[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3854-3858]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              FLOOD INSURANCE AND VETERANS MEDICAL CLINICS

  Mr. VITTER. I rise to talk about two very important issues for the 
country and for Louisiana. The first is fixing the national flood 
insurance system, getting it right. The good news is I think we are 
well on a path to doing that effectively. The second is veterans 
medical clinics, two of which are in Louisiana. They have been held up 
for completely bureaucratic reasons and aren't moving forward as they 
need to serve the veterans in Lafayette and Lake Charles, LA, and in 
about 25 other locations around the country.
  First, flood insurance. Only a couple of days ago the House passed by 
a huge margin, over 300 votes, a strong bill to permanently fix the 
National Flood Insurance Program. Those aspects of the so-called 
Biggert-Waters act passed over 1 year ago but are unworkable, clearly 
creating problems on the ground.
  This is great news, because unless we fix those very real problems, 
we would have major problems on our hands in the National Flood 
Insurance Program, not only in Louisiana, not only in Florida, and not 
only in the Superstorm Sandy area, but in every State in the country--
every State. It is not a question of if these issues are coming to your 
State, it is a question of when and exactly to what extent.
  Over 1 year ago, we passed the Biggert-Waters act. That was an 
important reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program. It 
also included reforms, and many of those reforms needed to happen to 
stabilize the financing of the program.
  What no one understood adequately then, however, is that those well-
intended reforms, in practice, in implementation by FEMA, would lead to 
unsustainable, completely unaffordable rate increases in a significant 
number of cases.
  That only began to be understood in the months after the bill was 
passed as FEMA started to implement it, as FEMA came to homeowners, 
came to State authorities, came to Members of Congress, and began to 
lay out some of the rates we would see in certain areas.
  I am not talking about modest rate increases. We need modest rate 
increases to stabilize the financing of the program. I am talking about 
completely unaffordable rate increases in some cases--flood insurance 
rates going from $300 a year to $11,000 a year or $19,000 a year or 
$26,000 a year on a modest middle-class home and on a middle-class 
family that followed the rules every step of the way. We can't allow 
that to stand.
  First, it is fundamentally unfair. As I said, these middle-class 
families followed the rules every step of the way. They built to the 
right elevation when they built their homes, never let their premiums 
lapse, and never let their insurance lapse.
  In that context, for them to be hit with truly unaffordable rate 
increases--increases that could literally cause them to have to walk 
away from their home in some significant number of cases and not be 
able to afford to stay there--is just plain wrong.
  Secondly, it is completely counterproductive, because one of the ways 
we have stabilized the National Flood Insurance Program fiscally is to 
grow the program, to have more folks paying premiums, and to have more 
folks covered, not fewer. This aspect of Biggert-Waters, which would 
lead to truly unaffordable rate increases in a significant number of 
cases, is unworkable from the very vantage point of the goal of 
Biggert-Waters to stabilize the system. So we can't let that stand for 
that reason either.
  The good news is, because of those very real problems, both the 
Senate, and now the House, have come together in a major bipartisan way 
to fix the issue. The Senate acted about 1 month ago passing meaningful 
legislation. I was an original coauthor and a strong supporter. As I 
said a few minutes ago, the House acted two nights ago--Mardi Gras 
night in Louisiana terms--to take strong action to fix this program.
  The House bill is stronger and more significant in several respects, 
mostly because the reforms in the House bill are permanent. It is not a 
timeout, as the Senate bill was. It is a permanent fix that creates a 
much higher degree of certainty and permanence immediately.
  Also, the House bill is fully paid for with a modest premium increase 
on everybody's premiums--very modest, completely affordable--to make 
sure that all of these changes are paid for. Because of these aspects 
of the House bill, because of the permanent nature of the fix, the fact 
that we create certainty and predictability immediately moving forward 
for homeowners and real estate markets is actually the preferable 
approach.
  I urge all of us in the Senate to take up that bill at the soonest 
possible moment. Specifically, I urge the distinguished majority leader 
to put it on the floor, to create time on the floor, so we can deal 
with the House bill absolutely as soon as possible.
  I know there will be some attempt to obtain unanimous consent to pass 
the House bill immediately. Of course, I will consent; I am all for 
that. But, realistically, I don't think that is going to happen on the 
Senate floor. The Senate bill had some objectors, the Senate bill had 
some opponents, and so does the House bill.

