Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, today, until 3:30 p.m., the Senate will be in a period of morning business to accommodate a number of Senators who have requested time to speak. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 543, the Volunteer Protection Act. As announced last week, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. However, under the previous agreed to order, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 543 at 2:15 tomorrow. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will continue debate on the motion to proceed for 1 hour, followed by a vote on the motion. Therefore, additional votes may occur during tomorrow's session of the Senate. In fact, I expect that there will be. Hopefully, the Senate will be able to finish action on the Volunteer Protection Act early this week so we can begin consideration at some point--and it is not clear now whether it would be Wednesday or Thursday; and it will partially depend at least on what happens in the House on the supplemental appropriations bill--but, again, all Senators will be notified of changes in the schedule. And I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could be heard just briefly on the legislation itself. You will note that in my opening statement here, the debate is on the motion to proceed. I want the American people to hear that. We basically have the threat of a filibuster from the Democrats on even taking up for consideration the substance of the bill, S. 543. What is this bill? This bill is the Volunteer Protection Act. I think it is quite a coincidence, highly ironic actually, that there is this meeting now in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, to encourage voluntarism in America--a worthy goal. And I have been impressed by the participants and by what they have had to say. We need to encourage Americans to volunteer, to be more philanthropic, to contribute what they can, not only of their money but of their time--a worthy goal of America. And while America leads all the rest of the world already in that effort, we can all do more, I am sure. But now comes this bill and trying to protect volunteers from being sued. In many instances in America, if you volunteer, if you go on a charitable organization's board of directors, if you join some of the volunteer organizations, you run the risk of being sued and being held personally liable. So in the spirit of the conference going on in Philadelphia, it seems very appropriate to me that the Senate would pass legislation to provide some reasonable modicum of protection against these frivolous lawsuits that discourage people from volunteering, and yet we are being told that we are going to have a filibuster of even proceeding to this bill. Let me read some of the components of this bill. It says: To provide certain protections [not total protections, but certainly protections] to volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and governmental entities in lawsuits based on the activities of volunteers. It says that: The Congress finds and declares that-- (1) the willingness of volunteers to offer their services is deterred [now] by the potential for liability actions against them and organizations they serve; (2) as a result, many nonprofit public and private organizations and governmental entities, including voluntary associations, social service agencies, educational institutions, and other civic programs, have been adversely affected by the withdrawal of volunteers from boards of directors and service in other capacities; (3) the contribution of these programs to their communities is thereby diminished, resulting in fewer and higher cost programs than would be obtainable if volunteers were participating; (4) because Federal funds are expended on useful and cost- effective social service programs, many of which are national in scope, depend heavily on volunteer participation, and represent some of the most successful public-private partnerships, protection of volunteerism through clarification and limitation of the personal liability risks assumed by the volunteer in connection with such participation is [certainly] an appropriate [action] for [this] Federal legislation; It goes on and talks about how the threat of lawsuit is limiting volunteers. It is leading to higher costs of private programs as well as public-private cooperation. It then sets out exactly what those limitations are. If you are actually involved in serious personal misconduct, you still would be subject to liability. But to have some clarification here with regard to when you will be sued, even when you are in effect an innocent bystander in a voluntary capacity, is something that we should do. It is long overdue. We have known many instances, I am sure, in our own States where these types of lawsuits have been filed. And it is time that we take action. In fact, it goes hand in glove with what is happening in Philadelphia. So I urge my colleagues that have reservations based on this, if there are concerns by trial lawyers that we can legitimately address, fine. But I do not think we should allow trial lawyers to dictate that we cannot have even the consideration of legislation that would provide some protection for volunteers in America. Mr. President, again, I urge my colleagues to allow this legislation to go forward. And I hope that our colleagues will be able to vote for a final product by an overwhelming vote. I yield the floor at this time, Mr. President. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition. And I want to thank the Chaplain, as always, for his very thoughtful and helpful prayers.