Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. No objection.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Jeffords for his early support of reform of the election system. I also appreciate his hard work to ensure that the good qualities of Vermont's election system are protected and replicated around the United States. I would be pleased to take the time to answer any question he may have on the provisional voting section of the bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Jeffords, DeWine, Breaux, Reed, Rockefeller, and Collins. By joining together on this legislation, we are indicating a strong bipartisan consensus to invest in both improving the quality of child care and expanding assistance to low income working families. It is significant that we are joining together today not only in a bipartisan manner, but also as members of the HELP and Finance Committees in recognition of the support and neccessity of child care assistance. Today we are introducing legislation to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. We are calling this legislation the ``Access to High Quality Child Care Act'', because it's about time that we put the focus on ``Development'' back into the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Children are 20 percent of our population, but 100 percent of our future. Today, 78 percent of mothers with school-age children are working. 65 percent of mothers with children under 6 are working. And, more than half of mothers with infants are working. Most parents are simply not home full-time anymore. Many would like to be. For those who are, I introduced legislation in the Senate to provide a tax credit for stay-at-home parents. Because they, too, deserve support in their efforts to raise their children. But most families don't have a choice. If the kids are going to eat, go to school, and have a roof over their heads, both parents must work. I don't know of any working parents who think that balancing work and family is easy. It's not. Since 1996, the number of families receiving child care assistance has grown dramatically to about 2 million children today. But, for as many children who receive assistance, available child care funds reach only one out of seven eligible children. Child care in too many communities is not affordable. And in too many more, it's not available, or, even worse, of dubious quality. About 14 million children under the age of 6 are in some type of child care arrangement every day. This includes about 6 million infants. The cost of care averages between $4,000 and $10,000 a year, more than the cost of tuition at any state university. Far too many of America's parents are left with far too little choice. Nearly 20 States currently have waiting lists for child care assistance. Every State has difficulty meeting child care needs. No state serves every eligible child. Now, I know that there are some who say that we don't need more money for child care, that during the last few years we have pumped billions more into child care. But, I think we have a responsibility to look at what has happened over the last few years as well. The welfare caseload dropped by 1.8 million families from 1996 to 1999. The majority of welfare leavers are now employed in low wage jobs. The share of TANF families working or participating in work-related activities while receiving TANF has soared to nearly 900,000 in fiscal year 99. Between 1996 and 1999, the number of employed single mothers grew from 1.8 million to 2.7 million. According to the Congressional Research Service, there has been a marked increase in single mothers working, from 63.5 percent in 1996 to 73 percent in 2001. But, let's face it. Most welfare leavers are leaving for low wage jobs. On average, they are making $7 or $8 an hour. They are working, but they are still struggling to get by. Many low wage parents move from one low wage job to another, but rarely to a high wage job. Therefore, even over time, these parents still need child care assistance to stay employed. I am very concerned that the Administration's welfare reauthorization plan, with no additional funds for child care, will result in States shifting assistance from the working poor to those on welfare. House Republicans joined with Secretary Thompson on Wednesday to announce the introduction of the President's welfare plan in the House. One change they made to address child care needs was to allow states additional flexibility to transfer 50 percent of TANF funds to child care instead of 30 percent under current law. Since States are already spending all of their TANF money and the Administration's welfare plan adds significant additional work requirements for TANF recipients, I just don't see what giving the States additional flexibility buys them in child care dollars. At best, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking cash assistance payments away from welfare parents to pay for child care for working TANF parents. That makes no sense. So, instead of robbing assistance from the working poor to pay for child care assistance for welfare recipients, states would rob welfare assistance directly from the worst off who are not working to pay for child care for those on welfare who are working? What's the logic? How does this help anyone? We held two hearings on child care in March. At one hearing, a woman from Maine testified who earns about $18,000 a year, pays half her income in child care every week, but remains on a waiting list to receive assistance. In the meantime, she and her two year old sleep on her grandmother's couch because she can't afford a place of her own. At another hearing, a woman from Florida with $13,000 in earnings a year recently lost her child care assistance because in Florida families working their way off TANF have only 2 years of transitional child care. After that, they must join the waiting list of some 48,000 children. Because she lost her child care assistance and the state waiting list is so long, this woman may have to return to welfare. I've heard some say the answer is flexibility, that if we give the States more flexibility, then they will step up to the plate. A more realistic prediction would be that if we give states the resources, they will step up to the plate. Let me tell you what flexibility without sufficient resources leads to: low eligibility levels, no outreach, low provider reimbursement rates, high co-pays, and waiting lists. Sound familiar? That's right. With the cost of child care today, even with additional resources provided over the last several years, too many of the states are forced to restrict access to low income working parents. Assistance that is provided often limits parents' choices. We can do better than this. Too often I hear about low income families stringing together whatever care they can find so that they can hold their jobs. For many this means Grandma one day, an aunt the next day, an uncle the following day, and then maybe the aunt's boyfriend. It's no wonder that 46 percent of kindergarten teachers report that half or more of their students are not ready for kindergarten. We need to look at these issues in an integrated manner. The education bill that the President recently signed will require schools to test every child every year from 3rd through 8th grade, and the results of those tests will be used to hold schools accountable. But, if we expect children to be on par by third grade, we need to look at how they start school. The learning gap doesn't begin in kindergarten, it is first noticed in kindergarten. If we are serious about education reform, we need to look at the child care settings children are in and figure out how to strengthen them. Seventy-five percent of children under 5 in working families are in some type of child care arrangement. Too often it is of poor quality. The bill we are introducing today is geared toward improving the quality of care to promote school readiness while expanding child care assistance to more working poor families. The Child Care and Development Block Grant is designed to give parents maximum choice among child care providers. In our bill, we retain parental choice, but provide States with a number of ways to help child care providers improve the quality of care that they provide. We set aside 5 percent of child care funds to promote workforce development, helping States to improve child care provider compensation and benefits, offer scholarships for training in early childhood development, initiate or maintain career ladders for childhood care professional development, foster partnerships with colleges and ``resource & referral'', R&Rs, organizations to promote teacher training in the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children, including preliteracy and oral language so necessary for school readiness. We set aside 5 percent of child care funds to help States increase the reimbursement rate for child care providers to ensure that parents have real choices among quality providers. Under current law, child care payment rates are supposed to be sufficient ``to ensure equal access for eligible children to comparable child care services in the State or substate area that are provided to children whose parents are not eligible to receive assistance''. But, low State reimbursement rates do not offer parents comparable care. The children of working parents need quality child care if they are to enter school ready to learn. Yet, 30 States require no training in early childhood development before a teacher walks into a child care classroom. Forty-two States require no training in early childhood development before a family day care provider opens her home to unrelated children. Our bill would require States to set training standards, just as they are required to do now for health and safety under current law. Such training would go beyond CPR and first aid to include training in the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children. Relatives would be exempt, but through the quality funding in CCDBG, States could partner with colleges and R&Rs to provide training to relatives and informal caregivers on a voluntary basis. Initial evaluations in Connecticut of such efforts show that relatives and informal caregivers are voluntarily participating and are feeling better about themselves and their interactions with the children have improved. Leading studies have found that early investments in children can reduce the likelihood of being held back in school, reduce the need for special education, reduce the dropout rate of high school students, and reduce juvenile crime arrest rates. If we don't improve both the quality of child care that our children now spend so much time in and expand access to child care assistance to more of the working poor, we will be in danger of missing the boat on a whole generation of children. I think I speak for all of the cosponsors of this legislation that we hope to mark up child care in conjunction with the Finance Committee consideration of welfare reform.