[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 103 (Monday, July 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8033-S8039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when we first came back and began this 
Congress in January, there was a lot of talk about bipartisanship at 
that time due primarily to the fact that the Senate was equally divided 
between Republicans and Democrats, and we knew we better act in a 
bipartisan way or not a lot would get done.
  Since that time, of course, the Democratic Party has taken the 
majority, by virtue of the transfer from a Republican to an independent 
status, and we now have 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and one 
independent in the Senate; therefore, the Senate is under the control 
of the Democratic Party as the majority party. But we have a Republican 
administration and no less of a requirement to work together in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  The distinguished President pro tempore chairs a committee which, by 
its very nature, requires bipartisanship. I think I was presiding in 
the chair the day the distinguished President pro tempore and his 
counterpart, the ranking member, the Senator from Alaska, talked about 
the fact that without the kind of bipartisan cooperation in that 
committee that has characterized its work, it would be hard for the 
Senate to get its work done.
  That is also true of some other things, some housekeeping, if you 
will, that the Senate has to do as part of its constitutional 
responsibilities and, frankly, are among the most important of its 
responsibilities. That includes the advice and consent that we provide 
with respect to nominees from the executive branch.

  When a new President comes into power, there is also a certain 
transition that takes place because the new President nominates his own 
people for his executive branch department, his Cabinet officers and 
subcabinet officers, and also, of course, judicial nominations.
  In order for those departments to be fully staffed and up and 
operating, it is necessary for the Senate, as quickly as possible, to 
hold hearings on those

[[Page S8034]]

nominees, to act on them one way or the other, and then those that it 
approves--the vast majority--can join the President and begin work in 
the executive branch of Government. Ordinarily, that is a somewhat 
lengthy process but not a particularly difficult process.
  Most of the nominations are relatively routine. After they finish 
their FBI check, there is a hearing. There is almost never any 
controversy and therefore it is not difficult for the Senate to confirm 
those nominees. In fact, for the benefit of a lot of folks who would 
not be aware of the process, we do not take time in this Chamber to 
debate each and every nominee and hold a rollcall vote on each and 
every nominee. Instead, most of them are not controversial, and the 
leader will ask that a group of them be considered in a group, at the 
end of the day; and if no Senator objects to the nominations, they are 
all approved, and they are approved unanimously.
  That is the way it is done for most of the nominees. There are well 
over 600--I don't know the exact number--that we have to confirm. The 
problem is, this year, because of the election difficulties in Florida, 
the administration did not have as much time during the transition to 
get these people selected. As a result, we started out about a month 
behind in terms of the nominations from the Bush administration. 
Fortunately, the administration has worked very quickly and has 
actually caught up and even surpassed some previous administrations in 
the number of nominations that have been sent to the Senate.
  But the Senate has not acted very quickly either. Part of that was 
due to the fact we had this change from an equally divided Senate to a 
Senate controlled by the Democratic Party, and there was a period when 
the reorganization resolution had not yet been adopted.
  People might say: Why is all that important? Let's just get these 
nominees approved. Sometimes there are certain steps the Senate has to 
take before it can do things. The fact is, now we have had quite a 
period of time within which to act on these nominees, and we are 
beginning to act on some of them, but, frankly, they are not occurring 
as fast as I think they should occur and many of us believe should 
occur.
  There are still far too many nominees we have not confirmed, and we 
are afraid will not be confirmed by the beginning of the August recess, 
in less than 2 weeks from now. That means it would not be until after 
Labor Day that the President would have his full complement of Cabinet 
officers in place, and subcabinet officers. That is far too long.
  As of this month, over one-eighth of the Bush administration term is 
now gone, and many of the people he would have working for him are not 
even confirmed. The Senate has, so far, confirmed 210 Bush 
administration nominees, and that includes the 77 that we have 
confirmed just in the last 11 days. But even with that progress, it is 
just 58 percent of the nominees that President Bush has sent to us so 
far.
  This chart represents the 58 percent of nominees confirmed by the 
Senate from George W. Bush. At this same time during the Bill Clinton 
administration, the Senate had confirmed 74 percent; and in the Reagan 
administration, 72 percent. These are administrations that took over 
from a previous party.
  Ronald Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton took over 
from George Bush. And George Bush, of course, took over from Bill 
Clinton--each changing parties in the process.
  So as we can see, the Bush nominees have not been approved, have not 
been confirmed at the same rate as the Senate confirmed previous 
Presidents' nominees. That is putting a real burden on this White 
House.
  Incidentally, even though it wasn't a change from Reagan to the first 
George Bush in terms of party, the percentage was exactly the same as 
with regard to George W. Bush. Clearly, the Senate has to do a better 
job getting these nominations heard, getting them to the Senate floor, 
and getting them approved.
  The same thing is true with respect to judicial nominations. We are 
going to need to hold hearings and confirm judges at a much faster 
pace, or we are going to be way behind in terms of judgeships. I will 
talk about that in just a little bit.
  The bottom line, the first point I am trying to make is that we would 
literally have had to confirm about 83 nominations last week to match 
the nominations that we confirmed for the Clinton administration. We 
confirmed only 23. We were literally 50 nominations behind as of last 
week.
  The Bush administration has nominated 365 people to date. With the 
210 confirmed, that leaves 155. We have less than 2 weeks before the 
August recess. We would have to do about 75 per week to get these all 
confirmed. The fact is, 27 of those are judicial nominees. There is no 
way we can hold all of the hearings on them. So let's subtract the 27 
judicial nominees; that still leaves 128 nonjudicial nominees. Those 
are the people the President needs to help run his Cabinet and his 
Cabinet agencies. That would mean we would have to do about 65 per 
week, this week and next week, in order to be done.
  We are hopeful the Democratic leadership will cooperate in a 
bipartisan way to get these nominees confirmed. Because of what I 
explained earlier, it is not difficult to accomplish this. We can walk 
and chew gum at the same time. We can do both appropriations bills and 
nominations because nominations usually don't require a lot of time for 
debate on the Senate floor, and they don't require rollcall votes in 
most cases. In most cases, they are bundled together because they are 
not controversial. The leader asks unanimous consent at the end of the 
day that they be approved. That consent is given. They are approved, 
and it doesn't take very much time at all.
  The good news is, the Senate can do both things at the same time. It 
can both pursue legislative business, which in the case of the next 2 
weeks is going to consist mostly of appropriations bills, and at the 
same time we can do these nominations. That is the good news.
  Let me try to give you a little bit of an idea of some of the 
agencies that have nominations pending and why these are important. As 
I said, there are 27 judicial nominations pending, 26 or 27. Everybody 
understands the importance of the judiciary. Tomorrow, the Judiciary 
Committee is going to hold a hearing on three nominees, but only one of 
them is a judge. The other two are nominees for the Department of 
Justice.
  We have only confirmed three judicial nominees this entire year for 
President Bush. There is now a vacancy rate that is far higher than it 
was at the end of the last administration. In fact, there are today 108 
vacancies in Federal courts. This is about 45 or so more than there 
were at the end of the Clinton administration.
  Just to quote a couple of my colleagues to illustrate the 
significance of these judicial nominees, Senator Leahy is the chairman 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee and has always been a very strong 
advocate for filling these judicial positions. When Bill Clinton was 
President, this is something Senator Leahy said:

       Any week in which the Senate does not confirm three judges 
     is a week in which the Senate is failing to address the 
     vacancy crisis. Any fortnight in which we have gone without a 
     judicial confirmation hearing marks 2 weeks in which the 
     Senate is falling further behind.

  Senator Leahy is right about that. He said this in January of 1998. 
When he made that statement, there were fewer than 85 vacancies. Today 
there are 108 vacancies. As lawyers would say, a fortiori, it is 
important for us to begin confirming these judges. Moreover, as he 
pointed out, you can't confirm them until you have had hearings, and we 
are not having hearings on these judges.
  We are supposed to have a hearing this week, but only one judge is on 
the panel. I remember the last three or four hearings of last year, we 
had five or six judges per panel. To have only 1 judge on the panel 
when there are 26 others on which we could have a hearing--their FBI 
clearances have been done; they are ready to have their hearing--is 
simply to slow down the process. There is no reason why we can't add 
more judges to the hearing calendar. We should be doing that.
  I respectfully request that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
get on with the scheduling of these hearings.
  Our majority leader, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, 
last year said:


[[Page S8035]]


       Today there are 76 vacancies on the Federal bench. Of those 
     76 vacancies, 29 have been empty so long they are officially 
     classified as judicial emergencies. The failure to fill these 
     vacancies is straining our Federal court system and delaying 
     justice for people all across this country. This cannot 
     continue.

