Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 4, 2000, at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled ``Has Government Been `Reinvented'?''

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2000, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Immigration be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, May 4, 2000, at 2 p.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on the United States Forest Service's use of current and proposed stewardship contracting procedures, including authorities under section 347 of the 1999 omnibus appropriations act, and whether these procedures assist or could be improved to assist forest management activities to meet goals of ecosystem management, restoration, and employment opportunities on public lands.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on Taxation by authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2000 to hear testimony on Medicare Governance: The Health Care Financing Administration's Role and Readiness in Reform.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 4, 2000, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2001 defense authorization bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.

Mr. INHOFE. It is a big deal, because in my State of Oklahoma there our five major military installations. I hear from people all the time in Lawton, OK, and Fort Sill. Of course, we have a very large number of children who are being educated in the public school system, but there is no money coming from the tax base. This is a Government installation. The local districts sometimes have ideas that are better than those ideas emanating from Washington. I will share one personal experience. I can remember many years ago when I was in the State legislature; I made it a practice to always come back to Tulsa from where we met when the kids had some kind of a function, a school play or something. I remember coming in one time and seeing my oldest son, Jimmy. At that time he was in the fourth grade. He was beaming. He said, ``Dad, guess what?'' He said, ``You know I am in the fourth grade.'' I said, ``Yes. I know that, son.'' He said, ``Guess what. In reading I am in the fifth grade.'' I said, ``How in the world did that work?'' He said, ``It is a brand new, something that has never been tried before. But they are taking me at the level where I am because I am better than the rest of the fourth graders. So I am in the fifth grade.'' I thought back to when I was in grade school. I went to a little country schoolhouse where they had a wood-burning stove in the middle of the room. There were eight rows of seats and eight grades. I was in the first row because I was in the first grade. My brother was in the second row because he was in the second grade. My sister was in the eighth row because she was in the eighth grade. We had one school teacher. I think back now and wonder if he was really the giant that I remember. When you needed discipline, as the Senator from Alabama was talking about--at that time they had a great big board. If you messed up, you were disciplined the right way. Anyway, when they would teach the classes, they would line you up. I would go with the first graders. In spelling, for example, when you missed a spelling word, you had to go up there and get a swat on the rear with this great big paddle. I have to tell you that I was a very good speller. I was in the third row. That taught me a lesson. So I thought about that program that Jimmy talked about. This probably happened 30 years before then. It was a brandnew and innovative program. Programs that emanate from the Federal Government are not always the right ones. We need to unshackle the hands of the teachers, the parents, and the local school districts to give them greater flexibility and greater opportunity to do a better job of teaching our children. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand a lot of people are preparing their remarks to address this very significant subject of the marriage tax penalty. I know the Senator from Texas has addressed this subject many times, as I have, and I intend to do that. Regrettably, I want to report to the Senate and to the American people something different, which is more evidence of the hypocrisy, corruption, and coverup which pervades this administration. Something happened last week. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we finally got some answers about the ``investigation'' concerning the March 1998 incident in which information from Linda Tripp's confidential Government security file was deliberately leaked to the media. Linda Tripp was and still is a Government employee who works out of the Pentagon. I understand nobody wants to hear about this. They would rather hear warm and fuzzy things. People say they have already heard it before, which they have not, but they think they have. They say there are only 9 months left in this President's term. Everybody says: Shut up; let it go; leave it alone; there is nothing you can do about it. They say: Just move on to something else. For those concerned about the politics of it, that is probably wise counsel, but some of us are less concerned about the politics than we are about the truth. I wish I did not have to say anything about this subject, but somebody has to do it. We are talking about another crime committed in this administration. Politicians do not want to make people feel uncomfortable. As Henry Ward Beecher said: I don't like those cold, precise, perfect people who, in order not to say wrong, say nothing; and in order not to do wrong, do nothing. A lot of say nothing and do nothing takes place in this Senate. That is why I asked Donald Mancuso, the Pentagon's acting inspector general, a series of questions at the hearing last week. His answers revealed for the first time a number of things we previously did not know. He told us: No. 1, the Pentagon Office of Inspector General completed its investigation of this matter in July of 1998. Spokespeople in the administration have been implying for the last 20 months that the Pentagon itself was still investigating. This is not true. It is just another Clinton lie. What we have is evidence of a lie, a coverup, and a transparent effort to drag it out as long as possible, hoping to run out the clock as the administration's time in office winds down. No. 2, we learned that the report--this is the report on the leak in 