[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 26 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1660-S1664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

  Mr. INHOFE. First, Mr. President, now that the vote to impeach 
William Jefferson Clinton has been taken, and before I discuss my vote, 
let me say that this whole thing could have been avoided had President 
Clinton resigned months ago. I say this because I called for his 
resignation last September. Rather than explain my reasoning for 
calling for President Clinton's resignation, I believe it is better 
explained by an 8th grade school teacher from Tulsa, Oklahoma, Mr. 
Terrence Hogan. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hogan's letter to the 
President dated September 26, 1998, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               September 26, 1998.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: It is in the early morning hours. The 
     infamous Starr report has been made public for less than 
     twentyfour hours and I am unable to sleep. I don't imagine 
     you've had much of a restful night either. As you no doubt 
     are troubled, so am I.
       As the forty eight year old father of five and a teacher of 
     eighth grade Civics these past twenty two years I am greatly 
     concerned about the moral direction of our nation. It is as 
     if we have lost our compass and know not what we as a nation 
     wish to be. I am fearful, for I do not wish us to become a 
     nation that is only concerned about the economy and has lost 
     the will to be a nation of admirable principles. I do not 
     want us to dissolve into a people who are more influenced by 
     the spin of the facts than the facts themselves. I am 
     concerned about the effects the next six months of a legal 
     nit picking debate over whether or not you commited an 
     impeachable offense will have on our nation. I am also 
     concerned that the debate will not ask what I believe to be 
     the two paramount questions. First, are you capable of 
     leading this nation for the next 30 months in the directions 
     that we want and need to go? And secondly, do you deserve to 
     be allowed to lead this country?

[[Page S1661]]

       There is no question in my mind that you have the will to 
     lead. The sad conclusion I have drawn is that you no longer 
     have the moral authority to lead for you have violated the 
     main foundation upon which all relationships are built, that 
     being the existence of mutual trust. In the elections of 1992 
     and 1996 the American voters forgave you for your one 
     admitted transgression with Ms. Flowers. Then, however, you 
     chose to repeat that transgression in the confines of the 
     Oval office. After which, when confronted with your choices 
     you chose to repeatedly lie to your wife, daughter, 
     supporters and the American people. You chose to continually 
     lie about your choices rather than to frame the debate around 
     the issue that this was a private matter between you and your 
     wife and therefore no business of the American public. It is 
     my heartfelt belief that your choice to lie was designed not 
     so much to save your wife and daughter certain pain but to 
     save yourself and your presidency, an understandable choice 
     but not an acceptable one. Your willful and repeated lying 
     has given the people of this country an insight into the 
     character and integrity of their leader.
       With this in mind I am asking you to resign your position 
     as President of these United States for if we are even to 
     pretend to be a nation of principles we cannot tolerate from 
     our president actions and choices that we would not tolerate 
     from the principal of our neighborhood school.
       In the last few days you have begun to ask the forgiveness 
     of the American people. If your contrition is heartfelt you 
     deserve the forgiveness of all those individuals whose trust 
     you have violated. I for one forgive you. But as a member of 
     the body politic I must also hold you accountable for your 
     public choices and demand that certain natural consequences 
     be allowed to occur. You no longer posess the trust of the 
     majority of the American people and can therefore no longer 
     lead that people and must therefore give up your position of 
     leadership.
       No doubt you share my belief that God our creator calls 
     each of us to be all we can be and that we are also called to 
     sacrifice ourselves for what is in the ultimate best interest 
     of our neighbors, I am asking you now, Mr. President, to do 
     both of those things. Please set aside your personal pride 
     and ambitions, take full responsibility for the choices you 
     have made, accept the natural consequences of those choices 
     and step down as our president and save this nation from the 
     turmoil that the debate over your choices will undoubtedly 
     cause. Let this nation heal and get on with those issues you 
     believe need to be dealt with. Please remember that in making 
     this personal sacrifice that your true legacy will not be 
     determined by what kind of president you were but by what 
     kind of man you became.
       Please know that my prayers are with you and your family in 
     this time of trial for you, your family and this country.
           With sincerity,
                                                   Terrence Hogan.

