Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the exemplary service and career of an outstanding naval officer, Captain Louis V. Marchette, upon his retirement from the Navy at the conclusion of more than 24 years of commissioned service. Throughout his distinguished career, Captain Marchette has truly epitomized the Navy core values of honor, courage, and commitment. It is my privilege to commend him for a superb career of service he has provided the Navy and our great Nation. Captain Marchette was born in Ogden, Utah and grew up in a Marine Corps family. After graduating from the University of South Carolina with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering, he was commissioned an Ensign in the Navy in 1976. Captain Marchette began his career as a line officer but soon found his true calling and transferred to the staff corps as a Civil Engineer Corps officer. His first assignment was with the Seabees of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion FORTY, homeported in Port Hueneme, California. In subsequent assignments, Captain Marchette was given some of the most challenging assignments the Navy Civil Engineer Corps had to offer. As a junior officer, he served as Staff Civil Engineer, Naval Technical Training Center Corry Station, Pensacola, Florida; Assistant Public Works Officer, Naval Air Station Key West, Florida, and; Resident Officer in Charge of Construction, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. In recognition of his exemplary performance and construction engineering expertise, he was then assigned as Operations Officer, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion SEVENTY-FOUR, homeported in Gulfport, Mississippi. In this assignment, he directed contingency construction and military operations throughout Japan, Korea, the Caribbean, and Central America. He followed this tour with assignment as the Civil Engineer Corps Lieutenant Commander Assignment and Placement Officer, Bureau of Naval Personnel, his only tour within the ``Beltway.'' At this juncture, Captain Marchette had developed a truly outstanding reputation as a naval officer and engineer and he was rewarded with a variety of leadership opportunities to include, Public Works Officer, Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico; Commanding Officer, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion ONE, homeported in Gulfport, Mississippi, and; Chief Staff Officer, 20th Naval Construction Regiment, Gulfport, Mississippi. On October 30, 1997, Captain Marchette took command of Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport, Mississippi, assuming the dual responsibility of Commanding Officer, 20th Naval Construction Regiment, the pinnacle of a most outstanding career. In this capacity, Captain Marchette has spearheaded development of a world class mobilization complex capable of mobilizing Seabees for deployment anywhere in the world within 48 hours. Selfless commitment, exceptional technical prowess, and extraordinary accomplishment have been the hallmarks of this most outstanding professional. Whether restoring order for the Mississippi Gulf Coast in the aftermath of hurricanes, responding to military contingencies throughout the world, or maneuvering through periods of severe budget constraints, he provided unparalleled leadership, innovative concepts, and overall brilliant managerial insight in accomplishment of the Navy and our Nation's objectives. Under his dynamic leadership the Naval Construction Force has experienced dramatic improvements in comprehensive readiness, training attainment, mobilization, and manpower/equipment resourcing. In short, Atlantic Fleet Seabees are now better trained and better equipped to accomplish the mission as a direct result of Captain Marchette's efforts. Captain Marchette holds a Master of Science degree in engineering from the University of Florida. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Louisiana and a member of the Louisiana Society of Professional Engineers and the Society of American Military Engineers. He is a Seabee Combat Warfare Officer whose personal decorations include the Legion of Merit, five Meritorious Service medals, the Navy/Marine Corps Commendation medal, and Navy Humanitarian Service medal. Captain Marchette's visionary leadership, exceptionally creative problem solving skills, and uncommon dedication have created a legacy of achievement and excellence. Having spent half his 24-year career in the great State of Mississippi, Captain Marchette and his lovely wife, Fran, are true Mississippians who have brought great honor and praise to our State. Captain Marchette will retire on July 1, 2000 after 24 years of dedicated commissioned service. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Captain Marchette fair winds and following seas. Congratulations on completion of an outstanding and successful career.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask the Senator to check into that and see if we can work through that point. I understand there are some Senators on that side of the aisle who do wish to go through that whole process again on bankruptcy. That would be an important part of working out this whole maze of procedural questions. Did Senator Wellstone wish to comment?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, objection was heard. If Senator Kennedy would like to be recognized, I am glad to yield to him.