Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining in morning business?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for another 15 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I withhold that unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes and that it be equally divided. I ask unanimous consent that morning business on our side be extended for 15 minutes and that 15 minutes also be added to the Republican side.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I assure my colleagues on the other side that all time will be protected. I think there is a little confusion. I have not been briefed on the order. I can assure everyone's time agreement will be protected at the time they were assured they could speak. I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Washington State.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as we wrap up our discussion on health insurance reform, I want to say as the senior Democratic woman that I am very proud of my colleagues today and how they have spoken up about the terrible practices of the insurance companies discriminating against women. What you heard loudly and clearly today is that health care is a women's issue, health care reform is a must-do women's issue, and health insurance reform is a must-change women's issue because what we demonstrated is that when it comes to health insurance, we women pay more and get less. We stand today on the Senate floor to say we want equal access and equal benefits for equal premiums. We women pay more and get less when we do pay our premiums. A 25-year-old woman is charged more than a 25- year-old man of equal or similar health status. And at age 40, it is often up to almost 50 percent. And when we do pay our benefits, when we are able to cross that barrier of getting health insurance, we get less coverage because insurance companies have certain punitive practices. No. 1, we are often denied coverage because of something called a preexisting condition. These preexisting conditions are not catastrophic. We hear horror story after horror story that a woman who has had a baby by a C section which was medically mandated is then denied subsequent coverage because she had that. We have heard horror story after horror story in some States that victims of domestic violence are denied health insurance because they have been battered by a spouse and then they are battered by the insurance company. This has to change. Coverage for women is often skimpy and spartan. I think people would find it shocking, good men would find it shocking that maternity care is often denied as a basic coverage or we have to pay more to get coverage for maternity care. Often on basic preventive care, such as mammograms and cervical screenings, we have to pay significant copays in order to get them. So we the women are fighting for health care reform. We have very basic things we support. No. 1, we want to make sure that Medicare is strengthened and saved. We know that Medicare is a woman's issue and a family issue not only because there are more women on Medicare than there are men, but we know that with Medicare, often without it or if it is curtailed or shrunk, it would mean disaster. Mr. President, you see that I am speaking from a wheelchair. It is because I had a fall coming out of 4 o'clock mass a couple of weeks ago. When going through the ER, the OR, the rehab room, if I did not have Medicare and my health care benefit, I would be bankrupt today. If health care is good enough for a U.S. Senator, it is good enough to make sure we have health care for U.S. citizens. So we want to save Medicare. We also want to close that doughnut hole. The doughnut hole for prescription drugs has been very difficult to swallow. It is time to change that. We want to end the punitive insurance practices of discriminating on the basis of gender--so whether you have had a C section or whether you need mental health benefits after you have been raped, you can get your coverage. Later on this weekend, there will be many in my State who will be ``Racing for the Cure.'' I think it is great that we are looking for a cure for breast cancer, and we salute the Komen Foundation. But we not only want to do the research to find the cure, we want to make sure women have access to the preventive screening for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and cervical cancer. We are fighting to make sure that access is provided for these important screenings and there are no barriers for payment. In a nutshell, we, the women of the Senate, have fought for equal pay for equal work. Now we are fighting for equal benefits for equal premiums. We hope that when the insurance debate comes to the Senate, we will be able to elaborate. But today, we wanted to say: Let's get rid of the mob scene that is going around the debate on health care. Let's focus on the important human needs. I now conclude my remarks, and I believe this concludes morning business. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Arizona to strike the funding in the bill for the Department of Commerce Public Telecommunications Facilities. His amendment would eliminate from the bill $20 million. That $20 million goes for competitive grants for public radio and TV stations around the Nation to upgrade their infrastructure and technology. His amendment would terminate the grant program in fiscal year 2010. He argues that President Obama's budget proposed to eliminate the program, so Congress should too. We are a separate and coequal branch of government. In this case, the CJS Committee respectfully disagrees with the President's budget. We know our President inherited a terrible mess. We know the previous administration ran up debts and deficits and now, as we try to clean it out, our President is looking for modest cuts to the budget. But here, with public telecommunications facilities, this is exactly what we need during these troubled economic times to provide access to quality TV to ordinary people who might not be able to afford cable TV, satellite TV, or dish TV. I am ready to dish on the McCain amendment. We need jobs in this country, and we need to let people know their government is on their side and that they can have access to public television--public television. Sure it is a public option. We like the public option on TV. But we know for our local stations, where donations are down and their revenues starved, you cannot put up the