Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate that I understand a number of our colleagues are still meeting in Senator Daschle's office on regulation reform. We hope to find out here before too long whether we will proceed with the bill or lay it aside, or just what may be developing. We would like to, obviously, finish the bill. It may not be possible.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, following whatever disposition of regulatory reform, we will take up the resolution on Bosnia. We were visited today by Secretary of State Christopher and General Shalikashvili, and they made their pitch about how bad the Dole-Lieberman resolution would be on Bosnia, as far as lifting the arms embargo. Somebody asked the question, if it is so bad, what is so good about what is happening in Bosnia now? Obviously, we did not have an answer. There is not any answer. Today I received from Lady Margaret Thatcher a letter which I think is probably the best summation I have read about Bosnia and the tragedy there. I placed a copy on everyone's desk, but I will read it for the record. The letter is as follows: July 18, 1995 Dear Senator Dole: I am writing to express my very strong support for your attempt to have the arms embargo against Bosnia lifted. I know that you and all members of the United States Senate share my horror at the crimes against humanity now being perpetrated by the Serbs in Bosnia. The UN and NATO have failed to enforce the Security Council Resolutions which authorized the use of force to defend the safe havens and to get humanitarian assistance through. The safe havens were never safe; now they are falling to Serb assault. Murder, ethnic cleansing, mass rape and torture are the legacy of the policy of the last three years to the people of Bosnia. It has failed utterly. We owe it to the victims at last and at least to have the weapons to defend themselves--since we ourselves are not willing to defend them. The arms embargo was always morally wrong. Significantly, it was imposed on the (then formally intact but fragmenting) former Yugoslavia at that regime's own behest. It was then, quite unjustly and possibly illegally, applied to the successor states. Its effect--and, as regards the Surbs, its intention--was to ensure that the proponents of a Greater Serbia, who inherited the great bulk of the Yugoslav army's equipment, enjoyed overwhelming military superiority in their aggression. It is worth recalling that the democratically elected, multi-faith and multi-ethnic Bosnian Government never asked for a single UN soldier to be sent. It did ask for the arms required to defend its own people against a ruthless aggressor. That request was repeatedly denied, in spite of the wishes of the US administration and of most leading American politicians. There is no point now in listing the failures of military policy which subsequently occurred. Suffice it to say that, instead of succeeding in enforcing the mandates the UN Security Council gave them, UNPROFOR became potential and then actual hostages. Airpower was never seriously employed either. The oft repeated arguments against lifting the arms embargo--that if it occurred UN troops would be at risk, that the enclaves like Srebrenica would fall, that the Serbs would abandon all restraint--have all now been proved worthless. For all these things have happened and the arms embargo still applies. Two arguments are, however, still advanced by those who wish to keep the arms embargo in place. Each is demonstrably false. First, it is said that lifting the arms embargo would prolong the war in Bosnia. This is, of course, a morally repulsive argument, for it implies that all we should care about it a quick end to the conflict without regard to the justice or otherwise of its outcome. But in any case it is based on the false assumption that the Serbs are bound to win. Over the last year the Bosnian army has grown much stronger and the Bosnian Serbs weaker. The Bosnian army has, with its Croat allies, been winning back crucial territory, while desertion and poor morale are badly affecting the over- extended Serb forces. What the Bosnian government lacks however are the tanks and artillery needed to hold the territory won and force the Serbs to negotiate. This lack of equipment is directly the result of the arms embargo. Because of it the war is being prolonged and the casualties are higher. Lifting the arms embargo would thus shorten not lengthen the war. Second, it is said that lifting the arms embargo would lead to rifts within the UN Security Council and NATO. But are there not rifts already? And are these themselves not the result of pursuing a failed policy involving large risks to outside countries ground troops, rather than arming and training the victims to repel the aggressor? American leadership is vital to bring order out of the present chaos. No country must be allowed to veto the action required to end the present catastrophe. And if American leadership is truly evident along the lines of the policy which you and your colleagues are advancing I do not believe that any country will actually try to obstruct it. The West has already waited too long. Time is now terribly short. All those who care about peace and justice for the tragic victims of aggression in the former Yugoslavia now have their eyes fixed on the actions of the US Senate. I hope, trust and pray that your