  That was in March of 2000. When he made that statement, there were 76 
vacancies, 29 of which were categorized as ``judicial emergencies.'' 
Today there are 108 vacancies, 40 of which are classified as ``judicial 
emergencies.''
  It is clear the Judiciary Committee needs to begin holding more 
hearings, that we need to get these judges to the Senate floor for 
confirmation, and that the Senate needs to act more quickly on these 
very important judicial nominations, 40 of which are classified right 
now as ``emergencies.'' In other words, according to the administrative 
office of the U.S. courts, these are the positions which need to be 
filled immediately or the administration of justice will suffer. It 
represents 12.6 percent of the judicial positions in our country today. 
That is the vacancy rate, and of those, just under 40 percent, are 
classified as ``judicial emergencies.'' Clearly, we have to get working 
on these nominations.
  I note that my colleague, Senator Craig, has arrived. I was going to 
begin discussing some of the specific nominees who are not judicial 
nominees that have been pending for a long time that we want to get 
cleared. Before I do that, perhaps my colleague is ready to make a 
presentation. I am happy to wait and go into some of the specific names 
after a little bit.
  I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. How much time does the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. As much time as the Senator takes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for as much time 
as he consumes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding. Most 
importantly, let me thank him for coming to the floor this afternoon to 
talk about what, without question, is a critically important issue to 
our country. That is that a President, once elected and sworn in by a 
Nation, has the right to govern the executive branch of the Government.
  We all know that takes a good many hands at the tiller, talented 
people from all walks of life who can help a President in all of the 
agencies of the Government make the right determinations and decisions 
as they relate to how policy ultimately gets implemented into law. We 
have watched over the years as this has become a most cumbersome 
approach. It has become increasingly involved, a combination of 
legislative action on the part of the Congress--the Senate playing a 
role--executive orders on the part of the President, all coming 
together in a critical mass. That takes the process a very long while 
to work. I am talking about simply the selection of, the vetting of, 
the background checking of an individual whom a President is going to 
nominate prior to that individual getting to the Senate, and then for 
the committees of jurisdiction to hold the proper hearings that are 
necessary to look at all of the material and ultimately to pass 
judgment on this individual for recommendation before the full Senate.

  The reason I talk about that at the outset is that we are not talking 
about that today. We are talking about the second step--the Senate 
process, the responsibility we have as Senators to review, confirm, 
and/or reject these nominees, based on cause, whom a President sends 
before us.
  We are in a situation where the Senate has confirmed about 210 Bush 
nominees so far this year, including the 77 we have confirmed in the 
last 11 days. During the Fourth of July break, I was home in my State 
of Idaho and I was hearing from many constituents who were saying: 
Larry, when are we going to get this person? Senator, when are we going 
to get that person?'' Or they would say: Senator, do you realize that 
Clinton people are still in power at the regional levels of the 
National Marine Fisheries--or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the 
EPA--and those decisions are still being made, based on, if you will, 
the philosophy and attitude of that administration versus the one the 
American public has just elected to power? When are those things going 
to happen or change? We elected a new President; we want a new 
direction. We expect that. That is why we did what we did last 
November.
  It was during that time, in listening to my constituents and trying 
to explain, that I began to examine the second phase--this phase, the 
one we are in now as Senators, doing our responsible job and 
constitutionally mandated job to review and confirm or reject 
appointments, nominations made by a President.
  Coming back from the Fourth of July break, I began to examine the 
numbers involved to see what the problem was, why we had not moved 
more. Yes, there was a time when we had a change of power and that took 
time. I don't argue that. But clearly, if you examine the amount of 
time involved with all of the nominees who are before us, there were a 
good many languishing before committees who had not had hearings, nor 
were hearings scheduled. As a result of that, I began to look at it in 
the context of how do we make this system work to accelerate itself, to 
do what it should do responsibly, but to do so in a timely fashion, so 
that our President can have the people he sent forth to help govern our 
country at the executive level.
  It was at that time that my colleague from Arizona and I teamed up, 
using the rules of the Senate appropriately, to discuss this issue and 
to cause the Senate to work in a more expeditious fashion. Even with 
the recent progress we have made--those 11 days and 77 confirmations--
that is just 58 percent of all of the nominees President Bush has sent 
to us so far. How does that compare with past Presidents' transitions? 
As of July 20, the Senate had confirmed, as I say, about 58 percent of 
the Bush nominees. As of July 20, 1993, the Senate had confirmed, as 
the chart shows, about 74 percent of President Clinton's. As of July 
20, 1981, the Republican-controlled Senate had confirmed 72 percent of 
President Ronald Reagan's nominations. So somewhere in the seventies is 
probably a figure that is right and reasonable--if there is a ``right 
and reasonable''. Or should the Senate operate clearly in a more 
expeditious fashion? To keep pace with the record we have shown by the 
chart this afternoon, we would have had to have confirmed 83 nominees 
last week to match the Clinton record, instead of the 23 for whom we 
fought hard to get the majority to work with us on, to ultimately get 
before the Senate in confirmation.

