Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I obviously rise in support of the cloture motion and in support of the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to be confirmed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I begin by thanking Senator Reid for allowing this nomination to be called up and even considered. He doesn't have to do that as our leader, but he should be commended by those of us who support Judge Southwick for his willingness to allow the nomination to be debated and considered. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the very studied and careful job that Senator Feinstein has done with regard to this nominee. I know it has not been easy, but I also know that she has taken time, she has been patient, she has done her homework. I am sure she has endured criticism. She has shown tonight that she is truly one of the outstanding lions or lionesses, I guess, is the correct word, of the Senate. She has shown courage. She and I have worked together. Sometimes we have lost when we have worked together, and sometimes we have succeeded. But we have tried to do the right thing for the Senate and for our country. I have nothing but the utmost admiration and appreciation for the position she has taken. I actually am hesitant to proceed after her comments because they were so careful and so well thought out and presented. I do think that I would like to put a few remarks into the Record tonight, and I will add additional items tomorrow. I thank Senator Feinstein so much. What she did tonight with regard to this nominee and how she is going to vote tomorrow is the kind of thing, I believe, that will affect in a positive way the nominations of other men and women in the future in the Senate. We have worked together on nominees from California in the past, and I stood against a filibuster then, and I am proud I did. I have voted for nominees, such as Justice Ginsburg, because I thought it was right. I also have been a party to and have observed conduct in the Senate by my colleagues on this side of the aisle that I am sorry about, I regret. But how do we ever stop the slide downhill by the Republicans and then by the Democrats and then again by the Republicans? When can we rise above that type of personal and partisan attack and consider these nominations and legislation in a more respectful and responsible way? I believe Senator Feinstein has taken that first step that can lead to other steps, and we will stop this slide I have observed occurring more and more each year for 10 years. Now maybe this is the moment, maybe this will be the catalyst that will lead to other steps on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle so that we will treat these nominations and legislation in a proper way. I thank the Senator for staying and allowing me to commend her. I hope it doesn't get her into too much trouble, but I admire the Senator very much. I do want to recognize the remarks made by Senator Specter of Pennsylvania and the thorough job he did in referring to particular cases. I don't want to repeat the cases that have been mentioned here tonight, or go over his whole resume again, but I wish to take a moment to maybe highlight some of the parts of that resume of this very distinguished nominee. I also want to note the presence of the senior Senator from Mississippi, my colleague Senator Cochran. He and I have been in the Congress for 35 years. We were in the House together. He came to the Senate, and 10 years later I came to the Senate. One of the things I did when I came to the Senate, I sat down and talked to Senator Cochran about how to consider nominees for the Federal judiciary, because he was on the Judiciary Committee. He had some very good, helpful, and simple advice. Basically, he said if they are from your State, certainly if they are personally repugnant, you can vote against them. But basically, he said, if they are qualified by education and by experience and by temperament, you should be supportive. Kind of simple, but it was a thoughtful suggestion to me that came from this experienced member of the Judiciary Committee, and I have tried to do that, and I will continue to do so. I do believe very strongly that this nominee is obviously well qualified. One of the things that was noted about his outstanding academic record was that he graduated cum laude from Rice University, a well-known and well-respected academic institution. He didn't just graduate with honors, he graduated cum laude, right at the top. He later graduated from the University of Texas School Of Law, where he also had an outstanding record academically. When he came to the State of Mississippi, he continued that record of success. He worked with one of the most revered members of the Fifth Circuit, Chief Judge Charles Clark, one of the most outstanding jurists I have ever observed in my career of watching our Federal judiciary. When he went to work for a law firm, he didn't go with just any law firm, he went with one of the State's very best--Brunini, Grantham, Grower, and Hewes, where he became a partner. At every step along his career, he didn't do just well, he excelled in how he handled himself in the positions he had, and he continued that when he went on the court of appeals. A lot has been made about the fact that he has served in the Mississippi National Guard. He reached the rank of lieutenant colonel. He didn't just serve as a reservist to meetings of the National Guard, he was actively involved with the 155th Separate Armored Brigade. And, of course, he went with the 155th Brigade Combat Team and was mobilized in Operation Iraqi Freedom. So even there he took risks. He was involved in a way at his age that wouldn't ordinarily have been expected. This further shows that he is a unique individual in terms of his education and his experience. But more than anything else, with rare exception, I have never seen a more qualified nominee to be an appellate court judge; not just a Federal judge, but an appellate court judge. His experience has been in the Mississippi appellate court system, where he presided or participated over 7,000 cases. That point has already been made, but that is an extraordinarily large number of cases for him to be involved with over these several years that he was a member of the appellate court in Mississippi. In terms of the kind of man he is, let me read one part of one letter from one of the most revered and respected former Governors of our State of Mississippi, a Governor who has a very progressive record of leadership and of civil rights issues, and who has continued until this very day to work for racial reconciliation and heads an organization at the University of Mississippi dedicated to that purpose. This is a Democrat. This is what most people would acknowledge in Mississippi would be one of your more moderate to liberal Democrats. Knowing him, he probably doesn't like those labels, but he has a record of involvement in those areas where this nominee has been challenged or criticized. This is what William Winter, our former Governor, said: I further know him to be a very intelligent, conscientious, ethical and hard-working member of the legal profession. I have a great deal of personal respect for him and based upon my association with him I believe he will reflect fairness and objectivity in his approach to all matters which may come before him as a judge. I don't know what higher recommendation you could have from our State, from a member of the opposite party, and a former Governor of our State. So he knows the background of this nominee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entirety of the letter of William F. Winter.

