Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I call up amendment No. 2820, which is already at the desk. This is the so-called managers' amendment. I understand the amendment will be agreed to and the motion to reconsider will be laid on the table. Amendment No. 2820

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, I think it is important the Senate take note of the fact that for the first time in 20 years reformers may have been making some gains and that maybe internally and the way they deal with the rest of the world things may change in Iran. We hope that is the case. I ask that you join me in talking to Senator Daschle to see if we can craft some legislation that would express the resolution's views on this. Hopefully, we can also take that up, if not today, maybe later this week. I yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. I agree. That understanding is consistent with the intent of the House, which defined ``credible information'' as such in its report.

Mr. LOTT. I agree.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for one moment, and then I will call up the bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. It is such pleasure to see the distinguished Senator from Kansas in the chair. I know the Chamber will be kept in order, and we will make real progress.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Jack E. Harper, Jr., of Sunflower County, Mississippi. Mr. Harper recently retired as the Chancery Clerk of Sunflower County after serving tirelessly in this position for 44 years. This is an exemplary record of public service, and it is a privilege to honor this outstanding Mississippian for his unselfish dedication to Sunflower County government for so many years. In addition to Mr. Harper's lengthy service as Chancery Clerk, I also commend him for his involvement in numerous civic activities and for his military service. Mr. Harper is a veteran of the United States Marines, having served 31 months in the Pacific Theater during World War II. In 1951, while he was a member of the Mississippi National Guard, he was ordered to active military duty for 2 years and served 1 year in Korea during 1951-1952. In conjunction with his military service, Mr. Harper is a member and past Commander of the Indianola American Legion and VFW posts. Additionally, Mr. Harper has been active in his community, as demonstrated by the fact that he served as President of the Indianola Lions Club and as the District Governor of the Mississippi Lions. Jack Harper has always shown a commitment to education. He earned degrees from Indianola High School, Mississippi Delta Community College, and both Bachelor of Laws and Juris Doctor degrees from the University of Mississippi School of Law, my alma mater. Additionally, he has served as a member of the Board of Trustees of Mississippi Delta Community College since January, 1961, and has served as Board Chairman since 1968. He is a past President of the Mississippi Junior College Inter-Alumni Association, and he is a member of the State Association of Community and Junior College Trustees. He currently serves as the Co-Chairman of the Education Committee for the Indianola Chamber of Commerce. Although Jack Harper is retiring from official public office, I know that he will continue to serve his community and the State of Mississippi in the same devoted manner that he has for his entire life. I am envious of the time that he will now have to spend with his family, particularly his grandchildren. Once again, I congratulate and thank Mr. Harper for his service to Sunflower County and Mississippi.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Executive Calendar Nos. 408 and 410. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc, 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. Is the Senator asking consent?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have no objection to that.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before we do go to a vote on the motion, I want to have a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. The vote then on the motion will occur immediately following this colloquy, which should not take very long. Then the vote on the two nominees will not occur before 1:45 p.m. It may be later than that; I emphasize that. The Senator from Oklahoma may want to talk for a while, and others may want to comment on this. We want to accommodate, as we always do, Senators who wish to be heard on important nominations. I yield the floor to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before the Chair puts the question, I understand following this vote there will be some debate by my colleague from Oklahoma with respect to these two judges. I further understand, following the Senator's statement, we will proceed to two further rollcall votes on the confirmation of these judicial nominees. Senators should, therefore, be notified that a rollcall vote will begin on the pending motion and that after some time for debate, two additional votes will occur today.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of that objection, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 408. There is a request for a vote by our distinguished colleague, Senator Inhofe. Therefore, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. LOTT. First of all, I appreciate sincerely the efforts of the Senator from Oklahoma to limit the recess appointment power of the Executive. Over a period of years, Executives of both parties have probably abused this authority. It is one that has been used by President Bush, President Reagan, as well as President Carter and President Clinton. I know in the past Senator Byrd, as a matter of fact, worked on this area of concern of the Senate and worked out an agreement, with the cooperation, as I recall, of Senator Dole and President Reagan, who was in the White House at that time. Because of the Senator's concern and insistence about this matter, my colleagues will recall that last year, once again, we went through a process that led to a similar agreement in writing between the Senate and this President about how these recess appointments would be handled. It is important that we make every effort to live up to the letter of that agreement, as well as the spirit. I emphasize that Senator Inhofe has already helped in bringing that about. There is no doubt in my mind that his efforts and his comments last year and this year had an impact on the number of recess appointments with which the administration did, in fact, go forward. I know for sure--in fact, the President indicated as much to me--that they had wanted to do more, but they showed restraint