[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2580-S2581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 58

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 29, House Joint 
Resolution 58, regarding the certification of the President with 
respect to Mexico, that there be no time restraints for debate on the 
resolution and an amendment. Further, I ask unanimous consent that 
there be only one amendment in order to be offered by Senators 
Coverdell and Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, without objecting, I would like to ask 
a question of the majority leader before proceeding or determining 
whether to object.
  As the majority leader and the Democratic leader both know, I have 
been very concerned that we get some agreements or understanding about 
how the Chemical Weapons Convention is to be handled in April. We have 
a deadline coming at us. I think the convention, as I understand it, 
goes into effect on the 29th of April. We have to, if the United States 
is to participate, if the judgment of the Senate is we should 
participate in that, we would have to make that judgment several days 
before that. At least that is what I have been informed.
  I am just concerned that time is running out. We seem to be taking 
one legislative or executive matter up after another here without 
really having an understanding about how we are going to dispose of 
this Chemical Weapons Convention.
  I wondered if the majority leader could assure me about how this is 
going to be brought to the Senate and dealt with in the coming month?
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield. 
First, I would like to just briefly clarify what we have in this 
consent request. It is to bring up this certification issue and to 
allow an amendment that would put in place the agreement that was 
entered into last night by a bipartisan group of Senators and the 
administration.
  So this just basically sets up a process to begin the debate and get 
a vote on the agreement with regard to certification, with the 
understanding it does set out some markers as to what we think should 
be done, and it does require the President to report by September 1 as 
to the progress that is being made there. But it does not have a 
subsequent date where a vote could occur. This is going to be the vote 
on certification, or decertification, depending on your point of view. 
So I want to clarify what I was asking for there.
  With regard to the inquiry of the Senator from New Mexico, first of 
all, let me assure him I understand there is concern about the April 29 
date and the need for some action before that date by a number of 
Senators.
  There is disagreement on how essential it is we act before the 29th. 
As a matter of fact, whenever the United States should ratify such a 
treaty, certainly we would be sort of the big kid on the block and we 
would be involved in the process. But there are arguments on the other 
side of it, and I certainly understand that.
  I acknowledged to the Senator from Michigan, I believe it was 
yesterday or the day before, that I also understand that in order to 
get a treaty completed and the subsequent actions that go along with 
it, enacting or enabling legislation----
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reform.
  Mr. LOTT. Reform legislation--it takes some time after the actual 
vote.
  So it is my intent for this issue to come up when we come back after 
the Easter recess.
  There is a statute or bill that has been introduced that we hope to 
get up and get a vote on. Very serious. I think good efforts are 
underway to deal with the parallel issues of U.N. reform. The 
administration is working with a bipartisan group of House and Senate 
Members. I think everybody is beginning to understand, themselves, and 
we may be able to get some reforms and some process on how we deal with 
what is the number we may be indebted to the United Nations for and how 
that ever would be addressed.
  We are also working with the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Helms, and Senator Biden, the ranking member, on this reorganization of 
the State Department issue. The new Secretary of State has indicated 
some encouraging things there, and I believe there is going to be good 
faith by all to try to address this issue.
  There are some legitimate concerns about the treaty--the verification 
question, search and seizure questions, how it affects different things 
in America. On some of those, the administration this year came back 
and said, ``You're right. We have some concerns about this issue.''
  So a number of them have been worked out. An equal number are within 
the range of being worked out. Again, Senator Biden has been working 
with Senator Helms to address some of those concerns.
  There are some we just will not be able to get worked out. I mean, we 
will have to have votes on amendments on the floor or there will 
probably be a substitute. But my intention is to continue to work with 
all involved, including the chairman and ranking member, to get this 
issue to the floor in April. That is why I had our list of items. It is 
not my intent to stonewall or delay this.

[[Page S2581]]

  I understand that every time we go out or every time a bill comes up, 
the Senator from New Mexico will be up here raising questions and maybe 
even objections. We have other things we need to do that are equally or 
more important. So it is not my intention at all to allow this thing to 
go on indefinitely.
  But you do understand, as the majority leader, you work with the 
chairman, you help the chairman, and the chairman helps you, and you 
work with the ranking member. This is a place of great comity, and we 
want to keep that. I am trying to honor that as a majority leader who 
is, you know, sort of learning as I go along, making a few mistakes 
here and there, but getting some things done on the way, too. So I 
think you know from what we have been able to do over the last 8 
months, I work steadily at these things, and at some point we are going 
to get to vote on this. I do not mean to say in the great wild blue 
wonder. We are working very aggressively, and I believe we are going to 
get a process to get it dealt with in April.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me just respond by saying I 
appreciate the statements by the majority leader. I have observed the 
majority leader here for several months, and I have great confidence 
that when he expects and intends for a particular matter to come to the 
Senate floor and be dealt with, that that will actually occur, and I am 
encouraged by his statements to that affect. On that basis, I will not 
object to this particular unanimous-consent request.
  I will plan to renew my concern once we return from this recess if it 
is not clear at that time that we have all parties in agreement as to 
the timing to bring that convention to the floor. I think timing is 
essential.
  I have no problem with amendments and changes. I am not trying to 
dictate the end result on what the Senate does, but I think it is very 
important that we vote on it in a timely fashion. I take the statement 
by the majority leader to be a statement that he intends and expects 
that we will work assiduously to bring that about. I thank the majority 
leader.
  I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank the Democratic leader and the 
Senators on both sides for the work that has been done on this. I 
believe now we will have a good discussion about what is or is not 
going on with regard to the drug battle that we are fighting, with the 
American Government and the Mexican Government being involved.
  Madam President, I believe we are able now to get a time agreement, 
which I think would be very helpful to all Senators to know that we are 
going to proceed and there will be a time specified so we can have a 
vote by 4 o'clock, hopefully. I discussed this with the Democratic 
leader and other Senators. I believe we have a reasonable agreement 
here.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration 
of Calendar No. 29, House Joint Resolution 58, regarding the 
certification of the President with respect to Mexico and there be 4 
hours 45 minutes total for debate on the resolution and an amendment, 
to be divided as follows: Senator Coverdell in control of 1 hour, 
Senator Feinstein in control of 1 hour, 1 hour under the control of the 
majority leader and 1 hour under the control of the Democratic leader, 
Senator Grassley in control of 30 minutes, and Senator Torricelli in 
control of 15 minutes.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be one amendment in order 
to be offered by Senators Coverdell and Feinstein. I further ask 
unanimous consent that no other amendments or motions be in order, and 
following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed 
to a vote on the amendment, to be followed by third reading and final 
passage of House Joint Resolution 58 without further action or debate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent 
that in addition to this request, which I fully support, that the 
request be amended to accommodate a need by the senior Senator from 
West Virginia, Senator Byrd, to speak for 30 minutes on another matter. 
I ask unanimous consent that following the vote, the Senator from West 
Virginia be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I amend my unanimous-consent request to 
include that additional 30 minutes for the Senator from West Virginia 
after the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Again, Madam President, I thank Senator Daschle for his 
cooperation.

                          ____________________