Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of H.R. 2466, the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Journal of proceedings be approved to date.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair. I yield for some comments with regard to our visiting Chaplain to Senator Nickles. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, thank our guest Chaplain for being with us today. I know most Senators have been informed that our Chaplain, Lloyd John Ogilvie, is doing quite well in his recovery period, and we look forward to having him back in the Senate to hear his melodious voice and beautiful prayers. In the meantime, we are glad to have our guest Chaplain this morning.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. One final thing, and then the managers can go forward. It is my understanding some of the debate today was not germane to the issue on oil royalties, the issue on which 60 Members voted to invoke cloture earlier today. Rule XXII clearly states all debate must be germane. Senators Thomas and Senator Hutchison of Texas raised a point of order to guide the debate back to the pending oil royalties subject. The Chair on first blush ruled the debate does not have to be germane. To better clarify the position of the chairman, I now make a parliamentary inquiry. Is there a requirement under rule XXII that all debate postcloture must be germane to the issue on which cloture was invoked?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning it is hoped that the Senate will be able to resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. The oil royalties amendment is the only remaining issue to dispose of prior to completing action on the bill. However, in order to resume consideration of the oil royalties issue, it may be necessary to have several procedural votes this morning; therefore, Senators should anticipate votes beginning shortly. The Senate will also resume consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill with the hope of finishing that legislation today. Also, either later on today or tomorrow, it is hoped we can take up one, two, or more appropriations conference reports as they are completed.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, under the order, this vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Stewart nomination will occur immediately following the vote that is scheduled to begin momentarily. The first vote is on the bankruptcy reform cloture motion. The second vote would be on this cloture motion on the nomination of Brian Theadore Stewart to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah. There could be one or two procedural motion votes that would follow after that, so Members should be on notice there could be up to four votes in succession here. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Therefore there will be no further votes this evening. The next vote will occur at 9:45. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there are now 2 hours for debate on the DOD authorization conference report. I ask unanimous consent the vote occur on adoption of the conference report at 9:45 a.m. on Wednesday and there be 15 minutes equally divided prior to the vote for closing statements.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, under the previous consent agreement, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate the conference report to accompany the DOD authorization bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending nomination.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Brian Theadore Stewart to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The Chair notes there was no objection to that?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that there be a time agreement on the pending nomination of not to exceed 2 hours under the control of Senator Leahy and 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond to the Senator from Nevada on his proposal. If he can get this agreement I have just propounded worked out, we will be able to move not only this nomination of Mr. Stewart, we will also be able to move tonight the nominees, M. James Lorenz, of California, for the Southern District of California, and Victor Marrero, of New York, for the Southern District of New York. With regard to the nomination of Ronnie L. White, of Missouri, for the Eastern District of Missouri, we do have a time agreement we had worked out earlier. I think it was for only 35 minutes. It might require more time than that since a lot of time has lapsed, but I am satisfied we will get a time agreement on that, and we will have a vote on that one. I think there is a possibility we could get some sort of a time agreement to consider also the nominee, Raymond C. Fisher, of California, for the Ninth Circuit, which is a very controversial circuit. But I have not had an opportunity to check on the time on that one. So I think if we could get an understanding, an agreement with regard to Mr. Stewart, we could, as a matter of fact, move as many as five judges--two in wrapup and three with time agreements and recorded votes. The other two--Berzon and Paez--I will have to go to all of my colleagues to check and see how we can handle those. I have not been able to get a time agreement as yet. I have to confess that I have not tried it lately because I have been trying to move the other judges where there was either not an objection or there were limited objections or we could get time agreements. So I think this is a way to keep moving the process forward. I remind the Senate that we have moved six Federal judicial nominations over the last 2 weeks and that we have the opportunity tonight to move three more. We have the opportunity, within the next 2 weeks, to move three more. That is pretty good progress. I understand the Judiciary Committee is moving toward, reporting out a number of other nominations. So I hope we will find a way to work through all this. Everybody knows that this nominee, Stewart, is important to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. If we get into a situation where we are not going to move him until we get agreement on all others, then we will wind up with an all stop. I have been through that before. I wish we wouldn't do that. I don't think it is good for the people who have been nominated. Why hold up those who can be cleared or voted on and probably approved because we want to get others who are a major problem and we haven't been able to get cleared? I will have to object at this time because I haven't had a chance to do a hotline to see how we could handle Raymond Fisher--I would have to check on all three of those. Having said that, I will have to object to that change.

