[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10217-10221]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           DEFENDING PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany H.R. 2146, an act to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Federal law 
     enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic 
     controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from 
     governmental plans after age 50, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill.
       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill, with amendment No. 
     2060 (to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill), to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2061 (to amendment No. 2060), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell motion to refer the bill to the Committee on 
     Finance, with instructions, McConnell amendment No. 2062, to 
     change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2063 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 2062), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 2064 (to amendment No. 2063), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the motion to 
refer falls.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would just like to announce that 
Senator Corker was inadvertently detained in getting to the floor of 
the Senate. Had he been here, he would have voted yea on the cloture 
motion.
  Mr. President, I also just want to say to our colleagues that this is 
a very important day for our country. We have demonstrated we can work 
together on a bipartisan basis to achieve something that is extremely 
important for America. Not only when we confirm this trade promotion 
authority will we have the mechanism in place for the President to 
finalize an extraordinarily important deal with a number of different 
Asian countries, but it will indicate that America is back in the trade 
business. It will also send a message to our allies that we understand 
that they are somewhat wary about Chinese commercial and potentially 
military domination and that we intend to still be deeply involved in 
the Pacific.
  So I want to congratulate Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden. This has 
been a long and rather twisted path to where we are today, but it is a 
very important accomplishment for the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would like to mention that as to the 
other two absences, Senator Menendez had voted no on cloture before, 
and Senator Lee had voted no on cloture before. So the vote would have 
been 61 to 39.
  More importantly, this is a day of celebration in the corporate 
suites of this country, to be sure, because they have another 
corporate-sponsored trade agreement that will mean more money in some 
investors' pockets. It will mean more plant closings in Ohio, Arizona, 
Delaware, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Maine, and all over this 
country.
  Most importantly, what I didn't understand about the vote today is 
that even though the Wall Street Journal, the CATO Institute, and 
others acknowledge that, as to the decisions we make here on trade 
agreements--while they say it is a net increase in jobs--people lose 
their jobs because of the decisions we make. So we make decisions here 
today that throw people out of work. We know that. Across the political 
spectrum that is acknowledged. But we today don't do anything to help 
those workers that lose their jobs. We make a decision to throw people 
in Mansfield, OH, and Cleveland, OH, out of work, but then we don't 
take care of those workers that lost their jobs because of our 
decisions. It is shameful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me just concur with the Senator from 
Ohio. This trade agreement was supported by virtually every major 
corporation in this country, the vast majority of whom have outsourced 
millions of jobs to low-wage countries all over the world. This trade 
agreement is supported by Wall Street. This trade agreement is 
supported by the pharmaceutical industry, which wants to charge people 
in poor countries higher prices for the medicine they desperately need.
  This agreement was opposed by every union in this country, working 
for the best interests of working families, and by almost every 
environmental group and many religious groups.
  In my view, this trade agreement will continue the policies of NAFTA, 
CAFTA, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China--agreements that 
have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs.
  We need a new trade policy in America--a policy that represents 
working families and not just the big money interests.
  I strongly disagree with the majority leader, who called this a great 
day for America. It is not a great day. It is a

[[Page 10218]]

great day for the Big Money interests, not a great day for working 
families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                            Order For Recess

