Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, in this statement they reaffirm their CRA commitment and announce an expansion of their CRA goals. Sumitomo itself came in and said they were proud to announce that, just 4 years into the plan, the bank had made great progress. They then quote some figures of how they come close to meeting their various goals: Encouraged by our success to date, we have decided to reaffirm our commitment by expanding our original Goals. Based on our progress, we will strive to achieve our original . . . goal within six years, four years earlier than originally targeted. . . . They doubled their goal. So they recognize that it was working, that it was mutually beneficial. They closed by saying this ``will greatly assist all the communities we serve, while helping our Bank achieve our own business goals.'' Recently The Enterprise Foundation, which of course was founded by Jim Rouse, one of the great visionaries, in my judgment, in our Nation with respect to community development, urban planning, affordable housing, they described in a publication ``Community Reinvestment, Good Works, Good Business''--``Good Works, Good Business''--they cited programs in Florida, Missouri, Iowa, California, Nebraska, New York, Minnesota, and New Jersey as examples, cited the banks, the programs they were carrying out under CRA. And they went on to say: Many banks have discovered that community lending is good business. These banks would continue to meet their obligations regardless of federal requirements. But others need encouragement, and CRA has proven effective at providing this. CRA has helped banks discover new markets and profit opportunities that they otherwise might have overlooked. We had all these complaints about paperwork, overregulation. The regulators undertook a major effort to slim that down, with great success. The various banking associations, after that was completed, appraised the process through which we had gone in order to simplify and streamline this process. So it is working. It is bringing in these communities. It is drawing people into the financial mainstream. And it seems to me a reasonable requirement. Let me make just one final point, because the point is being asserted that, well, these banks that would be exempted under the amendment offered by Senator Shelby hold a small portion of the assets of all banks nationally. But what you have to understand is that 85 percent of all banks in the country would be eliminated from the CRA by the Shelby amendment. In six States, over 95 percent of the banks fall into this category. In nine other States, over 90 percent of the banks fall into this category. There are 30 States in which 80 percent of the banks fall into this category. Many are rural States. CRA is often perceived as benefiting the urban areas of our country. However, rural areas, no less than urban areas, benefit from CRA. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from a coalition of rural and farm groups in opposition to the Shelby amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I just want to again reiterate on the safety and soundness issue that the Department of the Treasury was charged by the Congress in the Economic Growth and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 to undertake a major study of credit unions, and the Department did that. This is the report from the Treasury Department which was submitted to us on December 11 of 1997. So they took some 15 months to do it. In his letter to the leadership, Secretary Rubin underscored that the safety and soundness provisions in this bill, which in effect largely track what the Secretary recommended, were the most significant legislative reform of credit union safety and soundness safeguards since the creation of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund in 1970 and went on then to find that the business lending provisions posed no difficulty, that they represented an adequate response to safety and soundness concerns about credit unions' business lending. I won't take a back seat to anyone in my concern about safety and soundness, but I think that has been addressed in this legislation. The Treasury, which did this extensive study and made these quite broad recommendations, took a look at the bill and has concluded that the bill represents a very major and significant legislative reform of credit union safety and soundness safeguards, and in light of those provisions that are in the bill thought that they were adequate to any concerns with respect to safety and soundness about credit unions' business lending. We have the people who did this comprehensive study--they took 15 months--make their recommendations, some of which were quite significant. The committee responded to that, and in the light of what the committee has done, the Treasury has taken the official position that concerns about credit union business lending have been addressed adequately in this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. Thirty minutes to Senator Gramm and Senator D'Amato, who supports Senator Gramm, and 30 minutes on this side; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, as I understand it, we are now in a time-constrained period of 1 hour on the Gramm amendment, equally divided; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, let me just very quickly