Mr. LOTT. Judge Southwick was awarded the Judicial Excellence Award by the Mississippi State Bar Association, and he was rated not just well qualified but unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. This is supposed to be the gold standard. The previous nominee for this position was not given that. He was given a ``not qualified'' rating by the bar association. So they don't just rubberstamp nominees, they look very closely at them. If there is a question about his temperament, if there is a question about his record on civil rights issues, or anything else, they would have found it and they would have included it in their recommendations. And, by the way, this is the same nominee who, 1 year ago, was unanimously referred by the Judiciary Committee to be a Federal district judge. Now, 1 year later, there are those who question the same record they had a chance to review last year. Of the opinions he actually authored, there is no criticism of the more than 1,000 decisions where he actually wrote the opinion. I assure you, they were scrubbed and reviewed very carefully. There are two decisions in 7,000 where he concurred but did not write the decision, where questions have been raised. I know we all make mistakes, and we choose to associate sometimes with situations or people we regret later. I know he would do some of his decisions differently now if he had them to do over again. But this is a long distinguished record, with only a couple of phrases in two decisions that, obviously, are troublesome. Now, beyond those qualifications, he also has the temperament. He is mild mannered, he is very judicious, he is moderate in his approach to being a judge and in his life; not to say that he won't be conservative in a lot of his rulings. I think he will. But I am talking about demeanor and temperament. Clearly, he has what Senator Cochran and I thought the Senate indicated they desired. This is the third nominee for this vacancy. The other two didn't make it. We heard what the Senate had to say regarding these past nominees and we came up with a judge we thought met the criteria that was expressed by a lot of our colleagues here in the Senate. But I also want to emphasize this. I have stood on this floor and argued to my own colleagues that we should not set the precedent of filibustering qualified judicial nominees----

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, if my colleague, Senator Cochran, would yield me those 2 to wrap up.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have argued we should not filibuster Federal judges. One time when I sat in that seat as majority leader, my colleagues actually voted to filibuster a judge and opposed cloture. Senator Hatch and I took to the floor and said we are not going to do this. This is wrong. If you want to vote against him, vote against him, but we are not going to filibuster these judges. Those judges were Judges Paez and Berzon in 2000. We had a second vote, reversed the previous vote which opposed cloture, invoked cloture, and then voted on those nominees. I voted against them both, but I thought they deserved an up-or-down vote. Here tonight and tomorrow, when we vote, at the very minimum we should not filibuster this nomination. We should allow this judge to have an up-or-down vote. One of the speakers tonight indicated he would vote against him. Fine, if that is what your conscience dictates. But first, we have to deal with this question of should we start down this trail of filibustering qualified judges because we disagree with some philosophical position. We shouldn't do that. If we do it here, we will do it again later. If we do it in this administration, we will do it in another administration. Give the man an up-or-down vote. I believe--I am absolutely convinced--that he will be confirmed. I will have a few more remarks probably in the morning, but let me say to you, Mr. President, and to my colleagues in the Senate, I have never before done this, but I can vouch on my honor to this institution that I have served for many years now and in leadership positions, this is a good and qualified nominee who will reflect credit on the institution that confirms him and in the court in which he serves. The judicial confirmation process has always shown strong deference to the opinions of home State Senators. There is good reason for this. Home State Senators are uniquely positioned to know the personalities, qualifications, and reputations of the nominees from their state. The fact that this traditional courtesy of the Senate is being ignored should be cause for concern for every Senator in this Chamber. I respected this traditional courtesy when I served as majority leader. In the last few years of the Clinton administration, a Republican Senate confirmed a string of highly controversial appeals court nominees who nonetheless had the backing of their home State Senators. When the controversial nominations of Paez and Berzon where debated in 2000, I filed cloture on both of their nominations. While many on my side of the aisle opposed the nominations, I upheld my promise to bring their nominations to an up-or-down vote. We are in danger of establishing an ill-advised precedent that could have longstanding negative ramifications on not just the legislative branch but also upon the judicial branch. Should this body block a clearly qualified nominee based on a ``perceived controversy''? Every Senator in this body needs to understand what is at