[[Page 3855]]

  Realistically, I urge the majority leader to create the time on the 
Senate floor to take this up and move through the process absolutely as 
quickly and as expeditiously as possible. That is the way it is 
actually going to work and that is the way it is actually going to 
happen.
  I hope we can do that as early as next week. I strongly support our 
consideration of this bill on the Senate floor as early as next week.
  The second national and Louisiana issue I want to discuss has to do 
with veterans and veterans' health care, which we have been talking 
about on the Senate floor for some time, specifically the need to move 
forward with 27 fully approved, fully authorized, VA community-based 
clinics that have been stalled because of bureaucratic problems. Again, 
these clinics are around the country: two in Louisiana, one in 
Lafayette, one in Lake Charles. These clinics have been approved by the 
VA and have been in their plan for some time. They are fully 
authorized. We thought they were fully paid for until, first, the VA 
made some bureaucratic mistakes to delay the Lake Charles and Lafayette 
clinics in particular; and then, out of the blue, the CBO changed the 
way they score all of these clinics, all of these issues, and created 
another bureaucratic hurdle.
  Again, the good news is we came together in a bipartisan way and have 
a solution to those purely bureaucratic hurdles so that all of these 
clinics can move forward expeditiously. The House specifically passed a 
bill that would take care of these bureaucratic hurdles. They passed it 
on the consent calendar by a whopping bipartisan margin.
  So I come to the floor urging all of us to do the same. Specifically, 
I have an amendment to the bill that also makes it even more fiscally 
sustainable by having a pay-for for any conceivable cost to this bill, 
and that is what my amendment would do.
  This VA clinic legislation was in the Sanders veterans bill last week 
and it was in the Burr alternative. It was in both the Democratic and 
the Republican veterans packages. Neither of those packages passed. The 
Sanders bill was defeated on a budget point of order, which I supported 
because I don't think it is properly paid for and is sustainable both 
in terms of our budget and, even more important for veterans, how the 
veterans system works and handles its current patient load. The Burr 
bill never even got a vote.
  We have disagreements about those larger packages. Those are real, 
substantial disagreements, but in the midst of that I would hope we can 
agree to what we can agree on, and these VA clinics certainly fall into 
that category. We have cleared all objections to this VA clinic piece 
specifically. We have addressed all issues having to do with these VA 
clinics, in part through my amendment at the desk. The only possible 
objection I know of is the fact that a larger package is not passing.
  I understand there are big arguments about that larger package. Those 
are legitimate differences of opinion. I don't think that should stand 
in the way of our agreeing to what we can agree to and moving forward 
with an important piece of the puzzle for veterans health care--these 
27 community-based clinics around the country.
  In that spirit I will be asking for a unanimous consent agreement 
whereby we would take up the House-passed bill. Again, this House-
passed bill was actually on the consent calendar, passed with a 
whopping bipartisan majority. We would adopt my amendment at the desk, 
which addresses some fiscal concerns with the bill, and we would then 
pass it through the process. This would be our coming together and 
agreeing to what we can agree on. That is what the American people want 
us to do as we work on all other aspects of health care and veterans' 
benefits covered by both the Burr and the Sanders bill debated last 
week.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3521

