Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first I want to go ahead and speak on the legislation, S. 495, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 1997, in the interest of time. I think this is very important legislation, and I wanted to comment on it. But while we are in the final efforts to get an agreement on the unanimous consent agreement on how to consider the completion of this legislation, then when and how to take up the Chemical Weapons Convention next week, and how issues that are still in disagreement would be handled and how the motions to strike would be ordered--all of that is in the final phases of negotiation at this time. I would like to thank, at the beginning, Senator Kyl for the work he has put into this legislation and for his effort to come up with a fair and reasonable unanimous consent agreement as to how we would proceed. I thank Senator Helms for his cooperation and the highly respectable and respectful manner in which he has dealt with this issue in the very important hearings he had. Also, Senator Daschle has been persistent, but he has been reasonable in allowing us to have time to work through all the details. I think with an agreement of this importance and with as many parts to it as there is, you never could get it worked out to where it would just be 100 percent what everybody wants. But I think we have gotten it now to where it is fair, and I hope we can go ahead and close the loop, complete consideration of the legislation and then be prepared next week to move to the treaty itself. I see the Democratic leader is on the floor. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the bill, in anticipation of entering into a unanimous-consent agreement, I will first observe the absence of a quorum. I withhold. Does the Senator from Texas wish to proceed at this time?

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic leader and I, we just want to announce again that what we are about to do within the next 10 minutes or so is offer a unanimous-consent agreement on the Chemical Weapons Convention. We are still working to make sure we have a mutual understanding of exactly what is in it, and we want all Senators to be aware that we are preparing to do that. I would be glad to yield at this point to the Senator.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of this legislation that has been drafted by Senator Kyl and joined in with cosponsorship from Senators Helms, Nickles, Mack, Coverdell, Shelby, Hutchison, and myself, as well as others. We introduced this legislation on March 21. This is important legislation. I know there are a lot of people who are trying to assess will this legislation favorably or unfavorably affect the final vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention. I do not think you can really judge that. Senators that will vote on both sides of the issue on this bill and that bill will view it in different ways depending on their own personal perspective. The most important thing is this is a bill we should have passed. We should already have passed it irrespective of what might happen on the Chemical Weapons Convention. As I have gotten into this issue and studied this bill, I am amazed that we do not already have laws on the books dealing with sanctions against any country that uses chemical and biological weapons against another country or its own nationals, that we do not allow a range of chemical and biological weapons within the United States. I cannot believe we have not already done it. This is very good legislation. I hope action on this legislation will put one myth to rest once and for all: No one supports chemical weapons in the United States. Everyone is opposed to them. We all know they are terrible things. Whether they are used in a military situation or civilian situation like we have seen in recent instances in other parts of the world, they are a horrendous thing and they should be eliminated from the face of the Earth in any way we can do it. As a matter of U.S law, our chemical weapons stockpile will be destroyed by 2004. No matter what happens on the chemical weapons treaty, we already made a commitment and in fact are in the process of destroying our own stockpiles by 2004. Whether or not we pass this bill or whether or not we ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, the weapons in the United States are being destroyed. Next week, when we get this UC agreement worked out, the Senate will debate and vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention. I have a number of key concerns about the convention which have not yet been resolved, but to the credit of the proponents and the administration, they have been working with us, I believe, in good faith. We have had a number of minor and some major improvements. We are still working on that language at this very moment. But fundamental issues exist, some of which have not been resolved. I do think that requiring search warrants for involuntary searches is essential. Protecting United States intelligence information is vital; ensuring United States chemical defensive technology and equipment, making sure it is not shared with Iran or other countries that could possibly under this convention get access to United States information or information from other parts of the world in terms of how chemical technology can be utilized for chemical weapons or also how that technology or equipment could be used in defense capability. We do not want that kind of information spread throughout the globe to those rogue countries that in fact have already been using chemical weapons, have that capability and have indicated they either will be in the convention or may not. But serious concerns remain. Whether the convention is verifiable enough, whether Russia is taking steps to perhaps violate the treaty and, most importantly, whether provisions in the convention actually increase the likelihood of chemical weapons proliferation, those are all very important questions and we will vote on those issues next week in one