[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 105 (Monday, September 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8337-S8339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECESS APPOINTMENTS
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in 1985, when we had a conservative
Republican in the White House by the name of Ronald Reagan, we had a
Senate that was dominated by the Democrats. At that time, the Senate
majority leader was a very distinguished Senator from West Virginia,
Senator Bob Byrd.
We found Ronald Reagan was violating the Constitution with recess
appointments. Let me go back and give a little background of this. In
the history of this country, back when we were in session for a few
weeks and then they got on their horse and buggy and went for several
days back to wherever they came from, if some opening occurred during
the course of a recess, such as the Secretary of State dying, the
Constitution provides that a President can go ahead and make a recess
appointment and not rely on the prerogative of the Senate to confirm,
for confirmation purposes. This is understandable at that time.
[[Page S8338]]
Since then, Republicans and Democrats in the White House have, when
they were philosophically opposed to the philosophy of the prevailing
philosophy in the Senate, made recess appointments.
Ronald Reagan was doing this. I loved him, but he was violating the
Constitution.
Senator Byrd read and studied the Constitution. He sent a letter to
the White House that said: If you continue to do this, then I can
assure you we will put holds on all of your nominations. It wasn't just
judicial nominations but all of them. I read from Senator Byrd:
In the future, prior to any recess breaks, the White House
will inform the majority leader and (the minority leader) of
any recess appointments which might be contemplated in the
recess. They would do so in such advance time to sufficiently
allow the leadership on both sides to perhaps take action to
fill whatever vacancies might take place during such a break.
Those were for anticipated vacancies.
President Reagan agreed with this and sent a letter back to Senator
Byrd saying he would do it.
In June of 1999, the President made a recess appointment of someone
who had not even gone through the committee process, had not given all
their information to the appropriate committee in order to become an
ambassador. He went in and appointed him anyway. I felt that was a
violation every bit as egregious as anything Ronald Reagan had done.
I took the same letter that Senator Byrd had sent to Ronald Reagan,
and I sent it to President Clinton.
I got no response until finally he realized I was putting holds on
all these nominations. On June 15, 1999, President Clinton wrote a
letter saying:
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 wrote a letter back thanking him and was very complimentary to him
for taking this action.
A short while later--we were going into recess--along with 16 other
Senators, I sent a letter to the President because we had heard rumors
he was going to make several appointments, recess appointments. In
fact, that is exactly what happened.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record all this in
more detail.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Recess Appointments--Chronology
1985 Byrd-Reagan Agreement: ``In the future, prior to any
recess breaks, the White House would inform the majority
leader and (the minority leader) of any recess appointment
which might be contemplated during such recess. They would do
so in advance sufficiently to allow the leadership on both
sides to perhaps take action to fill whatever vacancies that
might be imperative during such a break.'' (Emphasis added)--
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), 10/18/85.
June 4, 1999 Recess Appointment: Without sufficient notice
in advance of the recess, President Clinton, on the last day
of the brief 5-day Memorial Day recess, granted a recess
appointment to controversial political and social activist
James Hormel to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg.
June 7, 1999 Inhofe Places Holds: Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
announced ``holds'' on all non-military nominees, demanding
Clinton's promise to abide by the Byrd-Reagan agreement on
all future recess appointments.
June 15, 1999 Clinton Letter to Lott: ``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.''
June 16, 1999 Inhofe Lifts Holds: Inhofe lifted his holds
on nominees, praising the President for agreeing to abide by
the Byrd-Reagan agreement in the future.
Nov. 10, 1999 Senators' Letter to Clinton: ``If you do make
recess appointments during the upcoming recess which violate
the spirit of our agreement, then we will respond by placing
holds on all judicial nominees. The result would be a
complete breakdown in cooperation between our two branches of
government on this issue which could prevent the confirmation
of any such nominees next year. We do not want this to
happen. We urge you to cooperate in good faith with the
Majority Leader concerning all contemplated recess
appointments.''--Inhofe and 16 senators.
Nov. 17, 1999 Inhofe Floor Speech: ``I want to make sure
there is no misunderstanding and that we don't go into a
recess with the President not understanding that we are very
serious . . . It is not just me putting a hold on all
judicial nominees for the remaining year of his term, but 16
other senators have agreed to do that . . . I want to make
sure it is abundantly clear without any doubt in anyone's
mind in the White House--I will refer back to this document I
am talking about right now--that in the event the President
makes recess appointments, we will put holds on all judicial
nominations for the remainder of his term. It is very fair
for me to sand here and eliminate any doubt in the
President's mind of what we will do.''
Nov. 19, 1999 Clinton Notifies Senate of Contemplated
Recess Appointments: In compliance with the Byrd-Reagan
agreement, Clinton provides a list--prior to the recess--of
13 possible recess appointments under consideration for the
Nov. 20-Jan. 24 intersession recess. Inhofe and others object
to five on the list who have holds or prospective holds on
their nominations. Eight are considered acceptable.
