Floor Statements

Mr. President, I welcome the remarks of the Senator from Arizona and my colleagues tonight for what I hope will be an enjoyable evening and will set the tone for further debates to follow.

Tonight we are talking about the important issue of Social Security. Let us begin by recognizing together that this is an important issue, one that deserves to be talked about with substance and in a direct and clear way. It is also an issue that we need to address with substantive legislation, because the one thing I think we can agree on is that not acting provides us with the greatest risk of all.

If we look at what the Social Security actuaries have said, the President's bipartisan commission has said, and countless committees in Congress which have looked at this issue have said and recognize that if we don't act, we are faced with the stark choices of raising taxes or cutting benefits, which is not something any of us wish to do.

We need to strengthen Social Security by improving the rate of return of investments made within the system, and strengthen Social Security by extending the solvency of the trust fund by, I believe, empowering individuals.

Tonight, I want to talk about that important notion, empowering individuals and allowing them, as part of the Social Security reform package, to invest a portion of what they pay in taxes every week in a personal retirement account. We are going to hear a lot tonight about how these personal retirement accounts might be risky, how we cannot trust individuals or count on individuals to make good choices or decisions, how we cannot count on the Government to enact a substantive regulatory regime that protects the markets or the individual investors, and how this is risky because it takes money out of the Social Security trust fund. But I believe we need to recognize that empowering individuals to make such investments and control their retirement accounts is central to strengthening the rate of return I talked about, to improving the solvency of the Social Security system, and making a stronger retirement system for future generations.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about here. The kinds of investment options that most all of the legislation that has been introduced deals with offer voluntary accounts but don't touch the benefits of anybody who is retired today or any near-retirees, and they still provide a guaranteed minimum benefit. If you look at the legislation introduced by Congressman Kolbe or Congressman Stenholm in the House, or Senators Gregg and Breaux in the Senate, or Congressman Nick Smith from Michigan in the House as well, these are pieces of legislation that reflect and respect the individual's strength to make good decisions, and the potential to improve the rate of return of the system, but at the same time protects the guaranteed minimum benefit that our retirees, and especially those without a strong economic means, have come to count on.

There are two issues I want to focus on in my remarks. First is this notion of empowerment and why it is so important to the strength of a retirement system that allows personal accounts. Second is the issue of solvency, on which I am sure we will get into some detail.

First, empowerment. When I talk about power, I think it is hard not to talk about money. Money is power; we all understand that working here in Washington. Any time we can take money out of Washington and return it to the individual or give the individual more control of their own money, we are strengthening and empowering them. In particular, these personal investment accounts--all of them I have seen structured in legislation more often than not increase opportunities for low-income people.

Those with high incomes in America have IRAs and 401(k)s; they have access to personal retirement accounts or retirement security investments that are independent from Government. Why is it that we are afraid to give that same economic empowerment to those at the lower side of the income scale?

These personal accounts create a real asset. Why are we afraid to allow individuals to control and own a real asset, a tangible asset that they can pass on to their family when they die? The opponents of personal retirement accounts say: We make a promise; we have a retirement promise within Social Security; we don't need to allow the individual to own the asset.

Well, I maintain that a promise is something very different than owning an asset. If you don't believe that, you can go to developing countries where they don't have private property rights, to former Communist countries where the state always promised to allow them to keep their land or promised to provide a pension. Owning something is very different indeed than simply having a government promise.

We want to empower them with a real asset that they can count on to be there when they retire. Over time, with a higher, stronger rate of return, the solvency of the overall retirement security system will be strengthened. The worst thing is to do nothing.

Between 2017 and 2041, we will begin paying out of Social Security. We may have Social Security surpluses today, and the trust fund may be growing today, but come 2017 it will stop growing and begin to shrink. There will be $6 trillion in outflows from general revenues in that timeframe and a $25 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years.

If we don't take action, we will be forced to increase taxes or forced to cut benefits. But thoughtful, substantive action that includes the power of personal retirement accounts will make a difference for the individuals across the entire country.

There is a lot of opposition here because these are not Government- controlled investments. There is a lot of opposition because the individuals won't be beholden to the whims of the Government. There is a lot of opposition here because some people don't want to harness the power of private markets, the power of compound interest, and the power of economic growth in order to create something that the Federal Government no longer controls.