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. today for the weekly conference 
meetings, as well as from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. today for an all-Senators 
briefing, and that all time in recess count postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is no secret that Republicans on this 
side of the aisle don't agree with President Obama about everything. In 
fact, I would say that on balance most Republicans disagree with the 
policy choices made by this President. But occasionally--occasionally--
even the leader of the Democratic Party, the President of the United 
States, gets things right.
  Occasionally, the President of the United States gets his policy 
choices right, and he did so with regard to trade promotion authority.
  I would point out to our friends and to anybody listening that this 
actually is a 6-year trade promotion authority. This extends well 
beyond the tenure of the current occupant of the White House, and it 
will be available for the next President of the United States to 
negotiate trade deals that are in the best interests of the United 
States.
  So I agree with the majority leader. This latest vote is just another 
example of the Senate getting back to work and restored to regular 
working order. This is a dramatic departure from the old Senate, 
because there has actually been a lot of time for consideration of 
important pieces of legislation--from the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review 
Act to the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act to the budget.
  By moving this trade promotion authority bill forward, we can ensure 
that American workers and businesses can get the best deal in trade 
agreements with countries from Asia to South America to Europe.
  I believe we have actually kept the campaign promises we made last 
year that, if the American people entrusted the Republicans with the 
new majority, we would work together with our allies where we could on 
the other side of the aisle where we have common cause to deliver 
results for the American people, to legislate in their best interest--
not just to obstruct for obstruction's sake or gain some temporary 
tactical or political advantage but to promote a functioning, 
deliberative Senate. I see one of the leaders of this effort, the 
Senator from Delaware, who has done great work trying to find that 
common cause and producing a result, as exemplified by the TPA. I am 
going to yield for him in just a moment.
  But let me just talk briefly about my response to the Senator from 
Vermont and the Senator from Ohio, who said there is nothing good to be 
had out of this trade promotion authority or any potential trade deals 
that we might negotiate.
  My home State of Texas relies heavily on international trade. We are 
the number one trading State in the Nation, which is just one reason 
why our economy grew at the rate of 5.2 percent in 2014. Our economy in 
Texas grew at the rate of 5.2 percent in 2014. Do you know the rate at 
which the U.S. economy grew? The U.S. economy grew at just 2.2 percent. 
So why wouldn't we want to do anything and everything we can to 
stimulate the growth of the economy to benefit people looking for work 
and people looking for higher wages? This important trade promotion 
authority is the first step to doing that.
  I will conclude because the distinguished Senator from Delaware is 
here and others who want to speak.
  Trade is an engine of growth. It keeps our economy growing. These 
upcoming trade agreements, whether it is the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
or the transatlantic investment treaty, serve as a great opportunity to 
turbo-charge that growth.
  Our economy actually contracted last quarter by 0.7 percent. As long 
as our economy is shrinking and not growing, we are not going to be 
able to create the jobs to put America back to work. We are not going 
to be able to create the sorts of wages that we want for all working 
Americans. This legislation represents an important step in that 
direction. I am glad that in the exercise of a little mutual trust and 
comity, we have reached this important point.
  We are not through yet because there are other parts of this trade 
package that we are going to need to process this week. But the promise 
and commitment we made on this side of the aisle was that if our 
colleagues across the aisle trust us to move through the trade 
promotion authority bill, we will continue to work with them and keep 
our commitments to them, and, hopefully, more than just the trust that 
produces these pieces of legislation will result from this increased 
confidence and trust in one another.
  We know we are going to find measures we will disagree on, and we 
will fight like cats and dogs when we need to. But when we actually 
agree on the policy and can find it within ourselves to work together, 
the American people are the beneficiaries.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, while the Senator from Texas is still on 
the floor, let me say, if I could--he mentioned the word ``trust'' a 
number of times. It is an important word in Congress. One of my 
favorite sayings is ``Integrity--if you have it, nothing else matters. 
Integrity--if you don't have it, nothing else matters.'' The same is 
true for trust.
  In order to get things done here--there is a lot we need to get done. 
Everybody realizes that.
  My takeaway from the election last November was threefold: No. 1, 
people want us to work together; No. 2, they want us to get stuff done; 
and No. 3, they want us to get things done that will actually 
strengthen the economic recovery.
  One of the ways to strengthen the economic recovery, frankly, is to 
make sure that those markets overseas will actually allow us to sell 
into them, whether it is products or goods or services, that we have 
access to those markets.
  The other thing is that my colleague from Texas is as big believer, 
as am I, in the Golden Rule, and that is to treat people the way we 
want to be treated. And I think most of the people in this country 
support what we are doing. Most of the Democrats in our country support 
what their President has proposed, and the Republicans as well.
  But what we need to do while we move forward with trade promotion 
authority is we need to keep in mind that not everybody will be helped 
by this and that there are some people who will to be disadvantaged, 
and we have an obligation to them to treat them how we would want to be 
treated if we were in their shoes.
  There is a sister piece of legislature to go along with trade 
promotion authority, and I would ask the Republican whip from Texas to 
give us some assurance or reassurance so we build trust around this 
issue. When we are contacted by folks from around the country today, 
tomorrow, or the next day, what are we going to do to provide 
assistance to those people who may be disadvantaged because of trade 
promotion authority and the trade deal that is going to be negotiated? 
Can you give us some assurance there? Is this like the end of the road 
or are there some more pieces to follow this week?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would respond to the question by our 
colleague from Delaware that assurances have been given that we 
understand that the trade promotion authority and the trade adjustment 
assistance travel together.
  I think we have seen examples where the benefits of trade are not 
uniformly felt across the country. There are some people who will be 
displaced. But the importance of trade adjustment assistance--I wish we 
could negotiate something a little more frugal that would actually get 
the job done. But a negotiation took place between Chairman

[[Page 10219]]