initiative to have the arms embargo against Bosnia lifted succeeds. It will bring new hope to those who are suffering so much. With warm regards, Yours Sincerely, Margaret Thatcher. Mr. President, having read the letter, I think it says it all. I know the administration has said we will finally have a policy. It will not be business as usual. After 30 months, we will do something. No one is talking about committing American ground troops. In fact, just the opposite. Lifting the arms embargo keeps America out of any engagement. It seems to me that is something that should have been done a long time ago. We have waited almost a year. A year ago August we had our last vote on this important issue. Mr. President, 58 out of 100 Senators voted to lift the embargo--Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan. This is not an initiative by Senator Dole or Senator Lieberman, though we are working together. This is an initiative of the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan way, to address a very serious problem. The President has made two promises. One, to commit 25,000 American forces, if, in fact, there is a peace settlement, to keep the peace. More recently, commit 25,000 Americans to extricate members of the U.N. protection forces in case of withdrawal. I am advised by the Bosnian Foreign Minister today that only 30 U.N. protection force members are in occupied Serb territory today. And he asked the question, why would it take 25,000 Americans to extricate 30 members of the U.N. protection forces? He says very clearly that there will be no interference on the part of Muslims with any withdrawal of U.N. protection forces. [[Page S 10226]] No question about it, this matter is very, very important. It is very serious, as Secretary of State Christopher told Members today at noon. It has been serious if you are the ones doing the dying--or even the killing. But one side has done nearly all the dying, and one side has done nearly all the killing. Those doing the dying do not have tanks or heavy weapons or artillery to defend themselves. They have rifles. In many cases they surrendered their heavy weapons because they were told they would be safe in these safe havens. So they surrendered their heavy weapons, their only means to defend themselves, and notified, in the case of Zepa, Medjedja, Gorazde, that the safe havens--that Lady Thatcher points out in the letter were never safe--and now they are falling to Serb assault. This debate will begin, if not today, hopefully tomorrow. I hope we will have broad bipartisan support, unanimous support. I know the Secretary of State told Members at the Democratic policy lunch today that timing is everything, ``This is a terrible time to bring up this resolution.'' We have been told that at every turn. It is always a bad time. We thought, ourselves, it was a bad time to bring up the resolution, when you had U.N. Protection Forces chained to poles and held as hostages so there would be no more air strikes, and used as human shields. So we deferred consideration of the resolution. And we have waited and waited and waited, hoping something good might happen. But nothing good has happened. Again, the Foreign Minister of Bosnia, who will be here, I guess, for several days, and has met with a number of Senators in both parties, indicates clearly that the U.N. Protection Forces should go. So I hope in the next 24 hours we will be able to move to the resolution. I hope my colleagues on this side will listen carefully to many on this side who are cosponsoring this resolution, and colleagues on the other side will listen carefully to Senator Lieberman and others who will be leading the effort. The point I wish to make is this is not a partisan effort. It is not an effort aimed at President Clinton. I complained--or criticized the Bosnian policy during the Bush administration. So it is not something that we have discovered because we now have a Democrat in the White House. So for 30 months, many of us originally supported Candidate Clinton, who said we ought to lift the arms embargo and have air strikes. We supported him. I remember meeting in the White House in 1993, in the spring, and we were talking about lifting the arms embargo. Most of us there supported the President's desire at that time to lift the arms embargo. Then, for some reason--it has never been fully understood by this Senator--it just sort of went off the radar screen. Bosnia was forgotten. It is as though the President never said anything about Bosnia, never said anything about lifting the arms embargo. Then we were told a year ago, in April, if we would just wait--and there was a resolution offered by the then Democratic leader, Senator Mitchell, and Senator Nunn, that they would go to the United Nations and make a plea that the British and the French also lift the arms embargo. That was one way to stall any action on the other resolution. The trouble is, they had never gone to the United Nations and asked for that, asked that the embargo be lifted. So we are back. We believe it is critical. We believe it is crucial. If anybody has any doubts, watch the television tonight, read the paper in the morning. Again, to make it very clear to some who always feel it is going to Americanize the war, we have already Americanized the war. Scott O'Grady is an American, last time I checked. And he was shot down because we had not been notified that