescription contraceptives 
has a very real impact on the lives of America's women and, therefore, 
our society as a whole. We took a strong first step towards ending this 
inequity when, in 1998, we guaranteed access to prescription 
contraceptive coverage for federal employees.
  The inclusion of this coverage in FEHBP has saved female enrollees 
over

[[Page 17259]]

$1,000 over the past three years, according to the Alan Guttmacher 
Institute. Not only has the inclusion of this coverage saved our female 
employees about $350 a year, it has not cost the Federal government 
anything either. A January 2001 OPM statement on the cost of this 
coverage for federal employees under the FEHBP found no effect on 
premiums whatsoever since implementation in 1998. Since it's not often 
that we can say that, let me repeat it, it has had no effect on costs 
of health care.
  In fact, some, like the Alan Guttmacher Institute, argue that 
improved access to and use of contraception nationwide saves insurers 
and society money by preventing unintended pregnancies, as insurers 
generally pay pregnancy-related medical costs, which can range anywhere 
from $5,000 to almost $9,000. Improved access to contraception would 
eliminate these costs and would reduce the costs to both employers and 
insurers.
  Whenever we talk about contraceptive coverage, the issue of a 
``conscience clause'' has continually been raised. I would remind my 
colleagues that this is a concern we effectively addressed in 1998 and 
that standard has remained unchanged ever since. I agree that this is a 
legitimate concern, which is why we found a compromise in order to 
assuage the concerns of our colleagues who felt that there needed to be 
a ``conscience clause'' to allow religious plans to opt out of this 
coverage if their beliefs and tenets are not consistent with this 
coverage. Originally, we specifically named five health plans that were 
excluded from having to provide this coverage and allowed ``any other 
existing or future religious based plans whose religious tenets are in 
conflict with the requirements'' of this coverage. Three years later, 
there are only two plans remaining in the FEHB program which do not 
provide this coverage. That's two out of over 245 participating health 
plans.
  While many of my colleagues and I would prefer to have this coverage 
expanded for all women nationwide, it is essential that we do not 
rescind this critical health care benefit for women in the FEHB 
program. And the proponents of the larger legislation, EPICC, are not 
alone.
  As recently as June, the U.S. District Court for the Western District 
of Washington ruled in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Company that an 
employer's failure to cover prescription contraceptives in its 
otherwise comprehensive prescription drug plan constitutes gender 
discrimination, in violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964. This case was the first of its kind, setting a legal precedent as 
well as bolstering the case for our broader legislation.
  In turn, the foundation for the district court decision was a ruling 
by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, or EEOC, last 
December that an employer's decision to exclude coverage of 
contraceptives in a health plan that covered other prescription drugs, 
devices and preventive health care services violated title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act regarding gender discrimination.
  Together, these two decisions form a ``one-two'' punch in favor of 
the approach we advocate today, an approach that's already been 
endorsed by a total of 16 States, including my home State of Maine--
that have passed similar laws since 1998. Today, another twenty States 
have contraceptive coverage legislation pending. That's a start, but 
it's not enough. Not only are these laws limited to state regulated 
plans, but this piecemeal approach to fairness leaves many American 
women at the mercy of geography when it comes to the coverage they 
deserve. Unfortunately, until we can get EPICC passed on its own, you 
either have to be a member of Congress, a Senator, a Federal employee, 
or living in one of these states to receive this guaranteed benefit.
  We believe that contraceptive coverage not only makes sense in terms 
of the cost of contraceptives for women, but also as a means bridging, 
at least in some small way, the pro-choice pro-life chasm by helping 
prevent unintended pregnancies and thereby also prevent abortions. The 
fact of the matter is, we know that there are three million unintended 
pregnancies every year in the United States. We also know that almost 
half of those pregnancies result from just three million women who do 
not use contraceptives, while 39 million contraceptive users account 
for the other 53 percent of unintended pregnancies, most of which 
resulted from inconsistent or incorrect use. In other words, when used 
properly, contraceptives work. We know that they prevent unintended 
pregnancies and when we have fewer unintended pregnancies, we will have 
a reduced need for abortions, and that is a goal each of us can 
support.
  I ask my colleagues to continue to support the inclusion of this 
provision in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program as contained 
in the Fiscal Year 2002 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. It is an 
important benefit and it is in the best interests of women's overall 
health, their children and their future children's health.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for 
their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides 
Federal funding for numerous vital programs in the Treasury Department 
and the General Government. However, once again, I find myself in the 
unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about parochial 
projects in another appropriations bill.
  This bill spends at a level 5.9 percent higher than the level enacted 
in fiscal year 2001, which is greater than the 4 percent increase in 
discretionary spending than the President wanted to adhere to.
  In real dollars, this is $328 million in additional spending above 
the amount requested by the President, and a $1.8 billion increase in 
spending from last year. So far this year, with just seven 
appropriations bills already passed including this bill, spending 
levels have already exceeded the President's budget request by more 
than $7.6 billion. I must remind my colleagues that the Administration 
has urged us to maintain our fiscal discipline to ensure that we will 
continue to have adequate funds to prosecute our war against terrorism, 
to aid those in need, and to cover other related costs.
  In this bill, I have identified just over $200 million in earmarks, 
which is less than the cost of the earmarks, totaling $356 million, in 
the bill passed last year. Therefore, I applaud the efforts of the 
appropriators in keeping parochial spending to a minimum in this bill 
but more must be done.
  While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not 
seem extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion of 
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars at the expense of numerous programs that 
have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process. It is my 
view that the people who run these programs should be the ones who 
decide how best to spend the appropriated funds. After all, they know 
what their most pressing needs are.
  For example, under funding for the Department of Treasury, some 
examples of earmarks include: $1,000,000 for work on joint technology 
projects with New Mexico State University's Physical Sciences 
Laboratory; and $750,000 for the Center for Agriculture Policy and 
Trade Studies located at North Dakota State University.
  Under funding for the General Government, some of the earmarks 
include: $2,500,000 for the Native American Digital Telehealth Project 
and the Upper Great Plains Native American Telehealth Program at the 
University of North Dakota; and $5,000,000 to help purchase land and 
facilitate the moving of the Odd Fellows Hall to provide for 
construction of a new courthouse in Salt Lake City, UT.
  There are more projects on the list that I have compiled, which will 
be available on my Senate Web site.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard-
earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests.