  Mr. INHOFE. Today I voted to convict William Jefferson Clinton on 
each of the two Articles of Impeachment presented by the House of 
Representatives.
  I find the President guilty, as charged, of high crimes and 
misdemeanors: lying under oath and obstructing justice. The President 
engaged in a deliberate and selfish pattern of conduct designed to 
thwart the civil rights of a fellow citizen. This conduct represents a 
serious breach of faith and trust. This conduct is incompatible with 
the solemn duties and moral responsibilities of the high office of 
President of the United States.
  Similar conduct by others results in consequences: perjurers, witness 
tamperers and obstructors of justice go to jail; supervisors lose their 
jobs; military officers are court-martialed, imprisoned or forced out 
of the armed forces; judges are impeached and removed from office. 
Shall we embrace a lower standard for this President under these 
circumstances? I think not. I believe that the President of the United 
States should be held to the very highest of standards.
  I believe that conviction and removal from office is justified in 
order (1) to preserve the integrity, honor and trust of the presidency; 
(2) to protect the sanctity of the witness oath in judicial 
proceedings; and (3) to uphold the fundamental principle of ``equal 
justice under law.''


                              introduction

  In accord with my sworn oath to do ``impartial justice according to 
the Constitution and the laws,'' I have approached the trial of William 
Jefferson Clinton as a solemn constitutional duty. Voting on the 
Articles of Impeachment may be the most historically significant thing 
I will do in my entire career in public service. I have taken this 
obligation seriously, without concern for public opinion polls or for 
any partisan political advantage of consequence. This is a moment when 
one must put the longer-term interests of the country first.


                          previous jury trial

  As a political opponent of this President, I have made an extra 
effort to weigh the evidence and the arguments on both sides with a 
sense of detachment and fairness. Having served on a jury in a criminal 
trial some 24 years ago, I learned how important it is to listen and to 
exercise impartial judgment. During jury selection in a local murder 
trial, I found myself assigned to a murder case about which I had 
expressed a definite opinion. From press reports, I was already 
convinced the defendant was guilty. With that and since I was the 
author of the capital punishment bill in the legislature, I thought for 
sure they would never qualify me for the jury, but somehow they did. 
Five days later, I surprised even myself when I became the foreman of 
the jury that acquitted that very defendant.
  I have approached the trial of the President with that experience in 
mind. I have also considered whether in good conscience, I would apply 
the same judgment I made here equally to a similar set of facts and 
circumstances if they applied to a Republican--and not a Democratic--
president.
  In 1990, I did not hesitate to publicly condemn a Republican 
President, George Bush, when he violated his ``read my lips'' campaign 
pledge. Politicians who deliberately violate public trust undermine 
good government and increase the level of cynicism in society.
  Today, I have a clear conscience in rendering the judgment I believe 
is just, and in the best interests of the future of the country.


                              conclusions

  I have concluded that the President engaged in a deliberate and 
premeditated pattern of conduct which was corruptly designed to 
undermine the rights of a fellow citizen. That citizen was entitled 
under the law to obtain truth and justice in a duly constituted legal 
proceeding.
  The President had a legal obligation, as a citizen, to comply with 
ordinary and proper legal procedure and to faithfully abide by the 
standard oath to ``tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth.''
  I believe the President also had a moral obligation, as President, to 
refrain from engaging in any conduct which would, by example, undermine 
respect for the rule of law, the witness oath, or the dignity, honor, 
or public trust embodied in the presidency.
  The President failed to fulfill these obligations. He lied under 
oath, obstructed justice and tampered with witnesses. He sought to 
undermine the judicial system for his own personal gain. In so doing, 
he set a perverse example for every school child, parent, teacher, 
employer, supervisor and citizen in America. He brought dishonor upon 
himself and his office.


             president's supporters concede essential facts

  White House lawyers went to great lengths to try to deny the specific 
charges, but common sense and the weight of the evidence leave no 
reasonable doubt in my mind that the charges are true. I believe there 
are few, if any, members of the Senate who do not believe the President 
lied under oath and obstructed justice. Even many of the President's 
most ardent supporters in and out of the Senate have openly stated 
their belief that the essential facts of the case are not in dispute.
  Senator Robert Byrd pretty well summed it up in a recent TV 
appearance. He said of the President: ``I have no doubt that he has 
given false testimony under oath and . . . there are indications that 
he did indeed obstruct justice . . . It undermined the system of 
justice when he gave false testimony under oath. He lied under oath.''