Mr. LOTT. Let me explain what it is. Then I will explain what it means. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order for the majority leader to file a cloture motion on the pending nomination at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, and if that motion is filed, that vote occur on Tuesday immediately following the 5:30 p.m. vote. Needless to say, this will give all Members until 5:30 on Tuesday to discuss the nomination. What I am asking for is an opportunity to not file it, but by getting this agreement, it will be the same as if I had filed it. If we get an agreement, no problem. If we don't, then there will be a vote at 5:30.

Mr. LOTT. I have a couple of problems: One, Senator Hatch, I think, feels that I embarked upon a strategy that has disadvantaged him because I started moving judges--6 of them. And now 2 more are ready to go. Then when we got to the ninth one, his judge, we are told, no. Even though you have 8 judges nominated by Democrats, we have one now that is supported by Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and you can't do that unless we get an agreement to move 5 other judges. So I understand what you are saying. I really prefer not to do this. But the problem I have now is that I told Senators who have now left that I would do this, and I believe we have told Senators we will have two votes at 5:30 Tuesday. This is one of them. That is my problem. Another problem is time. We are getting to the end of the fiscal year. If we don't do this now and get closure on Judge Stewart, with next week being a four-day week--assuming we can get the Senators to work 4 days--and with five the next week, which are the last 2 weeks of the fiscal year, we are not going to be able to get through any of these judges until October. I hope that we can go ahead and resolve the Stewart matter. I could vitiate the request, and then we could move five judges, I hope.

Mr. LOTT. Possibly a fifth one. I would have to get clearance on it.

Mr. LOTT. I would like to make one last point.

Mr. LOTT. Is there any possibility that we can get a time agreement on Stewart? I know Senators would like to make themselves heard, perhaps, on that nomination, or perhaps as it relates to other nominees. I have no desire to cut Senators off at will. Maybe the time I asked for was too short, with 2 hours for Senator Leahy and only 30 minutes for Senator Hatch, where the nominee is from. We can go to 4 hours on each side.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I certainly will accommodate any Senator who wishes to speak. I have been the one who has kept us here all day. I will note one thing. The wind is picking up, the rain is coming in from the west, it is going to get worse, and it is 5:20. We do need to allow Senators and staff to go home. They have been very diligent to be here today but, again, please within reason I hope you will accommodate that, and I amend my remarks to say we will terminate the business following the remarks of Senator Feingold and Senator Reed, if he so wishes.

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Feingold of Wisconsin.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I object. I say to the Senator, this came at the last moment. I have not had a chance to check it out. I have Senators gone for the day with whom I have to check. I am sure we will work with the Senator on this tomorrow or next week. At this time, I object.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Friday, September 17, for a pro forma session only. No business will be transacted during Friday's session of the Senate, and immediately following the pro forma session, the Senate will stand in adjournment until 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21. I further ask that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and there be a period for morning business until 5:30 p.m., with Members permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: the time from 2:15 to 3:15 to be under the control of Senator Durbin or his designee; the time from 3:15 to 4:15 to be under the control of Senator Thomas or his designee. I further ask that the time from the conclusion of the Thomas time until the 5:30 p.m. cloture votes be equally divided between Senator Hatch and Senator Torricelli or their designees.

Mr. LOTT. I also ask consent that it be in order for committees to file reported items from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m on Friday, September 17.