there were SAM sites in the area. So American pilots are part of NATO. Lifting the arms embargo, removing the U.N. Protection Forces--and I commend the bravery and courage of all those who are engaged in the U.N. Protection Forces. But the problem is, they cannot protect themselves and they cannot protect the safe havens and they act as a buffer for the aggressors, the Serbs. Whether they intend it or not, they have been, in effect, an ally of the aggressors. And many of us do not believe that was ever intended. Again, let me make a distinction between the Serb people and Milosevic and Karadzic and some of the others who are dedicated to ethnic cleansing, murder, butchery--whatever it takes to eliminate Bosnian Moslems. I know the Serb people are just as tired of the fighting, and the mothers are just as tired of sending their sons to face possible death, as anybody on the other side. So we are going to be on the Bosnian resolution. I hope, on the matter of timing, it seems to me the best thing that could happen for this administration is for the Senate to pass with a big, big vote, our resolution. That would give the President and the Secretary of State or whomever they designate to negotiate with the British and the French and others a great deal of leverage. Because at that point they could say, ``The Senate has acted. The House has acted. It is time to go. It is time to go.'' Then we would turn the fighting over to the parties who are directly involved. Give the Bosnians a chance. They are a member of the United Nations. They are an independent nation. They have lost--70 percent of their land has been taken; 70 percent. And we are saying, ``Oh, wait. Wait. We want to wait a while.'' Will we wait until 80 percent is taken? All they want is a right they believe they are entitled to, which we believe in this country is an inherent right, the right of self defense. They would hope for the same as a nation, the right of self defense as a nation. In my view, they are entitled to that right. I think most of us agree they are entitled to that right. Take a look at the casualty figures. Who has been doing the dying? Who has been doing the killing? Who has been involved in that? I must say, in some cases it is probably hard to differentiate, because there has been a lot of treachery and tragedy on all sides. But for the most part, there is no question about who the aggressors have been. I just believe it is time for us to stand up. This is a moral issue, one that should have been addressed a long time ago. It can be addressed without committing American forces. All we need to do is say we are going to lift the arms embargo and as an independent nation you are going to have a right to defend yourself-- which does not seem to me to be a very difficult decision. We are not going to defend them. If we lift the embargo, it is not we defending them. If we lift the embargo, you defend yourself. So I hope my colleagues will be prepared for debate on this very important issue, and that we can take final action before the week is out. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for his statement and for his support. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and a long list of bipartisan cosponsors as we again try to lift the illegal and unjust arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The legislation we are bringing up today is a modified version of the bill we introduced in January of this year. S. 21 is the number. This bill lifts the United States arms embargo after the withdrawal of United Nations troops from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Before we start to discuss this legislation I want to make clear: This debate is not just about Bosnia. This is not just about a small European country under attack. This debate is about American leadership and American principles, about NATO strength and credibility, about our place in history. It was just about a year ago that the Senate last voted to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia. That vote was 58-42. However, in conference a compromise was worked out by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, and the administration's representative Chuck Redman. It urged the President to introduce a resolution to lift the arms embargo in the U.N. Security Council if the Bosnian Serbs did not sign the July 1994 contact group plan by October 15. The compromise language also provided that if the Serbs did not sign the plan by November 15, the United States would cease enforcing the arms embargo. Finally, the compromise urged that in the event of Bosnian Serb attacks on U.N. safe areas, the President introduce and support a resolution in the Security Council to provide the Bosnians with defensive weapons to defend these areas. Now it is a year later. The Bosnian Serbs have still not signed the July 1994 contact group peace plan; the administration has still not taken up a resolution in the U.N. Security Council to lift the arms embargo; and the Bosnian Serbs are about to run over another U.N. safe haven--the second in 2 weeks. Mr. President, the administration argued last year that lifting the arms embargo would lead to the fall of the three safe havens in the east. The first of these three enclaves has fallen under U.N. watch-- with NATO planes overhead. Today NATO planes are buzzing above Zepa, which is about to fall. Mr. President, all this has