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will inquire of Senator Daschle. Do I understand correctly that there is some thinking that we would have to start over on the bankruptcy bill--or did that come as a surprise to the Democratic leader? I had not had a chance to discuss that point with him--and that it be subject to amendment and everything all over again? Has the Democratic leader had a chance to look into that aspect of what we are trying to do?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to H.R. 3081, the House minimum wage bill now at the desk, and that one amendment be agreed to, which is the text of the previously passed Domenici amendment No. 2547 now in the form of a substitute relative to the minimum wage, the bill then be advanced to third reading and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. I further ask unanimous consent that with respect to the bankruptcy bill, the Secretary of the Senate be directed to instruct the enrolling clerk to strike the Domenici amendment language just described above, all other parameters of the previous agreement be in order, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may respond to that, I want to make sure we have an opportunity to consider those small business men and women who create the bulk of the entry-level jobs in America, to make sure they do not wind up having to go out of business or, even worse, they don't hire the entry-level people who do deserve a basic minimum wage. What I have been trying to do is to find the quickest and cleanest way, which is also not out of the ordinary, to separate these bills and go on to conference and get a result that would be the best way to help all concerned, both those who will be negatively impacted if we don't go forward with bankruptcy reform and those who are looking for a minimum wage increase, and those small business men and women who provide so many jobs in America. I understand if we don't do it this way, there is the further complicating factor that the bankruptcy bill will have to basically be started over again. We will have to have a new bill filed, and it will be subject to amendment. There will be a very large amount of time and difficulty in having to do that all over again. The procedure that was suggested, I believe, is amendable and debatable. We have had this debate. The question now is, Do we want to go on and go to conference based on the votes already taken in the Senate and in the House so that could get a result? That is why I asked consent to proceed in the way that I did. But we can talk about it further. I would like to, for instance, make sure I understand correctly what is being asked for with regard to the bankruptcy reform bill because I certainly hope that we would not have to completely rework that and have that subject to amendment. We spent 2 or 3 weeks on that bill. So what we are doing here, we are talking Washingtonese, in effect. We are talking about rules and procedures and how to do or not to do. I would like to find a way to move all three of these issues, actually, quickly to conference and see if we can get a result.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to a Mississippi native and distinguished Air Force officer, Major General William F. Moore, upon his retirement from the Air Force after more than thirty years of commissioned service. Major General Moore has served with distinction, and it is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided to the Air Force and the Nation. Major General Moore graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy and received his commission in 1969. Since then, Major General Moore's assignments have made untold contributions to national security. Upon graduation from the Air Force Academy, General Moore served with the Drone and Remotely Piloted Vehicles System Program Office, Aeronautical Systems Division, at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. In his next assignment, General Moore served in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Development Plans, Headquarters Air Force Systems Command, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. In 1976, General Moore was selected to attend and received a Master's Degree in Business Administration from the Air Force Institute of Technology, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia. General Moore's next assignments were as Executive Office and Project Officer with the Peacekeeper ICBM Engineering Directorate, Ballistic Missile Office at Norton Air Force Base, California, and as Director of Program Control, Joint System Program Office for the Advanced Medium Range Air- to-Air Missile, at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. In 1985 General Moore was selected for the prestigious Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Following completion of the Air War College, General Moore was the Director of Cost, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptroller, Headquarters Air Force Systems Command, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and then the Small ICBM Deputy Program Director at Norton Air Force Base. In 1989 General Moore attended the Program Manager's Course at the Defense Systems Management College, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. General Moore then returned to the Small ICBM Program as the Program Director. He then served as the Deputy Director of Strategic, Special Operation Forces and Airlift Programs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. In 1992, General Moore was assigned as the Vice Commander of the