Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55034356
label
Thompson Hearings
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55034356
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Thompson Hearings
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Speechwriting (Clinton Administration)
Laura Capps' Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55034356
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7431954-20160194F-008-012-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
03457022771cdb1d
ocrText
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/.85230714+3+0+0& WA1Saction-retriev6
[Congressional Record: January 28, 1997 (Senate)
[Page S716-S719]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THE 1996 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as everyone knows, the Governmental
Affairs Committee has begun an investigation into foreign campaign
contributions and fundraising activities of the 1996 Presidential
campaign. I believe that it is appropriate at the outset to set forth
exactly what we were about, to discuss the committee's jurisdiction,
the scope of its investigation, its purpose, and what principles we
will apply in resolving the issues that will face us. The reasons to
discuss this now at this time are several.
First, we who are on the committee and in the Congress need to remind
ourselves of these basics so we may keep our focus in the days ahead.
Second, the American people need to understand the nature and purpose
of our work in order that they will respect the process and the results
of our efforts.
Third, it is necessary to respond to some of the questions in the
media and elsewhere as to the committee's role and purpose.
Mr. President, my own analysis of these issues is just that; it's my
own analysis. It is certainly subject to other views by other people.
However, I do believe that there are certain principles that apply to
our endeavor that can be gleaned from the Constitution, from the rules
of the U.S. Senate, from court interpretations and, hopefully, from
common sense in applying the lessons learned from the successes and
failures of other committee investigations.
Mr. President, the granting of the legislative power to Congress in
article I of the Constitution includes the power to investigate. As the
Supreme Court held 70 years ago, ``A legislative body cannot legislate
wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and
where the legislative body does not possess the requisite information--
which not infrequently is true--recourse must be had to others who do
possess it. So long as an investigation addresses issues that can be
the subject of legislation, the investigation is constitutionally
permissible. Some of the most important inquiries the Congress has
conducted in the past two centuries have involved the role of money in
politics and its effect on policy: the Credit Mobilier scandal of the
1870's; an investigation of corporate campaign contributions in the
1912 campaign, at which Theodore Roosevelt testified concerning his own
campaign; and, of course, the investigation of the 1972 Presidential
campaign.
Congress' powers to investigate broadly encompasses all areas of the
operation of the Federal Government, as well as flaws in the electoral
system that makes the Government accountable to the American people. As
Chief Justice Warren stated, the investigatory power encompasses
inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as
proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in
our social, economic, or political system for the purpose of enabling
the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of
the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste.
Indeed, President Woodrow Wilson wrote that, `Unless Congress have
and use every means of acquainting itself with the facts and the
disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country
must be helpless to learn how it is being served.
Then he went
on to say, The informing function of Congress should be preferred
even to its legislative function.
*
*
*
The only really self-governing
people is that people which discusses and interrogates its
administration.
Although every committee in this body exercises oversight
1 of 8
01/29/97 17:25:54
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/.8S230714+3+0+0&WAISaction-retrieve
jurisdiction, the full range of the Senate's informing functions is
granted to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Its
jurisdiction includes the effectiveness of the operations of all
branches of Government, including misfeasance, corruption, and
conflicts of interest. It is broad enough to include Presidential
campaigns and even congressional campaigns if they are relevant to and
reflect upon the way our Government currently operates. No other
committee has within its investigatory authority the entire range of
the Governmental Affairs Committee's jurisdiction, which is as broad as
the Constitution permits.
The investigation we are now undertaking is neither a criminal
investigation nor a seminar on campaign finance reform, although, it
involves elements of both. Based on the information before us at this
time, it is an inquiry into illegal or improper campaign finance
activities in the 1996 Presidential campaign and related activities.
This means, however, that any facts that may have occurred before the
1996 campaign that are relevant to or shed light upon that campaign or
the operation of our Government may also be subject to our inquiry.
Such a scope will necessarily involve examining our current campaign
spending laws and how they operate.
