Congressional Record
Proceedings, Debates of the U.S. Congress
September 30, 1999
106th Congress, 1st Session
Issue: Vol. 145, No. 130 — Daily Edition
Sections in This Issue:
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--TREATY DOCUMENT NO. 105-28
(Senate - September 30, 1999)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[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. ____________________