Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to and the Senate proceed to a voice vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 528, S. Res. 543.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, tens of millions of middle-class families face the distinct possibility of higher tax rates in January. With so many Americans who are still struggling to find their economic footing after the deepest recession of our lifetimes, these looming tax hikes would be hard for those middle-class families, and they are completely unnecessary. Newspaper stories day after day on the so-called fiscal cliff often omit that the Senate has passed legislation to shield 98 percent of families and 97 percent of small businesses from the income tax part of this so-called fiscal cliff. We passed the Middle Class Tax Cuts Act on July 25 of this year. We sent the measure to the House of Representatives. Did Speaker Boehner and the Republicans in the House promptly pass this popular bill and send it to President Obama for his signature? Did they move to protect 98 percent of middle-class families from this tax hike in January? No. They decided to hold the middle-class tax cuts passed by the Senate hostage in an attempt to push for tax cuts for the folks they care about the most, the top 2 percent of the highest earning households. Republicans fighting for millionaires and billionaires is not a new story. In 2001 President George W. Bush decided to spend a large portion of the surpluses he inherited from President Clinton to cut tax rates. Many Democrats opposed him then because the tax cuts were unfair by favoring the highest income Americans. To overcome that obstacle, the Republicans resorted to a parliamentary technique of budget reconciliation, a maneuver that allowed for passage of their tax cuts but forced them to expire after 2010, at the end of the 10-year budget window. So we scroll forward to 2010. As 2010 ended, President Obama and many Democrats in Congress, including myself, wanted to extend the tax cuts for middle-class families but let rates on income above $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a family revert to the Clinton-era levels. Our Senate Republican friends filibustered that effort, refusing to allow the middle-class tax cut without a tax cut for the highest incomes as well. Their hostage strategy worked that time, and the President and Senate Democrats reluctantly agreed to extend the tax cuts for 2 more years. Now the 2 years is up and these tax rates are again set to expire. That is why Senate Democrats passed the Middle Class Tax Cut Act in July. This measure balanced our desire to keep tax rates low for middle-class families against the urgency of addressing our national budget deficits. By keeping tax rates low for 98 percent of Americans and letting the tax rates go up very modestly for families earning over $250,000 a year, the Democrat plan would cut the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next decade. Now, that alone doesn't cure our budget imbalance, but along with fair and sensible tax reforms and smart cuts in spending, it is part of the solution. Let's be clear about one thing: the Middle Class Tax Cut Act would still benefit high-end taxpayers. Families making over $250,000 a year would pay lower tax rates on their first $250,000. So if a family made $255,000, they would only see an increase on the top $5,000, and only to the Clinton-era rates that were in effect during the 1990s, when, as we all recall, our economy was thriving. Under the Senate-passed plan, a family earning $255,000 a year would pay an extra $150 in taxes. In opposing the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, Republicans claim that it would hurt the economy to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent of income earners. Speaker Boehner reiterated that line last week saying: It'll hurt small businesses. It'll hurt the economy. Well, that is vintage Republican political theory, but it is just not supported by the facts. In a recent report, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending the middle-class tax cuts would boost our national GDP, gross domestic product, by 1.25 percent next year. It said the economic effects of extending only the middle-class rates are similar to those of extending all of the rates. Why? Because upper income taxpayers are less likely to spend their tax savings and put it back into the economy. In other words, CBO reports we would get virtually no economic bang for our Federal buck by extending the upper income tax cuts for which the Republicans are fighting. CBO's analysis is confirmed by the experience of real-world businesspeople. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks an op-ed by former Stride Rite CEO Arnold Hiatt entitled ``Smite the myth that tax cuts create jobs.''