Now, certainly, our work will include any improper activities by
Republicans, Democrats, or other political partisans. It is of extreme
importance that our investigation and our hearings be perceived by the
American people as being fair and evenhanded. This does not mean that
we must strain to create some false balance or that we have some sort
of party quota system. It simply means letting the chips fall where
they may. We are investigating activities here, not political parties.
While no one should be shut off for partisan advantage, we must have
a sense of priorities based upon the seriousness of the activities or
allegations
[ [Page S717] ]
that come to our attention. Otherwise, we will be at this much longer
than anyone will want us to be. Neither I nor anyone else can determine
at the outset all of the activities or areas that we will investigate.
As matters arise, the committee will simply have to make those
determinations.
It should be pointed out that these questions are not under the
exclusive province of the majority. I have the greatest respect for
Senator John Glenn, the ranking Democrat on the Governmental Affairs
Committee. His many years of service in this body have demonstrated
beyond question his integrity and his love of his country. We are
working together with our staffs to ensure that all information is
equally available to appropriate staff members and committee members.
We hope that in all cases the work of the committee can be done by the
staff in a cooperative fashion. Consensus should emerge on which issues
are the most serious and those matters which will receive the greatest
consideration. But if legitimate disagreement arises as to priorities,
the majority will in no way limit the minority's rights to investigate
any and all parties within the jurisdiction of the committee. Moreover,
the minority will be given the opportunity to call witnesses in for
public hearings if we cannot agree upon a joint witness list.
Although I believe these comments are sufficient to describe what the
committee plans to examine, I expect to receive further inquiries. So I
will outline the following as some specific areas we will consider,
although this is obviously not an exclusive list:
A. Whether the Presidential campaigns, national political parties, or
others engaged in any illegal or improper campaign activities, or
whether illegal campaign contributions were made to such entities, in
connection with or relevant to the 1996 Presidential campaign.
B. Whether, during the course of the 1996 Presidential campaign,
executive branch employees maintained and observed legal barriers
between fundraising and the official business of governing.
2 of 8
01/29/97 17:25:55
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/.85230714+3+0+0&WAISaction-retrieve
C. Whether Presidential campaigns remained appropriately independent
from the political activities pursued for their benefit by outside
individuals or groups.
D. Whether any U.S. policies or national security decisions were
affected by, No. 1, contributions made to or for the benefit of the
President or, No. 2, improper actions of any executive branch employee
or former employee.
E. Whether our existing campaign finance laws, including laws
governing the disclosure of contributions to entities established. for
the benefit of public officials, should be substantially revised and,
if so, in what manner.
F. Whether, based on the results of this investigation, laws other
than campaign finance laws, such as the laws regulating the conduct of
Federal officials and employees, should be revised, and, if so, in what
manner.
The committee does not intend to examine specific allegations of
wrongdoing that Congress has already previously considered.
Now, a significant portion of our inquiry will necessarily focus on
the executive branch. This is consistent with Congress' historical
function and obligation to conduct oversight of the executive branch.
It is a part of our system of checks and balances. It is, by its very
nature, somewhat of an adversarial process. As Justice Jackson wrote,
the Constitution `enjoins upon its branches separateness but
interdependence; autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not
fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction
with those of Congress.
Each branch of government has its rightful prerogatives, Mr.
President. And just as Congress must understand its prerogatives and
responsibilities in this process, so must the executive branch. And
clearly, part of the executive branch's proper role is to protect the
rightful prerogatives of the President and the Presidency, but also to
provide prompt, truthful information when Congress requires it when it
is needed to fulfill Congress' responsibilities. It is important that
the executive branch refrain from claiming privileges that are
inappropriate or simply do not exist.
