As Majority Leader, Trent Lott Discovers His Pragmatic Side
By Carroll J. Doherty, CQ Staff Writer
(CQ, April 11) -- When the Senate took up a massive aid package for the International Monetary Fund last month, the normally buttoned-down Senate majority leader cut loose with a verbal barrage directed at Michel Camdessus, the French managing director of the IMF.
"I would like us to get rid of the head of the IMF," said Mississippi Republican Trent Lott. "He's a socialist from France. Am I too blunt?"
But just a few days later, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the aid plan. And Lott, despite his obvious hostility toward the IMF and its leader, joined 83 of his colleagues in backing the $17.9 billion proposal (S1768).
Nearly two years into his tenure as majority leader, Lott, the affable 56-year-old son of a shipyard worker and a schoolteacher, has defied expectations in a number of ways. His devotion to order and control -- manifest in his unmussable hair, twice-ironed shirts and clutter-free desk -- has become part of Senate lore.
But that same compulsive neatnik also has a surprisingly loose speaking style that occasionally lands him in political hot water. While his attack on Camdessus went largely unnoticed, Lott's defense last year of former Air Force pilot Kelly Flinn -- who was accused of adultery and lying -- triggered an uproar. And Lott's comments last month urging Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to wrap up his probe of President Clinton stunned GOP colleagues, who demanded that he retract it. Lott often finds himself scrambling to explain, revise or just reel back remarks he has made in haste.
"I'm not a guy who keeps a secret well," he explained in a recent interview. "I like to play my cards face-up. I try to respond candidly, and every now and then that gets me into trouble."
The Inside Game
When Lott succeeded Kansas Republican Bob Dole as majority leader in June 1996, conservative activists were buoyed. With House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., hamstrung by ethical woes, they expected Lott to emerge as the national GOP leader who could effectively confront Clinton.
Instead, Lott has specialized in the inside game mastered by his predecessor, while remaining largely anonymous to the general public. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed had either never heard of Lott or had no opinion of him.
When it comes to managing the Senate, Lott can be every bit as pragmatic as Dole, as his strategic retreat on the IMF bill demonstrated. Lott quietly acquiesced to milder conditions on the aid package than he preferred when it became clear that he would get rolled by GOP colleagues such as Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska, who warned that delaying action on the IMF package would threaten Pacific Rim economies.
"The conditions on the IMF are still not adequate to me," Lott said. "But we had to move the bill."
Move the bill and then move on. That has been Lott's mantra since he became majority leader. Asked to assess Lott's strengths and weaknesses, several GOP and Democratic senators offered the same opinion, using virtually the same words: His most important talent is making the legislative trains run on time.
That is exactly what people used to say about Dole. But everything about Lott's background and temperament -- including his staunchly conservative voting record -- suggested he would take an edgier, more confrontational approach than Dole, who embodied a more practical brand of old-school Republicanism.
Just four years ago, Lott crashed his way into the GOP leadership by defeating Dole's hand-picked candidate, former Wyoming Republican Sen. Alan K. Simpson, for the post of majority whip. Lott, younger and more conservative than Simpson, was regarded as a sharp-elbowed ideologue who would force Dole to the right. (1994 Almanac, p. 14)
But many conservative activists now express the same reservations about Lott that they used to voice about Dole: that he is too eager to accommodate Democrats, too willing to compromise. "Dole with a drawl," said one conservative leader who asked not to be identified by name.
"His management and leadership style place accommodation and consensus above all else," said David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union.
Conservative anger at Lott bubbled up during the past year, when he played a lead role in negotiating the budget deal, which was widely denounced by many on the right for failing to sufficiently reduce government spending, and backed a controversial treaty banning chemical weapons.
After Lott helped guide the treaty through the Senate, conservative activist Paul M. Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, denounced Lott as a traitor. "The bottom line is, I can't have friends who sell out their country," Weyrich wrote Lott.
Lott insists that his personal commitment to conservative principles has never wavered, but his leadership position obliges him to play the role of consensus builder. "Look at my voting record -- I'd be willing to bet it hasn't changed in 25 years," he said.
Indeed, Lott has voted a consistent conservative line since 1973, when he first arrived in the House. In its annual voting score card, the American Conservative Union scored him below 90 percent only four times before 1997. Last year, however, when as leader he backed some initiatives that conservatives opposed, his score dropped to 72 percent.
Conservative Before It Was Cool
At this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, Lott delivered a fiery speech that seemed designed in part to assuage concerns that he has moderated his views. "I was conservative before it was cool," he declared.
While he borrowed that line from Texas Republican Sen. Phil Gramm (who in turn had adapted it from a country and western song), the statement was grounded in history. Lott first forged ties with many conservative leaders, including Keene, when he was an aide to former Mississippi Democratic Rep. William M. Colmer (1933-73). Lott switched parties before his first House race in 1972, saying the Democrats had become too liberal for him.
