Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, like the Chaplain, and on behalf of the Senate, I would like to pay tribute today to Mother Teresa. I know that I am speaking for every Member of the Senate in expressing our sorrow in the loss of Mother Teresa, this wonderful lady. At the same time, we realize that if ever there was a life well lived, it was hers. Her passing helps us understand the psalm's comfort for those who mourn, that ``precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His faithful ones.'' Only 3 months ago, Mother Teresa came here to the Capitol. She joined us as we gave to her the Congressional Gold Medal in support of her work for the poorest of the world's poor. Even then, everyone present understood that it would only be a matter of time before her work, never finished, would rest in other hands. But what an honor it was for us to meet her. The leaders were there, and the Members of the House and the Senate. That was a special occasion. We all felt touched by this elderly lady, who at once was so frail and at the same time so tough and so unconcerned about anything except the suffering of others. This was a lady who, on an earlier visit to Washington, when she was being escorted to a White House car waiting to take her to the airport, inquired about how her companions would get to the airport. When she was told they would go in a different vehicle, she declared everyone must stay together and take the bus. To put it mildly, fame, and accolades were not important to her. What was important to her--what shaped her life from the Balkan village where she was born to the places of power where she was honored--was a devotion to the most vulnerable members of the human family, especially children, both before and after their birth. When she first visited the Capitol back in 1981, one of our colleagues, then Senator James Buckley of New York, remarked, ``There is no telling what may be started by someone like her, who plays with fire by striking sparks off the flinty heart.'' Today, 16 years later, it is magnificently clear what she did start, literally around the world. Out of her poverty, she enriched mankind. Out of her loneliness, she showed us the heights of the human spirit. From the perspective of this century's end, we have a better understanding of what true greatness really is. The monsters of our era--Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and the rest--they and their ideologies are in the trash heap of history. But what Mother Teresa launched, with bare hands and with an open heart, is going to last far longer than anyone can imagine. Sad as our loss of her may be, we should not forget that her passing would not be viewed by her as a tragedy, but as a triumph. She had that assurance from the person to whom she gave her life, who surely has said to her, ``I was hungry, and you gave me to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink.'' So as we celebrate her life, let us now celebrate her joy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the next recorded vote will be the last vote tonight. Unfortunately, we have not been able to work out an agreement that will allow us to vitiate the cloture vote on the FDA reform bill tomorrow morning. So there will be a vote at 9:45. After that, Senator Kennedy, assuming cloture is invoked, would have 4 hours of debate on FDA reform. We could go back to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill tomorrow for other amendments to be offered, but no further votes, other than the 9:45 vote. On Monday, we will have FDA debate from 12 until 1. Then we will go to the Labor-HHS at Monday at 1. We will have a vote at 5 o'clock on Monday on either the Nickles amendment or any other amendment that Senators have taken up during the day, or any other pending amendment. I believe the McCain amendment is pending. We will have one vote at 5 o'clock on Monday. And then, on Tuesday, we will have other amendment votes, if there are any pending, at 9:30. We would complete the list we have agreed on, all amendments, and final passage on Labor-HHS sometime Tuesday afternoon, and then we will go to the FDA reform package, but not earlier than 4 o'clock. I had hoped we could get an agreement that would allow us not to have had a cloture vote in the morning and be able to vitiate that. Senator Kennedy didn't feel he could agree to that. I hoped that we would not have to have votes on Monday, but we could not get all that worked out. So that is the outline of the UC that I would like to renew. I have discussed this with Senator Daschle. The list has been worked over by everybody. So I would like to renew my request with respect to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that I made earlier and ask consent, if cloture is invoked Friday on the FDA reform package, that there be up to 8 hours divided between Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for debate on S. 830 and an additional 4 hours of debate on Monday, divided in the same fashion, beginning at 11 a.m.

Mr. LOTT. I further ask that the Senate proceed to S. 830 following passage of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, but not earlier than 4 p.m. on Tuesday, September 9.

Mr. LOTT. By Tuesday afternoon. We don't have an exact time set. But looking at the list of amendments, we believe we can do that by 4 or 5 o'clock Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. LOTT. Let me repeat, we have, we believe, a finite list. All amendments have to be offered by the close of business Monday. Look, there is not a lot of really tough stuff on the list. We believe we can finish all amendments, and all amendments would have to have been offered by the close of business Monday. We believe we can be through at a reasonable hour Tuesday afternoon. We are not locking in final passage.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could reclaim my time to respond on that, I think everybody has indicated we want to continue to move the appropriations bills.