For example, executive privilege, though not specifically granted to
the President in the Constitution, is an implied power that has been
recognized by the courts over the years. Presidents are entitled to
candid advice from their aides concerning important policy matters that
would not be forthcoming if it were subject to exposure by Congress or
anyone else. One the other hand, the privilege does not extend to
wrongdoing and it does not extend to any and all information that may
prove embarrassing to the President or others. Although it has not been
court tested, Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Watergate Committee,
always took the position that matters that were purely political were
not covered by executive privilege when confronted with a legitimate
congressional need. What the courts have held is that when it is based
only on the broad claim of the public interest in confidentiality,
executive privilege may be outweighed by other considerations. In other
instances, claims of executive privilege are strongest when invoked in
the areas of military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security
secrets.
Presidents have handled the executive privilege issue with regard to
congressional investigations in different ways. President Nixon fought
his executive privilege claim all the way to the Supreme Court and
lost. President Reagan during the Iran contra investigation waived all
executive privilege and attorney client privilege claims that he may
have had. Also, President Carter waived all privileges when the
activities of his brother were investigated. As instructive examples of
the cooperation of these two Presidents, they both allowed
congressional examination of all documents, and President Reagan even
provided his personal notes and diary entries.
The President and others have correctly pointed out that the American
people are tired of petty partisan bickering and the meanness that
sometimes seem to pollute the atmosphere in Washington, DC. While this
3 of 8
01/29/97 17:25:56
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/.85230714+3+0+0& WAISaction-retrieve
is undoubtedly accurate, I believe the American people also want us to
stand for something, including the truth. That makes it our obligation
to find it and lay it out. So the question becomes: Can we carry out
our responsibilities and assist the American people in learning the
truth about the strengths and weaknesses of the operation of their
Government without engaging in mean spiritedness or partisan warfare?
From time to time in our history, when the occasion required it,
Members of this body have put partisanship aside, vocally criticized
and even filed suit against an administration of their own party.
Former Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee and former Senator
Warren Rudman of New Hampshire come to mind. I have no doubt that my
Democratic colleagues on the committee and in this body will do the
same if the evidence calls for it. And I pledge my every effort to
insure that their actions are not met with attempts to obtain partisan
advantage.
But let us be frank at the outset. The extent to which we can have a
thorough, bipartisan investigation without many of the recriminations
we have seen in the past is going to depend in large part upon the
attitude of those in the White House and the executive branch. The same
can be said of the length of our inquiry. If one looks solely to the
past, there is little reason to be optimistic. We have seen what
appears to be a grudging release of information in drips and drabs and,
seemingly, only when forced to. We have seen the broadest claims of
executive and attorney client privilege in our history. We have seen
all manner of delaying tactics which congressional oversight committees
claimed were intended to avoid scrutiny by Congress, where
noncooperation has been stretched past the cutoff dates of committee
investigations or even sessions of Congress. Accusations have abounded
that disclosure has been withheld until after the Presidential election
to avoid scrutiny by the people. We understand the nature of that game
and we will not play it. We will do whatever is necessary and proper to
make sure that such actions are not rewarded, including the
continuation of investigations and the institution of court proceedings
when appropriate.
It doesn't have to be that way. I am still optimistic that it won't
be that way. I think it possible that the President may have been
overlawyered in
[Page S718]]
the past; that while strategies may have been employed that were clever
legal defense strategies, they were perhaps detrimental to the good of
the country and even to the President himself. I am hoping for a new
day. I am hoping the committee can establish its willingness to proceed
in good faith. There is a new team in the White House, individuals with
excellent reputations who commend respect. I am hoping that the new
White House counsel will understand that his position is one of counsel
to the office of the President. He is not the President's personal
attorney.
And I cannot believe that the President does not want to get to the
bottom of the serious allegations that have been made. In the first
place, he took an oath. of office to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution, including his article II responsibility to take care that
the laws are faithfully executed. The President has publicly
acknowledged that some of the DNC's contributions were illegal. Since
under the best of interpretations, these are matters that reflect upon
him and his Presidency, he above all should want to seen them cleared
up, and I believe that he does. I would like to think that the
President would be outraged at this turn of events and feel
an obligation and responsibility to get to the bottom of the matter,
including clearing the names of anyone who may have been unjustly
accused.