San Antonio Air Logistics Center. In 1993 General Moore was promoted to Brigadier General. In 1994, General Moore served as the Program Executive Officer for Bombers, Missiles and Trainers, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. In 1995, General Moore became the Director of Special Programs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In this capacity, he was responsible for coordinating the planning, budgeting, and management of extremely sensitive Department of Defense special access classified programs. In 1997, General Moore received his second star, in 1998, was assigned as the Deputy Director for the newly formed Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). As the Deputy Director of DTRA, General Moore held and excelled in one of the most complex and challenging assignments in the Department of Defense--the creation of DTRA. DTRA was created, in the words of the Secretary of Defense: ``to fill a major void in the defense of the nation against weapons of mass destruction''. Established by a Defense Reform Initiative in November 1997, General Moore led the successful accomplishment of a vital and monumental strategic task--consolidation into one organization the bulk of DoD's arms control, cooperative threat reduction, and technology security regimes, as well as weapons of mass destruction (WMD) related research development test and evaluation (RDT&E) programs. DTRA also coordinates and prioritizes Chemical/Biological programs for the Joint Staff, and provides an integrated national architecture for response to WMD threats to civil and military populations; and is a full partner with the Departments of Energy, Justice and State to provide national deterrence for WMD. General Moore is a fully certified acquisition professional whose awards include two Defense Distinguished Service Medals, the legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with service star, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the Vietnam Service Medal. During his long and distinguished career, General Moore served the nation with excellence and distinction. He is a visionary leader, and a true warrior who has had a profound impact on the United States Air Force, and made significant contributions to the strategic defense of the United States and its allies. General Moore will retire from the Air Force on May 1, 2000, after more than thirty years of exceptionally distinguished service. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I would like to recognize General Moore's accomplishments and his service. Congratulations on the completion of a long and distinguished career.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, I have the pleasure to announce that another freshman has achieved the 100 hour mark as presiding officer. Senator Mike Crapo is the latest recipient of the Senate's coveted Golden Gavel Award. Since the 1960's, the Senate has recognized those dedicated Members who preside over the Senate for 100 hours with the Golden Gavel. This award continues to represent our appreciation for the time these dedicated Senators contribute to presiding over the U.S. Senate--a privileged and important duty. On behalf of the Senate, I extend our sincere appreciation to Senator Crapo and his diligent staff for their efforts and commitment to presiding duties during the 106th Congress.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Today the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout the day, and tomorrow the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 5, the Social Security earnings test legislation. Under a previous agreement, there will be approximately 4 hours of debate with three amendments in order to the bill. I expect votes will occur during Tuesday's session of the Senate on one or two of the amendments to the bill. However, I expect final passage will not occur until Wednesday morning at approximately 10 o'clock. I will need to consult further with the Democratic leadership as to the exact time for that vote. During the remainder of the week, the Senate will also consider any of the following items: Crop insurance legislation that was reported out of the Agriculture Committee a couple of weeks ago, plus any nominations from the Executive Calendar that might be cleared. Therefore, votes should be expected throughout the remainder of the week, certainly Wednesday and Thursday. Also, Senators should be on notice that we expect to begin the budget resolution next week, the week of March 27, and Senators may expect votes likely will occur on Friday, March 31. We had indicated earlier in the year that if we saw a Friday where there would very likely be some votes, we would let Senators know as soon as we could, in order to comply with the budget resolution rules, which is up to 50 hours of debate and amendments in order. Senators will recall that sometimes we have a number of amendments at the end of the process, so it could take us into Thursday night or over into that Friday, March 31. Of course, if there is a change in that, we will let Senators know, but we need to conclude that budget resolution as soon as possible so the Appropriations Committee can go forward with its bills.