[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 115 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8791-S8792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, our Democratic
colleagues are objecting today to permission for two committees to meet
during the pendency of this session. The Agriculture Committee began
meeting at 9 a.m. this morning to discuss rural and agriculture credit
issues. Yet, as a result of that objection, or the objection we heard
on that committee meeting, they had to abruptly end their meeting at
11:30 this morning.
The Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to meet at 2
p.m. today, and I want to take some action here momentarily that will
allow them to, in fact, begin their hearing to discuss the Superfund
Cleanup Act. Permission for them to meet was also objected to by the
Democrats. It is my understanding that prominent witnesses have flown
in from all over the country to appear before the Environment and
Public Works Committee to discuss this vital environmental issue, what
can we do to reform Superfund so the lawyers don't clean up but we
clean up hazardous waste sites across America in most every State in
this Nation.
Included in the group that was to come to testify is the Governor of
Nebraska. He is scheduled to be introduced momentarily by one of the
Senators from Nebraska. That testimony would certainly be key with
respect to the Superfund Act in that State.
The objection lodged by the Democrats would deny that meeting from
taking place unless the Senate were to recess. I regret that the Senate
must recess in the middle of the day while discussing a very, very
important piece of legislation, the Labor and Health and Human Services
appropriations bill. We were, I thought, committed to working together
in completing the appropriations process, especially a bill like this.
While there are still some amendments pending that are of great
interest and perhaps even controversial, we have made progress, and I
think we could finish it up tonight with a little effort.
Unfortunately, this objection will only delay the consideration and
passage of the Labor, HHS appropriations bill. Our colleagues from the
other side of the aisle have stated that ``there is no intention to
interrupt the business of the Senate, which is to pass these
appropriations bills. There is no one out there objecting to the work
on those appropriations bills.'' Yet, the Democratic objection to the
Environment Committee meeting today on Superfund in fact does interrupt
the business of the Senate. I truly regret the action taken by our
colleagues here today and hope this will not become a practice by
Members on the minority side of the aisle.
Having said all of that, by consent a vote is scheduled at 4:30 p.m.
today on the D'Amato amendment to the Labor, HHS appropriations bill,
and I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess until 4:30
p.m. today.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that we come
to this point, but I think it is important for us to remember from
where it is we have come and how it is we got here. I will not
elaborate in the detail at this point except to say this:
This was a bipartisan investigation during the first phase. I recall
to my colleagues during that phase we asked the same attorneys who were
involved in the last contested election--that is, Senator Feinstein and
her opponent, Mr. Huffington--to examine the circumstances of this
particular race. They did. They recommended a certain course of action,
and the majority on the Rules Committee chose to ignore it.
They then set in motion a second phase for investigation. That
investigation also was bipartisan. That investigation took the course
of a couple of months and came back again on a bipartisan basis with
recommendations that again were ignored by the majority.
It was with increasing frustration that Democrats warned our
Republican colleagues that we could not tolerate this endless
abrogation of the regular order, this bipartisan effort to come to some
conclusion on this investigation.
With some reluctance, we continued to work and ultimately indicated
that beyond the end of July we were simply not in a position to
tolerate unnecessary elongation and the increasingly partisan nature of
this investigation and put our colleagues on notice that it must end.
We indicated that if it had not ended by the time we came back after
the August recess, we would have no recourse but to add increasing
pressure to the process to bring about some end.
Now, this may or may not bring about an end. I am disappointed and
somewhat alarmed that the chairman of the Rules Committee has now
announced further hearings and further efforts to prolong this--in my
view, completely unnecessarily. It would be one thing if evidence had
been produced to suggest in some way some wrongdoing on the part of
Senator Landrieu, but that has yet to be produced. In fact, just the
opposite. If any wrongdoing, anything related to wrongdoing has been
found, it has been with regard to her opponent, Mr. Jenkins. That is
where the wrongdoing becomes increasingly evident as we look closer and
closer at this case.
So, Mr. President, I must say we will continue to insist that
committees meet for no longer than 2 hours as long as this situation
continues. If it takes a month, I will put my colleagues on notice that
we will use this selective approach for committee meetings for however
long it takes until it is resolved. We simply cannot tolerate the
unnecessary and political effort to prolong this investigation further,
and we have no other recourse but to take the action we have, and so
for that reason I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to make sure that the--first of all,
I do not think----
Mr. DASCHLE. I do not intend to object to the unanimous-consent
request propounded by the majority leader, and I apologize for it. I
object to this process. I do not want to have my objection construed as
an objection to the UC propounded by the majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I regret that we have to take this action in
order to get our business done on a very important environmental issue.
This sort of selective hit certainly, I think, would not be in the best
interests of the legislative process of the Senate. We want to get
Superfund legislation considered by the committee to the floor. We want
to hear from witnesses such as the Governor of Nebraska and citizens
who are affected by this. It seems to me the normal way of doing
business around here is that is allowed to happen.