Ryan in the House and the ranking member, Senator Wyden, in the Senate 
on this important piece of the package.
  We all recognize that these travel in pairs and that trade adjustment 
assistance is part of the price you pay for getting trade promotion 
authority done. But most importantly to my colleague's point from 
Delaware, for those people who are displaced, this guarantees that they 
will have access to the sort of job training and skills enhancement 
that they will need in order to get even better jobs in this economy 
that, on net, will benefit the entire country. That is the intent on 
this side of the aisle and I think the intent of trade adjustment 
authority and making sure that we finish our work--not here today but 
through the rest of the week--on this important package of pieces of 
legislation.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Republican whip for those 
words and for his work on this. I would just close with this thought: 
Whenever I talk to people who have been married a long time--like 50, 
60, 70 years--I always ask them, what is the secret to being married a 
long time? I get some very funny answers, and I get some very poignant 
ones as well. The best answer I have ever heard to that question, what 
is the secret to being married 50, 60, or 70 years, is the two c's--not 
``Cornyn'' and ``Carper'' but ``communicate'' and ``compromise.'' I 
would add maybe a third to that, and that is ``collaborate.''
  We need to demonstrate the ability to communicate and to compromise 
and to collaborate. And those aren't always the secret to a vibrant 
marriage, but they are the secret to a vibrant democracy.
  This is a confidence-building measure. I think we have taken an 
important step here, working with Democrats and Republicans and working 
with a Democratic President, and the next step is one we have just 
talked about, trade adjustment assistance. We need to do that. If we 
can actually work through these issues this week and produce a 
bipartisan product that the President is going to sign, we will 
actually build some trust. And when we turn to the issue of 
transportation and having a robust, vibrant transportation system and 
how to fund that, how to pay for that, what to do, this will be 
helpful.
  So my applause to Senator Ron Wyden, Senator Murray on our side, 
Senator Hatch, the leader on the Republican side, and to Senator Cornyn 
for good work--not done but a very good start today.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I have the utmost respect for my 
colleagues, and I think they make compelling arguments. I just have a 
hard time. I really have a hard time, with this. I have not had one 
West Virginian--average, working West Virginian--who had a good job at 
one time and lost a job who thinks this type of approach to trade is 
good. Not one. And I am hearing them talking about how much trade we do 
from our States. I would like to know what type of trade. Manufactured 
products? I don't see many manufactured products leaving this country. 
I see an awful lot of resources, such as oil that has been refined into 
diesel fuel or gasoline. It probably comes from Texas, I would say. I 
think that is probably a big part of their trading, and those types of 
things. But how many people actually benefit from that who really have 
a good manufacturing job? That is all I have asked.
  We talked about TAA. We are all hung up on TAA. Do you know why we 
are hung up? Because we all understand we are going to lose more jobs. 
We have already lost 6 million jobs since NAFTA. We have all lost 6 
million jobs across this country. I lost 31,000 manufacturing jobs.
  I understand NAFTA hasn't been enforced, and they had some rules in 
there. And then you take this piece of legislation, TPA--there was more 
security around this piece of legislation than there was around the 
Iran nuclear deal we were talking about. My staff could go there, they 
could take notes, we were briefed, and we were able to ask questions. 
We couldn't even take a note or take a note out.
  They are telling me: Well, you know, we all depend on trade and the 
market shrinking. We are at $18 trillion GDP. Think about this. We in 
the United States of America have the greatest economy the world has 
ever seen--$18 trillion. Do you know that of all these 11 countries we 
are talking about, the closest one to us is Japan--$4.5 trillion. It 
falls off the Richter scale. But yet we have to be very secretive 
because somebody might leave us.
  Well, let me tell you, I have been a businessperson all of my life. 
If I wanted to get into a market, I will assure you, I would be able to 
evaluate my competition, the people with whom I want to do business. If 
that was the big person on the block, I had to make more adjustments 
than they had to make. But yet we are so concerned about the secrecy of 
this deal that none of us are able to see it, work it, define it, 
dissect it, and improve upon it. Now we are just voting basically carte 
blanche and saying: OK, sure, you are going to get a 60-day review. You 
can't do a thing about it if you don't like it.
  I didn't think we were elected to do that. I really didn't.
  When you start looking at everything this stands for and you look at 
basically--and my father--my grandfather had a grocery store and my dad 
had a little furniture store, so I was raised in retail. One thing my 
dad always encouraged was competition. He enjoyed having it. He said: 
Joe, listen, good competition brings out more buyers. More buyers gives 
us more of a chance to sell our goods.
  What he never did like and what he thought was unfair was when you 
had unfair competition--didn't pay their taxes, didn't live by the 
rules or play by the rules. And if we didn't enforce those, it gave 
them an unfair competitive advantage.
  If you believe our past performance in our trade deals makes us an 
expert at enforcing and making sure people play by the rules so that 
America is treated right, then you probably would have voted for this. 
I don't. I can only judge off of our past performance, where we are 
today.
  When you go shopping for whatever types of goods--household goods, 
clothing goods, furniture--the greatest furniture markets in the world 
were in the United States. We make very little furniture in this 
country today. They still want our wood products, so you know what, 
yes, we ship logs out of West Virginia around the world so people can 
make the furniture that they want to send back to America. So I guess 
they say: Oh, yes, that is good trade. The only reason they are buying 
our logs is because they don't have the quality logs we have. They 
don't have the quality hardwood forests.
  The best coal in the world, the best metallurgical coal--coking--that 
makes the steel, the best in the world comes out of West Virginia. Sure 
they are going to buy it because they don't have it. They are going to 
make their products and send them back to us and come into these 
markets subsidized.
  I would just say sooner or later we ought to do something for 
America. You have to rebuild this country, and you don't build the 
wealth of a country based on basically moving paper back and forth. 
Moving paper back and forth--there are some people, with the wealth 
they accrue from this, I am sure they are very satisfied and happy with 
that. And we see the income inequality over the last 20 years. We have 
never seen this big of a spread. Never.
  You see the flatline of workers all over America, just as flatline as 
can be. I don't know how we can look them in the eye and say we have 
done the best because now we have opened up 11 new countries.
  Vietnam--58 cents an hour is what they are going to pay their 
workers. And we said: Whoa, whoa, NAFTA is going to be basically 
bringing the whole North American trade up to par. Twenty-two years 
later, I understand that Mexico's minimum wage is still under $1 an 
hour, around 80 cents.
  You think a person who makes 58 cents an hour or 80 cents an hour or 
$1.50 an hour--7 out of 11 countries

