Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Further reserving the right to object, again I will object if it is striking the House bill. The House passed a bill with a good vote. I do not remember exactly what it was. If it is in addition to the House bill, I would not object. I ask my colleague--and I think I hear the Senator saying he is not going to--is it not the intent of the Senator not to pass the House- passed bill? I was hoping we could make a deal. I might mention we might have to notify a few other Senators before we do this by unanimous consent.

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I concur with many of the statements my friend from Montana made; it is very important for us to work together more than we have done in the last few months. The unanimous consent request, if I am reading it correctly, says the Senate wants to substitute the extenders for H.R. 8, which is the revenue package that passed April 6. Is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. That package would be a substitute for it? In other words, this was a bill that would basically, over a 10-year period of time, eliminate the death tax, I believe, and the Senator wants to strike all that language and put in a 2-year extender bill; is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. I am reading this as a substitute for the House bill. I believe it is a substitute for the House bill. If the Senator modifies this and makes it in addition to the House bill, at least this Senator would not object. But if it is striking the House bill, I feel constrained to object. If the Senator is willing to move it, in addition to the House bill, I will not object at this time.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are getting close to wrapping up this session. We did a lot of good things this year and some things we didn't get done. One thing we did not get done was passage of the stimulus package. That is unfortunate. It became way too partisan. It did not need to be. Recessions are not partisan. We have a lot of people out of work who need help. A lot of companies want to grow. We could have done that. Senator Grassley worked hard with the Bush administration. There was a lot of movement on this side of the aisle to help pass the stimulus package. It didn't happen. I regret that very much. We could have helped the economy, and we could have helped a lot of unemployed people. Senator Baucus mentioned earlier that he hopes when people come back they are less partisan and more intent on getting some positive results for the American people. That needs to happen. I hope we do not hear: Well, we cannot bring something out unless it passes two-thirds on our side. That does not belong in the Senate. The Senate is a deliberative body, and we should have a chance to try to pass things, and pass them by majority vote. Try to get something done, try to make a positive contribution toward helping the economy, not a strictly Democrat or Republican package, but a package that helps the economy. The House passed good legislation last night. Not perfect. Maybe we can improve upon it and help our economy and help the unemployed. As we wind down, there are several nominations that are pending that should be confirmed. It is not fair to this administration. It is not fair to some of these individuals who have been languishing, waiting to be confirmed with no action. There are five district court nominees, Federal judges. We have confirmed 27; if we do 5 more, that will be 32. During President Clinton's first year, we confirmed 27 of 47. President Bush nominated 60. We have confirmed 27, not quite half. We confirmed over half for President Clinton, and if you look at what we did for the first President Bush or what we did for Ronald Reagan, we confirmed 91 percent of Ronald Reagan's judges and a much higher percentage for President Bush. We should confirm more than we have today. There are five on the calendar. There is no reason not to confirm these individuals. We all know they will be confirmed. Why not let them go ahead and assume their duties? We have a judge from Alabama, a judge from Colorado, a judge from Nevada, a judge from Texas, a judge from Georgia. We have judges from Democrat States and Republican States. Let's not hold these five individuals hostage. We can pass them tonight and I urge my colleagues to help do that. We also have four U.S. attorneys, from Alabama, New York, Arkansas, and one from New Jersey. They need to be confirmed. They should be confirmed. We have a couple of marshals who are pending. There is no reason why they should not be confirmed--actually just one marshal and one to be Chairman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. Let's confirm these individuals. Let's do it tonight. Somebody says: Why are you doing it tonight? We confirmed more judges, more U.S. attorneys--all those are always done by voice votes. We have Janet Hale to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. Secretary Thompson is entitled to have his Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services be confirmed. So I urge my colleagues to vote on that nomination or to approve that