1998--was given to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution, and quoting Mancuso: We felt we had found sufficient information to warrant consultation with the Department of Justice. This means it was a criminal referral. The Pentagon IG obviously believed there was sufficient evidence that a crime had been committed. No. 3, the inspector general concluded that Pentagon Director of Public Affairs Ken Bacon was involved in illegal activity. Quoting again Inspector General Mancuso: The facts show that information was released by Mr. Bacon and it related to Linda Tripp. No. 4, the Justice Department, after a 20-month coverup, quietly told the Pentagon in the last 2 weeks it would not prosecute anyone in the case. We would not even have known about it if it had not been for the fact this came out during a hearing. This came out in a hearing that was live on C-SPAN. It was a public hearing, a public forum, so no one is going to be held legally accountable for what happened. Remember, this is the President, who, in November 1992, said he would immediately fire anyone who was caught disclosing information from confidential Government personnel files. All these things were not publicly known previously. I repeat, these four new findings we learned for the very first time only last week: First, we discovered that the Pentagon Office of Inspector General completed its investigation of the matter in July of 1998. Second, we learned that the report was given to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Third, we learned that the inspector general concluded that Pentagon Director of Public Affairs Ken Bacon was involved in the illegal activity. Mancuso said: The facts show that information was released by Mr. Bacon and it related to Linda Tripp. Under the circumstances, releasing this information was clearly a criminal act, whether the Justice Department wants to believe this or not. Fourth, we learned that the Justice Department has been covering up the crime for 20 months and only now tells us that no one will be prosecuted and no one will be held accountable. This would never have come to light if it had not been for this hearing. This is the same Justice Department that has botched up the investigation of the theft of information on the W-88 warhead, that has refused to appoint an independent counsel to investigate campaign fundraising illegalities, and that continues to cover up vital information in defiantly refusing to release the LaBella and Freeh memos suggesting that crimes may have been committed in the Chinagate scandal. All this was ``breaking news'' last week. Did we read about it in the New York Times, in the Washington Post, or in the Los Angeles Times, or any of those publications? Did we hear about it on ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN? No, we did not. With the noted exception of the Washington Times, the mainstream media largely ignored this important story. Have we come to the point, 7 years and 3 months into this President's term, that the media, that is supposed to be the watchdogs of democracy, has given up caring about lawbreaking and abuses by the incumbent administration? Is that what this is all about? Are they so tired and bored by it all that they cannot report the obvious facts to the American people? I appeal to the media right now to cover this story, and to cover it well. Just tell the truth. Expose the facts. Expose the hypocrisy. Do not, by your silence, allow yourselves to become pawns and participants in another Clinton coverup. This is still America. The truth still matters. Let's look at some history. Let's recall a time when the media played a much different role than they are playing now. Watergate was 25 years ago, a time before the ``death of outrage,'' when the media boasted of its role explaining the immense significance of lawbreaking and coverups in high places. Charles Colson, a guy I happen to know, I say to Senator Byrd--I attend a Bible study with him; an outstanding individual; at that time he was not so outstanding--was special counsel to President Nixon. He went to jail for doing essentially what Ken Bacon did. He released information to the media about a Pentagon employee that came from a confidential Government file in an attempt to discredit that person. This was a crime then; and it is a crime now. What exactly did Colson do? This is what he said he did, in his own words. This is going back to 1991: I got hold of derogatory FBI reports about Ellsberg and leaked them to the press. He said further, in 1976: I happily gave an inquiring reporter damaging information . . . compiled from secret FBI dossiers. So what happened to Colson? In the midst of the media firestorm surrounding Watergate, Colson pleaded guilty to the charge that he obstructed justice by disseminating to the media derogatory information from a confidential FBI file about Daniel Ellsberg. Colson was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Gerhard Gesell to a prison term of 1 to 3 years and fined $5,000. At the sentencing, Judge Gesell deplored Colson's ``deliberate misconduct'' and he lectured him to understand that ``Morality is a higher force than expediency.'' In his book, ``Born Again,'' Colson talked about the significance of what he had done. He recalled that Judge Gesell said, in his pretrial hearing: The whole purpose of this case, beyond its immediate objective, is to direct some attention to the desirability of having a government of law, not a government of men. That is what this is [all] about. Colson continued, in his own words: It is something I remembered from Civics I in school. He said: These were the cardinal principles of American government, the real bull-work against man-made tyranny. When a man's constitutional rights are in jeopardy, the violation, even cloaked in the time-honored protective shroud of national security, is simply intolerable. Colson served 7 months in jail before the court reduced his sentence to time served. Now, what did Ken Bacon do? Let's go to the Washington Post of May 22, 1998: The Pentagon's chief spokesman (Ken Bacon) apologized today for authorizing the release to a reporter of information contained in Linda R. Tripp's 1987 security clearance form, saying, ``In retrospect, I'm sorry the incident occurred.'' Bacon's remarks came after he acknowledged in a deposition last Friday that he provided the New Yorker writer Jane Mayer with the Tripp