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, Arnold Hiatt founded a successful small business before selling it to Stride Rite and then becoming CEO. He says: As every good businessman knows . . . the soundness of a company and its ability to create jobs do not rest on lower taxes or tax avoidance--for the company or its senior management. He continues: It is a fiction, pure and simple, that taxing so-called ``job creators'' will have an adverse effect on the economy. Mr. Hiatt goes on to explain: In the years we were creating so many jobs, my federal income taxes on the top slice of my income were sometimes as high as 70 percent, but these rates never discouraged me or anyone else from hiring workers or growing a company. Today we're paying about half of that on the top portion of salaries and fees, and a meager 15 percent on the big chunk of our income that comes from investments. That's why I . . . and many other millionaires pay a lower income-tax rate than many working American families. He continues: Many millionaires never create any jobs at all. Those who do will create them regardless of the tax rate, and certainly won't be dissuaded by the small increase of about 5 percentage points that the president has proposed. He concludes this way: The myth of millionaires as job creators being turned off by higher taxes is the creation of some members of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate who are funded by these same millionaires. They know little of what makes companies successful. That is the CEO of Stride Rite shoes. If we extend the upper income tax cuts for another year, it would add over $49 billion to the deficit. Even in Washington, $49 billion is real money, money that would have to be borrowed and would add to our debt problem. Believe it or not, Republicans who voted to turn Medicare into a voucher program in the name of deficit reduction support adding to the deficit with high-end tax cuts. In Rhode Island, at least, those are lousy priorities when it comes to deficit reduction. We should let the tax cuts at the top expire for reasons also of fairness. Loopholes and special provisions allow many super-high income earners to pay lower tax rates than many middle-class families. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 65 percent of individuals earning $1 million or more annually pay taxes at a lower rate than median income taxpayers making $100,000 or less. Sixty-five percent--nearly two-thirds--of individuals earning over $1 million a year actually pay a lower tax rate than median income taxpayers. That is a tax system that is turned upside down and needs to be fixed. Earlier this year a majority of Senators voted to advance my Paying a Fair Share Act, the Buffett rule bill to ensure that multimillion- dollar earners pay at least a 30-percent effective Federal tax rate. The rate they are supposed to pay is 35 percent under the income tax laws. But because of all these loopholes and special rates, IRS statistics show the top 400 taxpayers in 2008 who earned, by the way, an average of $270 million each that year, paid the same 18.2 percent effective tax rate as paid by, for instance, a truckdriver in Rhode Island. The single biggest factor driving this inequality is the special low rate for capital gains that allows, for instance, hedge fund billionaires, through the carried interest loophole, to pay taxes at lower rates than their secretaries and chauffeurs. If we let the tax cuts at the top expire, those rates revert to 20 percent instead of 15 percent. Twenty percent is still a low rate for someone making $100 million a year, but it is closer to what a middle-class family is expected to pay. In short, allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for income above $250,000 is the fiscally responsible thing to do and the fair and proper thing to do. Why, then, hasn't Speaker Boehner called a vote on the Senate-passed Middle Class Tax Cuts Act? Because threatening middle-class families with higher taxes is their strategy, to push for breaks for millionaires and billionaires--the hostage strategy--with the middle class as the hostages as Republicans fight for whom they truly care about. If Speaker Boehner continues to ignore the Senate-passed bill, I urge President Obama to stand firm on his opposition to extending the upper income tax cuts. The American people support that approach, and we should not cave in to pressure. I would also urge the President and congressional leaders to work to include the Buffett rule principles in any deficit deal. Letting the upper income tax cuts expire and ensuring multimillion-dollar earners pay a fair share will assure the American people we are working for them and not the special interests as we allocate the burden of addressing our deficits. Exhibit 1 [From the Providence Journal] Smite the Myth That Tax Cuts Create Jobs Providence Journal Edition (by Arnold Hiatt) As every good businessman knows--including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with whom I had been associated as a limited partner at Bain Capital Ventures--the soundness of a company and its ability to create jobs do not rest on lower taxes or tax avoidance--for the company or its senior management. If the now defeated presidential candidate Romney and congressional Republicans continue to insist on renewing the special Bush tax cuts that go only to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans like me, it will do nothing to create jobs. It is a fiction, pure and simple, that taxing so-called ``job creators'' will have an adverse effect on the economy. Just the reverse is true. Instead of spending nearly $1 trillion on tax cuts to make millionaires even richer, those tax dollars can be used more constructively to retain teachers, police officers and firefighters, and repair roads and bridges. These are all essential services that will rebuild our economy and maintain a civil society. In addition, these tax dollars will contribute to deficit reduction. The son of a Lithuanian immigrant to this land of now diminishing equal opportunity, I had the good fortune to start a small company that enjoyed a measure of success and that was eventually acquired by Stride Rite Corp. Twelve months later I was asked to become president of Stride Rite. Throughout