Mr. LOTT. But if an objection is heard today for the Environment and Public Works Committee to meet in session this afternoon and work on marking up a very important environmental bill to clean up hazardous waste sites, that interrupts the process of the appropriations bill. That committee should meet. In my opinion, it should have already met on this issue, and had votes and brought it to a conclusion. So, if an objection is heard to committees meeting, I have no option but to go out for a period of time to allow the committees to do their work. That's a very important part of our process here. So the effect is that you are delaying the appropriations bill. But perhaps objection would not be heard, we wouldn't have to stop for 2 hours this afternoon so that a very important committee could meet. I have indicated to the Senator and to Senator Daschle that we hope that would not be necessary. But, you know, the effect is to delay the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. With regard to the Louisiana election, yes, it is September. It need not be. This matter could have been concluded, completed, weeks or months ago, but from the beginning, the Democrats on the committee would not cooperate, would not work with us. They didn't actually----

Mr. LOTT. Wait, I have the floor and I will yield when you ask me to. I am on that committee, and all I ever said was find out what happened, was there apparent fraud or not. As a matter of fact, investigators never went into Louisiana until July. Shortly thereafter, in something I have not seen in 25 years in Congress, the Democrats walked out of the committee's proceedings and said, ``We won't participate.'' In investigation after investigation over the years in the House and the Senate, I never saw the Republicans or Democrats, in any other instance, say, ``We're not going to participate.'' What happened after the investigators' being down there for like 2 weeks, the Justice Department withdrew the FBI agents. It couldn't come to a conclusion. The week before we went out, I talked with Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle, and we worked out an arrangement that I thought everybody was satisfied with for a special allocation of money to complete that work and in time to complete that work. At the last minute, it was jerked away. What has happened is, I think Senator Warner is going to make an announcement today, I believe, about a schedule he has in mind. There are several boxes of documents that have been turned over now to the committee as a result of the subpoena duces tecum to get evidence with regard to gaming interests and involvement in the election. By the way, I think they have every right to support a referendum. The only question is was it in any way used improperly or illegally. I don't know the answer to that. Once those documents are reviewed, I understand the committee is going to meet, hear from the investigators, hear what the evidence is, if any, that they find in these documents and, at some point, the committee will proceed to action. I don't know exactly what date that would be. It is not my intention to drag this out indefinitely. But I have to be able to come here and say to Members on both sides of the aisle, ``We've done our work. Even though we haven't had cooperation, we have reached a conclusion as best we can, and here it is.'' I have told the Senators on both sides of the aisle over the past year and 3 months how we deal with you. I am not interested in causing undue delay or difficulty for any Senator here with or without prejudice. But I must be able, along with other Senators, to say that we did our work, we fulfilled our constitutional responsibility, and then make a recommendation. I will be glad to yield further if you like.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have never seen so many red herrings in my life. We should be flying a flock. This is not about the recent Teamsters strike at UPS, although clearly that strike injured millions of Americans and small businessmen and women. And I heard a lot of those concerns while I was home. I had a lot of calls in my offices pleading for help in some way. ``Please find a way to help end this strike because of what it is doing to us as individuals and small businesses.'' It is not about a union or a particular union. I have had a good relationship with individual teamsters over the years. When I practiced law I represented the longshoremen, the boilermakers, and every other union you can name. No. What is this really about? This is about fairness for the American people. That is why this amendment has been offered and why it is so important. The taxpayers of America are paying for union elections. Do we want that? I don't think my constituents know that, and they would be horrified to know it. That is what this is all about. Paying for the Teamsters to hold an election has not happened once. It has happened twice. The question now is, Will it happen a third time because of fraudulent elections, or is it in fact a bill the American people have to foot in perpetuity? I've heard a great deal of talk about a consent degree. I am not impressed that a judge said that the people of this country, the taxpayers, should pay for union elections. I am not impressed, whether it was a Republican or a Democrat administration, or which Justice Department went along with it. This is wrong. When the people find out the truth of what is going on here, they will be in an uproar because we should not be paying for private union elections. So that is the remarkable thing about this situation. That is why this amendment has been offered--to set up a process to stop taxpayers' money being used to conduct union elections; and more importantly, it sets up the process for taxpayers' money to be repaid. That is one of the key components of the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. It says that there will be a process whereby the Teamsters, if, in fact, taxpayer dollars are involved, will have to pay back in an agreed-to process with a plan to repay the cost of these elections. The taxpayers of America paid $22 million for the last Teamsters' election; that is $45 per Teamster vote. As the Washington Times noted, ``the taxpayers were monumentally ripped off.'' It turns out there was a fraudulent election. And now there is an indication, well, a judicial official might decree that the taxpayers should have to pay the Teamsters again. This is a horrible procedure. This is a horrible precedent. I don't care what union it is; what business it is. We shouldn't be paying for these kind of elections, and certainly not without some process to get the taxpayers