occurred in the absence of lifting the arms embargo. Indeed, it has occurred because the arms embargo is preventing the only people willing to fight to defend the Bosnian people from being able to do so--and that is the Bosnians themselves; not the U.N. forces, but the Bosnian Government Forces--Moslems, Croats, and Serbs are willing to die to defend their families, their homes, and their multi-ethnic country. Last year the administration also made the argument that lifting the arms embargo immediately would endanger allied forces. In this modified Dole-Lieberman legislation we are not lifting the United States embargo until after those countries contributing to UNPROFOR who want to leave, have left. The administration has also claimed that lifting the embargo would Americanize the war. This is the most difficult argument to understand. The Clinton administration has pledged 25,000 American troops for Bosnia if there is peace. The Clinton administration has pledged 25,000 American troops for Bosnia if there is withdrawal. And the Clinton administration is considering escalating the American involvement for transport and close air support of UNPROFOR forces. Let us not forget, and American Air Force pilot, Scott O'Grady, was recently shot down. In light of such commitments, it is hard to take administration arguments over Americanization seriously. As the Prime Minister of Bosnia said, lifting the arms embargo will not Americanize the war, it will Bosnianize the war--by putting the future of Bosnia back in Bosnian hands, where it should have been for the last couple of years or more. A more recent concern raised by some is that the withdrawal may take more than 12 weeks. In that regard, this legislation includes a renewable Presidential waiver providing for an additional 30 days should additional time be necessary for the safety and successful completion of the withdrawal operation. As I mentioned earlier, each time the Senate has taken up this legislation we have been told by the administration that this is not the right time. We have waited. The Bosnians have waited--and they have died. The bottom line is that the approach pursued by the administration, like that of the Bush administration, is a total failure. The question is whether or not we will continue to contribute U.S. dollars, prestige, and credibility to this catastrophe or change course. Mr. President, there are no perfect options. There are no easy answers. We now know what has not worked--relying on the U.N. forces to protect the Bosnians. It seems to me that we owe it to the Bosnians and our own American principles of justice and fairness to let the Bosnians defend themselves, and I believe the American people understand this and will support it. Let me make it clear, as I attempted to do earlier today, we are not talking about more American involvement. We are not talking about American ground troops. We are talking about lifting the arms embargo-- maybe helping to train Bosnians, maybe helping to supply weapons, but that could be done in safe areas. And if they secure Russian weapons, which they are already familiar with, there will be very little training necessary. Also keep in mind that in many cases the Bosnians surrendered the only heavy weapons they had because they were going to be in safe havens. As I suggested, one of the safe havens has been overrun, and another about to be overrun, and the third, Gorazde, is in peril. I also want to make it clear, because I think there is always a tendency for some to say: Oh, this is politics, this is Bob Dole, Republican, because we have a Democratic President, the record will reflect that during the Bush administration I think the same two Senators raised this question. We were critical of the Bush administration. I remember talking to Ambassador Zimmerman time after time. I remember calling him and discussing it with him when he was in Yugoslavia, because we were told then that if we did not do something-- and I am not talking again about military force; I am talking [[Page S 10233]] about sending a word of caution to Mr. Milosevic, the leader of the Serbs, the President of Serbia--this is precisely what would happen. So this is not a Dole resolution. This is not a Lieberman resolution. This is an action by the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, such as the two of us, Mr. Helms, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Biden, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. McCain, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Warner, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Mack, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Packwood, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Specter, and others, so there is strong, broad bipartisan support. It is not a conservative matter. It is not a liberal matter. It is a moral issue of whether we will again in this century witness ethnic cleansing, genocide, call it what you will, and do nothing. In this case, all we need to do, as we were reminded again by the Bosnian Foreign Minister today, is to lift the arms embargo. As he said, ``We are willing to die for our country.'' They are not asking us to do that, not asking anybody else to do that. And I know the British do not want to lift the arms embargo. I know President Chirac, the new French President, has other ideas. The British and French cannot seem to get together. I