[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 130 (Thursday, September 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11666-S11669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--TREATY DOCUMENT NO. 105-28

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent

[[Page S11667]]

that at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, October 6, the Foreign Relations 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of treaty document 
No. 105-28 and the document be placed on the Executive Calendar, if not 
previously reported by the committee.
  I further ask consent that at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, the Senate begin 
consideration of treaty document No. 105-28--this is the Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty--and the treaty be advanced through the various 
parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the 
resolution of ratification, and there be one relevant amendment in 
order to the resolution of ratification to be offered by each leader; 
in other words, there would be two of those.
  I further ask that there be a total of 10 hours of debate to be 
equally divided in the usual form and no other amendments, 
reservations, conditions, declarations, statements, understandings, or 
motions be in order.
  I further ask that following the use or yielding back of time and the 
disposition of the amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption 
of the resolution of ratification, as amended, if amended, all without 
any intervening action or debate.
  I also ask consent that following the vote, the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table, the resolution to return to the President be 
deemed agreed to, and the Senate immediately resume legislative 
session.
  Basically, after consultation on both sides of the aisle, and 
especially with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, we are 
asking that we go to a reasonable time for debate and a vote on this 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  I think this treaty is bad, bad for the country and dangerous, but if 
there is demand that we go forward with it, as I have been hearing for 
2 years, we are ready to go.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object to this request for three 
reasons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DASCHLE. First, 10 hours of debate is totally insufficient for a 
treaty as important as this. I appreciate very much the majority 
leader's willingness to respond to the continued requests we have made 
for consideration of this treaty. He and I hold a different view about 
the importance of it, but we are certainly willing to have a debate and 
have the vote.
  I appreciate as well his willingness to respond as quickly as he has. 
In this case, we have been attempting to get to this point for a long 
period of time. But October 6 is a time that I don't think allows for 
adequate preparation for a debate of this magnitude.
  Keep in mind, no hearings have been held yet on this issue. 
Unfortunately, as a result of that, I don't think people are fully 
cognizant of the ramifications of this treaty and the importance of it. 
I will certainly agree to a time certain if we can extend the length of 
debate.
  I would also be concerned about the language in the unanimous-consent 
request that assumes this treaty will be defeated. The last paragraph 
makes an assumption that we are not prepared to make at this point. We 
don't think it necessarily will be defeated.
  We look forward to working with the leader and coming up with a time 
we can debate it and give it the time it deserves. I hope it will be 
done sometime this coming month. I look forward to working with the 
majority leader to make that happen.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, three responses: First, if additional time 
is needed to have a full debate, I think we can work that out. Second, 
with regard to the leader's objection, I guess to the language in the 
last paragraph, we can talk about that and probably can work out an 
agreement to drop that. Third, there have been lots of hearings on this 
issue over a long period of time and a lot of individual briefings by 
Members on both sides of the aisle. I think the Senator would be 
surprised at the amount of knowledge Members have on this subject.

  Finally, there is one sure way it will be defeated--that is, not to 
ever take it up. I would like us to get a time as soon as possible, 
within the very near future, and have that debate and have a vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Mississippi yield for a question?
  Mr. LOTT. Do I have time, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, I am glad to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the courtesy of the majority leader. I hope 
we can find a way by which we are able to debate and vote on this 
treaty. I don't share the opinion that it is dangerous. I think it is 
important for the interests of this country that we ratify this treaty. 
Whatever the agreement, I also think it would be useful to have a 
hearing in the coming days and have the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 
others come forward and tell us their views.
  Mr. LOTT. One observation, if the Senator will withhold for a second: 
This agreement doesn't preclude hearings in the appropriate committees 
either this week or next week.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand it would not preclude it, but would it 
necessarily include it? Does the majority leader think such hearings 
will be held? Notwithstanding that, I still think, one way or the 
other, we ought to get to this treaty, get it to the floor, debate it, 
and vote on it.
  Mr. LOTT. We are ready, Mr. President.
  Mr. DORGAN. Does the Senator believe there will be a hearing in the 
coming days?
  Mr. LOTT. I don't know. I assume that could happen. There are at 
least two chairmen who would probably be willing to do something in 
that area.
  I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am getting a little weary of this 
business of saying this is true and that is true when it is not true.
  We have held at least nine hearings on this matter. We have invited 
Senators to come. They didn't want to come. I have done the best I can 
to have hearings. But if the Senators won't come, and if the news media 
won't report what we have had, I believe I have discharged my 
responsibility.
  Let's hear no more about ``no hearings.'' There have been hearings; 
the Senators from the other side just didn't participate.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if it would be appropriate, I yield the 
floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am always reluctant to disagree publicly 
with my friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the full committee, 
because we get along so well. We have a fundamental disagreement on 
this issue. But I am unaware of any hearings we have had in the Foreign 
Relations Committee on this treaty.
  We have had hearings on the ABM Treaty. We have had hearings on the 
ABM Treaty. We have had hearings on the protocol to the ABM Treaty, and 
the demarcation issue. We have had hearings on the impact of theater 
missile defense. We have had those hearings. They all implicate the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But we have had, to the best of my 
knowledge, no hearings on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  I note for the Record one Senator's view. I think it is shared by 
many.
  This is the single most significant issue facing the entire question 
of proliferation of nuclear weapons, and it holds the key for good or 
bad, depending on your perspective, on every other aspect of our 
strategic defenses.
  So it is, to me, not reasonable. The chairman has been very 
straightforward with me--and I respect him for it--in the many urgings 
I have made to him to have hearings. He said to me: Joe, we will have 
hearings if the following things occur.
  He lays it out. He said: We will have hearings if we first do ABM, if 
we first do the Kyoto treaty, if we first do other things. He has set 
priorities. He has been straightforward, honest, and up front about it 
for the last 2 years. This is the only thing he and I have had a real 
disagreement on.
  But the idea that we have had hearings on this treaty is not true. I 
am not suggesting that the chairman is intentionally misleading the 
Senate. He may think in terms of since we have had hearings that 
implicate other aspects of our strategic defenses and our strategic 
offensive capability that we have done this, but we haven't.
  The Government Affairs Committee, I thought, had some hearings on it 
relating particularly to the stockpiling