repaid for what they have put into this process. The Nickles amendment puts an end to this nonsense. It allows the Federal Government to continue the fight against corruption in the Teamsters Union but says the teamsters have to pay the American people back for the privilege of an honest election. For heaven's sake. Nothing could be more fair than that. Last month, a Federal election official determined that ``corruption''--this is a quote--``in the Teamsters remains a major problem.'' Citing ``extraordinary'' and ``egregious improprieties,'' the Federal election officials threw out the Teamsters election. We didn't have anything to do with that. That is what the Clinton administration is saying about this. Taxpayers paid for what turned out to be a stolen private election. Somehow or other the Justice Department, which was supposed to be overseeing this process, let someone in the Teamsters steal an election right from under its nose with the taxpayers paying the tab for the election. Guess what? Now they are saying, ``Well, we don't know but maybe we will have to have another election, and maybe the taxpayers should pay again.'' Ridiculous. It is time that we stopped this. The Clinton FBI, not the Republican Congress, alleges that there was an intricate money laundering scheme pouring thousands of dollars from the union treasury into union president Ron Carey's campaign. Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues: This is a travesty. It is a travesty that these elections are fraudulent again and again. People around here forget that the Teamsters have even been thrown out of the AFL-CIO in the past for such corruption. Now you add to that equation more taxpayer funding. This won't sell in America. The Nickles amendment should be adopted. I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to respond to some of the things that have been said, or questions that have been raised when I was off the floor a few moments ago. First of all, I think I just need to reiterate here what is at stake is taxpayers' money being used to pay for labor union elections where there has been a record of fraud and abuse. Yes, there was a consent degree in 1989. How long does it apply? In perpetuity? We had a fraudulent election, on which, to my absolute horror, $22 million of taxpayers' dollars were spent. It turned out it had problems. The FBI has said so. The Justice Department has even said so. So now they say, oh, yes, let's have another one and let the taxpayers pay for that. So the American people understand very clearly here, this is taxpayers' money going to pay for labor union elections. Judges may or may not say that it ought to be done. All I have to say is, if judges are saying taxpayers' money should be used to pay for private sector, or labor union elections of any kind, I think it is time we take some action to say we are not going to allow that. The second thing is, the question was raised, ``Why don't we have some votes? Why doesn't somebody tells us when we will have some votes?'' Hey, we are ready to vote. Let's vote on the Nickles amendment right now. The motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts carried; 56 Senators voted to table that motion. I believe the Senate is ready to vote for the amendment of Senator Nickles. But, as we try to do around here, we try to accommodate everybody's schedules and their desire to be able to check with the administration or I don't know who. We could probably work out something, to have a vote on Senator Nickles' amendment at some time certain other than tonight. He has indicated he would, perhaps, be willing to do that. But if anybody has raised any questions about why don't we vote, why isn't somebody saying what the schedule is going to be--if you want to vote, let's vote. If anybody wants to know that, any one of the Senators who have been speaking, I am ready to vote. That's what we ought to do. We already had a statement of the Senate on this issue. The Senate is concerned about use of taxpayers' money to pay for labor union elections. But I have also been working on a whole series of things that I think would be fair to the Senate. Unfortunately, our business was interrupted today. From 2 to 4, we had to go out so the Environment and Public Works Committee could have a hearing and begin a markup on the Superfund bill, a bill that the American people surely would be for, because it means improving the way that we clean up hazardous waste. We all know now lawyers are cleaning up. They are doing fine. But we are not cleaning up any hazardous waste sites. We ought to have Superfund reform. And yet there was an objection made to the committee meeting, so we had to go out for 2 hours. We would not be here right now probably if it had not been for that 2-hour interruption. But when we take out 2 hours in the day, we are going to make up that 2 hours at night, or 3 hours. I have spent a year trying to be sensitive to Senators' needs, to know what the schedule is going to be, to be with their families, to be with their children, to be with their dog, dogs, so we can have a life, but it takes cooperation on both sides. I hope we won't start down that trail where we start these things that force us to be in session late at night. But if it's necessary, we will. That is why we are here now. I had offered a UC request, and I am going to ask for this unanimous-consent agreement that would allow us to not have any more votes tonight, not have any votes tomorrow, but have further debate on amendments on the very important Labor and Health and Human Services bill during the day tomorrow, with no votes; that we would come in on Monday, we would have more amendments on the Labor and Human Services appropriations bill with a vote at 5 o'clock, but only one at the request of the Democratic leader; and that we would get at the close of business Monday a final, finite list of all amendments pending to this appropriations bill. Both the managers would very much like for us to help them get that done. Then we would have other votes that might be pending from Friday or Monday on this bill Tuesday at 9 or 9:30. Then we would be able to wrap up the finite list, which is not that long. There are a couple controversial issues. I think we can get them worked out. Then we would have final passage on all amendments and the bill on Tuesday. Then at 5 o'clock on Tuesday, we would go to the Food and Drug Administration reform bill at 5 o'clock, not have any votes on cloture tomorrow, not go through the cloture exercise. An overwhelming number of Senators on both sides of the aisle support this FDA reform bill. It was reported out of committee, I think, 13 to 2.

