Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to recommit.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it seems to me that the facts that led me to file this motion have been fully provided to the Senate. The code, the canons of ethics involving impartiality, the responsibility of judges under these circumstances have been discussed. I do want to point out that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of Louisiana itself handed down a case in August 1986 in which the obligation of judges to disqualify themselves in cases in which they have a personal knowledge is one that the court takes very seriously. One of the head notes in that case is as follows: Under the disqualification statute, recusal is required even when a judge lacks actual knowledge of the facts, indicating his interest or bias in the case, if a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge. It strikes me in reading that and then looking at the underlying decision of the court of appeals--incidentally, this case came out of the State of Louisiana, so it should have been within the knowledge of the judge as to what the law is, not just the canons of ethics, but what the law is regarding recusal and disqualification. But it strikes me that this clearly applies to this situation. Not only did the judge have personal knowledge about the scholarship benefits that State legislators could award, he had to know that these records were kept at Tulane, he had to know that legislators did not like to provide information from those records to the general public, he had to know the importance of this to the class to which he personally belonged, the legislators of the State of Louisiana. So irrespective of the fact that his son had been given a scholarship worth $60,000 to Tulane by another legislator and that that information would be made available, or arguably could be, under a writ of mandamus or would be required to be made available if the court upheld the district court's rule, all of this information and the involvement of the judge personally in this program, the benefits that had been given to his family as a result of this program, all would become public knowledge at a time when he had been nominated to serve on the court of appeals and the Judiciary Committee of the United States had his nomination under consideration. And were it divulged that this information was coming to light at that time, this could have had an adverse effect on the proceedings to consider his nomination. All of that is clear now, but it was withheld from the Judiciary Committee by his neglect to advise that he had been contacted by a reporter at the Times-Picayune. But it is just as clear as it can possibly be that this should have been the subject of inquiry by the Judiciary Committee at the time. And a senior staff member, when we were getting a briefing in my office about the follow-up investigation that the chairman ordered, said that if the Judiciary Committee had that information at the time they reported out the nomination, they would not have done it. This is an opportunity to give the Judiciary Committee the opportunity to make a decision based on the full facts, a full investigation. If a hearing is required, any member of the Judiciary Committee can ask the chairman to have a hearing. He says it is not the intent to have a hearing. Well, I think it ought to be looked into further. I think closer scrutiny ought to be brought to bear on this nomination by this committee so that all members of the committee will have a set of facts on which to base a decision about the fitness of this person to serve on the court of appeals. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to approve the motion to recommit. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield for a question on the point of what was at issue in the case before the supreme court? Just a question.

Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator would yield. I know Senators are interested in this subject. Two or three have come up to me and said, ``You are not going to let this proceed to a final vote today if this motion is defeated?'' I said, ``I am not going to stand in the way of that. But if you want to speak you can. You have the right to do that.'' So I do not know what other Senators may do. I do not intend to filibuster the nomination, I say to my friend. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to recommit the nomination to the Judiciary Committee. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. I do not want to foreclose any Senator's right by any agreement like that. My personal inclination would be to proceed to vote in due course whenever Senators--if they want to talk about it, they could, but there is no agreement to proceed to a vote at that time. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection to proceeding to voting on the nomination. As I understand it, though, it would be subject to debate.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chairman. I appreciate this willingness to address the refinery MACT issue in the committee report.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chairman. One further point. Would the Chairman agree that there is significant sentiment on the Appropriations Committee and in the Senate to talk further, and perhaps take stronger, action on this issue next year if EPA does not engage in a serious reevaluation of the refinery MACT rule during fiscal year 1996?

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Missouri. The issue I wish to clarify is the Appropriations Committee's intent regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's refinery maximum achievable control technology [MACT] rule. This rulemaking is of deep concern to me, as I am sure it is to the Senator from Missouri. In promulgating the refinery MACT rule, EPA has ignored the principles of sound science, used outdated data to establish emissions controls, developed extremely questionable estimates of the benefits to be gained from these emissions controls, and failed to take into account the impact of these regulations on the smaller refiners around the nation, including those in my home State of Mississippi. Does the Senator from Missouri share my concerns?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a short colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Missouri, the chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. Will the Senator assist me in clarifying an issue in the bill under consideration today?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2786

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a short colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Missouri, the chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. Will the Senator assist me in clarifying an issue in the bill under consideration today?