information. So, in other words, he admitted it. There is no question about whether or not he committed this crime. There is no doubt about it, no dispute about it. Bacon said: I'm sorry that I did not check with our lawyers or check with Linda Tripp's lawyers about this. Sorry? Sorry didn't cut it for Chuck Colson. Colson committed his crime in July of 1971. He admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty on June 3, 1974, and was sentenced to jail June 21, 1974. Bacon committed his crime in March 1998. He admitted what he had done in June of 1998. The Pentagon inspector general referred the matter for criminal prosecution in July of 1998. So now, 2 years later, in April of 2000, the Clinton Justice Department says it is going to take a pass, hoping nobody will see or care at this late date. Colson went to jail and served time in prison. If there was justice, an equal application of the law, Bacon would also go to jail and serve time in prison. Is this the first time the Clinton administration has been involved in lawbreaking and corruption? Hardly. It has almost become a way of life: Travelgate, Filegate, Buddhist Temple fundraisers, illegal foreign campaign contributions, the compromise of high-technology nuclear secrets to China, not to mention perjury and obstruction of justice--the list goes on and on. Why is any of this important? It is all about a concept that is basic to America, a concept as basic as going to church on Sunday. That concept is: Equal application of the law. Only the media can ultimately protect this fundamental principle by informing the people about what is happening. If the people do not know, of course, they will not care. The role of the media is critical in protecting our liberties. So again, I appeal to the media to cover this story, not to cover up this story. Does anyone care? I believe the American people care. But they must be informed first. Let me conclude by recalling the words of Chuck Colson. In writing about his own case, he said: I pleaded guilty after being told by Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski that my conviction would deter such a thing from [ever] happening again. So I am here today to tell the American people, it just happened again. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National Institutes of Health EPSCoR Program Act of 2000 with my colleague, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana. This legislation we are introducing today, when passed, stands to make a major impact on the scope of biomedical research done in America today. Small and medium sized states, like ours, have been unfairly discriminated against in their competition for federal research dollars. In 1978, Congress created the EPSCoR program (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research), to make sure that all states would have the opportunity to compete for scientific research funds. Despite this intention, the EPSCoR program only served to exacerbate the exiting funding disparity. You may ask, how can this be so? The answer is really quite simple. The EPSCoR program does not extend to one of the biggest sources of scientific research--the National Institutes of Health (NIH). We are all aware, the NIH budget is growing rapidly; NIH's FY 2000 budget is $17.9 billion--up 8.43 percent in the past 5 years. Yet, despite this tremendous boom, 24 states receive 93 percent of NIH research grants, while the other 26 states split the remaining 7 percent. Although the NIH budget has resulted in great scientific gains, the research divide continues. One-half of the states have seen little benefit in the recent NIH increase. The time has come to correct this allocation program, but in a way that insures we have the best biomedical research in the world, and that those benefits are extended to the entire country. Research institutes provide a great opportunity to improve the health care delivery and quality in their home state, but only limited opportunity exists in half the states, because of the existing funding divide. The legislation we are introducing will provide $200 million to NIH- EPSCoR states will enable states that currently receive historically low amounts of NIH grants to participate in two special funds. The first fund is to finance new infrastructure needs in these states. Because of their continued lack of equitable funding, many EPSCoR states have fallen behind in their infrastructure needs and are unable to compete against non-EPSCoR states. Our legislation will allocate $3.5 million each year to every NIH-EPSCoR state, to be used for projects the state EPSCoR committee targets as meeting the state biomedical research committees' goals. Because the state is responsible for choosing its infrastructure needs, we may finally be able to get away from the yearly requests for special projects in our states and allow federal funds to be spent in the most efficient manner possible. The second fund is dedicated toward research in the new NIH-EPSCoR. This research is for meritorious projects, co-funded by the NIH-EPSCoR fund and the NIH Institute or Center. These projects must meet existing NIH standards or merit and quality, but will not have to compete against proposals from the non-EPSCoR states, which already dominate the grant process. Finally, this process will be self sustaining. Because research is typically less expensive to perform in NIH-EPSCoR states, the savings in administrative costs are recaptured to fund additional research. In FY 1999 we estimate these savings would have added up to $49 million, which would have flowed back to NIH-EPSCoR states for additional research projects. In recent years, we have made great strides in biomedical research, however, that research has been limited to only a select few. I ask you to join us in resolving this discrepancy and restore equity to the NIH process and would invite my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the State Department has filed an Article 84 petition with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). This will provide the basis for the United States to demonstrate that the European Union's (EU) hushkit regulation is not in accordance with international noise standards set by ICAO and is essentially targeting U.S. aerospace. Already this unfair regulation has hurt U.S. aerospace companies and workers because of the uncertainty it has introduced into the marketplace. Accordingly, it