Mr. LOTT. When we get to final passage, the vote on FDA is going to be 95 to maybe 5, maybe more. Ninety-five Senators want to vote on the substance of FDA reform. The American people want that. The American people want to get a better system for approving drugs and medical devices and a more active and a more efficient FDA. We ought to give it to them. I believe the House is going to act on this. So it was a process to allow the Senators to continue on this bill, to get this bill completed, get FDA up in a reasonable way, and not have more votes tonight. Senator Kennedy has indicated he can't agree to that. The alternative then is this: We will have to pull down Labor-HHS tonight. We will then go to two votes on Federal judges tonight. We will vote in the morning at 9:45 on cloture. If we get cloture, then, of course, the Senator from Massachusetts and others perhaps can talk all day tomorrow if they want to. They can talk for 30 hours if they want to after cloture on the motion to proceed--on the motion to proceed now, I want you to know--to the FDA bill that over 90 Senators support. Then on Monday, we will go back to Labor-HHS, and we will have a vote on two more judges Monday, perhaps even earlier in the day than we had indicated earlier, and then we will go to votes at 5 o'clock. I mean, we are trying to get these things cleared. We are going to have recorded votes on them. I think plan A is in the best interest of the Senate and the American people, our time and efficient legislating. We can get our work done without unnecessary acrimony, without getting outdone by each other. If the alternative is two votes tonight and a cloture vote in the morning at 9:45, inconveniencing unnecessarily--and, again, I am trying to accommodate people, we need to go a little later because some can't quite be here at 9:45, others at 10. We will have the vote at 9:45, and we are going to vote cloture. I just don't see why that is necessary. That is where we are. I am going to make a unanimous-consent request on that in a moment and then go to judicial nominations. Does anybody have any comment or questions on that? I yield to Senator Kennedy for a question.

Mr. LOTT. If I can claim my time.

Mr. LOTT. On that particular point, I have been reasonable. I have put off scheduling.

Mr. LOTT. All right.

Mr. LOTT. I will yield, since his name, I believe, was invoked earlier, for a response to that.

