[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 116 (Thursday, September 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S10686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S.J. RES. 33

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in view of the urgent nature of the subject 
involved, since the subject will be dealt with on Friday of this week, 
tomorrow, I thought we needed to proceed to have some debate and 
hopefully even a vote with regard to the matter of the pardon of the 
Puerto Rican terrorists.
  So I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S.J. Res. 33, a 
joint resolution deploring the actions of President Clinton with 
respect to clemency for FALN terrorists, and there be 2 hours for 
debate to be equally divided between the two leaders. I further ask 
consent that no amendments be in order to the resolution and that 
following the use or yielding back of the debate time, the joint 
resolution be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on 
passage with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me say this 
resolution was introduced last night. It was only put on the calendar 
today. To my knowledge, very few, if any, people have had the 
opportunity to read the resolution, much less give much consideration 
to it. So I ask unanimous consent the majority leader's consent request 
be modified to conform with the regular order of the Senate and provide 
for amendments and no limit on debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think the 
Senator's point is well taken, that this has come up quickly. But there 
is a reason for that. This whole issue came out during the August 
recess period when Senators were back in their respective States. I 
think everybody was stunned and shocked and somewhat in disbelief that 
these 12 or so terrorists--I believe it was 16 total--were going to be 
offered this clemency and this pardon.
  We just returned to the Senate for business on Wednesday of this 
week. There was no earlier opportunity to introduce this resolution, 
and I understand clemency takes effect tomorrow, on Friday. That is why 
it has been handled in this way.
  Having said that, I inquire of Senator Daschle, with those 
amendments, any amendment that would be offered, would they be relevant 
to this subject, to the question of the clemency of these terrorists, 
or would it be his request that any amendment would be in order 
affecting any subject?
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I can respond to the distinguished majority leader, 
first, let me say that nothing, as I understand it, in this 
resolution--again, I have only had a cursory opportunity to look at 
it--would do anything with regard to the President's actions. The 
President is going to be able to act with or without this resolution. 
So the timing of the resolution has no real bearing on the President's 
decision.
  We can adopt or reject the amendment and the resolution at any time. 
That is, I think, what the majority leader's intent would be, to put 
the Senate on record with regard to the action, not prevent the 
President from doing so because this resolution does not prevent him; 
it simply comments on what they view to be the advisability of the 
resolution.
  But in answer to the question of the majority leader, let me say, we 
would want to at least give our colleagues the right to offer 
amendments. I am not in a position at this moment to come to agreement 
with regard to what the amendments might or might not be. I simply am 
asking that in the context of legislation and the Senate rules the 
regular order be followed. The regular order is that Senators can offer 
amendments. It does not say the regular order requires germaneness or 
relevancy. The regular order is Senators have a right to offer 
amendments.
  I simply ask in my unanimous consent request that the regular order 
under Senate rules be allowed in this case as one would expect they 
would be followed traditionally.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first of all, I say to Senator Daschle, the 
Democratic leader, and other Senators on both sides of the aisle, since 
I believe there apparently will be objection, and there will probably 
be a vote on this at some point, we will be glad to work on both sides.
  I know there is a feeling of outrage in the country and on both sides 
of the political aisle about this happening. We are going to express 
ourselves either before or after the clemency actually takes place. I 
extend that invitation to work with us to see if we can develop 
language that can have the type of broad support that I believe there 
is in this country on the whole against this action. In view of the 
request, I have to object to that addition to the unanimous consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes that the unanimous consent 
request by the minority leader is not in order. We first must dispose 
of the unanimous consent request of the majority leader before we can 
entertain an additional unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe under that circumstance then it goes back to the 
question of whether or not there is objection to my original request.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, the majority leader 
objects to my modification.
  Mr. LOTT. Right.
  Mr. DASCHLE. As a result of that, I object to the proposal as 
presented.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________