know the Secretary of State told the Democrat policy luncheon today this is not the time, timing is terrible. Well, that is always the case. It is never the time. It seems to me just the opposite. This is a perfect time. It would seem to me the administration would want us to pass this resolution. It has to go to conference, has to be worked out. It is going to take quite a while--10 days, 30 days, who knows--before it comes back and before it becomes law. And then the President could tell the French and the British that the options are fewer and fewer as far as America is concerned and our involvement is concerned. So I really hope that we can complete action on this resolution tomorrow. I know the White House will want to try to dissuade some from voting for the resolution. That is certainly a right they have. But I would also suggest this is precisely the very same action the President advocated when he first came to the White House--even before he came to the White House--lift the arms embargo. He also was supporting air strikes. So it is not that we have figured out some way to be on the other side of President Clinton and have brought this issue to the floor to embarrass the President. We are precisely where the President was before he was elected President, as a candidate, and where he was after he was elected. And I recall a meeting in the White House in the spring of 1993 where Democrats and Republicans came together and we talked about lifting the arms embargo and air strikes. That has been a long, long time. I do not know how many thousands of people have suffered, how many thousands have died, how many murdered and raped, how many children have gone without food because we did nothing. And then we said, well, this is a European problem; let the Europeans handle it. And then we had the U.N. Protection Forces. Again, I commend the courage and bravery of every one of those young men, and maybe women in some cases, from all the different countries who are there as U.N. Protection Forces. They are there with good intent. Unfortunately, their good intent has turned into in effect being a buffer for the Serbs. Now the U.N. Protection Forces have found they cannot protect themselves, and they cannot protect the people in the safe havens, and they cannot protect the refugees. In fact, if you watched television the other night, they had a barbed wire entanglement separating the U.N. forces from the refugees so they would not come together. It seems to me that it is pretty clear. My own view is the British do not want to be humiliated by withdrawing. I have talked to John Major in his office. He is very persuasive. Somehow he believes if we just continue to stay there, this is going to end. And with a new French President, he is being a bit more aggressive. He thinks they ought to do something. So now he wants us to become involved with helicopter gunships and other ways we transport French and other U.N. Protection Forces into the area. In my view, that would be a mistake, but that may be debated. There may be an amendment to do that before we complete action on the bill. Finally, it just seems to me it is the right thing to do. It was a year ago. It was before that. The House passed this--not the same legislation--by a vote of 318 to 99, over 3 to 1. I hope we have at least 70 votes or more in the Senate; bipartisan votes, nonpartisan, whatever you like. I believe we have made progress because we have been cautious. We have respected the timing, and we have delayed from time to time to see if they could not complete negotiation, they could not reach some agreement. But I believe now is the time for us to proceed and to send a signal to the Serbs and, yes, to the British, to the French, but more particularly the Bosnians, that somebody in America, in this case the Senate and the House of Representatives, understands their concerns, and we are willing to support their request that an independent nation, a member of the United Nations, has the right of self-defense as spelled out in article 51 of the U.N. Charter. That is all this is about. It is not complicated. You can raise all the horror stories. You can give us all the scenarios that might happen. We were told by the foreign minister today there will be no effort by the Moslems to stop the U.N. Protection Forces from leaving. We were also told that there are only 30 U.N. personnel in Serb occupied areas, so it should not take 25,000 American troops to help extricate members of the U.N. Protection Forces. So as we begin the debate, I again commend my colleagues. I hope that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, who I know maybe supports us in his heart, would find it in his heart to support us all the way because he is a very important Member of this body, and I know he feels, as some, maybe he has some reservations, but this is, as he certainly knows, not a partisan effort on behalf of the majority leader in this instance. Amendment No. 1801