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, today, at 10:30 a.m., the Senate will begin a closed executive session in the Old Senate Chamber to continue the debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention so that Members can be briefed on certain classified information. This is the first time in several years that we have had such a briefing. I urge all Senators to attend. I think they will find it very interesting. They need to know what will come out of this briefing before they make a final decision. The closed session is expected to last until approximately 12:30. After the expiration of time for the closed session, the Senate will then immediately resume consideration of the treaty in this Chamber. By previous consent, the Senate will continue the debate with respect to the treaty until all time is expired or is yielded back under the time agreement. I think there is something like 1 hour 40 minutes or 2 hours of general time remaining, something about that amount. In addition, by consent, the five motions to strike will be in order at any time following the closed session. Separate votes on each of the motions are expected. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout the day and into the evening in order for the Senate to complete action on the treaty today. It would appear to me that the final vote will come sometime between 8 and 9 o'clock probably, perhaps a little earlier, but that is the way it looks at this point. Again, I encourage all Members to participate in this important debate beginning in a few minutes in the Old Senate Chamber.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following individuals, in addition to those officers and employees referred to in standing rule XXIX, be granted floor privileges during today's closed session, and I send the list to the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to call the attention of all Senators and staff to rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate which addresses the confidentiality of executive sessions. Paragraph 5 of standing rule XXIX reads as follows: Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt. I urge my colleagues to keep this in mind when approached by the media for comments on these proceedings. [order for recess]

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Does the Senator seek recognition?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 10:30 a.m. following brief remarks by Senator Hagel and Senator Bingaman, at which time the Senate will then reconvene in the Old Senate Chamber for a closed executive session.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, can I get time off the manager's time from the bill?

Mr. LOTT. I do still have my leader time. If I need that, we can use that also. Mr. President, I had planned on and had hoped to be able to speak after all of the votes on the motions to strike because I did not in any way want to distract from those motions to strike. I have hopes that at least some of them might actually be defeated, particularly the one with regard to inspectors coming into the United States from some of the so-called rogue countries, but I think it is important we go ahead and state our positions at this point. Everybody has made their case. It is time to make decisions and to move on. I want to start by thanking Senator Helms for his cooperation. Without his cooperation, we would not be here today. His cooperation guaranteed that we were able to develop a process that was fair, that allowed us to get S. 495 up and voted on last week, that all of the remaining issues in disagreement would have an opportunity to be debated, considered and voted upon. He really has done an excellent job. There is no question that he continues to have great reservations about this legislation. But his efforts and the efforts of Senator Kyl from Arizona have been nothing short of heroic. They have been tenacious. They have done their homework. They have made excellent statements both here and in our closed session earlier today. I think they should be commended for what they have done. In fact, their work and their success has contributed greatly to the likelihood that this treaty actually will pass. That had not necessarily been their intent, but they wanted to make sure, if it did pass, they wanted it to pass in the best possible form. I also thank the Democratic leader for his courtesies as we worked through a very complicated unanimous-consent agreement. We were watched over very carefully by the Senator from West Virginia. I thank the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Biden] for his cooperation and his patience, and I think the fact that we have all sort of kept cool heads and been careful how we proceeded has served us well. Mr. President, our Constitution is unique in the power it grants the Senate in treaty making. Article II, section 2 states the President ``shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.'' The Senate's coequal treaty making power is one of our most important constitutional duties. All 100 Senators have approached this duty very seriously in examining the Chemical Weapons Convention, as we should. We have participated in and we have listened to hearings laying out the arguments for and against the convention. We have looked closely at many provisions of the convention and have sought the advice and counsel of experts and former policymakers. We read many articles and we have heard the arguments making the case for and against it. Before addressing my views on the convention itself, I should like to share with my colleagues a brief history of the Senate's action on this convention, how we got to where we are today. The Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by the United States as an original signatory on January 13, 1993, in the last days of President Bush's administration. For reasons that remain unclear, it was 10 months before President Clinton sent the convention to the Senate. In his transmittal letter, dated November 23, 1993, President Clinton wrote: I urge the Senate to give early and favorable consideration to the convention and to give advice and consent to its ratification as soon as possible in 1994. Let me remind my colleagues