I submit that those individuals and workers who are paying 13 percent today in payroll taxes will benefit greatly from this change. I think the risk is not to act. I think we need to act, and I look forward to hearing from the other side.

Mr. President, in their opening statements we heard the other side use the word ``guarantee'' numerous times. To be sure, my colleagues and I believe strongly in the moral obligation that we have to ensure a sound retirement system. But to simply say ``guarantee,'' ``guarantee,'' as if that will solve the fundamental problems in our retirement security system is a huge mistake and it ignores both demographics and the baby boom generation and history because, we all know, in 1977 and 1983, significant changes were made.

We are willing to stand up and talk about ways that have been actuarially shown to strengthen the solvency of the system, but we still have not heard a single idea or proposal of substance from the other side. If you are not going to cut benefits, and you are not going to raise taxes, what ever are you going to do?

If the Senator from Pennsylvania will yield on this point because it was a confusing question, to say the least, but I think it gets the facts completely wrong. There are pieces of legislation that protect the guaranteed minimum benefit and that make no changes to those in the current system. To suggest that simply the act of proposing to allow some worker to control 2 or 3 percent of what they earn every week in a private account means that somebody else's benefits will be cut is simply demagoguery.

The Senator from Pennsylvania addressed the question of pay me now or pay me later. To be sure, if you allow personal accounts to be set up, you won't have as much money flowing into the trust fund today, but you will earn a rate of return and increase the value of those accounts in such a way that the total value of all the assets in your retirement system will be greater in the long run.

I think the Senator who worked on Wall Street understands that fact. I think anyone who has an IRA or a 401(k) understands that fact.

The legislation that has been introduced in a bipartisan way in this Chamber and in the House has been scored by the Social Security actuary to increase the solvency of the Social Security trust fund over that 75-year window.

That may be a frustration to those who vehemently oppose personal accounts in any way, shape, or form, but it is a fact. The Social Security actuaries are not partisan in this debate.

Mr. President, we always hear the opponents of personal accounts talk about risk. They love to talk about the fact that the market was down yesterday or the day before, or a particular stock didn't perform well. But, of course, nobody is talking about investing their retirement savings in the market the day before they retire. We are not even talking about investment for 1 or 2 years. We are talking about investing for 20, 30, or 35 years. Everybody knows the market goes up and down. But in a portfolio that is balanced and that is mixed with stocks and bonds, or with a blend of the two, the return over the long term will be strong but will be much higher than you could otherwise get from Social Security.

As a proof of that, I ask my colleagues if they can find any 20-year period in the last 100 years when this stock market didn't outperform U.S. Treasuries?

Mr. President, let me provide for my colleagues an example of what it is to answer a question: No. Of course not.

Cutting taxes is about strengthening the economy. If you have not noticed, we have been in a recession. When you are in a recession, you want the economy to grow because economic growth is the single most important thing to increasing revenues. If you want to balance the budget, you need to do two things: Strengthen the economy and strengthen revenue growth, and of

course control spending. I am not willing to forgo the tax cuts that have strengthened the economy.

When we asked the Democrats in this Chamber tonight for a plan to strengthen Social Security, we heard no answer. When we pointed out that the long-term success of markets in generating economic growth and a strong rate of return is historically without argument, they ignored the question. When we asked about the success of personal retirement accounts in country after country around the world, they changed the subject and decided they wanted to talk about health care.

We cannot ignore the challenge before us. We have talked about substantive solutions here. The suggestion that simply because we are creating personal accounts means we have to cut benefits and the fact that the Democrats want to ignore the rate of return that strengthens the assets in the entire system is not reason not to take action. We need to take action. We need to take up this challenge. And we need to be clear in the answers to the questions that are being asked tonight.

Mr. President, to that point about this suggestion that there is $2 trillion or $3 trillion--the number seems to get greater-- in this so-called hole that does not exist because in the long run the system will be in better actuarial balance and because those assets will always be part of this system--to this point precisely, the nonpartisan actuaries of Social Security found that under a reformed system as proposed by the President's commission almost all workers could expect to receive higher benefits with a personal account plan, and the biggest increase in benefits would go to low-income workers.