                         non-lawyer perspective

  I have often said that one of the qualifications I have for the U.S. 
Senate is that I am not an attorney. So, when I read the Constitution, 
I know what it says. When I read the law, I know what it says. When I 
look at the evidence and apply common sense from a non-lawyer 
perspective, I know what it says. In this case, it says--without 
question--the President is guilty as charged.


                        conduct warrants removal

  The President's attorneys kept arguing that the President's conduct 
does

[[Page S1662]]

not amount to the technical crimes of perjury or obstruction of 
justice, but that even if it does, it should not warrant his removal 
from office.
  I have concluded the President's conduct does amount to the crimes of 
perjury and obstruction, but that even if it does not, it still 
warrants his removal from office because it is unacceptable behavior, 
incompatible with his duties and responsibilities as President.


                            lying under oath

  I was not persuaded by the hairsplitting argument that the President 
did not lie under oath. The President lawyers claim he did not lie or 
commit perjury before the grand jury and they imply that his conduct 
there should be deemed acceptable. As a non-lawyer, I find their 
arguments preposterous and an insult to the intelligence and moral 
sensibilities of the members of the Senate of both parties, not to 
mention the American people.
  The President was afforded every opportunity to treat the grand jury 
with the respect it deserved. He was not blind-sided, tricked or 
trapped. He could anticipate all the key questions in advance. he had 
plenty of time to prepare. He was warned on numerous occasion by 
members of both parties in the Congress of the serious consequences of 
untruthful testimony. Yet he deliberately sought to continue weaving a 
self-serving and misleading web of deception and falsehood.


                          obstructing justice

  Similarly, I reject the argument that the President did not commit 
obstruction of justice in an improper and illegal effort to undermine 
the legitimate search for truth in the Paula Jones civil suit. To 
believe the President's defense is to stand common sense on its head.
  Does anyone seriously believe the Lewinski job search would have 
proceeded to a successful conclusion in early January 1998--a critical 
moment in the Jones case--had her name not appeared on the Jones case 
witness list?
  Does anyone seriously believe the President was suggesting to Ms. 
Lewinski that she file a truthful affidavit?
  Does anyone seriously believe that the decision to conceal the gifts 
(evidence) was not blessed and ordered by the President?
  Does anyone seriously believe the President was seeking to ``refresh 
his memory'' while planting false stories with Ms. Currie when his 
conversations took place after he had testified that the Jones lawyers 
should talk to Ms. Currie.
  Does anyone seriously believe the President did not want and expect 
Mr. Blumenthal and other aides to repeat false stories to the grand 
jury?
  I do not believe any of these things. I believe--and I suspect most 
Senators believe--the President is guilty as charged of obstruction of 
justice.


                  the president knew what he was doing

  The President's efforts to cover up his relationship with Ms. 
Lewinski, however understandable in a non-legal context, became 
textbook examples of obstruction of justice once her name appeared on a 
witness list and in a duly constituted legal proceeding.
  The President, after all, is himself a lawyer. He was well aware 
that--orchestrating a job search to silence a potential hostile 
witness, suggesting the filing of a false affidavit, concealing 
relevant evidence, and coaching potential witnesses to give false 
testimony--all are improper and illegal.
  Yet he chose to take these actions, not in some contorted belief that 
they were proper, but in the calculation that if successful, he could 
thwart the legal search for truth and justice in the Jones case.
  To accept this behavior by the President without Constitutional 
consequence is to permit the setting of a precedent which will 
reverberate negatively for years throughout our legal justice system 
and beyond.


             different standards for judges and presidents?