form or another through a motion to strike or on final passage. I know all Senators are weighing the information very seriously. To the credit of our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, in the hearings they have been having, we have been hearing testimony from very distinguished Americans on both sides of the issue. It is being analyzed and critiqued in articles and editorials. I believe the Senate now is focusing on this issue, and that is as it should be. This bill will help to do that. Today, though, the Senate will have an opportunity to take real enforceable and effective action to address the threat of chemical weapons. The Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act includes comprehensive domestic and international steps to act against these horrible weapons. Domestically, this bill provides for civil and criminal penalties for the acquisition, possession, transfer or use of chemical or biological weapons. Again, it is amazing we do not already have this on the books. It designates the FBI as the lead domestic agency to address chemical weapons threats. Our bill provides for a Federal death penalty in cases when the use of weapons results in the loss of life. Swift and certain punishment can help ensure that terrorists do not use chemical weapons against America, and ending bureaucratic struggles can help ensure any terrorists get caught quickly. Internationally, this legislation directs the administration to add enforcement provisions to existing international bans on the use of chemical weapons. Use of chemical weapons has been banned since 1925 in the Geneva Protocol, but the world knows this ban has not been effective. In fact, in the 1980's, after clear evidence--clear evidence--of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against its own people, the international community did nothing--did nothing. It is time to add enforcement mechanisms to that Geneva Protocol. S. 495 includes a number of provisions to stem chemical and biological weapons proliferation around the world. It requires mandatory sanctions on countries which use these weapons. It mandates enhancements to our chemical and biological defenses. It requires the administration to name names in an annual report to identify the people and the countries which are aiming for and aiding the chemical weapons programs of rogue states. I believe these provisions make good common sense. I believe the American people would want us to upgrade our chemical defenses and to impose sanctions on countries that use weapons of mass destruction. Much has been said about another provision of the legislation requiring certain minimum criteria be met before United States taxpayers send dollars to Russia. Our legislation calls on Russia to implement and comply with the bilateral destruction agreement it signed 5 years ago to present accurate information about its chemical weapons program and to comply with the Biological Weapons Convention signed more than 20 years ago. I cannot understand why anyone would oppose this provision. U.S. aid is not an entitlement to be given no matter how recipients behave. If Russia complies with its agreements, Russia should get assistance as it moves toward more free enterprise and more toward democracy. If they do not comply, why in the world should they get aid? But there have been concerns about the impact this legislation might have on the so-called Nunn-Lugar legislation. Senator Kyl from Arizona has heard those concerns, and, as I understand it, he has a modification that has addressed that problem. We have heard much over the past few weeks about what the Senate should do to prevent the spread of chemical weapons and related technologies and equipment. Many people say the Chemical Weapons Convention will do that. I have my doubts. I am not sure that the day after that vote--if, in fact, it should pass--that we will have fewer chemical weapons in the world. I fear that without further action, we could have more. That is a basic, fundamental part of the concerns that I have and that I have enumerated over the past few days and weeks to the proponents of the legislation. Today, though, the Senate can vote for the Kyl bill and take serious steps for enforcement of effective and achievable chemical weapons arms control. Once we enter into this unanimous consent request and, hopefully, its agreement, we will begin the actual debate under a time arrangement that we have worked out, I believe, and go to completion of this bill, hopefully, by a relatively early hour this afternoon. Hopefully, we can get it done between 4 and 5 o'clock. We will be prepared to make that request shortly. Mr. President, we have another 5 minutes, I believe, remaining in morning business.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again, I want to thank the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for his work on this legislation. We do have a unanimous-consent request ready to offer now.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business time be extended for an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 495, entitled the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 1997 on Thursday, April 17, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration on Thursday, April 17, at a time to be determined by the majority leader after notification of the Democratic leader under the following agreement: 30 minutes under the control of Senator Kyl, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Leahy, and 15 minutes each for Senators Levin and Biden, or their designees, on the bill and no amendments or motions be in order, other than a modification of the bill to be offered by Senator Kyl and submitted for the Record at the time of this agreement. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to third reading and final passage of the bill, all without further action or debate. I further ask unanimous consent as if in executive session that on Wednesday, April 23, the Foreign Relations Committee be immediately discharged from further consideration of treaty document No. 103-21 and the document be placed on the Executive Calendar. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider treaty document No. 103-21 at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 23, and the treaty be advanced through its various parliamentary stages, up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee be discharged of Executive Resolution 75--that is the text of the Helms negotiations--and that it be immediately substituted for the resolution of ratification. I further ask unanimous consent the resolution be considered under the following time restraints: 10 hours of debate on the resolution of ratification, to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member or their designees.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy be recognized then for up to 1 hour on Wednesday, April 23. I ask that additional request be placed at this point in the unanimous- consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the first 28 conditions, declarations, statements, and understandings shall be identified as being agreed to between the chairman and ranking minority member, that these 28 conditions, declarations, statements, or understandings not be subject to further amendments or motions, and it be in order for the Senate to vote on the agreed-upon items, and if agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask unanimous consent that the final 5 of the 33 conditions, declarations, statements, or understandings shall be identified as not being agreed to between the chairman and ranking minority member, that it be in order for the Democratic leader or his designee to offer one motion to strike each of the conditions, declarations, statements, or understandings, as listed below, and the motion be limited to 1 hour to be equally divided. The conditions, declarations, statements, or understandings subject to motions to strike are as follows: First, Russian elimination of chemical weapons; Second, chemical weapons in countries other than Russia; Third, designation of inspectors and inspection assistants; Fourth, stemming the proliferation of chemical weapons; and Fifth, essential verifiability. The full text by title is appended hereto. I send it to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent no substitute or second-degree amendments be in order and no other reservations, conditions, declarations, statements, or understandings be in order to the resolution of ratification. I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority leader, after notification of the Democratic leader, to call for a closed session of the Senate, to be held in the Old Senate Chamber, to hear confidential debate regarding the Chemical Weapons Convention, not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided, again, between the two leaders or their designees, and 48 hours before moving to the closed session all classified material to be used during the debate by any Senator be given to both leaders. Further, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the above-listed amendments, closed session, and the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution of ratification, as amended, all without further action or debate, and following the vote the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action or, if the resolution is defeated, the resolution to return to the President be deemed agreed to and the Senate resume legislative session. Further, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that prior to the Memorial Day recess the majority leader, after notification of the Democratic leader, shall turn to the consideration of the implementing legislation, and it be considered under a time agreement of 2 hours to be equally divided, again, between the chairman and the ranking minority member, and there be only one amendment in order to be offered by the majority leader or his designee, and one amendment only to be offered by the Democratic leader or his designee, and limited to 1 hour each, to be equally divided in the usual form, and each amendment must be relevant to the implementing legislation. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me ask you to state that again--that the motions to strike would be in order on Thursday, the 24th, whether or not the 10 hours has been completed? Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if I could address this question to the Democratic leader. I do not see any reason why we should not have completed at that time, but you are just saying if the time is not agreed to, you want to delay the actions on the motions to strike. Mr. President, that would be my intent. I think that is what the agreement indicates. That is what we will do. I believe we will be able to get our time in on Wednesday or we will have an agreement to take part of the time Thursday morning and move immediately to a motion to strike, because we want to make sure that that time and those motions to strike are in order. And the time is required. There is about 6 hours or so. We will make sure that time is there.

Mr. LOTT. On the underlying resolution of the committee and on the 28 conditions that have been agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me put in a quorum call at this point so we can make sure we understand the question to make sure we go over the history of why that language would be in there. I must say this is the longest and the most complicated unanimous- consent agreement that I have worked on since I have been majority leader. I know that the Senator from West Virginia has probably entered in some much longer, more complicated than this. But as I was reading through it, I even hesitated, to go back and reread at least one section there, to make sure it was accurate. I understood exactly what it meant. But we do need to clarify this particular point. I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum so I can get a proper explanation. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be glad to withhold that and yield to the Senator.

