May 4, 1977
Page 13578
UP AMENDMENT NO. 191
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, does the Senator from California plan to call up his amendment? I ask the Senator whether he is willing to enter into a unanimous consent agreement. There was a discussion earlier of an agreement which would give him 40 minutes and the committee 10. Could we reduce that time some more?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. I think that is about the minimum.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator thinks that is about the minimum?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time limitation on the Hayakawa amendment be divided, 40 minutes for the proponent and10 minutes for the floor manager of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Before we agree to that, Mr. President, I should like to say that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) have asked for 10 minutes each on their matters. I should like to have that arranged, if possible.
Mr. MUSKIE. That would be fine, because that has the effect of limiting the time on those two requests. I have no objection to that. That is a contribution, I think.
Do I correctly understand that of the 40 minutes, the Senator plans to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. I see. That is in addition.
Does the Senator know what is going on at 7:30 this evening?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Who watches television? I will be glad to take an hour on my side.
Mr. MUSKIE,. The Senator requires an hour on his side?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Yes. So I can yield some time to the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. MUSKIE. I see.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time limitation be 1 hour and 10 minutes — 1 hour to be assigned to the Senator from California, 10 minutes to the floor manager of the bill. I understand that from that time, the Senator from California plans to yield to Senator ROTH and Senator STEVENS.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could this time be after the vote — the time for the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Alaska? Could that time come after the vote?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. They desire to be elsewhere, too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Florida object?
Mr. CHILES. I object, but I am not objecting.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me make sure that I understand..
There was an original agreement for a time limitation of 1 hour to the junior Senator from California and 10 minutes to the manager of the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. The original request was 40 and 10. The request now is 60 and 10, with the understanding that the time for the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Alaska will be yielded to them out of the time allotted to the Senator from California.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time limitation is agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator wish to ask for the yeas and nays?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send his amendment to the desk?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California (Mr. HAYAKAWA), for himself, Mr. SCHWEICKER, Mr. CURTIS and Mr. HATCH, proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 191:
On page 1, line 9, delete "$497,400,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$495,400,000,000".
On page 3, line 21, delete "$27,100,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$25,100,000,000".
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement by Mr. GOLDWATER in connection with this matter, together with the bill to which he refers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
STATEMENT BY MR. GOLDWATER
As the Chairman of the Committee, my good friend from Maine, knows, I, together with 23 other Senators, sent the Committee a letter in February requesting that the First Budget Resolution for 1978 take account of 13 bills which have been introduced in the Senate to repeal or phase out the earnings limitation of the Social Security Act. At this time, I want to assure the Senator that we were not seeking in any way to go around the normal authorization process, but were concerned with avoiding a technical argument later that we should have informed the Budget Committee of our plans before going ahead with our proposals.
Now, approximately one half of the Senate is committed to one or another of the bills already pending to correct the earnings test. In fact, a bill, S. 146, I have introduced to completely repeal the test at age 65 is being sponsored by 33 Senators, one-third of the Senate.
Thus, there are many of us in this body who wish to have some assurance from the Budget Committee that the targets set forth in the Committee's Resolution not foreclose their opportunity to raise this matter before the Finance Committee later in the year. I am confident the answer is, "No," but wished to develop this fact before the Senate completed action on the pending Resolution.
It is clear that the Budget Act contemplates at least two Budget Resolutions each year, first the target setting one adopted by May 15 and then the binding one adopted by September 15. This means there is nothing at all in the budget procedure that would hinder Senators wishing to improve Social Security benefits from seeking budget authority in the Finance Committee prior
to action on the Second Budget Resolution. If the Finance Committee should adopt our proposal, it could report the recommendation for new program authority to the Budget Committee, which in turn could recommend inclusion of the added authority in September.
Moreover, I wish to take this occasion to assure my colleagues that approval of elimination of the earnings test of Social Security for workers age 65 and older would not be anywhere near as costly as some of the wild estimates I have seen. For one thing, none of the estimates reflect the additional income tax that would be paid by older persons who continue working. Nor do any of them take account of the Social Security payroll taxes they would continue paying while they work, regardless of their age.
I should add that the American Association of Retired Persons believes it is possible the retirement test can be eliminated with little additional cost in the context of a reform of Social Security programs which contains savings to the system as well as benefit changes.