[[Page 10220]]

make less than $2--that those people will have disposable income to buy 
the products we would like to sell so that we can expand our economy 
and our jobs? I am sorry, I don't think that is going to happen. I 
really don't. It doesn't make any sense to me at all how we expect a 
person who can barely survive to have disposable income to buy products 
that we in the United States of America wish to sell to really lift our 
manufacturing base. But I guess that is why we have TAA that we are 
arguing about because we know we have given that up. We just about 
wrote that off 22 years ago, so I guess we are going to write the rest 
of it off now.
  Technology is great. I am all for innovation, creation, technology. I 
am for every bit of that. But sooner or later, you have to make 
something, you have to build something, you have to reinvest, and there 
have to be people making these products, being able to support their 
families and to have a benefit package that gives them a decent life.
  When I was growing up in little Farmington, WV, we had manufacturing, 
mining. We had people who could go to work, work hard, make a living, 
take their family on vacation, pay the bills. And we let all of that 
slip away from us. I am not saying they will be the jobs of the past, 
but we could have the jobs of the future--steel, manufacturing.
  So I am not willing to give up on this. You don't find me chastising 
my colleagues on the Republican side or my colleagues on the Democratic 
side. I think we are all here for the right reason. Sometimes we get a 
little bit off track, and I think this is one time we have gotten off 
track. Something that would really help the United States of America, 
working families all over this country, we have kind of forgotten 
about, and I am concerned about that.
  I am concerned about going home to my beautiful State of West 
Virginia and telling the people: I am sorry, we are going to have a 
harder time competing with some of these countries because there is 
just no way.
  We have opened up our borders. We have let international trade, an 
international manufacturing base go wherever they get the best deal. 
And I guarantee you that in every developing country, they are not 
going to be as tough as we are on human rights and on the environmental 
quality they should be aspiring to. They are not going to be tough on 
those things. They are trying to build an economy. They are trying to 
build, basically, a nation, bring it up. And they are going to be a 
little bit lax on these things. That is unfair competition, which my 
dad always warned me against.
  When we talk about European trade, I am not worried about European 
trade because they are basically on the same level playing field that 
we are. But when you are trying to build up a country, should you 
sacrifice and tear down your country? Should you give away everything 
you have worked hard for and built?
  I want to help these countries. I have not a bit of problem helping 
these countries. I am not an isolationist. But I basically would have 
put something in there that would have protected our manufacturing 
base. I would have put something in that said that when we fell below 
certain jobs in manufacturing, it stops. You don't give it all away. It 
is hard to regain that and recapture it.
  I am sure Wall Street is very happy today. I have a lot of friends 
who work on Wall Street. There are a lot of good people who work on 
Wall Street, but there are a lot of people who basically are just 
driven by the almighty dollar. They are not driven by Main Street. They 
are not worried about West Virginia. They are not worried about my 
little town of Farmington or any part of my State. And they are going 
to be very happy. They are not worried about 99 percent of the people 
who are still on Main Street trying to survive.
  We talked about the Export-Import Bank. They said: Trust us; we are 
going to get a vote on Export-Import Bank. Maybe we will sometime. I 
would hope that comes to fruition. That helped a lot of small 
businesses. We haven't gotten that vote yet. So you would have thought 
there would have been a priority to get a vote on that. It has done an 
awful lot to get us in the market so we can compete on a more level 
playing field. That hasn't happened.
  But here we go again. We are going to have some votes tomorrow, and 
the votes tomorrow are going to be based on the TAA because the House 
couldn't pass TPA fast-track with TAA in it. It is basically what we 
