Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If we did, we would check with the Senator from West Virginia and provide for a little debate between each.

Mr. DOLE. But if we decided to do three this evening and the balance tomorrow morning, would that be satisfactory?

Mr. DOLE. I understand. I hope this will work to everyone's satisfaction. We will keep that in mind.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. DOLE. Maybe the Senator from Wisconsin could use some of his time while we are waiting on that.

Mr. DOLE. I wonder if we could go into a quorum call, if we are waiting for Senator Lott. Is that it?

Mr. DOLE. This is the late night, I might add. Thursday is normally the late night. We are going to continue.

Mr. DOLE. I think the best thing we can do now is start the debate.

Mr. DOLE. Unless we can finish this evening. I think we will probably be on it tomorrow.

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE. Did not. All right. I guess I could not remember your name.

Mr. DOLE. I thought I did.

Mr. DOLE. Let me respond. I do not disagree with the Senator from Oklahoma or anybody else. I think we all have the same objective and that is to try to finish the bill. As long as we are moving. What we do not want to do is sit around and wait for somebody to come back from somewhere, so 80 of us wait for 5 to come back. I have done that before, as the Senator from West Virginia has. But I think we have a sequence now and we have the people here who will be here and be debating these amendments. I think for the next hour and a half, we are going to have total debate without, probably, a single quorum call. I think that should satisfy everyone.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, by now most of America knows of the unjust detention of Harry Wu by the People's Republic of China. Harry Wu is an American citizen and human rights crusader. Since June 19, 1995, he has been detained in China. Consular access to detained American citizens is required to be granted within 48 hours under the terms of a 1982 agreement with China. But China did not grant access to Mr. Wu until July 10--21 days later. On July 9, Harry Wu was charged with offenses which could carry the death sentence. Harry Wu was traveling on a valid American passport, with a valid Chinese visa. There seems little doubt that he was targeted by the Chinese Government for his outspoken and brave efforts to describe Chinese human rights [[Page S 9903]] abuses. Mr. Wu himself suffered almost two decades of imprisonment in the Chinese gulag. His continued imprisonment is an affront to all freedom loving people. Mr. President, our relationship with China is at a critical crossroads. Our relations with China are at the lowest point in years, and the list of disputed issues is long: proliferation, human rights, Taiwan and trade. We must, however, choose our course carefully. As Henry Kissinger said this morning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ``The danger of the existing roller coaster towards confrontation to both China and the United States is incalculable.'' I share Dr. Kissinger's concern over the dangers of a full-scale confrontation. But just as we must not casually move toward a conflict that serves neither country, we cannot remain silent in the face of outrageous conduct. The most fundamental duty of Government is to protect the rights of its citizens--and Harry Wu is an American citizen. I urge the Chinese to release Harry Wu, and remove this latest flashpoint in our relations. A major United Nations Conference on Women is scheduled for September in Beijing. I agree with the bipartisan view recently expressed by my Republican colleague from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, and the Democratic Congressman from Indiana, Lee Hamilton, when they suggested the United Nations should quit wasting scarce resources on conferences that spend much and achieve little. I understand the administration plans to send a senior delegation, including two Cabinet officers. In my view, it would be wrong for the United States to participate in the United Nations Women's Conference at any level or in any fashion as long as Harry Wu is held. This morning, along with Speaker Gingrich, Chairman Helms, Chairman Gilman, and Helsinki Commission Co-Chairs Senator D'Amato and Congressman Chris Smith, I sent a letter to President Clinton urging a U.S. boycott of the U.N. Women's Conference as long as Harry Wu is detained. In my view, that is the least this Government can do to try to show our displeasure with China's action. It is also the only prudent course in light of the State Department's briefing that they could not guarantee the safety of Americans traveling to the conference. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter, and a copy of a Wall Street Journal article by Nina Shea, ``Free Harry Wu'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, at 11 o'clock, we said we were going to start mowing them down around here, and I know the Senator from Louisiana was surprised when I filed cloture. But, frankly, I was surprised when he offered an amendment to knock out Superfund. I did not know that was going to happen. So there has been a double surprise here. We are trying to come to grips with that amendment. In the meantime, I think there has been agreement to go to the amendment of the Senator from California. But to suggest that we cannot get time agreements and you cannot offer second-degree amendments, then I think we are going to be in real trouble, because both sides always reserve the right to offer second-degree amendments. It seems to me that it is something we need to work out before we start. Mr. President, the liberal opponents of commonsense regulatory reform must be celebrating after watching some of this week's reports on the evening news, and reading some of the stories and columns in some of our most distinguished newspapers. Last night, a report on ABC's ``World News Tonight'' claimed Republican supporters of regulatory reform are ``on the defensive.'' And it is no wonder, considering how the media have fed the American people a steady diet of phony claims that we are out to promote tainted meat and unhealthy food. Liberal New York Times Columnist Bob Herbert a few days ago took a page [[Page S 9857]] out of the liberal consumer activist playbook, labeling our regulatory reform bill ``An all-out assault on food safety regulations,'' adding that it ``Would block implementation of the Agriculture Department's meat safety initiative for 2 to 3 years, and probably longer.'' If this outright distortion wasn't enough, listen to this from Margaret Carlson's ``Outrage of the Week'' on CNN's ``Capital Gang'': ``Senator Bob Dole, under the guise of regulatory reform, is letting the meat industry lawyers block this [meat safety test].'' Wrong again. One network aired a report Monday night that included the following, and I quote: With Senator Dole's regulatory reform bill, industries could challenge rules they considered too costly or too burdensome. Thirteen-year-old Eric Mueller died in 1993 from E. coli poisoning after eating a fastfood hamburger. His father says any delay in adopting new meat inspection rules is a travesty. This is indeed a tragic story. The only problem is, this report, like so many others, was simply wrong in its suggestions about this bill. Our legislation has always made it explicitly clear that regulations are exempted from any delay if there is ``an emergency or health or safety threat.'' Additionally, the Agriculture Department has already conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the meat inspection rule and it passed. But the facts did not stop that network from reporting Monday night that, ``A delay is looking more and more likely.'' However, on Tuesday, if it was not clear enough already, we specifically added to the bill the words ``food safety, including an imminent threat from E. coli bacteria.'' But that did not stop the media's drumbeat on food safety. Last night, a network anchor for whom I have great respect claimed that on regulatory reform, Republicans ``went further than the public may want on the issue of food inspection.'' Wrong again. I do not know how many times we have to say it to get the media to understand the fact that this bill does not compromise food safety. Yesterday, the former head of the FDA and four eminent scientists and physicians spoke at a press conference to explain how our bill protects food, health, and the environment--but the media did not seem to notice. I did not see it anywhere. It was not on ABC News, CBS or NBC. They get some liberal Senator on the floor to make some claim, and that was the news. That was the liberal spin and the one the media jumped to in a second. But ABC did not stop with the issue of food safety. Then they broke out the chainsaws, the strip mining, pesticides, potentially dirty drinking water, and cute endangered animals in their effort to explain the impact of regulatory reform. They do not know any bounds once they get carried away with the liberal spin in this body. Mr. President, these are just a few examples of the kinds of distortions we have had to confront on this bill. And I am not the only one who has noticed this trend. According to a study released last week by the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, ``media coverage of the congressional debate over environmental regulatory reform slants `clearly against the regulatory revisions.' '' According to Dr. Robert M. Entman of North Carolina State University, who conducted the study, there was a 3-to-1 negative imbalance in news stories about reform between last November and this May 11. Not surprisingly, the study claims that 74 percent of paragraphs that evaluated reforms were critical, criticism reached 87 percent on editorial pages, and 70 percent of the stories on the commercial television networks and in weekly news magazines criticized reform. I ask unanimous consent that the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition's statement about its study be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. You mean work right on through?

