Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, it would be the intention, I believe, of the managers of this legislation, to proceed, then, to continue to work on some other amendments that would be voted on in the morning. But, for now, these would be the two votes stacked at 7:45, and they would be the last recorded votes tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I further ask all time between now and 7:45 p.m. be equally divided between the two amendments in the usual form, with Senator Allard's amendment being offered first.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for making that statement at this time. I intend to do the same thing as we go forward. When we have amendments that change the basic content of the budget agreement, as this one does, which would provide for changes in the tax provisions, to have tax increases in the code, and move that over into funding programs at a level above what was included in the budget agreement, we think that would be outside the agreement. And, while there are a number of Senators led by the Democratic leader who see an attractiveness in it, I think this is the right thing to do. We were trying to be cooperative by not going through the waiver of a point of order. But we will have the vote on the motion to table. It would be my intent to take the same position when amendments are offered of this nature from our side of the aisle. I think it is important that the two leaders on both sides make it clear that we are going to try to stick with this agreement as we go forward in the next 2 days. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to propound ask a unanimous- consent agreement now which would say we would not have any more recorded votes until 7:45, but we would have two at 7:45. So I ask unanimous consent the next two amendments in order to Senate Concurrent Resolution 27 be an amendment to be offered by Senator Allard and an amendment to by offered by Senator Hollings, that no amendments be in order to either amendment, and at 7:45 this evening, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Allard amendment, to be followed by 2 minutes for debate, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Hollings amendment.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business to accommodate a number of Senators who have asked for time to speak. The Budget Committee is scheduled to mark up the budget resolution beginning this afternoon at 4 p.m., and it is my hope that we may count any debate time today that we will use relating to the budget toward the statutory time limitation. Tomorrow, the Senate will begin consideration of the concurrent budget resolution, and Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout the day. It is also possible that the Senate may resume consideration of H.R. 1122, the partial-birth abortion ban bill, with the intention of a vote on final passage occurring early this week. We had actually hoped that we could get a vote on that perhaps right after the luncheon on Tuesday. But there are some discussions underway, and we may not be able to get to that that soon. As always, all Members will be notified as soon as any votes are scheduled on these or other matters. Also, as a reminder to Members, this is the last week prior to the Memorial Day recess and, therefore, Senators can expect a very busy week with us more than likely having to go into the evening on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. And we should expect votes on Friday. At least on Tuesday, I don't know that there will be recorded votes, but certainly on Wednesday and Thursday in order to finish the budget resolution, complete action on the partial-birth abortion ban, and also get to another vote on the comptime-flextime Family Friendly Workplace Act. We will have to have some votes on that probably on Thursday. Then we would probably need to do the budget resolution by Friday, or probably on Friday, as well as the supplemental appropriations on Friday, if we haven't been able to get an agreement to do it before then. Also this week we will have to pass the Chemical Weapons Convention implementation bill. I think the problems are being worked out there. It shouldn't take too much time, although a block of time will be necessary to explain what is included in that implementation bill. So, Mr. President, I just want to reconfirm that we do still this week intend to do the budget resolution, finish the debate and final vote on the partial-birth abortion ban, have votes on the comptime- flextime bill with the hope that we could reach some agreement to actually get the legislation completed, and then vote on the budget resolution conference and the supplemental conference. We will keep the Members advised of any changes in the schedule. By the way, we do expect this week to take up perhaps some action on the Executive Calendar, at least the judicial nominations, probably Wednesday or Thursday. And we will have to have recorded votes on those three nominations, if we actually do take them up. So we would try to schedule that either Wednesday or Thursday.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just to confirm, again, this is the last vote for tonight. The next recorded vote will not occur before 5 o'clock on Monday. However, we are now working with the leadership on both sides of the Capitol and the Budget Committees, with the idea of having the Budget Committees markup the budget resolution, and we hope to get to the budget resolution early next week. We will continue to work to get the budget resolution out of the committee either tomorrow or Monday, and we will bring it to the floor as soon as we can get it completed and get an agreement as to how that will proceed, knowing what the rules require, but, also, wanting to work in good faith in a bipartisan way, which we think we are going to be able to do. For the information of all Senators, as I said, there will be no further votes this evening. The Senate will next consider S. 476, relative to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, for debate only, and a rollcall has not been requested on passage. There will not be a rollcall on that passage. We are going to take that up tomorrow, and we will be able to pass it without rollcall vote. The Senate will be in session tomorrow for morning business to accommodate Senators' requests, although there will be no votes tomorrow. Again, I think we have reached a final agreement on the package that will go to the Budget Committee.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:15 a.m. on Thursday the Senate resume consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, and the time between then and 10 a.m. be equally divided between the two managers, or their designees; and, further, at 10 a.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the pending committee amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following that vote there be a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. with Senator Thomas in control of the first 20 minutes; and, Senator Daschle, or his designee, under the control of the next 20 minutes. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended and Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution of ratification was agreed to and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if I could say for the Senators that will be coming over, this will be the last vote for the night so we can attend a very important dinner we have scheduled momentarily.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, could I inquire how much time is remaining for debate?