  The transition in power in the Senate, as I mentioned, caused some 
delays. I accept that, and I am willingly able to talk about that, and 
I should because that is right and that is fair. The uncertain outcome 
of a Presidential election stalled any President or President-elect out 
36 days before they could begin to actually move in any fashion. Yet 
the Bush administration has recovered from its delays, and it had sent 
a record 365 nominations as of last week. I think the Senate now must 
step up the pace if we are going to deal with this matter in a timely 
fashion.
  As important as all of that is, as my colleague from Arizona knows so 
well, to allow this President to govern, to set the course in the 
policy direction that is set by these key people, and also to establish 
the kind of relationships and esprit de corps that occurs within an 
agency between administrators of that agency and the rank-and-file 
civil servant, our goal--the goal of the Senator from Arizona and 
myself, working with the leadership of Republicans and Democrats in the 
Senate--is to get the Bush administration fully staffed with qualified 
people as quickly as possible.
  A week and a half ago I told the majority leader, Tom Daschle, that 
our goal was, if you will, to cleanse the Senate of nominees by the 
August recess. Why? Because we are going to be gone for a month. If 
there is anyone languishing without cause simply because committee 
chairmen could not act or would not act, then shame on them, shame on 
the Senate, and shame on the leadership of the Senate for simply not 
moving the process along in the next 2 weeks to get the hearings done, 
to vet these people, to get them voted on, and get them to the floor.
  As we know, it is only in a rare case that a nominee actually brings 
about aggressive debate on the floor of the Senate. Why? Because, in a 
bipartisan manner, all of us believe that a President has the right to 
choose, to select.

[[Page S8036]]

 While it is our responsibility to confirm, very seldom does the Senate 
actually reject. So why should there be delay, as long as the process 
is thorough, responsible--and it should be timely. Based on the 
workload of the Senate today, there is really no reason for a lack of 
timeliness.
  There are 499 positions in the executive branch requiring Senate 
confirmation, not counting judicial nominees. As the Senator from 
Arizona knows, while he was tackling the judicial nominees, I looked at 
all the other agencies as my target, believing that those were the ones 
we could get out to the administration most quickly. Of those, 
according to the Brookings Institution, there are 313 positions 
currently vacant. That is 6 out of 10 positions in Government today. In 
other words, 6 out of 10 people are not ``on the ground,'' not working 
with the President and the Vice President to govern our country.
  That is what we are talking about--making critical decisions about 
how policy gets implemented. For those who are the victims of the lack 
of people being in place, it is the rank-and-file citizens out there in 
Arizona or in Idaho who find themselves in contests with or in conflict 
with a given rule or regulation and having someone outside the system 
make a judgment, or someone who has a given philosophical bent, instead 
of this administration. That is why what we do here and what the Senate 
does in the next 2 weeks is so absolutely critical to the American 
people.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KYL. I think the Senator just hit the nail on the head. This 
isn't an abstract proposition, the fact that the President needs to 
have his team in place; I think everybody recognizes that. But it has 
real ``on the ground'' meaning for everyday decisions that are made 
affecting all Americans. Maybe we can talk for a little bit about some 
of the specific positions that are vacant, the people who have been 
nominated for those positions, why they are important for the American 
people, and what can happen if these positions are not filled.
  Would the Senator like to initiate discussion on that? I can 
certainly do the same.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me give an example. I thank my colleague. I will 
reclaim my time and give an example. Some weeks ago, an acting regional 
administrator of National Marine Fisheries told the largest utility in 
Idaho, which is a hydro-based utility, that they had to dump their 
water; they could not generate with it. It just so happens that Idaho 
and the Pacific Northwest are in a drought at this moment. The 320,000 
acre feet of water impounded for the purpose of generating power for 
Boise, ID, and the surrounding area was being ordered to be dumped in 
the name of fish and fish recovery. The power company thought it was 
inappropriate to do and unnecessary under the law, even recognizing the 
need to protect the fish.
  When they refused, that acting agent sent a letter to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission asking they order the water be dumped. At 
that time, I and other members of the Idaho congressional delegation 
got involved. We began to examine it. Frankly, we found an individual 
