Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2577-S2580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MEXICO CERTIFICATION ISSUE

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a series of unanimous consent
requests that may be necessary unless we get some agreement very
quickly now from the minority leader.
I just came from a committee hearing, where I just finished
testifying so I could come to the floor at 10:30 and call up the
agreement entered into last night after monumental efforts by Senators
on both sides of the aisle, working with the administration, with
regard to the Mexico certification issue regarding drugs and how the
drug war is being fought with the United States Government being
involved and, of course, with the Mexican Government being involved,
but in ways that are very troublesome.
I had hoped we could get started at 10:30, get a time agreement that
was reasonable, maybe 4 hours equally divided, so we could have a full
discussion about what is happening with regard to law enforcement
efforts and dealing with drugs coming from Mexico into the United
States, so we could talk about the President's difficult decision to go
forward with certification, but also to make sure that the American
people understand that the Congress is not satisfied with the status
quo. More must be done.
We have a right--in fact, we have an obligation--to get more from our
Government's efforts in fighting the drug war and dealing with the
flood of drugs that are killing America's children. They are flooding
into this country from Mexico. We have a right to expect hardened drug
criminals to be extradited into this country. Some of them have, some
of them have not. We have a right to expect that our law enforcement
people dealing with the drug barons, the drug lords, are able to defend
themselves. We have a right to expect some thresholds to be met with
regard to what Mexico must do and, frankly, what we must do in our
Government. This is a very important issue, one that we cannot leave
today or tomorrow without taking action on.
I want to say how much I appreciate the great effort by the Senators
here on the floor now--Senator Hutchison from Texas, Senator Coverdell
from Georgia, Senator Feinstein from California, and other Senators
that have worked to try to do the responsible thing. I want to point
out that these Senators, along with others, for a total of 40, wrote a
letter to the President of the United States saying, ``Mr. President,
don't certify Mexico as doing what needs to be done in this drug battle
that we are engaged in.'' The President did that.
Now, the House took an action that will allow them to put down some
markers and, after 90 days, look and see if progress is being made and
then, perhaps, act further. I believe that is the gist of their action.
That resolution is pending here at the desk.
But, again, in a full, good-faith effort, the Senators have worked
with the administration, which included a whole variety of people. I
was stunned by all the people that got involved. The Secretary of State
was involved; the head of our drug effort, General McCaffrey; the head
of NSC, Sandy Berger; the Secretary of Treasury was there. It was a
long list of people, and a lot of work was done. I think these Senators
here gave a great deal. They wanted to say that these are some things
that must be done and be certified by the President; when they are, we
should have the right to have another vote on whether or not there
should be decertification with waivers, or certification, or whatever.
They agreed to not insist on that. But what they did do was reach an
agreement that requires a report from the President, by September 1, on
what is being done by our Government and by Mexico to do a better job.
Now, I finally decided last night that the administration really
didn't want any action by the Senate. They want us to just leave and
not do anything. We can't do that. The Senate should take action on
something this important. So we will act on this. We will vote. We will
do it today, or we will do it tonight or tomorrow; it's OK with me. We
are going to vote on this issue before we leave here.