Mr. LOTT. Then I will yield myself time off my leader's time.

Mr. LOTT. No. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I am glad I was able to come to the floor, Madam President, and listen to this exchange. I always enjoy learning from the exchanges involving the senior Senators, like the Senators from West Virginia and North Carolina and Delaware. I wish all Members had been here for the last hour and heard this debate. I do want to take just a few minutes, as we get to the close of debate, to speak on the Chemical Forces in Europe flank agreement or resolution of ratification because I think it is very important. I wish we did have more time to talk about all of its ramifications, but I know the chairman and the ranking member have gone over the importance of this treaty earlier today. Madam President, we have an important treaty before us today modifying the 1990 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Agreement [CFE]. The Flank Document adjusts the CFE boundaries to reflect the collapse of the Soviet Empire, adds reporting requirements, and increases inspection provisions. Negotiations to modify the CFE Treaty began in 1995, because Russia threatened to violate the flank limits in the original treaty. The precedent of modifying a treaty to accommodate violations by a major signatory concerned many of us. We have also been concerned about how Russia intends to use the Flank Agreement to pressure countries on its borders--former Republics of the Soviet Union. Our concerns were dramatically heightened by the classified side agreement the administration reached to further accommodate Russian demands. This side agreement is available for all Senators to review in room S-407 of the Capitol. The concerns about the CFE Flank Agreement are shared by a number of states which have been subjected to Russian intimidation, pressure and subversion. States with Russian troops on their soil without their consent--Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia--have rightly expressed concern that the Flank Agreement must not undermine their sovereign right to demand withdrawal of those Russian forces. A fourth country, Azerbaijan, has been subject to Russian-sponsored coups and assassination attempts. They have been reluctant to approve the Flank Agreement without adequate assurances. The resolution of ratification before the Senate today addresses these concerns. The resolution includes a number of binding conditions which make clear to all CFE parties that no additional rights for Russian military deployments outside Russian borders are granted. The resolution ensures that United States diplomacy will not be engaged on the side of Russia but on the side of the victims of Russian policies. In addition, the 16 members of NATO issued a statement last week affirming that no additional rights are granted to Russia by the Flank Agreement. This statement was a direct result of the concerns expressed by other CFE parties and by the Senate. The resolution directly addresses the administration's side agreement in condition 3 which limits United States diplomatic activities to ensuring the rights of the smaller countries on Russia's borders. This resolution ensures the United States will not tacitly support Russian policies that have undermined the independence of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan. Finally, the resolution requires detailed compliance reports and lays out a road map for dealing with noncompliance in the future. The resolution of ratification also addresses important issues of Senate prerogatives. It clarifies that the Byrd-Biden condition, added to the INF Treaty in 1988, does not allow the administration to avoid Senate advice and consent on treaty modifications or amendments. The resolution addresses the issue of multilateralizing the 1972 ABM Treaty in condition 9. The administration has raised objections to this provision as they have to many previous efforts to assert Senate prerogatives on this point. This should be an institutional position-- not a partisan issue. For more than 3 years, Congress has been on the record expressing serious misgivings about the administration plan to alter the ABM Treaty by adding new signatories. Section 232 of the 1994 defense authorization bill states the issue clearly: ``The United States shall not be bound by any international agreement entered into by the President that would substantively modify the ABM Treaty unless the agreement is entered pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution.'' Efforts to address the multi- lateralization issue since then have resulted in filibusters and veto threats. It should not surprise anyone that the Senate selected this resolution of ratification to address the issue--just as Senators Byrd and Biden selected the resolution of ratification for the INF Treaty to address an ABM Treaty issue 9 years ago. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the issue of ABM multi- lateralization. Despite the often arcane legal arguments, the issue is not complicated. The Senate gave its advice and consent to the 1972 ABM Treaty as a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. The administration has proposed adding as many as four new signatories to the treaty and has negotiated limited treaty rights for those new signatories. The administration's proposal would define Russia's national territory to include these countries for purposes of the ABM Treaty. The administration's proposal would essentially define military equipment of these countries as belonging to Russia for purposes of the ABM Treaty. The administration's proposal would add new countries to the ABM Treaty but not grant them rights allowed the original signatories. This would mean that countries would