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes of my leader's time to talk about the Social Security earnings limitation. I am very proud that the Senate is going to be taking up that issue this week and that we have a unanimous consent agreement which will limit us to only two or three amendments. One of those amendments is a technical correction, and then we have one by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and one by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire. We have talked for years about the unfairness of Social Security recipients losing Social Security money if they need to continue working or want to continue working. At a time when we have a need for seniors who are 65, 66, 67 years old to meet the demands of our increased job availability market in America, it is the logical thing to do. Unfortunately, for many years we talked about it and did not do anything. The House of Representatives deserves credit for taking the lead on this issue, and now we find it is developing bipartisan support of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and an indication that the President will sign it. It is long overdue, and I think it is an important issue. I hope a number of Senators will comment on it today and that we will have debate on the two amendments tomorrow and conclude this no later than Wednesday morning. So I am pleased we are able to proceed in this way, and I look forward to completing action on this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what we do today with a vote on these nominations is important. It does matter. I am sure both of these two individuals, Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, are fine people and are well intentioned in the positions they take, but we are going to vote on them being confirmed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for life. That is serious. Yes, the President has a right to make nominations to the Federal bench of his choice. However, we have a role in that process. We should, and we do, take it very seriously. We should not give a man or a woman life tenure if there is some problem with his or her background, whether academically or ethically, or if there is a problem with a series of decisions or positions they have taken. I certainly don't take this lightly. I would have preferred if these individuals had never been nominated, never been reported out of the Judiciary Committee, and that the situation would not have arisen in which there is this vote on the floor. But after a lot of consultation back and forth with my colleagues, a reasonable case could be made they should at least have a vote on their confirmation one way or the other. As majority leader, I must make decisions as to the time and manner in which matters are considered. Sometimes my colleagues think it is the right way and the right time; sometimes that is not the case. Once I make a commitment for a vote, I am going to keep that commitment the best I can, keep my word, and go forward. I have colleagues on my side of the aisle who don't like going forward with this vote. At this time, I think it is appropriate that we have a vote. I urge my colleagues to vote against these two nominees. However, it is time we have the vote, and we will do so today. Let me discuss why I feel so strongly that these two nominees should not be confirmed. First, it is about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is clearly a circuit court of appeals that is out of sync with the mainstream and has been repeatedly reversed by the Supreme Court. In recent days, I have seen references to the Ninth Circuit as containing ``California, Arizona, and a handful of other states.'' My state is in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but I would take umbrage if my circuit was referred to as ``the circuit that has Texas and other States.'' But there are only three States in our circuit, the Fifth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit clearly has a problem. It is too large, it is too unwieldy, and it is not functioning effectively. It is not serving the people of the circuit well, and we must remember that it is not just the ``circuit of California, Arizona, and other States.'' How would someone like to be in the circuit that is referred to that way if one lives in Utah, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Guam, and Hawaii? We need to do something about this. We have known we needed to do something about it for years, but we haven't done it. Millions of people who live in the States of the Ninth Circuit must submit their disputes to a court that has consistently flouted the statutes and the Constitution of the United States. It covers 50 million people. Nearly 40 percent of the area of this country is in this one circuit. In the past 6 years, the Ninth Circuit has been reversed by the Supreme Court in 85 out of 99 cases considered, roughly a 90-percent reversal rate. In most classes, that would be rated as an abysmal failure. There is something not right here. It was bad before the President Clinton appointees were added, and it has gotten worse. In the 1996-1997 term, the Ninth Circuit was reversed 27 out of 28 times, including 17 unanimous reversals. There is something wrong with this circuit. Let me give some specific examples of the kind of decisions they are entering: In Washington v. Glucksberg, the Ninth Circuit found a constitutional right to die, a decision reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court; In Calderon v. Thompson, 1997, the Ninth Circuit blocked an execution based on a procedural device the Supreme Court called a ``grave abuse of discretion''; In Mazurek v. Armstrong, 1996, the Ninth Circuit enjoined a Montana law allowing only doctors to perform abortions, only to be reversed