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 3521, which was received from the House; that my 
amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank very much my colleague from 
Louisiana for bringing forth this very important issue. Senator Mary 
Landrieu from Louisiana has also raised this issue, as have many 
colleagues.
  My friend from Louisiana is absolutely right; this is an important 
issue and this is an issue that should be passed. But I would say to my 
friend from Louisiana that last week we brought forth the most 
comprehensive piece of veterans legislation in the modern history of 
the United States of America, and that legislation dealt with many 
issues raised by veterans organizations that represent millions of men 
and women who have put their lives on the line to defend our country.
  Let me very briefly--very briefly--touch on some of those issues 
included in this comprehensive piece of legislation that lacked three 
votes. We had 56 votes. One Senator was absent and would have voted, so 
we need three votes to pass this. This would have addressed some of the 
serious problems in the claims backlog that my friend from Louisiana is 
more than familiar with. It would have addressed the crisis of advanced 
appropriations to make sure if there is ever again another government 
shutdown that no veteran--disabled veteran and no veteran who is on a 
pension--would fail to get their check.
  This legislation also included an enormously important provision 
expanding the caregivers program, so wives and sisters and brothers 
taking care of disabled vets finally get the attention they deserve.
  That legislation would have addressed a terrible problem facing some 
2,300 families, where men and women who were injured in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and can no longer have babies receive help through in vitro 
fertilization or other processes or adoption, if they want the help, in 
order to have families.
  The legislation also addressed the very serious problem that many of 
our young men and women are not getting the education they need because 
States are not allowing them to get instate tuition.
  That legislation addressed many other crises, which is why that 
legislation had the support of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, 
the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and in fact virtually 
every veterans organization in the country.
  So let me say this to my friend from Louisiana, and I say this 
sincerely. What I will not do is dismember this piece of legislation. 
What I will do is work with my colleague and other Republicans who 
voted against this comprehensive piece of veterans legislation so we 
can bring to the floor a bill that reflects the needs of millions and 
millions of veterans who are hurting.
  I look forward to working with my colleague from Louisiana on a 
comprehensive bill, but at this point I object to his proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor and my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I find that very regretful. Of course I will continue to 
work with the Senator from Vermont. Of course I will continue to work 
on that larger package, which I have been actively involved in for some 
time. I will continue that. But basically the Senator from Vermont is 
holding a very tiny piece of this hostage--a tiny piece that will have 
no impact whether it is in or out in terms of passage of that broader 
bill.
  What is happening is we have a piece that on its substance, on the 
substance of the clinics themselves, no one objects to; a piece that 
passed the House

[[Page 3856]]

