[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 3 (Friday, January 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S115-S117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATIONS OF MARCIA S. KRIEGER, OF COLORADO, TO BE UNITED STATES 
  DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO AND JAMES C. MAHAN, OF 
 NEVADA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, upon the 
disposition of the Smith amendment No. 2705, the Senate will now go 
into executive session and proceed with the consideration of Executive 
Calendar Nos. 644 and 645.
  The nominations will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Marcia S. 
Krieger, of Colorado, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Colorado, and James C. Mahan, of Nevada, to be United 
States District Judge for the District of Nevada.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will now 
be 10 minutes for debate to be equally divided between the chairman and 
ranking members of the Judiciary Committee, and 10 minutes for debate 
under the control of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized after these two votes for such time as I may need to speak 
about the nominations. I know a number of Senators have schedules they 
want to keep.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not 
object--I would like to be given time immediately following the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues here in the Chamber 
today that I announced last year before we adjourned for the holiday 
recess that because of the failure of the Senate to provide for cloture 
on the farm bill so that we could have a reasonable amount of time for 
debate and come to closure on it, the Senator from Iowa, this Senator, 
was not going to agree to any unanimous consent on any judges or 
anything else that came before the Senate until we completed the farm 
bill.
  I was approached the other day and was asked if we would let a couple 
of these judges go. It was my intention at that time to say no. I am 
not interested in anything passing here until we got a farm bill 
finished and sent to conference. But it has come to my attention that 
there seems to be some movement towards reaching some agreement to have 
either a defined list of amendments and/or a time limit so that we 
could bring this farm bill to some closure.
  So in the spirit of trying to work on a bipartisan basis and trying 
to reach some agreement, I withdrew my objection so we could go ahead 
and permit these two judges to go through. I asked for this 10 minutes 
of time only to hope that in the ensuing few days--I know that next 
week we are not going to be here much more than 1 day, and I think we 
are out Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday for the party conferences. That 
means we will have a short day Monday, a day Tuesday, and that is it. 
Then we are in the week after that. I am hopeful that sometime before 
we adjourn next week for our party conferences the leadership on the 
Republican side and on the Democratic side can reach an agreement on a 
defined list of amendments on the farm bill and/or some time limit so 
we can reach closure on it. Hopefully we will do that the week after 
next.
  This is becoming even more important because the Department of 
Agriculture just came out last week with their economic forecast for 
agriculture this year. I will read from the AP report on their 
forecast.

  With crop prices mired near record lows, the government says farm 
income will drop nearly 20 percent this year unless Congress enacts a 
new farm program quickly, or approve more emergency payments.

  There you have it.
  There are three things we can do: Sit back, do nothing, and let farm 
income drop 20 percent, we can come up with more emergency payments, or 
we can enact a new farm bill, go to conference with the House, and have 
a more reasonable approach.
  I hope we can do the latter; that is, pass the farm bill, go to 
conference, come back, and let the House and the Senate work its will.

  We have had a lengthy debate on the farm bill already. We have been 
here 12 days; 1 more day on the farm bill means we will have broken all 
records for length of time for the farm bill to be considered in this 
Chamber. Just 1 more day and we will have that. It looks as if we are 
going to break the record.
  We had three substitutes for this farm bill. It was well debated. We 
had the Lugar substitute, we had the Roberts-Cochran substitute, and we 
had the Hutchison substitute, which is basically the House bill. None 
of them got over 40 votes. One got 30, one got 38, one got 40. So it 
looks as if the bipartisan bill that we came out of committee with is 
the bill that has the most votes.
  I know there are things in the bill not everyone likes. There are 
some things in the bill I personally as chairman of the committee do 
not like. But

[[Page S116]]

