[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S24-S25]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SEATING OF SENATOR LANDRIEU

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate seated Senator 
Mary L. Landrieu without prejudice to the Senate's constitutional power 
to be the judge of the election of its Members. In so seating Senator 
Landrieu, the rights of any person or entity involved in the election 
contest petition are also preserved.
  As a practical matter, what this means is that Senator Landrieu has 
the same rights and privileges as any other Senator with no limitation. 
However, her election has been contested and, as in other cases in 
recent history, depending on the resolution of this dispute in the 
Rules Committee, the Senate may ultimately be required to consider a 
report from the Rules Committee or not once they find out the details 
of what transpired.
  Senator Warner, the chairman of the Rules Committee, and Senator 
Wendell Ford, ranking member, have met and discussed this matter. 
Senator Daschle and I have discussed it. They have retained counsel who 
are reviewing the material that is available, and at some point, once 
they have had an opportunity to review that and hear from the 
interested parties, namely Senator Landrieu and the candidate, Woody 
Jenkins, then they will make a determination depending on the facts as 
to whether or not an investigation and subsequent action would be 
required by the Rules Committee.
  The Senate may take any of several courses of action. It may dismiss 
the petition at that time; it may declare the election to be set aside 
and call for a special election to fill the seat; or the Senate may 
declare the petitioner the winner of the election and replace the 
Senator already seated. Each one of those have been done at various 
times in the past.
  But again, I think it is very important that we not prejudge 
anything. I do not think any Senator knows many of the details of what 
is involved. The committee of jurisdiction is working on it, and we 
should allow them to proceed in a careful but thorough and bipartisan 
way.
  Obviously, we are removed from making any determination today, and we 
should be. We are just seeing that the allegations are being 
investigated and, as soon as possible, the Senate Rules Committee, 
then, will make a formal decision on whether to go forward. It is my 
intention, and I know it is the intention of the Democratic leader and 
Senator Warner and Senator Ford, that the investigation will be 
thorough and fair, and that it will be handled expeditiously, and that 
it will be in accordance with all the rules that are established in the 
past with regard to what the Senate protocol is in these matters.
  Not only should the investigation be fair, it should be conducted in 
a manner that allows us to do the people's business. That is the 
primary reason for seating Senator Landrieu without prejudice. We want 
to allow the Senate to proceed to its business with all 100 Senators 
present, accounted for, and involved in the process, while we gather 
whatever facts that are there and are available and need to be known. 
At such time as the Rules Committee makes a recommendation of 
disposition, the report is highly privileged and will then be subject 
to the Senate for consideration.
  I think it is important that we apply the same fair principles to the 
consideration of the Rules Committee report, should one be issued. 
Under ordinary procedures, as with most business of the Senate, such a 
report would be fully debatable and subject to the usual rules and 
filibusters and cloture votes. However, I believe that the American 
people, and particularly this institution, would be better served if we 
agree in advance that ample opportunity will be given to all Senators 
for debate and consideration of any such Rules Committee report, but 
that ultimately debate will draw to a close, the matter will be 
decided, and we can move on to other business of our country that we 
have been sent here to accomplish.
  I know, in the case a few years ago, maybe it was in the 1970's, 
there was a matter that was contested based, as I recall it, purely on 
the closeness of the election. The Senate spent 6 months and over 40 
votes until it was finally resolved by setting aside the election, 
calling for another election, and that occurred and Senator Durkin was 
elected. I hope we do not have anything like that occur this year. My 
presumption at the beginning is nothing of that kind. There may be no 
further action on this, other than what happened in the Feinstein 
matter and in the Coverdell matter, but I would feel a need to clarify 
what the rules would be, or to identify what the rules will be as we 
proceed. I will, therefore, offer a unanimous-consent agreement which 
incorporates my desire to be fair to all parties but also to ensure 
that the matter does not become mired in a lengthy or purely partisan 
situation.
  So, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution reported by the 
Committee on Rules recommending a disposition of the matter of the 
Louisiana Senate election of 1996 be laid before the Senate for 
immediate consideration following the request of the majority leader, 
after notification of the minority leader.
  I further ask unanimous consent that time for debate on such 
resolution be limited to not more than 30 hours, equally divided in the 
usual form, and that at the conclusion of that time the Senate proceed 
immediately to a vote on the Rules Committee resolution, with no 
amendments being in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished majority 
leader for the manner with which he has brought this matter to the 
floor. We have had a number of opportunities to consult with regard to 
his intention to make this unanimous-consent request. He has ably 
outlined the options available to the Rules Committee just now. He has 
also indicated his desire to ensure that we expedite the consideration 
of the report of the Rules Committee at the appropriate time.
  I share his confidence in the leadership of the Rules Committee. 
Senator Warner is a man of impeccable credibility, and Senator Ford has 
also led that committee in a similar manner. I know that he and Senator 
Warner have talked about this matter already and I know that both of 
them are determined to bring this matter to, not only a successful 
conclusion, but an objective consideration at the earliest possible 
date.
  There is no desire, let me emphasize, there is no desire to hinder 
the progress of the Rules Committee or the Senate itself, as we 
expeditiously consider the resolution and the ultimate seating of 
Senator Landrieu. As the distinguished majority leader has said, 
Senator Landrieu was seated today without prejudice, as were Senator 
Coverdell and Senator Feinstein in previous Congresses. So, it is with 
every expectation that Senator Landrieu will continue to present 
herself to the Senate with all the credibility of any other Senator 
that I am sure this matter will be resolved in a fair

[[Page S25]]

and expeditious manner at the appropriate time.
  I am concerned, however, that this particular consent request would 
require that the minority give up the motion to proceed to the debate 
and the right to debate the resolution fully if we see some need to go 
beyond the 30 hours. And it does not allow amendments. So, with every 
assurance to the majority leader that we intend to work with him in 
expediting this matter in an objective and fair way, I will object this 
afternoon to the unanimous-consent request and pledge my support in 
working with him to resolve this matter without the need for such an 
agreement today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The unanimous-consent 
request is not agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do want to say I appreciate the 
distinguished Democratic leader's comments. I know he is sincere in 
those and he knows that I will keep him informed of what is happening 
in the Rules Committee. It could be that the Rules Committee would come 
to the same conclusion that they did in the so-called Feinstein and the 
Coverdell matters. My only goal in asking this unanimous consent is 
that, if it does go beyond that, that there be some way it be brought 
to a reasonable conclusion with ample time for Senators to be able to 
have debate and discussion of the issues that are involved but without 
it being endlessly debated, or filibustered, if you will. But my hope 
is we can work through that. It may not even come to that, but I 
understand the Senator's position and I heard what he said and I am 
satisfied that, if we do need to work out some arrangement as to how 
something would be considered in the future, we will find a way to come 
to an amicable agreement. I thank the Senator for his comments.

                          ____________________