  I am amazed that there is any debate whatsoever over whether lying 
under oath before a grand jury is an impeachable offense. The precedent 
is clear: Judge Walter Nixon and others have been rightly convicted and 
removed from office for lying under oath. Is there to be a different 
standard for a president, or for this particular president, or for this 
particular set of circumstances? Are we to make exceptions for lying 
under oath so long as it is lying about some things but not others? If 
so, what precedent will that set?
  Our legal system depends of the sanctity of the witness oath. There 
can be no exceptions to the obligation every citizen incurs when he 
solemnly swears ``to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 
the truth.'' Setting any other precedent would totally disrupt our 
system of jurisprudence by breeding disrespect for the rule of law.
  The White House lawyers argued that since the President is elected 
and judges are appointed, a different standard should apply. The only 
conceivable way they might be right is if the President is held to a 
higher--not a lower--standard.
  Important as each of a thousand judges is to our legal system, it is 
the President alone who stands at the pinnacle of our system of law and 
justice. He alone is constitutionally charged to ``take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed.'' He appointed the judges. He embodies the 
public trust to a degree far and above anyone else. He sets the example 
for the entire nation. His public conduct in abiding by the oath must 
be above reproach.


                     young bill clinton's standard

  In speaking about President Richard Nixon in 1974, a young Arkansas 
congressional candidate spoke to the need for high standards:
  ``Yes, the President should resign. He has lied to the American 
people, time and time again, and betrayed their trust. Since he has 
admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American people through 
an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out 
his term; the only possible solution is for the president to save some 
dignity and resign.''
  The Candidate, Bill Clinton, set his own perfectly understandable 
standard:
  ``If a President of the United States ever lied to the American 
people, he should resign.'' Arkansas, Democrat Gazette (8/6/74)


                   what kind of lying is impeachable?

  Recently, one of my Democrat colleagues, in a television interview, 
explained his standard for perjury as an impeachable offense: ``Perjury 
could be an impeachable offense,'' he said. ``If he lied about the 
national security interest of the United States, or if he did something 
else that had serious consequence for the country, or performing 
improperly in his official capacity, that's impeachable.'' But if he's 
``not acting in his official capacity'' and only ``as an individual,'' 
that's different. That's not impeachable, he says.
  I believe this kind of making exceptions for lies about certain 
subjects, and not others, is a dangerous and slippery slope. I believe 
any lying before a grand jury by a sitting president will have 
``serious consequences for the country'' if it is deemed to be in some 
way acceptable.


                     national security implications

  Indeed, part of the reason this is so important is that if the 
President is capable of lying under oath about one thing, it reveals a 
predisposition and capability to lie about other more important things, 
while not under oath. For example, we already know this president has 
lied about the national security interest of the United States on 
numerous occasions. He lied to Congress in 1995 in pledging U.S. troops 
would not remain in Bosnia beyond one year. He lied or misled audiences 
over 130 times 1995 and 1996 in asserting that no nuclear missiles were 
aimed at American children. People know he has lied on numerous other 
public occasions. Such behavior eats away the public trust and the 
moral authority of the presidency, which are so vital to the national 
security.
  In addition, it should not go unremarked that the President's 
underlying conduct in this matter showed astonishingly bad judgment and 
disregard for the national security implications of his own behavior. 
In the modern world, the President is always a potential target of 
foreign intrigue, blackmail and salacious propaganda.
  Ms. Lewinski testified before the grand jury that the President 
himself speculated that his phone calls to her may have been monitored 
by a foreign embassy. In essence, he was admitting that he had exposed 
himself to potential blackmail. Such behavior by any president is not 
merely inappropriate. It is clearly dangerous and unacceptable.

[[Page S1663]]

                        erosion of public trust

  Economic-driven ``popularity'' polls are masking an unprecedented 
erosion of public trust in this President which has already caused 
serious damage to his ability to rally the country in time of national 
threat or crisis. His consistent and long-term pattern of untruthful 
and deceptive behavior, as exemplified in the Articles of Impeachment, 
has undermined his credibility to such an extent that he can longer be 
afforded the benefit of any public doubt about virtually any topic.
  When the President took military action against overseas terrorists 
targets in August and when he ordered air strikes against Iraq in 
December, popular majorities (!)--in the polls--questioned his timing 
and motives--and rightly so. Suspicions about both of these actions 
linger to this day, draining the small reserves of trust the President 
may have left.

  What happens if and when there is a much more serious international 
or domestic crisis, requiring timely public sacrifice mobilized through 
presidential leadership? Will the President be believed--even if he is 
telling the truth? In a world of many lurking dangers of which much of 
the public is only vaguely aware (from information warfare to weapons 
of mass destruction), such questions raise very serious concerns.


             what do we say to previously convicted liars?