once again by the Supreme Court. I have a long list of decisions from the Ninth Circuit, and I ask unanimous consent I be able to have these lists and other material printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LOTT. There is a problem with this circuit. It is a circuit that has serious problems with its rulings. It is an extremely liberal circuit, and it will get worse with these two nominees. That is one of the reasons I have been hesitant to bring up the nominees. Now, let me go to the next point. I hope it won't happen, but I suspect there is going to be somebody in this Chamber, or certainly in the media, who will suggest that the consideration of these nominees has something to do with their race or gender. These charges are totally false. We don't have a place where we check race or gender when we consider these nominees. It is irrelevant. We had a nominee last year who was defeated in the Senate that turned out to be African American. I am confident at least half the Senators didn't even know that. We didn't talk about that. In this case, the fact that Judge Paez is Hispanic is not a consideration at all. We need more minorities and women on the courts. Let me make this point so everybody will be aware of it now: Last year, 18 of the 34 judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate, or 53 percent, were women or minorities. By contrast, only 51 percent of President Clinton's nominees were women or minorities. However, I am not going to charge him with some sort of discrimination based on race or gender. I will have printed for the Record a list of some of the statistics showing this Senate is more than willing and desirous of confirming women and minorities of all backgrounds to the courts. Over the past several years, we have confirmed a high percentage from minority groups or women, including a unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation of an Hispanic nominee to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals earlier his week. While some have expressed concern at the delay in bringing up the nominations we are considering today, it is important to keep in mind that each of these nominees was opposed by almost half of the Members of the Judiciary Committee. This is the committee charged with reviewing the background and qualifications of nominees. Any time so many Members of the Judiciary Committee express this level of concern, this body should proceed with caution. The charges that race has somehow played a part in the Senate's consideration of these or other nominees is more than false. It demeans the Senate and those making the charges. If the charges are made in a cynical attempt to gain some political advantage, that is even worse. No real or perceived political advantage is worth debasing your own integrity by falsely impugning that of others. Let me go to the specifics of Judge Paez. Some say: How long must he wait? What will happen? He is on the Federal district court now, so it is not as if he is waiting for employment. He has a long record and philosophy that is very liberal. That is not disqualifying anymore than we should disqualify somebody because they are conservative. He has a record also of highly questionable rulings and political statements while sitting on the bench. When he was being considered as a judge, for instance, he was quoted as saying: The courts must tackle political questions that ``perhaps ideally and preferably should be resolved through the legislative process''. That is the point. He believes the courts should be willing to do what is our job, not theirs. That is a fundamental problem. When he was being nominated to the Federal district bench, no less an arbiter of liberalism than the American Civil Liberties Union considered him a ``welcome change after all the pro law enforcement people we have seen appointed.'' I think the American people want pro law enforcement people appointed to the bench regardless of their background or any other consideration. There have been some astounding cases: Judge Paez struck down a Los Angeles antipanhandling ordinance enacted after a panhandler killed a young man over a quarter; he ruled companies doing business overseas can be held liable for human rights abuses committed by foreign governments. Excuse me? How in the world could he extrapolate anything in the laws of this country or the Constitution that would allow him to make such a decision? Now we have the situation with John Huang. I do not know what happened there, but it seems to me there is a conflict of interest. The American people need to understand. He somehow or other was selected to be the judge in the John Huang case, and he agreed to a very light plea-bargained sentence at a time, I believe, when his confirmation was still pending, involving a matter where the President of the United States was clearly implicated. There is something not right about that. It does not pass the smell test. Am I willing now to charge some illegality, or some totally unethical act? No. But we should have done more on this, on that point, before we came to this vote. Last, but not least, when you are on the bench--I have kidded my friends who are Federal judges about how they ascend to someplace in the sky, never to be heard from again: Retirement to the Federal bench. They laugh. I laugh. But in a way, that is the way it is and that is as it should be. Because when you go on the bench, your political involvement, your personal preferences, should remain