In 2050, a low-wage retiree could expect 26 percent higher benefits from the commission's personal account proposal. Why, if this kind of a proposal is not just actuarially sound but better for low-income workers, are my opponents unwilling to even consider the idea of personal accounts?

Mr. President, earlier in the debate I made clear that it was frustrating that we had asked the other side for a proposal, a plan, specifics to strengthen the Social Security system, and they had not given an answer.

Here, finally, in the last minutes of a debate that has gone over 1 hour, we get an answer: They will commit to raising taxes. Because to suspend or eliminate tax cuts in order to cover this shortfall in Social Security is to make a firm commitment that you will raise taxes, that you will take new taxes into the general revenues and divert them to Social Security. That is a tax increase. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Every worker in the country already pays over 12 percent of their payroll every week in taxes into the Social Security system. I say that is enough. We can reform, strengthen, and vitalize this program by empowering workers, giving them the option to control 2 or 3 or 4 percent of those payroll taxes every week and put it in a personal retirement account, not to gamble it on penny stocks but to put it in a fund similar to the Federal Thrift Savings Plan, a mixed basket of stocks, a very secure investment in bonds, perhaps a mix of the two, to invest not for 1 or 2 years but for 20 or 30 or 40 years; empower workers today to control more of what they earn. Surely that is a good thing for those workers because it gives them an asset they can leave to their family.

When we take money out of the hands of bureaucrats and give more control to individuals, we are making them more powerful and, to be sure, we are making the bureaucracies less powerful. That is indeed a step in the right direction.

When they set up these accounts, the assets don't disappear or go away. They stay part of the retirement security system. If you look at the proposal just introduced last week by Representative Nick Smith, that has been scored by the actuaries as returning more to the system in the long run to cover any shortfall that you claim. Whether it is $500 million or $500 billion or $1 trillion or $2 trillion, whatever number you choose to pick today, over the long run there are more assets in the system to be used to pay benefits, and that is what makes it actuarially sound. That is what makes it a good idea for workers and a good idea for the American people.

I thank my colleagues.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:45 a.m., the Senate stand in recess until 1 p.m.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan resolution. This is a debate and an issue that does bring us in touch with a number of the important issues discussed by the Senator from Virginia: free speech, media concentration, consolidation. It certainly affects our media markets and the shape of those media markets for years to come. But, at its heart, this is really a question of regulation, a new set of regulations, a different set of regulations put forward by the FCC, dealing with who can buy, who can own different kinds of media outlets--newspapers, TV, radio stations, and the like-- and what kind of limits we are going to put on them.

So it is a debate about regulation and how much regulation is the appropriate amount on the part of the Federal Government. To what degree do we want the Federal Government interfering with, limiting, and manipulating the media that we as consumers enjoy and use in our daily lives? What level of regulation is appropriate and is really required to uphold some very important principles that you have heard the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from North Dakota and many others speak of--principles of localism, competition, and diversity, principles that we support, that the FCC works to support anytime it looks at a regulatory issue such as this one?

How much regulation do we really require to protect these important principles? This is not a debate about the poor quality of the TV that we might go home and look at, or look away from, every night. In some ways, I wish this were a debate about improving the quality of television because if we could just do that by a simple adjustment of these regulations, then we probably would all feel much better about the quality of television. But we can't.

To suggest this is about the quality of the television we see in any part of the country is to suggest that you believe limiting, say, Fox Corporation to the 35 stations it owns today versus the 40 or 42 or 44, or some number it might own at a future date with the new regulations, that somehow that would affect the quality of the programming we see. I think that is ridiculous. I don't think that program quality would be improved if we forced NBC to get rid of 8 of its 29 stations or 10 or 12 stations within the limits that we are talking about that any one of these companies owns. I don't think it would in any way affect the quality of television.

I am the father of three children. I am as frustrated as any parent about the search for good quality programming. I am frustrated about the poor quality of programming that is often put on television in the prime time hour. But that is the nature of modern media--whether it is cable or radio or television or even newspapers. We are not all going to be happy as Americans with everything that comes across the channels.

At the same time, I very much support the process that the Senator from North Dakota is using here, the Congressional Review Act. I think it does bear some emphasis because some people have come to the floor and have been somewhat critical of the process being used here--using the Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a regulation that a Member of Congress or a Member of the Senate doesn't like. But that is exactly what the law was intended to do.