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his willingness to address the Yellow Creek transfer in the committee report. drug elimination grants

Mr. COCHRAN. Would the Senator further stipulate that the main elements of the agreement reached between NASA and the State of Mississippi, which the conferees would expect to be adhered to by both parties, are as follows: First, the Yellow Creek facility will be turned over to the appropriate agency of the State of Mississippi within 30 days of enactment of this legislation. All of the NASA property on Yellow Creek which the State of Mississippi requires to facilitate the transfer of the site transfers with the site to the State, subject to the following exceptions anticipated by the conferees: Any property assigned to a NASA facility other than Yellow Creek prior to May 2, 1995, but located at Yellow Creek will be returned to its assigned facility; Only those contracts for the sale of NASA property at Yellow Creek signed by both parties prior to May 2, 1995 shall be executed; Those items deemed to be in the ``national security interest'' of the federal government shall be retained by NASA. The national security clause shall be narrowly construed and shall apply only in a limited manner, consistent with established criteria relating to national security interests. This clause shall not be used to circumvent the intent of this legislation, which is to transfer the site and all of its property, except as otherwise noted, to the State of Mississippi. Other items of interest to NASA may be retained by NASA with the consent of the State of Mississippi. Further, it is the expectation of the Appropriations Committee conferees [[Page S 14306]] that all other NASA personal property will transfer to the State of Mississippi. The Appropriations Committee also expects facilities on the site not subject to the above provisions, such as the environmental lab, to be left as is. Second, any environmental remediation of Yellow Creek necessary as a result of the activities of governmental agencies, such as NASA, or quasi-governmental agencies, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, will be the responsibility of the federal agency or quasi-federal agency, including any successors and interests. Third, within 30 days of enactment of this legislation $10 million will be transferred from NASA to the appropriate agency of the State of Mississippi. And lastly, the site's environmental permits will become the property of the State of Mississippi. NASA will provide all necessary assistance in transferring these permits to the State of Mississippi.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Missouri. The issue I wish to clarify is the Appropriation Committee's intent on the transfer of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Yellow Creek facility to the State of Mississippi. As the Senator knows, the Federal Government has a long history of involvement in Yellow Creek, located near Iuka, Mississippi. The site, originally purchased by the Tennessee Valley Authority for use as a nuclear energy plant, was subsequently transferred to NASA after the nuclear energy plant's cancellation. NASA intended to use Yellow Creek to build the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) and, after its cancellation, instead committed to use the site to build nozzles for the Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM). On May 2, 1995, due to its current budgetary constraints, NASA terminated the RSRM nozzle production effort at Yellow Creek. Would the Senator agree that the bill language included by the Appropriations Committee on the transfer of the NASA Yellow Creek facility reflects the most recent commitment made by NASA Administrator Dan Goldin to the Governor of the State of Mississippi. The major investment by the State of Mississippi in facilities and infrastructure to support Yellow Creek, in excess of $100 million, is a key factor in NASA's agreement to turn the site over to the State of Mississippi.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I join Senator Lott in expressing appreciation to the chairman for his diligent efforts on this issue and many others in this important bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if I could join my colleague, Senator Lott, in this discussion, I would like to add that the full amount of the project was included in the Senate reported military construction appropriations bill. I know very well the difficult negotiations required to move this appropriation bill through the conference committee. I know that great effort was made to secure this funding for the road relocation project and I appreciate his diligence on this issue. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if this phase 1 funding will allow the Department of Defense to initiate actions, contractual or otherwise, to start this project in fiscal year 1996?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations for accepting my amendment making $3,000,000 available for the World Food Program [WFP]. As the largest WFP donor, the United States expects more and more every year from WFP as the key provider of food aid in emergencies. In its investigation of WFP effectiveness, the General Accounting Office determined that a larger cash component in United States food donations is needed to improve the efficiency of our food aid distribution operations in such difficult emergencies as those found in Rwanda, Bosnia, Angola, and Sudan. While this earmark will not increase WFP funding from this account, it will continue the current level of U.S. support and give us time to address through other legislation the fundamental problem of linking cash to food in order to improve the management of food aid so desperately needed around the world. I deeply appreciate the acceptance of my amendment and thank the chairman and his staff for their consideration of this important issue. amendment no. 2735 On page 11, line 10 insert after ``Zaire'': ``: Provided further, That, Not less than $2,000,000 shall be provided to the International Fertilizer Development Center''.