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Jeffords, DeWine, Breaux, Reed, Rockefeller, and Collins. By joining together on this legislation, we are indicating a strong bipartisan consensus to invest in both improving the quality of child care and expanding assistance to low income working families. It is significant that we are joining together today not only in a bipartisan manner, but also as members of the HELP and Finance Committees in recognition of the support and neccessity of child care assistance. Today we are introducing legislation to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. We are calling this legislation the ``Access to High Quality Child Care Act'', because it's about time that we put the focus on ``Development'' back into the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Children are 20 percent of our population, but 100 percent of our future. Today, 78 percent of mothers with school-age children are working. 65 percent of mothers with children under 6 are working. And, more than half of mothers with infants are working. Most parents are simply not home full-time anymore. Many would like to be. For those who are, I introduced legislation in the Senate to provide a tax credit for stay-at-home parents. Because they, too, deserve support in their efforts to raise their children. But most families don't have a choice. If the kids are going to eat, go to school, and have a roof over their heads, both parents must work. I don't know of any working parents who think that balancing work and family is easy. It's not. Since 1996, the number of families receiving child care assistance has grown dramatically to about 2 million children today. But, for as many children who receive assistance, available child care funds reach only one out of seven eligible children. Child care in too many communities is not affordable. And in too many more, it's not available, or, even worse, of dubious quality. About 14 million children under the age of 6 are in some type of child care arrangement every day. This includes about 6 million infants. The cost of care averages between $4,000 and $10,000 a year, more than the cost of tuition at any state university. Far too many of America's parents are left with far too little choice. Nearly 20 States currently have waiting lists for child care assistance. Every State has difficulty meeting child care needs. No state serves every eligible child. Now, I know that there are some who say that we don't need more money for child care, that during the last few years we have pumped billions more into child care. But, I think we have a responsibility to look at what has happened over the last few years as well. The welfare caseload dropped by 1.8 million families from 1996 to 1999. The majority of welfare leavers are now employed in low wage jobs. The share of TANF families working or participating in work-related activities while receiving TANF has soared to nearly 900,000 in fiscal year 99. Between 1996 and 1999, the number of employed single mothers grew from 1.8 million to 2.7 million. According to the Congressional Research Service, there has been a marked increase in single mothers working, from 63.5 percent in 1996 to 73 percent in 2001. But, let's face it. Most welfare leavers are leaving for low wage jobs. On average, they are making $7 or $8 an hour. They are working, but they are still struggling to get by. Many low wage parents move from one low wage job to another, but rarely to a high wage job. Therefore, even over time, these parents still need child care assistance to stay employed. I am very concerned that the Administration's welfare reauthorization plan, with no additional funds for child care, will result in States shifting assistance from the working poor to those on welfare. House Republicans joined with Secretary Thompson on Wednesday to announce the introduction of the President's welfare plan in the House. One change they made to address child care needs was to allow states additional flexibility to transfer 50 percent of TANF funds to child care instead of 30 percent under current law. Since States are already spending all of their TANF money and the Administration's welfare plan adds significant additional work requirements for TANF recipients, I just don't see what giving the States additional flexibility buys them in child care dollars. At best, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking cash assistance payments away from welfare parents to pay for child care for working TANF parents. That makes no sense. So, instead of robbing assistance from the working poor to pay for child care assistance for welfare recipients, states would rob welfare assistance directly from the worst off who are not working to pay for child care for those on welfare who are working? What's the logic? How does this help anyone? We held two hearings on child care in March. At one hearing, a woman from Maine testified who earns about $18,000 a year, pays half her income in child care every week, but remains on a waiting list to receive assistance. In the meantime, she and her two year old sleep on her grandmother's couch because she can't afford a place of her own. At another hearing, a woman from Florida with $13,000 in earnings a year recently lost her child care assistance because in Florida families working their way off TANF have only 2 years of transitional child care. After that, they must join the waiting list of some 48,000 children. Because she lost her child care assistance and the state waiting list is so long, this woman may have to return to welfare. I've heard some say the answer is flexibility, that if we give the States more flexibility, then they will step up to the plate. A more realistic prediction would be that if we give states the resources, they will step up to the plate. Let me tell you what flexibility without sufficient resources leads to: low eligibility levels, no outreach, low provider reimbursement rates, high co-pays, and