Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. A second parliamentary inquiry. Is it the opinion of the Chair that this resolution would continue to be a budget resolution if it directed the creation of only that third reconciliation bill--the one that solely worsens the deficit--and did not direct the enactment of the two prior reconciliation bills?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, third inquiry. The pending resolution instructs the Finance and Ways and Means Committees to produce a bill that cuts taxes. There are no other instructions to those committees with regard to that reconciliation bill. Is it the opinion of the Chair that it would be in order for a budget resolution to instruct the creation of a reconciliation bill that increased outlays and gave no other instructions to those committees with regard to that reconciliation bill?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Byrd rule forbids legislation that will increase the deficit in years beyond those covered in the budget resolution. If this third reconciliation bill does not find a way to end or offset its tax cuts in the years beyond 2002, would the bill violate the Byrd rule?

Mr. DASCHLE. Is it not true, unless the budget resolution assumes that the tax cuts will sunset in 2002, or be offset by tax increases thereafter, the resolution calls for a reconciliation bill that would violate the Byrd rule?

Mr. DASCHLE. That is not the question, Mr. President. What I am asking is that under the Byrd rule there must be a determination that the deficit is not increased by actions taken in the reconciliation instructions in the outyears, in the years beyond the window.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is my point, Mr. President. This resolution assumes that a reconciliation bill will be triggered that will violate the Byrd rule unless it is terminated at the end of 2002 or else subsequently offset. The assumption of the resolution is that tax cuts will sunset in the year 2002 or be offset by tax increases thereafter in order for it not to be in violation of the Byrd rule, is that not correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Is it not appropriate to ask for the yeas and nays at this time?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is, in my view, a ludicrous abuse of power. If this ruling is upheld we will be giving more and more power to the Budget Committee, power cloaked in the fast-track protection of the budget process itself. We will be granting immense power to the majority. If this precedent is pushed to its logical conclusion, I suspect there will come a day when all legislation will be done through reconciliation. A decade ago the Senate wisely amended the reconciliation process by adding the Byrd rule to ensure that reconciliation bills would be narrowly drawn and limited to their deficit reduction purpose. This ruling poses a serious threat to the Budget Committee as we will become more and more like the House Rules Committee and the Senate more and more like the House of Representatives. For those of us who want deficit reduction, the majority seeks a very dangerous precedent today. For those of you who believe in the history of the Senate and unlimited debate and the right of Senators to offer amendments, the majority seeks to set very dangerous precedents today. I urge my colleagues to vote to overturn the ruling of the Chair. If we do not, the Senate will surely became a different place and a much diminished institution. Mr. President, I note the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, seeks recognition to address this issue. And I am sure my colleague, the current ranking member of Budget committee, does so as well. I yield the floor for that purpose. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me then phrase my question another way, because I think we can now clarify this. The reconciliation bill triggered by this resolution would not be in order, in other words, if it failed either to offset the tax cuts or to sunset them after fiscal year 2002, is that not correct?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, President Theodore Roosevelt once wrote, ``Death is always and under all circumstances a tragedy, for if it is not, then it meant that life itself has become one.'' The death of Adm. Jeremy M. ``Mike'' Boorda was particularly tragic. But it is important that the tragedy of his death not overshadow the inspiring accomplishments of his life. Mike Boorda began serving his country at the age of 16, when he lied about his age and entered the Navy. Much to his own surprise, he was commissioned an officer 6 years later. Through hard work and dedication, he rose through the ranks and eventually became a four-star admiral and the only enlisted man to become the Chief of Naval Operations. During his career in the Navy, Mike Boorda graduated from the University of Rhode Island in 1971 and served during the Vietnam war in Southeast Asia. He became an admiral in 1987 and served as the Navy's chief personnel officer from 1988 to 1991. He then served as a commander in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization from 1991 to 1994. As Chief of the Southern European Command, he directed the air strike against four Bosnian Serb aircraft that had been flying in violation of a U.N. ban. It was the first time in the organization's 44-year history that allied forces were used in