[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                Amendment No. 1785 to Amendment No. 1784

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for Mr. 
     Mitchell, proposes an amendment numbered 1785 to amendment 
     No. 1784.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed insert the following:
       (1) Additional Hearings: In the fulfillment of the Senate's 
     constitutional oversight role, additional hearings on the 
     matters identified in the resolution passed by the Senate by 
     a vote of 98-0 on March 17, 1994 should be authorized as 
     appropriate under, and in accordance with, the provisions of 
     that resolution.
       (2) Any additional hearings should be structured and 
     sequenced in such a manner that in the judgement of the two 
     Leaders they would not interfere with the ongoing 
     investigation of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe I have a pending amendment 
that has been second degreed by my friend from South Dakota, the floor 
manager.
  I would like to speak on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.


                           Amendment No. 1784

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering would 
expand the scope of the Banking Committee's jurisdiction to include an 
examination of the Resolution Trust Corporation, or the RTC, and its 
handling of criminal referrals relating to the failure and the ultimate 
taxpayer bailout of the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association.
  The failure of Madison has cost the American taxpayer at least $47 
million, and estimates are now that that could exceed $67 million. I 
think the American people are entitled to know why Madison failed. Why 
Madison was allowed to stay open as long as it did, and why there was a 
failure to bring civil or criminal charges in connection with this 
failure, recognizing that there are oversight responsibilities 
associated with the operation of any financial institution by 
appropriate State and Federal authorities. So it is legitimate that we 
seek these answers.
  It has been 5 years since the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance 
Corporation was appointed conservator of Madison, and yet 5 years later 
the American people still have no answers concerning its failure.
  Further, it was suggested yesterday by our majority leader, as well 
as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that the 
requests that we have had for hearings are designed for ``raw, partisan 
politics.'' It was further suggested that some on our side, the 
Republican side, want to hold these public hearings because we do not 
have a program for economic growth and we do not have a program for 
health care reform. In fact, many who listened to my colleagues from 
the other side of the aisle speak yesterday might be led to believe 
that the House and Senate have not considered health care and economic 
reform on either floor because the Congress has been tied up with 
Whitewater.
  Mr. President, you and I know that nothing could be further from the 
truth. Let us set the record straight. Republican requests for 
Whitewater hearings have had nothing to do with the failure of the 
Senate or House to consider the President's health care reform.
  Here is the President's health care proposal, 1,363 pages of fine 
print. The majority leader can bring this bill up at any time. He can 
add it as an amendment to this bill or any other bill, for that matter. 
But we all know why we are not considering the President's health care 
bill. It is because it cannot command a majority of Democrats, much 
less a bipartisan majority of Democrats and Republicans. So, in 
reality, the fact is the President's bill as it is structured in the 
1,363 pages, is dead. So is the employer mandate. And everybody knows 
it.
  Moreover, the suggestion that Republicans do not have a program for 
health care is simply not true. Senator Chafee has introduced 
legislation that has both Republican and Democratic support. Senator 
Nickles has introduced health insurance reform legislation. The House 
Republicans have introduced similar health insurance reform bills. It 
is just not true to state the Republicans do not have a program for 
health insurance reform now.
  I suggest there is a bit of disarray on the other side of the aisle 
with regard to their uniform position on health care reform. Whitewater 
has nothing to do with the inability to move on health care. Whitewater 
and that whole issue are separate.
  During the last 24 hours, on three separate occasions, the majority 
leader has succeeded in thwarting the efforts of Senator D'Amato and 
other Republicans to broaden the scope of the Whitewater hearings. 
Under the majority leader's amendment, the Banking Committee would hold 
oversight hearings on only three issues relating to Whitewater--only 
three issues. One of those would be communications between officials of 
the White House and the Department of the Treasury or the Resolution 
Trust Corporation relating to Whitewater and Madison Guaranty; second, 
the Park Service investigation into the death of Whitehouse Deputy 
Counsel Vincent Foster; and, third, the way in which White House 
officials handled documents in Foster's office at the time of his 
death. That is it.
  This committee will not be able to answer such questions as whether 
federally insured deposits at the failed Madison Guaranty Savings & 
Loan Association were diverted to Governor Clinton's 1984 campaign, nor 
will it be able to determine whether federally insured Madison deposits 
were diverted to pay the Clintons' share of their Whitewater debts; nor 
will it be able to determine, when the Madison institution became 
insolvent, whether favoritism, conflict of interest, or false financial 
audits were presented to State regulators by the Rose law firm which 
permitted Madison to remain open; nor will the committee be able to 