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have 53 votes. We need 60. I understand tomorrow we will have an additional four votes on this side of the aisle to make 57, 3 short of the 60. I am trying to determine whether or not we want to go with this bill, whether we want to set it aside for a period of time, or set it aside forever. I have been talking with the distinguished Democratic leader. It is my suggestion that if nobody objects, we stand in recess until 4:15 to give the principals involved a chance to go off somewhere to see whether or not they believe any more of these major issues can be resolved, which might move the bill along. I think, rather than just sit in a quorum call for the next hour, we will stand in recess, unless the Democratic leader has some objection to that. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. So, Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent that we stand in recess until 4:30 p.m.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me suggest the absence of a quorum for just a moment.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, tonight we take the first step toward bringing this important debate to a close. Despite all the horror stories, despite all the distortions, despite the desperate attempts to shift the focus of this debate, I want to make very clear that I intend to fulfill the mandate given to us by the American people--and bring some common sense to the regulatory process and get the Government off our backs. On one side of this debate stand the defenders of the status quo. Regulatory reform is a direct threat to their smug assumption that Washington knows best and that it cannot do any better. The defenders of the status quo can only win by delay and distortion. On the other side of this debate stand those Senators--and I must point out that we have Republicans and Democrats--who understand that we have to provide relief to American families and small businesses who bear the burden of overregulation. We understand we can do so in ways that protect health and safety. Though I do not really expect to close off debate tonight, it is important to understand that we intend to win, and that it is our obligation to pass meaningful regulatory relief, not just some watered down version that accomplishes nothing. Therefore, if cloture is not invoked tonight, we will vote again on cloture tomorrow. And if we do not succeed at that time, we will vote again to close debate on Wednesday. The issues at stake are too important. Unfortunately, those issues have often been obscured by those like Ralph Nader and President Clinton who repeatedly make basic factual errors about this bill. The reality is not so hard to understand: This bill has been amended over 100 times, incorporating comments and suggestions from the Clinton administration and Democrat and Republican Members; This bill largely codifies President Clinton's Executive order on the regulatory process; This bill incorporates whole sections of S. 1080, a bill passed unanimously in the Senate in 1982; And perhaps most important, this bill includes close to 20 different protections for health, safety, and the environment. These are the facts. Those facts--as opposed to the twisted version reported by the media--suggest that those who oppose our reforms have some explaining to do. Those who seek to stall reform will have to answer to the American people. And in the end, I am confident that we can pass this bill with broad bipartisan support. Mr. President, I would be very willing to sit down with the Democratic leader and figure out how we could bring this matter to a conclusion tomorrow or even on Wednesday. But this is the seventh or eighth day we have been on this bill. It is a very important bill. Many of the amendments offered by proponents were in response to requests from those who opposed the bill--this would make it better, this is a compromise, work it out. There have been a number of amendments. In fact, we took a major amendment of the Senator from Ohio, who was prepared to debate it for 2 hours. We said we will take it. It is the sunshine amendment, a major amendment. We have taken a number of amendments. We have addressed the 180 days problem. We have addressed a number of major problems, as I understand it. So now there are 267 amendments pending at the desk, first- and second-degree amendments--267 or 260-some. How do you finish a bill with that many amendments? In fact, it is worse than the tax bill where sometimes you have 80 or 100 amendments. And I must say some of those amendments are on this side so they are not just coming from that side. I do not want to leave that impression. Most are coming from that side but some are coming from this side. We thought last week, or last Thursday or Friday, according to our list--not everybody would tell us what their amendments were--there were probably two or three on this side and five or six on the other side, including the major substitute which we are on right now. I do not want to shut off anybody. If we cannot get cloture, we cannot get cloture, we will not have regulatory reform. That is not a threat, but if you just take out the calendar--there are already people complaining about not getting a full August recess and there are probably going to be more and more complaints as we get closer to August 4. I would like to accommodate most people to get out at least a part of August. But if we want to spend more time on this bill than we should, do not be coming around to the majority leader saying, ``Oh, you can't take away our August recess.'' I do not want to take away anything. I have a lot of places I can go in August, would like to go in August, other than Iowa and New Hampshire. [Laughter.] [[Page S 10135]] We are not going to get cloture. We have four or five absentees. We