that for the next 11 months, until the 103d Congress adjourned on December 1, 1994, the Senate majority leader was George Mitchell and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was Claiborne Pell. Despite Democratic control of the White House and the Senate, the Senate did not consider the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1994. In late 1995, Senate Democrats began a filibuster on the State Department authorization bill to force action on the CWC. On December 7, 1995, an agreement was reached providing for the convention to be reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee by April 30, 1996. The committee honored that agreement, and the convention was placed on the Executive Calendar. That is where matters stood when I became majority leader on June 12, 1996. Only 6 days later, before I had a chance to get my sea legs at all, there began a filibuster once again by the Senate Democrats to force Senate action on the convention. To allow critical national defense legislation to proceed, we worked with Senators on both sides of the aisle, and again we reached an agreement guaranteeing a vote by September 13, 1996. In the weeks preceding the vote, opponents and proponents of the convention made their case to Senators. On September 6, 1996, I requested the declassification of certain key judgments of the intelligence community relating to key aspects of the convention. On September 10, the administration partially complied with that request, and certain intelligence judgments were made public. I ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters on the intelligence judgments be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I understand the Government Printing Office estimates it will cost $1,288 to print these letters in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. On September 12, the day the Senate was scheduled to begin debate on the convention, Secretary of State Christopher called me and asked that the vote be canceled. I quizzed him. I wanted to make sure that was what the administration was asking and that I would be able to come out to the floor of the Senate and explain that is why it was being done. It was canceled because it was clear, in my opinion, the convention was likely to be rejected at that time by the Senate. I acceded to the Secretary's request. We canceled the vote, and it went back to the Foreign Relations Committee calendar at the end of the 104th Congress. In January of this year, the President and his national security advisers made it clear that the Chemical Weapons Convention remained a top priority. On January 8, 1997, I wrote to the President explaining some of our arms control priorities, including the submission of three significant treaty modifications for advice and consent: The ABM Demarcation Agreement, the ABM Multilateralization Agreement and the flank agreement to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. The administration had previously refused to submit these treaties for Senate ratification. I wrote at that time. Bipartisanship is a two-way street. Your administration has now restarted a public campaign to gain Senate advice and consent for the Chemical Weapons Convention. As you seek bipartisan cooperation, you must understand our expectation for such cooperation on ABM multilateralization, ABM demarcation and CFE flank limits. On March 18, I again wrote the President reminding him that I had not received a response to that January 8 letter. I also pointed out that ``it is essential that you and your administration honor the publicly stated commitments to work closely and expeditiously with Chairman Helms on issues before the committee, including the presentation of a plan to reorganize the U.S. foreign affairs agencies. From the beginning of the 105th Congress, I made clear as best I could to all who would listen in the administration that bipartisanship could not mean forcing the Senate into acting on administration-chosen priorities if we did not likewise have an opportunity to consider issues that are important to the Senate, in fact, issues we think have long since been sent to us for action with regard to arms control treaties. We stated that we thought it was vital that we get State Department reorganization and real reform at the United Nations. This was not a quid pro quo but a simple statement of reality. Working in a cooperative fashion, as we must, means that both sides have to be forthcoming on issues in these foreign policy very important, critical areas. Let me briefly review the status of each of these three related issues. On the arms control treaties, the administration did reconsider their positions very carefully and they came back and agreed to send the Conventional Forces in Europe Flank Agreement to the Senate for advice and consent. Hearings have already been scheduled on this treaty, and I expect a resolution of ratification to be before the full Senate in the near future. President Clinton agreed to submit the agreed statement on demarcation to the Senate for advice and consent. This treaty, agreed to in principle between Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin at the Helsinki summit, will provide the Senate an opportunity to consider the administration's approach toward negotiating constraints on our defensive systems pursuant to the administration's interpretation of the ABM Treaty. I am sure we will have quite an interesting and lively debate on that, but certainly we should take advantage of our responsibilities to do just that. Along with many of my colleagues, I have expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of this administration's approach in that area. Now, however, we have a full opportunity to debate the policy and this treaty in the ratification process. The President still does not agree that they should send forward the treaty dealing with multilateralization. We think the Constitution requires it; his