Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, in the fall of 2002 the entire country was focused on the Washington, DC, area as an unknown sniper indiscriminately shot 16 innocent people in little more than a month, from September 14 to October 24. Among the sniper victims were Jim Martin, shot and killed on October 2 while walking across a Shoppers Food Warehouse parking lot in Wheaton, MD, after purchasing groceries for his church; Sarah Ramos was shot and killed while sitting on a bench in front of a post office. She was waiting for a ride to take her to a babysitting job; Thirteen-year-old Iran Brown, the youngest of the victims, was shot in the chest and wounded on October 7 after getting out of a car at his middle school; and Conrad Johnson, a 35-year-old busdriver, was shot and killed on October 22 while standing on the top step of his bus at a ride-on bus staging area in Aspen Hill, MD. On Thursday, October 24, members of the sniper task force arrested John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Boyd Malvo at a rest stop on I-75 in Frederick County. They were charged with shooting the victims with a Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle. Both were prohibited under Federal law from possessing a gun. Malvo is a juvenile and Muhammad was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order. Both have been convicted of capital murder in Virginia. The sniper rifle used by Malvo and Muhammad was later traced to Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Takoma, WA. Bull's Eye representatives claim not to have any record of sale of the weapon, cannot account for how the snipers obtained the assault rifle. Malvo later admitted he had shoplifted the gun. The sniper case prompted an ATF investigation of Bull's Eye. The investigation revealed that the gun dealer had no record that the gun used by the snipers was missing from the inventory. The ATF investigation also determined that 77 other guns were missing from the Bull's Eye store. Four prior audits of the dealer found at least 160 additional guns missing from the store. The guns that were missing from Bull's Eye were not all handguns that could walk out the door in somebody's pocket. The gun shoplifted by Malvo was an assault rifle. The families of the sniper victims filed a lawsuit against Bull's Eye and Bushmaster, the manufacturers that supplied the sniper weapon to the dealer, claiming that Bull's Eye operated its business in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of guns routinely disappeared from its store and that Bushmaster continued to supply that dealer even after years of audits by ATF showing that scores of guns were missing from the dealer's inventory. Did Bull's Eye or Bushmaster violate any Federal or State statute? That is the issue. That is the heart of the issue we are debating. If you are reckless in your operations, even though you may not have acted illegally, but if you are reckless or if you are grossly negligent in your operations, should you be held accountable for your own actions? That is the question. Should you be held accountable for your own reckless or grossly negligent actions if that gross negligence or recklessness is the proximate cause of somebody else's death or injury? That is what this amendment is all about. Frankly, that is what the bill is all about, to eliminate the possibility of recovery in cases where somebody can prove recklessness or negligence unless they can also prove illegality. That is the purpose of the bill, to give that immunity unless plaintiffs can prove illegality. The purpose of this amendment is to say that if you can prove gross negligence or recklessness on the part of an individual, and if that recklessness and gross negligence is the proximate cause of injury or death, then you are entitled to bring a lawsuit. I listened to this debate; I have not been here for much of it, but I read a great deal and tried to follow it. It seems to me that is the heart of the matter and what it comes down to. That is what this amendment is intended to clarify.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Idaho. It is fine with me.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection to yielding the floor for an answer to that question, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Of course.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding the Senator from Virginia wants to offer an amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Virginia, is it a second-degree amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. I would agree to that providing--

Mr. LEVIN. I want to make sure we get a vote on my amendment. This is what this is all about. We might as well get this out in the open as to whether or not there will be votes that will be agreed to on the amendments that are offered. The unanimous consent agreement talked about amendments being offered today and Monday. The Senator from Idaho, I think, as well as I believe the Senator from Nevada, talked about votes on these amendments, but it is not clear in the UC that the amendments offered would be voted upon. I do not want to lose the regular order that my amendment would be disposed of by agreeing to a unanimous consent agreement that my good friend from Virginia would then come next. That is the issue, I tell my good friend from Idaho.

Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. I would then offer--Madam President, do I have the floor?

Mr. LEVIN. I then suggest the amendment in a unanimous consent request, that my amendment again be the regular order first thing on Monday. The reason for this is that it is important to assure that there be votes on these amendments. I do not know what the intention of the Senator from Idaho is relative to----

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection, of course, to that, but my question to the Senator from Idaho is, is it the intention of the Senator from Idaho that there be votes on amendments that are offered on Monday?

Mr. LEVIN. Then I would have to object because otherwise I am no longer the regular order.

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Not at all. My desire is that I not lose my opportunity to have a vote on my amendment. I do not want a vote today. Let's be very clear on this. When the operating UC was entered into, it was my understanding that amendments would be allowed to be offered today and Monday. It was also my understanding that there was an intention that that meant those amendments would be voted on at some point--not today but at some point. If there is any doubt that that is the intention of the leadership or of the floor managers, to allow votes on amendments that are offered today, the only way I can come close to having assurance that there will be a vote on my amendment at some point will be to modify any UC to agree to set aside my amendment, which will be fine, but then make it a part of the UC that my amendment then be the amendment that is in order on Monday, because otherwise I am weakening the position I have.

Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to have my amendment set aside, providing that after the Lautenberg amendment is offered, the floor then be returned to me.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. In terms of the definition of ``victims,'' we are talking here about families who lose loved ones as well as people who are injured themselves. I want to emphasize one fact here, which is there was a motion to dismiss this case in the State of Washington brought by victims against Bull's Eye and against Bushmaster. On June 27, 2003, the court denied the motions, and here is what the court said: [T]he facts in the present case indicate that a high degree of risk of harm to the plaintiffs was created by Bull's Eye Shooter Supply's alleged reckless or incompetent conduct in distributing firearms. The court said it was the defendant's actions that caused damage to the plaintiffs. It seems to me for us to say even though Bull's Eye caused damage through recklessness or gross negligence to victims, we are going to deny those victims a remedy unless they can prove there was an illegal action--not just a reckless action, but an illegal action--is to mistreat this particular class of victims. To single out this class of victims and say, ``You cannot recover unless you can prove illegal action on the part of the defendant''--not just that they were reckless, not just that they were negligent--I think is highly arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of real victims who right now can go to court, and if they can show reckless behavior, negligent behavior on the part of the defendants that was a proximate cause of their injury, then they can recover. I do not even know that Congress can constitutionally destroy the pending claim. I hope not. I hope we cannot destroy a claim that is pending for an injury that has already been caused, constitutionally, but I do know we should not try. We should not be trying to remove the rights of victims to sue people whose recklessness or gross negligence was a proximate cause of their injury. That is what this amendment would assure, that that right of action for recklessness or gross negligence which is a proximate cause of the injury can be compensated for. There are a number of other troubling cases that have been referred to that would be jeopardized. Again, I do not know that we can constitutionally eliminate a claim based on an action which has already taken place. I sure hope not. But I know what the intent of this bill is, which is to immunize the defendants whose reckless or negligent conduct is being sued upon. The Guzman case, on Christmas Eve 1999--this was a man who was killed by a shot to his heart while standing in front of a Worcester, MA, nightclub. About a week later, the police recovered a handgun in a lot near where this man, Danny Guzman, was killed. The gun was lacking a serial number. It was found by a 4-year-old child. A ballistics test determined the gun was the one that killed Danny Guzman. The investigation following the shooting revealed the gun was one of several stolen by employees of Kahr Arms. It was discovered that one of the employees in the Kahr manufacturing facility had stolen the gun used to kill Danny Guzman and sold it to buy crack cocaine. Publicly available records, summarized in a complaint filed by Danny Guzman's family, indicate this employee of the Kahr facility had not only been arrested on various charges over the years but as early as 1995 had been addicted to cocaine and was ``habitually stealing money to support his cocaine habit.'' In March of 2000, the police arrested the Kahr employee who