  If we do not hold the President accountable in this case, what do we 
say to the over 100 people who are serving time in federal prison for 
committing perjury in legal proceedings? What do we say to Ms. Barbara 
Battalino, who was convicted of perjury, sentenced, and lost her right 
to practice her profession because she lied under oath . . . about sex 
. . . in a civil case . . . that was eventually dismissed by the judge? 
What do we say to others in similar situations? I was waiting for the 
President's lawyers to address these issues. But they never did in any 
remotely satisfactory way.


what do we say to military officers disciplined for lying about sexual 
                              misconduct?

  What do we say to the military officers whose careers and lives have 
been ruined over misconduct similar to the President's, including 
sexual misconduct, lying and obstructing justice?
  Capt. Derrick Robinson, an Army officer caught up in the Aberdeen sex 
misconduct case, is serving time in Leavenworth prison for admitting to 
consensual sex with an enlisted person who was not his wife.
  Drill Sgt. Delmar Simpson is serving 25 years in a military prison 
because a court martial found that, even though his relationship with a 
female recruit was consensual, the power granted him by his rank made 
such consensual sex with a subordinate unacceptable and--in the 
military--illegal.
  Lt. Kelly Flinn was forced out of the Air Force for lying about an 
adulterous affair.
  Sgt. Maj. Gene McKinney, the Army's top enlisted man, was tried for 
perjury, adultery and obstruction of justice concerning sexual 
misconduct. He was convicted of obstruction of justice, but not before 
his attorney asserted at trial how people in uniform rightly ask: ``How 
can you hold an enlisted man to a higher standard than the President of 
the United States,'' the Commander-in-Chief.


                            double standard

  When we establish a glaring double standard in the law, we diminish 
respect for all law. This is why we must uphold the highest of 
standards for officials in public office.


                                censure

  I will oppose any censure resolution that may be offered after the 
trial, as I opposed any so-called ``finding of fact'' during the trial, 
because it is little more than a thinly veiled effort to give people 
political cover. I believe some who might otherwise vote to convict 
look to censure as a way to justify or politically cover a vote to 
acquit. There is no precedent for censure in the Constitution or in an 
impeachment context. It would be dangerous and wrong to set such a 
precedent now. I believe it could threaten the separation of powers 
between the branches of government as Congresses start censuring 
Supreme Courts and Presidents for all manner of perceived misconduct.
  Senators should vote on the Articles of Impeachment, explain their 
reasons, and live with the consequences.
  I am struck that some of my colleagues who agree that the President 
did commit the serious offenses charged in the Articles of Impeachment, 
still believe Congress can render some effective consequence short of 
removal such as censure, which will uphold the presidency, the rule of 
law, and the sanctity of the oath. I believe they are wrong.
  I fear that they are not properly considering the precedent they 
would establish. Nevermind what we think of this particular president. 
A thoroughly corrupt president in the future will not be inhibited by 
the empty words of a non-biding ``sense of the Senate'' resolution. 
However, such a corrupt president will think twice about certain 
conduct, if he knows without doubt, by precedent, that such conduct is 
removable.
  If perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering are 
deemed--as a result of this trial--to be non-removal offenses in 
certain circumstances, then a corrupt future president may calculate 
them to be acceptable. We should not set that precedent.


                               witnesses

  From the beginning, I strongly supported efforts to allow both the 
House managers and the White House lawyers to call whatever live 
witnesses they deemed necessary to make their case. I favored a full 
and complete trial, believing that it was more important to insure 
fairness to both sides than it was to get the trial over by some 
arbitrary date. This was in keeping with normal procedures in all 
previous impeachment trials. It also seemed to me to be essential to 
fundamental fairness and a full airing of the facts and issues in 
dispute. A hundred years from now, no one will care whether the trial 
lasted two weeks or six months. They will care, we must hope, about the 
extent to which justice was done. Overall, I was disappointed in the 
unnecessarily tight procedural restrictions imposed on this trial, 
including the limits on witnesses, I fear that a bad precedent has been 
unnecessarily set for the future.


