[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.

                          ____________________