               POSTAL SERVICE SORTING PRACTICES IN HAWAII

  Mr. DORGAN. I understand that as a result of the closure of our 
nation's airports and the limitations placed on the carriage of cargo 
on commercial passenger planes, postal service throughout our country 
was affected. However,

[[Page 17260]]

the State of Hawaii was impacted most severely. My colleague from 
Hawaii, Senator Inouye, has joined me to discuss the situation in 
Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank Senator Dorgan for the opportunity to share with 
our colleagues the impact of the air service restrictions on the 
delivery of mail in the State of Hawaii. The recent closure of our 
Nation's air transportation system brought to light a Postal Service 
practice that I believe should be reevaluated. Hawaii is an island 
State that is not only geographically isolated from the mainland United 
States, but that is also geographically divided into seven distinct 
islands separated by the Pacific Ocean. Hawaii has a population 
dependent on the air transportation system for the movement of goods 
and people throughout the State. However, I believe the current Postal 
Service mail sorting procedure has the potential to exacerbate the harm 
to my State's economy from the airport closures, the reduced inter-
island travel, and the decline in travel to and from my State.
  The Postal Service in Hawaii has only one centralized sorting office. 
While I understand that mail service throughout the United States 
experienced slow-downs and difficulties as a result of the closure of 
our air transportation system, mail service in Hawaii came to a virtual 
standstill. The shut down of our airports resulted in the delivery of 
mail only on the island of Oahu, where the sorting station is located. 
My constituents on Maui could not mail letters to one another because a 
letter originating on Maui and addressed to another location on Maui 
must first be flown to Honolulu for sorting. This hardship was faced by 
all the residents of Oahu's neighbor islands.
  With the threat of war upon us and the possibility of further airport 
closures, I believe we must study alternatives to the current mail 
sorting system. The problems faced by the neighbor islands as a result 
of the airport shutdown are expected to continue as tourism to and 
within Hawaii declines. Aloha Airlines, one of two island air carriers, 
has announced a 26-percent reduction in flights that will begin next 
week. Hawaiian Airlines, the other inter-island air carrier has also 
dramatically reduced its flight schedule. Additional flights will 
likely be eliminated with the expected continued decline in leisure and 
business travel.
  In light of these flight restrictions, I believe the Postal Service 
should develop a procedure by which mail that originates on the same 
island to which it is addressed can be kept and sorted on that island. 
I realize that this would be only a small step toward addressing the 
many issues resulting from my State's unique geography, but it would be 
a start.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank Senator Inouye for sharing with us the 
difficulties faced by your State. I agree that the Postal Service 
should examine the feasibility of implementing procedures that take 
into account Hawaii's unique geography. Please be assured that I will 
work with the Senator to help in this endeavor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring for S. 1398, the Treasury, Postal Service, 
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
  The Senate bill provides $17.118 billion in discretionary budget 
authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $12.528 billion. 
When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $16.183 billion in 
2002. The Senate bill is within its Section 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and outlays. Once again, the committee has met its 
target without the use of any emergency designations.
  I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as 
Senators Dorgan and Campbell, for their bipartisan effort in moving 
this and other appropriations bills quickly to make up for the late 
start in this year's appropriations process. The tragic events of 
September 11 demand that this bipartisanship continue and that the 
Congress expeditiously complete work on the 13 regular appropriation 
bills for 2002.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