an offensive mission. Having begun his career as a seaman recruit--the lowest rank in the Navy--Mike Boorda had a deep appreciation for the concerns of enlisted personnel, and he strived endlessly to improve the Navy for all of them. He considered those in the Navy who served under him--enlisted personnel and officers alike--to be members of his family. As Secretary Perry mentioned, ``Admiral Boorda was a sailor's sailor. Mike Boorda helped make our Navy the best the world has ever seen.'' The Nation owes a great debt of gratitude to Admiral Boorda. Despite the tragic circumstances surrounding his death, the many contributions he made to the U.S. Navy and our country during his more than 40 years of service will not soon be forgotten. I know I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I express my deepest sympathies to his wife, Bettie, and his four children, David, Edward, Anna, and Robert. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the Senator's comments. I hope we can get a good debate on amendments. We have a number of them we are prepared to offer just as soon as we dispose of the amendment offered by the distinguished ranking member. We will be prepared to offer those. I assume we will alternate back and forth. I think it is good to put Senators on notice that we will be here tonight. We are prepared to vote, and we ought to continue as we are. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the President's fiscal year 1997 budget builds on the immense economic success of his 1993 budget. Since the enactment of that historic deficit reduction package, the Federal deficit has been cut in half--from $290 billion to a projected $144 billion in 1996, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The deficit as a share of the economy is down from 4.7 percent in 1992 to 2.3 percent today. Last week CBO projected the 1996 deficit may be even lower--down to $130 billion. These favorable reports serve as testament both to the effectiveness of the 1993 deficit reduction package and a strong Clinton economy. Actual total deficit reduction achieved by the 1993 budget package is now estimated by CBO to be approximately $800 billion over 5 years. All this progress has come from a deficit reduction package that was enacted without a single Republican vote. Although most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle predicted the 1993 package would bring about job loss and recession, economic indicators have improved vastly since the Bush recession. Unemployment is down from 7.3 percent in January 1993 to 5.4 percent in April 1996. Inflation has been remarkably low during these times of sustained economic growth, with the consumer price index increasing less than 3 percent in each of the last 3 years. Since January 1993, 8.5 million jobs have been created, and more than 90 percent of those were private sector jobs. Interest rates--responding to sound fiscal policies--have fallen well below the levels of 3 years ago, with the 30-year average rate dropping from 7.67 percent in 1992 to about 7 percent today. Business investment in equipment is up 11 percent per year in real dollars since the fourth quarter of 1992. And corporate profits are up to a 13-percent annual rate since fourth quarter of 1992. The economy is strong. But the new Clinton budget is sensitive to the underlying anxiety and apprehension of America's working families. This budget secures the integrity of the Medicare trust fund through 2005, and it does so without ravaging Medicare. In contrast, the Republican budget cuts $50 billion more. The President's budget maintains guaranteed health care for nursing home seniors and poor children under Medicaid. In contrast, the Republican budget could cut as much as $250 billion in Medicaid. The President's budget maintains America's investment in education and job training--Head Start, Basic Education Assistance (title 1), and Job Training for Dislocated Workers. In contrast, the Republican budget cuts $60 billion from these priorities. The President's budget does not raise taxes on working Americans. In contrast, the Republican budget cuts $20 billion from the earned income tax Credit, raising taxes on 6 to 10 million hard-pressed working families. The President's budget protects the environment. In contrast, the Republican budget cuts EPA operating programs by 11 percent in 1997 and by 23 percent in 2002. The President's budget does not offer tax breaks for the rich at the expense of Medicare and education. In contrast, and contrary to the representations made by some of my colleagues, the Republican budget provides $180 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans over the next 6 years. Mr. President, the President's budget would balance the budget by 2002 using CBO economic assumptions. But, unlike the Republican budget, it would balance the budget without abandoning America's priorities. It would preserve paycheck security, health security, and retirement security for America's working people. The spending cuts in the President's budget are significant, yet they are made in the right places. The President's budget would achieve more than $600 billion in spending cuts by 2002. It would reduce the size of the Federal Government work force by 200,000, making it the smallest it has been in 30 years. Finally, the President's budget would provide targeted tax relief for working families and for families trying to send their children to college. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that the President's budget is a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people. In contrast, the Republican budget is the same extreme proposal the American people rejected last year.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just had the opportunity to listen to the majority leader make his announcement of his future. I wanted to come to the floor this afternoon to salute Bob Dole's 35 years of dedication to this institution and to his country. No one has given more, and no one has greater admiration in this body than does Bob Dole. I congratulate him on his decision. I believe it was the right one. Obviously, it is never easy to leave this institution. But he does so with our good wishes. While we will have the opportunity to serve with Bob Dole for at least the next several weeks, we wish Bob, his wife Elizabeth, and his daughter, Robin, well as they pursue their future. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of the quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from California says it so ably and succinctly. That is our concern. She used the word ``cooperation'' between the House and the Senate. It was cooperation. But I did not go further. It was absolute unanimity, agreement right down the line, word for word, paragraph for paragraph, provision for provision. There was no disagreement. The joint news conferences by the chairs of both the House and the Senate Budget Committees certainly made that point. There was no disagreement whatsoever. Normally you would expect cooperation. This was lockstep agreement on every single detail of a 6-year budget agreement. It seems to me with that kind of precedent there ought to be an opportunity for one little bill, this minimum wage bill, which has such a profound effect on so many people all through the country. That is all we are hoping to do. I intend to work with the majority leader to ensure that happens. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks made by the distinguished majority leader as to the desire to find a way to finish our work on all of these important matters prior to Memorial Day. I am relatively optimistic that is possible. The majority leader indicated that it is very difficult to make some assumption with regard to what the House may do on minimum wage. I understand what is normally a difficult set of circumstances in anticipating anything that the House would or would not do, but I am all the more confident that it is possible, given what has just happened on the budget. The distinguished majority leader asked if we could go to the budget in an expeditious way tomorrow. We are prepared to do that. I have indicated to him after consulting with a number of my colleagues that is possible. I want to go back to that point in a moment. That entire budget was preconferenced by Senate and House Republicans. Every single detail of the budget we are going to get tomorrow was preconferenced with the House. They decided what the defense number was. They decided what the discretionary number was. They decided what the tax number was. They decided what the entitlement numbers were. They decided what the overall budget plan would be. All of it was done. It seems to me if we can negotiate an entire budget for 6 years with the House of Representatives, certainly we could find our way to do one tiny little bill on the minimum wage. I hope we could find a way with which to address that. We have been working in good faith with the majority leader to find a way to make that happen. I feel we are making progress in that regard. All we are asking is one tiny little bill. The minimum wage is a tiny bill. But it has profound repercussions for the economic well being, the lives of millions and millions of people. As the majority leader made reference last week to rocket scientists, it does not take a rocket scientist to recognize the House could come up with a package surrounding the minimum wage increase that might be unacceptable. To declare this agreement acceptable, without any assurance of what the House would do--the House could come up with a package that we have to vote against, that the President would have to veto--that is no agreement, Mr. President. That is not what we are attempting to do. We want to find a way to accommodate the concerns of the majority in dealing with this tax issue in spite of the fact we have very serious misgivings on our side. We will have some amendments to address those misgivings. The Travel Office legislation--again, some of us have very serious misgivings in terms of the precedent it would set. We want to deal with that. Obviously, there is the TEAM Act, about which we have extraordinary misgivings. We will deal with that. Then there is the taxpayer bill of rights for which there is apparently some consensus. We will deal with that. Those are four pieces of legislation the majority wants to deal with. We say we want one, the minimum wage. All we ask is that we are not going to be embarrassed in coming to an agreement that ultimately allows us this freestanding vote that we all say we want but then the President will have to veto. That is not acceptable. Everybody understands that. That is all we are saying-- continue to work, ensure we know what the House's intentions are. If we can do it on a complete budget agreement, it seems to me we can do it