inquire as to whether or not Governor Clinton applied pressure to 
encourage the Small Business Administration to grant a loan that was 
not permitted to be made by the Small Business Administration.
  In fact, the committee will not be able to ask a single question 
concerning the underlying issues surrounding the Whitewater and Madison 
cases. Not one single question. The committee can only examine issues, 
under the majority leader's proposal, relating to communications that 
the White House had, not the underlying fact questions relating to 
Whitewater. For the underlying facts, the nuts and bolts of Madison 
Guaranty's failure, the American public is going to have to wait 6 
months, perhaps a year, 2 years, or as long as Special Prosecutor Fiske 
takes to complete his investigation.
  It is unprecedented for the Congress to defer oversight 
investigations because of concurrent investigations being performed by 
a special counsel. We held hearings simultaneously with the independent 
counsel when investigations involved Anne Burford and the EPA 
Superfund. We all recall that. We held simultaneous hearings involving 
Michael Deaver and Iran-Contra. We all recall that. We held 
simultaneous hearings at the time independent investigations were to be 
conducted into the affairs of the BNL Bank and the BCCI.
  So, if there is some partisan politics being played in this 
institution, I suggest perhaps it comes from the other side. As 
previously shown, we Republicans have demonstrated a willingness to 
support oversight hearings when they related to matters affecting a 
Republican administration, as I have just cited. But in the case of 
Whitewater, oversight will be deferred--perhaps months, perhaps years. 
I think it is fundamentally wrong to proceed in such a narrow fashion 
when the public is entitled to full disclosure.
  One aspect of Whitewater that I believe must be investigated 
immediately relates to the RTC's handling of criminal referrals 
concerning Madison. I want to emphasize that this aspect of the 
oversight investigation will cover RTC's activities under both the 
Clinton and the Bush administrations.
  The underlying amendment will enable the committee to investigate 
whether the RTC had appropriate procedures in place to refer possible 
criminal conduct involving Madison Guaranty and whether it had 
appropriate procedures in place to follow up on any criminal referrals 
made.
  Mr. President, since the RTC was established to resolve failed 
institutions in 1989, we have seen the RTC resolve some 700 individual 
cases in some 700 institutions.
  One of the greatest tragedies of the savings and loan crisis was the 
cost to the taxpayer. The RTC has estimated that the cost of resolving 
some 700 failed institutions has been over $81 billion. Many savings 
and loans, such as Madison Guaranty, failed because of criminal 
misconduct by insiders. Part of the RTC's duties include making 
referrals to appropriate criminal authorities to apprise them of 
possible wrongdoing.
  The American taxpayer, who has so far paid some $81 billion to 
resolve these failed savings and loans, basically has a right to know 
whether the RTC's internal procedures regarding criminal procedures 
have been carried out in an adequate and prudent manner.
  The taxpayer also has a right to know specifically what transpired 
with respect to the criminal referral involving Madison. Did the RTC 
have adequate procedures in place to deal with criminal referrals? Were 
these procedures followed in the case of Madison Guaranty? It is 
appropriate that we have the right and the opportunity to ask these 
questions.
  Mr. President, on September 2, 1992, the RTC made a criminal referral 
alleging a $1.5 million check kiting scheme among Madison, Jim 
McDougal, and entities under Jim McDougal's control. The referral was 
sent to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
  This is material that has come out of the investigation so far. I 
think it is germane to the authority of the committee to expand and ask 
these pertinent questions, and others.
  About 6 months after the referral was sent to the U.S. attorney for 
the Eastern District of Arkansas, in March 1993, the RTC senior 
investigator of Madison was informed that the U.S. attorney in Arkansas 
had sent this initial Madison criminal referral to Washington because 
the referral was politically hot.
  What does that mean? We ought to know precisely what that means.
  Remarkably, when the RTC investigator attempted to determine the 
status of the Madison criminal referral, she was told by the U.S. 
attorney's office that there was no record of the referral in the 
Arkansas U.S. attorney's office. So it took until May 1993 to determine 
where the Arkansas U.S. attorney had sent the referral to Washington, 
DC, claiming that he felt it was a conflict of interest. The main 
Justice Department in Washington ultimately returned the referral to 
Arkansas deciding there was ``no basis for recusal of the U.S. 
attorney,'' and lack of conflict of interest.
  Were the RTC criminal referrals regarding Madison pursued by the 
Justice Department? Well, in October 1993--October 8, to be exact--the 
RTC sent nine additional referrals to the U.S. attorney and the FBI. 
Two weeks later, the new Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney, Paula Casey, 
wrote to the RTC to indicate the referrals had been declined.
  These matters involve critical questions about the RTC procedures and 
the manner in which criminal referrals were handled at the Justice 
Department.
  So it remains unclear what the timing was of the Justice Department's 
decline of the Madison-related criminal referrals.
  The committee--once the committee is established and functional--
simply must investigate these matters; some of them are new, some of 
them have been around--and report to the American taxpayers about how 
criminal referrals are handled by the RTC and the Justice Department 
and whether they were handled properly in the Madison case.

