Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I cannot speak for our leadership, but he has been waiting for a response from the majority leader as to whether or not amendments are going to be permitted. The Senator from Pennsylvania knows only too well that when we talk about this amendment, we are talking about the bill; we are talking about the issue. We are not talking about some abstract condition.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are debating a proposition that I think probably lends some confusion to the recognition of what it is we are attempting to do. One can call it a lockbox, a safe deposit box; call it what you will. I say we want a lockbox, too, but we want a lockbox that is without holes, without rust, without a broken lock on it. We want a lockbox that is secure, that holds our valuables, and that no one can get their hands on, and that is the Social Security lockbox that cannot be used. Our friends over there say they want to keep it from being a pot for people to reach into when they want to spend money. The fact of the matter is that they create a condition as a result of the structure of their bill, their proposal, that says that if the economy turns sour, in fact, perhaps this country could be put into default, unless Social Security is used, because of overarching criteria, then that is what is going to happen. Social Security will be that safe deposit box that is now open for other purposes in Government. I hear the plea for letting the debate get started. But we have been waiting to hear from the majority leader--our leader and the majority leader; that is where these discussions take place--that he has a commitment that we can offer amendments. We have a commitment from the Senator from Pennsylvania. He said he had no objection to our having amendments. But we haven't heard that from the top. That is what we are asking for; that is what I tried to do with a unanimous consent agreement. I said: OK. Let's talk about a dozen amendments that our two leaders can agree upon. Let's talk about that. Let's put that aside, and then we can end the debate. But they do not want to do that. The majority has the upper hand. That is life in the Senate. They are not going to let us get our amendments up because--even though they say, yes, you will have all the amendments you want--the fact is there is a system here. Everybody in this Chamber knows there is a system. It is called the amendment tree. Once you fill it up with first-degree amendments followed by second-degree amendments, the majority leader always has the privilege of initial recognition, and you shut down the amendment possibilities. Let's stop fooling each other. Let's stop trying to fool the people out there in the countryside. Do they want Medicare included as a security measure, as a safe deposit measure, as a lockbox measure? Ask them. Let's have a vote on that. Let's have it straight up or down. Do you want Medicare? I heard a statement made today that, no, the Republicans don't want Medicare included. Let the public hear that. Let the public hear that the one measure for protecting health may not be of concern to them. It is fine with me. I just want to make sure the record is clear that people understand what we are saying. Look at this. The Republican House committee proposes a tax cut of $1.19 trillion. In order to accomplish that, they are going to have to take $55 billion from the Social Security surplus and $964 billion from the onbudget surplus. We are using arcane language to try to pull the wool over the people's eyes. Say it straight. They on that side of the line don't want Medicare included. We want Medicare included on this side of the line. We want to lock up Social Security, and we all agree a lockbox is a desirable thing, a place where those funds are going to be protected. We are saying you can't touch the Social Security surplus. Remember this: In 10 years, forecasts being as they are, we expect to have almost a $1 trillion surplus in non-Social Security funds. That is pretty astounding. Imagine, we could be out of public debt in 2015, barely 15 years from now--not only the public debt but anything. It would be an unheard of condition in terms of a major government around the world. The fact of the matter is it would be certainly a benchmark that people never thought would arrive. We are trying to do it. We are saying we support a modest tax cut for those who really need it--a targeted tax cut for child care, savings accounts, and health care for the elderly. But friends over here want to use it to spread the tax cut around for all of the benefit. It would go largely to the wealthiest in the country. I once again ask if we can get an agreement. It can be done away from the microphones or it can be done in front of the microphones. Give us the assurance that we can have amendments and not be barred by second- degree amendments and not barred by other parliamentary procedures. We would be happy to consider a different position, but we are not going to do it knowing full well that once we step over the line we are in a trap that is going to silence our voices in terms of any modifications. We are talking about just the motion to proceed. Just let us get started. The fact of the matter is this amendment would be a substitute for an underlying bill. It would be the bill itself. We have to be on guard for the public interest. That is where we are going to stand. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture until we understand fully what this debate is about for the benefit of the public. It has been suggested that we are filibustering it. We just had a major bill go through this Chamber yesterday, and we were allowed a limited number of amendments. In 3 days, we had 11 amendments that were considered. That was it. That was the most we could negotiate, instead of as it used to be with an open process. If it took a long time, it took a long time. I remember working through the night until 6 in the morning. We don't do that anymore. We shut down nice and early so we are not too tired at the end of the day. But I say the time is the property of the public. They let us use it. We ought to use it fully instead of shutting down the debate and shutting down the opportunity for the American people to understand what is really taking place. It is tough. It is tough because the route that is being used is kind of inside-the-beltway stuff. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the unanimous consent that we are operating under had a call for a vote at 10:30. Is that right?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Then I can use the rest of our time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I don't know why it is not clear, but we have said and we mean that Social Security funds, surpluses, are sacrosanct. They are untouchable. The Medicare solvency we want to create comes out of the non-Social Security budget surplus. We have talked about this 60 times. Apparently the message has not gotten through. We want to do it. We want to deal with it. By the admission of some on that side, Medicare isn't part of the thinking in this. If it is not part of the thinking now, I wonder when it will be. There is also an opportunity, if I may suggest with a degree of temerity, that Social Security funds can be used in the name of Social Security reform. That is kind of a catch-all. It says if we can't get it one way, we will get it another way. We face the specter of a huge tax cut that is being proposed. It is not much different here from on the House side. We are talking about something close to $800 billion. We understand each other very clearly. The question is, Does the public understand why we are? We want to save Social Security, and we want to save Medicare. We want to increase the solvency of Medicare, and we are committed to a reform of both programs. During that period, it is said by the President that we will extend the life of both of these programs even longer than the 50-some years for Social Security and the 20 years for Medicare. That is where we are, my friends. If we are ready to conclude the debate, I am prepared to yield back our time--if we are prepared.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act, which would prohibit the barbaric and unsporting practice of ``canned hunts,'' or caged kills. I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors Senators Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Moynihan, Murray, Schumer, and Torricelli. A typical canned hunt operation collects surplus animals from wild animal parks, circuses, and even petting zoos, and then sells the right to brutally kill these animals to so-called ``hunters.'' In reality, no hunting, tracking or shooting skills are required. For a price, any ``hunter'' is guaranteed a kill of the exotic animal of his choice--one located by a guide and blocked from escape. A wild boar ``kill'' may sell for $250, a pygmy goat for $400, while a rare Arabian Ibex may fetch up to $5000. The actual ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure, leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by humans, these animals often have lost their instinctual impulse to flee from the so-called hunters who ``stalk'' them. The actual killing methods employed by these hunters only compound the cruelty of slaughtering these often trusting animals. In order to preserve the animal as a ``trophy,'' hunters will fire multiple shots into non-vital organs, condemning the animal to a slow and painful death. Canned hunts are condemned by pro-animal and pro-hunting groups alike for being cruel and unethical. Many real hunters believe that canned hunts are unethical and make a mockery of their sport. For example, the Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, has called canned hunts ``unfair'' and ``unsportsmanlike.'' Bill Burton, the former outdoors writer for the Baltimore Sun and a hunter, testifying in support of this legislation, stated, ``[t]here is a common belief that the hunting of creatures which have no reasonable avenue to escape is not up to traditional standards. Shooting game in confinement is not within these standards.'' In addition to being unethical, these canned hunts present a serious health and safety problem for livestock and native wildlife. Accidental escapes of animals from exotic game ranches are not uncommon, posing a very real threat to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. John Talbott, acting director of the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, has stated that, ``[t]uberculosis and other disease documented amount game ranch animals in surrounding states,'' pose ``an extremely serious threat to Wyoming's native big game.'' In recognition of this threat, Wyoming itself has banned canned hunting facilities, as have the States of California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Unfortunately, the remaining States lack legislation to outlaw canned hunts, and because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common, federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices. My bill is similar to legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress, S. 995. The legislation I am introducing today will specifically target only canned hunt facilities, and will not affect any animal industries, such as cattle ranchers, rodeos, livestock shows, petting zoos, horse and dog racing, or wildlife hunting. Furthermore, this bill will not apply to large hunting ranches, such as those over 1,000 acres, which give the hunted animal a greater opportunity to escape. This bill merely seeks to ban the transport and trade of non-native, exotic animals for the purpose of staged trophy hunts. The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many of us. In an era when many of us are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not belong in our society. I urge my colleagues who want to understand the cruelty involved in a canned hunt to visit my office and view a videotape of an actual canned hunt. You will witness a defenseless Corsican ram, cornered near a fence, being shot over and over again with arrows, clearly experiencing an agonizing death, only to be dealt a final blow by a firearm after needless suffering. Please join me in support of this legislation which will help to put an end to this needless suffering. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act, which would prohibit the barbaric and unsporting practice of ``canned hunts,'' or caged kills. I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors Senators Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Moynihan, Murray, Schumer, and Torricelli. A typical canned hunt operation collects surplus animals from wild animal parks, circuses, and even petting zoos, and then sells the right to brutally kill these animals to so-called ``hunters.'' In reality, no hunting, tracking or shooting skills are required. For a price, any ``hunter'' is guaranteed a kill of the exotic animal of his choice--one located by a guide and blocked from escape. A wild boar ``kill'' may sell for $250, a pygmy goat for $400, while a rare Arabian Ibex may fetch up to $5000. The actual ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure, leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by humans, these animals often have lost their instinctual impulse to flee from the so-called hunters who ``stalk'' them. The actual killing methods employed by these hunters only compound the cruelty of slaughtering these often trusting animals. In order to preserve the animal as a ``trophy,'' hunters will fire multiple shots into non-vital organs, condemning the animal to a slow and painful death. Canned hunts are condemned by pro-animal and pro-hunting groups alike for being cruel and unethical. Many real hunters believe that canned hunts are unethical and make a mockery of their sport. For example, the Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, has called canned hunts ``unfair'' and ``unsportsmanlike.'' Bill Burton, the former outdoors writer for the Baltimore Sun and a hunter, testifying in support of this legislation, stated, ``[t]here is a common belief that the hunting of creatures which have no reasonable avenue to escape is not up to traditional standards. Shooting game in confinement is not within these standards.'' In addition to being unethical, these canned hunts present a serious health and safety problem for livestock and native wildlife. Accidental escapes of animals from exotic game ranches are not uncommon, posing a very real threat to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. John Talbott, acting director of the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, has stated that, ``[t]uberculosis and other disease documented amount game ranch animals in surrounding states,'' pose ``an extremely serious threat to Wyoming's native big game.'' In recognition of this threat, Wyoming itself has banned canned hunting facilities, as have the States of California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Unfortunately, the remaining States lack legislation to outlaw canned hunts, and because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common, federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices. My bill is similar to legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress, S. 995. The legislation I am introducing today will specifically target only canned hunt facilities, and will not affect any animal industries, such as cattle ranchers, rodeos, livestock shows, petting zoos, horse and dog racing, or wildlife hunting. Furthermore, this bill will not apply to large hunting ranches, such as those over 1,000 acres, which give the hunted animal a greater opportunity to escape. This bill merely seeks to ban the transport and trade of non-native, exotic animals for the purpose of staged trophy hunts. The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many of us. In an era when many of us are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not belong in our society. I urge my colleagues who want to understand the cruelty involved in a canned hunt to visit my office and view a videotape of an actual canned hunt. You will witness a defenseless Corsican ram, cornered near a fence, being shot over and over again with arrows, clearly experiencing an agonizing death, only to be dealt a final blow by a firearm after needless suffering. Please join me in support of this legislation which will help to put an end to this needless suffering. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think that we can move to conclude this debate. I will take just a couple of minutes. Unless there are further Members who want to speak, I will then yield back the time. This is one of those debates that I really do not enjoy because the friends who are opposing this are not people who are against what we want to do. They are not against eliminating underage drinking--not at all. What we are arguing about is somewhat about process. Frankly, though, we are on the same side of the issue. But I see them as having an argument that I can't buy, and I don't think the American people will buy. We are saying let's preserve as much of the $1 billion that we have to fight drugs through the media campaign, plus all of the other money spent on fighting drugs, even though we are not doing it quite successfully. But we ought to be looking more critically at how we deal with the drug problem. We are building more jails. We are penalizing those in institutions and jails, or in other facilities of incarceration, who are not drug addicts. We are spending billions of dollars. And we don't put alcoholics in jail. We don't punish them. We don't stigmatize them the same way we do drug users. But I point out that alcohol kills six times more children ages 12 to 20 than all other illegal drugs combined. What does that say? Does that say that the children who die from alcohol are worth less to us as a society than those who die from illegal drugs? I don't think that is the message that we want to convey. There is a $1 billion anti-drug media campaign. That $1 billion, in light of this surplus, could grow. But because the drug czar does not even have the authority, he cannot issue messages about underage drinking. There is something wrong with that. Why can't an ad that shows a picture of a degenerated adult brain from drug use say that also happens from alcohol? In many cases, we see violence from alcohol that does not always kill. But it enrages people and causes fights. Alcohol is the product largely responsible for spousal abuse and internal family fights. Alcohol does it every time. We have 4 million alcoholics between the ages of 13 and 20--4 million. That is a lot of young people. Yet, we are not waging the