nomination. We also have a couple of other positions. We have James Lockhart III to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security. That is an important position. In the Department of Energy, we have Michael Smith, actually one of my constituents. He happens to be secretary of energy of the State of Oklahoma. He has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Energy dealing with fossil fuels. Secretary Abraham is completing his first year and he doesn't have his Assistant Secretary dealing with fossil fuels. We are now importing about 58 percent of our energy needs and he doesn't even have an Assistant Secretary dealing with fossil fuels. One of the first bills we are going to be wrestling with next year is an energy bill. We have a commitment from the majority leader that we are going to take up energy early next year. That is great. You would think the administration would be entitled to have their Assistant Secretary to help the negotiations, to help prod Congress along. So I urge my colleagues to approve his nomination. He was reported out of the Energy Committee unanimously, as I believe Beverly Cook was, from Idaho, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy dealing with environment, safety, and health. Also Margaret S.Y. Chu, of New Mexico, to be Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy. There is no reason why we cannot do most of these nominees. Most of these nominees passed by unanimous votes in the committees. Why can't we confirm these individuals? I urge Senator Daschle and Senator Reid and others to help. There are a couple of others who are very important. The Department of State, John Hanford. John Hanford is an individual with whom many of us worked in the Senate for years. He worked for Senator Lugar. He helped myself and others when we ended up passing the International Religious Freedom Act. Senator Lieberman was a principal sponsor of that, and Senator Specter. The administration nominated John Hanford III, of Virginia, to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. When you think of the battles we have going on all across the world with religious freedom, and some of it is in Afghanistan and some in Pakistan and some in Sudan where you have individuals who are held captive, imprisoned, enslaved because of their religion, wouldn't it make sense for us to get our Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom confirmed so he can go to work and help protect and promote religious harmony and freedom throughout the world? Hopefully, his nomination will be confirmed tonight. We have several other people in the Department of State who were confirmed by the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously who should be confirmed tonight. Many of these were just reported by the committee, by Senator Biden. I thank him for doing that. I am looking at John Ong, who is to be Ambassador to Norway and John Price to be Ambassador Extraordinary to the Republic of Mauritius; Arthur Dewey, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration. Some of these, again, were just reported out. I thank my colleagues. We should be able to get those through as well, not to mention Gaddi Vasquez, of California, to be Director of the Peace Corps. I mention these. These are not all. I did not mention Gene Scalia. I would really urge my colleagues--Gene Scalia has been on the calendar. He was nominated in, I believe, April, one of the earliest nominees of this administration, to be Solicitor of the Department of Labor. Secretary Chao is entitled to have a Solicitor. One of the most important positions in the Department of Labor is Solicitor. He has to make all kinds of rulings. It is very important that she have her Solicitor. I urge my colleagues, let's have a vote. If we cannot have it today, let's have it in January; let's vote up or down. Somebody said we may have to file cloture. I can think of several people, including the previous Solicitor of Labor, to whom many on this side might have had a philosophical objection, but we did not require cloture. You should not require cloture on most nominees. You should not require cloture hardly ever on nominees unless they are really out of the Main Street. We had a vote on Joycelyn Elders and I opposed that nomination very significantly, but it was an up-or-down vote. I think people are entitled to have a difference of opinion and have a debate. If we have a difference of opinion, let's discuss it. This is the Senate. But to not allow somebody to have a vote and hold their careers in limbo for an unlimited period of time, it is not fair to them, and I don't think it makes the Senate look very good. Again, I urge our colleagues to move forward on Gene Scalia, to move forward on some of these other nominees, many of whom, I hope and expect to be confirmed tonight. I hope they will. I urge the leadership on the Democrat side to work with us and see if we cannot clear up as many nominees as possible, confirm as many nominees as possible on the Executive Calendar. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues regarding H.R. 2869, I ask unanimous consent the following letter be printed in the Record:

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, that is the reason why I came to the floor. I heard this ``filibuster'' and I thought, wait a minute, this is a very complicated bill. We have been on it for a couple of days. But every single amendment--I believe we have had just as many amendments offered by Democrats as Republicans or very close and they have all been germane. I know there are several other amendments that are very germane but might fall postcloture. I just wanted to understand from my colleague and maybe make an assertion that there is not a filibuster. There is a desire to improve a bill that some of us believe is fatally flawed. I will also ask my colleague, the bill we have pending, the so-called Harkin-Daschle bill that was reported out of the partisan Agriculture Committee, isn't that unusual? The facts are that the markup of agricultural policy for decades has been bipartisan. Unfortunately, it was not in this case in the markup of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. NICKLES. The majority leader referred to the fact that a lot of farm organizations support this bill. Was the majority leader aware that the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote a letter today, December 19, which reads in part: The American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors in a special meeting on Tuesday, December 18, 2001 voted to oppose senate passage of the farm bill if it contains the water language that your amendment is intended to strike. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES. It is just one farm organization, but it happens to be the largest farm organization in the country.

Mr. NICKLES. The majority leader is basically saying we have an hour and 15 minutes to debate the Hutchinson amendment, and then we will vote on cloture. And then we are going to find out that the Grassley amendment is nongermane postcloture if cloture is invoked. So it would not be in order to take up the Grassley-Dorgan amendment. I have been here for 3 or 4 days trying to make sure we get a vote. No one has been filibustering this bill--no one. I know Senator Grassley was here late last night trying to offer this amendment. I know yesterday, three or four times, I came up and said: I am ready to do a payment limitation amendment. Every amendment we have had has been germane to the bill. We did not offer the energy package. We did not even offer the stimulus package; I thought about it. I might still do that if it is still the pending bill. I want to get the stimulus done before we get out of here. The amendments have been germane on agriculture. To have an amendment such as payment limitation, when the underlying bill allows a few farmers to make hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, to be squeezed out because of cloture I think is wrong. So I guess the essence is that I will not object to a time limit on Senator Hutchinson's amendment. If the majority leader proceeds with the cloture vote, I will urge my colleagues, in the strongest terms, to please vote no on cloture so amendments that are germane--that are really germane that might fall on the strict interpretation of postcloture--that they will have a right to offer those amendments. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, who respect individual Senators having the right to amend a bill that is enormously complicated but important--that they have a right to offer those amendments. So I will not object to the majority leader's request to have a time limit on the Hutchinson amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I want to cooperate in every way with the majority leader and the managers of the bill, but I wonder if the majority leader, trying to make a request to have the Hutchinson amendment--I have no objection to that portion. I do know that Senator Grassley, Senator Dorgan, myself, and others have a lot of interest in the payment limitation. I am not positive whether or not it is germane postcloture. I guess part of your request is that we go immediately to the cloture vote. I wonder if you are willing to delete that second paragraph or if you are willing to make sure that the Grassley amendment would be in order, regardless of which way the result of the cloture vote would occur.

Mr. NICKLES. That wasn't my understanding. Regardless, I will vigorously oppose cloture if that is what the majority leader's intention is. I urge him to ask consent to postpone the cloture vote until we determine what the outcome of some of these amendments is. Some of us are going to continue to oppose cloture until we have a chance to have our amendments heard, debated, and voted on in the Senate. If you insist--and I am sure the majority leader is correct most of the time--cloture will expire after so many hours. But I will just tell him that some of us are going to be opposing cloture vigorously until the Senator from Iowa and others have a chance to have their amendments heard and voted on.

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure what we are doing. First, the leader said we would like to inquire whether or not Senator Grassley and others want to offer their amendments. I want to protect their rights to offer their amendments. There is an amendment dealing with payment limitation. Some of us are kind of concerned about the underlying Harkin bill that has payment limitations of 250. That can be expanded to 500 per family. The Grassley amendment that Senator Dorgan and others have supported would reduce that. I want to make sure that amendment is going to be debated before we conclude the agriculture bill. I don't want that amendment to be ruled nongermane postcloture. That is what I am trying to find out before we make an agreement. Parliamentary inquiry: Is the Grassley amendment germane postcloture?

Mr. NICKLES. I ask the majority leader to modify his unanimous consent request so that the Grassley amendment be considered germane postcloture in the event cloture is invoked.

Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. I didn't catch that.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Grassley amendment germane postcloture?

Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. Then on the issue of cloture, some people are assuming if you vote no on cloture you are filibustering the bill. I disagree. Isn't it correct, if cloture were invoked, the amendment you are now offering would be nongermane?

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.