Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, I rise to pay tribute to a businessman who has witnessed the transformation of a company from a single plant operation into a multinational corporation. The businessman I am referring to is Pat Rooney, who is retiring on June 3rd after almost 45 years of service to Cooper Tire and Rubber Company. Mr. Rooney began his career with Cooper Tire in 1956 as a sales trainee. In 1994, Pat Rooney was elected CEO and Chairman of the Board of Cooper Tire. That hierarchical progression is astounding. In this day and time with the ever changing economy, it is almost hard to fathom someone working for one employer for four and a half decades. Pat Rooney saw Cooper Tire and Rubber grow from 1,000 total employees to now 25,000 worldwide. During his tenure at Cooper Tire, Mr. Rooney spent time working in Clarksdale, Mississippi at the rubber products operation in the Mississippi Delta. Cooper has built a significant presence in my state, employing numerous Mississippians at locations in Clarksdale and Tupelo. Pat Rooney lives in Findlay, Ohio and has been very active in the community. He is a Rotarian, active in the Findlay/ Hancock County Chamber of Commerce, and the County Community Development Foundation and served on the advisory council of the Arts Partnership of Hancock County. Again, I want to commend Pat Rooney today for his service to his company and his community. Cooper Tire has been fortunate to have such a dedicated employee, leader, and visionary. Mr. Rooney I hope you will enjoy your well deserved retirement.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, are all those amendments on this list that I read, plus Senator Lautenberg? Is there an additional Wellstone amendment in that list?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we had talked over the period of, I guess, 2 or 3 weeks about trying to come to an agreement so we could go back to the very important bill, S. 2, the Education Opportunities Act of 2000. We still have pending on that bill, I believe, two amendments for debate, and I don't know if we have the time agreement for a final vote. We do not, but we have Senators Jeffords, Stevens, Domenici, and others--and maybe Senator Kennedy is on that amendment--plus a second Kennedy amendment. What we have been trying to do is agree to another grouping of amendments after that but preferably to go ahead and get agreement on a list of very important amendments on both sides of the aisle that are related to elementary and secondary education and have votes on those amendments and then come to a conclusion. I wanted to see if we could make any progress in that regard and, hopefully, we can get agreement on this. If not, we will keep working to see if we can find a way to reach an agreement. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act of 2000, the Stevens amendment No. 3139 remain the pending amendment, and that the education-related amendments which follow be the only first-degree amendments in order to be offered; that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments; that debate on all amendments, whether first or second degree, be limited to 1 hour equally divided; and following the conclusion of debate on or in relation to the first-degree amendments listed, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on final passage. I also ask consent that when the Senate receives the House companion measure, it proceed immediately to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of the Senate bill be inserted, the bill advanced to third reading and passed; that the Senate then insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all without any intervening action or debate, and that S. 2 be indefinitely postponed. The remaining first-degree amendments in order to be offered to S. 2--and I note again these will be 1 hour each equally divided--are: An amendment by Senator Jeffords relating to high schools; an amendment by Senator Stevens involving physical education programs; an amendment by Senator Bingaman regarding accountability; an amendment by Senator Santorum which calls for full funding for IDEA; the Kennedy amendment regarding teacher quality; a Hutchison amendment regarding single-sex schools; an amendment by Senator Dodd involving 21st century schools; an amendment by Senator Gregg involving 21st century schools; an amendment by Senators Harkin and Bingaman concerning school construction grant programs; an amendment by Senator Voinovich regarding IDEA funding options; an amendment by Senator Wellstone regarding fairness and accuracy in testing; an amendment by Senator Grams involving alternative testing; an amendment by Senator Reed involving parental involvement; an amendment by Senator Kyl which would deal with parental opt-out for bilingual education; an amendment by Senator Mikulski involving community technology centers; an amendment by Senator Ashcroft involving IDEA discipline--an amendment, I might add, he has been trying to get in the order for several weeks now, and we have not been able to get it agreed to in the order, and I must say that at one point he could have insisted on it but was agreeable to setting it aside with the understanding he would get a shot at it later on--a relevant amendment by Senator Lott; a relevant amendment by Senator Daschle; a relevant managers' amendment by Senator Jeffords; and a relevant managers' amendment by Senator Kennedy.