Nor is it enough to simply call for campaign finance reform. I trust
4 of 8
01/29/97 17:25:57
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/.85230714+3+0+0& WAISaction-retrieve
that my position on this issue is well known. I cosponsored along with
Senator McCain and Feingold, campaign finance reform legislation in
1995, my first year in the Senate. I was for campaign finance reform
when campaign finance reform wasn't cool. I have long thought we simply
spend too much time soliciting too much money from too many people who
are interested in legislation that we consider. I'm not sure that the
solution is and I am hopeful that part of what: this investigation will
do is examine our campaign finance system and seek out ways in which we
can improve it. But those of us with responsibilities in this area,
whether it be the President or Members of Congress, cannot let the call
for reform serve to gloss over serious violations of existing laws. If
we do that the reform debate will be cast in a totally partisan context
and insure that, once again, campaign finance reform will be killed.
The question constantly arises as to when public hearings will begin.
Interestingly, Democrats, Republicans, the White House, and the news
media all are seemingly interested in having hearings as soon as
possible--I would guess all for different reasons. I share that desire.
However, the committee's obligation is not to do it early but to do it
right. Certain things should be kept in mind by those who, on a daily
basis, ask when hearings will begin. In the first place, establishing a
hearing date, or even a target date when dealing with such a broad
array of matters as listed above, would be nothing more than guesswork.
The hearings should begin as soon as the matters have been properly
investigated and not before. Time spent in proper investigation and
preparation prevents disjointed hearings and saves time in the long
run. This is not a matter of hauling a bunch of people whose names have
been in the paper before the camera and hurling charge at them.
This committee as presently constituted and my chairmanship came
about less than 3 weeks ago. We must rely extensively upon new staff
that is just being hired and we do not have a full complement yet.
Clearances must be obtained. Facilities must be set up. Documents must
be gathered and carefully reviewed. A check of the history of other
major committee investigations reveals that 3 or 4 months of
investigation and preparation before the beginning of the hearing phase
is the norm. That is not to say that it will take our committee that
long. I am hopeful that it will not. But it will take whatever it
takes. And as I have stated, the level of cooperation we receive from
the White House and the rest of the executive branch is directly
relevant. Most importantly, of course, one cannot tell in the beginning
of an investigation what leads may be developed.
One final thought: Most of us did not come to Washington to tear
down, but to build up. But, the Founding Fathers did not believe that
the errors of government were self-correcting. They knew that only
constant examination of our shortcomings, and learning from them, would
enable representative government to survive for hundreds of years past
their own time. They believed correctly that this process makes America
stronger, not weaker. We are heirs to that legacy, and we will strive
to be deserving of it, by taking this step toward restoring the
public's confidence in the Government for which our forebears were
willing to sacrifice everything.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Ohio is recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my
friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee and the chairman of our
committee, and heard him describe an investigation that he plans to
conduct as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I welcome
his comments.
As the ranking member of the committee and as someone who was
chairman for some 8 years, this can be a most important hearing for our
committee. Today I want to publicly pledge to him my best efforts to
cooperate in establishing the bipartisan atmosphere that he called for
and that I believe Senator Thompson genuinely wants to have as we go
forward.
I am pleased that Chairman Thompson in his opening remarks mentioned
5 of 8
01/29/97 17:25:58
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/.85230714+340+0& WAlSaction-retriev6
the importance of defining the scope of the investigation and its
purpose. He also talked about principles that should be applied if the
investigation is to be successful. I will refer back to these
principles a little later in my remarks. But I think it was helpful
that Chairman Thompson included a partial list of areas to be
considered. There is no question that the issues raised in his list are
among those that ought to be examined, and I support them. I agree with
him fully when we talk about the informing function of Congress, but I
agree with it more as a starting point than as an end to our
investigation.