  The American taxpayers should not have to pay one more dollar than 
necessary to bail out the savings and loans, and until we get the 
hearing process up and operational and have it broad enough so that we 
can address questions that will come up as a consequence of new 
information that comes about from the testimony of various witnesses, 
anything less than that is subterfuge of the investigative process with 
which we have an obligation to proceed.
  So I urge my colleagues to reflect on the significance of my 
amendment to provide the American public with answers to questions that 
are out there. Until this body initiates a hearing process that is open 
and broad enough to obtain the type of information that the American 
public is going to demand, why, we are simply going through a 
meaningless process.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and recognize the 
significance of what we are attempting to do here, and that is get this 
entire issue resolved and behind us so that we can proceed with the 
public business at hand.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). The Senator from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, the Senator from Alaska made reference 
to what he argued was the need for broader scope in this whole affair. 
I would differ with the Senator from Alaska in that it is not a matter 
of scope, it is a matter of timing; a question of timing. That is 
really what a lot of this debate has been about: What is the 
appropriate timing?
  We can get into matters of scope at some point, as we will perhaps be 
required to do. But as we consider what is appropriate for us now, if 
we are to follow the advice given us by the special prosecutor--who, 
again, as I indicated earlier, in his news conference earlier this 
spring, noted how important it was that we respect his prerogatives as 
an investigator, we must understand the importance of timing.
  Again, let me relate to our colleagues what Mr. Fiske said:

       We should be very concerned that so long as something can 
     be done to protect against having the contents of the RTC 
     referrals themselves come out in hearings, we need to protect 
     scope.

  That is really what this issue is all about. It is protecting the 
scope of the investigation so as to enable him to complete his work, 
that we may later do ours.
  Let me relate our response to Mr. Fiske's specific concerns, outlined 
in as many ways as possible in the text of the amendment that is now in 
the nature of a second degree to the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Alaska.
  That amendment, which we have voted on before and on which we will do 
so now again, says:

       In lieu of the matter proposed--

  By the Senator from Alaska.

     * * * in the fulfillment of the Senate's constitutional 
     oversight role, additional hearings on the matters identified 
     in the resolution passed by the Senate on a vote of 98-0 on 
     March 17, 1994 should be authorized as appropriate under, and 
     in accordance with, the provisions of that resolution.
       (2) Any additional hearings should be structured and 
     sequenced in such a manner that, in the judgment of the two 
     leaders, they would not interfere with the ongoing 
     investigation of the Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

  Madam President, in essence, the amendment in the second degree to 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska is the same amendment, 
the same intent, the same desire, the same hope, that has been 
expressed by Special Prosecutor Fiske that we do things in a timely 
way; that we take on the responsibilities that we agreed were necessary 
yesterday; that we follow through with the actions in the Banking 
Committee in July as we agreed yesterday; and, that any additional 
hearings, any additional scope, any other questions of timing relating 
to anything related to this issue come at a time after that. That is 
all we are asking--proper timing in accordance with the special 
prosecutor's request.