[[Page S11668]]

issue and the testing of the stockpiling. And I think maybe even the 
Armed Services Committee may have had hearings on it.
  But I want to get something straight. I am going to sound to the 
public like a typical Washingtonian Senator. The only outfit that has 
jurisdiction over this is the Foreign Relations Committee--the Foreign 
Relations Committee. That is one of our principal functions.
  With all due respect to my colleagues, we haven't had hearings.
  Let me say one word in conclusion.
  I am willing and anxious to have an up-or-down vote on this because, 
as the majority leader said, if we don't vote, the treaty loses anyway. 
I would rather everybody be counted. I want everybody on the line. I 
want every Senator voting yes or no on this treaty so we all can put 
ourselves in line so that, if India and Pakistan end up--while we are 
pleading with them to ratify this treaty, while we are pleading with 
them not to deploy--if they end up deploying nuclear weapons, I am 
going to be on the floor reminding everybody what happened and the 
sequence of events. I will not be able to prove that is why they did 
it. But I can sure make a pretty strong case.

  I want everybody coming up this next year--everybody from the 
Presidential candidates to all of our colleagues running for 
reelection--to be counted on this issue.
  That is why I am willing--I am in the minority--to have the vote 
today. I am willing to go ahead. I am not the leader. But I will tell 
you, I think this is a critical issue. We have had no hearings.
  It makes sense what my friend from North Carolina says--that we 
should have hearings, and we should do it in an orderly fashion. We 
should proceed this way. Apparently, we are not going to proceed this 
way; therefore, we will have to do it in a way in which the committee 
system was not designed to function. If that is the only way we can get 
a vote, fine.
  I conclude by saying that I don't doubt for a second the intensity 
with which my friend from North Carolina believes this treaty is 
against the interests of the United States any more than he doubts for 
a second my deep-seated belief that it is in the ultimate interest of 
the United States.
  But these are the issues over which people should win and lose. These 
are the big issues. These are the issues that impact upon the future of 
the United States and the world. This is the stuff we should be doing 
instead of niggling over whether or not you know somebody smoked 
marijuana or did something when they were 15. This is what this body is 
designed to do. This is our responsibility, and I am anxious to engage 
it.
  If it is 10 hours, 2 hours, or 20 hours, the longer the better to 
inform the American public. Hearings would be illuminating.
  But since that is probably not going to happen, I say to my friend 
from North Carolina that I am ready to go. I expect he and I will be 
going toe to toe on what is in the interest of America. I respect his 
view. I thank God for him. I love him. But he is dead wrong on this. 
But I still love him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum so I can 
get my records over here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HELMS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent 
that the quorum call be suspended, and that at the conclusion of 
Senator Cleland's remarks I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall not 
object, I ask that I be recognized following the remarks of the Senator 
from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. I ask that I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, my dear friends from the other side of the 
aisle are refusing to agree to a unanimous consent agreement to bring 
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate floor for debate and a 
vote on October 7, 1999.
  Having said that, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to 
request Senator Cleland be recognized for whatever time he needs and at 
the conclusion of his remarks I be recognized again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Senator 
from North Carolina objected to my being recognized following his 
statement on the floor. The Senator from North Carolina, as I 
understand, is propounding a unanimous consent request that the Senator 
from Georgia be recognized, following which he be recognized. I ask 
consent I be recognized following the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HELMS. I object.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, first, to yield 
to our colleague from Georgia for purposes of a request and then for 
purposes of making a unanimous consent request that has to do with 
establishing my order in the line to offer an amendment relative to the 
pending legislation.
  Mr. HELMS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Did the Senator from North Carolina object?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, he did.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator from North Carolina object if my motion 
was to yield to the Senator from Georgia for purposes of the motion he 
wishes to make?
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I think the Record will show I already 
recommended Senator Cleland be recognized at the conclusion of which I 
shall have the floor; is that not the case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am asking unanimous consent to yield to the Senator 
from Georgia for the purposes of the motion of the Senator from 
Georgia; is there objection to that?
  Mr. HELMS. I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina added to that 
he be recognized immediately after the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I accept that if I could be recognized between the 
Senators from Georgia and North Carolina for purposes of my procedural 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I don't understand the request.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The request is, first, that the Senator from Georgia be 
recognized for the purposes of a motion, and I be recognized for a 
unanimous consent that will only ask my amendment be taken up as the 
next Democratic amendment relative to the pending legislation; and then 
the third step is the Senator from North Carolina would be recognized.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend from 
Florida, we already have a Democratic amendment that is mine; we are 
waiting to do that. That is the next one.
  Mr. HELMS. We can't have a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object to the request of the Senator 
from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from 
Florida has the floor.

[[Page S11669]]

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to yield to the Senator from 
Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, who gets the 
floor when the Senator from Georgia has finished his remarks?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The floor is open.
  Mr. HELMS. I object unless it is recognized by all that I get the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I don't 
object to the Senator from Georgia speaking. I don't object to the 
Senator from North Carolina speaking. I simply ask if the Senator from 
North Carolina gets consent to be recognized, that I get consent to be 
recognized following his presentation. As I understand it, he has 
objected to that; is that the case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Is there an objection to his 
request now?
  Mr. DORGAN. Whose request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yours.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will certainly not object to my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

                          ____________________