Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3324-S3327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 495 AND THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION

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. DASCHLE. Would the majority leader yield at that point?
Mr. LOTT. Yes.
Mr. DASCHLE. At that point I would add 1 hour under the control of
Senator Leahy.

[[Page S3325]]

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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

(29) Russian elimination of chemical weapons.--Prior to the
deposit of the United States instrument of ratification, the
President shall certify to the Congress that--
(A) Russia is making reasonable progress in the
implementation of the Agreement between the United States of
America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on
Destruction and Nonproduction of Chemical Weapons and on
Measures to Facilitate the Multilateral Convention on Banning
Chemical Weapons, signed on June 1, 1990 (in this resolution
referred to as the ``1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement'');
(B) the United States and Russia have resolved, to the
satisfaction of the United States, outstanding compliance
issues under the Memorandum of Understanding Between the
Government of the United States of America and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding a Bilateral Verification
Experiment and Data Exchange Related to Prohibition on
Chemical Weapons, signed at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on
September 23, 1989, also known as the ``1989 Wyoming
Memorandum of Understanding'', and the 1990 Bilateral
Destruction Agreement;
(C) Russia has deposited the Russian instrument of
ratification for the Convention and is in compliance with its
obligations under the Convention; and
(D) Russia is committed to forgoing any chemical weapons
capability, chemical weapons modernization program,
production mobilization capability, or any other activity
contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.
(30) Chemical weapons in other states.--
(A) Certification requirement.--Prior to the deposit of the
United States instrument of ratification the President, in
consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, shall
certify to the Congress that countries which have been
determined to have offensive chemical weapons programs,
including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, China, and all other countries determined
to be state sponsors of international terrorism, have
ratified or otherwise acceded to the Convention.
(31) Exercise of right to bar certain inspectors.--
(i) In general.--The President shall exercise United States
rights under paragraphs 2 and 4 of Part II of the
Verification Annex to indicate United States non-acceptance
of all inspectors and inspection assistants who are nationals
of countries designated by the Secretary of State as
supporters of international terrorism under section 40(d) of
the Arms Export Control Act, or nationals of countries that
have been determined by the President, in the last five
years, to have violated United States nonproliferation law,
including--

(I) chapters 7, 8, and 10 of the Arms Export Control Act;
(II) sections 821 and 824 of the Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Act of 1994;
(III) sections 11b and 11c of the Export Administration Act
of 1979;
(IV) the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945; and
(V) sections 1604 and 1605 of the Iran-Iraq
Nonproliferation Act of 1992.

(ii) Other grounds of exclusion.--The President shall also
bar such nationals from entering United States territory for
the purpose of conducting any activity associated with the
Convention, notwithstanding paragraph 7 of Part II of the
Verification Annex.
(32) Stemming the proliferation of chemical weapons.--Prior
to the deposit of the United States instrument of
ratification, the President shall certify to Congress that--
(A) the State Parties have concluded an agreement amending
the Convention--
(i) by striking Article X; and
(ii) by amending Article XI to strike any provision that
states or implies disapproval of trade restrictions in the
field of chemical activities, including paragraphs 2(b),
2(c), 2(d), and 2(e); and
(B) no provision has been added to the Convention or to any
of its annexes, and no statement, written or oral, has been
issued by the Organization, stating or implying the right or
obligation of States Parties to share or facilitate the
exchange among themselves of chemical weapons defense
technology, chemicals, equipment, or scientific and technical
information.
(33) Effective verification.--
(A) Certification.--Prior to the deposit of the United
States instrument of ratification, the President shall
certify to Congress that compliance with the Convention is
effectively verifiable.
(B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
(i) Effectively verifiable.--The term ``effectively
verifiable'' means that the Director of Central Intelligence
has certified to the President that the United States
intelligence community (as defined in section 3(4) of the
National Security Act of 1947) has a high degree of
confidence in its ability to detect militarily significant
violations of the Convention, including the production,
possession, or storage of militarily significant quantities
of lethal chemicals, in a timely fashion, and to detect
patterns of marginal violation over time.
(ii) Militarily significant.--The term ``militarily
significant'' means one metric ton or more of chemical
weapons agent.
(iii) Timely fashion.--The term ``timely fashion'' means
detection within one year of the violation having occurred.

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I just want to clarify
that the amendments we will offer to strike will be in order Thursday
regardless of whether the 10 hours of debate has been completed and
that the vote on the agreed-on reservations will occur prior to
consideration of the reservations in this agreement.
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?