I think it becomes far more meaningful that instead of just limiting
this to the 1996 Presidential campaign, we also use this informing
function to recommend what can be done about the situation we are
investigating. I think that is what the American people want.
So I think that a more meaningful, fair list must include additional
questions about improper practices in national campaigns. In addition
to looking at the problem of foreign contributions, which certainly
should be looked at, the Governmental Affairs Committee must look, for
example, at the problem of soft money used by unregistered
organizations without disclosure and without limitation to influence
elections, and the misuse of Government offices and staff for political
purposes, and abuses of power in coercing campaign contributions, the
misuse of charitable and other organizations and promises of special
access to Government-elected officials. The Governmental Affairs
Committee should look into these types of practices whether examples
are found in connection with the executive or the legislative branch.
My point, Mr. President, is this: There is no end to the questions
that might be asked about improper or illegal fundraising and spending
in political campaigns. So we need to establish objectives for the
investigation without making the inquiry too narrow and thereby risk at
least a perceived partisan approach. Defining the committee's
objectives will help determine the scope of the investigation, but,
most of all, the committee's scope should be determined by the
committee's purpose in these investigations. Any major Senate
investigation --and this will be one--ought to have a clear purpose.
To make an analogy, I recall many of my colleagues asking on this
Senate floor not too long ago when we were considering United States
entry into Bosnia, what is the exit strategy? Demands were made for an
exit strategy before there would be a vote.
That was a reasonable question then, and I think it is a reasonable
question in regard to this inquiry. In each context, the exit strategy
is inseparably linked to purpose. What is the purpose of this
investigation? Or perhaps the better question to ask now is, what
should be the purpose of this investigation?
[Page S719]]
The chairman has stated he intends this exercise to inform the
public. That is one of our purposes as an oversight and investigatory
committee, so I support that fully and completely. I do not think it is
enough that we view our purpose as informational only. We need to take
the next step. We need to correct the problems with our campaign
system. That is what the American public wants. I think that is what we
want on both sides of the aisle. That is what both political parties
have said they want. It means that to correct the problems, we are
going to have to investigate then wherever those problems may be, not
just on a narrowly defined limit of the last election.
All the questions posed by my distinguished colleague in his remarks
point to campaign finance practices that may be illegal or, if not, in
my view ought to be illegal. I happen to think that the reform of
campaign finance laws should be our daily objective in this Congress.
However, I am convinced that the fight over passing real campaign
finance reform will not be won until the pressure from the American
people becomes overwhelming, and I think these hearings and this
6 of 8
01/29/97 17:25:59
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/.85230714+3+0+0& WAISaction-retrieve
investigation can make that interest overwhelming. That is the reason I
think we should go the next step.
This investigation, if done right--and I am convinced it will be--
could be the vehicle to create that pressure. But it will not happen if
this investigation somehow turns into partisan pointing and bickering
back and forth, and I do not think it will happen if the inquiry drags
on into next year, an election year, when changing the campaign finance
laws will be virtually impossible.
If we do not use this unique opportunity to reach real reform, the
American people will have a tendency to say a pox on both our houses,
and I think they will probably be right.
So I say to Chairman Thompson and my Republican colleagues, let us
not only inform but let us take that next step of enactment of campaign
finance reform this year as our goal and as a major purpose of this
investigation. Inform, certainly, but take the next step as well.
Let us examine the most important and egregious set of political
fundraising and spending practices--not just pointing at one spot but
let us look at the practice. Let us write a report this year that tells
the American people really how badly this system has been operating and
how it should be fixed. And Heaven knows, we are experts on it because
we deal with this system every day and every time we have to run for
reelection. And then let us go out and fix it before the year is over.
Is there misuse, for instance, of nonprofits and tax exempts? There
is misuse of foreign funds; we know that. What are the major misuses of
soft money? What are the misuses of Government itself? And wherever we
need to go to get information that helps us correct those problems and
others is where we should go.
