[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22963-22967]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION--Continued


 Amendments Nos. 3989, 3994, and 4037, As Modified, and Amendment No. 
                  4045 to Amendment No. 3981, En Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand that the technical 
amendments are now approved on both sides. I send to the desk 
conforming modifications to three amendments that were previously 
agreed to, and a technical and conforming amendment, and ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modifications?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                    amendment No. 3989, as modified

       Strike section 101(b)(1) of the resolution and insert the 
     following:
       (1) Department of Homeland Security, except matters 
     relating to--
       (A) the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security 
     Administration, or the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center; and
       (B) the following functions performed by any employee of 
     the Department of Homeland Security--
       (i) any customs revenue function including any function 
     provided for in section 415 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-296);
       (ii) any commercial function or commercial operation of the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection or Bureau of 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including matters 
     relating to trade facilitation and trade regulation; or
       (iii) any other function related to clause (i) or (ii) that 
     was exercised by the United States Customs Service on the day 
     before the effective date of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-296).


                    amendment No. 3994, as modified

       In section 101(b)(1), strike ``(B)'' and redesignate 
     ``(C)''
       Following section 101(b)(1)(A) insert the following:
       (B)(i) the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or 
     (ii) the immigration functions of the U.S. Customs or Border 
     Protection or the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 
     or the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security; 
     and''.


                    amendment no. 4037, as modified

       In section 101(b)(1)(A), after ``center'' insert ``, or the 
     Secret Service''.


                AMENDMENT NO. 4045 To Amendment No. 3981

       Page 2, line 10, strike ``primarily''
       Page 5, line 20 & 21, strike ``Ranking Member'' and insert 
     ``Vice Chairman''
       Page 4, lines 9 through 13, strike.
       At the end of section 101(b)(1) insert the following: ``The 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs in this paragraph shall supersede the 
     jurisdiction of any other committee of the Senate provided in 
     the rules of the Senate.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page 22964]]


  Mr. McCONNELL. We are down to the underlying McConnell-Reid 
amendment. I am unaware of any request for a rollcall vote.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am wondering--I made this statement 
earlier--if we could vitiate the necessity of having a cloture vote on 
this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to vitiating the cloture 
vote?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Amendment No. 3981, As Modified, As Amended

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand there is no request that we 
vote on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada restates his unanimous 
consent. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3981, as modified 
and as amended, the McConnell-Reid substitute.
  The amendment (No. 3981) was agreed to.


                       section 101(b) and 101(c)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Section 101(b) contains the jurisdiction for 
the new Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Section 
101(b)(1) refers to the new jurisdiction of the new committee. The rest 
of Section 101(b) and all of Section 101(c) describes the existing 
jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee and is not intended 
to make any changes to existing practice nor precedence regarding 
referrals on those issues with regard to other committees.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I agree Section 101(b)(2) through Section 101(b)(13) 
and Section 101(c) makes no changes to the status quo regarding 
jurisdiction over those items.