So the cost will not be anywhere near to what some people think.
Finally, I would like to make known a few more brief facts about the legislation which so many Senators have offered:
First, my colleagues should be aware that 13 different bills have been introduced in the Senate to repeal or phase out the earnings limit of the Social Security Act and that 110 similar bills in all have been presented in the Senate and House of Representatives during only the first four months of this session.
Second, I would like Senators to know that the American Medical Association Committee on Aging has stated its conviction that laws which force premature retirement upon persons are disastrous to their health and shorten the life of many aged persons.
Third, it should be clearly understood that the earnings test discriminates against the lower income worker, whose wages don't allow him to invest in stocks, bonds, and other investments, because there is no ceiling on non-wage income.
Fourth, many economists believe the cost of keeping the earnings limitation is greater than the cost of repealing it. It visibly holds down the gross national product by depriving the economy of the skills and labor of older persons.
Fifth, under the present law, workers can argue this money belongs to them and is not the government's to keep since they have paid taxes into the system all their working years.
I hope this will be the year for repeal of the earning test.
I ask that the text of S. 146, including the names of all cosponsors; be in the Record.
S. 146
Mr. GOLDWATER (for himself, Mr. ABOUREZK, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. GARN,
Mr. INOUYE, Mr. LAXALT, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. MORGAN, Mr. NUNN, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr.
STAFFORD, Mr. STONE, Mr. WEICKER, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr.
STEVENS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. CANNON, Mr. PELL, Mr. DOLE, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr.
DECONCINI, Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR., Mr. CASE, Mr. JAVITS,
Mr. HANSEN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. CHAFEE, and Mr. SCHMITT
introduced the bill; which was read twice and referred to the committee on Finance.
A bill to repeal the earnings limitation of the Social Security Act for all workers age sixty-five and over
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) subsections (c) (1), (d) (1), (f) (1), and (j) of section 203 of the Social Security Act are each amended by striking out "seventy-two"and inserting in lieu thereof "sixty-five".
(b) Subsection (f) (3) of section 203 of such Act is amended by striking out "age 72" and inserting in lieu thereof "age 65".
(c) Subsection (h) (1) (A) of section 203 of such Act is amended by striking out "the age of 72" and "age 72" and inserting in lieu thereof in each instance "age 65".
(d) The heading of subsection (j) of section 203 of such Act is amended by striking out "Seventy-two" and inserting in lieu thereof "Sixty-five".
SEC. 2. The amendments made by the first section of this Act shall apply only with respect to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 10 minutes to me now?
Does the Senator wish to request the yeas and nays first?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from California yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. I do.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator.
I point out that we could have asked, under the Budget Act, as I understand it, for 1 hour. We are seeking to shorten the time.
I agreed, on behalf of the Senator from Arizona, to raise this question in the form of a colloquy with the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. MUSKIE, for his courtesy and consideration of an important matter.
There is a great deal of support in the Senate to increase the ceiling on the earnings limitation of the Social Security Act. In this session, about 14 bills have been introduced in the Senate with regard to social security earnings requirements. Twenty-four Senators have cosigned a letter to both the chairman of the Budget Committee (Mr. MUSKIE) and the chairman of the Finance Committee (Mr. LONG) to express our support and request consideration of this legislation in this session of Congress.
The response we received from the Budget Committee to include funding in the first concurrent resolution for fiscal year 1978 for implementing such a social security proposal was encouraging. However, we find that there is no mention in the budget resolution that this matter was considered in recommending the budget ceilings of the social security program.
We are in complete agreement with the budget chairman that it is the function and jurisdiction of the Finance Committee to authorize this legislation. We would not, in any way, want to encourage the Budget Committee to legislate this in the budget resolution. What we are looking for, however, is an indication that the budget resolution does not preclude the Finance Committee from taking up the earnings limitation matter during this session of Congress.
It has become increasingly clear that certain changes may be needed in the current structure of the social security program. The need to increase the earnings test ceiling for individuals most seriously affected by limited income, those between the ages of 65 to 72, is generally supported by Members of the Senate. I would like to encourage consideration of this important issue and hope that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget will agree with our concern.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letters that were sent to the committee chairmen and the response we have received be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.,
March 21, 1977.