There is a process where the Democratic leader cannot stop that--it
is a privileged resolution, with 10 hours of debate and then a vote. I
don't want to do it that way. I want us to come to an agreement. The
resolution that I thought we were going to call up at 10:30 requires
specific reporting on steps taken by Mexico and the United States to
combat illegal narcotics trafficking. It makes clear the Senate view
that Mexico has not done enough--and they have not. We have seen that
many times. We have seen it with the devastating story recently about
the top drug enforcer in Mexico who, as a matter of fact, had to be
removed from office because he was, in fact, being involved in what he
is supposed to be trying to control. That is as gently as I can
possibly put it. I fear there are going to be more devastating reports
like that.
The revision allowing for a vote, as I indicated, was dropped last
night, after direct involvement by the Secretary of State, head of the
NSC, as well as Senators here, and Senator McCain was involved in that.
But it makes clear that the administration and the Government of Mexico
should provide real demonstrable progress by September. If they don't,
under this procedure, we would not have another vote, but we can have
more votes. There will be authorization bills, and there will be
appropriations bills, like the State, Justice, Commerce bill. If we
don't get a response or action here, the Senate has a powerful weapon
called the power of the purse. We can withhold funds. We can make our
views known.
Based on that, the fact that we can act in other ways with other
vehicles, I thought this was a good agreement. I thought that the
Senators here on the floor bent over backward to reach an agreement.
Now, we have--get this picture--the Secretary of State, who is now in
Helsinki, and the head of NSC, now in Helsinki, both directly involved,
saying, yes, we can go with this. General McCaffrey, head of the drug
administration, who was there and said, yes, we can go with this.
Democrat and Republican Senators said yes. The majority leader says
this is not perfect, but this is a responsible thing to do. And then
what happens? There is a Democratic Caucus this morning. They meet and
decide that because they can't dictate the schedule on another issue,
because they can't make the majority leader give them a date certain on
another unrelated issue, they want the United States Senate not to act
on the drug problem in Mexico.
Now, my friends, this is a big-time loser for those that are
objecting to this procedure. It cannot stand. We have to find a way to
move this forward.
So all these administration officials are for it, Senate Republicans
and

[[Page S2578]]

Democrats are for it, and now they are saying, ``If you don't give us a
guarantee on another issue, that we will do it by a date certain, we
are not going to let you bring this up.'' Look, I know we like to play
games just before we get to go home. But this is not the way to do
serious business. We are not dealing with partisanship here. We are not
dealing with some traditional authorization. We are dealing with drugs.
How can we not express ourselves on this? We must, and we will.

I am going to ask unanimous consent, when the minority leader
arrives, to bring up Calendar No. 29, House Joint Resolution 58,
regarding the certification of the President with respect to Mexico,
that there be 4 hours total for debate on that resolution, to be
equally divided in the usual form, and that one amendment--and only one
amendment--be in order to be offered by Senators Coverdell, Feinstein,
Hutchison, and others.
I will ask that no other amendments or motions be in order, and
following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate
proceed to a vote.
We can take it up, and we can have a calm, cool, nonpartisan debate
on a very, very important issue.
I have here the resolution that was the subject of the negotiations
and the one that was agreed to last night at about 7:30 or 8 o'clock. I
was around and in and out of those meetings. This was interesting, I
thought, because I actually have the copy here, or a copy of what was
agreed to. See that. These are circled paragraphs the administration
had problems with, and the compromise language that was worked out. I
don't like this compromise. But it was a responsible thing to do. The
same thing on the next page. The work was so intense and so committed
right up to the last minute. Here is a paragraph. It circles this, and
it is out.
I am going to ask for that. I hope that Senators on both sides of the
aisle will agree to that. If that effort fails--and I am going to make
this request not later than 11 o'clock--I hope to hear from the
minority leader quickly so we can get started.
If I don't get that consent, then I am going to ask unanimous consent
that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further
consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 21 regarding the
decertification--this is the decertification process, not
certification; this is decertification--with additional waiver
language, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and
that there be a limited period of time--presumably maybe 4 hours--for
debate. After that, of course, we go to a vote.
If that is objected to, then I am going to go to the privileged
resolution, which is not amendable, provides for 10 hours of debate,
and a vote. I do not want to do this. It provides for 10 hours of
debate in the law. This is a privileged resolution that sets out very
tightly how we would vote on this privileged resolution issue. This is
dangerous. It is not good for the administration. I don't think it is
good for the country because the vote that is taken would be on
decertifying Mexico as being seriously involved in this drug-fighting
effort with us.
It might pass. And if we are going to have games played here on other
unrelated issues, it puts me under extraordinary pressure.
I have indicated that I do not want to vote for decertification. But
I might.
Also, even if it does not pass, what if the vote is 60 to 40? What
does it say about the administration's effort? What does it say about
the President's effort? What does it say to Mexico that 40 United
States Senators voted to decertify Mexico? Then that would have to go--
unless the House just accepts that--to conference. And then here is
what will be pending in conference: decertification, or 90 days of
delay and a vote. Neither one of those should look very tempting to
those that want to do the right thing.
So I do not want to go on at length. I want us to get started. We
need to get started. But I hope we can get an agreement to move forward
on the agreement that was entered into last night. It is the right
thing to do. It is the right thing for the Senate. It is the right
thing for the administration. And, on a close call, I guess it is the
right thing in our efforts to control drugs coming out of Mexico.
But, Mr. President, I am in good spirits today. I understand we have
to do this positioning around here. I understand you have to try to
drag the majority leader into doing something he might not want to do,
or cannot do. But I think this is the wrong place and the wrong time to
be playing this game.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, thank the
distinguished majority leader because last night he played a very key
role in assisting us in making what I thought was an extremely
difficult agreement.
I also want to thank the Democrat leader, Senator Daschle, who also
was in agreement that he would move forward on this issue, get it
resolved, and have it done. I was prepared to come over here shortly
before the vote in praise of really what was an outstanding bipartisan
effort. The administration, the Democrats, and the Republicans worked
together to come up with something which required significant
compromise on the part of all sides in order to come up with an
agreement that we could move forward and get this issue behind us,
which we know has extraordinary dimensions associated with it, given
the emotion associated with the issue of drugs and the explosiveness of
our relations with Mexico.