focus on the credit unions only. This debate has tended to overlap both areas. It is done by the proponents of the amendment and, of course, we have responded too, because, in part, your attitude is going to be affected by how you see CRA functioning and whether you perceive it as bringing beneficial impacts or whether you perceive it as being harmful or not. I submit there is strong evidence that it has brought significant beneficial impacts, and many of the studies have supported that. What is being applied to the credit unions in this legislation is not the full CRA provision. But this does require the credit union regulator, the National Credit Union Administration, to review the record of each insured credit union in providing credit union services to all individuals of modest means within the field of membership of the credit union. It would not require them to go outside of the field of membership. They could not be required to give a loan to someone who was not a member of the credit union because that is a requirement of credit unions in terms of their loan policy. But they would have to try to draw in, make an effort to draw in people who were within the field of membership. They would have to concern themselves with trying to bring both low- and moderate-income as well as the sort of very top of the line within their field of membership. The NCUA has directed a focus on the actual performance of the credit union not to impose burdensome paperwork or record-keeping requirements. This provision included in the House bill that was sent to us has been crafted to respond to the situation of credit unions. It is an effort to encourage them to meet the financial service needs of all their members and to reach out to those in the field of membership who have not yet joined and gotten the benefit of the credit union's services. It is really a modest proposal. It has been suggested that the credit unions are not fiercely opposing it because they have somehow or other been coerced into that position--that is certainly not my understanding--just as it has been suggested that we need to get people to talk to some of these bankers who favor the CRA. We are told, ``Well, now we have these people who are against it. We cannot identify them because if we identify them then they are going to get into a lot of trouble.'' Well, I have people I can identify who would tell you that CRA has worked, that it has made an important impact, that the financial institution has found it not to be a burden but has found it actually to be profitable, that it has developed a better relationship in terms of their service area in terms of providing needed financial services. In effect, we are gaining public benefits from it, from an industry which received very significant public benefits in the sense of the insurance, the backup to the insurance, the Federal Government guarantee, access to low-cost credit through the Federal Reserve window and the Federal Reserve payment system. This is enabling us to make very significant progress. The estimates in terms of the money that has gone into previously neglected communities is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This is an effort to make capitalism work in a broader expanse, both geographically and in terms of the individuals who then are drawn in to play a part in the system. I know some harsh language has been quoted earlier by community groups. I do not begin to try to justify or excuse that harsh language, although I must say some pretty harsh language has been used here on the floor of the Senate which I also regret. But we ought to look at this as an opportunity. This is turning into a win-win situation. It enables us then to sort of say, look, this economic system can work for everybody. Those of you who are sort of complaining that you are shut out of this economic system, we have found ways to make this system--to open it up so it works for everybody. The institutions make a profit. They do good. They do well by doing good. People who otherwise would be fighting the system are drawn into the system. They become a part of the workings of this, of our financial structure and, therefore, become able to make a contribution to our society. It has brought enormous benefits in so many areas of the country. As I said, the Chicago Bank says, ``It's a positive force here in Chicago. It has been the instrument that has provided millions of dollars in investment that has financed home purchases, rehabilitation, and home improvement and new construction in once underserved communities.'' That is what we are trying to accomplish. The Shelby amendment, of course, would eliminate all of that, take us back a significant step. The Gramm amendment would prevent the extension of this concept of serving the community to the credit unions. I oppose it and I very much hope my colleagues would oppose it as well.

Mr. SARBANES. The committee crossed that threshold, as it were, by its decision. And I would reflect that here. I do think there are some of our colleagues in this body that do not think there should be limits. They do not concede the point that the Senator is making.

Mr. SARBANES. I want to make the observation that I think there are some of my colleagues who believe there should not be any limits.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, what is the time situation?