on one little bill, the minimum wage bill. That is what we are talking about. Now, with regard to the budget, as I said, I have agreed to go to the budget resolution early tomorrow, after consultation with our caucus at noon and with individual Members who raised some very serious concerns and even though we have not yet been allowed to see the report. We are not going to make a big deal of the fact we do not have a report. Our colleagues on the Budget Committee were not even allowed to write it. No minority report. That was not allowed. There was no consultation with Democrats, at all--locked out completely. This proposal is the most partisan budget we have seen in many, many years. In fact, at the news conference I recall, the Nation was told this is a Bob Dole budget. It was not the Senate Budget Committee document. We were told, ``This is the Bob Dole budget.'' I must say, with all this interest in bipartisanship and accommodation and cooperation, when it came to the budget, we are not getting a great deal of it. We have not seen much yet. What goes around comes around. In spite of the fact that we have not been given very much, if any, consideration with regard to the budget so far procedurally, and it is going to get worse, we will go to the budget resolution and, eventually, to the three reconciliation bills that in my view are flatout illegal. We will have to face all of that in the future. We will go to the budget tomorrow, because in good faith we are trying to work through these things. We will try to deal with the budget. And we are trying to deal with these five bills. But we will not be pushed. I have had to assure my colleagues we will take all the time we need to have a good debate, to offer amendments. We will do all of that. We will go to the floor tomorrow as requested of us in order to accommodate the majority in what we know to be a very full schedule. I hope we can continue to work. I am very hopeful we can achieve all that I know the distinguished majority leader wants to accomplish prior to the time we get into the Memorial Day recess.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me thank the distinguished majority whip, my friend from Mississippi, for giving me the opportunity to recognize a person very important to my family and to me. Rev. Bill Hall is my father-in- law, and it is an honor to have him offer the prayer that opens up the Senate this morning. By having him here, we share with the rest of the world what my wife and I have known for a long time. He is a man of dedication, and a man of spiritual strength. For many decades he has had the good fortune to share his strength and his spirituality with parishes throughout Oklahoma and Kansas. We have watched in great awe and admiration his remarkable work with people in towns small and large, in families broken and healed, and in parishes of all sizes. As we begin this special day, it is a unique honor for me and a very important occasion to recognize his contribution to the many, many people who have benefited from his wisdom and from his leadership as pastor of his churches. I commend his message to the Senate and to the country as we begin this day. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have already articulated the concerns that we wish to raise about the pending amendment. I will simply restate, in its current form, it falls $1.7 billion short of the revenues needed to cover the offset the gas tax provisions in fiscal year 1996. At this time, I make a point of order that the amendment violates section 311 of the Budget Act.

Mr. DASCHLE. I know there are at least two Senators on our side who wish to speak, and I see those on the majority side as well. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, and 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island as the allocation of the time that we have remaining.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the distinguished majority whip and I have had a number of consultations over the last several hours, and we still have not reached any resolution to the impasse that we are facing. But I do want to note that over the last couple of days, as we have had the opportunity to more closely examine the gas tax repeal legislation, it has now been made evident to us that the offset that is incorporated in the legislation falls $1.7 billion short of the revenues needed to provide for the offset in 1996. Throughout this debate, we have indicated that we would be supportive under two conditions. The first condition was, of course, that it was adequately offset. By adequately offset, obviously, we are talking not only about the source of revenue, but also about the amount. And, of course, the second issue was that it be directly targeted to consumer relief and not to the oil companies, or others. Unfortunately, given the current legislative draft, as I said, we are told now that the revenue loss--the addition to the deficit--would be $1.7 billion in 1996. Clearly, that is not in keeping with the two criteria that we set out. Our hope was that we could find an adequate offset and, for whatever reason, that offset has not been achieved. It is ironic in some respects that, as the Budget Committee is now meeting to find ways to reduce the deficit and reach a balanced budget in 6 or 7 years, the very legislation we are now considering falls short by $1.7 billion of the necessary offset required to ensure