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I might respond, this is about elementary and secondary education. Obviously, there is a lot we need to do to be of assistance to administrators, teachers, parents, and children at the elementary and secondary education level. Certainly, the local and State officials need to do more. We need to improve the quality of our schools, they need to be child centered, and they need to be safe and drug free. But I think it is about elementary and secondary education, and amendments should be germane to this area. I think it is a far stretch to say that a Lautenberg amendment which has to do with gun shows relates to elementary and secondary education. I think we should be sensitive to that area. We should do what we can to provide safety for children, and to make sure children don't get guns, have access to them, or make use of them. But I also think one of the things we can do that I supported, and which is in the juvenile justice bill that we passed earlier, and was in the making for 3 years--that included assistance for schools and dealing with these safety problems--for instance, funds would be available for metal detectors. A lot of schools are now doing that. They have a greater need for assistance. That is why I wanted to get the juvenile justice bill through. While I still plan to urge the juvenile justice conference report be completed, and it be brought back to the Senate, that is the place where this issue or these issues should be dealt with. The direct answer to the Senator's question is it is not germane, and I think it would be a major problem with elementary and secondary education legislation. Certainly, I would object to it.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, without knowing exactly which Gramm amendment the Senator is speaking of, the way he described it, I probably voted for it and was supportive of it. But one of the problems I have, as suggested earlier, is that I understand, for instance, it leaves out the Ashcroft amendment. He has been very cooperative, to use that famous word, in not insisting that he be included in the earlier groupings. He at one point actually could have, within his rights, actually forced us to vote on it, and he didn't do it. I would want to talk to both sides about including the Ashcroft amendment. It doesn't include the two managers' amendments, or the two leaders' amendments, which I think surely we would be willing to do. And it doesn't bring the bill to third reading. I think we need to talk about those issues, and I hope we can do that. Mr. President, if I could proceed, I had indicated earlier this year that we would go to the Defense authorization bill. I believe it was this week. For a variety of reasons, we weren't able to go to Defense authorization. Of course, the way we usually do these bills is we go to the Defense authorization and complete that, and then go to the Defense appropriations bill and complete both of them. Earlier there were objections to taking up the Agriculture appropriations bill. I might say now that I understand why it has not been completed by the House. We thought the House would act on Agriculture appropriations this week. They did not do that. We have in the past quite often gone to appropriations bills in the Senate and took them up to the third reading but without actually completing them and waiting for the House to act. Senator Daschle has indicated there are some points within the Agriculture bill in the Senate with which they have problems, and they want to have, I guess, an option to remove provisions of the Agriculture appropriations bill using rule XVI. It is obviously very important. Even though we took the emergency agriculture portion, $7.1 billion, out of the Agriculture appropriations bill and put it in the crop insurance bill that just passed, it still has some disaster money in it and some emergency moneys, I believe, for North Carolina and other areas. I hope we can find a way to get an agreement to go to that bill or to the DOD appropriations bill. There we are. We have been unable to get an agreement to go to DOD authorization. We have not yet been able to work out something on Agriculture or Defense. However, hopefully during this recess we can look at the importance of these issues and see if we can get an agreement of how to proceed on one or two of these. I think we are close to getting agreement on the e-commerce digital signature bill and also very close on bankruptcy, and therefore perhaps those two could be combined along with the satellite loan bill. That may be available early in the week we come back. I hope it will be because I think there are only two or three points outstanding on the three of them. For now, I ask consent that the Senate turn to the DOD authorization bill, S. 2549, and only DOD-related amendments be in order during the pendency of the bill.