waiting lists. Sound familiar? That's right. With the cost of child care today, even with additional resources provided over the last several years, too many of the states are forced to restrict access to low income working parents. Assistance that is provided often limits parents' choices. We can do better than this. Too often I hear about low income families stringing together whatever care they can find so that they can hold their jobs. For many this means Grandma one day, an aunt the next day, an uncle the following day, and then maybe the aunt's boyfriend. It's no wonder that 46 percent of kindergarten teachers report that half or more of their students are not ready for kindergarten. We need to look at these issues in an integrated manner. The education bill that the President recently signed will require schools to test every child every year from 3rd through 8th grade, and the results of those tests will be used to hold schools accountable. But, if we expect children to be on par by third grade, we need to look at how they start school. The learning gap doesn't begin in kindergarten, it is first noticed in kindergarten. If we are serious about education reform, we need to look at the child care settings children are in and figure out how to strengthen them. Seventy-five percent of children under 5 in working families are in some type of child care arrangement. Too often it is of poor quality. The bill we are introducing today is geared toward improving the quality of care to promote school readiness while expanding child care assistance to more working poor families. The Child Care and Development Block Grant is designed to give parents maximum choice among child care providers. In our bill, we retain parental choice, but provide States with a number of ways to help child care providers improve the quality of care that they provide. We set aside 5 percent of child care funds to promote workforce development, helping States to improve child care provider compensation and benefits, offer scholarships for training in early childhood development, initiate or maintain career ladders for childhood care professional development, foster partnerships with colleges and ``resource & referral'', R&Rs, organizations to promote teacher training in the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children, including preliteracy and oral language so necessary for school readiness. We set aside 5 percent of child care funds to help States increase the reimbursement rate for child care providers to ensure that parents have real choices among quality providers. Under current law, child care payment rates are supposed to be sufficient ``to ensure equal access for eligible children to comparable child care services in the State or substate area that are provided to children whose parents are not eligible to receive assistance''. But, low State reimbursement rates do not offer parents comparable care. The children of working parents need quality child care if they are to enter school ready to learn. Yet, 30 States require no training in early childhood development before a teacher walks into a child care classroom. Forty-two States require no training in early childhood development before a family day care provider opens her home to unrelated children. Our bill would require States to set training standards, just as they are required to do now for health and safety under current law. Such training would go beyond CPR and first aid to include training in the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development of children. Relatives would be exempt, but through the quality funding in CCDBG, States could partner with colleges and R&Rs to provide training to relatives and informal caregivers on a voluntary basis. Initial evaluations in Connecticut of such efforts show that relatives and informal caregivers are voluntarily participating and are feeling better about themselves and their interactions with the children have improved. Leading studies have found that early investments in children can reduce the likelihood of being held back in school, reduce the need for special education, reduce the dropout rate of high school students, and reduce juvenile crime arrest rates. If we don't improve both the quality of child care that our children now spend so much time in and expand access to child care assistance to more of the working poor, we will be in danger of missing the boat on a whole generation of children. I think I speak for all of the cosponsors of this legislation that we hope to mark up child care in conjunction with the Finance Committee consideration of welfare reform.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, to introduce the Holocaust Education Assistance Act. This legislation provides for grants to support Holocaust education programs that teach the lessons that the Holocaust provides for all people, including developing curriculum guides and providing training to help teachers incorporate those lessons in their classes. This bill is especially timely this week, as we observe the Holocaust Days of Remembrance. The Holocaust has always been a difficult issue to teach; the complexities and the sheer horror of what occurred in Nazi Germany can seem overwhelming. But, I am confident that this bill will help educators to undertake the difficult but vital task of helping this and future generations understand the meaning of the Holocaust. In the wake of the events of September 11, it is more important than ever to understand the damage and suffering that acts of hatred and racism can reap. The Holocaust was one of history's darkest moments and it must be remembered in order to prevent its