who was operating and making decisions in a manner that we thought 
inconsistent with the law, much more consistent with their 
philosophical bent than the legal responsibility and the right 
administration of the law. We asked for a conference. We asked that all 
the parties be brought to Washington to solve this problem.
  Under the law, it was decided that the utility could continue to 
operate normally, and in so flowing the water through its pin stocks 
and turbines, it could not only generate power--and we know what has 
happened in the Pacific Northwest, with a real absence of power.
  To make a long story short, but a very dramatic example for Idaho, 
instead of following the edicts of someone whom I felt was 
philosophically driven by a past administration's attitudes of how that 
agency ought to operate, under a negotiated settlement and within the 
law, this utility was allowed to operate, manage the water accordingly 
so there would be no blackouts in Boise, ID, and the surrounding area 
this year, save the fish, and solve the problem.
  I do believe that if the regional director for National Marine 
Fisheries had been in place, the request to spill or dump water would 
never have occurred. That problem could have been solved at the 
regional level through reasonable negotiation. That is an example, and 
there are a myriad of others going on out there at this moment.
  Let me give another example, and while this one cannot be blamed on 
the Senate at this moment, it is a perfect example of not having people 
in place at the right time. It really cannot be blamed on the 
administration, either. I am talking about our Ambassador to the United 
Nations, Negroponte, and the stalled nomination and the unwieldy system 
that impacts this. With no permanent Ambassador, the United States 
mission at the United Nations has had to rely on a career diplomat, Mr. 
Cunningham, who was the acting Ambassador in January when Richard 
Holbrooke resigned.
  What happened in the meantime? The problem became a public one 
because of the unwillingness, in my opinion, to be aggressive in 
holding the Nation's position as it relates to our role in the United 
Nations and in the General Assembly.
  The problem became public on May 3 when the United Nations lost two 
influential U.S. Commissioners: one for human rights and one for 
narcotics control.
  According to a source close to the U.S. Commission, diplomats were 
unaware that positions on either panel were in jeopardy until the final 
hour. In other words, somebody was not doing their homework and 
somebody was not watching and dealing with it. It appeared that a last-
minute campaign effort would have secured the United States one of the 
three open Western seats in the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The 
U.S. diplomat had expected to get a 43-53 vote in favor.
  They did not get it, and we know the rest of that story. For the 
first time since the Commission's inception in 1947, the United States 
has lost positions. That speaks to the problems and complications of 
the system.
  I cannot lay the blame at the feet of the Senate on that issue, but 
the reason I bring it up, I tell the Senator from Arizona, is to 
express the dramatic consequences that can occur when we do not act 
timely to get the right people in the right place to make the decisions 
and to administer the role of Government as we would want it done.
  I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Arizona.
  (Mr. REED assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I may pursue this, it is an excellent 
example of one of the nominees who has been pending for a long time. 
John Negroponte was nominated on May 14. As the distinguished Senator 
from Idaho pointed out, it was very shortly thereafter that this 
problem in the United Nations occurred. Many people had said if John 
Negroponte had been there, this would not have happened. We do not 
know, as the Senator said.
  I do know about a month ago Secretary of State Colin Powell was on 
national television, on one of these Sunday morning talk shows. He was 
asked about the nomination of John Negroponte, and Secretary Powell 
made an eloquent plea to the Senate to please confirm John Negroponte. 
He said the United States needs him at the United Nations, that we 
needed to get him confirmed. That was, I believe, over a month ago.
  His nomination has been pending since May 14. It is now July 23. The 
President is going to be speaking to the United Nations this fall, I 
believe in September. He is going to be addressing the United Nations. 
For the United States not to have our Ambassador in place would be a 
breach of significant diplomatic protocol, as well as an important loss 
to U.S. interests.
  I note that because the Senator from Idaho brought up the name of 
John Negroponte, another perfect example of someone we have had plenty 
of time to confirm, and we have not yet taken up his nomination for 
confirmation, and we need to do so.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. CRAIG. I talked about what could have happened in Idaho if, in 
fact, we had not been able to move the issue to Washington and those 
who had been left to administer at the regional level had won.