These, Mr. President, are my thoughts about purposes and scope and
duration of this investigation. So I think we need to devote the next
few weeks to an effort hopefully integrating Chairman Thompson's vision
of this investigation with what I have suggested here today, that we go
beyond just the informational role and try and make some suggestions to
fix the system.
Then we need to come back to the Senate--together perhaps--and
present our plan for approval by the full body because the Senate will
be very much involved with this whole effort. This inquiry presents us
with an opportunity to accomplish something together. We have had
people on both sides of the aisle this year in positions of leadership
and regular membership talk about how we must work together this year.
We have come off a couple of bruising years here in the Congress of the
United States, so I view this inquiry as an opportunity, truly an
opportunity as Democrats and Republicans that will be worthwhile and
lasting for the American people.
As I indicated earlier in my remarks, I wish to address the issue of
principles in the conduct of this investigation. The Senator from
Tennessee made some very constructive remarks in his presentation
regarding the role of the minority and the relationship of majority to
minority in the conduct of this investigation, and I thank him for that
and I wish to elaborate on them just a little bit.
First, to assure that the committee's investigation is fair,
bipartisan, and legislatively productive, I think it is vital the
Senate define the scope and procedures and duration of the
investigation in the omnibus committee funding resolution.
Now, a definition of scope and duration will enable the Senate in
providing funds for the investigation to establish what it is
authorizing, the subjects about which it wishes to learn from the
committee, and when it wishes the committee to report. There should
also be a specification of even-handed procedural ground rules for the
investigation.
For example, the majority and minority should have contemporaneous
access to all documentary evidence received by the committee. The
majority and minority should have the right to be present at and
participate equally in all depositions and investigatory interviews.
And the majority and minority should have equal opportunity to obtain
7 of 8
01/29/97 17:25:59
WAIS Document Retrieval
http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/.85230714+3+0+0&WAlSaction-retrieve
and present relevant testimonial and documentary evidence on the
subjects of the committee's inquiry.
These are just safeguards for a fair and bipartisan inquiry which is
in keeping with contemporary Senate practice. This is the way the last
several Senate investigations have been done, and Senate practice from
investigations of this kind dictate that it should be expressly spelled
out before the actual investigating begins so we do not get into an
unpleasant disagreement in the middle of the hearings.
Also, the minority should have sufficient personnel and resources to
enable it to take part fully in acquiring and analyzing evidence. That
may be a problem because ordinarily the committee split on resources
here in the Senate is one-third/two-thirds. I do not anticipate that is
going to change in this investigation. But it means on the minority
side, that to have an even prospect of having an even ability to look
at areas we might want to explore, we are at a disadvantage going in.
So it is obvious that many issues will have to be negotiated in order
to reduce the risk that the Governmental Affairs investigation
degenerates into a partisan finger pointing exercise. I certainly do
not want to see that happen.
All of us in the Senate, and in particular all of us on the
committee, have a grave responsibility. That responsibility is to
ensure that this investigation moves forward in a constructive and
bipartisan manner. I look forward to mutual respect among all
participants. Most of all, we need to enter into this with the
interests of the American people uppermost in our minds, rather than
any partisan political advantage. And that means looking in all
directions, wherever we find any information that may direct us to what
I see as the secondary objective of our hearings, and that is not only
to inform but to recommend ways to correct these problems so we do not
go on into the next election with some of the same abuses taking place
all over the country that occurred in this last election.
My distinguished chairman has said this is his aim. I certainly take
him at his word. He is a man of his word. I know that. We want to work
together on this. So I hope we can come quickly to an agreement on
scope, on time, on process, on cost of the investigation, and place
that agreement in the funding resolution for the Governmental Affairs
Committee.
This can be a most important activity we are about to embark on here.
From all appearances it is going to be fairly long and arduous, and I
think it is important we set these kinds of rules before we get going;
not important just for us on a personal basis here, but it is important
that somebody work this out for the American people. That is what this
committee has the opportunity to do.
I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Brownback]. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
8 of 8
01/29/97 17:26:00