Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now withdraw amendment No. 1648.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT. Both FEC language amendments. What is pending is McCain-Feingold, as amended by Snowe. We would have a vote on that, as amended.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send the second amendment to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you for making that inquiry. Let me explain it to the Members. What we have done here is to accept the Snowe amendment as was offered and debated this afternoon to the McCain amendment. Her amendment was a second-degree amendment to the McCain-Feingold amendment. That was accepted. We now propose to go to a vote on the McCain-Feingold amendment, as amended. It would be a motion to table.

Mr. LOTT. I now ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to send an amendment to the desk to the pending McCain amendment.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the question with respect to the Snowe amendment.

Mr. LOTT. I ask that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent it be in order now for me to send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LOTT. I now ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 225, which is S. Res. 96.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the Senator from Illinois for the statement which she just gave. I couldn't help but smile throughout the entire remarks. Harry Caray was truly a person of passion and devotion, a baseball idol of the whole country, not only in just St. Louis but Illinois. When I was growing up as a kid going to college at the University of Mississippi, he was the voice of the St. Louis Cardinals. We didn't have any other southern teams. We grew up listening to him and loved him the way he called the game. And he truly is a national treasure. He will really be missed. He made the game something really special. So I thank the Senator from Illinois for calling to the attention of this body the contribution that he made. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. We had a number of Senators who requested time to speak on several important issues, including, hopefully, some comment about the Iraq situation. As under the previous agreement, at 11:30 the Senate will debate the veto message to accompany H.R. 2631, the military construction appropriations bill. Members are reminded that while there is a 2-hour limitation on that veto message, the vote will occur later in the day in order to accommodate those Members attending the funeral of former Senator Ribicoff, and, I believe, there is at least one other Senator attending another funeral. We always try to honor requests from Senators to accommodate the votes, the demands of their schedule, especially when it involves a personal matter, like a funeral of a loved one. Senators will be notified when a vote is scheduled. We hope to have the two votes stacked at around 6 o'clock. We are working on that. We are trying to clear it with all of the interested Senators. Following the debate on the veto message, we will resume debate on S. 1663, the pending campaign finance reform legislation. Therefore, a vote on that, also, is likely this afternoon on the pending Snowe amendment. We hope that would be the second vote that will occur this afternoon. I remind my colleagues that three cloture motions were filed during yesterday's session of the Senate, so there is a potential for three back-to-back votes to occur on Thursday morning. Again, I will notify all Senators as to the timing of those votes, following consultation with the minority leader. I might note that we are having meetings at this time in my office down the hall to see if we can come to some agreement as to how we can proceed to the very important ISTEA, transportation bill. We have a bipartisan group meeting, and we are anxious to get that legislation ready for consideration because it will take some time. There are some 200 amendments that have been suggested on this bill. I am sure 20 or more of them will have to be debated and voted on. We will need the time that it would take to get that legislation complete so it will be ready for conference when the House does act. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Daschle.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 183, submitted earlier today by Senators Kennedy and Kerry.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Tomorrow morning there will be 1 hour of morning business, then, to be followed by two consecutive cloture votes. The first cloture vote will begin at approximately 11 a.m. and will be on the McCain-Feingold amendment, to be followed by a cloture vote on the underlying bill, S. 1663. All Senators should be prepared for these two consecutive cloture votes at approximately 11 a.m.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it now appears that U.S. military action against Iraq will not be undertaken in the near future. All Americans, and I'm sure people all around the world, are pleased when military force can be avoided, when our men and women in uniform are not put in harm's way, and when innocent civilian lives are not put at risk. But we must be clear: We cannot afford peace at any price--peace that could lead to a much more difficult conflict later on down the road. It is always possible to get a deal if you give enough away. The central issue with regard to Iraq is whether an agreement furthers American interests. The deal negotiated by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan with Iraq does not adequately address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. After years of denying that Saddam Hussein had any right to determine the scope of inspections or the makeup of inspection teams, this agreement codifies his ability to do both. It is, to quote one diplomat, ``the beginning of the unraveling of the inspection process.'' This accord sets up a new inspection regime under the control of the Secretary General of the so-called ``eight palace residences.'' He appoints ``senior diplomats'' to the group. He names the head of the group. And it is not clear to me, although others I am sure are getting clarification on this, who that person would be. Would it be one of the UNSCOM inspectors? Would it be some diplomat? The group will have its own rules. And we don't know exactly what they are because they have not yet been developed. I know questions are being asked about this by Ambassador Richardson. I know he is trying to get clarifications. I also know that he is concerned about what he is learning. The Secretary General is calling the shots. The United States is not. Secretary Albright earlier this week objected to my characterization of this episode as ``contracting out U.S. foreign policy.'' With all due respect, I stand by that comment, because it appears that in fact is what has happened. Because of the central role of the U.N. Secretary General, it is important to understand his approach and his conclusions. Before and after his mission to Baghdad, Secretary General Annan stopped in Paris. He briefed the French government before he met personally, as I understand it, with any senior U.S. official. I find if of great concern that the French are, frankly, accorded a privilege denied to the United States. The Secretary General has now briefed the Security Council and the press on his trip. Let's look at what he has said. ``Saddam can be trusted.'' ``I think I can do business with him.'' ``I think he was serious.'' These are all direct quotes. The Secretary General told reporters he spent the weekend building a ``human relationship'' with Saddam Hussein. The Secretary General thinks that he can trust the man who has invaded his neighbors, who has used chemical weapons ten times, and who tried to assassinate former President George Bush. This is folly. I cannot understand why the Clinton Administration would place trust in someone devoted to building a ``human relationship'' with a mass murdered. According to the Washington Post, Secretary General Annan described UNSCOM inspectors ``as `cowboys' who had thrown their weight around and behaved irresponsibly.'' He also ``passed along without comment on Iraqi complaint--denied by [UNSCOM] as a paranoid delusion--that some of the most aggressive U.N. inspectors were seeking to hunt down Iraqi President Saddam Hussein so he could be assassinated . . .'' The Secretary General of the U.N. starts describing the inspectors as ``cowboys,'' when, as a matter of fact, I had the impression, and it was universally agreed, that they had been very professional. These are people with expertise on biological and chemical weapons. These are people that have come from the international atomic agencies. They know what they are doing. Mr. Butler, the Brit, was in charge of the inspectors, has been very diligent, and very circumspect. As a matter of fact, I understand that one of the most aggressive and most effective inspectors is a Russian. Why in the world would the Secretary General use this kind of wording? Why would he come up with, or even pass along, this ridiculous suggestion that they were being used to hunt down Saddam Hussein? These comments are outrageous. They reflect someone bent on appeasement--not someone determined to make the United Nations inspection regime work effectively. The Secretary General has greatly harmed the credibility of the United Nations by cutting what appears to be a special deal with the most flagrant violator of United Nations resolutions, probably in history. Instead of standing on principle, he sat with the unprincipled--and gave him what he wanted. The United States has not yet formally announced its support for the deal negotiated by Secretary General Annan. It is not too late to reject a deal if it leaves Saddam Hussein rejoicing and leaves UNSCOM out in the cold. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I now send a final amendment to the desk to my amendment. I believe the desk has that amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the pending Snowe amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.