All of this has raised the question of whether Lott has truly changed, or has simply devised appropriate tactics to deal with formidable political constraints. After all, Republicans hold a 55-45 edge in a legislative body where it takes 60 votes to overcome filibusters and pass bills.
According to Steven S. Smith, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota and the author of several books on the Senate, that dynamic has forced Lott into a familiar, compromising mode. "Senate majority leaders are so highly constrained by institutional arrangements, the variations we see among them in strategy and tactics are very small," he said. "Unlike the House, an awful lot in the Senate turns on what the minority wants to do."
True enough, concede conservative activists like Keene. But Keene says Lott is obsessed with scoring legislative victories while failing to promote issues that clearly underscore the philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats. "Even Dole knew you could sometimes win politically by losing legislatively," he said. "But that's a tough sell to make to Trent Lott."
Lott insists he is interested in promoting "red meat" issues, citing an agreement he reached recently with Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., resolving a longstanding dispute that has held up legislation that would expand educational savings accounts -- a key election-year priority for Republicans. The Senate will take up the bill (S1133) when it returns from its spring recess April 20. (Weekly Report, p. 824)
But that bill, which faces the threat of a presidential veto, at least stands a chance of passing the Senate. Lott said he sees little point in pushing legislation that cannot make it that far.
"On some of these so-called red meat issues, like private property rights, which I'm for, we probably wouldn't get 50 Republicans," Lott said. "That creates a problem." He was referring to legislation (HR1534), approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee Feb. 26, that would give property owners greater clout in their dealings with local governments.
The Personal Touch
For all of the criticism directed at Lott by ideological activists, however, his position with his most important constituency outside of Mississippi -- Senate Republicans -- has probably never been more secure.
"If there was any dissension at all, you'd be hearing it from me," said Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum. "But there is none." Santorum knows something about dissent: In 1995, he led an unsuccessful coup against former Appropriations Committee Chairman Mark O. Hatfield, R-Ore. (1967-97), for failing to support the balanced-budget amendment. (1995 Almanac, p. 2-34)
In part, the lack of criticism of Lott from conservatives is because fellow Republicans understand, probably better than anyone, the political obstacles Lott faces. And there is no appetite for the sort of palace intrigue that has plagued the House, where disgruntled conservatives mounted an unsuccessful coup against Gingrich last year. (1997 Weekly Report, p. 1671)
"We just look at the House sometimes and shake our heads," said New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg.
Lott also has been very effective at the sort of member-to-member, retail politics that have traditionally been prized in the Senate. The smiling, glad-to-meet-ya demeanor of Lott, a former cheerleader at Ole Miss, provides a stark contrast with the dour, acerbic Dole.
"He can be as personally charming as Bill Clinton," said Arizona Republican John McCain. Only in today's unusual political environment would McCain feel the need to add: "Of course, I mean that in a positive way."
Lott's inclusive style of leadership also represents a departure from Dole. Gregg, who served as chief deputy whip under both men, felt the change immediately. Dole never included him in regular leadership meetings; under Lott, he is always invited.
With all of its hassles and aggravations, the job of majority leader can be frustrating. "You have members saying, don't have this vote before 4 p.m. and others saying don't have it after 3 p.m.," said former Oregon Republican Sen. Bob Packwood (1969-95). "Then if you cancel the vote altogether, the opposition jumps up and says, 'Why aren't you doing anything?' "
But Lott seems to thrive in performing such thankless tasks and has earned the admiration of members from both sides of the aisle. Connecticut Democratic Joseph I. Lieberman was explaining to a reporter how popular Lott has become with his colleagues for instituting "family friendly" working hours, when Nevada Democrat Harry Reid walked up and offered unsolicited praise for Lott. "He's the best, the best," Reid exulted. "He always tries to close out early, and when he can't, he gives us plenty of advance warning."
Lott has long believed in the power of forgiveness, largely for practical political reasons. He likes to say only the next vote matters, not the last one.
Making Peace
Lott even extended an olive branch to Weyrich, whose harsh attacks during the chemical weapons battle might have permanently fractured most friendships.
Last year, Lott was so angry at Weyrich that he cut off special permission for the conservative leader -- who has chronic back problems -- to be driven onto the Capitol grounds whenever he visited. But in February, in a sign the two men had patched things up, Lott appointed Weyrich, a lifelong train buff, to a special council that oversees Amtrak.
But Lott's well-chronicled rift with Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson apparently is beyond repair. Lott and Thompson, both highly ambitious Southerners, have been on the outs since they skirmished last year over the scope of the campaign finance probe by Thompson's Governmental Affairs Committee. Thompson won in his attempt to make the investigation bipartisan -- over Lott's vehement objections.