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not damage the longstanding alliance between the United States and Turkey. Located in one of the most volatile regions of the world, bordered by Greece, Bulgaria, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and several former Soviet Republics, Turkey acts as a stabilizing force in the region. She has stood with the United States in all its conflicts since the Second World War, from the Korean war to the gulf war. She was the bulwark of NATO's southern flank during the cold war, defending 37 percent of the NATO-Warsaw Pact land frontier, as well as her Black Sea coast and the straits controlling Soviet access to the Mediterranean. Turkey is connected geographically, ethnically, or politically to the problems of Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria, Russia, Tajikistan, Syria, and Islamic fundamentalism. As one journalist has written, ``Turkish foreign policy today is a 360-degree nightmare.'' Now more than ever, the United States should work with Turkey as she continues to be the strong bridge between the Moslem world and the West, her Western orientation serving as a model for many of the republics of the former Soviet Union. I believe that both Turkey and Armenia recognize their need to lessen tensions and to cooperate with the United States to resolve regional problems, including the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno- Karabakh. As a good will gesture toward Armenia in April 1995, turkey opened an air corridor connecting Erzurum to Yerevan, previously closed for 2 years. I hope that Armenia will reciprocate and that the process toward improved relations--already well under way--will continue.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, last week, I was very honored to be able to attend the funeral in my State of former Congressman Jamie Whitten. Congressman Whitten was my good friend and colleague in the House. I served in the House 6 years before coming to the Senate. During that time, I got to know him and be with him frequently. Even though I was not on the Appropriations Committee at that time when I was elected to the Senate, I soon became a member of the Appropriations Committee, and as irony caused it, I was immediately the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. The day I went on the Agriculture Subcommittee, the Republicans had become the majority in the Senate and that was my first assignment. Interestingly enough, on the House side, Congressman Whitten had been the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations [[Page S 13884]] Subcommittee since about 1949. He had been in the House only 8 years when he became chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Agriculture. So that first year, I recall having the opportunity of going to conference with Congressman Whitten chairing the subcommittee on the House side and I chairing it on the Senate side, both being from the same State. I was very new to the job, and I remember he said to me that day as we began our negotiation on the House-passed and Senate- passed appropriations bills funding the Department of Agriculture and related agencies, ``Thad, you had better be careful what you ask for now; you might get it.'' I have never forgotten that. It was an interesting lesson and a good thing to tell me because in that position you have to defend what you have recommended; you have to understand that there are going to be those who will look critically at the contents of the bill. And we worked very cordially together during those 6 years when I chaired that subcommittee. As I was handling the bill in this Chamber for the last couple of days we have been considering the Agriculture appropriations bill, I thought several times about my good friend and former colleague in the House and the lessons that I learned, which have certainly been good lessons to learn. He was a man who was very courteous, very knowledgeable about the subject. In his dealings with other Members of the House and Senate, he was always a gentleman. I respected that and appreciated that in Jamie Whitten. When he retired from the House, we truly saw come to an end a legendary career in many ways, not because of length of service, which was longer than anyone had ever served in the House of Representatives, but because of the kind of person he was and the way he did his job. He took it seriously. He was conscientious, he did it well, and he did it well for a long period of time. I was reading editorials just over the last few weeks in our State, and there have been many written talking about Congressman Whitten. There were two that I particularly appreciated, and I will put them in the Record. One is from the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal in Tupelo, and the other was written by Bill Minor, who has a syndicated political column in Mississippi, and this was printed in the Clarion- Ledger in Jackson, MS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that both of these editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the order, there are 4 minutes equally divided on the Feingold amendment, the first amendment to be voted on. In connection with the Conrad amendment, there has been a modification submitted. In connection with the Conrad amendment, I ask the following: I ask unanimous consent that following the first of the ordered votes, there be 6 minutes of debate for the Conrad amendment No. 2698, with 4 minutes under the control of Senator Conrad and 2 minutes under the control of Senator Cochran.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to compliment the good effort of all of the members of our committee and our staffs for the work they have done in preparing this bill, in getting it to the floor and handling the bill and answering questions, and my colleagues' dealing with amendments and all of the things that go into managing a bill on the floor of the Senate. We appreciate the cooperation of all Senators in getting the bill passed in a timely fashion. I especially want to single out for praise the staff members of this subcommittee: Rebecca Davies, Hunt Shipman, Jimmie Reynolds, Galen Fountain, and Carole Geagley. We thank them very much for their hard work and their expert assistance.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments to H.R. 1976 and request a conference with the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the [[Page S 13919]] two Houses thereon, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.