have the power to block future U.S. amendments to the ABM Treaty--even though the new signatories would not have the same rights and obligations as the United States. The administration's proposed multilateralization would only address some of the military equipment covered under the original ABM Treaty--leaving a radar in Latvia, for example, outside the scope of the new treaty. Under the administration's proposal, the vast majority of states independent which succeeded the Soviet Union would be free to develop and deploy unlimited missile defenses--a dramatic change from the situation in 1972 when the deployment of missile defenses on these territories was strictly limited by the ABM Treaty. In part and in total, these are clearly substantive modifications which require--under U.S. law--Senate advice and consent. Multilateralization would alter the object and purpose of the ABM Treaty as approved by the Senate in 1972. Multilateralization, therefore, must be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The administration argues that it has the sole power to determine questions of succession. But that is not true. The Congressional Research Service opinion, quoted widely in this debate, recognizes that ``International law regarding successor States and their treaty obligations * * * remains unsettled.'' It also notes that ``international law does not provide certain guidance on the question of whether the republics formed on the territory of the former U.S.S.R. have succeeded to the rights and obligations of the ABM Treaty'' and that ``a multi- lateralization agreement could include matters that would alter the substance of the ABM Treaty and require Senate advice and consent.'' It is my understanding that this opinion was prepared a year ago by a lawyer who has not even seen the text of the proposed agreement. The administration's position does not recognize the arms control precedents followed in the last decade. Arms control treaties are different from treaties on fisheries, taxes, or cultural affairs. START I was concluded with the Soviet Union but entered into force only after the Senate gave its advice and consent to the Lisbon Protocol apportioning the nuclear forces of the former Soviet Union among successor States. The Bush administration did not argue that Ukrainian SS-19 missiles were the property of Russia. Yet, the Clinton administration is essentially arguing that Ukrainian phased-array radars are Russian under the proposed ABM multilateralization agreement. The question of successor state obligations under the CFE Treaty was explicitly recognized by the Senate when we gave our advice and consent to that treaty. During our consideration, a condition was included in the resolution of ratification which specified procedures for the accession of new States Parties to the CFE Treaty. On the issue of ABM multilateralization, Congress has specifically legislated on our right to review the agreement. To my knowledge, that has not happened on any other succession issue. Clearly, ABM multilateralization is very different from routine succession questions which have been decided by the executive branch alone. Madam President, I agree with the administration on one important point. This is a constitutional issue. The White House has taken one position until today, and now the Senate has definitively taken another. Last January, I asked President Clinton to agree to submit three treaties for our consideration. the President has agreed to submit the ABM Demarcation agreement and the CFE Flank Agreement, which is before the Senate today. After he refused to submit ABM multilateralization, I said publicly that I would continue to press for the Senate prerogatives--because the Constitution, the precedents and the law are on our side. We do not prejudge the outcome of our consideration of ABM multilateralization. All we require is that the administration submit the agreement to the Senate. Yes, that requires building a consensus that may not exist today but such a consensus is necessary for a truly bipartisan national security policy. That is the issue before the Senate today. Late last week, the administration recognized the Senate's desire to review ABM multilateralization. They proposed replacing the certification in condition 9 with nonbinding ``sense of the Senate'' language. In exchange, Secretary Albright offered to send a letter assuring us that we could address multilateralization in an indirect way--as part of a reference in the ABM demarcation agreement. But this offer was logically inconsistent. It asked the Senate to simply express our view about a right to provide advice and consent to multilateralization--and then accept a letter that explicitly denied that right. Adding new parties to the ABM Treaty is a fundamentally different issue from the proposed demarcation limits on theater defense systems. The administration's offer would allow multilateralization regardless of Senate action on the demarcation agreement. Our position is simple: We want to review multilateralization through the ``front door'' on its own merits--not through the ``back door'' as a reference in a substantively different agreement. When the administration agreed to submit the CFE Flank Agreement for our advice and consent, we were asked to act by the entry into force deadline of May 15. We will act today even though the treaty was not submitted to the Senate until April 7--3 months after my request. We will act today even though we have a very full agenda--including comp time/flex time, IDEA, partial birth abortion and the budget resolution. We will fulfill our constitutional duty, we will address our concerns about policy toward Russia, and we will address the important issue of Senate prerogatives. I urge my