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly, I yield to the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, a lot has been said here this afternoon. I regret some of the rhetoric. I don't think it advances a rational discussion of the issue, to talk about extortion and piracy, I must say, because I think there are very important issues here with respect to CRA, and I want to cover both of them since a lot of the arguments that are used on the amendment pending before us which would remove from the bill a sort of modified version of CRA which would be placed on credit unions, which was in the bill as it came over to us from the House of Representatives--a lot of those arguments really relate to CRA as it applies to banks, and that application is being used to make an argument with respect to credit unions. First of all, it had been asserted earlier that the rationale for CRA which Senator Proxmire advanced back at the time of its passage in 1977 has all eroded, but the fact of the matter is, when that argument was made, one of the major points that Senator Proxmire advanced for the application of CRA was omitted from the list of considerations; namely, that deposit insurance is available to these institutions and the importance of deposit insurance. This was underscored, of course, because in the 1980s Federal insurance for the savings and loans cost us $132 billion, without counting the indirect costs that were incurred in interest payments in order to finance the direct payments which were necessary. Many of those who are arguing against are against any CRA requirement for any federally insured financial institutions, and I think it is important to understand that. Of course, I come from a very different point of view. The fact of the matter is that CRA does not require a bank to make subsidized loans. It doesn't require it to make uncreditworthy loans. It doesn't require it to lend to a particular individual. It is not an allocation of credit. What it requires it to do is pay attention to its community so it can't simply take money out of the community and, in effect, not be in the posture of putting money back into the community, which is, of course, what the act says community reinvestment is. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has pointed out: The essential purpose of the CRA is to try to encourage institutions who are not involved in areas where their own self-interest is involved in doing so. If you are indicating to an institution that there is a forgone business opportunity in area X or loan product Y, that is not credit allocation. That, indeed, is enhancing the market. What this has enabled us to do is to draw into the mainstream of economic life communities that had previously been neglected. It has worked well, and there is every reason that it also should apply to the credit unions who, of course, also get the benefit of a Federal guarantee standing behind their insurance fund. With respect to these sharp statements about how CRA has been used by community groups, let me quote on the record some of the statements that banks and bankers have said about it. The Bank of America says: Over the past several years, Bank of America, in partnership with community organizations, has developed CRA lending into a profitable mainstream business * * *. We have taken what began as a compliance function and turned it into a business line that makes economic as well as social sense. We believe we have demonstrated over the past several years that when institutions develop CRA programs as a business tool, and provide lending products with flexible but prudent underwriting criteria, low-income lending can be safe, sound and profitable. ``* * * low-income lending can be safe, sound and profitable.'' I ask unanimous consent that this public statement by Bank of America be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, this letter states: Through our subsidiary, LaSalle Talman Home Mortgage Corporation, we are the largest residential mortgage lender in both the Chicago metropolitan area and the state of Illinois. . . . CRA has proved to be a positive force here in Chicago. It has been the instrument that has provided millions of dollars in investment that has financed home purchase, rehabilitation and home improvement, and new construction in once underserved communities. CRA is not bad business or ``have to'' business. CRA allows discretion and choice to the lender. It allows for reasoned negotiation and workable solutions. It has provided a forum where financial institutions, corporations, and community organizations can work in a spirit of cooperation to meet community credit needs. The objective is to meet these community credit needs. We have discovered now a path down which we can go and which, in the course of meeting the community needs, the financial institutions benefit and profit from it. Reference was made to the Sumitomo Bank of California. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of Sumitomo released in March 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from LaSalle Talman Bank in Chicago be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I can't control the comments of the street protester, just like I can't control the comments of some of my colleagues on the Senate floor, since this is a free country with free speech.

Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I don't think it is altogether accurate to say that the current bill seeks only to keep in place the exact current situation. As the Treasury pointed out in a letter from Secretary Rubin to the leadership, ``The bill's safety and soundness provisions would represent the most significant legislative reform of credit union safety and soundness safeguards since the creation of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund in 1970.'' So that, in effect, we made very substantial changes on the safety and soundness issue, and the Treasury Secretary later in his letter, when he was discussing the very issue of the safety and soundness of credit unions business lending, came back and made reference to these changes: ``. . . the risk-based capital requirement for complex credit unions, and the system of prompt corrective action--represent an adequate response to safety and soundness concerns about credit unions' business lending.'' So we did, in effect, make some significant changes on the safety and soundness issue. The Treasury has referenced those changes in analyzing the question of credit unions' business lending and thereby reached its conclusion that that did not pose a safety and soundness issue. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dean Shahinian of our committee be allowed on the floor of the Senate during consideration of this bill.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patience Singleton and Loretta Garrison, staff members, be allowed privileges of the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, first I want to thank my colleague, Chairman D'Amato, for his kind words and to underscore the very effective leadership which the chairman has exercised in bringing this legislation to this point. This bill came out of the committee on a vote of 16 to 2. We had very strong support within the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and I have been pleased to be able to work closely with the chairman in trying to craft this legislation. We had, as usual, outstanding contributions by members of the staff on both the Republican and the Democratic sides, and we are most appreciative to them for the many long hours they have put in on this legislation. The time is now to straighten out the credit union challenge which was posed by the Supreme Court decision. This legislation passed the House of Representatives in the beginning of April by a vote of 411 to 8. The Senate Banking Committee, after holding two hearings on the issue, marked up the legislation on April 30 and reported it with amendments to the full Senate by a vote of 16 to 2. Since April 30, we have been looking for an opening on the Legislative Calendar in order to take the matter up in the Chamber, and the majority leader has provided this opening. If I could have the attention of the majority leader, I would like to ask, it is my understanding the intention now is to do the opening statements--I know that Senator Shelby and others have amendments--and begin debate on the amendments, continue that on Monday afternoon beginning at about 1 o'clock, and any votes that would transpire in relationship to the amendments which have been offered would occur beginning about 6 o'clock Monday evening?

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, some people will be scrambling to be here. I think if we didn't start before 5:45, or if we let that first vote run a little bit----

Mr. SARBANES. Of course, the Senator could make the beginning of the last vote and leave.

Mr. SARBANES. I just want to underscore the intention is, and we have every reasonable expectation that, we are going to be able to complete this bill finally by Tuesday morning and do a good deal of it by Monday evening. In addition to the broad bipartisan support for this legislation in the Congress, it is strongly supported by the administration. Senator D'Amato has already placed in the Record a letter that Secretary Rubin, our very able Secretary of the Treasury, sent to the majority leader and to the minority leader urging expeditious Senate passage of the bill without any extraneous amendments. Of course, the amendments are the important issue that we will be considering over the next few days. President Clinton has personally indicated his support for this legislation, urging the Senate to pass the bill without weighing it down with extraneous and controversial amendments that would seriously jeopardize the legislation. H.R. 1151 is also supported by a very diverse range of groups in the community including the Consumer Federation of America, the Seniors Coalition, the National Farmers Union, National Educational Association, Americans for Tax Reform, the American Small Business Association, AFL-CIO, and the National Urban Coalition. The broad support for this legislation suggests the important role credit unions play in our economy. Since the founding of the first credit union in the United States in 1909, almost a century ago, credit unions have served as a way for people of average means, without easy access to credit, to pool their savings in order to make loans to fellow credit union members at competitive interest rates. Mr. President, the impetus for H.R. 1151 came from a Supreme Court decision earlier this year. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court held that under the Federal Credit Union Act a federally chartered credit union may only have a single common bond of occupation. This overturned a policy of the National Credit Union Administration, the regulators of the credit unions, first adopted in 1982, which permitted multiple groups each having a separate common bond to be part of a single Federal credit union. The consequence of that Supreme Court decision is to prohibit the formation of multiple group credit unions. Even if the lower courts, in implementing the Supreme Court decision, permit existing multiple group credit unions to stay in business and to accept members from their current groups, employees from the large majority of companies in the United States will find their future opportunities to become a member of a Federal credit union seriously constrained by the Supreme Court's decision. The National Credit Union Administration generally does not permit groups with less than 500 employees to start a credit union because it is judged the group is not broad enough or numerous enough to support a credit union in a safe and sound manner. The only way for employees of these companies to join a credit union is if the companies affiliate with existing credit unions. So, if new multiple bond credit unions are prohibited, this will no longer be possible and millions of Americans may be denied the opportunity to join a credit union. This outcome is clearly undesirable, in my view, and is, of course, the basis for the broad bipartisan support for enacting this legislation. This legislation would first grandfather existing multiple group credit unions and allow them to add members from their current groups. In addition, it would permit Federal credit unions to have multiple groups, each of which, after the first group, has a common bond of occupation or association and has less than 3,000 members. The bill would also give the National Credit Union Administration the power to authorize credit unions to add additional groups if it finds the groups cannot safely establish and operate a credit union on their own. The Credit Union Administration could also permit a Federal credit union to add a person or organization located in a local community, neighborhood, or rural district that it has determined is underserved by other depository institutions. But, in order for a Federal credit union to accept additional membership groups, the NCUA would have to find that the credit union is adequately capitalized, has adequate managerial or financial resources, and has a satisfactory examination record. The legislation directs the Credit Union Administration to encourage the formation of separately chartered credit unions whenever practicable and consistent with safety and soundness. In addition to addressing the membership issue, this legislation requires significant new safety and soundness standards for Federal credit unions. These new requirements are based on recommendations contained in a carefully prepared study of credit unions by the Treasury Department conducted at the direction of the Congress and submitted last year. Earlier, in legislation, the Congress directed the Treasury Department to study credit unions and to submit a report to the Congress. A good deal of what is contained in this legislation reflects the outcome of that study. The bill imposes, for the first time, statutory capital standards on Federal credit unions. The bill requires an insured credit union to have a net worth ratio of 7 percent to be ``well capitalized'' and 6 percent to be ``adequately capitalized.'' A credit union with a net worth ratio of less than 6 percent would be ``undercapitalized,'' at 4 percent it would be ``significantly undercapitalized,'' and at 2 percent ``critically undercapitalized.'' The legislation provides a system of prompt corrective action which requires the National Credit Union Administration to take a series of progressively more stringent measures if the credit union falls below the ``adequately capitalized'' level. Each insured credit union that is undercapitalized would be required to submit an acceptable net worth restoration plan to the NCUA. Until that plan is approved, the credit union generally would not be permitted to increase its average total assets. If an insured credit union becomes critically undercapitalized according to the standards I mentioned earlier, the NCUA would be required to liquidate the credit union, appoint a conservator, or take such other action as it determines could better achieve the purpose of protecting the credit union insurance fund. I have taken a few moments to dwell on these provisions because I think they are quite important. They have generally not been involved in the debate that has led up to considering the measure on the floor, but I think Members need to appreciate the very important safety and soundness provisions contained in this legislation. This is a major step in ensuring financial stability in the credit union industry. It has led the Secretary of the Treasury, in the letter which he sent to the leadership, to make this statement. I just want to quote this paragraph from Secretary Rubin's letter: The bill's safety and soundness provisions would represent the most significant legislative reform of credit union safety and soundness safeguards since the creation of the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund in 1970. The bill would institute capital standards for all federally insured credit unions, including a risk-based capital requirement for complex credit unions. It would create a system of prompt corrective action--specifically tailored to credit unions as not-for-profit, member-owned cooperative. It would also take a series of steps to make the Share Insurance Fund even stronger and more resilient. These reforms involve little cost or burden to credit unions today, yet they could pay enormous dividends in more difficult times. We worked closely with the Treasury in considering the provisions that were in the legislation. I think this is a major step forward. I really commend this aspect of the legislation to my colleagues as they consider the overall bill. Furthermore, this bill imposes, for the first time, a limit on commercial lending by credit unions. No such limit currently exists. The bill provides that a credit union would be generally limited in its member business loans to no more than the lesser of 1.75 times the minimum net worth required for well-capitalized credit unions--namely 7 percent--or 1.7 times its actual net worth. This would put a limit on member business loans for a well-capitalized credit union at approximately 12.25 percent of its total loans. Loans of less than $50,000 would be excluded--that is an operating practice currently--and we would continue to adhere to that. Many credit unions are chartered for or have a history