Hon. TED STEVENS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR TED: Thank you for your well documented letter regarding legislation to liberalize the Social Security earnings limitation. I can assure you that your proposal will be specifically presented to the Budget Committee when we begin markup later this month on the First Budget Resolution for fiscal year 1978.
I want to thank you and your colleagues for alerting the Budget Committee well in advance to the need to consider changes in Social Security benefit provisions.
As you know, of course, the Budget Resolution itself is prepared on an aggregate, not a "line item" basis. That is, we will recommend a set of spending and revenue targets which includes the Social Security program but will not delineate all its detail. That is the appropriate function of the Finance Committee in this case. Under the provisions of the Budget Act, the Conference Report on the Budget Resolution will allocate to the Finance Committee (and similarly in the case of other committees) the total amount of spending allocable to that Committee's jurisdiction under the Resolution, but again will not specify any assumptions as to how the total spending must be subdivided by the Finance Committee in its consideration of the various bills and programs under its jurisdiction. Thus, any allowance for new Social Security legislation will be in competition with other legislation the Finance Committee may consider.
As you are aware, an important consideration for the Finance Committee and for the Senate itself in the case of proposals such as you have made to increase the rate of expenditure from the Social Security Trust Fund is the condition of that Trust Fund itself and whether additional taxes must be assessed to finance it. The financial condition of the Social Security Trust Fund is a matter of continuing concern which I am sure you share, and it presently appears that some increase in the Social Security tax may be required within the next few years, even with no such changes in the present law as your letter proposed. (I am sure you agree that tax increases, especially in the Social Security area, must be carefully considered, particularly because of the adverse impact such increases have during a period of economic sluggishness.)
I have taken the liberty of sharing your important letter and its enclosures and my response with all the members of the BudgetCommittee.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
February 28, 1977.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman,
Senate Budget Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ED: We each are sponsors or cosponsors of various proposals to remove or lift the ceiling of the earnings limitation of the Social Security Act.
Since we intend to press for action on our legislation to become effective in fiscal year 1978, we urge that you include adequate funds in the first Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 1978, to implement whichever of our proposals may be enacted. It would require from $1.5 to $3 billion in the first year to finance the change we propose, depending upon which is adopted.
Our basic arguments against the means test are as follows:
(1) It is viewed as a broken promise to employees who have been led to believe benefits will be paid as "a matter of right" due to the premiums which they and their employers have made over lifetimes of work.
(2) It turns a contributory program into a welfare program since a worker must prove he has a need, due to a loss in wages, in order to qualify for benefits.
(3) The test is discriminatory against the poor who are without non-wage income, such as interest, rentals or dividends.
(4) It may shorten the life of some aged persons by compelling them into early retirement against their wishes.
(5) It injures the national economy in terms of real output by driving out of the work force an important productive resource, the skills and labor of the elderly.
Supporting materials are enclosed. We would be happy to testify on behalf of our proposals if you should wish to hold hearings on this subject.
Sincerely,
Barry Goldwater, Richard Stone, Ted Stevens, Dennis DeConcini, Dewey Bartlett, Claiborne Pell, Clifford Case,Mark O. Hatfield, Robert Stafford, Daniel Inouye, Robert Morgan, Patrick Leahy, Dale Bumpers, John McClellan, Jesse Helms, Charles Mathias, Jake Garn, Sam Nunn, Strom Thurmond, Lowell Weicker, James Abourezk, John Melcher, Howard Cannon, Jacob Javits.
U.S.SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
February 28,1977.
RUSSELL B. LONG,
Chairman,
Senate Finance Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR RUSSELL: We each are sponsors or cosponsors of various proposals to remove or lift the ceiling of the earnings limitation of the Social Security Act.
Since we intend to press for action on our legislation to become effective in fiscal year 1978, we urge that you include adequate revenue and spending authority in the authorization bill which is to be reported by your Committee by March 15, to implement whichever of our proposals may be enacted. It would require from $1.5 to $3 billion in the first year to finance the change we propose, depending upon which is adopted.
Our basic arguments against the means test are as follows:
(1) It is viewed as a broken promise to employees who have been led to believe benefits will be paid as "a matter of right" due to the premiums which they and their employers have made over lifetimes of work.
(2) It turns a contributory program into a welfare program since a worker must prove he has a need, due to a loss in wages, in order to qualify for benefits.
(3) The test is discriminatory against the poor who are without non-wage income, such as interest, rentals or dividends.