is imperative that the Administration pursue this Article 84 forcefully to show that we will not stand for discriminatory rules that hurt U.S. interests. If we do not make this point clearly, strongly, and now, we will have done nothing to prevent future efforts by the EU to act without regard to international standards and in ways designed to harm the United States' longstanding primacy in aerospace. Filing an Article 84 is the beginning of what may be a long process. The mere fact that it may take a period of time should not serve as an inducement to the Administration to seek to shortcut the ICAO process by entering into a negotiated settlement that does not fully protect our aerospace industry and workforce. Further, we must make clear that the principle of adhering to international standards is essential in an industry as global as aviation. If we fail to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take this matter, we will inevitably have done nothing more than encourage the EU to try such incursions in the future. I can assure you that I and many others will be working to see that the right message is delivered on this critical matter.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. I think one thing the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, failed to say is that she has legislation to do the very thing she is talking about that is critical to more than just the economy of this country and just the price of oil but also to our national security. I can remember in 1985 serving in the other body. At that time, we and Secretary of the Interior Hodel had a dog-and-pony show where we would go around the Nation and explain to people in consumption States that our dependency on foreign sources for our oil was a national security issue. That means we are dependent upon them for our ability to fight a war. This is an incontrovertible fact. In fact, if you go back to World War I, the wars have been won by those countries that have control of the energy. I certainly applaud Senator Hutchison for her legislation. I am a cosponsor. I think this is one of the ways we do it. We have two major sources in this country that we need to tap: One is in the State of Alaska, and offshore. I have been up there. I know how compatible that is to the ecology up there. I believe we are going to have to do it. Of course, in our areas, to some degree--Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas in the oil belt--we have tremendous reserves. But all of it is in shallow steppes. She talks about 15 barrels a day. I used to do this for a living. I was a tool dresser on a table tool rig. Nobody knows what a table tool rig is anymore. But at that time, you had to work and work very hard. It costs us in the United States of America 10 times as much to lift a barrel of oil out of the ground than it costs in Saudi Arabia. You would think we were smart enough in this country to learn from experience, but we are not. In 1973, we were going through exactly the same thing we are going through today. The OPEC countries could produce oil cheaply. They had control of this. We were at that time only 36- percent dependent upon them, but that was enough for them to control to the extent they lowered the price and starved out the small, marginal well producers and stripper producers. They were no longer able to stay in business. It is not easy to say: It is fine now because it is $38 a barrel, or $28 a barrel. It doesn't work that way. There has to be a predictability of price. When you are making an investment decision to drill one of these wells, that has to be made about 6 months before you actually go into the ground. If you have fluctuating prices, you can't find many people who are willing to risk their capital to go in the ground. We have to have predictability. The only way we are going to have that is with a national energy policy. I have probably been the chief critic of this administration in every area, from energy to national defense. But in this case I have to, in all fairness, say we do not have a national energy policy. We tried to get a national energy policy under President Reagan, under President Bush, and certainly under President Clinton. We have not been able to do it. This is where we are going to have to concentrate our efforts. I think people who are concerned about prices need to understand there is another thing coming, and that is the EPA. Truck drivers have been requesting that Congress step in to reduce the cost of diesel fuel. If they think prices are high now, wait until the EPA finalizes their sulfur and diesel rule. I have talked to small refiners. They do not know how they can operate at that particular level. That is going to have a direct effect. It could double the cost of diesel. Yesterday, Carol Browner said she wanted to eliminate the oxygenate mandate in fuels. However, she wants to mandate that all fuels contain a 1.5-percent renewable component. That means the cost is going to go up. It is done under the banner of the ecology. The issue we are dealing with today is far more serious than just the price of gas at the pumps or the price of oil to heat our houses. This is a national security issue. We are now dependent upon foreign sources for our ability to defend America. It has to come to a stop. The only way it can come to a stop is develop a national energy policy, the cornerstone of which is a percentage beyond which we cannot go beyond for dependence on foreign sources. I applaud the chairman for his efforts and join in the efforts to bring about such a policy.