same war against alcohol as we are against drugs. By the way, in the message that we heard from the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky, he mentioned outstanding citizens, Jim Burke and Mario Cuomo, as people who are on the other side. But that doesn't mean that they are right in this fight. I disagree with them and have great respect for both of them. I know them personally. The fact of the matter is, when we don't mention that alcohol is a scourge, as are illegal drugs, then it is assumed to be by young people something not so bad. We know it is terrible: Six times more fatal to young people than all of the illegal drugs combined. What keeps the message from getting out there? I don't know that there is anybody lobbying for illegal drugs. But I know that there are people lobbying to keep this anti-alcohol message away from children. When I see the Budweiser lizards talking on television, it is a pretty attractive picture. But it is not a lot different from Joe Camel attracting kids to smoking. Young people laugh. They like those commercials. I know it goes right from the television into young people's minds. Those commercials make people think, ``Beer is cool.'' But it is not cool when it is a 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old kid. As they say, a child who starts drinking at age 13 has a 47-percent chance of becoming an alcoholic. Those who wait until age 21 have only a 10-percent chance. Why don't we respond to this epidemic? We can talk about programs that can make a difference, but we are not. But we are spending $1 billion on an anti-drug campaign. Yes, there has been a cutback, but I see that being restored. If those funds grow, the drug czar can't add alcohol to the campaign, because he doesn't have the authority. This amendment gives him the authority. It doesn't tell him how to do it. It says tell young people out there, you hurt your brain, you hurt your family, you hurt your society, and you hurt yourself if you use alcohol. The law is age 21. I wrote that law against terrific opposition in 1984. It was a Republican President. President Reagan was President, and Elizabeth Dole was the then-Secretary of Transportation. We worked together to get it done because they saw alcohol as a scourge. I hope we are not put off by the argument that you can't do two things at the same time: ``No to drugs'' on one side of the screen; ``no to alcohol'' on the other side of the screen. I don't think that hurts anybody, and it could help somebody. That is the issue. I hate to disagree with some of my friends who have taken the other side. I know they feel the problem deeply. I think they have chosen to dismiss an opportunity that I think is the only one that exists for us. We will not have an anti-alcohol program. Can you see trying to get that through this place with all of the friends of the alcohol industry? There is not a chance. This is the time to do it. We ought to step up and vote the right way. Give the drug czar an opportunity to say no to alcohol, as well as to drugs. I ask unanimous consent that a series of editorials be printed in the Record, including one from the New York Times, as well as a list of over 80 responsible organizations--many of them religious, a lot of them social--who are on our side of the issue, as well as the Surgeon General's letter.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what time remains?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, my colleague from Ohio is going to speak. I will give him 4 minutes to make his remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on our time, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. He shows an interest in this subject that calls up our knowledge of experience with alcohol that none of us should ever have-- the loss of a family member. When you see the devastation of alcohol, you do not understand why it is a different class addiction than that which is drugs. It is easier to get into. It is less stigmatic. People do not say: Oh, look, he's an alcoholic. A friend of mine has a granddaughter, 14 years old--14 years old--who started sniffing glue, drank alcohol. Now it is drugs. She is in an institution. It is the most heartbreaking thing one can imagine. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia 15 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, New York state legislature exempted New York state residents from paying the New York City commuter tax. But out-of-state residents--including people who live in New Jersey-- are not exempt. They're supposed to keep paying the tax. Commuting between states is an inescapable reality of modern life. As our population grows, the physical boundaries that used to divide one city from another are breaking down. More and more everyday, our country is becoming a collection of regions. And that's especially true on the east coast, where urban populations are already closer together than they are anywhere else. Should we punish people for this? Is it fair to single people out for harsher tax treatment just because they live in one state and work in another? Of course not. It's economic discrimination. And even worse, it's unconstitutional. It's especially unfair in the case of New Jersey residents who work in New York City. Those people work hard. And their work brings real, tangible benefits to New York--benefits that translate into a stronger economy for New York City and the rest of the state. New York needs those commuters. But that fact seems to escape the state's lawmakers. Their message to New Jersey residents is this-- ``You're second-class citizens. You don't live on our side of the state line, so you don't count.'' In 1996 alone, nearly 240,000 New Jersey residents paid $75 million in commuter taxes to New York. I'm sure they didn't like paying it, but at least in 1996 the tax was applied with a sense of fair play. Not anymore. Those commuters are plenty mad. And who can blame them? Commuting to work is a necessity for millions of people. Often, it's an economic necessity. Or a desire to be close to family members. When you tax people just for driving across state lines to work, you're essentially telling them they shouldn't have a choice about where they live. That is wrong, Mr. President. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. Mr. President, we are going through an exercise about what is being characterized by the Democrats and what is being characterized by the Republicans as an imperfect lockbox situation--a lockbox recommendation. I want to try to get this debate on this subject itself instead of the process. The fact of the matter is that if we try to define what constitutes a lockbox--we heard the Senator from North Dakota earlier talking about his effort to identify a lockbox going back to 1982 or 1983, in that period. Lockbox terminology was used way before it was discussed on this floor. It is a common expression in terms of banking and financial programs. What we are talking about, very simply, is whether or not we put enough money away to say to the American public, when it is your time to retire--talking to those who now are, let's say, in their twenties, maybe in their teens--Social Security will be there for you when it is your time to use that benefit. That is the discussion that goes on. The other program--Medicare, which is directly linked to the Social Security program--health care for the elderly, for seniors, is the biggest worry among our population. People identify it as their concern about being locked out of health care--not knowing what conditions might arise that will absorb all of their savings, all of their resources. With the good science that has been developed over the years, we have had far better health than we thought we might have, looking back some years. I know that when I was in the Army during World War II, I never dreamed that at this stage of my life I would be hard at work trying to do the things that I do, and feeling pretty good about it. I am glad to know there is a program out there for those who aren't physically able to deal with life's daily pressures, and when they run into medical problems, health care is going to be there. That is the way it ought to be. With all of that, and all of the criticism of President Clinton, the fact is that he is the leader in the country who saw us stop the hemorrhaging of incredibly increasing debt that was falling upon not just the present generation but future generations. I used to hear the cries: We are saddling our children and our grandchildren with debt. Now we want to pay it off. They say: Well, paying off debt, what does it mean? It means an awful lot. The fact of the matter is that it provides the kind of things that families try to provide; and that is security for the future--reserves--so that when you have something you either need or want, you have some means to do it. That is what we are talking about here. We want to preserve, and we want to increase, the solvency of Medicare to make sure it is there for a longer period of time. We want to extend Medicare to 2025 and have Social Security retirement benefits available until 2053, with a pledge from the White House and from this President to try to reform the process to extend it even further. That is what we are discussing. Despite the cries and the pleas--``to tell the truth,'' is what I heard. I don't usually use that kind of terminology, because not telling the truth suggests some kind of a character flaw. The truth in many times is as observed by the person speaking. But the real judgment comes from the others who hear it. The truth of the matter is that we are trying our darndest--each side of the aisle--in this particular construction of how they see us, we being able to provide the kind of security that our people want. We on this side of the aisle think it ought to be done by not only preserving all of the Social Security surpluses but by paying down the debt and increasing reserves available to put into that Social Security trust fund to extend it slightly even further. That is what we want to do. All of the gimmicks that are used, all of the ploys that the majority has used characteristically to try to stop the Democrats from offering amendments, from making this debate available to the public--that is the way it goes. We have never seen the kind of a period where so many cloture votes are ordered at the same time that a bill is sent up to the desk to be considered. Almost immediately, in so many cases, it is followed by a cloture vote before there is any debate. The cries of a filibuster are hollow cries, because no filibuster has had a chance to get underway. There hasn't been any chance to talk at all. Shut it down. Use the cloture vote technique. The public shouldn't perhaps be deceived by what they hear about how anxious the Republicans are to get on with the work of the people when they refuse to allow reasonable debate on the subject. There are ways to do it: Fill up the amendment tree, that stops it; invoke cloture, that stops it; or put in quorum calls, or have majority votes on things that stop the process. The question is simply, Do we want to extend Social Security solvency? I think that answer has to be yes. Do we want to extend the Medicare solvency? I think that answer has to be yes. Let the American people decide. When do they decide? They decide in November 2000 whether or not they prefer one method or the other. We ought to be plain spoken about what it is we are trying to do and not shut off the debate and not say that the Democrats could have offered amendments. They couldn't have, not at that time. They could have in due time--after everything was signed, sealed, and delivered. It is a backhanded way of operating. I hope we will move on to the debate of the lockbox legislation. Let the public hear it. Take the time necessary to have a full airing. Let either side amend it and get on with serving the people's needs. How much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the Senator, if he will indulge another question, was the tree filled with second-degree amendments?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Well, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for the courtesy. But the fact of the matter is that there was an obstruction to us offering amendments until the Republicans were certain that they had their amendment considered in its raw form. Frankly, to me, that was blocking Democrats from having it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back the remaining time.