of making business loans to their members. Members of a specialized vocation-- farmers, fishermen, taxi drivers and so forth--would not be subject to this limit. Furthermore, this legislation imposes, for the first time, a modest but meaningful community obligation with respect to reinvestment in insured credit unions, which has been carefully tailored to the membership-based nature of credit unions. It would require the National Credit Union Administration to prescribe criteria for periodically reviewing the record of each insured credit union in providing affordable credit union services to all individuals of modest means, including low- and moderate-income individuals, within the field of membership of the credit union, and provide for making such results publicly available. The bill also directs the National Credit Union Administration, in evaluating any insured credit union under this requirement, to focus on the actual performance of the credit union and not to impose burdensome paperwork or recordkeeping requirements. We think this is a modest but important step in paying attention to the needs of low- and moderate- income individuals, and thereby making access to credit more broadly available. In conclusion, let me just say this is a very carefully developed and balanced piece of legislation. As I said, the committee held two extensive hearings on the matter. It worked very carefully over the provisions that have been included in the legislation and brought here before the Senate. This legislation seeks to make credit union membership accessible while strengthening the safety and soundness of federally insured credit unions and encourages them to meet the financial service needs of all of their members. I strongly urge the support of this legislation by my colleagues. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject extraneous amendments that may be offered to the legislation that may complicate or jeopardize its enactment. We now need to move this legislation forward. I think a very careful package has been put together here. The credit union movement supports the legislation as reported by the committee. The administration supports the legislation as reported by the committee. I respect, obviously, the motivation of my colleagues who intend to offer amendments, but I can only point out that those amendments would greatly complicate our efforts to move this legislation to final passage and signature into law by the President. I very much hope my colleagues can back the work that was done by the committee in bringing this matter to the Senate floor. I, again, thank Chairman D'Amato for his skillful work in developing the legislation to this point and bringing it to the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield me just 2 minutes without losing her right to the floor?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, before the Senator from Alabama leaves the floor--because this is going to turn into a very interesting debate, and I want to make clear the parameters of it, obviously--he sent out a letter quoting Senator Proxmire. I am sure he is a good former trial lawyer, and he would anticipate that we would go and read all of the Proxmire statement from which he was making selections which were reflected on the chart that he just showed us. Now, from that Proxmire statement, the very one containing these selections which the Senator says is his rationale for supporting the Community Reinvestment Act, and from which the Senator allegedly shows that the rationale no longer applies--although I disagree with even that assertion--let me read to you. I will read the next sentence, which didn't appear on the Senator's chart, I regret to say.

Mr. SARBANES. Let me make the point, and then I would be happy to yield. The next sentence said: The Government provides deposit insurance through the FDIC and the FSLIC with a financial backup from the U.S. Treasury. ``The Government provides deposit insurance through the FDIC and the FSLIC with a financial backup from the U.S. Treasury.'' That wasn't quoted as a rationale why it is reasonable to expect financial institutions to look after the needs of their community-- because they are getting a very important Government support in the deposit insurance. Now, Senator Proxmire made the statement in 1977. To prove his statement, in the 1980s, and to underscore the meaningfulness of the public benefits provided to federally insured financial institutions during the S&L crisis, the GAO report says that ``the direct and indirect cost to the United States taxpayers of resolving the savings and loan crisis, namely delivering on this insurance which is provided to them, was $132 billion--$132 billion--``and that does not include the interest expenses associated with financing the direct costs of the crisis which would drive the figure even higher.'' So, please, with all respect to the former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, if we are going to start doing selections out of his statements, certainly we should include what I regard as the most important single rationale that he put there: The Government provides deposit insurance through the FDIC and the FSLIC with a financial backup from the U.S. Treasury. Now, that comes right out of the Congressional Record of January 24, 1977, which is what the Senator said in the letter he sent to Members he was quoting from. But, unfortunately, for the purposes of clarity in debate, that provision was not cited. Of course, that is the very provision that became applicable in the 1980s when we had the S&L crisis, and we delivered to the tune of $132 billion in order to honor the deposit insurance requirements. Obviously, without the deposit insurance requirements, you wouldn't have these industries. They are absolutely dependent on them to provide a basic level of financial stability and consumer confidence. So I appreciate the Senator yielding, but I thought it was important to get that on the Record at this point, although we will bring it up again in the debate later on.

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