necessary antenna and other technology by doing it on bake sales and dialing for dollars. They need help from their government. This is what this does: A modest $20 million that will help replace equipment such as antennas, power, and telephone hookups, generators and other kinds of things. It will improve technology to keep up with changing requirements. Grants are competitive. There are no porkbarrel projects in this, no earmarks. The grants are competitive. The Commerce Department selects what are the ones that meet the compelling needs in communities. By the way, the local community has to provide 25 percent of local cost share so it is not a free ride. The President's budget and the amendment sponsor argue that this technology program is no longer needed because all radio, public radio and TV stations are already going from analog to digital, so we do not need it. This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, digital conversion has never been nor ever will be the sole purpose of the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program. The Public Telecommunications Facilities Program was intended to help public radio and TV upgrade their infrastructure and buy new equipment. Digital conversion equipment is eligible, but that is not all. I am saying this because not only do we provide public TV. It is great to have the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That is about content. About content. But you need to have an infrastructure to deliver the content. In many of our communities, the infrastructure is worn. It is dated. It is 20, 22 years old. So they are looking to replace it. Guess what. When they do replace it, it creates jobs, jobs, jobs in those local communities. It takes talented men and women to put that antenna or that tower up, to install that very important new digital equipment. For $20 million, we can broadcast to people, we can broadcast quality, and we have people going to work putting up and replacing dated equipment. Last year this program received almost $50 million in applications but had only $20 million to award. This funding is important in rural and underserved areas. Last year, the technology program received 57 applications from Native American communities alone. The President and the Senator from Arizona argue it is not needed because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will pick up the slack. I will repeat: I love Orszag, but maybe he did not read the fine print, which is the Corporation is for ongoing operations and programming. It does not provide funding for new infrastructure. It is about infrastructure; just like we want to have money to build our highways, we need to have superinformation highways. This helps the public facilities be able to do it. The local communities depend on the Commerce Department to do this. The program has built the Public Broadcasting System. It ensures that the American public has access across the Nation. This is not Senator Mikulski talking because she is the chair of the CJS and she wants to hold onto every program. I got a letter, as did my ranking member, from 21 Members of the Senate, including the chairman of the Commerce Committee, asking us to put $44 million into the Appropriations Committee to fund this. We could only afford to do $20 million, the same as last year. Why? Let me read from their letter: For some four decades, PTFP has served as a critical infrastructure program for building public broadcasting systems of radio and TV stations that reach 95 percent of the American people. What does this do? It maintains infrastructure for transmitters, translators for the deaf, power, and antennas. It has been drastically underfunded in the past several years since suffering an 18-percent cut in 2002 and 2003. Over the years, PTFP has foregone $270 million in Federal funds over the authorized level during the last 8 years. I am not going to sound like an accountant here. I want to sound like I have accountability to my communities. I want them to have access to public TV and public radio and the technology to transmit it. ``PTFP's preservation role has always been most important,'' says the letter from the 20 Senators, ``because it is the only source of Federal emergency funds for public radio and television in the event of an emergency.'' After Katrina and Rita, several stations in the gulf region were awarded these emergency grants so they could start rebroadcasting. Without those funds, many communities would have been vulnerable to the compounded effects of losing local news and the kinds of programs they needed as they were struggling to rebuild. On average, according to the letter from my 21 colleagues, including the chairman of the Commerce Committee, stations leverage these PTF funds by an additional 50 percent. So this is a Federal-local partnership. PTF funding is about providing access to quality TV. In my own community, it has meant access to educational programs. It has meant a way to link up to community colleges and the way they have done distance learning. Many of the early children's programs, many of those early children's programs often help get children learning ready. Again, yes, that is about content. But content cannot be delivered without infrastructure. During several weeks this summer as I lived in a rehabilitation facility getting physical therapy, many of my constituents said: Well, is it not great to watch public TV? We can see what is going on in the world. They loved the MacNeil/Lehrer show, even though it is not called that anymore, to get news about what was going on in the country. They loved hearing public debate in a civil way, thrilled and enjoyed ``Mystery Theater,'' and at the same time were excited that their grandchildren were able to get learning ready, either at the preschool level or the work it was doing in the community college. There are a lot of things government does that is unpopular with people. But one of the things it does that is very popular with the American people is public TV and public radio. We have to maintain quality content. We have to maintain quality infrastructure. Because of that, I urge the defeat of the McCain amendment eliminating $20 million and essentially zapping those much-needed antenna and monitoring and transmission facilities we need. There are other things we can zap. Let's not zap public TV and public radio. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 p.m. today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 2626; with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote; further that prior to the vote, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we will shortly be voting on the McCain amendment. We look forward to closing that debate. But before we do, I wish to comment that we are going to dispose of as many amendments as we can today and we are also going to arrive at a finite list of amendments. So for those Senators who do have amendments on both sides of the aisle, Senator Shelby and I ask our colleagues to come and offer them so we can dispose of them, as we did with the Senator from Arizona. He offered his amendment, we had a good debate, and we are going to vote on it. So please, colleagues, if you have amendments, come to the Senate floor and offer them. Second, if you have amendments that you wish to file, this is the day to file them. We are trying very hard to see if we can finish today, but that seems to be a bit of an exuberant wish on my part and on the part of Senator Shelby. But if we can't finish today, we would at least like to get a sense of the amendments colleagues wish to bring over today. Then when we get to the Columbus Day weekend, we can work to either come to an agreement to take them, or a way of disposing of them when we come back from commemorating when America was discovered by Columbus. Again, I ask my colleagues to come forward and either offer amendments or file amendments. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as the manager of the bill, I oppose the McCain amendment. This $20 million is competitive funding that helps local public TV and radio stations with equipment, things such as antennas, generators, fire-suppression equipment, and transmission. It improves technology. It enables our very important public TV stations to modernize. This is a competitive grant program--no earmarks but big footprints. It does require local cost sharing of 25 percent. It also creates jobs in local communities by actually installing this equipment, while we move out the very wonderful content of public TV and public radio. We, too, are stewards of the purse. The Commerce Department----

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I do like to know that. I like to follow the regular order. If the Chair would have notified me, I would have stopped sooner. I call for the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, unless the distinguished Democratic leader is ready to speak, I ask unanimous consent that the Bunning amendment, No. 2653, be the pending business.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I also make a point of order against the amendment that it violates rule XVI, paragraph 4--legislation on an appropriations bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I vigorously oppose the motion. First, the bill is consistent with the budget resolution and the CJS subcommittee 302(b) allocation. Second, the bill is a product of bipartisan cooperation reported out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously. Third, the consequences of cutting the CJS bill to 2009 levels by excluding the census would be devastating. If you take out the census and do a cut, guess whom you are cutting. First of all, you are cutting Federal law enforcement. If you think this is a simple resolution, tell that to the FBI. If you think it is simple, tell it to the marshals who are chasing sexual predators. If you think it is simple, tell it to the astronauts, who are waiting to make sure we put the money in the budget to keep them safe as they go into space. There is nothing simple about this motion to recommit. I simply ask you to reject the Ensign motion. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined today by my distinguished colleague from Alabama, Senator Richard Shelby. We wish to present the Commerce-Justice appropriations bill to the Senate. What I wish to say to my colleagues is that as we do this, everyone should know this bill is a product of bipartisan cooperation. At times, when one views the Senate through the lens of the media, one would think that everything we do here is very prickly and very partisan. But that is not true, certainly of the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations. Senator Shelby and I worked together on this bill. Yes, I do chair it, but it has been with maximum consultation with others on the other side of the aisle. It was the same way when Senator Shelby chaired this committee. We are pleased to present to the Senate the fiscal year 2010 bill to fund the Departments of Commerce and Justice and air science agencies. I thank Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell for allowing to us to bring the CJS bill to the floor. The CJS bill is a product of cooperation between Senator Shelby and me and our excellent staff. We have worked hand in hand. I thank Senators Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran for their allocation. We were able to write a very good bill, but the stringent budget environment required the subcommittee to make difficult decisions. The CJS bill totals $64.9 billion in discretionary spending, consistent with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. So any amendments to the bill will need to be offset. The purpose of the CJS bill is to fund the Department of Commerce and its bureaus and administration. Many people do not know what the Department of Commerce truly does. It is an array of complex agencies that is important to our economy: The Bureau of Industry and Security gives licenses for exports; the Economic Development Administration creates economic growth in our communities, particularly midsized to small towns; the Census Bureau, preparing now, somewhat unevenly, for the 2010 census; the Patent and Trade Office which protects our intellectual property; along with the International Trade Administration which enforces our trade laws. We are particularly proud of the Commerce Department, of the National Institutes for Standards and Technology. It sets the standards for technology which allows our country and our companies to be able to compete in the global marketplace. This subcommittee also funds the Department of Justice which keeps us safe from violent crime and terrorism. It prosecutes criminals of all kind--white collar, blue collar or no collar. It also has a vigorous approach to the despicable practice of being a sexual predator. This subcommittee