Nov. 19, 1999 Inhofe Floor Speech 10 Minutes Before
Adjournment: ``If anyone other than these eight individuals
is recess appointed, we will put a hold on every single
judicial nonimee of this President for the remainder of his
term in office . . . I reemphasize, if there is some other
interpretation as to the meaning of the (Nov. 10) letter, it
does not make any difference, we are still going to put 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 (of the agreement) as we interpret it, then we
will have holds on these nominees.''
Nov. 23, 1999 Inhofe Letter to Clinton: In a spirit of
cooperation, Inhofe acknowledges one additional acceptable
appointment has been added to the list. ``I hope this makes
our position clear. Any recess appointment other than the
nine listed above would constitute a violation of the spirit
of our agreement and trigger multiple holds on judicial
nominees.''
Dec. 7, 1999 Inhofe Privately Urges White House Not to
Violate Agreement: Notified by the Majority Leader's office
that the President was contemplating at least two recess
appointments (Weisberg and Fox) which were not included on
the list submitted in advance of the recess, Inhofe
reiterated that making these appointments would trigger a
hold on all judicial nominees.
Dec. 9, 1999 Clinton Violates Agreement--Appoints Stuart
Weisberg to OSHA Review Commission: Name was not included on
list submitted in advance of the recess. Weisberg appointment
was strongly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
National Association of Manufacturers. Weisberg is a liberal
advocate of expanded regulatory authority who had compiled a
controversial record of decisions consistently unfavorable to
employers.
Dec. 17, 1999 Clinton Violates Agreement--Appoints Sarah
Fox to NLRB: Name was not included on list submitted in
advance of the recess. Fox is a stridently pro-labor former
Ted Kennedy staffer whose policy decisions were consistently
pro-union on such key issues as striker replacements, Davis-
Bacon wage laws and the Beck decision of compulsory union
dues.
Dec. 20, 1999 Inhofe Responds by Announcing Effort to Block
Judges: ``I am announcing today that I will do exactly what I
said I would do if the President deliberately violated our
agreement.''
Jan. 25, 2000 Inhofe Places Hold on All Judicial Nominees:
``It is in anticipation of just such defiance that I and my
colleagues warned the President on at least five separate
occasions exactly what our response would be if he violated
the agreement. We would put on hold on all judicial nominees.
So today it will come as no surprise to the President that we
are putting a hold on all judicial nominees. We are simply
doing what we said we would do to uphold Constitutional
respect for the Senate's proper role in the confirmation
process.''
Feb. 10, 2000 Inhofe Hold is Overruled by Majority Leader
Trent Lott: Inhofe thanked the 19 Republican senators who, in
a key procedural vote, supported his effort to demand
presidential accountability. Those Senators were: Shelby
(Ala.), Murkowski (Alaska), Allard (Colo.), Craig (Idaho),
Crapo (Idaho), Grassley (Iowa), McConnell (Ky.), Bunning
(Ky), Grams (Minn.), Burns (Mont.), Smith (N.H.), Gregg,
(N.H.), Domenici (N.M.), Helms (N.C.), Ihofe (Okla.),
Thurmond (S.C.), Gramm (Texas), Thomas (Wy.), and Enzi (Wy.).
August 3-31, 2000 Clinton Grants 17 Recess Appointments in
Defiance of the Senate: Rejecting his commitment to cooperate
with the Senate, Clinton grants appointments to Bill Lann Lee
and other whom the Senate specifically said were unacceptable
as recess appointments. Clinton's action was a deliberate
affront to the Senate, a violation of the spirit of the Byrd-
Reagan agreement and an abuse of power undermining the
``advice and consent'' clause of the Constitution.
Mr. INHOFE. I would like to say we made it very clear to this
President on two of the recesses since that time, that if he did not
live up to the standards as were put in the letter by Ronald Reagan and
to which he agreed, that we would put holds on all these nominations.
Obviously, I had holds on these nominations. I have to admit it was
not the Democrats; Republicans were not a lot of help to me at that
time. They voted and overruled the hold that I had.
I would say the Senators who voted with me at that time to uphold the
Constitution were Senators Shelby,
[[Page S8339]]
Murkowski, Allard, Craig, Crapo, Grassley, McConnell, Bunning, Grams of
Minnesota, Burns, Smith of New Hampshire, Gregg, Domenici, Helms--as I
said, Inhofe--Thurmond, Gramm of Texas, Thomas, and Enzi.
In spite of the fact that that happened, they went ahead, the
President went ahead and has continued to make recess appointments. The
last time he did was during our August recess between the 3rd and 31st.
He granted 17 recess appointments in just an arrogant defiance of the
Senate's prerogative of advice and consent for confirmation purposes.
Even though it is kind of an empty threat now, I will do it --I am
announcing tonight I am going to put a hold on all judicial nominations
for the rest of his term, not that there are that many, because if we
stopped right now, there would still be fewer vacancies than were there
at the end of the Bush administration. But when we took office, we
swore to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution is very specific.
Today I am making this announcement that we are going to hold up all
judicial nominations. I am doing exactly what Senator Byrd would do
under the same circumstances. I yield the floor.
____________________