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't think there has been anyone in this body who has been more critical of the administration for the things that have taken place, for what has happened to our defense industry, for what has happened in many other problem areas that have come up, but I have to rise today to actually compliment the administration for an action that they took on March 14 of this year when they filed an article 84 action with the International Civil Aviation Organization, usually referred to as ICAO. ICAO was put together as an organization where all of the nations that with aviation and commercial aviation would agree to certain standards so there is some degree of uniformity. They got together and determined we would have a noise standard that was classified as chapter 3. The European Union, and I hate to say this, has demonstrated much arrogance. I guess they think that all of a sudden they have gone from a small fish in the pond to the big fish in the pond and they have totally disregarded agreements they have made. They signed an agreement, a trade agreement, an ICAO agreement with all of the other countries saying that by a certain date they would have to have chapter 3 noise level. Then, not too long ago, they unilaterally decided they were going to abrogate that treaty and unilaterally say that they are going to not allow chapter 3 noise level unless it is done through new airplanes or re-engining, so a muffling system that takes it to the same noise level would not comply. This means we in the United States are discriminated against. I think everyone is aware the big competition worldwide now is Boeing aircraft in the United States and Airbus in Europe. As a result of this, it gives a tremendous advantage to Airbus over Boeing. They would be financially discriminating against the U.S. in a way that would cost the United States and depreciate the value of the inventory of many of our Boeing aircraft. The ``hush'' industry is a huge industry in the United States. They have been able to use this technology to bring down the noise level of existing aircraft to chapter 3 standards, and it shouldn't make any difference how we get to this level. The administration has taken this into consideration when on March 14 they passed an article 84 against the European Union with ICAO. I think it is very significant. I know it will be a long and drawn out process, but I hope and I admonish the administration not to use the fact that it will be a long and drawn out process to go sideways or to cave in on this very critical issue to American workers and American manufacturers. I can assure the administration that we will be working with them very closely to correct this action to be able to use any method that can be used that is on the market today in order to reach the chapter 3 noise standards. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the majority leader. I hate to interrupt this love-in, but I want an opportunity to explain my actions. First of all, I want to say to the majority leader that I appreciate his acknowledgement of the accuracy of what happened on November 19. That is important to me. There have been some erroneous statements made in various newspapers reflecting the existence of other lists, and all that. The bottom line is this: We made a request, the list came forward, and 10 minutes before we adjourned on November 19 we read from the list. I believe there were strong reasons why the two particular nominees, Weisberg and Fox, would have been unacceptable. There are several Senators I have spoken with who would have found them unacceptable-- frankly, I am one of them--and who would have been placed holds on those two individuals had they known that recess appointments were imminent. Some would have placed holds or at the very least insisted that hearings be held to explore the important policy matters surrounding these two appointments. I think that is irrelevant. The fact is, the names were not on the Nov. 19 list. If the names had been on that list, that would have been totally different. Maybe some would have objected to them so they would not have been brought forward. The point is, appointments were made, and they violated the statements and the intent of the letter that we received from the White House vowing to honor their commitment. I say to the majority leader, it is my intention, if we go forward at some point to vote on the two particular nominations to which you referred, that I will want to be heard and go back and maybe talk a little bit about what happened to bring us to the point where we are today. I add that the President is not keeping his commitments. I think when I read his letter there is no question in my mind. I made it abundantly clear on the floor what the consequences would be. I say, also, that I am in a position, I say to the majority leader, that while the President does not keep his commitments, I do keep my commitments. My commitments are to do what I can to try to block judicial nominations.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

Mr. INHOFE. No, not now. I just say this. In following through with my commitment to try to block the confirmations, while it is not my intention--if the handwriting is on the wall--to just arbitrarily lay down blanket filibusters, I do intend to consult with my colleagues and reserve my rights under the rules to assess what actions, if any, can succeed in this effort. I want to make one other comment about this, too; that is, you hear a lot of yelling and screaming about: Oh, what are we going to do without these appointments that we have to have? I remind you, back in 1993, at the end of the Bush administration--he was ready to go out of office-- there were 109 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. In other words, the Democratic controlled Congress failed to fill these vacancies. Right now, there are 74 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. If you determine where we would be if normal history takes its course through deaths or resignations, at the most there would be another 25 vacancies. That means, at the most, we would have about 100 vacancies at the end of President Clinton's term. Compare that to the 109 vacancies left after the Bush administration. I make that comment to offset the argument before it is made as to what type of judicial crisis will come about if we ended up without judicial nominees being confirmed.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida has asked that he be recognized to make a unanimous consent request, and I yield to him for that purpose.