Recently, Lott surprised Thompson by unveiling a sweeping regulatory overhaul bill (S1728) just four days before the Government Affairs Committee was scheduled to consider Thompson's own bipartisan bill (S981). (Weekly Report, p. 658)
Nothing personal, Lott insisted, although it was clear that the well-publicized feud between the two men was still simmering. Asked his opinion of Lott's management style, Thompson responded with a clipped "I'd rather not say." Then he turned and walked away.
Partners and Adversaries
Lott's most important relationship is with Daschle, his Democratic counterpart. After nearly 22 months of working with, and sometimes against, each other, Lott and Daschle have forged a partnership of convenience. Political necessity dictates they get along, in spite of their obvious partisan and ideological differences.
Still, there have been periods when relations between the two men have been strained, particularly last fall, when the Senate was bogged down for weeks in a nasty battle over campaign finance legislation. The measure (S1663) ultimately was killed by dueling filibusters in early March. (Weekly Report, p. 467)
The campaign finance battle spawned complaints from some Democrats that Lott had negotiated in bad faith by ambushing them with supposed agreements they had never seen. But Lott dismissed those charges with a laugh. "The truth of the matter is they [Democrats] don't want campaign finance reform either," he said. "But I have to stand up there and take the flak and take the burden of stopping it."
For the most part, both men understand that the Senate's partisan split gives them limited room to maneuver. As long as Daschle can hold his 45 Democrats together -- and he has been remarkably successful at doing so -- he can stymie Lott's best-laid legislative plans.
"The Senate minority leader is one of the nicest leadership positions in Washington," Smith said. "You can veto things on a regular basis and you are guaranteed a policy-making role."
The recent struggle over the education bill, which would create tax-preferred savings accounts for private elementary and secondary school tuitions, underscored the difficulty of Lott's job.
Democrats blocked the bill to pressure Lott to schedule votes on their amendments. But Lott chipped away at Democratic unity, picking up three key votes -- Lieberman, John B. Breaux, D-La., and Robert G. Torricelli, D-N.J. -- on his final effort at breaking the Democratic filibuster.
That left Republicans with 58 votes, two short of the 60 needed to close off debate. But the momentum spurred both sides to negotiate a deal.
Lott boasted that if the struggle had continued, his side eventually would have broken the filibuster. "I had the word, eyeball-to-eyeball with witnesses, of two more Democrats who said they would back us," he said.
But it never got to that point, and Lott was careful not to read too much into the Democratic defections. The education bill was a special case, in part because the liberal Torricelli was one of its cosponsors. "When you're reduced to depending on Torricelli, you see what you're up against," Lott said.
Blessing and Curse
As majority leader, Lott receives media exposure that most other Republicans can only dream of. On the other hand, all of his remarks receive intense scrutiny from reporters, which can be a decidedly mixed blessing.
"You have to remind yourself periodically that anything you say will be analyzed, maybe even distorted," he said. "You are speaking not just for yourself, but the party and maybe even the country."
Unlike Dole, who usually expressed himself with cryptic comments or self-deprecating one-liners, Lott frequently speaks expansively on politics and the fate of legislation. He can be colorful and biting in his commentary.
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is a "nutcake," according to Lott. In arguing to cede power over education policy to the states, Lott, a 25-year veteran of Congress, said: "What do these pointy-headed people know here, anyway?"
But over the past year, Lott's penchant for sharp, off-the-cuff statements has sometimes caused him embarrassment. His admonition to the Air Force to "get real" in handling the Kelly Flinn case struck a discordant note with many conservatives, especially since Lott never served in the military.
Last spring, Lott and other GOP leaders attempted to make a stand against the president on a disaster relief bill to aid victims of floods and other natural disasters (PL 105-18). The Republicans wanted to use the bill as a vehicle for pet policy proposals opposed by Clinton.
Although Clinton pledged several times to veto the bill, Lott publicly called his veto threat a bluff. "Sometimes you threaten things you don't actually do," Lott taunted.
But the threat turned out to be no bluff, and when Clinton vetoed the measure, Lott and other Republicans were forced to drop their proposals. (1997 Weekly Report, p. 1362)
The reaction to those episodes was mild, however, compared with the brief but intense storm of outrage Lott triggered in March when, appearing on CNN's "Evans & Novak" program, he called on Independent Counsel Starr to either bring indictments or close down his investigation.
Starr "needs to wrap it up, show us what he's got, indict, convict people," Lott said. "Or if he doesn't, close it out." At the time, there was speculation that Lott was floating a trial balloon for Republicans, who were clearly rattled by prospects of trying to impeach a popular president.
But as often occurs, Lott publicly put himself well out in front of most members of his own party. "He just tends to fire out a little too quickly," said a senior Republican senator who counts himself a Lott admirer.