Mr. LOTT. We had talked, Mr. President, about seeing if we could come to an agreement on how to proceed to the Defense appropriations bill, realizing that the authorizers want to get their bill done because, among other things, it does authorize and make some changes in law. It is not just about spending. It does have some very important language in it with regard to health benefits for our military personnel and their families and retirees. So there is a need to get the authorization bill done, and we need to find a way to get it done. Another way to proceed would be to take up the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I know Senator Stevens talked to Senator Byrd and Senator Daschle about going ahead to that, even though the House has not acted, on the assumption that the House will act on that the week we return and we would probably be able to take up that House bill or it would be here before we complete it. However, it is hard to say now if that will be accomplished or not. We don't know that the House will have it done by Tuesday of next week or Wednesday of the week we come back. I ask consent that we go to the Defense appropriations bill which was reported out of the Appropriations Committee on May 18 by unanimous vote of all the members of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I certainly agree. I think we should take it up as soon as we can. It has come over from the House, but it has not been reported, I don't believe, from the subcommittee or the full committee here. I asked the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Shelby, why that is the case--and, by the way, immediately urged him to do it as quickly as he can--and I understand it was because Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey had wanted another hearing at the subcommittee level before they marked it up, and that they were going to need, in the next few days, to get it done. Hopefully, they will report that bill out by Wednesday or Thursday of the week we return and we will be able to go to that; either if we got it Thursday, we could do it Thursday or Friday, or we could go do it the first thing next week. I am pushing the committee to act on it. I don't know what the outstanding issue is, but I understand they wanted to have one more committee hearing for some reason. Let me provide a little incentive to all sides to work together on the Defense appropriations bill. I will not now move to proceed to it, but I will move to proceed to that bill when we reconvene after the recess, and have a vote, if necessary, on proceeding to the Defense appropriations bill. But over the next 10 days, we have time to work between the authorizers and the appropriators and everybody who has a concern about that bill, and hopefully something can be worked out so we can proceed on the authorization bill, and then, of course, immediately go to the appropriations bill after that. If we cannot get something worked out over the recess period or agree on some sort of schedule, I will have no alternative at that point but to move to proceed to the DOD appropriations bill. I prefer to have something we have worked out between the authorizers and the appropriators and the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership so we can make good use of our time. We do have 4 weeks in the month of June when we come back. We have a lot of work we need to do. We need to move at least half a dozen appropriations bills during the month of June. We need to take a look at the House-passed China trade status bill, see how much time we would need on the floor, and try to get some idea of what amendments might be offered. It would not be my intent to try to limit amendments on the China permanent trade status bill. I think we should say right from the beginning if we add any new material to it, any new amendments or language, it would have to go back to conference with the House and then vote again in the House and Senate. That may be OK, but I want to take a little time when we come back and see if we can work through the time that would be required, when would be the first time to take it up, and what amendments might be in the offing from both sides of the aisle. Our staffs will be working on that during the recess. Plus, we could have other issues. I mentioned the conference report and other bills that are pending, so we are going to have to have a full month in June. I also remind my colleagues that in July--I was looking at the calendar last night and was really a little bit chagrined to realize we only will have 3 weeks between the Fourth of July recess and the conventions in August. I had really thought we would have four; if we could do five or six appropriations bills in that window. So we really are under pressure, with the 7 weeks we have in the summer, to move 11 appropriations bills. That is going to be a monumental task, and it is going to take work with each other on both sides of the aisle. I know that. We cannot move it without everybody giving it a shot. But it makes it awfully hard for us to be doing other issues, other than the China trade bill, which we hope to get worked in there at some point. With that, I think we have talked enough about schedule. I hope we can come to some agreements over the next 10 days as to exactly how we will proceed the first week we are back. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand there are four bills at the desk due for their second reading.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of H.R. 4489, which is at the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations reported by the Armed Services Committee: Calendar Nos. 526 and 527. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Reed, who is in the Chamber, has personal knowledge of one of these nominees. He wants to make a statement at this time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will respond. I know that at least one appointment is waiting on a companion appointment from the administration, where you have a Democratic nominee for a commission or a board, and we usually try to move them together. That is one case. Then we have seven IRS members who can be cleared if--I understand there is opposition to at least one of those from the Democratic side. But my goal in working to get this large package done is so we can continue to work to get companion nominations and move more nominations. I discussed this with Senator Daschle yesterday. It is not easy, but we hope to continue to work together to get the nominations in a position where they can be cleared, or where we have debate time and a vote and arrange for that to occur. We will keep working on it. It has been reduced by some 70 or more nominations if this entire package is completed, and if all of them--well, it will either be voted on and approved or defeated, leaving only 19. So that is a major step toward getting nominations confirmed.

Mr. LOTT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LOTT. I amend the unanimous consent request which stated there would be 20 minutes for closing remarks, equally divided, just prior to the vote. I amend that to say, 20 minutes for closing remarks, equally divided, plus an additional 10 minutes for Senator McCain and 10 minutes for Senator Feingold.