S. 1398, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATION,
                                  2002
  [Spending comparisons--Senate-reported bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                                          purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget Authority.....................    17,118      15,478    32,596
  Outlays..............................    16,183      15,475    31,658
Senate 302(b) allocation \1\:
  Budget Authority.....................    17,118      15,478    32,596
  Outlays..............................    16,183      15,475    31,658
House-passed:
  Budget Authority.....................    17,022      15,478    32,500
  Outlays..............................    16,261      15,475    31,736
President's request:
  Budget Authority.....................    16,614      15,478    32,092
  Outlays..............................    15,974      15,475    31,449
 
   SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation \1\:
  Budget Authority.....................  .........  .........  .........
  Outlays..............................  .........  .........  .........
House-passed:
  Budget Authority.....................        96   .........        96
  Outlays..............................       (78)  .........       (78)
President's request:
  Budget Authority.....................       504   .........       504
  Outlays..............................       209   .........       209
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the Senate-
  reported bill to the Senate 302(b) allocation.
 
NOTES: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any further amendments? If not, 
the question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill having been read the third time, 
the question is, shall the bill pass?
  The bill (H.R. 2590) was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order previously entered, the 
Senate insists on its amendment, requests a conference with the House 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair is authorized 
to appoint the following conferees.
  The President pro tempore appointed Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. 
Landrieu, Mr. Reed, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. DeWine, and 
Mr. Stevens.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this bill must have gone through in 
record fashion. I note for the record this is the first year Senator 
Dorgan has been chairman of the subcommittee. I have really enjoyed 
working with him, and I am continually awed by his skills in the 
Chamber of this great body and his ability to get this bill together in 
a timely fashion. I thank him and his staff for working so well with 
us. From my staff, Pat Raymond and Lula Edwards worked hard on our 
side. I thank them, too, for the record.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say again what a pleasure it is to 
work with Senator Campbell, his staff and my staff who I named 
previously today. They have done an excellent job. We passed this bill 
in fairly short order. As I said when we started today, I hope we could 
perhaps show the American people that we are back at work and trying to 
do things in a way that allows all of us to work together for the 
interest of this country, and I believe the passage of this bill in the 
manner we have done tonight is a demonstration of that.
  Again, I thank my colleague and all of our Senate colleagues for 
cooperating and allowing us to get to the point of passing this 
important legislation this evening. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the chairman of the full committee is 
here and two managers of the bill, I congratulate them and you. The 
appropriations process is moving along, and we should all feel very 
good about that.
  Senator Dorgan and Senator Campbell have done a tremendous job on a

[[Page 17261]]

very difficult bill that will go a long way toward solving many 
problems of this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________