through the Department of Justice funds our State and local police departments which are so important as well from not only the enforcement end but the prosecution end through the U.S. Attorney's Office. NASA is also funded through this subcommittee. It explores our planets and our universe and inspires our Nation and next generation to be scientists and engineers. We also fund the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, protecting our marine resources and the jobs that depend on them. It also protects our weather to save lives. Many people don't realize that the wonderful weather reports they get in their communities comes because of the NOAA weather administration. They think it comes from the Weather Channel. We all love the Weather Channel, but the Weather Channel depends on NOAA. The National Science Foundation is also funded, providing basic research at our universities to advance science and support teacher training and development. We also fund several independent commissions and agencies, including the Commission on Civil Rights, the EEOC, the Legal Services Commission, the International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Trade Representative. Senator Shelby's and my No. 1 priority is making sure that 300 million Americans who work hard and play by the rules are safe from terrorism and violent crime. We also want to protect jobs in our country. So we are the basic investors in innovation through education and through promoting an innovation-friendly government, making strategic investments in research and education in science and technology, keeping America No. 1 in science and also No. 1 in the space exploration program. We want to create jobs in America that will stay in America. However, we, too, are fiscal stewards of the public purse and, therefore, accountability has been a hallmark of our bipartisan relationship. We do stand sentry against waste, fraud, and abuse with strong fiscal accountability and stewardship of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. I wish to take a few minutes to talk about keeping America safe. The CJS bill provides $27.4 billion for the Justice Department. We actually went above the President's request by $300 million because we wanted to make an extra effort to protect our homeland and protect our hometowns. This bill is one of the most important sources of Federal funds for State and local law enforcement, for our frontline men and women of our State and local police forces. It is the cops on the beat who protect our families and at the same time they are asked to do more. We are providing $3.2 billion to support that thin blue line to make sure the police are safe with equipment they need, such as bulletproof vests and also new technologies. ``CSI'' is not only a great TV show, but we think CSI should be funded in the Federal budget to use the best of science to catch the worst of the criminals. We also fund Byrne formula grants, and this bill will provide $510 million for State and local police operations to do their job. We are funding important programs in juvenile justice, which are very key programs of intervention and mentoring, but also very strong programs for antigang efforts--$407 million. We also want to prevent, protect, and prosecute when it comes to violence against women, whether it is domestic violence, sexual assault, rape, or stalking--over $435 million--the highest level of funding ever. We also have very important Federal law enforcement. All of us know and love the FBI. This bill will provide $7.9 billion to keep us safe from violent crime and also white collar crime, investigating financial and mortgage fraud. I want to acknowledge the role of Senator Shelby, who is an authorizer on the Banking Committee and a member of this Appropriations Committee. He has taken on the issue of mortgage fraud and wanted it to be thoroughly investigated. We have done that through the FBI. Many people don't realize, though, that after 9/11, when everyone was clamoring for something like the MI-5, such as the British have, we said: Three cheers for the British way, but we want a USA way, so we created an agency within an agency where the FBI is part of our most significant fight against terrorism. We also fund the Drug Enforcement Agency to fight international narcoterrorists and drug kingpins. This bill provides $2 billion to do it. I am very proud of the FBI because in the last few weeks their work has led to the arrest of two terrorism suspects who planned to blow up buildings in Texas and in Illinois. While they were working hard, the efforts of the DEA led to the arrest of drug kingpins who were shipping 95 kilograms into New York City. We also have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Marshals Service, each of which has been funded at $1 billion-plus. Our U.S. attorneys, who are the prosecutors of Federal crimes, have been provided $1.9 billion, a significant increase. Once we catch and prosecute these criminals, there has to be Federal prisons, and we want to make sure our communities are secure and our prison guards are safe. This is one of the tattered areas of neglect, and we are very concerned about the safety of our prison guards. This bill provides $6.1 billion to upgrade, where necessary, the protective devices to ensure criminals are held securely--acknowledging their rights, but also the rights of those who guard them need to be kept too. Their first right is the right to security, guaranteed by their own government. We look to protecting our children and our communities, and when it comes to protecting our children, crimes have gotten more sophisticated in terms of the Internet and other things that are used to lure children into terrible criminal situations. We have provided over $265 billion to deal with the issue of sexual predators, and we will continue that fight. While we are busy fighting crime and protecting our children, we also need to protect America's jobs, and this is where science and innovation come in with an amazing race to keep America competitive. This bill provides $880 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and, particularly, $70 million for the new Technology Innovation Program and $125 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, so that we can keep manufacturing in our country. We also want to do the basic research that is needed for the new ideas that will come up with the new products for the new jobs. This