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

Mr. LOTT. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. LOTT. If I could say to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, we have been working on both sides of the aisle to make sure that this was a very carefully and fairly drawn unanimous-consent agreement. There has been give-and-take on both sides. I am sure the way it is set up would not be the first choice for some of our colleagues that are proponents of the treaty. Let me assure you there are some things in here that the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, had to swallow hard to agree to. But we have been talking to Senator Biden, Senator Helms, Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, and I am sure that Senator Lugar and Senator Leahy have been following closely. In fact, let me assure everyone they have been following closely, because Senator Leahy got another bite of the apple at the end. I believe we have set it up in a way that is fair. We set it up in a way, sir, where Senators like yourself will actually take the time to read the statements and conditionalities, will have time today and over the weekend and Monday and Tuesday, and even during the debate. We set it up carefully so there is adequate time for full debate. With a motion to strike, and hours of debate, we will have, I believe, and I certainly hope, the time to fully discharge our responsibilities. This is a very, very difficult issue for me. I have people I respect dearly, ultimately, on both sides of this treaty. It is a very important treaty dealing with a very important issue. I certainly have wanted to be careful about how we set it up, to have the time, have the hearings that are necessary so we hear from some of the opponents that we have not heard from, and give the proponents opportunities. I think the leadership always at the end tries to pull it together before one more cork pops loose, and we try to push it at the conclusion, at the end. If we missed a Senator or two, it certainly has just not been our intention, and we will work with you in every way we can to make sure you have the time to consider it, sir.

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I absolutely confirm that that is the case.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I renew my previous unanimous-consent request, which I read into the Record in its entirety, with two changes. On the second page, I would make this change: That the first 28 conditions, declarations, statements, and understandings shall be identified as being agreed to between the chairman and the ranking minority member, that these 28 conditions, declarations, statements, or understandings not be subject to further amendments or motions, and a vote occur on adoption of Executive Resolution 75 to be followed by a vote on the agreed-upon 28 items, and, if agreed to, the motion or motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Basically what that is saying is that there would be a voice vote on the underlying resolution and on the 28 conditions and declarations. Also, at the end of the unanimous-consent request, I would make this request: I further ask that Senator Leahy be recognized for up to 1 hour on Wednesday, April 23, and that prior to the adoption of the resolution or ratification there be an additional 10 minutes equally divided between the two leaders at that time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. 495, under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to express the deep gratitude of the Senate to Ron Ledlow, the Deputy Director of the Senate Service Department, who is retiring after nearly 30 years of dedicated service to the Senate. Ron Ledlow began his career 27 years ago this week as a pressman on the night shift in the Service Department and rose through the journeyman ranks into management, eventually serving as the Director of the Senate Service Department. Ron has used his skill, creativity, and expertise in shepherding the Senate through nearly 30 years of changes in print, production, and graphics technology on which we as Members, and an institution, rely. Through all of these changes, Ron has been driven by his high standards for quality control and exceptional customer service. His professionalism and respect for his employees and this institution have been a great example to his coworkers, and to all of us here in the Senate. His contributions in support of democratic institutions are not limited to the U.S. Senate. In 1990, under the Gift of Democracy Resolution, Ron, along with several other congressional representatives, went to Poland as a technical adviser. His counsel and assistance helped strengthen the emerging democratic institutions of Poland. Ron's assistance was so valuable, that he was asked to return to Poland for another tour of duty. Outside of his work in the Service Department, Ron has served on several committees for the U.S. Senate Federal Credit Union. Ron was an active member of the Senate Staff Club and served as the club's president in the mideighties. In 1991, Ron was presented with the Roll Call Sid Yudain Congressional Staffer of the Year Award. Mr. President, our Senate family wishes Ron, his wife Dee, and his children Gerald and Steven the very best. We hope that Ron and Dee enjoy their well-deserved time on the links of South Carolina.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill, as modified, was passed.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.