  Let there be no doubt about what it is we have to do as a result of 
the actions taken yesterday. The majority leader's amendment lays out 
precisely what our responsibilities are: that hearings and oversight 
ought to take place regarding, first, all communications between 
officials of the White House and the Department of the Treasury or the 
Resolution Trust Corporation relating to the Whitewater Development 
Corp. and the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association; second, the 
Park Service Police investigation into the death of White House Deputy 
Counsel Vincent Foster; and, third, the way in which the White House 
officials handled documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel 
Vincent Foster at the time of his death.
  We related further in the authorizing resolution yesterday that the 
committee shall do everything necessary and appropriate under the laws 
and Constitution of the United States to conduct a hearing specified in 
this section. It is authorized to exercise all powers and 
responsibilities of a committee under rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
of the Senate and section 705 of the Ethics in Government Act to issue 
subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
documentary or physical evidence before the committee.
  We make reference to the fact that the committee shall procure 
temporary or intermittent services of individual consultants and 
organizations; to use other governmental department personnel to report 
violations of any law to the appropriate Federal, State, and local 
authorities; to expend the extent to which the committee determines 
necessary and appropriate any money that will be made available to such 
committee by the Senate to conduct these hearings; to require by 
subpoena or order attendance as witnesses before the committee or at 
any deposition persons who may have knowledge or information concerning 
matters specified in this section to take depositions under oath; to 
issue commissions; and to notice depositions for staff members.
  Madam President, my point is that we have very specifically 
delineated what the investigation ought to entail, and we have given 
extraordinary powers to the committee to do so --to do its work in 
proper sequence with proper appreciation and sensitivity to the ongoing 
investigation by Mr. Fiske.
  That is what he asked for. That is what we agreed to do last March 17 
on a unanimous vote. That is what we again reaffirmed in our vote 
yesterday--to do this with proper timing, to do this with an 
appreciation of our responsibilities for oversight and an understanding 
that we cannot and shall not interfere with the ongoing investigation 
by Mr. Fiske.
  So, Madam President, we really have no choice here. Our work is very 
clear. Our responsibility is very clear. The amendment in the second 
degree gives us the opportunity to expand that responsibility should we 
see fit at some point in the future.
  So I would hope that we all understand what is going on here. Madam 
President, this is not a question of scope. If anything, I think this 
amendment would slow down our work, confuse our work, obfuscate our 
responsibilities. It is important for us to understand that, with a 
clear delineation of scope, with a clear understanding of the authority 
now given to the Banking Committee, we have every opportunity to do our 
work in a meaningful way.
  I hope Senators will recognize that at the appropriate time when we 
vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I listened to my good friend from South Dakota as he 
indicated the issue of scope versus timing. I think we ought to reflect 
a little bit on the record. What did we do basically in this body on 
March 17 when we voted 98 to 0 to initiate an action by this body to 
proceed on the Whitewater issue?
  I quote from the Record, Madam President.

       The majority leader and the Republican leader should meet 
     and determine the appropriate timetable, procedures, and 
     forum for an appropriate congressional oversight including 
     hearings on all----

  The word all, a-l-l.

     matters related to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan 
     Association [MGS&L], Whitewater Development Corporation, and 
     Capital Management Services, Inc. [CMS].

  As we talk about timing and scope, let us look at the authority that 
we invested in that vote. It was an authority covering all matters. 
Yet, the majority leader and the Democratic majority have seen fit to 
indicate that somehow we should start off with a very narrow scope 
limited to the areas that I have outlined in my comments.
  It is rather inconsistent with the procedure to get the answers so 
the American public can understand the facts that we should limit the 
scope of this.
  Let us talk a little bit more about consistency. The amendment that 
is pending for a vote at 2:30 by Senator D'Amato would authorize the 
investigation of commodity trades by Mrs. Clinton.
  My colleague from South Dakota says that this is not the time that 
this amendment or my amendment should be taken up.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Robert B. Fiske, Jr., 
independent counsel, dated May 26, 1994, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                            Office of the Independent Counsel,

                                     Washington, DC, May 26, 1994.
     Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
     Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator D'Amato: I am responding to the two questions 
     raised in your letter of May 23, 1994.
       The commodity transactions of Mrs. Clinton occurred during 
     a period of time which is outside the applicable statute of 
     limitations. We do not preclude looking into those 
     transactions if circumstances develop during our 
     investigation which would nonetheless make that trading 
     relevant to our investigation. I have no present objection to 
     any hearings which Congress might wish to hold on that 
     subject.
       The White House review of Treasury documents relating to 
     contacts between the White House and Treasury officials 
     involves a small number of documents which will not take 
     anyone very long to review. Because of the risk of such 
     documents becoming public prior to the completion of our 
     investigation, I would prefer that you defer obtaining those 
     documents at this time. I am confident that following that 
     procedure will not cause any delay in any hearings you may 
     decide to hold.
           Respectfully yours,
                                             Robert B. Fiske, Jr.,
                                              Independent Counsel.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I think this letter clearly counters 
the position taken by the Senator from South Dakota relative to the 
objection and inappropriateness of proceeding when special counsel is 
still working.
  I read the second paragraph:

       The commodity transactions of Mrs. Clinton occurred during 
     a time period which is outside the applicable statute of 
     limitations. We do not preclude looking into those 
     transactions if circumstances develop during our 
     investigation which would, nonetheless, make that trading 
     relevant to our investigation.

  Here is the part which I think points out where we have this 
inconsistency.
  Mr. Fiske's letter reads further:

       I have no present objection to any hearings which Congress 
     might wish to hold on that subject.