colleagues to support the entire resolution of ratification reported by the Foreign Relations Committee--including condition 9 on ABM multilateralization. Madam President, I want to thank many Senators who have worked very hard and for quite some time on this treaty and on the ABM condition. I particularly would like to thank Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, Senator Gordon Smith, and their staffs for all the work they did to get this resolution before the Senate today. Also, I would like to thank Senators who helped in insisting on Senate prerogatives--Senator Warner and Senator McCain, Senator Smith, Senator Kyl, Senator Shelby, Senator Lugar, and Senator Hagel. A number of Senators on the committee and some not on the committee have been very much involved in this process. I commend them all. Senators have had concerns about how and why this agreement was negotiated, and we had concerns about a side deal the administration made with the Russians concerning the allocation of equipment under the treaty. The Senate has addressed these concerns decisively in this resolution of ratification. The resolution places strict limits on the administration's flank policy. It ensures that we will be on the side of the victims of Russian intimidation and that the United States will stand up for the independence of States on Russia's borders. Most important, this resolution addresses a critical issue of Senate prerogative, our right to review the proposed modifications to the 1972 ABM Treaty. It was a decade ago that another ABM Treaty issue was brought in this body. That debate over interpretations of the ABM Treaty was finally resolved in the resolution of ratification for the INF Treaty in 1988. Today, we are resolving the debate over multilateralization of the ABM Treaty in this resolution of ratification. For more than 3 years now Congress and the executive branch have discussed back and forth the appropriate Senate rule in reviewing the administration's plan to add new countries to the ABM Treaty. Condition 9 requires the President to submit any multilateralization agreement to the Senate for our advice and consent. It does not force action here. It just says we should have that opportunity. We should be able to exercise that prerogative to review these changes. It ensures we will have a full opportunity to look at the merits of multilateralization in the future. I believe the Constitution and legal precedence are in our favor. Today, the Senate will act on the Conventional Forces in the Europe [CFE] Flank Agreement in time to meet the May 15 deadline. In spite of the limited time we had to consider the agreement and the very full schedule that we have had on the floor, we are meeting that deadline. I did have the opportunity to discuss this issue with our very distinguished Secretary of State yesterday, and we discussed the importance of this CFE Flank Agreement. Also, we talked about how we could properly and appropriately address our concerns about multilaterilization. I suspect that she probably had something to do with the decision to go forward with it in this form, and I thank her for that, and the members of the committee for allowing it to go forward in this form.

Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for those comments. I did write to the President expressing my concerns in this area in January of this year, and other issues. When I had the opportunity to visit with Secretary Madeleine Albright before she was confirmed by the Senate, I had the temerity to read to her from the Constitution about our rights in the Senate in advice and consent, and she said, ``You know, I agree with you. I taught that at Georgetown University,'' and I believe she meant that. I think we are seeing some results of that, and I appreciate the fact that our prerogatives are being protected. We have had this opportunity to review it, debate it, and we will be able to take up other issues later on this year that are very important for Senate consideration. I think the process has worked. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of ratification. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I remind Senators still in the Chamber, that was the last vote for the day, and that we do have a dinner that we all need to adjourn to. We will resume consideration in the morning. I believe there will be a cloture vote at 10 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are now going to vote on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as IDEA, has been on the books for 22 years. The obligation to provide children with disabilities a free and appropriate education is grounded in the 14th amendment to the Constitution, title V of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and by the laws of every State. IDEA is one additional civil rights tool that guarantees children with disabilities the right to receive a quality education. IDEA is the only Federal civil rights statute that provides funds to assist States in meeting the obligation to educate all children. This bill is about the educational future of 5.4 million children. From my perspective, IDEA is a voluntary grant-in-aid program. It provides funds to States to assist them in making available a free appropriate public education to 5.4 million children with disabilities from 3 through 21. If a State elects to take its allotment of funds appropriated for IDEA in any year, it must provide a free appropriate public education to these children as prescribed by the law. Today, every State is participating in the IDEA grant-in-aid program, and 49 States have elected to participate in and comply with IDEA since 1975. The history of these IDEA amendments precedes the 105th Congress. In the last Congress our colleagues on the