that this legislation is entirely paid for. And so, at an appropriate time--I expect it will be about 1:30--I will make a point of order that the amendment is not fully offset. Because Senator Dole is not here, and because Senator Lott and I have had the opportunity to talk about their response, and to accommodate the majority, we are going to wait until 1:30 to officially raise this point of order. Mr. President, this situation, again, illustrates why having separate bills is so important. Obviously, now, you have a point of order against an amendment dealing with gas taxes that has an effect on the travel legislation, on the minimum wage, and on the so-called TEAM Act. So this is becoming more and more convoluted, the more we get into this debate and the closer we look. I think it, again, makes the point that, unless we can separate these issues, unless we can have individual debates and votes on each bill, we are going to continue to be frustrated by the complex nature of this very intricate legislative structure that we have created for ourselves. So I hope that we can, again, find a way to separate out the legislation and have a good debate, a good vote, and deal with these issues one at a time. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have just been informed of the majority leader's most recent proposal. I think it is fair to say that it is more of the same. It is similar to many of the other proposals we have been presented with over the last several weeks. Obviously, it is unacceptable. We have indicated our desire to have a vote on the gas tax. We would be prepared to accept that. But we would also obviously feel the need to have the same vote on the minimum wage. Of course, the majority leader has now indicated his desire to bring up the so-called TEAM Act. We would be prepared to have a vote on that. But they are connected, unfortunately, the way the majority leader has proposed them. If we could get a vote on minimum wage, we would be more than happy then to have a vote on the gasoline tax reduction. As I understand it, the majority leader has proposed a new offset that will take care of the point of order. The BIF-SAIF is an issue that has to be resolved. We recognize that. But I am not sure that we do it justice simply to use it as a convenient offset, in this case for a gasoline tax reduction amendment that may or may not go to the consumer, first of all, and that, second, may or may not require the entire amount that BIF-SAIF will provide. But the real issue is, should we have a good debate, a good discussion about the BIF-SAIF issue in and of itself? Should we analyze whether or not this is the right approach? Is this exactly the right formulation for BIF-SAIF? Those are issues we ought to discuss. I have not seen the BIF-SAIF proposal the majority leader referred to. It may be perfectly fine. To be buried in an agreement involving an offset for the gasoline tax reduction, in my view, does not do justice to the entire issue of BIF-SAIF, nor does it satisfy all of the difficulties that we have, of course, with the gasoline tax reduction itself. We still must address the issue, who gets the benefit? Will it go to the consumer? Will we have the opportunity to ensure that it is not the oil companies that benefit but the consumer? Can we offer amendments in that regard? I know our words sometimes come back to haunt us. I am sure in many cases mine have and will. But I was curious and very interested in a comment made by then-Republican leader Bob Dole in 1993. This is taken from the Record on page 3934, dated March 29: I guess the thing I need to resolve is whether or not there is going to be any flexibility or whether everything is going to be under the total control of the distinguished chairman of the committee. Is there going to be free and open debate on the amendments, or are you going to determine which amendments can be offered? We cannot accept that on this side. I can identify with that. I can empathize with Senator Dole's query in March 1993. I, second, appreciate his question because, ironically and coincidentally, we find ourselves in virtually the same situation. I say ``virtually'' because here it says, he asks, ``Is there going to be a free and open debate on the amendments, or are you going to determine which amendments can be offered?'' In our case, that has already been determined. There are no amendments to be offered. There is no opportunity for the Democratic side to even address the issue of amendments, because we have been precluded from doing so. We are farther off the mark now than we were even back in March 1993. Mr. President, regrettably, we end this week with the realization that we have not resolved the matter. We want very much to have a vote on the gasoline tax reduction. While there are very strong reservations expressed throughout our caucus, some of those reservations can be addressed if we can adequately address the question of who will benefit, if we can adequately address the question of what kind of an offset we will have. Maybe BIF-SAIF provides an adequate numerical offset, but there are very fundamental questions of policy we ought to be addressing, as well, and whether or not we can do that under these circumstances, I think is very questionable. For that reason, too, I am concerned about whether BIF-SAIF is an appropriate vehicle, at least under these circumstances. Mr. President, we will not