TRENT LOTT ISN’T THRILLED that Jesse Helms has decided, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to prevent former Massachusetts governor William Weld from becoming ambassador to Mexico. It’s easy to see why this fight displeases the Senate majority leader: It has crowded out publicity about the balanced-budget deal, it’s highlighted schisms in the GOP,, and it’s forced Lott to mediate a Senate Republican scrum that may dominate the news when Congress reconvenes after Labor Day. When reporters peppered Lott with questions on the subject on July 31, his discomfort showed: “Does anybody have anything other than Governor Weld?” Someone asked about judicial activism, and Lott could hardly contain his glee. “A different question! All right?” he beamed. “Hey, thank you very much. Let’s have a real question here.”
But the real question is, in fact, what Lott intends to do about the Weld nomination. He’s under pressure to break the impasse, most recently from Indiana Republican Richard Lugar, who, as chairman of the Agriculture Committee, has threatened to make trouble for Helms’s North Carolina tobacco interests unless Helms allows Weld a hearing before Helms’s committee. At least nine Senate Republicans have declared that Weld deserves a hearing. They include moderates sympathetic to Weld’s social liberalism — Olympia Snowe, John Chafee, Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter — but also conservatives like Rick Santorum and Judd Gregg. Two more — Lugar and Gordon Smith — are members of the Foreign Relations Committee. They could join with the committee’s eight Democrats to force a committee meeting. And while they can’t force a vote on Weld — only the chairman can do that — they can stir up trouble and draw attention to the obstinacy of Lott and Helms.
Complicating matters for Lott is that Helms has done little to mobilize opposition to Weld. A number of Republicans have approached the chairman asking whether he’d like their help, and he’s politely turned them aside, telling them to do what they think is right. When conservative operatives David Keene and Marc Rotterman approached Helms about running newspaper ads and lobbying against Weld, Helms didn’t object, but he didn’t encourage them much either.
This gentlemanly restraint hasn’t been well received: “Helms doesn’t seem to have a game plan or a strategy,” complains a top Senate staffer sympathetic to the senator. Helms’s inaction has led some senators to conclude he’s using Weld as leverage to strike a deal with the administration, though on what remains a mystery. Helms counters that the only deal he’ll make is for Weld to go to some diplomatic post other than Mexico.
Yet where Senate Republicans will end up remains unclear. John Ashcroft, for example, is a friend of Weld’s — they were governors together — and initially said encouraging things about his nomination. Since Ashcroft is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, this mattered. More recently, he’s retreated from those statements, but without endorsing the Helms position even though Helms touts him as a presidential contender and campaigned for him as far back as 1974. Most other Senate Republicans have kept quiet on the matter, wanting some indication of how the affair will play out before getting too involved.
The person who will likely be left to straighten things out is Lott. His statements so far would indicate he’s sticking with Helms. At the July 31 session with reporters, he said Weld’s best option would be to “accept consideration for another position or look for work.” A few days earlier on Meet the Press, Lott said Weld had “shot his foot off” by holding a press conference and blasting Helms. Lott’s office also called the White House to ensure the president wouldn’t try to sneak Weld through as a recess appointment this month. These actions have convinced Helms that Lott’s opposition is genuine. “He volunteered on this one,” Helms says. “He didn’t like the way it smelled.”
But others remain unconvinced. Lott has allowed himself a bit of wiggle room, and Senate Republican aides doubt he is willing to expend much political capital in support of Helms. Asked on July 31 whether he opposed the nomination, Lott responded, “I haven’t said that.” Senate Democrats know that Lott’s Achilles’ heel as majority leader is his desire to keep legislative business running smoothly. Should they threaten to block the Senate floor until a vote is held on Weld, it would be in character for Lott to defuse tensions by trying to strike a deal.
“Would I put any money on Trent staying where he is?” asks a Senate leadership aide close to Lott. “None. If there’s any political price involved with his standing by Jesse, he’s gone.”
Distrust of Lott stems from his performance during the testy debate over a chemical-weapons treaty earlier this year. Helms opposed the treaty from the outset and pledged he wouldn’t let it out of the Foreign Relations Committee. When Senate Democrats said they would tie up Senate business as long as Helms blocked a vote on the treaty, one of Lott’s foreign-policy aides explored with the Senate parliamentarian how the treaty could be discharged from the committee without Helms’s consent. Lott quickly assured Helms he had no intention of taking this course, but Helms eventually allowed the treaty to proceed on Lott’s promise to have two key provisions altered. They weren’t, but Lott claimed they were, citing a letter from Clinton containing bogus assurances. And Lott’s endorsement of the treaty ultimately ensured its ratification.
After alienating many conservatives with that performance, Lott has little leeway in the Weld fight. Any moves he makes to prod Helms to hold a committee vote will be interpreted as another signal conservatives can’t trust the majority leader. “Were Lott to yet again go down the road of compromise, it will reinforce the perception that he forgot those who helped him become majority leader,” says Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy.
Conversely, standing with Helms against Weld would be a relatively painless way for Lott to repair his fractured relations with conservatives, many of whom plan to turn the battle over Weld into a major campaign. Keene and Rotterman mean to run full-page ads in the Washington Post and the Washington Times in support of Helms. “We intend to make certain conservatives don’t forget any senators who come out for Weld,” says Keene.
What would suit Lott best is for the Helms/Weld fight to resolve itself without his involvement. That’s unlikely, though not impossible. Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, has yet to express much enthusiasm about the nomination. Appearing on CNN’s Evans & Novak, he said Weld “deserves the nomination” but that he “is just one of 154 [nominees] and I think it’s critical that we get these nominations passed.” Nor has the White House indicated a desire to spend much capital on Weld. Asked about Weld at an August 6 press conference, Clinton praised Helms, saying “I have had a good and surprisingly constructive relationship overall with Senator Helms, and it has flowed from our being completely straightforward with one another and acting in a candid and open manner.”
Should Clinton decide to really fight for Weld, there is a way to get around Helms. A majority of senators could vote to discharge Weld’s nomination from the Foreign Relations Committee and bring it straight to the floor. But only the majority leader — Lott — is empowered to call for a vote of the full Senate. Having explored the discharge option during the chemicalweapons debate, will Lott try it again? “I think he’ll hang in there” in opposition, says Helms. Maybe, but don’t bet the farm on it.
Matthew Rees is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