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for yielding to me. Last year, at the end of the session, I came to the floor and informed the White House, as well as my colleagues, that of a list of 13 proposed appointments, 8 were acceptable. I did this by checking with my colleagues to find out who would be placing holds on which of those 13 nominees. There were five that would have had holds on them. I further stated that if anyone other than the eight were appointed, I would put a hold on all judicial nominations for the 2nd session of the 106th Congress. This policy was the result of an exchange of letters with the administration last summer in which the White House agreed to provide a list of potential recess appointments prior to adjournment so that the Senate could act on these appointments and avoid contentious action on recess appointments. The 8 to which I agreed were from a list of 13 that was provided by the White House, and I read those into the Record. On December 9 the White House gave a recess appointment to Stuart Weisberg to the OSHA Review Commission, and on December 17 the White House gave a recess appointment to Sarah Fox to the National Labor Relations Board. They were not on the list of 13 that was received on November 18 and to which I referred on November 19. Based on these actions, I believe the White House violated their commitment by making these recess appointments. Therefore, I said I would put a hold on every judicial nomination this year. I believe this is the correct reaction to the action taken by the White House.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of statements about the vote that just took place, the reason for it, the history behind it, where we are today, and where we are going from here. First of all, I suggest during the 5-day Memorial Day recess there was a pending nominee on whom there had been several holds. It is my understanding the appropriate committee had not received the financial information on that individual and there were other problems that had been voiced that precipitated the holds. Consequently, during that 5-day Memorial Day recess, President Clinton went ahead and granted him a recess appointment. I think the majority leader was correct when he said there have been Democrat Presidents as well as Republican Presidents who have made recess appointments. Frankly, I do not think the Republicans should have done it. I do not think the Democrats should have done it. If we go back and read the Constitution on what recess appointments are all about, we would see that back in the horse-and-buggy days when we would be in session for just a few weeks every other year, and if there were a death of a Secretary of State or something like that, it was necessary to put ourselves in a position where the President would be able to fill that vacancy. That was the whole intent of recess appointments. In 1985, President Reagan was making recess appointments because at that time we had a conservative Republican President and we had a liberal Democrat-controlled Senate. Consequently, he wanted to get his conservatives passed, so he went ahead and made recess appointments. I do not believe he should have made those appointments. I think that contradicted the provisions in the Constitution. However, he did it anyway. At that time, the minority leader, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, did what was perfectly appropriate, and that was to send a letter to the President to say: Before you violate the constitutional prerogative of the Senate in its advise and consent power on any future recess appointments, I request a letter from you at a time with sufficient notice before the recess goes into effect. I request that you notify the Senate of what recess appointments you are intending to make during that recess and why. Sufficient notice was interpreted and vocalized several times by Senator Byrd to be adequate notice so we would know they were coming up, so we could go to Members and see if there were anyone who would want to put a hold on a judicial or any kind of nominee during the recess and have adequate time to act on it before recess. In the extreme case, I suppose we could have just gone into a pro forma session and not gone into recess. Nevertheless, that is what he requested from President Reagan. I might add, President Reagan did agree to that request. He sent a letter that was satisfactory to Senator Byrd, so that set the precedent. Because of the recess appointments of this President, I merely did the same thing Senator Byrd did back in 1985. I sent a letter, a communication to the White House, and I said: Because of your appointments, I am going to make the same request Senator Byrd made of President Reagan, with which President Reagan complied, and that is that you notify us in advance of any appointments you plan to have. If not, we will put holds on all appointments at that time--all nonmilitary nominees. We did not get the letter for awhile. A few trial letters came over, but they were not consistent with what President Reagan had agreed to. Finally, on June 15, 1999, President Clinton sent a letter that said: I share your opinion that the understanding reached in 1985 between President Reagan and Senator Byrd cited in your letter remains a fair and constructive framework, which my administration will follow. He agreed to follow the same mandates President Reagan did. At that time, I wrote a letter back praising the President for agreeing to abide by the same agreement as the Byrd-Reagan agreement. However, on November 10, as we approached our recess, I anticipated the President might be tempted to make recess appointments that were not consistent with that agreement. So I sent a letter to him that says: If you do make recess appointments during the upcoming recess which violate the spirit of our agreement-- Then I went into the details as to what the spirit was; there had to be adequate notice on a list we could consider and pass around to our colleagues-- then we will respond by placing holds on all judicial nominees. The result would be a complete breakdown in cooperation between our two branches of government on this issue which could prevent the confirmation of any such nominees next year. We do not want this to happen. We urge you to cooperate in good faith with the Majority Leader concerning all contemplated recess appointments. That was signed by me and by 16 other Senators. Almost all, I believe--most of them, anyway--voted against the motion to proceed a few minutes ago. On November 17--I remember that well; it was my 65th birthday--I made a speech on the floor, and in that speech, anticipating there could be a misunderstanding of what our intent was, I said, on November 17, on this floor, at this podium: I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding and that we don't go into a recess with the President not understanding that we are very serious. . . . It is not just me putting a hold on all judicial nominees for the remaining year of his term, but 16 other Senators have agreed to do that. . . . I want to make sure it is