Now, I understand that one of the Members of this body wants to tie
this hard-fought agreement, of which he was not a party, to the
Chemical Weapons Convention. I hope that the individual who wants to
block moving forward with this resolution understands that we are
working on a Chemical Weapons Convention and an agreement to move
forward on it. There are active discussions and negotiations that are
going on. But to tie that to this, in my view--and I say this with
careful consideration--is totally irresponsible.
The Senator from California, the Senator from Georgia, the Senator
from Texas, the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and the Senator
from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, the President's National Security
Adviser, the Secretary of State all joined together. I again applaud
the Senator from California who had a very tough position on this, and
a very principled one, I might say. And now we are being hung up on a
Thursday before going into a recess, which a lot of us would like to go
on, because one Member of this body who was not a part of the
negotiations, nor, by the way, is a part of the Chemical Weapons
Convention negotiations, of which I am a part, is going against the
direct agreement of the majority leader, the Democratic leader, and all
of us.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to get this thing done. And I
hope that the majority leader will move this unanimous-consent
agreement, and let whoever objects come to the floor and move forward
in a parliamentary fashion with a live quorum call.
This is an important issue that we have to get done with today. The
majority leader has described this scenario of what happens if we went
to conference, and what happens if we go ahead on a direct vote for
decertification. This flies directly in the face of a completely
bipartisan agreement.
Mr. President, there is a lot of conversation about the rancor and
partisanship. We just went through a very bitter situation on the point
of the CIA Director. We proved that we can work together for the good
of the country, and now it is about to be derailed. I strongly object
to it.
I yield to the Senator from Texas for a question.
I apologize for taking time from the Senator from California. Again,
I have the utmost praise for her, not only on agreement on the
compromise last night, but for her constant attention and concern over
this vitally important issue.
I don't know of anything right now that is more important than our
relations with Mexico and the war on drugs, which is destroying young
Americans as we speak.
I yield to her for a question.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona just touched
on an important point, and that is, all of us are trying to avoid a
vote directly on decertification. No one wants that