Mr. LOTT. In executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 23, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 436, the nomination of Bradley Smith to be a member of the FEC. I further ask consent that debate be limited on the nomination as follows: Senator McConnell, 2 hours; Senator Dodd, or his designee, 2 hours; Senator Wellstone, 2 hours; Senator McCain, 2 hours; Senator Feingold, 2 hours. I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the nomination be laid aside, with a vote to occur on the confirmation of the nomination during Wednesday's session of the Senate at a time to be determined by the two leaders, with 20 minutes for closing remarks, equally divided, just prior to the vote. If we need a few more minutes than that, we will work with the interested parties to see if that can be achieved. I also ask consent that immediately following that vote, the Senate proceed to a confirmation vote on the nomination of Danny McDonald, Calendar No. 435. I further ask consent that also on Tuesday, May 23, the Senate then proceed to the nomination of Timothy Dyk to be a U.S. circuit judge, Calendar No. 291, and the debate be limited to the following: Senator Sessions, 30 minutes; Senator Hatch, 15 minutes; and Senator Leahy, 15 minutes. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 498, the nomination of Gerard Lynch, and there be 40 minutes of debate, equally divided, between the opponents and proponents. I also ask consent that all debate time on the nominations be consumed or considered yielded back during Tuesday's session of the Senate. I further ask consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the Dyk nomination third in the voting sequence on Wednesday, to be followed by votes on Executive Calendar No. 498, No. 519, and No. 520. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following those votes, the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 206, 334, 424, 433, 434, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 452, 453, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 472, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 496, 497, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 518, 521, 522, 523, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business, with Senators Grams and Durbin in control of the time until 11:30 a.m. Momentarily, I intend to propound a unanimous consent request that provides for debate on two FEC nominations, beginning at 11:30 a.m., and consuming the remainder of the day. There will also be debate time on several judicial nominations, with any votes ordered during today's session to occur on Wednesday. For the information of all Senators, it is my intention to begin consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill, as well as the Agriculture appropriations bill, later this week. It is hoped that the Senate can complete action on both of these very important spending bills prior to the Memorial Day recess. Now, again, for the information of Senators, we will have this debate on the nominations throughout the day. Beginning tomorrow, in the morning, I presume, right after the opening activities, we will go to the legislative branch appropriations bill. We hope to be able to finish that in a reasonable period of time. But regardless of that, sometime in midafternoon--I presume, 3:30, 4:00, 4:30; we will have to look at the time and work out that exact time--we will begin a series of votes that will probably mean votes on either four or five or six--I hope it is five or four and not the full six, but we could still have as many as six votes in a row Wednesday afternoon. Then we hope to turn to the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony in a criminal action in Indiana Superior Court for the County of Marion. In the case of State of Indiana v. Amy Han, the county prosecutor has charged the defendant with two counts of criminal trespass on Senator Lugar's Indianapolis office. Pursuant to subpoenas issued on behalf of the county prosecutor, this resolution authorizes two employees in Senator Lugar's office who witnessed the events giving rise to the trespass charges, and any other employee in the Senator's office from whom testimony may be required, to testify and produce documents at trial, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a pro se plaintiff has commenced a civil action against Senator Cleland and a state official in Georgia state court seeking an order removing them from office on the purported ground that their election by plurality vote, while expressly authorized by Georgia statutes, violates the Georgia Constitution. This suit is the plaintiff's second challenge to Georgia's current election laws. Having lost his first challenge against the State Board of Elections, the plaintiff now is bringing an identical challenge to the Georgia election laws through the use of the ancient writ of quo warranto. Senator Cleland, who was elected to the Senate almost four years ago, in 1996, in an election that was not the subject of any election contest brought before the Senate, is sued solely because of his official capacity as a sitting Senator. This quo warranto action in essence challenges his taking of the oath of office, as well as the Senate's action in seating him. As such, it falls appropriately within the Senate Legal Counsel's statutory responsibility to represent Members of the Senate in civil actions in which they are sued in their official capacity. The writ of quo warranto can have no applicability to United States Senators or Representatives, as Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution commits to each House of Congress the sole power to seat and remove its Members. This action is also barred by the speech or debate clause. This resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Cleland to seek his dismissal from this matter.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 23. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Grams, or his designee, from 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m.; Senator Thomas, or his designee, from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.; Senator Durbin, or his designee, from 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 4 p.m. for the submission of statements by Members.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 11:30 tomorrow morning. Following morning business, it is hoped the Senate can begin consideration of S. 2536, the Agriculture appropriations bill. It is my intention to complete action on this important spending bill and the legislative appropriations bill, if it is available from the House. Senators can expect votes throughout the week.