abundantly clear without any doubt in anyone's mind in the White House--I will refer back to this document I am talking about right now-- that in the event the President makes recess appointments, we will put holds on all judicial nominations for the remainder of his term. It is very fair for me to stand here and eliminate any doubts in the President's mind of what we will do. That is exactly what we said on the floor, and I am going back now and reminding this body of that statement. On November 19--that was the day we were going out of session on recess, and it would be a lengthy recess going until January, the State of the Union time--the President notified the Senate of contemplated recess appointments. This was in compliance with the intent of the letter. I hasten to say here it is not quite in compliance because this is on the day we are going into recess. But nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation and fairness, we agreed to take this list and to read the list and to go to our colleagues and see what names were on this list of 13 nominees whom he desired to appoint during the recess, and we found there were 5 on the list who were unacceptable to some Members of the Senate. So we sent back to him that communication, that there are 8 of them, and if there were any appointments other than these 8, that would be in violation of the letter. To reaffirm that, the majority leader was good enough to let me be the last speaker on this floor, where I stood here 10 minutes before we went into recess and I made a rather lengthy talk, of which I will just repeat a little bit right now. I said: If anyone other than these eight individuals is recess appointed, we will put a hold on every single judicial nominee of this President for the remainder of his term in office. . . . I reemphasize, if there is some other interpretation as to the meaning of the (Nov. 10) letter, it does not make any difference, we are still going to put holds on them. I want to make sure that there is a very clear understanding: If these nominees come in, if he does violate the intent (of the agreement) as we interpret it [by appointing anyone other than these eight], then we will have holds on [all judicial] nominees. There was one individual about whom the majority leader came to me, right after that, after we went into recess. He said: You know, we made a mistake, there was one other individual. Let's increase that to nine people instead of eight. I said: That's fine. We sent a letter to the President dated November 23 that, in the spirit of cooperation, we are adding one name to the list: I hope this makes our position clear. Any recess appointments other than the nine listed above would constitute a violation of the spirit of our agreement and trigger multiple holds on all judicial nominees. On December 7 we urged the White House not to violate the agreement. Yet, we found that by December 17 the White House did, and President Clinton did, in fact, violate the agreement directly and blatantly by appointing both Sarah Fox to the NLRB and Stuart Weisberg to the OSHA Review Commission. It happens that both of these recess appointments that violated our agreement would have been objected to by a number of Senators, two of whom are in this Chamber right now. However, that is not significant. There are reasons we would have found that objectionable. But even if they had been acceptable, it still violated the very specific agreement we had. On December 20, I stated: I am announcing today that I will do exactly what I said I would do if the President deliberately violated our agreement. And on January 25, 2000, I did just that. I placed a hold on all judicial nominees. On this Senate floor I said: It was in anticipation of just such defiance-- I am talking about the President's defiance of the Senate's prerogative to advise and consent to nominees-- It was in anticipation of just such defiance that I and my colleagues warned the President on at least five separate occasions exactly what our response would be if he violated this agreement. We would put a hold on all judicial nominees. So today it will come as no surprise to the President that we are putting a hold on all judicial nominees. We are simply doing what we said we would do to uphold constitutional respect for the Senate's proper role in the confirmation process. Today we have agreed--I did not agree, but we went ahead and agreed to bring up two nominees on which I did assert my prerogative and say we are going to have rollcall votes on every nominee that does come up, and those rollcall votes are going to be taking place in about 15 minutes. I say for those individuals who hysterically talked about the chaos that would be created in the event we put holds on all nominees, and no nominees were, in fact, appointed by this President for the last year of his administration and confirmed by the Senate, if you go back and look at what happened in January of 1993--that was the last month President Bush was in office--there were 109 vacancies in the judiciary. In other words, 109 vacancies that the then-Democrat- controlled Senate failed to act upon. Today, there are 74 vacancies in the judiciary. In the event normal history takes its course and the normal number of either deaths or resignations take place, it will be not more than 25 more. In other words, there will be approximately 100 vacancies at the end of President Clinton's term of office. That is still nine fewer than there were at the end of President Bush's administration. This is sad. We are in the process of giving up an opportunity, by voting on some of these, for the first time in 7 years of this President's administration of holding him to his word. He has broken his word over and over. He has told lies to the American people over and over, and to this body he has broken his commitment. What we are giving up is our last and maybe only opportunity in 8 years to hold this President to his commitment. What is going on today is very sad. I deeply regret it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia for a couple of unanimous-consent requests.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am prepared to ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business, but I would certainly defer to the minority leader or majority leader if either has anything to address at this time.