the last 10 years of my tenure, the company's return on investment was in the top 1 percent of all companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. We created thousands of new jobs. By the time I left, we had over 5,000 employees. Our success rested on the quality of the product and service provided to consumers. It was a reflection on the quality of the workforce as well as the management. My success could not have been possible without the people whom we continued to hire and to train as we grew. I depended on them as much as they depended upon me. In the years we were creating so many jobs, my federal income taxes on the top slice of my income were sometimes as high as 70 percent, but these rates never discouraged me or anyone else from hiring workers or growing a company. Today we're paying about half that on the top portion of salaries and fees, and a meager 15 percent on the big chunk of our income that comes from investments. That's why Governor Romney and I and many other millionaires pay a lower income- tax rate than many working American families. Many millionaires never create any jobs at all. Those who do will create them regardless of the tax rate and certainly won't be dissuaded by the small increase of about 5 percentage points that the president has proposed. The myth of millionaires as job creators being turned off by higher taxes is the creation of some members of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate who are funded by these same millionaires. They know little of what makes companies successful. Romney knows better. It is a matter of record that during the time tax rates, both corporate and personal, were so much higher, our economy was booming. Conversely, the slowest job growth since World War II took place between the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and the 2008 economic meltdown. A few months ago, every Republican in the House and Senate, along with 19 House Democrats and two Senate Democrats, voted against a bill ending the Bush tax breaks for the richest 2 percent, but extend them for 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses. I hope they will take a fresh look at the facts. That's why I joined with over 100 other millionaires in signing a Voices for Progress letter to all members of Congress, appealing to them not to renew these tax breaks. Allowing the richest 2 percent to withhold tax dollars robs children of health and education. It is not only immoral, it is bad economics. They are the future of our country, which has begun to fall behind our competitors. It is also destroying the American Dream, which brought my father to this country alone at the age of 15. Both he and the Founding Fathers would agree that the future of this nation should not be compromised by the shortsightedness of those so well off in the present. These are not the values that made this country great. Arnold Hiatt is a former chief executive of Stride Rite Corp., based in Lexington, Mass. This article previously appeared in The Boston Globe. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as cochairs of the International Conservation Caucus, Senator Tom Udall and I stand together on Wildlife Conservation Day, December 4th, to emphasize the need for governments, organizations, and individuals to protect the world's endangered species, which face threats from poaching, illicit trade, pollution, and improper land use. The International Conservation Caucus has focused attention this Congress on poaching and the illegal wildlife trade, a lucrative and illicit global market worth anywhere from $5 to $20 billion annually. This trade threatens biodiversity, stability, and the rule of law. New initiatives proposed by the U.S. State Department are needed to protect wildlife, combat trafficking, and reduce demand. We applaud the State Department's commitment to strengthening a global system of wildlife enforcement and the work of the U.S. Agency for International Development to strengthen regional antitrafficking networks. In addition, we and our allies should investigate and prosecute wildlife crime more aggressively, but we should not see the seizure of ivory, rhino horns, and other wildlife products as the sole measure of success. We must also reduce demand, take down trafficking kingpins through international law enforcement efforts, and protect wildlife populations to prevent environmental devastation. Advanced technologies and modern forensics can aid these efforts. On the diplomatic front, our Ambassadors must increase the pressure on countries to ensure members of their militaries and law enforcement agencies do not look the other way or participate in trafficking of wildlife and that enforcement is rigorous. Public education programs both abroad and here in the United States must be expanded to reduce demand for trafficked wildlife and products. We look forward to continuing to promote policies that protect natural resources and wildlife. Wildlife conservation is vital to maintaining biodiversity, global stability, and economic vitality across the world.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, December 5, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for up to 4 hours, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, except where noted below and the time be divided as follows: the majority controlling the first 30 minutes, the Republicans controlling the next 30 minutes, Senator Grassley controlling the next 45 minutes, the majority controlling the next 45 minutes, the Republicans controlling the next 45 minutes, and the majority controlling the following 45 minutes; and that following morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6156, the Russia trade bill.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am informed that we expect to complete action on the Russia trade bill during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. With the permission of the chairman, may I ask for a voice vote at this time?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. But I do believe that the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to respond.