                          closed deliberations

  Throughout the trial, I opposed efforts to waive the time-honored 
rules of procedure which require that deliberations among senators be 
closed to the public. I am convinced this was the right decision. The 
closed meetings allowed for a more colleagial atmosphere among 
senators, limiting much of the posturing and grandstanding that often 
goes on before the cameras. The closed sessions also helped enhance a 
greater spirit of duty and cooperation concerning the tasks at hand. As 
with all jury trials going back for more than 2000 years in history, 
closed deliberations constitute proper procedure and I believe this 
tradition should be maintained.
  This need not, and does not, diminish the accountability of senators 
to their constituents and the public at large. All roll call votes 
remain open and I believe every member maintains an obligation to 
inform his constituents of the reason for his votes.


             constitutent letter raises key issue: the kids

  I received a letter from Mr. Terrence Hogan of Owasso, Okla., an 
eighth grade civics teacher at the Cascia Hall Middle School in Tulsa 
for the past 22 years. He wrote last September saying he ``was greatly 
concerned about the moral direction of our nation'' in light of the 
President's ``willful and repeated lying.'' He said the nation ``cannot 
tolerate from our President actions and choices that we would not 
tolerate from the principal of our neighborhood school.''
  And this is exactly the point that people across America are asking. 
Is the President subject to the same moral accountability as every 
other responsible citizen in the workplace, or in any other position of 
public trust? And what do we say to the kids about truth and justice, 
about honesty and integrity, about the political and governmental 
heritage they should admire and emulate?


                          impeachable offenses

  These acts, which were committed willfully and premediately by the 
President, are serious offenses which I believe clearly rise to the 
level of impeachable offenses.
  I reject the White House lawyers' argument that the President's 
conduct

[[Page S1664]]

does not amount to the technical ``crimes'' of perjury and obstruction, 
but I'm content to allow a regular court of law to settle the issue. I 
also reject their argument that the President's conduct does not rise 
to the level of impeachable offenses.
  I believe the President's conduct (however it is ultimately labeled) 
constitutes absolutely unacceptable behavior on the part of the 
President of the United States, the nation's chief law enforcement 
officer who is constitutionally charged to ``faithfully execute the 
laws,'' and who, by word and deed, sets an example for every citizen.
  In finding the President guilty on both Articles of Impeachment, I 
believe the constitutional consequence of removal from office is 
warranted in order to uphold for future generations:
  The integrity, honor, and trust which are indispensable to the moral 
authority of the presidency;
  The sanctity of the oath which every citizen must take in any legal 
proceeding to tell ``the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth;'' and
  The viability of our judicial system, the rule of law, and the 
prinicple of ``equal justice under law.''


                  a final note to my fellow oklahomans

  Holding public office is a special privilege and I am continually 
grateful to the people of Oklahoma for the opportunity to serve in the 
United States Senate.
  During the past weeks and months, I have received thousands of 
letters, e-mails, faxes, phone calls and other communications relative 
to the impeachment trial and all of the subject matters surrounding it. 
Many have expressed strongly held views on one side or the other, often 
urging me to vote in accord with their wishes and thinking. My 
overworked staff and I have done our best to digest and respond to 
these inquiries and comments as best we could. To those who may have 
not yet received a personal response, I want to express my appreciation 
for sharing your thoughts, your ideas, and your concerns.
  Whether you agree or disagree, I want you to know that my votes for 
conviction on the two Articles of Impeachment represent my best 
judgment, based on my analysis of the facts, the law, the Constitution 
and what I believe is best for our country. They do not represent the 
results of any poll or political calculation about what may be popular, 
either in Oklahoma or elsewhere.
  I have viewed the trial as a serious Constitutional duty and have 
listened and deliberated with profound sense of history and patriotism. 
I have sought to respect the process and preserve for future 
generations those wise procedural precedents, including the rule of 
law, that have served this nation so well for over 200 years.
  I have stated my views and I accept the result of the trial. I harbor 
no personal bitterness or hatred toward the President. It is time to 
look to the future. I hope all of us on all sides of these issues can 
unite in a prayer for the future of our country and for the ideals of 
freedom and justice it stands for in the world. God Bless America.
  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.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________