It is a law that was passed, I am pleased to say, when Republicans took control of Congress back in 1995. They said we ought to have as a Congress--as a House or as a Senate--a way to register disapproval; to repeal regulations that are put forward all the time

by very large bureaucracies, or different branches of the executive regulating commerce, or regulating the environment, or regulating the forestry issues, or, in this case, regulating the media. It is a very appropriate use of the act, but it is a resolution with which I strongly disagree. I will talk about those reasons this afternoon.

We are here obviously because the Senator from North Dakota has submitted this resolution of disapproval, or rejection of these new regulations, but the regulations were put forward in the first place primarily because of a couple of issues.

The first was in 1996. The Telecommunications Act sets the guidelines under which the FCC acts; that calls on the FCC to reconsider regulations that do not serve the principles of localism, competition, or diversity, and doesn't seem necessary to promote these competitive forces, or to serve the public.

The 1996 act actually calls on the members of the FCC to do exactly what they did; that is, reconsider these regulations and modify them if they believe it is in the public interest and the right thing to do.

Second, related to that legislation but even more current is the action of the courts recently. The courts struck down or remanded several of the media regulations--in particular, the 35-percent cap which we will talk about--and called on the FCC to either revise or justify the regulations that were on the books.

So you have two forces coming to bear. I am sure the FCC Commissioners weren't dying to throw themselves into the issue, but they were called upon effectively to do so by the courts and by the legislation that this very Congress passed in 1996.

These are proposals--I think as the Senator from Virginia discussed-- which were very long in the making. It was not a spur of the moment recommendation or a spur of the moment change in regulations. For 20 months, there were deliberations, collecting comments, soliciting comments, and several hearings that took place. People came forward and spoke for and against different rules and for and against different concepts for changing those rules and to argue their point of view--to argue the very reasons they thought a change in the existing rules might be in keeping with the goals of the 1996 act and the three principles of localism, competition, and diversity.

There was a thorough process, not one that was without any disagreement but a great country, a strong country, and one where we take great pride in our ability to debate and discuss these issues with one another.

Let me talk about three of the proposals and the reasons I think at the end of this very thorough and very complete process, resulting in the rules put forward by the FCC, the reason I think the rules make sense, and why I don't think we should be rushing to repeal them or reject them. I believe there are several negative consequences of repealing these rules, which I will speak about at the end of my presentation.

First, we are talking about a proposal that will take the current 35- percent cap to 45 percent.

What does the 35-percent cap mean? Is it 35 percent of the television market share? It is not 35 percent of the television viewers on any particular night or any particular hour. It is not 35 percent of the television station. It is a cap on owning stations that can reach 35 percent of the population, the immense concentration that we hear about. Take NBC, for example, which owns 29 television stations. That is less than 2 percent of the number of full-power television stations in the country. I think they are the largest owner of stations. Perhaps Fox Corporation may own 35 stations, close to 2.5 percent of the full- power television stations. This is just a limit on the amount of viewers you can reach if every viewer out there happens to be watching your station.

If you look at, as I said, the number of stations that are owned, we are talking about a very small number on a percentage basis. Opponents of the rules and supporters of this resolution will say, well, let us talk about the six big companies. Those six big companies control 75 percent of the television viewers.

First, to suggest you are being controlled when you choose what you want to watch on television any given night, I think, misunderstands what television viewers are all about. But even if you look at those numbers--six companies, 75 percent of the viewers--let us go back 20 or 30 years; it used to be that there were three companies which had 90 percent of the viewers. I think things have changed in that regard for the better. But the numbers are even more striking if you break them apart further.

Those six companies may have 75 percent of the viewers because their shows happen to be popular, but they have fewer than 25 percent of the channels that would typically come through your cable or your satellite outlet.

On that cable dial, all channels are created equal. We used to be segmented in VHF and UHF. But today a majority of people receive their television through cable or through satellite. Channel 85 and channel 42 are just as likely to attract viewers, depending on the quality of their program.

It is a pretty fair fight when you think about it--pretty fair competition among the dozens of stations on the dial. Those six companies only control or own fewer than 25 percent of the channels. There is greater competition in that regard and greater diversity in that regard not only than we had 30 years ago but, quite frankly, than most people could have imagined 30 years ago.