Mr. President, the saber rattling has begun. After bipartisan
cooperation by Senate Democrats and Republicans over the past several
months, it seems as though the Democrats have now returned to the
preening and posturing of politicians more interested in blocking and
obstructing the other side than concern for the interests of the
American people.
Senate Democrats have effectively withdrawn from the bipartisan
spirit of negotiation and compromise that has been evidenced regarding
the budget and tax bills recently enacted by the Congress. Mr.
President, the minority is, in effect, threatening to shut down the
effective operation of the Senate. Now, they can call it selective
cooperation or some other slick phrase that seeks to skirt the truth of
the matter, but the American people are too smart for these word games,
or, in Washington speak, for deceptive political spin.
Let me state, positively, that we are more than willing to continue
the spirit of bipartisanship to achieve significant accomplishments on
subjects of importance to the American people. For example, we are more
than willing to work through the Appropriations bills, through ISTEA,
and through debate on the many other matters pending before the Senate.
But it is going to take cooperation and good faith on both sides,
including the Members of the minority.
That good faith and cooperation is now missing on the part of the
minority. The subject of the investigation into the election in
Louisiana involves a duty of the Senate--of every Member of the
Senate--to fully, thoroughly,
[[Page S8792]]
and completely investigate the conduct of such elections where the
integrity and result of the election is legitimately called into
question. The minority is refusing to allow--in fact, is actively
obstructing--the Senate from conducting a thorough and complete
investigation of the election in Louisiana.
If the minority wishes to prevent the Senate from living up to its
duty regarding this election contest, and wishes to prevent the Senate
from considering these important matters that I have noted and to shut
down the Senate, then the minority must assume the responsibility for
the consequences. Mr. President, good faith and cooperation is a two-
way street. We believe that it is important to conduct and complete
this election investigation in a thorough and complete manner. We are
bound and determined that the investigation will be completed despite
obstructionist tactics. I urge the minority to recognize the importance
of this subject and the essential place that good faith plays in this
legislative process. I urge the minority to assist us in completing
this important investigation and to work together with us in good faith
to address the many other subjects which are important to the American
people.
I will sum it up this way. This is not the way to get the
investigation by the Rules Committee concluded. In fact, it will cause
difficulty and will probably delay it. The goal is not--there is no way
we could just say, OK, it is over right now. The intent of the chairman
is to have a hearing, to see what evidence they have found during the
August recess, and I presume to have a meeting at some point to decide
what action, if any or none, is to be taken. We will conclude this. We
have had to proceed, frankly, without the cooperation of the Democrats.
I have been in Congress 25 years. I have never, never, ever before seen
one party or the other, either party, walk out on a committee's
investigation or activities, even though there have been many, many
investigations, several in which I was involved.
When I can look my colleagues in the Senate and the American people
in the eye and say we have looked at this and we have found out as best
we could--with the lack of help from the FBI, for instance, in most
instances--we have concluded what happened or did not happen, and we in
good conscience can say that, when I can do that, then we will conclude
it. I can't do that right now.
But rather than engaging in extended debate at this time, there will
obviously be other opportunities to do that and----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could I have, say, a minute and a half?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will yield the floor at this point, but I
do hope we can be brief so we can get the committee started.
Mr. WARNER. I will be brief. I thank the majority leader. I thank
both leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I want to assure the Senate that I said in Louisiana, as
I concluded the second hearing--and we had a total of 4 days of
hearings--it would be my intention to come back and recommend to the
Rules Committee and the leadership of the Senate that I have another
hearing, at which time we will assess in specific the voluminous amount
of record material now in our possession from the gambling industry and
that within a period of perhaps a week after that I would schedule a
second meeting, at which time I would give to the full Committee on
Rules all of the evidence, my own assessment, and then entertain such
resolutions as I or other members may wish to submit.
That I think can be done within a 3-week period of time, as I roughly
outlined this morning to my distinguished leader. But I decided on that
schedule 10 days ago.
Now, I say to you that thus far there has been no evidence which, in
the judgment of this Senator, has impugned Senator Landrieu, but that
is not the underlying issue. It is whether or not there were other
factors in this election which could have affected the outcome as a
consequence of criminal fraud. And I have said, much to the
discouragement of many, that thus far, after the first hearing in
Louisiana, there was no body of evidence which I felt could meet that
burden.
I cannot make the same statement after the second hearing in
Louisiana, because I haven't had the opportunity to assess four boxes
of information. But we are proceeding, although handicapped, as
expeditiously as we can. I have always been absolutely objective and
fair about my pronouncements in this case and my assessment of the
evidence. But until such time as we have looked in every area where
potentially that quantum of fraud which could have affected the outcome
of the election might have occurred, I cannot say this investigation
would be complete. I do believe the work that needs to be done under my
leadership can be concluded in the third week of September.
____________________