by a huge overwhelmingly bipartisan majority. Yet it is not going to 
pass here today or perhaps anytime soon because it is held hostage over 
larger fights.
  I will continue to work on that broader veterans piece. I support a 
broader veterans bill, if it is styled the right way and if it is 
fiscally responsible. I support the Burr alternative. I will continue 
to look for common ground between that Burr alternative and the Sanders 
bill. But whether this clinic piece is in or out of that discussion 
will have zero impact on passing that piece. I honestly think it will 
have zero impact.
  I find it very unfortunate we can't get this done in the meantime; 
that what my colleague considers the perfect is now the enemy of the 
very good, and we can't serve veterans by coming together on what we do 
agree on and acting in the meantime.
  With that, I urge my distinguished colleague from Vermont to 
reconsider over time, as we work on this larger veterans bill, because 
we could pass this today. The House would pass the slightly modified 
version immediately, and we would be moving on with 27 community-based 
clinics around the country which veterans in all of those communities 
desperately need.
  Additionally, I wish to thank Senator Inhofe for his active 
cooperation in moving these clinics forward.
  Mr. President, my good friend, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, is 
in support of vital legislation that recently passed the House of 
Representatives, H.R. 3521 the Department of Veterans Affairs Major 
Medical Facility Lease Authorization Act of 2013. The legislation 
authorizes 27 Department of Veterans Affairs clinics across this 
country including much needed clinics in Lafayette and Lake Charles, 
LA.
  Mr. INHOFE. I agree with my good friend from Louisiana that this 
legislation, H.R. 3521, is critical to providing the best treatment for 
our country's veterans, and I believe that it is the government's duty 
to honor the promises made to our veterans. In Oklahoma, roughly 
340,000 veterans call our State home, attend our churches, and 
contribute to our communities. On behalf of Oklahoma, we are humbled by 
the immeasurable dedication of each and every one of them.
  Therefore, this legislation also authorizes funds for an improved 
Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, OK. The current building 
lacks the space to care adequately for the large number of veterans 
that receive their medical treatment at the facility. Due to the size 
of the facility, services such as the Behavioral Health services are 
located several miles away. Lastly, the parking lot capacity is not 
acceptable. This bill will improve this clinic to include primary care, 
women's health, imaging, specialty care, physical therapy, audiology, 
optometry, mental health, prosthetics, dentistry, and a pharmacy.
  Mr. VITTER. Yes, it is absolutely critical for Louisiana veterans as 
well that both of the clinics in Lafayette and Lake Charles are 
authorized and finally built. To clarify, both of the Louisiana clinics 
are not new projects. They would actually be nearing completion, but 
because of bureaucratic mistakes committed by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, they have faced significant delays. Two years ago, 
due to an unexpected change by the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--in 
how it estimates the cost of VA clinics, these two vital clinics were 
then stripped out of a VA authorization bill. Veterans in Louisiana 
have waited long enough. It is time for the United States Senate to 
act. This legislation makes it so veterans are not forced to drive a 
100 miles to receive much needed services.
  Mr. INHOFE. With the passage of this bill, there will be funding to 
improve and expand our VA clinics in 19 States across the United 
States, including Louisiana and Oklahoma. The facilities would then be 
able to provide the services that were promised to our men and women 
that were willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to serve in 
the defense of our country. Many of our veterans have paid the price 
with scars, some visible while yet many go unseen such as post-
traumatic stress disorder--PTSD, depression, and traumatic brain 
injuries--TBI. I urge our colleagues to remember that it is our 
Nation's duty to care for them in return.
  Mr. VITTER. This legislation makes important reforms to the VA 
leasing process taking into account CBO concerns, and it has received 
vast bipartisan support in the House passing 346-1. I urge my 
colleagues to provide the same support for our veterans in the Senate 
and pass this legislation now by unanimous consent.
  With that, I yield floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me reiterate my hope that the Senator 
from Louisiana will in fact work with us. It is my intention to see 
this bill gets to the floor again before Memorial Day. I think we owe 
it to the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend 
this country to address their serious needs.
  The issue of these 27 medical facilities is one of those needs, but 
there are many more, and I look forward to working with the Senator 
from Louisiana and other Senators to do what the veterans communities 
want us to do and to go forward on what will be the most significant 
piece of legislation to take care of the needs of our veterans passed 
in several decades.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I, too, want to lend my voice--after 
listening to the discussion that just occurred on the floor--because I 
don't think there is any group of Americans who are more deserving of 
our support than the men and women who have worn the uniform of this 
country and so bravely and courageously defended America's freedom and 
our democracy. I hope, such as my colleagues who spoke just a minute 
ago, we can come to an agreement that would allow us to do the things 
on which we agree.
  There are so many things on which we agree--I think 80 percent of the 
debate last week between what the Senator from Vermont proposed and the 
Senator from North Carolina proposed were the same--that we ought to be 
able at least to do those we agree on and address some of the very 
vital and urgent needs our veterans community has. So I would lend my 
voice to supporting efforts to get things moving.
  There is a bill that has come over from the House of Representatives 
that addresses many of these issues, not as comprehensively as was 
proposed last week by the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from 
North Carolina. Obviously, we have some issues that need to be 
addressed that will support and help those Americans who have borne the 
cost of battle for our country and defended America's freedoms, but we 
should work together to find that agreement and to move legislation 
forward that would address those needs.