lawyers disagree. We will continue to press the administration to accept our position in this area, and they understand we should keep talking about it. If this provision is contained in the final agreement that is submitted to the Senate for advice and consent in connection with demarcation, it will give us an opportunity to debate it. On U.N. reform, our now Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asked that we begin to actually meet and talk about U.N. reform; that we meet with a U.N. presiding officer; that he come and visit with us. He did. We have started a process between the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, our chairmen and ranking members, to take a look at what should be done with regard to the arrearages we may or may not owe, how can we deal with the U.S. assessment at the United Nations that could be fairer, and we are working from a comprehensive Republican document as a basis for the discussions. I think we see some action already occurring. The Secretary General has been working at it, and I think he understands we are very serious about U.N. reform. On State Department reorganization, I am very pleased that the administration has proposed, I think, some major changes. Chairman Helms, and many others, have worked to streamline our foreign policy bureaucracy, and now it looks like we are going to have a chance to do that. The Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the U.S. Information Agency were started and organized during the cold war. Barely more than a year ago, President Clinton vetoed a bill which would have mandated the dismantling of only one foreign affairs agency. Last week, however, thanks to the efforts of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and the involvement of the President, the President agreed to abolish both the USIA and ACDA and to fold many of AID's functions into the State Department. This will make our scarce resources go farther, increase coordination and help ensure American interests, not bureaucratic interests, are behind our foreign policy decisionmaking. On each of these parallel issues--and I call them parallel, that is the way they have always been discussed--we have made progress. I think it is important that we realize that. Thanks to the persistence of the chairman and thanks to a Secretary of State that is working with us now, we have made progress with U.N. reform, with State Department reorganization, and the fact we will be able to consider these treaties. No serious observer can claim that we have not moved forward in these areas. There have been important changes in the Chemical Weapons Convention over the past few months. Last September, I worked closely with Senators Helms, Kyl and others in opposition to the treaty. Had we not canceled the vote, I would have voted against it, and I believe that it would have failed. In the aftermath of that debate, some in the White House blamed political motivations. The President said it was partisan politics involving America's security. But, fortunately, calmer heads have prevailed this year. The administration did come to the table and they have negotiated with us. They recognize the legitimate concerns that were ignored last year. So we have engaged in a process of member-and- staff-level discussions that have had a major impact on this convention. There are 28 agreed items in this resolution of ratification that were not there last September. Senator Kyl, Senator Helms, and Senator Biden have been working together on this. They reached agreements. Some of them Senator Biden said, ``Yes, we should do this,'' and the administration didn't particularly agree. Others in the administration said, ``Yes, we should do it,'' and some of our colleagues did not agree with it. There has been a give and take, but real progress has been made. Many of these items have addressed the concerns that have been cited by opponents as reasons to oppose the CWC last year. I have gone over some of the letters, some of the memos I have received--and I have received a lot of them--and point by point has been addressed, maybe not 100 percent, maybe not to their total satisfaction, but progress has been made. I will not go down the whole list of 28, but I want to list some of the more critical ones where real progress has been made. First, on search and seizure, condition 28 requires search warrants for all involuntary searches of American facilities. We were worried about a constitutional problem here. Now it has been addressed. Second, on our ability to use riot control agents, condition 26 ensures that the U.S. policy since 1975 remains in effect. Our military can use nonlethal agents, such as tear gas, to rescue downed pilots. Certainly, that should have been in there all along. I don't know why there was resistance to it, but it has been addressed. Third, on intelligence sharing, condition 5 places strict limits on all U.S. intelligence shared with the international organization established under the CWC. Fourth, on maintaining robust chemical defenses, condition 11 mandates a series of steps including negotiations with our allies, planning for chemical weapons in war game scenarios and high-level leadership of the U.S. Army's Chemical School. Fifth, on information sharing, an area that has worried me the most and right up until this very moment, progress has been made in two ways. First, with regard to these articles X and XI, condition 7 makes crystal clear that nothing in the CWC undermines U.S. export control laws, and that the informal Australia Group export controls will continue. Condition 15 helps to ensure that defensive assistance under the convention will be strictly limited. So I invite my colleagues who may still have some doubts to look at these conditions--conditions 7 and 15--dealing with information sharing and how we have restrictions on the defensive assistance. Sixth, on financing Russian implementation, which I think is a