are dealing with. So they think we can do a backdoor. What makes you 
think TAA would be acceptable in any way, shape, or form in the House? 
What makes you think now, since we have carved this out--but we were 
promised a vote here on the TAA, which we know we are going to need--it 
is going to make it more acceptable on the House side when they made 
them take TAA out and couldn't pass TAA in the TPA bill? Doesn't make 
any sense to me.
  So I think it is a sad day today. I really do. And I am concerned. I 
am concerned about our country. I am concerned about my hard-working 
people in West Virginia--and I know you are--and all the other States 
we have. These are good people. They deserve an opportunity. They 
deserve fair trade. They really deserve a fair trading country, people 
who will trade honestly with us and who have a quality or standard that 
they have to live up to in order to get into our markets. I don't think 
we should sacrifice our markets basically just to build them up. I 
think we should assist them, but they are going to have to find their 
own markets to the point where we don't sacrifice.
  So I think this could be a troubling thing. I am hoping it is not, 
but it could be. I have concerns. And I have said that if I can't 
explain it back home, I can't vote for it. And this is one I could not 
explain back home. I could not make the people feel comfortable that 
this is really going to improve quality of life and opportunities for 
them and their families. I couldn't do it because I don't see it. I 
don't believe in it. And I said I wouldn't vote for it, and I didn't.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I just want to say a few things about the 
vote we just took on cloture to proceed with TPA.
  The Senator who just spoke talked about some of the problems with the 
deal and the dislocations that happen when we have trade. We all 
recognize there are dislocations. There are dislocations whenever an 
economy adjusts and moves ahead with or without trade. But trade 
overall is necessary. It is good. Free trade is good.
  Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside our 
boundaries. Seventy percent of the world's economic output happens 
outside of our boundaries. We need to trade. We can't just say: Well, 
we are just going to live within ourselves here, have an economy that 
doesn't reach out or pull in. We benefit. We benefit from better 
services and cheaper goods when we trade. Our manufacturers benefit 
when we are able to export our products.
  It was said before that we haven't seen any good outcomes after 
NAFTA. We have. It is rewriting history to say that we haven't seen 
good outcomes as a result of NAFTA. I think the last speaker said 
Mexico has not improved since NAFTA. It has. I can tell you, as a 
representative of a State that borders with Mexico, the economy is 
considerably bigger and better. Arizona is one of our biggest trading 
partners. It has improved since NAFTA.
  These trade agreements work. We haven't had a trade agreement 
negotiated without the TPA process--with the exception of one--I think 
in over 30 years. That one was a deal I believe with Jordan, and it had 
far more to do with defense than commerce.

[[Page 10221]]

  So we need to have TPA--this process--in order to negotiate these 
trade agreements. The vast majority of our trade--I believe it is close 
to 90 percent of our trade--is with countries with which we have free-
trade agreements.
  So I applaud those who have worked so hard to bring this to pass 
here--Senators Hatch and Wyden and others--and the compromises that 
took place. I am not a particular fan of trade adjustment assistance. 
When economies move forward, there are dislocations. We can't account 
for all of them. In fact, we have seen some of the problems with 
previous TAA assistance. I believe some of it went to those who were 
laid off at Solyndra and to some of these things that had very little 
to do with trade. Because of the way you seek such assistance, we don't 
do the best that we could to keep track of where those jobs were lost 
to. But having said that, we all recognize, as the Senator from Texas 
said earlier, that TAA is the price we pay to get TPA. We all recognize 
in this body that there are compromises that need to be made. That is 
how we move legislation, and that is how we get important legislation 
such as TPA passed so that we can have more free trade, and our economy 
will benefit because of it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________