(4) It may shorten the life of some aged persons by compelling them into early retirement against their wishes.
(5) It injures the national economy in terms of real output by driving out of the work force an important productive resource, the skills and labor of the elderly.
We urge that your Committee hold hearings on this subject at the earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
Barry Goldwater, Richard Stone, Ted Stevens, Dennis DeConcini, Dewey F.Bartlett, Claiborne Pell, Clifford P. Case, Mark O. Hatfield, Robert Stafford, Daniel Inouye, Robert Morgan,Patrick Leahy, Dale Bumpers, John McClellan, Jesse Helms, Charles McC. Mathias, Jake Garn, Sam Nunn, StromThurmond, Lowell Weicker, James Abourezk, John Melcher, Howard Cannon, Jacob Javits.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope that we can, as the Senator from Arizona requests, have an answer to our questions as to whether or not the action taken by the committee, in the opinion of the committee, precludes the consideration by the Committee on Finance prior to the consideration of the Second Budget Resolution of the legislation we have sponsored.
I yield the remainder of my 10 minutes to Senator STONE.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. STONE. As the chairman probably knows, the reason I am asking these questions is because it is my intention to press for action to lift or to repeal the earnings limitation provision in the Social Security Act.
Under present law, the social security recipient who is between 65 and 72 years of age is denied $1 in social security payments for every $2 earned over $3,000 a year. This means that a social security beneficiary who receives the average $206.58 monthly payment loses all social security benefits if he or she earns $7,717 in a year.
This provision forces many senior citizens who are able and willing to work, to retire or limit drastically their earnings in order to receive social security benefits. This is a terrible injustice to American working men and women who have been led to believe that social security benefits will be paid to them as a matter of right when they reach a certain age. This right is earned by years and years of payroll deductions and matching payments by employers.
In view of the continuing rise in the cost of living, we must recognize that social security alone does not provide enough money for many people to live on. We should remove the legal barrier for those who can help provide for themselves. Can we afford to waste the specialized skills of our senior citizens by discouraging them from working? Do we wish to force our senior citizens to live unproductive lives when they have further energy and ambition? I do not think so.
Congress originally intended social security to be a supplemental security program. People were encouraged to add to their social security protection through private pension plans, savings, and continued employment. At present, however, the law nearly forces people to fall into the ranks of the indigent in order to receive benefits.
Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Maine—
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr: President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RIEGLE). The Senate is not in order. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. STONE. I ask the Senator from Maine if he would yield for questions along the lines of the points raised by the Senator from Alaska and by my statement.
Is it not true that this first concurrent resolution on the budget sets forth targets as opposed to requirements to which the Congress must respond?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is true. This resolution sets targets that are supposed to be meaningful.
Mr. STONE. The second concurrent resolution expected later this year will set binding ceilings to which we must adhere?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. STONE. Is it not also true that you have prepared the budget resolution on an aggregate basis rather than on a line item basis?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STONE. And, therefore, is it not the position of the Senator from Maine that it is the Budget Committee's responsibility to recommend a set of spending and revenue targets, including the social security program, without really delineating all of their details?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the nature of our responsibility.
Mr. STONE. And, therefore, is it still not the appropriate function of the Committee on Finance to explore such details as the work limitation ceiling that the Senator from Alaska or the Senator from Arizona and others, as well as the Senator from Florida, the Senator now speaking, are interested in?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the Committee on Finance's responsibility.
But may I add to that answer that the whole purpose of the procedure set out in the Budget Act is to give Congress a look at what may happen in the course of a session with respect to spending legislation.
All of us have a responsibility, not only the Budget Committee but every authorizing committee, to try to anticipate any demands on the public treasury that may result from actions they can foresee down the road. Although the targets set in May are not binding ceilings, they should be, and the Budget Committee regards them as being targets to which we ought to adhere unless something which we were not able to anticipate, but for which room in the budget ought to be provided occurs between the enactment of the first concurrent resolution and the second concurrent resolution.
The energy program, for example, is not yet sufficiently defined so that we could spell out the budgetary impact, and we would expect there will be changes in the budget resolution which reflect the energy program when we finally know the details.
The kind of issue the Senator raises, in my judgment, cannot be accommodated within the first concurrent resolution targets unless the authorizing committee — in this case the Committee on Finance — readjusts other programs to make room for them.