repetition. Indeed, we are constantly reminded of why we must be vigilant against ethnic hatred and violence. In the past 10 years, for example, we have seen ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The old axiom remains true: ``those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Yet, even today, there are some who not only refuse to learn from the Holocaust, but who refuse even to accept that it happened. The Holocaust, of course, did happen. We saw the remains of the camps at Treblinka and Auschwitz; we read letters sent among Nazi leaders discussing the ``final solution,'' and we hear the eloquent words of countless survivors such as Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi describing the atrocities they witnessed and were forced to endure. In the face of all that, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves and our children about the horrors of the Holocaust and help to build a world in which such events never happen again. Knowledge is the most effective tool in breaking down the barriers between groups and creating more inclusive and tolerant societies. This legislation will help with the critical task of spreading such knowledge through education.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky. I thank his staff. As I understand it, we will frame this with the two leaders' consent. We will have a period of maybe 20 or 30 minutes divided equally between my friend from Kentucky and I to make any final comments on the bill, and then there would be three votes: The amendment by Senator Roberts of Kansas, Senator Clinton of New York, and final passage. All other amendments have been dealt with. We have accepted all of them here with the modifications that staffs have worked out this evening. We can report to our leaders that we are down to two amendments and final passage, which is what we projected and promised would be the case if we could get the job done. With that, I am unclear whether there is going to be a unanimous consent request on the time. In any event, we will take care of that. I thank my friend from Kentucky and his staff. Of course, I thank my staff as well for working very hard tonight and the staffs of the respective Senators that worked out these agreements and made it possible to accept these remaining amendments. I look forward to final passage tomorrow.

Mr. DODD. Senator Cantwell, I agree with you that very serious concerns remain about voting by internet. As you know, this legislation specifically requests that the new organization, the Election Administration Commission, study internet voting. I am looking forward to seeing what it learns. However, I hope very much that states will think very carefully before moving to internet voting, and will make sure that the security concerns are fully addressed. That said, the Senator is correct that nothing is this bill prohibits states from implementing voting on a remote electronic system like the internet, as long as the system is certified by the new Election Administration Commission, and complies with the other standards in the legislation. I agree with the Senator that it is important to welcome the development of new election technologies and it was my intent, and my cosponsors' intent to provide the states as much flexibility as possible to accommodate innovation while still implementing necessary minimum standards that will ensure that all our citizens' right to vote is protected.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of this measure and to thank my colleagues for their hard work on this bill that will make voting in many States easier and more accurate. Before we pass this legislation, I would like to address one additional point. In drafting legislation, it is often very difficult to look to the future and anticipate the impact that legislation will have on new technologies. To truly reform the Federal election process, this legislation must remedy the infirmities of the present system. However, it also must be forward-looking in its approach. It should welcome the implementation of new election technologies. The flexibility of this legislation to accommodate innovation will be the ultimate strength of Federal election reform. I firmly believe that voting by computer, whether by internet or some other remote electronic system, is likely to happen in many states in the near future. In fact, Arizona has already held a party caucus in which voters were permitted to vote over the internet. At the same time, I believe that the security concerns are such that most states, mine included, are not yet ready to provide this option to voters. However, in the interests of looking to the future, I would like to seek clarification from the chairman of the Rules Committee about how this legislation would affect internet or other forms of remote electronic voting.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. new technologies

Mr. DODD. I will have more kind comments about my friend from Kentucky, but I will wait until tomorrow so we can clean up some of the amendments. Amendment No. 3111