ridiculous idea personally on its face, but condition 14 precludes the United States from making any commitment to finance Russia's chemical weapons destruction program in an effort to secure Russian ratification of CWC. Seventh, conditions 1, 17, 6, and 20 preserve Senate prerogatives in this and in future treaties. They preserve our right to pass reservations to treaties, to ratify future amendments to the CWC and to make clear the executive branch cannot commit to appropriations in advance of congressional action. Eighth, on noncompliance, condition 13 requires a series of steps to be taken by the United States in the event of noncompliance by a party to the convention. Condition 13 mandates unilateral actions and requires the United States to seek a series of multilateral actions to deal with CWC violations. Ninth, conditions 3 and 22 address financial concerns about the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons set up under this convention. One sets a binding limit on the U.S. assessment to ensure we are not creating another international entitlement program, and the other requires an independent inspector general be created to increase accountability of the OPCW. Finally, condition 10 requires an annual report of condition that, for the first time in arms control, shifts the burden of proof to making the administration certify compliance. As previous experience has demonstrated, the arms control bureaucracy has refused to find clear evidence of noncompliance. This condition will change and will ensure our vigilance on monitoring issues. Each of these conditions makes the resolution before us today a better document, there is no doubt about it, certainly better than the document we were considering last fall. Each of these changes addresses concerns raised by treaty opponents last year and addresses my own concerns. In addition, the Senate is considering this convention in a manner agreed to by all 100 Senators. We first considered, and passed, as I said earlier, S. 495, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 1997 sponsored by Senator Kyl. We are considering the resolution of ratification drafted by Senator Helms. Think about that. We are considering that resolution that he drafted and that he had in the committee. That is what we brought to the floor, and the process requires that motions to strike be offered to take provisions out. Much progress has been made, and many Senators have been cooperative. But there should be no mistake, serious problems remain with this convention. Unfortunately, key protections in the resolution of ratification may be stricken out in our debate today, and we will have some more votes in a few minutes. Condition 33 on verification requires the President to certify the same standard of verification developed under the Reagan-Bush administrations--high confidence in detecting militarily significant violations in a timely manner. Detecting the production and stockpiling of chemical weapons may be more difficult than detecting the existence, obviously, of nuclear-armed warheads. But I will vote to retain the verification standard that has served our country well in previous arms control agreements. I understand why my colleagues might not agree with that and they might vote in a way that would lower this verification standard, but it is a serious problem. Condition 30, which we just voted on, I think should have been kept in the document. Condition 29 conditions U.S. participation in the convention upon demonstrated actions by the country with the largest chemical weapons arsenal on Earth--Russia. Russia has not implemented the Bilateral Destruction Agreement signed in 1990. Russia has not submitted accurate data on chemical weapons. That is a real concern, and we have reason to believe they are devoting resources now to develop new chemical agents which are outside the scope of CWC. I support retaining this condition because I believe it makes sense to expect Russia to live up to past agreements before entering into new ones. I strongly support condition 31 which would require the President to exercise the power given in the verification annex to the convention to bar inspectors from terrorist states and from states which have violated U.S. proliferation law, particularly, I hope and think that we can defeat the motion to strike here. It is not a killer amendment and we ought to retain the right to bar those inspectors. Finally, there is the most serious question of articles X and XI, whether these provisions on information sharing will increase the likelihood of, in fact, chemical weapons proliferation. Over the past few weeks, I made it clear to the administration as best I could the legitimate concerns about the impact of articles X and XI had to be addressed more than what was in the condition. I support delaying our ratification until the CWC is renegotiated to deal with these articles. For obvious reasons, the administration does not want to do that, and probably the majority of the Senate would not want to do that. But this very morning, I received a letter from President Clinton which I think is significant. The President made specific assurances that the United States would exercise its right to withdraw from the convention if any one of three things occurred: If countries used ``article X to justify providing defensive chemical weapons equipment, material, or information to another state party that could result in U.S. chemical protective equipment being compromised. . .''; If countries use article XI to justify chemical transfers which undermine the Australia Group. If countries carried ``out transfers or exchanges under either article X and XI which jeopardize U.S. national security by promoting chemical weapons proliferation; These are specific and probably unprecedented. Yes, it is a letter. It is not in the document, but it is signed by the President of the United States in very strong language that, frankly, I