[[Page S8037]]

  What the Senator from Arizona and I just talked about is an 
international problem and clearly an image problem on the part of the 
United States. How does it look for the United States not to be able to 
act in a timely and responsible manner to put key diplomats in place to 
do the work of our country? What does it say to the rest of the world? 
What does it say to the United Nations as it relates to how we 
prioritize the value of the U.N. and these very important commissions, 
the question of drugs being trafficked internationally, the question of 
human rights that this Senate has spent a great deal of time on over 
the years--human rights in this country and human rights around the 
world--and we have now lost key positions because we did not have 
people in place to lobby effectively for the position of this country, 
to make sure we had a voice on these key commissions.
  It speaks volumes about not only our inability to operate but the 
cumbersome nature of the system we have allowed to be created.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Idaho to yield again, 
primarily to make a point.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to respond.
  Mr. KYL. The Senator from Idaho was instrumental at the end of the 
week in getting an agreement from the Democratic leadership to take up 
the nomination of Jack Crouch, sometimes known as J.D. Crouch, a 
distinguished expert in, among other things, missile defense. I had 
breakfast a couple of months ago, along with other Senators, with 
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He pleaded with us at that time: Please 
send me my troops. Please confirm the people we have nominated for the 
Cabinet and subcabinet positions for the Department of Defense.
  Now the President is busy in negotiations with the Russians, with 
Putin, and with others regarding missile defense, and the nomination of 
a distinguished member of his subcabinet, Jack Crouch, has not been 
taken up. He was nominated on May 7. He was nominated even before John 
Negroponte. Still no confirmation.
  I ask the Senator from Idaho, since the Senator was instrumental in 
getting the agreement of the Democratic leadership to have a vote on 
J.D. Crouch sometime before the end of the August recess, does the 
Senator think it is important in this case to get this vote scheduled 
as soon as we possibly can so we can send Secretary Rumsfeld the team 
he needs to help provide for the national security of the United 
States?
  Mr. CRAIG. Certainly, I agree with the Senator from Arizona. There is 
nothing more important to our country; now that these men and women 
have gone through their background checks and have been thoroughly 
vetted and sent to us, we ought to act in the most timely fashion.
  Where there are objections--there happen to be a few on our side and 
some on the other side. Let's solve those, bring them to the floor. If 
a Senator objects, let he or she come to the floor and defend their 
position. There is nothing wrong with that. I say that for Republicans 
and Democrats alike. They can express their opposition; they can vote 
no. There is nothing wrong if you feel passionately about one of the 
nominees, in telling the President, who happens to be your President: 
Mr. President, I vote no.
  Why openly and aggressively deny the President the right to select 
the people he thinks are necessary to work with him in the governance 
of this country?
  I know the Senator went through the list of those key and important 
individuals still languishing in committee. I understand there are a 
total of 127 nominees who have had no hearings and no markups, as close 
as we can determine. There were 48 who came up this month; 46 came up 
in June; 27 came up in May; 6 came up in April. That is the time that 
these names have been before the appropriate committees.
  The question is, where is that chairman? And why can't we hold 
hearings and give these people an opportunity to testify? Hector 
Barreto was nominated to head the SBA on May 1, just Friday. He was 
placed on the Senate's Executive Calendar. The Executive Calendar is at 
the desk. It is the calendar that nominations reside on before they are 
considered by the Senate as a whole. He was reported out of committee 
by a unanimous vote. This is the head of the Small Business 
Administration. He got a unanimous vote out of committee, but he came 
there May 1.
  The most modern phrase I can come up with is, ``duh.'' It is kind of 
a ``duh'' issue to the chairman of the committee why this man has been 
before them since May 1, and got a unanimous vote coming out of 
committee. We will now, I trust, take up Hector Barreto this week. 
Certainly the Senate, I hope, can act timely. This is the man who will 
run the Small Business Administration of our country, which we rely on 
heavily in dealing with the small businesses of our State, those 
starting up, the problems they might have in trying to create start-up 
businesses.
  The Senator from Arizona and I know first hand, as his is a border 
State, and border States by definition are oftentimes caught in the 
backlash of drug trafficking that flows across their borders and into 
the United States, John Walters was nominated on June 5 to be the 
Nation's drug czar. We know that problem. We are extremely pleased the 
Bush Administration is reemphasizing the drug problem as an enforcement 
problem for the citizens of our country. The Judiciary Committee has 
neither held hearings nor reported out this Cabinet-level appointee. 
They have had him since June 5. I don't know if it meets the ``duh'' 
test. I am not sure what it meets.
  The Judiciary Committee does not appear to be functioning well. We 
have had changes in chairmanships, but the new chairman has had plenty 
of time. Just send out a notice, bring down the gavel, listen to this 
man and question this man about what he will do as the new drug czar 
for our country at a time when drug use is high, lives are being 
destroyed, and we as a country want to put special emphasis on control 
and detection and certainly all of the counseling, and the remediation 
efforts involved in helping our citizens cope.

  I hope the Judiciary Committee gets the message that they need to act 
expeditiously to allow this man the right to begin to administer the 
antidrug programs of this country.
  I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding. There are other 
points that can be made. We will continue to make the points as we work 
with Democrat and Republican leadership to recognize and deal in a 
timely fashion with all of these nominees. My test, the test of my 
colleague from Arizona, is to move as many as possible before the 
August recess so we do not then wait clear until September to see the 
men and women on the ground managing and doing what they have been 
asked to do on behalf of this administration.
  There is a lot of work to be done. But there are 2 weeks left. In 2 
weeks' time, these committees can clearly convene and hold the 
hearings, make their recommendations, and allow the men and women 
nominated by President Bush to get to the floor for the purpose of our 
consideration and our constitutional responsibility of confirming or 
denying these nominations.
  I thank my colleague for the effort he has put forth in the last 
several weeks. We have worked together as a team to assure that many of 
the nominees have been moved in a timely manner. In all fairness, I 
think part of our message and concern is getting out. I have had two 
chairmen this week in Agriculture and in Veterans' tell me they will 
attempt to move expeditiously. Hearings are being scheduled.
  When I see 127 nominees who have not had hearings, and there are 2 
weeks left, that says there is an awful lot of work to be done in the 
next 2 weeks. I hope our chairmen are up to it. I think the committees 
and the committee staffs have had adequate time to do the necessary 
work to prepare for appropriate and necessary hearings.
  I thank my colleague from Arizona for securing the time and yielding 
to me on this issue.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for being 
instrumental in bringing this issue to this Chamber. He helped to prove 
we can do more than one thing at once. We can do our legislative work 
on the appropriations bills that come before the Senate, and at the 
same time have the committees meeting on the nominees and holding 
hearings and bringing them to the Senate floor, in most cases for a 
quick unanimous consent vote that does not require a lot of Senate 
time.