stake here. This isn't a simple case of controversial nominee being taken down in a partisan fight. This is a mainstream nominee to a seat that has been declared a judicial emergency, with the strong support of both home State Senators, with a ``unanimously well qualified'' rating from the ABA-- the supposed gold standard for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously for a lower court nomination less than 12 months ago, and a military judge who courageously served in Iraq. This isn't just about Judge Lesile Southwick. This is about the standard that is being set for the future. Every Senator in this Chamber will have judicial nominees that come from their home State, and they will expect those qualified nominees--with home State Senator support--to be confirmed. Well, that is not the precedent that we are establishing here. Next time, this could be your nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner). The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is none of my business, but I say to the Senator from Florida that I tend to agree with him. Maybe it is a regional thing. I wish him good luck in his effort to have Florida assume its rightful place.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a lot of discussion has been going on today, this week, and over the last few weeks about a very important program; we call it SCHIP. That is Washingtonspeak for health care for children, which has a very important role for the States to administer this program. This week, the House will be voting on the President's veto of this issue. That is the way things work in Washington. It is not very pretty. I am not proud of the whole process we have gone through on this issue. First of all, I have a message for everybody involved. Let's put low- income, poor kids first. Let's figure out how we deal with their needs. That is what caused this program to begin with. I had the pleasure of being the majority leader in the Senate in the 1990s when this program was created. I remember the debate. It was pretty hot. Phil Gramm of Texas was saying: Wait a minute, we need to put protections in here, and Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch were very much involved. But then a bipartisan agreement broke out, the way we used to have happen around here occasionally. We created a program, well- intentioned, that was targeted for low-income children, to make sure they had insurance coverage. It was not a massive number; I guess we were thinking in terms of 6 million, with the idea that might go up as time went by and more people or parents were made aware of the program and information was gotten to them and they could come onto the program. I think it has worked well. It has been successful. It covered a lot of low-income children who would not have been covered otherwise. Now, of course, we come to a period where we have to extend the program, and it has been very difficult. I acknowledge right up front that Senator Grassley tried to find a way to work through this issue and get a proper result. He and Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, wound up coming together and getting an agreement. I also acknowledge that a lot of the problems have been exacerbated by the previous administration and this one because they kept granting waivers to States to go above the 200 percent of poverty, up to as high as 350 percent of poverty, making not just low-income, poor children eligible but children of families making up to--I don't know the exact number--$62,000 or $63,000, and some States were applying to go to 400 percent of poverty, which would go as high as an $80,000 income for families. That was not our intent. Plus, adults have been added. Only in Washington can you get confused about a program that is for kids and then start putting adults on it. But States started doing that and waivers were requested, and the administration, unfortunately, for a while granted those waivers. I think we should put limits on those waivers. Thank goodness, finally the administration turned down the most recent application for going up to 400 percent of poverty. So here we are. Some of us on the Finance Committee said: Look, we want this program extended. The President recommended that it be increased by $5 billion, which is about $1 billion a year. Some of us on the Finance Committee realized that probably was not enough to cover the children now on the program plus to get more low-income children who should be eligible and should be covered, covered. So we were looking at going above the $5 billion increase the President originally suggested. How much? That is what the legislative process is about. Is it perhaps $9 billion instead of $5 billion or maybe $12 billion? I wasn't wedded to a number; I was wedded to a concept and a program to make sure we cover those now on the program. Some should not now be on the program. But we wanted to make sure low-income children are covered first. The administration, to its credit, did put in place a provision that would say you cannot start insuring middle-income children until you have insured 95 percent of low-income children. This bill which has been vetoed by the President would knock that out. What? If our goal is to insure low-income children, why would we not require that? But the compromise that was worked out went to $35 billion. It would allow for kids who are not in the low-income category to be covered. The President vetoed it. I think he should. Now