  So there, Madam President, you have the answer. Clearly, the 
independent counsel does not object to holding hearings on the matter 
which is the pending D'Amato amendment.
  So I think we clearly have a legitimate question of when is the 
timing going to be right? Well, those on the other side can suggest at 
some point in time when the special counsel proceeds with more 
activity. But it is clearly not a pattern of the U.S. Senate to suggest 
that it cannot hold hearings while special prosecutors do their job. As 
I have noted time and time again, we have had simultaneous hearings 
going on while special prosecutors do their work.
  So I just do not accept the explanation given by the Senator from 
South Dakota as this being a rational reason to limit the scope to the 
three areas that the majority leader has recommended to this body.
  I encourage my colleagues to continue to ask the question: If the 
time is not right now to pursue the hearings in the broadest scope, and 
if indeed the special prosecutor cites by letter that he has no 
objection to proceeding with an investigation relative to hearings that 
Congress might wish to hold on that subject, what in reality is the 
argument that my colleagues on the other side continue to proclaim as 
justification for not expanding the hearings to include those items 
that the special prosecutor has no objection to. That is one of the 
votes we are going to take today at 2:30.
  I encourage my colleagues to ask themselves whether the American 
public is going to be fooled by this charade--the charade is limiting 
the scope of the investigation--using the excuse that we cannot do 
anything because the special prosecutor has not completed his 
investigation.
  I urge my colleagues to again examine what we are doing here. Just 
how long is the American public going to put up with this kind of 
activity that does not present the facts to them?
  I urge, Madam President, that we ask ourselves the question of scope 
versus timing and conclude it with: If not now, when?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], 
is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will not belabor the point, but I 
think a couple of comments in response to the distinguished Senator 
from Alaska may be required here.
  First, the Senator from Alaska made reference to our vote on March 
17. While he talked about the first section of that particular 
resolution regarding the obligation of Congress to conduct oversight 
matters relating to all operations of Government, he failed to address 
the last section, which I am told happens frequently in reference to 
this particular resolution in comments made by Senators on the other 
side. Let me read for our colleagues that particular section, because 
that is really the essence of the concern expressed so often by Members 
here.

       The hearings should be structured and sequenced in such a 
     manner that, in the judgment of the leaders, they would not 
     interfere with the ongoing investigation of special counsel 
     Robert W. Fiske, Jr.

  That is the final section. That is the section that I addressed as I 
expressed my concerns a moment ago about timing and sequence and scope. 
Obviously, the scope is a very important matter.
  Relating to a second concern expressed by the Senator from Alaska, 
which is that somehow it is relevant for us to be considering expanding 
the scope to issues completely unrelated to Whitewater, I suspect that 
Mr. Fiske understood that when he responded that he had no objection 
because there is no relevance. Obviously, it is not difficult for him 
to express himself in that manner; that is, that he has no objection to 
things that are irrelevant. I am sure if we were to ask him today, 
given the revelation that Mrs. Clinton made yesterday that she once 
attempted to get into the U.S. Marines and was turned down, were we to 
want under the scope of this investigation to find out the reasons why 
the Marines turned down Mrs. Clinton's application for membership in 
that distinguished organization, we could find out. I will bet you 
anything that if we were to ask Robert Fiske, ``Do you have any 
objections to our query about the rejection by the Marines of Mrs. 
Clinton in 1975,'' he would probably write back, ``No, go ahead.'' But 
what relevance does that have to Whitewater? What relevance does that 
have to the real intent we have all so consistently expressed about our 
desire to get to the bottom of the questions that are pending relating 
directly to the Whitewater investigation? I could come up, in 5 
minutes, with a number of different opportunities for us to have 
oversight investigations on any one of a range of things, because that 
is our prerogative and we can do so. But the question is: How does that 
affect the scope of this matter? How does that go directly to the 
questions that we have before us relating to Whitewater?
  The closer they get to Whitewater, the more importance that last 
section has with regard to timing. If it is a Whitewater issue, Mr. 
Fiske said, ``I then become very concerned about what you do. I want 
you to take notice about my concerns, and I hope you will consider 
timing.'' So the reference in our second amendment really is to timing 
and the importance of sequence.
  So I hope our colleagues will not be confused, Madam President. Any 
references to investigations unrelated to Whitewater certainly will 
expand scope, but they do not have any effect on the quality or the 
manner with which we ought to be conducting ourselves relating to 
Whitewater. I hope that these amendments and the opportunity to vote on 
them later this afternoon will make that clear, as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam 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. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that I 
may be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes, as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________