                           amendment no. 3981

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the managers of the resolution 
adopting this amendment. It achieves the goals of an amendment filed by 
my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Texas, that I 
cosponsored. The language in the managers' amendment will make explicit 
that the shared jurisdiction over ``government information'' that is 
provided by rule 25 to the Judiciary Committee is not adversely 
affected by this resolution. I thank the Senator from Texas for his 
leadership on this matter and the managers for working with us to 
clarify the resolution.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I said at the beginning of this debate 
that after reforming the executive branch's intelligence and homeland 
security agencies, we needed to put our own house in order. We can now 
say that after years of demanding that other institutions reorganize 
and improve their performance, we have demanded the same of ourselves. 
And we succeeded.
  This is no small achievement for the Senate, the cooling saucer of 
American politics. We are very averse to change here.
  We respect history in this institution. But today we avoided making 
the mistake of falling victim to it. Learning from our mistakes prior 
to 9/11, we have changed the way we do business. This is a great 
accomplishment.
  We recognized the need to reform the way we conduct oversight over 
the most important issues of our day: intelligence and homeland 
security.
  I want to thank my good friend, Senator Reid. I have greatly enjoyed 
working with him, and have marveled at his prodigious talents in 
resolving particularly contentious conflicts.
  We have accomplished this difficult task thanks in large part to his 
honest brokering and commitment to respecting the concerns of each and 
every Senator. He is fair-minded, and he is effective. I look forward 
to working with him more often.
  Let me also take a minute to thank his capable staff. Rich Verma, 
Gregg Jaczko, and Gary Myrick, who worked on a truly bipartisan basis 
with my staff. Their expertise on these issues, and their patience with 
Harry and me, are truly commendable. They deserve a great deal of 
credit for managing the Working Group and cobbling together for us the 
many suggestions made by our Members.
  I would also like to thank my staff: Kyle Simmons and Robert Karem. 
Both of these outstanding gentlemen were with me from the beginning of 
this process and we would not be at this point without them. I would 
also like to thank Mike Solo. He jumped right in to masterfully produce 
this product and also helped steer it to passage on the floor. Finally, 
my thanks to John Abegg and Brian Lewis for their counsel and able 
assistance.
  I want to thank the members of the Congressional Oversight Working 
Group themselves for their many good ideas, and for their patience and 
willingness to work on a bipartisan basis to do something that is very 
difficult, but also very worthwhile.
  Not every Senator will be happy with the result of the Senate working 
its will on this resolution.
  Some Members will complain this reform goes too far. Others will 
complain it does not go far enough.
  I believe we have struck an appropriate balance of reform that 
improves our ability to conduct oversight of intelligence and homeland 
security during a very serious time for our country.
  On intelligence oversight, I am pleased the Senate not only accepted 
our suggested reforms of the Select Committee on Intelligence, but also 
improved upon them by agreeing to modify the sequential referral of 
defense-related intelligence legislation to the Armed Services 
Committee so the process is more cooperative.
  The working group wanted to improve the structure of the Committee to 
allow Members more time to become experts and give them many tools to 
do their jobs. And we have done that.
  Let me briefly summarize just a couple of our reforms:
  Improved and enhanced the Intelligence Committee;
  Included 9 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission;
  Members now have a stronger Committee;
  Without term limits, Members can better develop the expertise needed 
to conduct effective oversight;
  Clarified jurisdictional lines and improves the coordination of 
military intelligence matters between the Armed Services and 
Intelligence Committees.
  Appropriations jurisdiction over oversight is currently dispersed 
throughout multiple subcommittees. We have created an Intelligence 
Subcommittee of Appropriations to consolidate the roughly 80 percent of 
the intelligence budget that will come under the jurisdiction of the 
national intelligence director.
  This subcommittee will help the Appropriations Committee to live up 
to its responsibility to exercise oversight over the national 
intelligence budget.
  This legislation consolidates widely dispersed appropriations for 
non-military intelligence under a single Subcommittee.
  Allows the National Intelligence Director to work with only one 
Subcommittee to approve his budget.
  Improves intelligence oversight by creating two sets of eyes on the 
budget and activities of the assets under the National Intelligence 
Director.
  Jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security was too 
dispersed. Roughly 25 Congressional Committees or Subcommittees claimed 
jurisdiction over Homeland Security yesterday. We have cut that number 
down significantly.
  The Senate worked its will on this Resolution, and in the end it 
significantly consolidated jurisdiction over Homeland Security.
  Some will think the Senate went too far. Others will think the Senate 
hasn't gone far enough.
  We introduced a Resolution that dramatically consolidated 
jurisdiction in the new Committee. In an open process, the Senate 
worked its will and decided that the overlapping functions of certain 
agencies required exceptions.
  While there have been some changes to our proposal, we have not let 
the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have taken great strides 
towards a level of consolidation many of us would have thought 
impossible only weeks ago.
  This reform puts the Homeland Security Committee in charge of those 
who

[[Page 22965]]