the House is going to sustain that veto. My question is, Now what? We have made our positions clear. We have had a grand old time playing politics with kids. Let's get over it. We need to get a result. That is the way it works. Somebody was saying in that very chair last night that the Congress has a role to play. Yes, and so does the President. Some people say: Look, there was a bipartisan compromise worked out. Yes, but some of us who would like to have been involved, who were there when the program was created, didn't get involved. We just thought we would do what we want and shove it over to the President and say: Take this. But he doesn't take it. So now we sit down and work it out. What is the plan of the Democrats? To let the program just collapse? That is unacceptable. Nobody is going to stand for that. Then I hear: Well, the plan is to keep extending it in increments--maybe 30 days, maybe 90 days. We want to keep it alive until next fall. Look, we can play politics and partisan politics, but do we have to use kids in the process? I don't think we should do that. We need to make sure we have a program that works. One of my big problems about the plan we have is that it would put 2 million kids who now have private insurance on the Government rolls. That is part of the plan. The plan is to get them off of the private plan, which the families can afford; they could not get on Medicaid, so we will get them on the SCHIP program. I think that is a mistake. Of course, I think there is phony budgeting in the bill the President vetoed. I think the funding is not reliable. Now, at least the Senate came up with something that was a little more defensible than what the House was working on. They said: We want to take money from Medicare Advantage, elderly people in rural areas, and use that savings to pay for the children's health program. That was a total nonstarter with the Senate, thank goodness. What did we come up with? Cigarette taxes. Who wants to stand up here and defend tobacco? I will. I smoke a pipe. I don't do it in public. My mother wouldn't approve of me doing that. By George, I make that choice. I don't apologize for it. But, oh, it is a part of the politically correct position now: Let's make everybody quit smoking cigarettes. There are no good tobacco products. This is still America. We do still have choices. And by the way, let's assume it works. If we jack the price of a package of cigarettes a buck a package, which is what this would do, it is going to eventually, I guess, discourage people and low-income, poor working families: Gosh, we can't afford cigarettes; maybe we will quit. Good, that is great. I don't deny it is not good for your health. Maybe they will quit. This is the problem: If they do quit, we would not get the money to pay for the SCHIP program. Think about that. We are do-gooders here, we are going to raise taxes on tobacco products to pay for the Children's Health Insurance Program. That way we will make them quit smoking. And, oh, you mean then we would not have the money? Yes. You can't have it both ways. It is the kind of stuff we do around here. It is ridiculous. So the money would not be there. The program is not going to be funded. We all know better than that; it is going to be funded. At some point, if the tobacco money doesn't come in, which I assume it would not because we have gone crazy trying to tax it out of existence--by the way, this is an area States usually handle. But, no, we are going to put a 61-cent Federal tax on cigarettes and that will further block what the States might do to raise revenue for their programs. By the way, they do a better job of running the health programs than we do anyway. It is part of the inconsistency here. There are many problems with this bill. I have always said, OK, let's have our political debates. Let's stake out our partisan positions and then let's sit down and work something out. Is that what the people expect us to do? That is what the legislative process is all about. I don't have the Holy Grail in this area. I realize it would be a give and take. I believe Senator Grassley and I and representatives from the administration and Democrats can work out this legislation. The President said: Let's negotiate. Yes, I think he ought to send his top people down here and humbly say to the leaders in the Congress, Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate: What can we do to work through this bill now and get this program extended to where it covers genuinely poor kids and get it beyond the next election? I urge we do that. I don't presume to try to say who would be in the room. Pick anybody. But I say this: That is what needs to be done. Let's go ahead and rack up the political points and politically let's say this one goes to the Democrats. Policywise, I have no qualms about the position I have taken. I am perfectly comfortable with it. But also I am prepared to say enough is enough, let's move on, let's get a compromise worked out, and let's protect this program which is well intentioned but which, for good reasons, we have gotten carried away. There are some people who might say: Let's cover all children with a federally funded health insurance program. Maybe we can raise taxes to $5 a package, 10 bucks a cigar. It is ridiculous. There are other ways we can get revenue. I hope we will get started on that as soon as the House votes. They will sustain the veto, and then we can sit down and work this out. I yield the floor.