support cloture. We will oppose the vote when it is presented next week. Mr. President, let me also address the issue that has been addressed by so many of our colleagues on the other side today with regard to the so-called TEAM Act. I listened with great interest on several occasions this afternoon as I was in and out of my office to the remarks made by so many of our colleagues. This is not the time nor is it necessarily the most appropriate way with which to address all of the issues raised. I do not intend to do so tonight. I do want to make four points. First of all, it has been said over and over on the floor--in my view, quite erroneously--that today businesses are prevented from discussing issues ranging from safety, workplace conditions, and all the other issues that may come up in a working environment in any company today. Mr. President, that is absolutely untrue. Untrue. I hope everybody will go back and look very carefully at what has been said. In many cases--I am sure not purposely--there has been a significant level of misstatement today regarding prohibitions on employers that has to be corrected in the Record and will be corrected as we get into this issue again next week. Employers today are given many opportunities--in fact, are using all opportunities--to discuss issues of quality and safety and workplace environment and all of the issues that certainly would come up in the normal discourse between employers and employees. Mr. President, 95 percent of all large businesses have team arrangements today--95 percent, according to the Department of Labor. Mr. President, 75 percent of small businesses have team arrangements with their employees today and in workplaces everywhere all these issues are discussed. Let there be no doubt, those discussions, that dialog, those relationships, are already working. That is not the issue. The second point, what I think a lot of employees are very concerned about, is that oftentimes there are situations that arise where an employer says, ``You, you and you are now selected to represent all of you. You are the ones who are going to be in the room as we make the decisions involving all the employees. That is the way it is going to be. I do not care whether there are any elections. I do not care whether there was any discussion about whether these three people are representative of all the work force. That is the way it will be. Take it or leave it. Accept it or find another job.'' Our view is, if that situation develops, there ought to be some consultation with other employees, and there ought to be some understanding that if it will affect the entire work force, the workers themselves should have some opportunity to select who it is that will be their spokesperson. That is what we are trying to do here: To find a way to ensure that if there is going to be a representative organization, that the employees have some opportunity to articulate and select the people that will make the decisions for them. The third point: Current Federal law is affected, of course, by court decisions. Court decisions, in some cases, have clearly obfuscated the interpretation of current law. It is our view, clearly, that there needs to be legislation to address the lack of clarity today about what employers and employees can and cannot do. On that, there is no doubt. We acknowledge that. We support it. We want legislation to address the need for clarification. We will offer legislation to ensure that happens, that we clarify what the arrangements can be and all of the circumstances involving the workplace that need to be addressed, in a reasonable way. So, clarification, yes. Opportunities to encourage teamwork, yes. Ways with which to make an employment environment more effective, yes. We can do that. That ought to be a bipartisan effort. We ought to find ways with which to work together to ensure that happens. The fourth point, Mr. President, if we are, indeed, interested in paycheck security, health security, pension security, the workers themselves ought to have an opportunity to determine what that means and how they can empower themselves more effectively. If that is going to happen, we want to protect the rights we have established over the last 60 years for workers to organize themselves. It is just not right to set up rump organizations where employers are negotiating with themselves, therefore denying paycheck security, denying people the opportunity to grow in this economy along with everybody else, the opportunity to have meaningful health security, the opportunity to have good pensions. That is what collective bargaining is all about. That has worked in this country and other countries, collective bargaining where we can ensure some opportunities to workers to enjoy the fruits of the success of a given company. Mr. President, we will get into this a lot more next week. I do believe there has been a lot of misinformation. Again, I do not accuse anybody of purposefully misinforming, but I have never seen so much misinformation as I have seen this afternoon on any one issue. We will have more opportunities to clarify it, more opportunities to work on it and, hopefully, to work together. I know a lot of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to see more of a cooperative spirit and more opportunities for comity, and maybe this will lend itself to that in the end. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.