later pled guilty to the gun thefts. The investigation also led to the arrest of a second Kahr employee who also pled guilty to stealing a gun. According to a complaint that was filed by Danny Guzman's family, Kahr Arms not only apparently hired a drug addict with a record of criminal charges, but the company also chose not to utilize basic security measures that could have prevented the theft, or an inventory tracking system that could have determined that guns were missing. According to the family's complaint, Kahr Arms did not conduct background checks on employees. The company did not install medal detectors, security cameras, x-ray machines, or other devices to ensure that employees did not just walk off with guns. In fact, an affidavit signed by ATF Special Agent Michael Curran says the person who stole the gun that ended up killing Danny Guzman once said--we all should listen to those words--``he had taken the firearm out of the company, that he does it all the time, and that he can just walk out with them.'' Those are his words. He takes guns out of here ``all the time''--this drug addict. He can just walk out with them. The company did not track its inventory in any meaningful way. And according to the complaint, from February 1998 to February 1999, approximately 16 shipments of handguns from Kahr Arms failed to arrive at their points of destination. Did Kahr Arms violate a State or Federal statute? Nobody has claimed they did. And unless they did, under this pending bill, immunity from suit would result. It seems to me this is something all of us ought to be troubled by and focus on because there is a lot of uncertainty and confusion, I believe, as to what this bill would provide. But at its heart, the issue is this: Should we say unless you can prove an act was illegal on the part of the defendant, you will not be able to recover for damages caused by that defendant's recklessness or gross negligence? Should that defendant be immune from suit even though his recklessness or gross negligence has caused your injuries, unless you can prove that that conduct was also illegal? The lawsuit that was filed by Danny Guzman's surviving family members alleges the wrongful death based on Kahr Arms alleged negligence. While the defendants moved to dismiss this case on April 7, 2003, the Massachusetts Superior Court denied the motions. This bill is aimed at nullifying that kind of case. I hope we can't constitutionally do it retroactively. I hope we cannot destroy that cause of action. But we should not try and we surely should not single out one industry to help immunize them against their own acts of recklessness or gross negligence. In a third case, a team of Orange, NJ, police officers was operating undercover at a gas station that had been robbed repeatedly over the course of several months. Detective Lemongello was among the officers taking part in the undercover surveillance. In the course of a stakeout, Detective Lemongello attempted to question a man who had suspiciously approached the gas station. Lemongello walked up to the man and asked him to remove his hand from his pockets, whereupon the man turned and opened fire, shooting Detective Lemongello three times-- once each in his stomach, chest, and left arm. Detective Lemongello was able to announce over his police radio that he had been shot and that the suspect had fled the scene. In response to the radio call, Officer Kenneth McGuire set off on foot after the shooter, who had fled into a nearby neighborhood. When Officer McGuire entered a backyard where the suspect was hiding, the suspect emptied his ammunition clip, shooting Officer McGuire in the abdomen and leg. Officer McGuire managed to return fire, killing the suspect. It turned out that the man who shot Officer McGuire and Detective Lemongello was wanted for attempted murder and had at least three felony convictions on his record. This man could not have legally purchased a gun, so the question is, Where did he get it? Mr. President, I have been asked by my good friend from Vermont to interject a statement on a different subject at this point. To accommodate him, I would be perfectly happy if the Senator from Idaho would be willing to have me yield to him for a statement, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Virginia is very much on point and is correct. This is a victim's right remedies issue. Do we provide a remedy for a victim of somebody's gross negligence or recklessness that has injured that victim where the proximate cause of the injury--or a proximate cause of the injury, to be technically correct--is the defendant's recklessness or gross negligence or are we going to deny victims that remedy? Are we going to tell a victim: You have to prove that someone violated a law in order to get recovery, even though you can prove gross negligence or recklessness. Even though you can prove that recklessness or gross negligence on the part of someone you sue was a proximate cause of death or injury, you have to prove that there was a violation of law? Why would we immunize any particular industry from that kind of recovery where it is not somebody else who is being sued for their contribution to somebody's injury but it is the industry itself or a gunstore itself or any store that contributed, through recklessness or gross negligence, to somebody's death or injury? I have read and heard a lot in this debate about individual responsibility and accountability, that you should not be accountable for somebody else's actions injuring somebody else, and I do not disagree with that. My amendment says where it is your own recklessness or gross negligence which is a proximate cause of an injury or a death, you should not be immunized. That is what my amendment provides, that if your own recklessness or your own gross negligence is a proximate cause of death or injury, you should still be held accountable. That is what we are going to be voting on. I hope we are going to be voting on it, I should say.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Idaho. Amendment No. 2631