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all I applaud the White House-- this is probably the first time I have done that in 7 years--for responding to an issue that is very critical, probably one of the most critical issues we will be facing. Going back in the history of recess appointments, the Constitution provided for recess appointments to be allowed, thereby avoiding the constitutional prerogative of the Senate of advice and consent in certain conditions. The major condition was that a vacancy would occur during the course of the recess. This goes back to the horse-and-buggy days when we were in session for 2 or 3 months at a time and then we were gone. So if someone such as the Secretary of State would die in office, it would allow the President to replace that person without having to go through the advice and consent. Throughout the years, both Democrat and Republican Presidents have abused this. They have made recess appointments. In 1985, President Reagan made quite a few of them. The majority at that time, the Democrats, under the majority leadership of Senator Byrd from West Virginia, made the determination that he was making too many recess appointments. He challenged the President to submit a letter that would outline future recess appointments during the Reagan administration. In 1985, a letter was sent from President Reagan to then-majority leader, Senator Byrd from West Virginia that stated no more recess appointments would take place unless the names of the individuals who were considered for recess appointment were submitted in writing in sufficient time in advance that the majority or minority leaders could take some type of action. For example, if they were going to have someone recess appointed for the express purpose of avoiding the advice and consent of the Senate, then they would just not go into recess; they would go into pro forma, where they would have someone in the Chair all the time to make sure that did not happen. Also, it would be an opportunity to make sure they were not doing it for the express purpose of avoiding advice and consent. Last May, there was an appointment during the recess of James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg. There were several people who were opposed to his appointment and had holds on his appointment. The major reason was not that he was a gay activist, but he had not submitted the appropriate financial information to the appropriate committee for consideration. The President went ahead and appointed him. Consequently--that was already done, and there was no attempt to undo it even though it was contrary to the Constitution--I sent a letter to the President asking him if he would agree to the same thing Ronald Reagan agreed to back in 1985. Of course, I did not get a very favorable response. However, I said: In the event I do not do that, I will put a hold on every nondefense or nonmilitary appointment or nominee from the President. And I did so. The weeks went by, and finally I got a letter from the President that said: I share your opinion that the understanding reached in 1985 between President Reagan and Senator Byrd cited in your letter remains a fair and constructive framework which my administration will follow. I have been concerned because this President has a long history of doing things he says he is not going to do and not doing things he says he will do. Consequently, I sent a letter to the President which I submitted for the Record last Wednesday. The letter was dated November 10, signed by myself and 16 other Senators, that said: Make sure you comply with the spirit of this agreement, this letter you have sent; we are going to serve notice right now that in the event you have recess appointments that do not comply with the spirit of the letter, we will put holds for the remaining of the term of your Presidency on all of the judicial nominees. A very serious thing. I repeated this several times last Wednesday to make sure there was no misunderstanding. Since that time, the White House has cooperated and submitted a list of 13 names. I will read these names and the positions for which they have been nominated: Cliff Stuart, EEOC; Delmond Won, Commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission; Leonard Page, general counsel for the Labor Relations Board; Luis Laurado, Development Bank; Mark Schneider, Peace Corps; Frank Holleman, Deputy Secretary of Education; Mike Walter, Veterans Administration; Mr. Jeffers, whose first name I do not have, J-E-F-F-E-R-S; Bill Lann Lee, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights; Sally Katzen, Deputy Director of OMB; John Holum, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security of the Department of State; Carl Spielvogel, Ambassador to the Slovak Republic; and Jay Johnson--not to be confused with the military Jay Johnson--a nominee for the U.S. Mint. Of this list of 13, there are 5 who either have holds on them or there are intended holds on these individuals. Consequently, I make the statement at this time--and I think it is very important the Record reflect this accurately and everyone understands it thoroughly--that anyone other than the names I will read off--Cliff Stuart, Delmond Won, Leonard Page, Luis Laurado, Mark Schneider, Frank Holleman, Mike Walker, Mr. Jeffers--if there are any names that are submitted and are sought to be appointed during this recess, recess appointments, we, who undersigned the letter on the 10th of this month, will put a hold on every judicial nominee who comes before the Senate during the entire remainder of the term of President Clinton. I am going to repeat that because it is very important. Any name, other than these eight names I just read, who is recess appointed, if anyone other than these eight individuals is recess appointed, we will put a hold on every single judicial nominee of this President for the remainder of his term of office. That means specifically we will not agree to Bill Lann Lee, Sally Katzen, John Holum, Carl Spielvogel, and Jay Johnson. I will conclude with that. I reemphasize, if there is some other interpretation as to the meaning of the letter, it does not make any difference, we are still going to put the holds on them. I want to make sure there is a very clear understanding, if these nominees come in, if he does violate the intent as we interpret it, then we will have holds on these nominees. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

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