[[Page S2579]]

to happen. But, in fact, if the Senator from Arizona is correct--what
all of us worked so hard to put together was a positive, productive
statement that we could work from to make progress in the war on drugs
between our countries--if what he is saying is true, then we are all
going to be forced to make the worst of all votes because we just can't
get our bill on the floor for debate.
Is that correct?
Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.
I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Texas. All of us
understand the importance of the war on drugs. Those of us from border
States perhaps--I emphasize perhaps--appreciate it a little bit more
because of the direct involvement that we have.
I am not going to speak on this again in the Chamber and take time. I
think we are going to work this out. We have to. I want to especially
express my appreciation to the Senator from California, the Senator
from Texas, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, and the Senator
from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, and others,
and members of the administration who sat down with us and negotiated,
I think, an important and positive agreement and a way around this
issue.
Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from
California, and I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I really rise to lament the situation
we are in. I believe the people of this Nation sent us to the Senate to
work across the aisle, to work in a bipartisan way and particularly on
issues of major concern. Whether Mexico is certified or not is an issue
of major concern. It is of major concern certainly to Mexico; it is to
America; it is to the cities of America; it is to every Representative
in the House and to every Member of this body as well.
I wish to pay tribute to the senior Senator from Georgia, with whom I
have worked, with the junior Senator from Texas, with whom I have
worked, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, to the administration team, and
to many others. I believe we have demonstrated we can, in fact, work
across party lines.
We have developed a resolution which I think is a major achievement;
it is law--it is not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution; it is a law--in
which we state our concerns; we make findings; we ask the
administration to move forward; we ask the President to move forward in
his trips to Mexico and other Latin American nations to work in a
multilateral way to bring back a new agreement; we indicate 10 areas
where we would like to see progress; and we ask the administration to
report to this Congress on September 1 on the progress made.
We did not start here. Senator D'Amato and I began this a year ago.
Not many people listened. We said we do not really believe that Mexico
has fulfilled the test of a friend and neighbor and an ally who has
been fully cooperative as the law calls for to be certified. At that
point he and I put forward certain tests that we felt had to be met
prior to certification.
A year went by, and we saw very little progress, if any. And then the
President made the decision to certify Mexico. In his mind, he had many
good reasons to do so. It was a decision that was spiritedly debated
within the White House. It was debated within the Department of State.
And that was the ultimate decision of the President.
There were those of us in this body, myself included, who had a
profound difference of opinion with this decision. We thought that the
Colombian model was the appropriate model and that Mexico should be
decertified but with a national interest waiver as was the procedure
with Colombia 2 years ago because we felt certification was not the
appropriate vehicle. But it is the vehicle that we have, and therefore
Mexico should be treated in the same way Colombia was if the findings
were as we believe them to be.
We have had meeting after meeting after meeting. The senior Senator
from Georgia and I find ourselves in real agreement. The Senator from
Texas and the two of us have worked together. Democrats came in;
Republicans came in; the administration came in; and we forged an
agreement which I believe, based on a conversation at least on my side
with the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives last night,
can be acceptable to the House and can be a clear statement which gives
the President certain--not directives--but I think certain clear
requests from this body to follow on his trip to Mexico which is
upcoming and from which I believe our Nation, our big cities, our
streets can derive significant benefit.
I am profoundly disappointed to find ourselves in this situation and
really urge colleagues on my side who are rightly concerned with the
Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, rightly concerned, to please let
this resolution go, let us have the debate, because absent that debate
and given no opportunity in law to express ourselves, you leave us with
no choice but to move for decertification because that is the only
direct resolution that can come to the floor on an expedited procedure,
as the majority leader has just said.
I cannot tell you how strongly I feel about the cooperation I and
others have had from the Republican side of the aisle. I have had an
opportunity to work very closely with the senior Senator from Georgia,
with his excellent staff, certainly with my excellent staff, with the
Senator from Texas, Senators McCain, Kerry, Dodd, Domenici, all of whom
came at a very critical time last night into these discussions and
played a very helpful role. The administration has agreed in the areas
of consensus. I think some things they did not want to be forced to put
forward in law they have agreed to. We have agreed to take out
something that the administration did not want, which was a September 1
expedited procedure giving us the opportunity to comment again in law
on progress made between March 1 and September 1. We removed that. We
have consensus. The administration has said the President would sign
this; we believe the House will pass it; and we have a strong policy
document with which to move forward.
It would just be tragic if we fragment, if we have to use the only
thing we have, which is a decertification, a straight and outright
decertification, as the means to express ourselves. So I am very
hopeful we would have an opportunity today, now, to bring this
resolution to the floor. If we cannot achieve unanimous consent, as the
majority leader has just said, it leaves him with no alternative but to
call up the decertification resolution, and once that debate begins it
would take unanimous consent to stop it, and unanimous consent to bring
this resolution up during that 10-hour period, which I see really
fraught with great difficulties.
Once again, I cannot tell you how many hours the Senator from
Georgia, the Senator from Texas, I and a number of other people have
been involved in this effort. We have consulted the Democratic leader
as we moved along. I believe he is pleased with this outcome.
So I plead with colleagues on my side not to hold this resolution
hostage to an agreement on the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is too
important. Please, do not do it.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Chair recognizes the
distinguished minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me begin by associating myself with
the remarks of the distinguished Senator from California. She speaks
for many on our side as well, who want very much to bring this issue to
closure today. It is because of her efforts and the efforts, as she has
indicated, of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Georgia and
others who have dedicated an extraordinary amount of time in the last
couple of weeks to working with the administration and others to bring
us to a point where, on one of the most contentious issues we have had
to confront in this Congress, we have actually come to a point where
Republicans and Democrats can reach agreement. That does not happen
very often in this Congress, and especially in this session of this
Congress so far. I hope we can avail ourselves of the opportunity it
presents and come to an agreement on procedure and allow this
resolution to be taken up and voted upon sometime by early afternoon.