With all the discussion about localism--it is a very important thing, indeed--there has been no connection shown between localism and a larger concentrated owner of these stations. Simply because a TV station is owned by one of the larger corporations does not mean it shows less local programming. It is a very important point. This has been studied. You can look at it empirically, look at NBC, Fox, or ABC- owned stations, and measure how much local programming they put on any given day and compare it to independently owned stations around the country and measure how much local programming there is on any given day. There is no difference. To the extent there is a difference, one of the most comprehensive studies the FCC relied upon showed a slight increase in local programming among those owned by the larger media entities.

Localism is important. To be sure, the FCC maintains its ability to press for and emphasize localism, diversity, and competition when they make decisions of who can and cannot purchase a license. And all of the purchases of licenses--radio, TV--are still subject to FCC review and still subject to antitrust laws that govern monopoly power in this country. So that is one of their regulations. Probably the one that gets the most discussion is the movement from a path of 35 to 45 percent of the audience that could be reached by all the stations.

The second regulation that received a lot of discussion is the issue of cross-ownership, whether you can allow a company that has a newspaper to also own a TV or radio station. Here we actually have cases we can look at. The FCC did look at it and asked the question, Where cross-ownership occurs, are localism, competition, and diversity poorly served? Do we have problems? Do we have conflicts of interest? Do we see a reduction in the responsiveness of the media outlets to local community needs? We can look at existing evidence because there were 40 markets that were grandfatherd by the FCC, 40 markets where entities already engage in cross-ownership. There was no harm found by the FCC. That certainly does not mean everyone is happy with everything that newspaper or radio station or TV that has cross-ownership produced. I am sure we will hear from Members that might in their remarks speak to personal experiences where they do not feel they were treated well by a newspaper or radio station. That is unfortunate for them.

But that is the nature of the country's free media and free markets. It is something that ultimately, when we get over the personal feelings, every member of this Chamber is proud of, that this country allows such a free and open media.

Again, where cross-ownership issues come into play and purchases of TV or radio station and all spectrum come into play, the principles of localism, competition, and diversity will be protected, but antitrust provisions still hold. That is important to remember.

A third and final area of regulatory change or regulations that has been discussed in this debate is radio ownership. There is a little bit of irony here because this is something that cuts close to home for the Senator from North Dakota, the celebrated case in his State where one company was able to acquire six or seven radio stations that all covered one particular region of the State, a very clear case of dominance of radio in a particular region of the State. But with regard to radio ownership limits, the FCC actually tightened the regulations. There is no change to the regulations on the number of stations you can own in a particular market in an attempt by the FCC to actually tighten the definition of market areas in order to prevent that unfortunate situation from happening again.

We can critique the radio stations or the large radio station owners, talk about their business practices or things we liked or disliked about them, and there are important points to make, but they do not really have any bearing on this debate because even if this CRA provision offered and were to pass, there would be no significant modification to the radio ownership structures.

If the resolution passes, it does have a number of other counterproductive effects that concern me. First and foremost, it would surely send these issues back to the courts. That is one of the reasons--not the only reason but one of the reasons--the FCC acted in the first place because the courts had said there is no justification for the regulations as currently structured. So if this resolution passes and were to pass the House and get signed into law--which is unlikely to happen, and I certainly do not support it--if it were to be signed into law, this would all be thrown back into the courts and we would have a very uncertain environment for ownership, for media, for evaluation, and for business. Whether you are an entity large or small, independent or corporately owned, it would create an uncertain marketplace.

Second, this resolution turns back the clock. I don't believe that is a good thing, in that turning back the clock would ignore the enormous changes we have seen to the industry over the last 10 years, let alone the last 20 or 30 years. A number of the regulations that are modified or adjusted by the FCC date back 30 or 40 years to their original crafting.

I know it is difficult to picture what the state of television was for many of the younger Members of the Chamber, but I amaze my children constantly when I describe it in a world where you had to walk across the room to change the channel on your television. I am old enough to remember those days and they seem not so long ago, indeed. Times have changed enormously. Regulations dealing with this industry and with the media markets need to be updated to keep pace with the evolution of technology, to protect the values of localism, competition, and diversity, but they do need to evolve with the changes in technology.