Mr. STONE. Takes it from somewhere else.
Mr. MUSKIE. But it is not something which the Budget Committee can mandate to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. STONE. Right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me make one other observation: The social security trust fund revenues, on the basis of revenues and outlays this year, is out of balance. The 1978 budget indicates that the payouts will be $3.9 billion more in fiscal 1978 than the income, so that the social security trust fund on the basis of fiscal year 1978 is going to be out of balance.
The Budget Committee did not regard that as a situation which would tolerate any increases in benefits. That $3.9 billion is partly responsible for the increase in the deficit for fiscal year 1978, and so I think the situation from a fiscal point of view is very bleak for any increase in benefits.
But the Senator is right that the Committee on Finance, if it disagrees with that, my assessment of the condition of the trust funds, could recommend increases and could urge the Senate to consider such increases and try to persuade the Senate to increase the deficit and to increase outlays this year because of the merit of the particular change recommended.
Mr. STONE. Finally, if the Senator will further yield, or they could readjust within their other authorizations and assign a higher priority to this. This budget resolution does not preclude that process.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is certainly an option. I appreciate the Senator's bringing it to our attention.
Mr. STONE. I thank the Senator from Maine very much .
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH).
Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from California.
Mr. President, last year the Senate twice overwhelmingly passed legislation to provide tax credits for college education expenses by votes 68 to 20 and 62 to 21. This year it is probable that the Senate Finance Committee and the full Senate will again pass this legislation.
Because of the probability that the college tax credit will pass, the Senate Finance Committee's revenue recommendations to the Budget Committee included an allowance for this provision in the budget resolution.
According to the Budget Committee report, the college tax credit provision was discussed, but the resolution does not specifically assume its enactment. The committee report states that the committee deferred action on any recommendations regarding specific tax expenditures in view of the announced plans of the administration to submit comprehensive tax legislation within the next few months.
The first budget resolution now pending before the Senate contains a revenue leeway of between $400 million and $600 million, therefore, there is room in the budget for the Committee on Finance to adopt a college tax credit up to that level.
This is due to the fact that the tax bill will reduce revenue levels less than originally anticipated by both the Finance and the Budget Committees.
I ask the Senator from Maine, if I might, in view of this revenue slack and in light of the committee's decision to defer any recommendations on tax expenditures until the President's tax reform proposal has been submitted, I wish to have him comment upon the following points, if he would be so kind:
First. There is at the present time in fact a revenue leeway of between $400 and $600 million in the first budget resolution.
Second. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, my tax credit proposal would cost in fiscal year 1978 $175 million, so that there is room in the first budget resolution for such an amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. As we have evaluated the result of the conference on the tax bill, there is a gap of approximately $500 million which at the moment is unoccupied. Like all vacuums there will be a rush to occupy it, I suppose, at some point which I frankly would try to discourage but in terms of the budget resolution numbers that gap does exist.
Mr. ROTH. I ask the distinguished chairman this further question:
The language in the committee report — on page 19, paragraph 2 — further states that recommendations on specific tax expenditures have been deferred pending the administration's tax reform proposals, and the language of course would apply to all tax expenditures, even including the college tax credits. Is that right?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. We have been in receipt of letters from various Senators who consider — well I am not sure. I had in mind the previous question. I am not sure we have received any letter from the Senator on this proposal. But in any case we agreed not to address ourselves to changes in tax expenditures that would affect estimated revenues until we had received the administration's tax reform program.
Mr. ROTH. If I might sum up, there now is leeway in the first budget resolution for the college tax credit. But in addition to that the fact that the Budget Committee has deferred any action on tax expenditures until the White House makes its recommendations means that the Finance Committee and the full Senate could act on the college tax credit without prejudice before the adoption of the second budget resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. If someone else does not move in first.
Mr. ROTH. I might say to the distinguished chairman I am not making reference now to the $400 to $600 million vacuum, but I am talking about the fact that the budget resolution is neutral on tax expenditures, whether it is proposed in the future by the White House or by any Senator by virtue of the language on page 19 in the budget report.
Mr. MUSKIE. We made no recommendation on it, that is correct.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from California yield briefly before he commences the presentation of his amendment?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. I yield.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time taken in this colloquy not to be charged to the time allocated to the distinguished Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.