private. You should assume the bench and keep your mouth shut until you rule appropriately. When you have a judge speak out, as Judge Paez did in 1995, for example, and attack two California ballot initiatives while they were still in litigation or potentially the subject of litigation, that is a big problem. The Judicial Code of Conduct prohibits judges, as it should, from comments that ``cast reasonable doubt on his capacity to decide impartially, any issue that may come before him,'' that is a fundamental point. You cannot, as a Federal judge, make political statements on initiatives on the ballot that bring into question your impartiality in these cases in any way. It is highly inappropriate. With regard to the nomination of Ms. Berzon, she does not have a record of judicial decisions, having served as a prominent labor lawyer for many years. Clearly, however, her positions are very questionable in terms of how she would rule when she got on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I think it would be a mistake. I am particulary troubled by some of the extreme pro-labor positions she has advocated--positions that have been summarily rejected by the Supreme Court. Some of the questionable positions she has advocated include arguing that new employees, or more junior employees that worked during a strike, must be layed off in favor of more senior employees when the strike is over. She also argued unsuccessfully that unions should be able to prevent members from resigning during a strike. Finally, her statements on the use of union funds for political activities--or other activities not directly related to union negotiations and bargaining--raise serious questions about her willingness to live within the letter and spirit of the Beck decision. It is no wonder that the proponents of these nominations ignore the record of the Ninth Circuit and the judicial approach of these nominees. We are told instead of their strong qualifications and personal attributes. I have no doubt that Judge Paez and Ms. Berzon are fine lawyers and are technically competent. My concern is with their judicial philosophies and their likely activism on the court. Let me go back to my beginning point. This is very serious. We are going to be voting on putting these two individuals on the Ninth Circuit for life. I think the record is clear that they would be activists on the bench. Judicial activism is a fundamental challenge to our system of government, and it represents a danger that requires constant vigilance. In our tradition and under our laws, we give power not to a specific group of trained experts, but rest our faith in the ability of all Americans, whatever their backgrounds, to participate in their government. Judicial activism robs the people of their role, and undermines the basis of our democracy. Nowhere is this problem of judicial activism greater than in the Ninth Circuit. And nowhere is it more incumbent upon us as Senators to take seriously our responsibility to restore a proper respect for our system of representative government. I believe these nominees should not be confirmed. Number 1, because there is a problem with this circuit; No. 2, because, in the case of Judge Paez, of the rulings he has been involved in, many of them of a highly questionable nature; No. 3, in his case, for remarks he has made in the political arena while sitting as a judge on issues that could come before him. While her public record is not as extensive, the same questions exist for Ms. Berzon, particulary when you look at her positions with regard to the type of issues that may well be coming before the Ninth Circuit, and eventually, before the Supreme Court. There is great doubt about the basis for her confirmation. While I have kept my word and we will vote on these judges today, I will vote against them both. Exhibit 1 ninth circuit reversals by the supreme court For the period from 1994 through 2000, 85 of the 99 Ninth Circuit cases considered by the Supreme Court were overturned: 1999-2000 7 of 7--100%. U.S. v. Locke (3/6/00--unanimous)--improper to allow state regulation over oil tankers when area was federally preempted. Rice v. Cayetano (2/23/00)--improper to uphold Hawaii constitutional provision allowing only certain race to vote. Roe v. Flores--Warden (2/23/00)--remanded ineffective counsel case. U.S. v. Martinez-Salazar (1/19/00--unanimous)--improper to throw out conviction when juror was stricken with preemptory challenge after refusal to excuse the juror for cause. Smith v. Robbins (1/19/00)--improper to strike down California law concerning indigent appeals. Guiterrez v. Ada (1/19/00--unanimous)--improper statutory interpretation of Guam election law. Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Pub. Corp. (1/7/99)improper to strike down California law on arrestee information. 1998-1999 13 of 18--72%. 1997-1998 14 of 17--82%. 1996-1997 27 of 28--96%. 1995-1996 10-12--83%. 1994-1995 14 of 17--82%. record on confirming minority and female judicial nominees President Clinton has touted his record of appointing qualified minority and female nominees to the bench. Since all of these judges received Senate confirmation, the Senate's record must, by definition, mirror the President's. In fact, in 1999, 53% of the nominees confirmed were women and/or minorities, compared to only 51% of Clinton's nominees. This Congress, over half (21) of the total number (42) of nominees reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee were either a minority, a female, or both. Similarly, over half (18) of the total number (34) of nominees confirmed were either a minority, a female, or both.