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every February nationwide we celebrate the diverse and monumental contributions African Americans have made not only for the advancement of African Americans but for all people of our Nation. This celebratory month was made possible by Dr. Carter G. Woodson, an African-American studies scholar, who proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving African-American history. In keeping with the spirit and vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, I would like to pay tribute to one courageous woman, Sojourner Truth, who lived and died in Battle Creek, MI, and who played a significant role in addressing injustice and inequality in America. Sojourner Truth was a leader in the abolitionist movement and a powerful voice in the women's suffrage movement, playing a pivotal role in ensuring the right of all women to vote. Sojourner Truth changed the course of history. Sojourner Truth was unable to read or write, but she mesmerized others by her speeches addressing the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. In 1851, Sojourner delivered her famous ``Ain't I a Woman?'' speech at the Women's Convention in Akron, OH. She spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. Her words on that day in Ohio are a testament to Sojourner Truth's convictions and are a part of the great legacy she left for us all. I am proud and the people of my State are proud to claim this legendary leader as our own. In September 1999, we honored Sojourner Truth with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, MI. Sojourner Truth was a political and social activist who personally conversed with President Abraham Lincoln on behalf of freed, unemployed slaves, and campaigned for Ulysses S. Grant in the Presidential election in 1868. Sojourner was a woman of great passion and determination who was spiritually motivated to preach and teach in ways that have had a profound and lasting imprint on American history. Sojourner Truth was born Isabella Baumfree in 1797 in Ulster County, NY, and served as a slave under several different masters. She bore four children who survived infancy, and all except one daughter were sold into slavery. Baumfree became a freed slave in 1828 when New York State outlawed slavery. She remained in New York and instituted successful legal proceedings to secure the return of her son, Peter, who had been illegally sold to a slave-owner from Alabama. In 1843, Baumfree changed her name to Sojourner Truth and dedicated her life to traveling and lecturing. She began her migration west in 1850, where she shared the stage with other abolitionist leaders such as Frederick Douglass. In October 1856, Truth came to Battle Creek, MI, with Quaker leader Henry Willis to speak at a Friends of Human Progress meeting. She eventually bought a house and settled in the area. Her antislavery, women's rights, and temperance arguments brought Battle Creek both regional and national recognition. Sojourner Truth died at her home in Battle Creek, November 26, 1883, having lived quite an extraordinary life. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Sojourner Truth ``Ain't I a Woman'' speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, extending unemployment benefits would be one of the most important and significant action Congress takes this year. The economy and jobs are consistently the top areas of concern back home. The people that I speak to are far more interested in extending unemployment benefits than extending tax cuts to the wealthy. The House recently acted in strong bipartisan fashion and passed an amendment to extend unemployment insurance benefits to workers who have exhausted their state and federal benefits. Now it is time for the Senate to act as well. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the number of individuals exhausting their regular State unemployment benefits and not qualifying for further benefits is higher than at any other time on record--about 90,000 workers a week. Painful history is being made. This Senate cannot stay silent. In January alone, about 375,000 unemployed workers exhausted their regular state benefits and are not eligible for any Federal unemployment aid. This is on top of the 395,000 unemployed workers who exhausted their state benefits last December 2003. Action is needed now. President Bush predicted that in 2003, we would create 1.7 million new jobs. Instead, the Nation lost 53,000 jobs. On Monday, President Bush said he thought the current unemployment numbers are ``good.'' Not where I'm from. In earlier slow economic times, previous Congresses have acted. In the 1974-75 