have two or three who have not seen the light on this side yet, maybe four. But despite all the horror stories, despite all the distortions and despite the desperate attempt to shift the focus of this debate--in fact, the President said on Saturday on the radio show if you adopt this bill, there are going to be more air crashes. And this is the same President a week ago who said we should be more civil, we should not make statements like this, we should treat everybody with civility. And he charges Republicans, on a bill like this, with air crashes, dirty meat, dirty water, dirty air, two or three other things. He did not have much time on the air. He mentioned three or four ridiculous, ludicrous, exaggerated statements like that. We think we have made a lot of progress. We think this is a bipartisan effort. If I have missed something somewhere along the line, then I think we should try to address it. I am willing at any time to set down a schedule of amendments to finish this bill. I am ready to vote tomorrow morning, tomorrow noon on the big substitute. Maybe that is one way. Once we determine how that is going to come out, maybe that will move the debate. I think we may as well vote. We do not have the votes. Those who are not ready for regulatory reform will vote ``no.'' Those who are will vote ``aye.''

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, was necessarily absent during the cloture vote on the Dole-Johnston substitute amendment to S. 343, the regulatory reform bill. Senator Pressler was on his way back to Washington from Sioux Falls, SD, but has experienced a number of flight delays due to mechanical difficulties and weather surveillance. Had Senator Pressler been here for the vote, he would have voted to invoke cloture. (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statements were ordered to be printed in the Record.) explanation of absence

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I hope we can now agree on a time to vote on the substitute. We have had a lot of debate on the substitute. I hope we can reach an agreement before we depart, with the managers, on when we can vote on the Glenn substitute--hopefully tomorrow morning or by noon tomorrow. There will be no more votes tonight. I think the first thing we want to do is have a vote on the substitute and perhaps we can reach some agreement on that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I just hope we can get some votes. We have had a lot of speeches. We have not had any votes. It is now 11:30. Many of our colleagues have plans this afternoon. But if we are going to speak all morning, we are going to have to vote all afternoon. It is all right with me, as long as everybody understands that. I hope we can get time agreements so we can make more progress on this bill today. Our attendance is good. I think most people planned on being here all day today, and we will be here all day today and, hopefully, we will be voting all day today. If we can get time agreements, as suggested by the Senator from Oklahoma, it certainly would be helpful.

Mr. DOLE. I think Senator Biden has been negotiating.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Monday, July 17, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business until 10 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes each; further, that at the hour of 10 a.m., the Senate immediately resume consideration of S. 343, the regulatory reform bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. The only other business to come before the Senate is a statement by Senator Helms. I ask unanimous consent that when he completes that statement, the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. So, Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the regulatory reform bill at 10 a.m. on Monday. Pending to the bill is a Glenn substitute amendment which is expected to be debated throughout the day. Under the previous order, there will be a cloture vote on the Dole- Johnston substitute amendment at 6 p.m. Any other votes ordered on or in relation to additional amendments will be stacked to begin following that 6 p.m. cloture vote. Senators should be aware that the first vote on Monday will occur at 6 p.m. As a reminder to all Senators, under the provisions of rule XXII, any second-degree amendments must be filed by 5 p.m. on Monday. Further, the majority leader has filed a second cloture motion today. Therefore, Members may file first-degree amendments with respect to the second cloture motion up until 1 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory live quorum for the cloture vote on the substitute amendment be waived.