I recognize there are other reasons for things and for different parts 
of the country. There is agriculture all over America. Maybe what is 
good in one place is not good in other places. That is why there are 
varying interests. I believe the bill we have on the floor does a good 
job of balancing those interests.
  We have a good bipartisan bill. That doesn't mean we can't have more 
amendments considered. Of course we can. There are payment limitation 
amendments. There are other amendments that will come up. That is just 
fine. I have never taken the position we should not have amendments. 
Let us have a reasonable time limit, get the amendments up, have a 
reasonable debate, and then move on.
  Again, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will permit 
us to move ahead week after next on this farm bill, either with a 
defined list of amendments or at least a time agreement or vote cloture 
on the bill so we can move ahead on it expeditiously.
  Again, I do not intend to hold up these judges in the spirit of 
comity and working together. But I say to my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, if we cannot get some reasonable agreement to have this 
bill up and passed the week after next, then this Senator from Iowa 
will again say nothing else is going to pass here until we get that 
farm bill passed.
  So I have removed my objection to these judges because of what I have 
heard. And I have talked with some people and have heard that there may 
be some movement to get this farm bill debated and passed. If that is 
the case, that is fine. I hope we can do that. But we cannot afford to 
tarry any longer. We have to get this bill passed, get to conference 
with the House, and, hopefully, get it to the President.
  We have farmers getting ready to go into the fields in the South 
already. I think the wheat harvest in Texas is probably going to start 
next month. We have farmers up in the northern parts of the country--
where I am from--who do not know whether they can go out and buy a new 
combine or a new tractor or something similar because they do not know 
what they are going to get this year. The bankers are uncertain.
  The President was just out at John Deere a couple weeks ago. I was 
with him at a John Deere plant in Illinois. The CEO of John Deere said 
that we have to get a farm bill passed because no one is buying the 
implements because they do not know what the bill is going to be. There 
is that uncertainty out there.
  So I know we are talking about a stimulus package, my friends, but 
stimulus in rural America is the farm bill. If we get that farm bill 
passed, it will stimulate economic activity in rural America. It will 
let bankers know how much they can lend. Farmers would then be able to 
say: OK, now I can buy that tractor or that combine or that new piece 
of equipment. But until we do that, all that uncertainty and that cloud 
is hanging over them.
  So, again, I took this time only to say that I will not object to 
these judges in that spirit of comity, but I hope by next Wednesday we 
will have an agreement worked out so when we come back the week after 
next, after the party conferences and the party issues conferences, we 
can bring up the farm bill, have a reasonable time for debate, and then 
have final passage on the bill.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, is there any time to respond to the 
statement made by the Senator from Iowa?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the unanimous consent order, there 
is none.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 5 minutes. And I daresay I would not use that much time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. How much time?
  Mr. BURNS. Five minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say to my 
friend from Montana, the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee agreed to speak after the votes. We have people here who have 
schedules to meet. If my friend really wants to speak now, I will not 
object.
  Mr. BURNS. No.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent the Senator 
from Montana be allowed to speak after the chairman and ranking member 
are allowed to speak.
  Mr. BURNS. I will agree to that. I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana withdraws his 
request?
  Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Will the Senate advise 
and consent to the nomination of Marcia S. Krieger, of Colorado, to be 
United States District Judge for the District of Colorado? The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Dodd), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the 
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Voinovich), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from 
Tennessee (Mr. Thompson) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) would each 
vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 4 Ex.]

                                YEAS--83

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     McCain
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thompson
     Voinovich
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Will the Senate advise 
and consent to the nomination of James C. Mahan, of Nevada, to be 
United States District Judge for the District of Nevada?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be a 10-
minute vote.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator repeat his request?
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent this be a 10-minute rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, this will be a 10-minute rollcall vote. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
Carnahan), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from 
North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.

[[Page S117]]

Miller), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the 
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Voinovich), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Thompson) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) would each 
vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 0, as follows:

                        [Rollcall Vote No. 5 Ex]

                                YEAS--81

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Carnahan
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     McCain
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thompson
     Voinovich
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________