                               The Budget

  Mr. President, I come to the floor, however, to talk about the pain 
that ObamaCare and the Obama economy are causing Americans.
  CBS News/New York Times released a new poll last week finding there 
is widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama: 59 percent of the 
American people are disappointed in the President's Presidency, the 
poll found, while 63 percent think the country is on the wrong track.
  Just 38 percent of the people in this country approve of the 
President's handling of the economy, and 39 percent approve of his 
handling of foreign policy.
  When it comes to the President's signature law, ObamaCare, just 6 
percent--6 percent--of the American people think the law is working 
well. A whopping 92 percent support changing the health care law or 
repealing it altogether.
  In similar news, Gallup reported last month that its Economic 
Confidence Index was negative for every single State. In other words, 
the majority of

[[Page 3857]]

Americans in every State have a generally negative view of the economy. 
Only in DC--in the District of Columbia, home of too many disconnected 
Democratic politicians--did Gallup find a net positive view of the 
economy.
  Needless to say, the American people are, to put it mildly, 
dissatisfied. Why are they dissatisfied? Because they spent 5 years 
waiting for the relief they were promised and it hasn't arrived.
  A Pew Research Center poll in September found that 63 percent of the 
American people believe the Nation's economic system is no more secure 
today than it was before the 2008 market crash. The same poll also 
found the majority of Americans report household incomes and the job 
situation have hardly recovered at all from the recession. President 
Obama may have inherited a difficult economic situation, but he has had 
5 years to make it better. Instead, he is making things worse.
  Over the past 5 years household income has declined by $3,600. Income 
inequality is at its highest point literally since the Great 
Depression. The number of Americans receiving food stamps has soared 
from over 32 million to now more than 47 million--almost 48 million 
Americans receiving food stamps. That means that one in five--literally 
one in five--American households is on food stamps. Ten million 
Americans are unemployed, almost 4 million of them for more than 6 
months, and the labor force participation rate is at Jimmy Carter-era 
lows, thanks in part to literally thousands of Americans who have 
simply given up hope of ever finding a job and dropped out of the labor 
force altogether.
  Then there is the President's health care law. The President promises 
a health care law with lower costs while allowing you to keep the plan 
and the doctor you like. In reality health care costs have skyrocketed 
and Americans have been losing their doctors and their health care 
plans in droves. Seniors are being hit hard by cuts in the Medicare 
Advantage Program and lower income seniors are being hit the hardest. 
Meanwhile, businesses are struggling with the law's burdensome taxes 
and regulations, while workers struggle with reduced hours and fewer 
opportunities.
  A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office found that the 
President's health care law will reduce the number of full-time workers 
by up to 2.5 million over the next 10 years. Then there is last week's 
report from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that found 
that 11 million small businesses are going to see workers have their 
premiums increased as a result of ObamaCare.
  Yesterday, in an attempt to improve the Democrats' steadily worsening 
election prospects in November, the administration announced yet 
another--another--ObamaCare delay for selecting health plans, as well 
as a pardon for the administration's union friends. It is no wonder 
Americans are so unhappy.
  Despite the abundance of evidence that their policies have failed, 
the Democrats and the President continue to dismiss Americans' stories. 
In fact, the Senate majority leader had the gall the other day to get 
up on the floor of the Senate and say every single ObamaCare horror 
story is untrue. That is right. Instead of looking at the overwhelming 
evidence that ObamaCare just isn't working, and maybe rethinking his 
support of that law, the majority leader decided to accuse every single 
American who has had a bad experience with ObamaCare of lying about his 
or her story. Now that is a lot of denial right there.
  They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and 
over and hoping for a different result. Yet that is exactly what the 
Democrats and President are doing. Instead of looking at the evidence 
of the past 5 years and rethinking their policies, Democrats are piling 
on more of the same. For Americans hurting for jobs and opportunities, 
Democrats have recently taken to advocating a hike in the minimum 
wage--a policy, I might add, that the Congressional Budget Office said 
would result in up to 1 million fewer jobs and a policy that would hit 
the lowest income workers the hardest.
  Then there is the President's budget. The President's budget proposal 