was pleased but somewhat surprised that he agreed to say, I will withdraw after consultation with the Senate. If any one of these things happen, he is the President and his assurances in foreign policy must make a difference. They address countries even justifying transfers where there is concern. They address transfers which promote chemical weapons proliferation. Mr. President, I think this is a very important document. I have made that letter available to our colleagues. I have more copies. Every Member has struggled with one fundamental question: Are we better off with or without this convention? In my mind, there is no easy answer. I want to know that my children and our country will be better off, and that we will be better able to deal with chemical weapons with it, but I have my doubts. Experts, whose opinions I respect deeply, are divided on the question. Over the last 2 weeks, I have had many conversations to discuss this convention. I spoke with Presidents Bush and Ford. I talked with my good friend, former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger, Steve Forbes, former Secretary of State James Baker, Jim Schlesinger, Colin Powell, uniformed military officers--a great variety of people. I met with leaders of groups that are deeply opposed and well informed about the treaty's flaws. I talked with President Clinton, Secretary Albright, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Shalikashvili. Republican Senators, with long experience in national security matters, are divided. On this issue, reasonable people can and do disagree, and reasonable people will vote on opposite sides. After our negotiations, hearings, and discussions, it is time to make decisions--decisions that will be important to the future of our men and women in uniform, and the future security of our country. I have decided to vote in support of the Senate giving its advice and consent to the Chemical Weapons Convention. I will do so not because I believe it will end the threat posed by chemical weapons or rid the world of poison gas. I will do so not because I believe this treaty is verifiable enough or even enforceable enough. And I will not do so because I believe there are no additional proliferations concerns related to articles X and XI. I will vote for the convention because I believe there will be real and lasting consequences to the United States if we do not ratify the convention. In a very real sense, the credibility of commitments made by two Presidents of our country--one Republican and one Democrat--is at stake. I will vote for the convention because the judgment of the most senior former and current military commanders believe it will make our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines more safe in potential battlefields and less likely to face the horrible prospect of chemical weapons. I will vote for the convention because I believe the United States is marginally better off with it than without it. It will provide new tools to press signatories for compliance. It will enable us to gain access to sites and information we are currently unable to examine. Through the important and enlightening debate we have had over the past few months, I am convinced the convention will bring new focus and energy to this administration's nonproliferation efforts. We have certainly heightened the awareness and knowledge of the concerns we have. One year ago, few of us even knew about the Australia Group. Now we have committed ourselves and the administration to keeping the Australia Group as a viable tool to limit access to chemicals and technology. Yes, the CWC may give legal cover to proliferators in Teheran or in Beijing. But they have undertaken such efforts in the past and no doubt will do it again in the future. I believe our allies in Europe are more likely to join with us in isolating Iran if we are a party to this convention than if we reject it tonight. They have made it clear that they hope we will ratify it, whether it is Canada or whether it is Britain or our European allies or Japan. I believe this convention will increase the cost of covert chemical weapons programs, and it will increase our chances of detecting such programs. I think there is a long list of good reasons why we should do this today. I have struggled with it. I would like to take just a minute, if I can, to talk on a personal note. Many people in the media have tended to say, well, you know, this is going to determine the fate of various and sundry Senators and tell a lot about leadership. It has been exaggerated. I have talked to a lot of Senators one on one. Not one of them--not one of them--has said that they would vote on it on any basis other than what is best for our country. The way the Senate works, we debate these issues--we read, we study, we argue, we go back and forth. We set up a fair process, and then we come to a conclusion. We make a decision. We vote on it. And I do not think it is fair to exaggerate any one Senator's role in this whole effort. I think the Senate should be complimented today for the way it has handled this. I think that Madison, and others, placed their faith in this institution. And I think it has worked well. The efforts of Senator Helms and Senator Kyl have been heroic. They have done a magnificent job. Others that have supported the convention have done their part, too. I think that this process has helped the Senate as an institution to exercise the leadership assigned to it by the Constitution. And that, I submit, is the only real test of leadership that truly matters. I urge the adoption and ratification of this treaty. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Could I inquire about how much time is remaining?