A third and final concern if this resolution were to pass was raised by FCC Chairman Michael Powell in a piece he authored yesterday or today for publication. That is, it could well portend the end of free TV. Rolling back these regulations with the passage of this act could result in the end of free TV. It sounds like a pretty dramatic claim. I think it bears some additional description. How could that be?

Free TV depends on advertising for its revenues. Cable TV depends on both advertising revenue and cable subscriptions--monthly fees or per- show fees paid to watch programming. Simply put, that is a better business model. Anyone can see that. Pay TV has a better, stronger, more robust business model. If you do not believe it, look at the migration of so-called quality programming--sports, entertainment, even certain forms of news programming from free TV to cable TV over the last 3 or 4 or 5 years, let alone the last 10 or 15 years. Go back 10 or 15 years, it is a wholesale migration, but you can see changes in the last 3, 4, or 5 years.

If we repeal the rules, we create a tougher competitive environment and more restrictive competitive environment for the free TV networks or stations. You put them at a competitive disadvantage relative to cable and pay TV. So the acceleration and the movement of that so- called quality programming to cable TV will only accelerate and make it tougher and tougher to sustain any level of quality among free TV in the marketplace.

I could be cynical and say, That is fine with me. I don't care. I have cable TV and I will still continue to get lots of channels, lots of entertainment, lots of news, and lots of sports. Many people would argue, and part of me certainly would argue, that there is a value and a benefit to free TV especially in those areas of our country that are at an economic disadvantage, where cable TV does not have the penetration of urban areas and where people simply cannot afford to pay for cable TV.

Those are serious considerations. The effect of free TV, turning back the clock with regard to the evolution of technology and throwing the issues back into the courts, all of those would be cause to reject this resolution in and of themselves.

But on top of that, we see that the radio ownership regulations are effectively untouched. Cross-ownership has already proven its ability to work in the marketplace without harming the principles of localism, competition, and diversity. And the adjustment from 35 percent to 45 percent of national ownership cap, I would contend, is modest. It is very modest, indeed, when you look at what the true market share numbers are and the number of channels.

This is an important debate. I appreciate being given time to talk on these issues. I do hope my colleagues step forward to reject this resolution, although, as I say, I certainly respect the way in which it has been offered and the process the Senator from North Dakota has gone through to get us to this debate.

We respect the ideals of free speech, of democracy, and we work to promote the idea of competition and diversity in media ownership. I believe that is exactly what the FCC has done and attempted to do in crafting these regulations. I hope we will reject this resolution and continue to move forward in a thoughtful way, and to a world and to an age of technology and media that, frankly, we can't quite picture today which will be exciting, will provide opportunities, and will continue to promote the ideals of free speech upon which this country was founded.

I thank you, Mr. President, and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., Friday, August 1. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will be in a period for morning business. There will be no rollcall votes tomorrow but Senators who wish to make statements are encouraged to come to the floor during tomorrow's session.

Tomorrow the Senate will recess for the August district work period. The majority leader will make further announcements on the schedule tomorrow, but I inform my colleagues that the next vote will occur on Wednesday, September 3, and all Members will be notified when that vote is scheduled.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to H.R. 2859, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, while I very much appreciate what the minority leader is attempting to do in his concern for funding in these areas, I object to his request at this time.

Mr. President, I have a pending unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to H.R. 2859, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

As in executive session I ask, notwithstanding paragraph 6 of rule 3, all nominations stand in status quo during the upcoming adjournment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 17, 18, 175, 242, 250, 297, 311, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322 through 340, 341, and 342, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations: PN 789, Donald Steinberg; PN 805, Constance Morella; and PN 820, George Walker.

I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2854.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1547 introduced earlier today by Senators Bingaman and Domenici.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2465.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 172, S. 1025.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee amendments be agreed to and considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment; that the managers' amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time; that the Senate then proceed to Calendar No. 184, H.R. 2417, the House companion, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1025, as amended, be inserted; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

In addition, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist upon its amendments and request a conference with the House.

I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees from the Intelligence Committee; further, that the Chair appoint conferees from the Armed Services Committee in the ratio of 1 to 1 for matters that fall within their jurisdiction.

Further, I ask consent that S. 1025 be returned to the calendar.