would have been a great opportunity for the President to rethink some 
of these failed strategies of the past 5 years and to focus on 
controlling spending and promoting economic growth. Instead the 
President produced a political document that panders to the far 
leftwing of his party and eschews any type of meaningful reform.
  His budget won't control spending. Instead, it increases spending by 
63 percent over the next 10 years and it adds another $8.3 trillion to 
our $17 trillion debt. To pay for some of that spending, the 
administration is proposing even more tax increases, over $1 trillion 
worth of new tax increases on top of the $1.7 trillion in tax increases 
the President has already gotten since he came to office.
  The administration has even backed away from changes to our broken 
entitlement programs, such as gradually raising the eligibility age for 
Medicare, which would have helped put the Medicare Program on a 
stronger financial footing going forward.
  And as for balancing the budget, well, that is a fantasy. The 
President's budget doesn't even pretend to balance. With 2 years left 
in his Presidency, it appears the President has given up on governing 
and resigned himself to playing election year politics. His lameduck 
budget will further grow the Federal Government while the middle class 
continues to shrink.
  If the President and Democrats really want to help Americans the way 
they claim, there are real steps they could take right now to start 
turning our economy around and putting Americans back to work. Instead 
of a job-killing minimum wage hike, they could support initiatives to 
reduce the cost of hiring and give businesses incentives to hire 
workers. Instead of perpetually extending unemployment benefits, they 
could support legislation, such as a bill I introduced to provide 
relocation resources to allow the long-term unemployed to move to areas 
where the job market is stronger, and strengthen Federal worker 
training programs. This would help give the unemployed what they really 
want--not months of meager government benefits but steady, good-paying 
jobs with the potential for growth.
  Speaking of jobs, if the President wanted to create jobs immediately, 
he could easily do that today with a stroke of the pen that he talks 
about: Approve the bipartisan Keystone Pipeline and the 42,000-plus 
jobs it would support. All it would take is a stroke of the pen he 
keeps talking about.
  Then there is trade promotion authority. The President did talk about 
trade promotion authority in his State of the Union Address, but he 
abandoned it shortly afterwards as a result of some Democrats' 
political concerns about pushing the policy in an election year. Trade 
promotion authority would help farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs, and 
job creators gain access to 1 billion new consumers around the globe. 
If the President were serious about creating jobs for Americans, he 
would be urging the majority leader to take up this bipartisan 
legislation today.
  Finally, the President should be supporting bipartisan efforts to 
repeal the costly medical device tax in his health care law, the tax on 
pacemakers and insulin pumps. According to a recent study, more than 
30,000 jobs in the medical device industry have been affected by this 
burdensome provision in the law. If this tax isn't eliminated soon, 
even more jobs in the industry are going to be lost or sent overseas.
  It is not surprising that the American people are unhappy. ObamaCare 
and the Obama economy have done nothing to ease the struggles Americans 
have faced since the recession, and instead of proposing new 
initiatives, the Democrats and the President continue to push for more 
of the same, and to double down on the same failed policies.
  Well, 5 years is long enough. It is time for Democrats to abandon 
their failed economic experiments and to work with Republicans to pass 
legislation that will actually create jobs and opportunities and put 
Americans back

[[Page 3858]]

to work. We can do that. We can do that today. The President can pick 
up the phone he talks about and call the majority leader. Ask him to 
bring up any one of these initiatives I have mentioned on which there 
is broad bipartisan support: the Keystone Pipeline, trade promotion 
authority--initiatives that would grow jobs--repealing the medical 
device tax. There were 79 votes in the Senate on amendments to the 
budget last year in support of appealing that onerous tax.
  There are things we can do together, that we can do today to create 
jobs and grow and expand this economy, lower the cost of hiring people 
in this country, so we can get more Americans back to work with good-
paying jobs that will help lift them higher in their economic 
circumstances and give them a better and a brighter future. I hope that 
is what the President will choose to do rather than following through 
on so many of these election year ploys, if you will, that are simply 
designed to help win elections come election day rather than doing 
something that is meaningful to help middle-class families and the 
American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________