recession, Congress provided 29 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. In the 1981-82 recession, Congress provided 26 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. In the 1990-91 recession, Congress provided 26 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. In the program that expired on December 31, 2003, Congress provided 13 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. That was below previous levels of Federal weeks but it was something. The Federal extended benefits program implemented during the last recession was not allowed to end until the economy had produced nearly three million jobs above its pre-recession levels. The current program has ended when there are 2.4 million fewer jobs than when the recession began. The recently expired Federal unemployment program was closed to new enrollees last December 31, 2003. Workers currently receiving federal unemployment benefits will be phased out by the week of March 29, 2004. The recently expired federal unemployment program not only provided an added 13 weeks of Federally funded unemployment benefits for workers who have run out of State benefits--it provided an additional 7 weeks in States with the highest unemployment. Renewing this program--and hopefully expanding it to more traditional levels--is crucial. The Federal unemployment trust fund has over approximately $15 billion in it--for this exact purpose--to allow unemployed workers who contributed to the fund while working to now use it in their time of need. The trust fund is the workers' money, made up from their contributions. Keeping money in consumers' hands will help sustain the economic recovery, too. Without it, more families will postpone medical care, watch their savings dry up, and lose their homes. The Bush administration has told us that a .1 percent national unemployment rate drop is proof positive that his tax cuts and other economic initiatives are beginning to work. However, what President Bush did not tell the American people that factory employment declined for the 42th consecutive month by eliminating approximately 24,000 manufacturing jobs. Despite last month's growth, America's manufacturing core has shed an average of 53,000 jobs per month for the last 12 months. If a recovery is going on, it is essentially a jobless recovery. A jobless recovery is no recovery at all. The term is an oxymoron. The Labor Department statistics also reveal that five million Americans work part time jobs because they cannot find full-time jobs. Since President Bush took office, about 3 million private sector jobs have been lost and a total of almost 9 million Americans are now unemployed. We have also reached record levels of long-term unemployment. Manufacturing jobs, which helped to build and sustain America's middle class, are disappearing. A total of 2.6 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since January 2001, 11,000 last month alone. Manufacturing jobs are good jobs that pay high wages, provide good health benefits and retirement security. We cannot afford to let these good jobs leave our country or be lost. Michigan has been particularly hard hit, losing approximately 225,000 jobs since January 2001 of which 185,000 were manufacturing jobs. Our states and our nation cannot sustain such losses. On Labor Day President Bush acknowledged that ``thousands'' of manufacturing jobs were lost in recent years. He was off by about 2.6 million. Let us pass an extension of unemployment benefits now. It is simply the right thing to do. It is the traditional thing to do in times like this. I ask unanimous consent that the following chart be printed in the Record, illustrating previous Congressional action.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to speak in commemoration of the 35th anniversary of Focus: HOPE and to support this concurrent resolution commemorating its many achievements. Focus: HOPE has served as an invaluable, multifaced resource for the people of Detroit and Michigan and is a model of success for the entire Nation. From its inception, Focus: HOPE has been committed to taking ``intelligent and practical action to overcome racism, poverty, and injustice.'' For three and a half decades, Focus: HOPE has worked toward that goal. In 1968, Father William T. Cunningham, a Roman Catholic priest, and Eleanor Josaitis, a housewife, joined to form Focus: HOPE as a positive reaction to the devastating Detroit riots the previous year. While having few material resources at their disposal, Father Cunningham and Ms. Josaitis possessed a singular and indefatigable desire to help residents of Detroit take control of their lives. Their faith has been matched by a love for all of humanity, irrespective of religion or race. That love has helped Focus: HOPE flourish as it seeks to assist many in metro-Detroit. Focus: HOPE has been involved with myriad activities that address both the immediate and long-term needs of our people. In the 1970s, Focus: HOPE began several innovative programs to provide nutritious food to young children, their mothers and senior citizens. Through its USDA Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the largest of its kind, monthly supplemental food is provided to 43,000 low-income pregnant and postpartum mothers, infants, preschool children and seniors throughout Southeast Michigan. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program can now be found in 32 States. While caring for the basic needs of individuals, Focus: HOPE also seeks to lift the dreams and spirits of all who study, work at, or visit its 40-acre Detroit campus. Father Cunningham was a firm believer in the ability of education and technology to inspire people and bring out the best in them. By helping people to harness their dreams and imagine what is possible, he sought to develop a series of training and educational programs that challenged students to fulfill their dreams while learning marketable career skills. To achieve this end, Focus: HOPE developed a four-part educational and training system that requires that students meet rigorous competency standards before they are able to proceed to the next academic program. The first two parts, fast track and the Machinist Training Institute, opened in the 1980s during a time of radical evolution for Focus: HOPE. Fast rack, is a computer assisted course which improves the reading and math skills of high school graduates or GED holders to prepare them for advanced study in the Machinist Training Institute where individuals prepare for careers in advanced machining and precision manufacturing. Fast track ensures that all those who enter the MTI program have the skills needed to succeed in this program and industry. The MTI uses a unique combination of classroom instruction and hands-on manufacturing experience producing high quality products in industry. By maintaining clear and rigorous standards, MTI is able to train individuals that industry wants to hire. Since its foundation, nearly 2,500 graduates have learned high-demand skills and gain access to the financial mainstream. One indication of the success of this program is that industry often seeks to hire the students ever before they have completed their training. In 1993, Focus: HOPE expanded its educational programs by adding a third education and training program--the Center for Advanced Technologies, CAT. At the center, ``candidates,'' as all students are called at Focus: HOPE, are able to continue their education by working toward an associate's or bachelor's degree in manufacturing engineering. Through a unique partnership with several universities, CAT students are awarded their degrees in a rigorous process that combines hands-on manufacturing experience and academic instruction within a leading edge technology environment while working and studying at Focus: HOPE. These candidates produce the highest quality and precision parts for the auto industry--a very demanding challenge. This innovative Focus: HOPE program has been cited as enrolling the largest number of African Americans studying manufacturing engineering in the Nation. In 1999, Focus: HOPE was able to further diversify its training resources through the establishment of the Information Technologies Center, which provides industry-certified training in network administration, network installation, and desktop server administration enabling students to gain employment in the growing Information Technology sector of our economy. These innovative and successful programs have caused Focus: HOPE to receive considerable national attention for its efforts. As a result of its many successes, Focus: HOPE has been visited by many national, State and local officials who wanted to examine this remarkable place in person. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have visited Focus: HOPE as well as Energy Secretary Spence Abraham, Army Secretary Thomas White, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, the Honorable Colin Powell when he served as Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many others. These quests quickly learned as I have on many visits there, that the achievements of Focus: HOPE can hardly be described in just a few minutes or digested in even several visits. Focus: HOPE has provided practical and compassionate assistance to people of all ages, from young children who receive quality child care at their Center for Children, to young adults who receive vital training through hands-on manufacturing projects, seniors who are fed by the Commodity Supplemental Food Program as well as those who are still young at heart who continue to persevere in the never-ending fight against racism, poverty, and injustice. I have been privileged to witness and support Focus: HOPE's extraordinary achievements throughout the years. Like thousands of others, I have also been inspired by its positive energy and tireless commitment to providing opportunity for all people. For 35 years, Focus: HOPE has repeatedly amazed me with its spirit, grace, and vision. Although Focus: HOPE lost a great mentor in 1997 with the passing of Father William Cunningham, Eleanor Josaitis continues to inspire and lead Focus: HOPE as its co-founder and chief executive officer. Today, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to Ms. Josaitis and her colleagues on the 35th anniversary of Focus: HOPE. I am sure that my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives will join Senator Stabenow and me in commemorating this invaluable resource by supporting the passage of this concurrent resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

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

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