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have already stated my position. I do think we should vote to ratify this convention, but I think we should defeat this motion to strike. This is not a killer amendment. This is very serious, where we are just saying that we should have the ability, the President should have the ability, to bar these inspectors from these countries that have violated U.S. nonproliferation laws. You are talking about inspectors from so-called, as the Secretary of State has called them, ``rogue nations'' that want to come in here and get into finding information that could help them to further contribute to proliferation. So I urge the Senate on this motion to vote to defeat the motion to strike. We should have the ability, we should as a matter of fact I think require that we bar these inspectors from coming into this country when they are contributing to the problem all over the world. So I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will begin consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty. Under the previous order, there will be 10 hours of debate to be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member or their designees and 1 hour under the control of Senator Leahy. Also, in accordance with the agreement, a limited number of amendments are in order to the resolution of ratification. The Senate will recess at 12:30 p.m. until the hour of 2:15 to allow for the weekly policy meetings, and when the Senate reconvenes, we will resume consideration of the treaty. I hope that perhaps we could get an agreement to have one of the votes occur later on this afternoon. I believe there may have been some discussions on that. If not, we will have the votes on motions to strike, if any. There, I believe, were five agreed to in our unanimous-consent agreement, and, of course, we are anticipating that the final vote will occur sometime tomorrow night, I assume between 5, 6 and 8 o'clock. And, of course, as always, we will notify Senators of anticipated rollcall votes as early as possible. But there would not be one, if any, today until late in the day. There will be a number of votes throughout the day on Thursday, and I urge Senators to be prepared to answer the votes quickly so that we can get through the five motions to strike that may be offered under the agreement and to final passage at a reasonable hour tomorrow. Also, unless there were a lot of yielding back of time, I do not anticipate that we could finish even in the early afternoon or late afternoon on Thursday. I think it clearly is going to go into the evening. With that, Mr. President, I would be glad to yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I will withhold yielding the floor and yield to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. LOTT. We will put in a quorum then until the chairman is here and ready to resume the discussions. I know they are going to be very interesting. The Senator from Delaware is not going to go through that whole book, is he?

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as my colleagues are aware, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 created procedures for judicial review of employment discrimination claims throughout the Congress to govern cases arising after the requirements of the law took effect on January 23, 1996. The Senate's antecedent process for review of discrimination claims in Senate employment, which was created by the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, continues to govern older cases. The case of William L. Singer versus Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit, is a case initiated under the 1991 act. The petitioner in this case, a former officer in the Capitol Police Department, seeks review of a ruling of the Select Committee on Ethics, which affirmed a decision of a hearing board appointed by the Director of the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices. The hearing board decision rejected the officer's claim that his termination from the Capital Police violated the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, as made applicable by the Government Employee Rights Act. Under the Government Employee Rights Act, a final decision of the Ethics Committee is entered in the records of the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, which is then named as the respondent if the decision is challenged in the Federal circuit. As petitions for review in the Federal circuit challenges final decisions of a Senate adjudicatory process, under the Government Employee Rights Act the Senate legal counsel may be directed to defend those decisions through representation of the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices in court. Accordingly, this resolution directs the Senate legal counsel to represent the Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, in the case of Singer versus Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, in defense of the Ethics Committee's final decision.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business to accommodate a number of Senators who wish to speak on a variety of subjects. There will be no rollcall votes, however, during today's session due to the observance of Passover. I remind my colleagues that the weekly party luncheons normally held today will be held tomorrow, Wednesday. By the unanimous consent agreed to on Thursday of last week, the Senate will begin consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty tomorrow with, I believe, 10 hours of debate allowed. Then on Thursday there will be five motions to strike with 1 hour of debate on each of those and, presumably, votes on each one of the five, with the expectation of a final vote around 6 o'clock on Thursday. Under the previously agreed time agreement, Senators can anticipate votes on the treaty as early as Wednesday afternoon--I want to emphasize that--as well as a variety of votes on Thursday morning and throughout Thursday. As always, we will notify Senators of any scheduled votes or changes as soon as possible, or actions we wish to take on the Executive Calendar. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.