[[Page S2580]]

I did not hear a lot of what the majority leader has indicated is his
position with regard to the chemical weapons treaty. He knows of the
great concern on our side of the aisle about achieving a process that
will allow us consideration of that treaty no later than the 19th of
April so that, by the 29th of April, that treaty can be ratified and
that we can be full-fledged members of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
If we miss that small window, from April 7 to April 19, we will have
lost the opportunity, that 125 other countries have already taken, that
we have sought for decades to have an international agreement on
chemical weapons. Our failure to become part of the convention will put
us in the company of Iraq, Iran, Libya, and countries that in every
way, shape, and form and by any definition are rogue states today. Do
we want to be in that position?
I would think there would be an unequivocal, unanimous verdict that,
no, we do not want to be in the company of Libya, Iraq, and Iran. But
we are in a position which, in a very short period of time, will force
us into that company if we do nothing. That is why my Democratic
colleagues feel so strongly about this issue and believe that there are
very few other issues out there more important, and if we do not turn
up the pressure and find ways in which to assert our determination to
get this convention considered, we will have lost an opportunity, not
only for the Senate, for the country, but perhaps for the convention
itself. This is why it is so critical.
Having said all of that, and I could say a lot more but in the
interests of time, let me say I believe the majority leader is doing as
much as he can at this point to bring us to a set of circumstances that
will allow us consideration in due time. I believe there is a great
deal of difference within the Republican caucus on this issue. I
understand that. There are many issues that divide the Democratic
caucus. So it is not out of the ordinary to be divided on an issue of
this importance and controversy. But I do believe that the majority
leader has given me adequate reason to be confident that we will take
this treaty up in a time that will accommodate ratification on the
Senate floor prior to the 19th of April.
So, given all of his cooperation and his willingness to work with us,
I think the most important thing for us to do today is to pass this
compromise to allow us to work with Mexico to deal with the drug issue
in a meaningful way without slapping them in the face. So I hope, as
the Senator from California has so articulately pointed out just a
moment ago, that we recognize how important this opportunity is for all
of us, that we seize the moment, that we get an agreement, and we move
forward.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________