[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15059-S15060]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          RECESS APPOINTMENTS

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all I applaud the White House--
this is probably the first time I have done that in 7 years--for 
responding to an issue that is very critical, probably one of the most 
critical issues we will be facing.
  Going back in the history of recess appointments, the Constitution 
provided for recess appointments to be allowed, thereby avoiding the 
constitutional prerogative of the Senate of advice and consent in 
certain conditions. The major condition was that a vacancy would occur 
during the course of the recess. This goes back to the horse-and-buggy 
days when we were in session for 2 or 3 months at a time and then we 
were gone. So if someone such as the Secretary of State would die in 
office, it would allow the President to replace that person without 
having to go through the advice and consent.
  Throughout the years, both Democrat and Republican Presidents have

[[Page S15060]]

abused this. They have made recess appointments. In 1985, President 
Reagan made quite a few of them. The majority at that time, the 
Democrats, under the majority leadership of Senator Byrd from West 
Virginia, made the determination that he was making too many recess 
appointments.
  He challenged the President to submit a letter that would outline 
future recess appointments during the Reagan administration. In 1985, a 
letter was sent from President Reagan to then-majority leader, Senator 
Byrd from West Virginia that stated no more recess appointments would 
take place unless the names of the individuals who were considered for 
recess appointment were submitted in writing in sufficient time in 
advance that the majority or minority leaders could take some type of 
action.
  For example, if they were going to have someone recess appointed for 
the express purpose of avoiding the advice and consent of the Senate, 
then they would just not go into recess; they would go into pro forma, 
where they would have someone in the Chair all the time to make sure 
that did not happen. Also, it would be an opportunity to make sure they 
were not doing it for the express purpose of avoiding advice and 
consent.
  Last May, there was an appointment during the recess of James Hormel 
to be Ambassador to Luxembourg. There were several people who were 
opposed to his appointment and had holds on his appointment. The major 
reason was not that he was a gay activist, but he had not submitted the 
appropriate financial information to the appropriate committee for 
consideration. The President went ahead and appointed him.
  Consequently--that was already done, and there was no attempt to undo 
it even though it was contrary to the Constitution--I sent a letter to 
the President asking him if he would agree to the same thing Ronald 
Reagan agreed to back in 1985. Of course, I did not get a very 
favorable response. However, I said: In the event I do not do that, I 
will put a hold on every nondefense or nonmilitary appointment or 
nominee from the President. And I did so.
  The weeks went by, and finally I got a letter from the President that 
said:

       I share your opinion that the understanding reached in 1985 
     between President Reagan and Senator Byrd cited in your 
     letter remains a fair and constructive framework which my 
     administration will follow.

  I have been concerned because this President has a long history of 
doing things he says he is not going to do and not doing things he says 
he will do. Consequently, I sent a letter to the President which I 
submitted for the Record last Wednesday. The letter was dated November 
10, signed by myself and 16 other Senators, that said: Make sure you 
comply with the spirit of this agreement, this letter you have sent; we 
are going to serve notice right now that in the event you have recess 
appointments that do not comply with the spirit of the letter, we will 
put holds for the remaining of the term of your Presidency on all of 
the judicial nominees. A very serious thing. I repeated this several 
times last Wednesday to make sure there was no misunderstanding.
  Since that time, the White House has cooperated and submitted a list 
of 13 names. I will read these names and the positions for which they 
have been nominated: Cliff Stuart, EEOC; Delmond Won, Commissioner of 
the Federal Maritime Commission; Leonard Page, general counsel for the 
Labor Relations Board; Luis Laurado, Development Bank; Mark Schneider, 
Peace Corps; Frank Holleman, Deputy Secretary of Education; Mike 
Walter, Veterans Administration; Mr. Jeffers, whose first name I do not 
have, J-E-F-F-E-R-S; Bill Lann Lee, Assistant Attorney General for 
Civil Rights; Sally Katzen, Deputy Director of OMB; John Holum, Under 
Secretary for Arms Control and International Security of the Department 
of State; Carl Spielvogel, Ambassador to the Slovak Republic; and Jay 
Johnson--not to be confused with the military Jay Johnson--a nominee 
for the U.S. Mint.

  Of this list of 13, there are 5 who either have holds on them or 
there are intended holds on these individuals. Consequently, I make the 
statement at this time--and I think it is very important the Record 
reflect this accurately and everyone understands it thoroughly--that 
anyone other than the names I will read off--Cliff Stuart, Delmond Won, 
Leonard Page, Luis Laurado, Mark Schneider, Frank Holleman, Mike 
Walker, Mr. Jeffers--if there are any names that are submitted and are 
sought to be appointed during this recess, recess appointments, we, who 
undersigned the letter on the 10th of this month, will put a hold on 
every judicial nominee who comes before the Senate during the entire 
remainder of the term of President Clinton.
  I am going to repeat that because it is very important. Any name, 
other than these eight names I just read, who is recess appointed, if 
anyone other than these eight individuals is recess appointed, we will 
put a hold on every single judicial nominee of this President for the 
remainder of his term of office. That means specifically we will not 
agree to Bill Lann Lee, Sally Katzen, John Holum, Carl Spielvogel, and 
Jay Johnson.
  I will conclude with that. I reemphasize, if there is some other 
interpretation as to the meaning of the letter, it does not make any 
difference, we are still going to put the holds on them. I want to make 
sure there is a very clear understanding, if these nominees come in, if 
he does violate the intent as we interpret it, then we will have holds 
on these nominees.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

                          ____________________