Labor and Human Resources Committee attempted to move a bipartisan reauthorization of IDEA through the Senate. Their bill, S. 1578, did not make it to the floor before that Congress ended. Those of us involved in the last minutes of the 104th Congress, especially the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Dr. Frist, and Mr. Harkin from Iowa, the authors of S. 1578, Senator Jeffords and myself, pledged to make the reauthorization of IDEA one of our top legislative priorities in this Congress. We are here again with a bipartisan approach. And, actions speak louder than words. Since January of this year, Senate and House staff, as well as representatives from the administration have been meeting daily to craft our bipartisan bill and to bring this legislation to the floor as quickly as possible. Those involved in crafting this legislation included not only Senators and Labor and Human Resources Committee staff, but also our House counterparts, especially Chairman Goodling, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Gray, and Mr. Martinez. Officials from the U.S. Department of Education, particularly Judith Heumann, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and White House representative, Lucia Wyman, also participated in the process. The range of expertise and knowledge brought to bear in developing this bill as well as the spirit of bipartisan, bicameral cooperation demonstrated in writing it is unprecedented. I have seen nothing like this in my 24 years in Congress. In fact, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, unanimously reported out identical legislation, S. 717 and H.R. 5 respectfully, on the same day, May 7, 1997. Moreover, the committees collaborated with each other in developing their respective reports. The frequency, scope, and type of input we sought and received in putting together this final product was extraordinary. Almost every week for 3 months we held public meetings using a town hall format. This permitted those interested in our progress in drafting the IDEA bill to offer feedback and input. Students, educators, advocates, and parents traveled from all over the country to provide comments on our proposals. Often, more than 100 people would speak at an individual meeting. No effort was made to limit the amount of people that testified or limit the time they could speak. Many told personal stories that were oftentimes both heart warming and heart wrenching. Their recommendations came from the real education front lines. Our inclusive process, although unorthodox, has paid off. As of today, we have heard from over 30 groups that support our moving this legislation without amendment. They view our 5-month effort as worthy of their unequivocal support. Many of you in this Chamber and your constituents, who are involved in this issue, appreciate the delicate balance this bill represents. It is built on principles, it is built on consensus, and it is built on compromise. I acknowledge that States need additional Federal funding to fully implement IDEA the way it is intended. We have said in S. 1, the Safe and Affordable Schools Act of 1997, that we will increase funding, from the current $3.2 billion to $13.2 billion in 7 years. More Federal dollars for IDEA is an appropriations issue that we will turn to after we pass this important legislation. I am confident that dollars spent today for the education of children with disabilities is money well spent. When all children are provided a quality education, they stand a better chance of becoming productive and contributing adults in our society. IDEA is an important investment in the future of children with disabilities. Another benefit that IDEA provides is that it offers everyone one set of rules on how to go about providing an education to children with disabilities. Prior to 1975, 35 States, through Federal courts, State courts, and State legislatures, were grappling with how to define the provision of an education to children with disabilities. Individual States and the country as a whole did not need, did not want 35 interpretations of what constituted an education for children with disabilities. Everyone wanted one rule book. That is why IDEA originally passed. That is why today, with States educating 5.4 million children with disabilities, less than one-half of 1 percent of disagreements between parents and school districts, over a disabled child's education, end up in court. Do we want to step backward? Do we want to reset the clock and create a legal free-for-all? I don't believe we do. I would like to make another observation. I, as much as anyone else in this Chamber, want Federal IDEA dollars to be spent on educating children with disabilities, not on attorneys' fees. I am convinced that this bill makes that happen. Could we have put more limitations on when attorneys could be used or when parents, who prevail against a school district in a legal dispute, could be reimbursed? You bet. Could we have gotten here today having done so? No. Most of the limitations on attorneys' fees were put in the statute by our colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch in 1986. They are in this bill. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 is, in my view, an important legislative accomplishment. The process we implemented to develop this legislation provides us with a new standard for how we can work together. This bill sends a message to the country that we care about education, that we care about children, that we care about families, and that we care about the future. This is a powerful and positive message. Please join me and the rest of my colleagues who have worked long and hard to get here, in supporting this bill. The President is waiting. He is ready to sign the IDEA.