[[Page S8038]]

  I know he and I will continue to work to see we complete this list of 
nominees for confirmation before we leave for the August recess. It 
would be a shame to leave here with that unfinished business, leaving 
the President without the team he needs to help in the important 
responsibilities he has.
  The Senator from Idaho pointed out he has visited with different 
committee chairmen--for example, the Agriculture Committee chairman. 
There are 10 nominees pending before the Agriculture Committee. They 
need hearings and need to be acted upon. There are 9 pending before the 
Armed Services Committee, and in addition to that, J.D. Crouch, on whom 
we need to vote.
  In the Banking Committee, there are 7 pending; in the Commerce 
Committee, there are 8; in the Energy Committee, there are 3; before 
the EPW Committee, there are 8; before the Finance Committee, there are 
12; Foreign Relations has 41, many of whom are important nominees to 
Ambassadorial positions to various countries. What do these countries 
think when that we sit on these nominations for so long before 
confirming them and sending them on to serve the United States abroad?
  There are 4 pending before the Governmental Affairs Committee, 6 
before the health committee; as I said, before the Judiciary Committee, 
there are 27 judicial nominees and either 12 or 13, depending on my 
count of positions, to other judicial branch appointments, and 3 before 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and another before the Judiciary 
Committee, since the Senator from Idaho singled out the Judiciary 
Committee out.
  I am on that committee and the Judiciary Committee has not done its 
job either with the executive branch nominees or the judiciary, the 
judges. John Gillis was nominated in April to head the Office of 
Victims of Crime. He would be the Director of the Office for Victims of 
Crime at the Department of Justice. He has had no hearing. John Gillis 
is an extraordinary man. He is an African American, former police 
officer from the Los Angeles police force. His daughter was killed, 
murdered.
  John Gillis became a very strong advocate for victims' rights. He is 
a national hero in this regard. He is a man of great character, of 
passion for the cause of victims of crime.
  President Bush has also strongly advocated the rights of victims of 
crime. My colleagues know that has been one of my passions, as it has 
been of Senator Feinstein from California.
  In April, John Gillis was nominated. It is critical that he join the 
team at the Justice Department--no hearing. He has not been approved by 
the Senate.
  Mary Sheila Gall, this is another interesting nominee, interesting in 
the sense of the position she would hold. She was nominated back on May 
8. Apparently there may be a hearing for her on July 25. But she would 
chair the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This is only the 
Commission that is responsible for the regulations and enforcement of 
regulations that protect the public against unreasonable risks of 
injuries and deaths associated with consumer products--a very important 
position for children as well as adult men and women in our country. It 
is an independent, Federal regulatory agency, and it has jurisdiction 
over about 15,000 different types of consumer products. Let me give you 
a couple of examples of things they have been doing:
  This past month, the month of July, a Columbus, OH, firm voluntarily 
recalled 32,000 hand trucks with faulty tires that can explode under 
intense pressure and injure bystanders or users. A Los Angeles company 
voluntarily recalled 600 baby walkers that will fit through standard 
doorways but are not designed to stop at the edge of a step. A 
Pennsylvania firm announced a voluntary replacement program providing 
free parts and labor to replace faulty sprinkler heads that relate to 
the ability for firefighting equipment to work, and so on and so on.
  I could go down a long list here.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield? I am pleased he is mentioning this 
one because at times I have been at odds with the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission as it relates to some of the work they have done. One 
of the most significant findings they made, and one of the largest 
recall/replacement efforts was just mentioned by the Senator from 
Arizona and that was the sprinkler head that you see in new code 
buildings around the country that fire professionals will tell you is 
the single greatest way to put out a fire. What they found was that 
over a period of time a rubber gasket that controlled the release of 
water would simply rot away. This company that makes them, because of 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission's oversight and review, is 
voluntarily replacing these faulty sprinkler heads all across the 
Nation.
  Why can't we hold a hearing in Judiciary to get the head of this 
Commission in place? How long has that person been before the 
committee?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Mary Gall was nominated as chair of the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission on May 8. She is pending before the 
Commerce Committee to this day.
  Mr. CRAIG. May, June, July--3 months now--that person has languished 
before the committee. Both the Senator from Arizona and I have openly 
discussed the time we lost through the transition when we had one of 
our colleagues become Independent and the leadership of the Senate 
changed. At the same time there is no excuse, because staffs didn't 
change dramatically. We really just passed the gavel over and the total 
number of members on the committee changed. Yes, we had to wait for 
an administrative process that allowed a new regulation to be written--
a resolution of the Senate, what we call an organizational resolution--
but still, that committee could have gone on, and many did, to hold 
hearings. They could have voted them out immediately, then, after the 
hearing record was established because none of us were calling for 
votes on key committees. But some committees did function. And here, 
now, we have this critical position languishing because of failure to 
act.