prepare to defend against terrorist attacks and those who respond to 
terrorist attacks. This is the most important work the Department does.
  Protecting the Homeland is the core function of the Department, and 
the Homeland Security Committee will acquire jurisdiction over the core 
entities of the Department that do just that.
  Among other programs, the Homeland Security Committee will acquire 
jurisdiction over the following Directorates:
  Office of the Secretary--Responsible for integration of terrorist 
threat warning, preparedness, and response. This alone is a huge 
responsibility.
  Undersecretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure 
Protection.
  Undersecretary for Science and Technology--Chemical, Biological, and 
Nuclear defense research; and Homeland Security technology development.
  Undersecretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response--FEMA; 
National Domestic Preparedness Office; Integrated Hazard Information 
System; and Domestic Emergency Support Teams.
  Undersecretary for Management.
  We have consolidated all of this on top of the existing jurisdiction 
of the Government Reform Committee, including the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations.
  Mr. President, I believe the Senate has accomplished a great deal 
today. We have strengthened our Intelligence oversight, created a 
Homeland Security Committee under the new Homeland Security and 
Government Affairs Committee, and stood up a new Intelligence 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  I hope our Colleagues will pay attention to the reform we have 
enacted as they consider their Committee assignments for the 109th 
Congress. The American people will be better served by these reforms. 
And the Senate as a whole will benefit from their improved expertise 
and authorities over these critical policy matters.
  We have no more important charge than keeping the American people 
safe, and today we have improved our ability to do just that.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate adopted S. Res. 445, 
the Senate Intelligence and Homeland Security Oversight Reform 
resolution. This resolution will combine the oversight of most 
Department of Homeland Security functions and will provide jurisdiction 
over those functions to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, which 
will be renamed the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  I will vote in favor of S. Res. 445. This resolution will help 
advance the U.S. war on terror by consolidating and streamlining Senate 
oversight over the Department of Homeland Security. I'm confident that 
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will serve 
an important role in promoting the safety and security of the people of 
the United States.
  As originally introduced, the resolution provided that the Committee 
on Homeland Security and governmental Affairs would not have 
jurisdiction over customs revenue functions. Instead, the drafters 
recognized that, going forward, it's important to keep the jurisdiction 
over customs revenue functions within the Finance Committee, the 
committee that has exercised jurisdiction over these issues for the 
past 188 years. Moreover, with the United States collecting over $23 
billion annually in duties and trade related fees, the drafters 
realized that it's important that the U.S. customs agencies be able to 
perform their revenue functions efficiently. Retention of Finance 
Committee jurisdiction over these functions will greatly facilitate 
this objective.
  Senator Baucus and I introduced an amendment during debate on S. Res. 
445 that clarified the language concerning customs revenue functions 
contained in the managers' resolution. Specifically, our amendment 
stated that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
will not have jurisdiction over the following functions performed by 
any employee of the Department of Homeland Security: any customs 
revenue function including any function provided for in section 415 of 
the Homeland Security Act of 2002; any commercial function or 
commercial operation of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection or 
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including matters 
related to trade facilitation and trade regulation; or any other 
function related to those that I just mentioned that was exercised by 
the U.S. Customs Service on the day before the effective date of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002. In a colloquy between Senator Baucus and 
me on October 7, we more fully spelled out what is covered by our 
amendment and the reasons why our amendment was necessary.
  The Grassley-Baucus amendment was needed to elucidate non-security 
functions of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau 
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement that necessarily should remain 
within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Our amendment passed 
by voice vote on October 7.
  A transfer of customs revenue and commercial functions to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs would detract 
from that committee's main focus. Moreover, the removal of customs 
revenue and commercial functions from the jurisdiction of the Finance 
Committee would be disruptive to our efforts to advance a comprehensive 
international trade agenda for the United States. In adopting our 
amendment, the Senate wisely avoided both of these outcomes. agenda for 
the United States. In adopting our amendment, the Senate wisely avoided 
both of these outcomes.
  With passage of our amendment, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs will be better able to focus on its core 
objective, the protection of the United States from terrorist attacks. 
The staff of the new committee should be expected to be experts in the 
field of national security. They will work day-in and day-out to keep 
terrorists away from our shores and to protect Americans from attack. 
With their focus on national security concerns, it would be unrealistic 
to expect them to learn the technical details of our country's customs 
laws relating to revenue and commercial functions. The addition of 
customs revenue and commercial functions to their committee's agenda 
would only distract them from their central focus, national security. 
If that were to occur, Senate oversight of both the national security 
and international trade agendas of the United States would suffer.
  Our amendment also recognizes that removal of customs revenue and 
commercial functions from the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee 
would be disruptive to U.S. businesses, and thus harmful to U.S. 
economic interests. The Finance Committee has a long history--of some 
188 years--of exercising jurisdiction over tariffs and trade. This long 
history, and the technical expertise it has helped engender within the 
committee, provides the Finance Committee with an exceptional ability 
to provide sound oversight in the Congress over our government's 
customs revenue and commercial functions. Not surprisingly, the U.S. 
business community has developed strong confidence in the workings of 
this committee. Moreover, these same businessmen and women have doubts 
as to whether the committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs--with its focus on national security--would pay sufficient 
attention to trade compliance and revenue functions.
  The U.S. business community acted, and quickly, this week upon 
hearing rumors of possible legislation to strip jurisdiction over 
customs revenue and commercial functions from the Finance Committee. 
Let me read to you excerpts from letters sent to me this week on this 
issue.
  The National Retail Federation wrote that ``NRF's members are deeply 
concerned that moving jurisdiction for duty collection process issues 
from the Finance Committee would serve to reduce U.S. interest in 
preserving trade revenues, and require members of those committees to 
spend a great deal of time on revenue issues that are not central to 
the Government Affairs Committee's main jurisdictional interests. Of 
equal importance, the Senators