Under criticism from Gingrich and even junior Republican senators such as John Ashcroft of Missouri, Lott quickly moved to repair the damage and, within days, offered a strong statement of support for Starr.
When Lott reviews these incidents, he sees overreaction by the media -- a series of what seemed to him to be fairly innocuous statements that newspapers and other news outlets seized on and turned into major stories. During the "Evans & Novak" interview, Lott said, he praised Starr "for two paragraphs. But that's the part that didn't make the story."
Still, Lott is generally comfortable with his treatment by the media. "The press has been good to me. There have been two or three instances where things didn't turn out like I would like them to. But if I only make two or three missteps, that's not bad."
Of course, all of Lott's missteps combined pale in comparison with the ethical clouds hanging over Clinton and Gingrich. Lott even has a long way to go to match some of the gaffes and mangled grammar of Dole.
Lott's stumbles might cause him more heartburn if he seeks higher office. But he has displayed little interest in a presidential race, at least in the 2000 election. That makes him an exception in an institution whose members all are assumed to harbor secret and not-so-secret fantasies about becoming president.
"It's not something I really want to do," Lott said. To get elected president, "you have to want it more than just about anything on Earth," he explained. "And if you want it more than anything else on Earth, you probably should not be president. So I don't qualify."
Happy Where He Is
For now, he is content running the Senate. After he took over from Dole, he was already adept at most of the tasks of majority leader -- the daily political balancing acts, the vote-counting, the patient shmoozing with skittish colleagues.
The biggest surprise he has encountered, Lott said, is the amount of time he has had to spend on foreign policy and national security matters. Coming into the job, Lott had little background in the field aside from his tenure on the Armed Services Committee,where he largely focused on advancing the interests of home-state defense contractors.
"It did take me some time to get up to speed on foreign policy," Lott said. Shortly after taking over from Dole, Lott arranged some crash-course briefings from experts such as former secretary of State James A. Baker III. He also retained Dole's veteran foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann.
Lott still is capable of delivering undiplomatic remarks, as his harsh personal attack on IMF Director Camdessus demonstrated. But, according to his colleagues, he is an emerging internationalist.
After helping shepherd the chemical weapons treaty through the Senate last year and winning points for statesmanship, Lott is poised to play a pivotal role in gaining Senate approval for expanding NATO. At the end of April, the Senate will take up the resolution admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the alliance. The resolution requires support from two-thirds of the Senate, but passage appears to be assured. (Weekly Report, p. 764)
While that is likely to go down as a victory for Clinton, Lott's prominent support should help burnish his foreign policy credentials.
Beyond that, however, this year is not likely to feature any major legislative accomplishments, unless Congress enacts a tobacco bill. Prospects for that legislation (S1415) dimmed April 8 when four major tobacco companies announced they would fight it. (Story, p. 939)
Because his brother-in-law, attorney Richard Scruggs, helped put together the tobacco settlement, Lott has recused himself from voting on the issue. (Story, p. 932)
Lott's own legislative wish list is fairly modest: "Hold the line on the budget -- it would be very nice to actually get a surplus," he said. "We want to reform the IRS and do further tax cuts by eliminating the marriage penalty."
But enacting any significant legislation will be a big test of skill at a time when Capitol Hill has been buffeted by unfamiliar political cross-currents.
Clinton's uncanny ability to maintain strong popular support in spite of the sex scandal swirling around him has thrown Republicans on the defensive. At the same time, House Republicans have steered a confrontational course with the White House, particularly on the IMF and other spending matters, while Stevens and many Senate Republicans have sought accommodation.
Lott's unabashed support for spending on transportation and other infrastructure projects -- particularly funding for projects back home in Mississippi -- puts him at odds with GOP budget hawks. "Infrastructure is one of the important things we do as a government," he said.
For his part, Daschle predicted that Democrats will become more aggressive in pursuing their agenda, which includes legislation to give patients more power in dealing with health insurance companies (S1890) and a proposal to raise the minimum wage. (Health insurance, Weekly Report, p. 893; minimum wage, p. 733)
Daschle suggested that if Democrats are denied votes on their proposals, they will bring the Senate to a halt, as they have in the past. "There will come a time when UC's [the unanimous consent agreements necessary to move virtually all Senate business forward] are going to become more difficult," Daschle warned.
And the fall elections are looming, which should make it even more difficult to gain legislative traction. Last year, Lott harbored hopes that Republicans would pick up the five seats needed to obtain a 60-vote supermajority. That would give Republicans the whip hand in moving legislation.
But with this year's election shaping up as one that largely affirms the status quo, Lott has become more pessimistic. "It depends on what happens," he said. "But to get to 60 the bottom would have to drop out for Democrats."
© 1998 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
Analysis
Click here