  I thank my colleague for bringing that point forward.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me mention a couple more before my time 
is up. One would think we would want to have in place the Solicitor for 
the Department of Labor to ensure the Nation's labor laws are fairly 
and forcefully adhered to. Eugene Scalia was nominated back in April--
April 30--to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor. There have been 
no hearings for his nomination. Yet that person is responsible, at the 
Department of Labor, for monitoring agency activities, providing advice 
and opinions to ensure Department of Labor employees and agencies fully 
comply with laws and regulations, and to assist in the development of 
regulations and standards to protect workers in this country.
  This is another very important position, Eugene Scalia. We need to 
have a hearing on him and he needs to be brought to the Senate floor 
for confirmation before we leave here for our August recess.
  Brian Jones, general counsel of the Department of Education: We all 
like to talk a good game when it comes to education. This is for the 
children. We need to help them. We need to staff up the Department of 
Education. It needs to be able to do the work we have asked it to do. 
Brian Jones was nominated back in April as well, April 30. He has had 
no hearing. Yet his responsibilities as the general counsel for the 
Department of Education are to help support equal access to education 
and education excellence around the country by providing sound, 
understandable, and useful legal services and effectively managing the 
Department on all of the ethics and legal issues that come before it as 
well as to serve as the principal adviser to the Secretary on all legal 
matters affecting the Department's programs and activities.
  I mentioned another individual who was nominated more recently but 
whose name has really been before the Senate for a long time: Otto 
Reich. This is one of the key priorities for President Bush because, as 
everyone, I think, knows, the President has paid special attention to 
Mexico and the countries of Central and South America. Otto Reich would 
be the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. It 
is an extraordinarily important position to manage and promote U.S. 
interests in that region by supporting democracy, trade, and 
sustainable economic development in dealing with a whole range of 
problems from drug trafficking to crime and poverty reduction and 
environmental protection. Otto Reich deserves to have a

[[Page S8039]]

hearing and deserves to be considered by the Senate before we go out in 
August.
  The Senator from Idaho and I could go through each of these names, 
well over a hundred. In every case, we are dealing with an important 
position and we are dealing with people whose lives have basically been 
held in abeyance. They do not know whether or not to move their 
families or to do what is necessary to prepare to serve the President. 
The Senator from Idaho told me of a meeting he had with people who were 
about ready to give up because their nominations had simply been 
languishing for so long. I think the Senator from Idaho said: 
Persevere; the Senate is going to do its work.

  I might ask the Senator to recount that brief experience.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Arizona for mentioning that 
situation. I did visit with a gentleman who was slated to go to 
Justice, and will in time. But you know there is an image problem here. 
Oftentimes, or at least sometimes, the public thinks these people who 
serve a President and are nominated are wealthy people or people of 
substantial means who can do as they wish. That is not true. They come 
from all walks of life and all experiences. They fit the situation and/
or the responsibility they are going to undertake. A lot of them are 
young, family people with children in school.
  The question is, Are we going to be confirmed and can we bring our 
kids to Washington and get them into the schools here in the area 
because remember what happens at the end of August? Kids go back to 
school. I understand the other day in this city there was a breakfast 
of about 20 of them, trying to make up their minds whether to tough it 
out, wondering when the Senate might operate, or if they were going to 
have to pick up the phone and call the President and say: Mr. 
President, I am sorry; I really did want to serve you and I wanted to 
serve the American people, but I have to get on with my life. I have 
been 3 or 4 months in limbo now, and because of the risk of conflicts 
of interest, I cannot continue in my current job or my current capacity 
and I have kids to get in school this fall. I have a home I have to 
sell and/or a home to buy. What do I do? That is the practical, human 
side of this very real problem that the Senate of the United States has 
created.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona for mentioning that.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me mention one other very practical 
problem. The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, told me of a situation 
which I hope by now has been corrected. But he literally was at his 
farm in Missouri after he became the Attorney General and I think he 
was the sole executive person at the Department of Justice. An aide had 
to literally bring a warrant out to Missouri, fly on an airplane from 
Washington, DC, out to Missouri so he could sign it because he was the 
only one who had the authority at that point to sign this particular 
document.
  I believe since then we have confirmed some people who also have that 
authority. But the point here is we have to get the executive team in 
place. We have 155 people who need to be confirmed; at least about 130 
of them need to be confirmed before we leave for the August recess. In 
the name of bipartisanship, for the good of the American people, for 
the sake of doing the important jobs we have outlined here before, and 
for the sake of filling our judiciary, I urge my colleagues to work 
with us to get these people to the floor and to get them confirmed 
before we leave for the August recess.
  Mr. President, might I inquire, do I have another minute or so left? 
What is the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is informed it is 3 o'clock, when 
Mr. Byrd is to be recognized.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
  I conclude by urging all of my colleagues to work with us so we can 
get these people to the Senate floor and get them confirmed before the 
August recess. If we do, we will feel better about doing our job and 
the country will feel better because we will have served the interests 
of the American people.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

                          ____________________