Mr. LOTT. If you will allow me to respond to some of the things the Senator from Massachusetts said. He asked for 1 minute to wrap up, and I need to respond, and then I will be glad to yield. With regard to the amendment before us, it was offered at 5:05. An offer was made to limit the time on that to 30 minutes. I believe the managers of the bill were very content with that. An offer was made to limit speeches to 5 minutes on this issue. There was no desire to drag it out. So, again, to imply that we have been prolonging this is just not accurate. Now, with regard to the Food and Drug Administration effort to make the bureaucratic FDA more responsive to the needs of the American people, this really affects quality of life and health care, and I know the Senator from Massachusetts cares a great deal about that. This is one way we can help them to get medical devices and pharmaceutical products available to the American people. The vote in the committee was 14 to 4. Usually when you have a vote in the committee and it is overwhelming in a bipartisan way, you bring it to the floor and you have debate, amendments, vote, and move on. But somehow or other, I mean, some folks seem to think when you have a vote in a committee and lose, then the negotiations begin. The leader of both parties always has to be sensitive to that. I have allowed Senators on both sides of the aisle to continue negotiations on the foster care bill, on other bills, but I have been very patient on this. And I wanted a cloture vote on this back in July. I was told repeatedly, ``Oh, we're about to get it agreed to, about to get it done.'' Every time we were about to get it done, the Senator from Massachusetts said, ``Oh, no, there's something else here I want.'' I think the Senator from Vermont has been doing the very best he can in the negotiations. I personally think he has negotiated too dang much. The vote in the committee was 14-4. Why are we negotiating on all this stuff? Let us bring it to the floor and let us vote. So when I get this magnanimous offer: Oh, you can have a cloture vote next week, put it off another--I offered a UC that would have given the Senator from Massachusetts an opportunity to negotiate Friday, Monday, all day Tuesday, and go on the bill on Tuesday night. He said no. But if we wait until next Tuesday to have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed, then he may try to force us to have a vote on going to the bill itself later on on a cloture vote, and then we might someday, in another week or so, get to FDA. That is ridiculous. There has been enough time. The Senate wants to vote on this issue, overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan way. The committee has spoken. On a cloture vote, on a motion to proceed, the requisite number of Senators will vote for cloture, I believe. So I mean, that is not very responsive. It is time we get to this issue. Make your case, offer your amendments. On the cosmetic thing, I mean, the Senator from Massachusetts is defending and worrying about States rights. Boy, getting some role reversals around here, when he doesn't want us to even get an amendment and vote on it. He may have the merits on his side. If he does, let us hear them; we will vote. But, you know, it is time that we move forward on Labor-HHS. It is time we vote on the merits of FDA reform. I cannot believe we want to further delay. Every day we delay on FDA reform, there is some other delay by the bureaucracy at that agency that denies the people of this country medical devices and pharmaceuticals that help them with their lives and lifestyles. And so we are not going to delay it any longer. We are going to get an agreement to go to the bill on Tuesday or we are going to have a cloture vote in the morning. And if the vote doesn't succeed, we will have another one. I think I have been more than reasonable, and so has everybody else.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only amendments remaining in order to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, other than the pending amendments, and they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments, and that all first-degree amendments must be offered prior to the close of business on Monday, September 8, other than the amendments designated as managers' amendments. I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading, and a vote occur on passage of S. 1061, and the bill remain at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that once the Senate receives the House companion bill, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 1061 be inserted, the House bill be advanced to third reading, and passed, all without further action or debate. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees. I further state for the membership that any votes ordered with respect to the Labor-HHS bill on Friday and Monday, September 8, be postponed to occur at 5 p.m. on Monday, with one vote at that time, on a case-by-case basis. Thereafter, we will begin votes on Tuesday morning at 9:30. I further ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S. 830 following the passage of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill--that is the Food and Drug Administration reform bill--but not earlier than 4 p.m. on Tuesday, September 9, to give the Senate plenty of time to continue to work on any agreements that they could come together on, and the cloture vote scheduled for Friday be vitiated. That is the unanimous-consent request that I think is fair for all concerned. I urge that it be accepted.

Mr. LOTT. Yes. By the way, this unanimous-consent request was worked out over a period of hours. I think it has been cleared on both sides by all Senators with the exception of one. Senator Daschle was intimately involved in it. And some of the things in the UC were at his request, including that we only have one vote at 5 o'clock on Monday. So, I mean, everybody cleared it except Senator Kennedy.

Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to.

Mr. LOTT. In view of what I just heard the Senator say--he is right, that is the regular order. Of course, it is common practice, if you work things out you vitiate the necessity for a cloture vote. But, yes, I knew exactly what I was doing. And what I was doing was trying to carry out the will of the Senate, and not allow one Senator to any further delay the discussion of the merits of FDA reform. In view of what the Senator said, I revise my unanimous-consent request to comply with what I thought I heard the Senator saying, the same unanimous-consent request all the way down the line, except that we would have the cloture vote in the morning at 9:45. Would there be objection to that?

Mr. LOTT. It has been cleared----

Mr. LOTT. In an effort to try to get a reasonable agreement worked out here--I believe our list has been cleared on both sides. I think the Senator from Iowa has had a chance to review it. In the interest of trying to get something worked out here, I would be prepared to take a 5-minute quorum call so we can look over the list and discuss it. If we cannot get that worked out, then I would begin the process of taking up the two judges and voting here in a few minutes. So in view of the Senator's comments, and the idea that maybe we could get an agreement, I would at this point----

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I now ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous consent it now be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on each of these nominations with one show of hands.