\1\ Half of the 34 nominations pending in committee are white males. (Statistics as of 2/29/00) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ These figures include non-controversial nominees such as Charles Wilson (Eleventh Circuit), Ann Claire Williams (Seventh Circuit), Adalberto Jose Jordan (S.D. Fla.), Carlos Murguia (D. Kan), William Haynes, Jr. (M.D. Tenn.), Victor Marrero (S.D.N.Y.), and George Daniels (S.D.N.Y.), all of whom were confirmed within 7 months of their nomination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the Judiciary Committee, during the first session of the 106th Congress, on average minorities were reported out of committee faster (108 days) than white male candidates (123 days). Similarly, on average minorities were confirmed faster (122 days) than white males (143 days). Senator Hatch in an Op-Ed to the Washington Post cited a Task Force on Federal Judicial Selection study reporting that the pace of actual confirmations was the same for minorities and non-minorities in 1997-98. In the Democratic-controlled 102nd Congress, the Senate took 18% longer to confirm minority and female district court nominees than white males. In comparison, the Republican- controlled Senates in 97th, 98th, and 99th Congresses moved female nominees faster than males.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the importance of today's passage of H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. Today is a great day for rural America's air passengers. This legislation will bring much needed air service to under served communities throughout the Nation. It will also grant billions of dollars in federal funds to our Nation's airports for upgrades, through the Airport Improvements Program (AIP). Senator Slade Gorton, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Aviation, is to be commended for his superb leadership on this complex and contentious measure. My friend and colleague from the State of Washington proved himself pivotal earlier during floor consideration of the Senate bill and during the conference with the other body on this bill. Together with Chairman Domenici, Chairman Stevens, and Senator Hollings, their joint efforts moved this bill to today's passage. Rural Americans are the biggest winners with the passage of H.R. 1000. Citizens of small and under served communities can look forward to the day when they no longer have to travel hundreds of miles and several hours to board a plane. This legislation provides incentives to domestic air carriers and their affiliates to reach out to these people and serve them conveniently near their homes. Many Americans will be able to travel a reasonable distance to gain access to our Nation's skies and, from there, anywhere they wish to go. Mr. President, I also applaud the hard work of Senator Frist of Tennessee, Senator Abraham of Michigan, and Senator Ashcroft of Missouri, all members of the Senate Commerce Committee. Their dedication to the flying public helped move the FAA conference when agreements on contentious aviation issues were not met. They understand the delays, inconvenience, and headache their constituents must endure when flying--they get it. I firmly believe that without the engagement of these three gentlemen the Senate would not be voting on H.R. 1000 today. The people of Tennessee, Michigan, and Missouri should be extremely proud of their representation in Washington. The major policy changes in H.R. 1000 led to hard fought, but honest disagreements. I have enormous respect for the efforts of Chairmen Domenici, Stevens, and Shuster, as well as House Ranking Member Oberstar, as they diligently advocated for their committees' jurisdictions. One thing was abundantly clear during the FAA conference--my colleagues recognized our Nation's aviation needs and made significant commitments to increase aviation funding. This honest debate and willingness to work together to achieve common goals is what makes it exciting to serve in Washington. Mr. President, I am extremely proud of my colleagues. Since 1995, the Republican majority has made infrastructure a top legislative priority. Two years ago, my friends in the House and Senate successfully led an effort to boost the amount of federal funding for highway construction and improvements. History will reflect that this Congress also deeply cared about our Nation's infrastructure. One of the main components of H.R. 1000 directs the expense of all Airports and Airways Trust Fund revenue and interest on aviation needs. Trust Fund revenue and interest means that America's airports will get the improvements they desperately need to take our aviation infrastructure into the 21st Century. Mr. President, no legislative initiation is ever possible without the dedicated efforts of staff, and I want to take a moment to identify those who worked hard to get FAA legislation through conference and to the Senate for approval. From the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation: Marti Allbright; Lloyd Ator; Mark Buse; Ann Choiniere; Julia Kraus; Michael Reynolds; Scott Verstandig; and Sam Whitehorn. From the Senate Committee on the Budget: Beth Felder; Bill Hoagland; Mary Naylor; Barry Strumpf; and Cheryle Tucker. From the Senate Committee on Appropriations: Wally Burnett; Paul Doerrer; Peter Rogoff; and Mitch Warren. The following staff also participated on behalf of their Senators: Chrystn Alston; Kerry Ates; Rich Bender; David Broome; Bob Carey; Steve Browning; Jeanne Bumpus; John Conrad; Margaret Cummisky; Brett Hale; Keith Hennessey; Ann Loomis; Randal Popelka; Mitch Rose; Lisa Rosenberg; Greg Rothchild; Jim Sartucci; Lori Sharpe; Brad Van Dam; and Andy Vermilye. Mr. President, these individuals worked very hard on H.R. 1000, and the Senate owes them a debt of gratitude for their dedicated service to this country. Mr. President, our Nation's small communities are a step closer to receiving long-sought air service. Also, America's airports will be enhanced. This is good for all Americans.