[[Page 22966]]

who have served on Finance have developed expertise in these complex 
revenue issues that many members of the Homeland Security and 
Government Affairs Committee do not possess and would have to 
develop.''
  In another letter, the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders 
Association of America stated that ``protecting our borders is vital. 
As we take measures to enhance security at our borders, however, we 
must also carefully weigh the consequences to the flow of international 
trade. . . . The Senate Finance Committee possesses the knowledge and 
expertise necessary to provide effective oversight over Customs' 
business facilitation issues. For over 200 years, the Finance Committee 
has been involved in the details of customs processing and their role 
is significant in assuring that the Senate gives due consideration to 
the practical consequences of security measures.''
  The Business Coalition for Customs Modernization, which is composed 
of 24 major companies operating in the United States, voiced similar 
concerns. It wrote that ``granting jurisdiction over the business 
facilitation functions of the Customs Service to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs--a committee concerned 
primarily with security--will lead inevitably to commercial 
considerations being discounted heavily in the name of security, 
without thought about the effects on America's consumers. That will 
hurt the U.S. economy and undermine our strength and standard of living 
in the long run.''
  As pointed out in these letters, as we move forward in enhancing our 
border security efforts, it is important to keep in mind that a large 
part of homeland security is economic security. And international trade 
is a critical component of our economic security. Exports alone 
accounted for 25 percent of U.S. economic growth from 1990-2000. 
Exports alone support an estimated 12 million jobs. Trade also promotes 
more competitive businesses--as well as more choices of goods and 
inputs at lower prices for U.S. consumers. If we impede trade, we 
impede our own economic growth and our own future well-being.
  A concrete example can be found by looking at one sector of the 
economy immediately following the events of September 11. Just 36 hours 
after the attacks, Daimler-Chrysler announced that it would close one 
of its assembly plants because it could not get the parts it needed to 
continue operations from Canada. Similar circumstances caused Ford to 
lay idle five of its assembly plants--each producing an average of one 
million dollars worth of cars per hour--for a week.
  Events like this make it clear that the United States must be at the 
forefront in developing the border technologies and enforcement, 
methodologies which will enable our economy to prosper and grow in the 
post September 11 world. We cannot afford to do any less. The Finance 
Committee has the experience and expertise to appropriately meet this 
challenge. And I'm pleased that the resolution we passed today 
acknowledges the unique role of the Committee.
  Finally, it only makes practical sense for the Finance Committee to 
retain jurisdiction over customs revenue and commercial functions. Rule 
XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate provides that the Finance 
Committee is the committee to which shall be referred all proposed 
legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and all other matters 
relating to reciprocal trade agreements and tariffs. It also provides 
that the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over customs. The reason 
that the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over reciprocal trade 
agreements, tariffs, and customs is precisely because all of these 
trade issues are all interrelated. Trade agreements set tariff levels, 
and customs personnel administer the U.S. laws relating to these 
tariffs. Therefore, as long as the Finance Committee has jurisdiction 
over reciprocal trade agreements and tariffs, this committee almost by 
necessity must have jurisdiction over customs revenue and commercial 
functions.
  For these reasons, I'm very pleased that the Senate voted this week 
for the Finance Committee to retain jurisdiction over customs revenue 
and commercial functions. In doing so, the Senate permitted the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to focus on its 
core objective of national security, and prevented a disruption to U.S. 
businesses that could result if such jurisdiction were removed from the 
Finance Committee. In addition, given the Finance Committee's 
jurisdiction over reciprocal trade agreements and tariffs, it only 
makes sense for this committee also to maintain its jurisdiction over 
customs revenue and commercial functions of the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, even though these agencies are now housed in the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, what is remaining on this 
legislation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is a cloture motion on 
the resolution, as amended.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that that be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is now my understanding the resolution is 
left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution, 
S. Res. 445, as amended.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. Cornyn), would vote ``yea''.
  Mr. Reid. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``yea''.
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Coleman
     Collins
     Enzi
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bayh
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Edwards
     Graham (SC)
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Miller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Sununu
  The resolution (S. Res. 445), as amended, was agreed to, as follows:
  (The resolution will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)

[[Page 22967]]


 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, because of previous long-standing 
commitments in the State of California and an unexpected family 
illness, I was not able to be present to vote on the Senate 
Intelligence Reform Resolution. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  Earlier this week, the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation to 
implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in terms of reforming 
the intelligence structure of the executive branch and strengthening 
our efforts at homeland security. That was an important bill, and I 
hope we can quickly resolve differences with the House so that it can 
be sent to the President for his signature.
  Equally important, however, is to implement intelligence reforms here 
in the Senate, as was also recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
  This resolution strengthens the Senate Intelligence Committee, and it 
creates a new Intelligence Appropriations Subcommittee. In addition, 
the Government Affairs Committee will become the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, and the Committee will have greater 
jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security.
  All three of these steps will streamline operations in the Senate and 
make it easier for the Senate to conduct meaningful oversight of 
intelligence and homeland security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from West Virginia have 
5 minutes prior to the next vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________