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in their ongoing efforts to frighten the American people, the opponents of regulatory reform continue to spread their distortions through the media. Last night, in a report on ABC's ``World News Tonight,'' President Clinton's EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, made the following outrageous statement about our regulatory reform bill. That is the one we are considering right now. If these provisions had been in place over the last 10 years, EPA would not have been able to ban lead in gasoline, and a whole generation of children would have suffered real and permanent brain damage. Now, that is a catchy sound bite, but it is flatly false, and it went unchallenged in the report. Here are the facts viewers did not get last night. When a rule on lead phaseout was being considered in 1982, EPA resisted doing a cost- benefit analysis. However, when a cost-benefit analysis was performed, it demonstrated the benefits outweighed the costs of eliminating lead from gasoline. Only then did EPA issue a rule providing for quick phaseout of lead. And in fact, as a result of that analysis, EPA issued a tougher standard than it would have previously. So getting lead out of gasoline occurred precisely because a cost-benefit analysis supported doing so. Rather than undermining our reform effort, as Ms. Browner suggests, this example actually validates it. This is not the first time we have heard this phony story from the administration. Even though we have set the record straight on that point during this debate, the EPA and some folks in the media do not seem to notice. Mr. President, I am hardly the only one who has been disappointed by the spread of distortions about this bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I received from the Governor of Ohio, George Voinovich, and the Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, taking exception to another ABC report last night that framed the debate on environmental regulations in Washington-knows-best terms. Mr. President, this is certainly a complicated piece of legislation, but sometimes the facts are very simple. And dealing in facts is not too much to ask even for the media.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This legislation is very simple--it would allow individuals to access, under certain carefully circumscribed conditions, medical treatments not approved by the FDA. The Access to Medical Treatment Act gives an individual the freedom to choose any licensed health care practitioner with any method of medical treatment the individual desires as long as the treatment is not dangerous and the patient is fully informed of its side effects. Other consumer protections in the bill include a prohibition against advertising claims of efficacy. In addition, the labels on the treatment cannot be false or misleading. Mr. President, this legislation would not dismantle the Food and Drug Administration or allow pharmaceutical companies to circumvent the FDA. The FDA would retain responsibility for certifying treatments as safe and effective. What this legislation does allow is for a bypass for the FDA approval process for alternative medicines that may be the only hope for some individuals. Mr. President, many times in this Chamber I have applauded the quality of American health care. No doubt about it--it is by far the best in the world. And, although maintaining quality standards is a high priority, there are times when conventional medicine offers limited hope for some life-threatening diseases. While the role of the Government is to ensure quality, denying access to a treatment that may be the only hope for a patient is not the role of the Government. And, while I support this legislation, I can empathize with those who fear the quality of care will suffer as a result of bypassing the FDA. For this reason, and since there is little data so far on alternative medicines, I would strongly encourage a thorough hearing process on the efficacy of these medical treatments. Mr. President, no doubt about it, the Food and Drug Administration plays an essential role in evaluating the safety and efficacy of medical treatments to protect our citizens. However, in a free market system, it seems to make sense to make available nonharmful alternative medical treatments to individuals who desire such treatments, without the Federal Government standing in the way.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. It is still our hope to complete action on this bill on Tuesday. I know there are some amendments on each side. I do not know how many, but I think maybe three or four on this side, maybe three, four, five on the other side. So I advise Members that it will probably be late on Monday evening and early on Tuesday so that we can complete action on this bill, so we can move on to the next matter on the agenda, so that we can start our August recess sometime in August. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. I think another suggestion might be that if there were any votes--there probably would not be any more than one or two--they could immediately follow the cloture vote. So let us do it that way, so that we could say the first vote will occur at 6 p.m. and if any other votes are ordered during the afternoon, they will occur immediately following the vote on cloture. The vote on the substitute, I am not certain whether that will come on Monday evening or Tuesday. There is no indication of that yet.

Mr. DOLE. It is my hope--and we were discussing it earlier--there may be solid debate Monday on the major amendment. If that is the case, then there would not be any votes. If there should be a lull, then we would like to set the amendment aside and take up other amendments. So there could be rollcall votes. I think it is probably less than a 50-50 chance. I would not want anybody to leave here thinking there will not be any votes. There could be a vote. But I think that will be determined by debate on this major amendment, which I assume will probably be extended and continuous.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on Monday occur at 6 p.m.