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. We have a couple more amendments that may be agreed to. In the meantime, I wish to make a point. While I did not get an opportunity to do so when he was in the Chamber, I would like to commend our colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. I have said this on numerous occasions, and I will say it again, without Senator Bond's participation and contribution we would not be on the brink of passing this bill. He brought a very important issue to the table, one that is not a part of the House-passed bill, not because they opposed it, they did not consider it. Had it not been for Senator Bond, I am not sure it would be in this particular product. So we owe him a very deep sense of gratitude concerning a very legitimate issue that I think complements the bill in a very fine way. I will later add further remarks about his contribution, but I wanted to publicly thank him. I also commend my dear friend and colleague from New York. Senator Schumer was, again, a very long and valiant participant in extensive negotiations on this bill, bringing us to the point we are this evening. I wish to thank him publicly for his work. Early on, he and Senator McConnell offered one of the very first measures to deal with election reform. He immediately saw the need to do something, as the Senator from Kentucky did. His willingness to back up and to work with us on a slightly different version is something I will always be very grateful to him for. His contribution has been significant.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may take a minute or so--I know Senator Bond is here; we are waiting for a couple of other Senators who may come over--for just a brief comment on Senator Roberts' amendment. I don't know if there is anyone in this Chamber for whom the body has more affection than Pat Roberts of Kansas, let me say very loudly and clearly, having described him as the Senator from Nebraska. I apologize to him and his State for that--not that Nebraska is not a fine State, I quickly add. Let me say to my colleague and to others on the Roberts amendment-- there are a couple of other people who have joined with him on the amendment--my concern about it. We worked on this bill with provisional balloting which is a very important and significant part of this bill. People who go in to vote are going to cast a ballot even when there is a debate about whether or not they have a right to be there. Setting aside that provisional ballot, if in fact there is that debate, if the voter is correct, that ballot will be counted; if not, it will not be counted. We will never again be faced with a system, once this provision becomes part of the law in 2004, where a person will be thrown out of line without casting a provisional ballot. In a sense, all eligible voters will be able to exercise your franchise. The issue is this. I understand my colleague's point. The question is, once that ballot has been cast, the State or the locality can then inform the voter whether or not the provisional ballot actually was counted or not, and if it was not counted, why not, so the voter can then correct that mistake. The point Senator Bond made--and we have constantly quoted him on this--that ``this bill is designed to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.'' The particular point I am trying to make goes to the first part of that sentence--``easier to vote.'' When a person goes to the poll, casts a ballot, and believe they are registered when it turns out, in fact the State or local election official has not registered the voter, then there is a 1-800 number, or something else they might call in on. I think such access is essential. It may help alleviate the need for a piece of mail going out. It may help eliminate the responsibility to notify the voter that there is a problem, that his or her vote did not count because proper action was not taken and this is what needs to be done. These kinds of mechanisms can help break the chain of continuous disenfranchisement. I think this goes to the heart of the purpose of provisional balloting. This means that the voter does not show up again at the next election and say: I voted the last time. And they would say: That is true, but your vote didn't count. They might say: You could have called me. You could argue which side has the responsibility. However, I don't think it is asking too much to let the voter know the circumstances. As a result, the voter can correct his or her mistake and become a fully franchised participant in the elections process. That is the heart of this matter. For those reasons, I will be urging our colleagues to vote against the Roberts amendment when it comes up for consideration tomorrow. Again, I have great respect for my colleague from Kansas. He makes a point that is not without merit. I will not suggest this is totally without merit since because there is an attempt to try to at least stay on track with ensuring the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote to each eligible voter and to make it easier to cast a provisional ballot. However, the amendment would not serve the goal of helping such eligible voters overcome circumstances that preserve their status as a provisional voters and would not permit such voters to easily correct mistakes. That is the reason I will, with some degree of reluctance, urge defeat of the amendment. Others want to be heard.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment has also been cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Levin.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3110

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3107

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am going to send three amendments to the desk: A managers' amendment offered by myself and Senator McConnell, an amendment offered by Senator Wyden, which I will be offering on his behalf, and an amendment I will be offering on behalf of Mr. Rockefeller. I ask unanimous consent that those three amendments, along with an amendment that my colleague and friend from Kentucky will offer on behalf of Senator Hatch, be considered en bloc.

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3113

Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.