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would say just 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their patience and persistence in allowing us to get to this vote. I think once I have discussed the bill for a moment, it might not seem as though it would have required much patience or persistence to get here, but it did. They have been very kind and very attentive, and I appreciate it. The history of this amendment is that it began as a bill in the Senate. This bill passed out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee by unanimous consent. An identical bill passed through the House of Representatives under suspension. So in many respects it is noncontroversial. I also thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi of the HELP Committee for their help getting it through the HELP Committee unanimously and for clearing it for a vote here today on the floor. The bill at this point has nearly 60 cosponsors. It has 18 Republican cosponsors, and I thank them individually and by name: Senators Blunt, Boozman, Brown of Massachusetts, Chambliss, Cochran, Collins, Crapo, Grassley, Heller, Hutchison, Isakson, Kirk, Lugar, Moran, Murkowski, Rubio, Snowe, and Wicker, in addition to all my Democratic cosponsors. This is a bill that also has the support of the American Cancer Society, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, the Lung Cancer Alliance, and the American Association for Medical Research, as well as the American Association of Medical Colleges. What the bill does is asks that the National Institutes of Health convene and evaluate a discussion about what we call recalcitrant cancers. This actually began as a pancreatic cancer research bill, but it became apparent that there were some other cancers that we group now as what we call recalcitrant cancers in that they have not responded to treatment and research, and they remain cancers for which there has been little progress and survivability. And because they are so deadly and so lethal, we are trying to direct a little more attention out of NIH toward research on these cancers. For me, this has a personal component, as I know it does for many people who have been touched by pancreatic cancer. My mom died of pancreatic cancer, and I have a number of friends who have been touched by it in their families as well. I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has opposition to this. If he would like to state his piece, I will be delighted to yield the floor so he may do so now. I hope at the conclusion of his remarks we could move this by a voice vote rather than calling all of our colleagues back for another vote. But if he objects to that, then that is within his prerogatives. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside in order to call up amendment No. 3180.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the bill.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I ask the chairman if he wishes the amendment called up now and made pending or are we simply going to have discussion on it?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would like to be recognized at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Vermont for about 10 minutes.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, we are working toward a national defense authorization act, and as we do that, I rise to discuss the importance of assessing and planning for and mitigating the national security effects of climate change. Our changing climate is not simply a green issue invented by environmentalists and conservationists; climate change threatens our strategic interests, our military readiness, and our domestic security in many ways. It is a serious national security issue--so says not just me but the U.S. Department of Defense and, indeed, our national intelligence community. In 2011 the Defense Science Board provided the Secretary of Defense guidance for a governmentwide approach to preparing for the effects of climate change, concluding that ``climate change will only grow in concern for the United States and its security interests.'' The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review by the Department of Defense noted that climate change is one of the things that ``will play important roles in the future security environment.'' The White House's 2010 national security strategist stated that ``climate change . . . threaten(s) the security of regions and the health and safety of the American people.'' Back to 2008, Dr. Thomas Fingar, then Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, said that ``global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests for the next 20 years.'' In a report requested by the CIA, the National Research Council wrote this year that ``while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict.'' In 2006 the Center for Naval Analysis, a federally funded research and development center that has advised the Navy and Marine Corps since 1942, convened a military advisory board of retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals and asked them to report on national security and the threat of climate change. The report stated: While uncertainty exists . . . regarding . . . the future extent of projected climate change, the trends are clear. The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today . . . pose . . . grave implications for our national security. And, of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the 5 years since, the evidence has tracked the worst of those climate change projections, not the most gentle. Our Nation's top military strategists, our Nation's top researchers, the National Research Council, and the National Academy of Sciences all have recommended that our national security institutions prepare for threats caused by climate change. On the other hand, we have a tiny fringe of scientists, many of whom are funded by industry, that denies these facts and urges us to maintain the status quo. In effect, that little fringe urges us to do nothing. This is the same strategy, often the same organizations, and in some cases even the same people who denied in the past that cigarettes are bad for us or that lead paint harms children. They are professional, industry-paid deniers at large. The choice is a clear one, and I recommend we follow the findings of our military leaders. They have determined that climate change is real and that our national security requires us to reject the false science of the