[[Page S3326]]

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. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I just only clarify this
because that is the understanding. I appreciate very much the
distinguished majority leader's assurances in that regard.
Mr. President, as I said a moment ago, this is the product of several
days' worth of work. I thank the majority leader for his leadership and
the cooperation he has shown in bringing us to this point.
I also thank Senators Biden, Leahy, Levin, Kerry, Bingaman, and many
others who had so much to do on our side with this effort. I think it's
a very good agreement and appreciate the cooperation from all of our
colleagues.
I have no objection.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I inquire?
This agreement would provide for a separate vote on the so-called 28
items in agreement; is that correct? If that is correct, I will have to
object because that was never my understanding of the agreement.
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. BYRD. Will the distinguished majority leader yield for a question
or perhaps a brief statement before he asks for a quorum?
Mr. LOTT. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been informed that our offices were
notified 20 minutes ago, roughly, about this agreement. I assume that
it was thought that if there were no objections registered within 15,
20 minutes, whatever it was, there were none and therefore we would go
ahead with the agreement.
It seems to me that at times certainly that is not in the best
interest of the Senate. I am not complaining. Here is a very lengthy
unanimous-consent agreement. I have not seen it. I am not one of the
principal players in this situation. I probably am going to vote for
the treaty.
But the approval of resolutions of ratification of treaties is one of
the unique reasons for the Senate's raison d'etre. Consequently, to
just, at first blush, come up here to the floor and hear this long
agreement read and then go along without objecting, at least for a
little while until I can read it, it seems to me I am not doing my duty
to the Senate, my duty under the Constitution, my duty to my people.
Twenty minutes. If a hotline goes to the office on a lengthy
agreement like this and I am out doing other things--and we do have
other important duties that are part of the people's business--nobody
in the office is in a position to approve or to object.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, would the distinguished--I do not know
who has the floor.
Mr. LOTT. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DASCHLE. I would like to respond, if I could, to the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
There were four notifications, I would explain to my dear colleague,
the senior Senator from West Virginia.
First, we had sent out the substance of this agreement about 48 hours
ago. So staffs have had this now for the better part of 2 days.
Second, we discussed it in the caucus on Tuesday.
Third, we had the opportunity to talk to all relevant committee staff
and then, of course, to those who had a particular interest in it over
the last 24 hours.
Then, finally, of course, we have explained it again in a policy
committee just about 2\1/2\ hours ago.
So I really think that in this case there ought not be any surprises
for any of our colleagues if they had an interest.
We have really made the effort as this has evolved to bring people
along with the understanding of where we are. This is simply a
confirmation of what I have been explaining to our caucus now for the
better part of a week.
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. BYRD. The only thing I am accusing my leaders of is that they
always act with the very best of intentions and they are very sincere.
I was at the caucus on Tuesday. I never heard this agreement
discussed. Am I wrong?
Mr. DASCHLE. I do not know if you were there. If the distinguished
Senator will yield again, I do not know that he was there when this
segment of it was discussed, but we brought it up at the end of the
caucus. I think the Senator may have already left the caucus.
Mr. BYRD. I am talking about the details of this agreement.
Mr. DASCHLE. That is right. We talked about the timeframe--which is
what this agreement addresses--within which all of the legislation
affecting the agreement will be considered. I spoke at some length in
describing what the scenario would be, and again repeated it, as I
said, at the policy committee this afternoon.
Mr. BYRD. I was not at the policy committee this afternoon. That is
not the leader's fault. I have had some other things that demand my
attention, one of them being the election

[[Page S3327]]

challenge to Mary Landrieu, which took some time, at least before noon.
Mr. DASCHLE. Again, I reiterate, we also had the text of this
agreement. The substantive portions of this agreement have all been
transmitted to every Democratic office now for some time. It should be
in the office of every Senator. Every Democratic Senator and staff
should have been well aware of it. We then faxed the specific agreement
about an hour ago.
Mr. BYRD. I have not seen that. That is not the leader's fault. That
may have been my office. It has not been called to my attention. I will
discuss that with my staff. The leader knows we are very short in our
staffs--shorthanded. I will go back and take a look at that.
There is one thing I thought I had clearly understood, and that was
when we have an agreement and we go to third reading and part of the
agreement is to the effect that we go immediately after third reading
without further action or debate to final passage, I objected to that
last year, but I see that the agreements that are being proposed now go
back to that same kind of phraseology. I am a little troubled by that.
Mr. DASCHLE. If I could say, the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia has made himself very clear on this point. I agree with him.
I think that we ought to use the language that will allow for
consideration of final passage after reaching the third reading, which
is what the Senator has suggested.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me
just say that I think this has again addressed all of the concerns
raised. And I appreciate very much everyone's cooperation here. The
clock is ticking. We are losing time. We need to get on with
consideration of the Kyl bill. And I hope now that we can enter into
this unanimous-consent agreement.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
No objection is heard.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to
clarify that this will be a voice vote on both of the two matters
indicated in the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I absolutely confirm that that is the case.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I shall not object, the
voice vote on the which?
Mr. LOTT. On the underlying resolution of the committee and on the 28
conditions that have been agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No objection is heard.
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________