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Massachusetts for raising this issue here today. And he is absolutely right. Aviation is not the only transportation account that may be impacted by this bill. And it was certainly not the intention of the conferees to in any way restrict funding for the Coast Guard or Amtrak. The conference report includes a provision which reserves Airport and Airways Trust Fund revenue and interest spending for aviation programs with a majority point of order. Additionally, under another majority point of order, the provision requires the authorized levels of funding for the Airport Improvement Program and the Facilities and Equipment accounts to be fully funded before the Operations and Research and Development accounts are funded. While this latter provision is not a statutory guarantee that general revenue will be spend on aviation programs, it is a significant incentive. The bill thus provides a reasonable assurance that aviation appropriations will reach authorized levels, which would result in an approximately $2 billion increase in aviation funding for fiscal year 2001. My good friend from Massachusetts is concerned that spending for other transportation priorities may be decreased as the appropriations process increases aviation spending. Let me assure my good friend that I expect adequate funding for the Coast Guard and Amtrak, as these transportation priorities are important to the Nation and to my home State of Mississippi. I intend to work with the chairmen of the Budget and Appropriations Committees to ensure the Transportation Appropriations account is increased so that these aviation program increases do not come at the expense of other transportation programs.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to address the needs of the Coast Guard. In a typical day the Coast Guard will save 14 lives, seize 209 pounds of marijuana and 170 pounds of cocaine, and save $2.5 million in property. The Coast Guard's duties have also grown, as there are more commercial and recreational vessels in our waters today than ever before in our Nation's history. International trade has expanded greatly, and with it maritime traffic has increased in our Nation's ports and harbors. Tighter border patrols have forced drug traffickers to use the thousands of miles of our country's coastlines as the means to introduce illegal drugs into our Nation. The Coast Guard currently faces a number of readiness shortfalls as it struggles to keep up with the increasing demands placed upon this service. In order to continue this valuable service to our Nation, the Congress must provide the funding to address personnel shortages and to repair or replace the Coast Guard's aging ships and aircraft. I am confident that with an increase in the transportation budget, we can protect the Coast Guard and Amtrak, as well as make the improvements air travel so desperately needs.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request and closing script. As you know, cloture was just invoked on two Ninth Circuit judges. I still hope we have not set a precedent. I don't believe we have because it was such an overwhelming vote to invoke cloture and stop the filibuster. We should not be having filibusters on judicial nominations and having to move to cloture. But we had to, and it was an overwhelming vote of 86-13 on the first one, and I guess that was the vote on the second one, too. I intend to offer a time agreement between the proponents and opponents regarding postcloture debate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith of New Hampshire be in control of up to 3 hours of total debate on both nominations, and that Senator Leahy, or his designee, be in control of up to 1 hour 30 minutes of total debate on both nominations; that following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate lay the nominations aside until 2 p.m., at which time the Senate would proceed to back-to-back votes on or in relation to the confirmations of Berzon and Paez. That would be at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following statements by Senator Leahy and Senator Landrieu. Does the Senator wish to specify a time?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I amend my request to say 5 minutes for Senator Leahy and 15 minutes for Senator Landrieu.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. We will have 4\1/2\ hours postcloture debate on the Berzon and Paez nominations. Under the previous order, the votes will occur at 2 p.m. The Senate will return to morning business for the purpose of bill introductions and statements. The Senate may also have consideration tomorrow of any Executive or Legislative Calendar items that are available for action. Does Senator Leahy wish to propound a request at this time?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.