bill provides $6.9 billion for the National Science Foundation, and for NOAA we provide $4.7 billion, including $980 million for our weather service and $870 million for our fisheries. This bill also funds our space program: $18.7 billion for NASA. In the space program, we don't agree with the House strategy; we agree with the White House strategy. The House strategy includes $500 million for the NASA exploration program. We believe we need to meet our obligations to fully fund the space shuttle and the space station. For the space shuttle, we need to make sure we keep our astronauts safe and our space station is able to continue the work we have begun. We also need to invest in the next generation of space vehicles at $3.6 billion. It is very important we meet our obligations, our international obligations, as well as our obligations to our astronauts and to our Earth-bound scientists. However, if you meet those scientists, they are not bound by Earth very much. They are continually breaking barriers. We know the House withheld money while waiting for the Augustine report. Well, we have the Augustine report. We know where the President wants to go. We know what the key advisers in the astronaut community have recommended to us--the gallant leaders from the past, such as Buzz Aldrin and John Glenn, to the most contemporary right now. I might add we have a space Senator in Senator Bill Nelson, one of our authorizers. So we have worked hand-in-hand with our authorizers. We are also working very hard in terms of protecting our intellectual property. We have been concerned through the Bush administration--well, the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and now we want to deal with this during the Barack Obama administration--that we have too many backlogs at our Patent and Trademark Office. We want to reduce those. American ingenuity should not have to stand in long lines to get their patents to protect their intellectual property and to come up with the products that will go into the global marketplace and at the same time create jobs here. We are also very proud of what we do to protect our planet, and what we have done through NASA Earth science--$1.4 billion--and also what we are doing in weather satellites--$1.2 billion--which are very important global warming tools. If we can better protect and warn, we can save lives and save money. The CJS bill ensures our constitutional obligation to do the 2010 census. We provide $7 billion to the Census. We are working hand-in- glove with Secretary Locke to make sure the Census Bureau is well organized to be able to do this very important job. There are many more things we can talk about, but I know my colleague, Senator Shelby, wants to discuss the bill, and our good friend from Arizona has an amendment. So, Mr. President, I will amplify these other parts of the bill as we move forward. I know Senator Shelby will return in a moment or two, so with deference and the usual courtesy and comity, if the Senator from Arizona wishes to offer his amendment, and then when Senator Shelby returns he can make his statement, we will just keep the business of the Senate moving as promptly and as well as we can. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is a new amendment for us. We had not anticipated that this amendment--that a debate on immigration and the value of one person over another was going to become a subject of discussion in an appropriations bill. We would hope this type of conversation would be taken up on comprehensive immigration. I know my colleague from Utah, who is on the Appropriations Committee--and both are important to me, that he is from Utah and that he is on the Appropriations Committee--has thought this through greatly. He raises some very important points. I have discussed this amendment with my leadership. I know they want to take a more careful look at this and also consult on its full ramifications. We are now talking about questions being asked through the census and the objective to be accomplished for that, which the census was originally for counting people for tax purposes, ironically. This is an apportionment question. So what we would like to do is go into a quorum while we look at how we may proceed on this amendment. Having said that, I want to reiterate the importance of the census being taken every 10 years. The census must be taken for the reasons that our colleague from Utah outlined. No. 1, it determines the use of Federal funds, and that is why we count persons, because regardless of your status, you are a user of services--in some instances, maybe even more than a user of services. The second thing is with apportionment. I think that is a delicate matter that the Senator from Utah is raising. This gets us into constitutional questions. I am apprehensive about it. Again, we are going to consult with the leadership. Also, as we move forward on the issue of the census, we have to make sure we do have a head count. The Census Department itself, right now, is under very serious duress. They were late getting started on some of their issues. There has been an enormous technological boondoggle with the hand-held technology, the enumerator, with which I believe the Senator from Utah is familiar. We have been working with the previous administration, this administration, and the Secretary of Commerce to get the census straightened out. My colleague said: Why don't they just print one more piece of paper? One more piece of paper sounds simple. But everything we do that affects the census at this point presents a logistical and financial challenge that borders on a challenge to a nightmare. Again, we have calls in to the census that say, what will it take to do it? I have reservations about adding this question, because I believe it will add to the logistics and costs. And No. 2, it could be a deterrent to people answering those questions because of who else is in their household. The other thing is that we have many people in our country who are green card people, who are here absolutely legally and justifiably. Some are in our own community at some of our community hospitals and are working as nurses. And asking this question and that question--I don't want to raise the issue of a deterrence and the ability to cooperate. I want to take a closer look at this amendment. While we do that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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