climate deniers. The National Intelligence Council has identified more than 30 U.S. military installations that are threatened by risks associated just with rising sea levels. One is Diego Garcia. It is a small island south of India and home to a logistics hub for U.S. and British forces in the Middle East and to Air Force Satellite Control Network equipment. The Navy reports that the average elevation of Diego Garcia is approximately 4 feet. Even absent a storm or tsunami, this installation is threatened by inundation from slow and steady sea level rise. The Norfolk Naval Air Station and Naval Base on the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay is the Navy's largest supply center and home to the U.S. Atlantic fleet. A New York Times analysis this past weekend using U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA data showed that a 5-foot sea level rise would permanently flood portions of that base. The base is at continuing risk, of course, from storm surges. By the way, a 5-foot sea level rise is now predicted to be a possibility in this century. Eglin Air Force Base on Florida's gulf coast, the largest Air Force base in the world, is threatened by storm surge, sea level rise, and saltwater infiltration. We know that climate change loads the dice for more and more severe extreme weather. Retired Brigadier General Steven Anderson and retired Lieutenant General Daniel Christman recently used Hurricane Katrina as an example of how extreme weather can cause what they call ``negative operational impacts'' to our military. In response to Katrina, the National Guard mobilized 58,000 National Guard members to the relief effort at the same time that 79,000 Guard members were deployed fighting the war on terrorism. The generals pointed out that although Louisiana's physical infrastructure did not hold, our National Guard did hold. But the limits of even our exceptional National Guard would be tested by these changes in extreme weather, and it is imperative that we prepare our emergency management and responders for a new normal of new extremes. Climate change will also create new strategic challenges. Climate events such as droughts and heat waves, floods and storms exacerbate political and military tensions in areas around the world with fragile governments and instability. This can result in violent conflict and in refugee problems. It is not just the shock of extreme weather that portends danger. As the temperature of the air and ocean steadily rises, the amount of moisture in the atmosphere will change and the composition of the oceans will change. Habitats will change, growing conditions will be altered, and the snows and glaciers that feed great rivers will change, changing the seasonal flows of the rivers. The world's great agricultural deltas will face both those changes in the rivers and rising sea levels. All of these changes will disrupt food supplies and water resources. Many poorer regions are unprepared to deal with the effects of famine, drought, crop failure, flooding, and disease that can be anticipated. These slower moving climate disasters will create migration, competition for resources, and government instability that in turn sets the stage for more international unrest. Last, the changing environment will affect our military's operating environment. Sea ice in the Arctic is already vanishing, and new Arctic waterways are opening. In September, Reuters reported that the first Chinese icebreaker crossed the Arctic, with the expedition leader explaining how surprised he was to find the route to be so open. In addition to new shipping routes, the reduction in Arctic sea ice makes oil, gas, and mineral exploration more likely there. These new operational challenges will expand the Coast Guard's mission along our Arctic borders and the Navy's mission in the Arctic Ocean. The Department of Defense and our intelligence community have accepted the science of climate change and the fact that we need to prepare for it. We customarily rely on the professional judgments of the sober and thoughtful leaders of these great national security organizations. Their assessments are based on sound and comprehensive science and analysis. I respect the solemn mission our national security institutions have to protect the United States and its interests, and I trust their judgment. Their judgment is echoed by significant Republican leaders. Our former colleague, Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, who was the chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, has said: Leading military and security experts agree that if left unchecked, global warming could increase instability and lead to conflict in already fragile regions of the world. He continued: We ignore these facts at the peril of our national security and at great risk to those in uniform who serve this nation. George Shultz was Secretary of Treasury and Labor and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Nixon, and the Secretary of State under President Reagan. He leads the Hoover Institution's Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy and has also served on the advisory boards of Stanford's Precourt Institute for Energy and MIT's Energy Initiative. In his words, ``. . . the globe is warming, which is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. The arctic is melting. If you could bring together the constituencies concerned with national security, the economy and the environment--both local and global--that would be a potent coalition.'' So I hope Members on both sides of the aisle can agree that when it comes to protecting our American interests at home and abroad, we should believe our national security institutions when they warn us of the security and strategic implications of climate change rather than align ourselves with a questionable fringe of industry-allied deniers. Ultimately, as I have said before on this floor, we are beholding to our children and grandchildren to do something about the carbon pollution that is causing this climate change. And history's verdict for our failure will be harsh. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

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

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet.) Without objection, it is so ordered.