and they realized that it could cause even more serious problems. So he has had an impact, there is no question about that. It is very helpful. Indeed, Senator Inhofe did inform me of his intentions last November before he made his speech on the floor--I remember, I walked over to this area and talked with him. I admit, I was dealing with a lot of different issues at the time and perhaps should have paid a little bit more attention to exactly the exchange that was occurring and the lists that were being discussed--after I had shared with him the list of possible recess appointees provided by the White House on November 19 in compliance with a similar Byrd-Reagan agreement. There is no question his memory of that discussion and his efforts did take place, and I appreciate that. As majority leader, I must also say I worked with the White House to limit their use of these recess appointments through these negotiations both now and in the past. I am quick to say, on more than one occasion I thought they made a mistake and I told them so. I remember one ambassadorial appointment in particular. On many occasions, we have been able to resolve differences. With regard to the appointment of a person during the recess, sometimes there were problems, but concerns were worked out after further consideration. I do acknowledge that they have worked on a regular basis with me as majority leader and with my staff when I have been absent and in my own State or in other States. I have great sympathy for the Senator's plan to object to these judicial nominations. I have said before, I am not one who gets all weepy-eyed about having more Federal judges of any kind anywhere. However, as majority leader, I must take some other factors into account. Using the Sarah Fox example, she had previously been confirmed to a position on the NLRB by a vote of the full Senate. I believe she would have been confirmed to a full term if her nomination were brought to the floor of the Senate again. It probably would have eventually because, in this case, it is not a judicial nomination. If the Chair will excuse me and my colleagues a moment of partisanship, I hope to have a Republican in the White House next year to succeed President Clinton. So, therefore, I hope this Republican will be able to name a majority of the members of boards and commissions as soon as possible. I did not want Sarah Fox serving a full NLRB term, which would have extended until 2004. I thought a 1- year appointment allowing, then, for her to be replaced by the next President--whichever party that President may be from--made some sense. Maybe that contributed to a violation of the letter or the spirit of the agreement, but it was after a lot of discussion with colleagues on our side of the aisle. I thought it made sense to go ahead and do that. I am also concerned very much about the Senate getting into the possibility of filibustering judicial nominations. It is a bad precedent. The Senate has generally not done that. Once again, I hope we will be having nominations suggested by the Senator from Kansas next year. I would be greatly concerned about the idea that a nomination would be filibustered. As a matter of fact, you may recall last year when the Democrats did filibuster a nominee from Utah, I complained loudly that it was a mistake, should not be done. As you recall, the better part of judgment prevailed, and we backed away from that. We, in fact, confirmed that nominee. So that is another factor I have to inject. I do not think we should or would be able to go all year without confirming any nominees. Some of these nominees are good men and women. Some of them have already waited a long time. Some of them are supported by Governors and Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and should not be held. In some of these States there truly is a need for more judges, as bad as that may sound to some of us. Florida is a State with a growing docket of cases. Even hard-working Federal judges cannot cope with it. So all of these are matters I have to consider as majority leader. It is one of those burdensome, delicate balances for which the majority leader has to assume the responsibility. So based on that--my concern about how long these appointments would be for; my feeling that, in fact, the White House did try to work with us; my feeling that we should not start filibustering these nominations--these and other concerns lead me to the conclusion that I will honor a Senator's hold for a reasonable period of time and will certainly honor a hold by the Senator from Oklahoma and will inform him when nominations will be brought to the floor so that he can take whatever action he is compelled to take--and I will honor that also-- but, nevertheless, I think we should move forward and bring these nominees to a vote on the floor. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding.

Mr. LOTT. I do not believe I have the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair. I would be glad to yield. And then I will yield back to the Senator from Oklahoma for his remarks.

Mr. LOTT. Thanks to the efforts of the whip, we have made good progress.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for his comments. We have Senators who I believe are about to leave the Chamber. Are we ready to put the question? And then we would go ahead with the debate on the judges.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could comment briefly on that, I meant it sincerely when I said there has been good, hard work done on both sides of the aisle: Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch on the bankruptcy bill; Senator Murkowski, obviously, and others on the nuclear waste bill. But Senator Reid has done excellent work on his side of the aisle in helping us move this legislation through in a positive way. The fact is, already this year we have passed bankruptcy reform; we have passed a bill that would provide for a minimum wage increase and tax relief for small business men and women, and for a nuclear waste repository. These are important issues. They are complicated and difficult to deal with substantively and politically. I think the Senate can feel good. I hope we can continue to work our way through important issues and that we will be able to do it as much as possible in a bipartisan way. I yield further to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 80, the adjournment resolution, which is at the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 8, 2000, at 10:30 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 8, 2000 at 10 a.m. to hear testimony regarding the President's fiscal year 2001 budget and tax proposals.