Mr. DOLE. If the Senator from Arizona will yield to me one additional moment.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I had hoped that the profound disaster in Srebrenica would have provoked a greater response from this administration than what we have seen in the last 48 hours. Tens of thousands of Bosnians have fled, Dutch peacekeepers are being held hostage, young girls are being taken away by Bosnian Serb forces, and the two other eastern enclaves--also U.N. designated safe havens--are under continued attack. Yet, instead of leadership, all the administration has to offer is press spokesmen to defend this catastrophe. The best defense would be a change in the present approach. However, that is unlikely from what the cadre of administration spokesman have said. Despite the obviousness of this colossal failure, Western leaders cling stubbornly to the myth that no other options exit. There are reports that the administration is working with the allies to withdraw U.N. forces from the Eastern enclaves and redeploy them in central Bosnia and Sarajevo. In my view, this would be redefining failure. I remind my colleagues that in the spring of 1993, Secretary Christopher went to Europe with the lift-and-strike plan and returned with the joint action plan. This plan was sold as the humanitarian option. The option that put the Bosnians' interests first. The joint action plan committed the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and the European Union to the protection of six U.N.-designated safe havens and closing the borders between Serbia and Bosnia. There are those of us who urged the administration not to go along with this so-called plan, who warned that creating giant refugee camps with minimal defense would support Serbian war aims. We were ignored. I might say these suggestions came not just from this side but on both sides of the aisle. The administration went ahead and what a trade. Two years later Milosevic is still sending supplies and troops across the border and, the Bosnians are not only defenseless, but undefended. Now we are faced with a widening catastrophe, but there is no longer any attempt to save the Bosnians--only to save face. The rapid reaction force is intended to save face. I believe that the United Nations must begin preparations for withdrawal immediately. I am prepared to support the use of U.S. forces, if they are necessary, but under strict conditions. If we have to use U.S. forces, it is going to be because of a total lack of policy by the Clinton administration. We are going to be backed into the use of U.S. forces because of a lack of clear leadership by this administration. That should be clear to everyone. But even having said that, we have some obligations and I would be willing to support use of U.S. forces--under strict conditions. First, unified NATO command--no dual key. Second, robust rules of engagement which provide for massive retaliation if any U.S. forces are attacked. Third, all necessary measures are taken to protect United States and NATO personnel from likely threats--from any source, to include Serbia--to include the suppression of Serbian air defenses. Fourth, no risking U.S. lives to save equipment. Fifth, agreement from our allies to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia. The administration must know that it will be held responsible and that if these conditions are not met, the risk to U.S. forces will be far greater than necessary. Mr. President, the United Nations must withdraw and the arms embargo must be lifted. The United States cannot continue to subsidize and support a U.N. mission that serves largely to supervise ethnic cleansing and aggression. The United States must exercise leadership and support the fundamental right of self-defense. I listened last night to one of the spokesmen, a White House press person, talking about Bosnia. He said, ``Well, we cannot afford to lift the arms embargo. That would cost us money.'' What does he think we are spending now? We are spending a great deal of money, and we are picking up 31 percent of the tab right now in Bosnia. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by the U.S. taxpayers. So I wish if they are going to trot out the press spokesmen, at least they should have the facts correct and tell the American people the truth, and give them an accurate report of what is actually happening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, was leader time reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, first, I want to indicate that I will be meeting with Senator Daschle in 2 or 3 minutes. We will be talking about the schedule for the balance of this month and into August. As I ever said many times--not in any threatening way because it is a matter of fact--there is no question about losing part of the August recess. That is why I have been attempting to move as quickly as possible on this bill so we can go on to what I consider to be the next important thing we need to do before we have the August recess. I will be going over that list with Senator Daschle in a few moments. I do not think it is unreasonable, but it will take the cooperation of all Members, and it will mean, frankly, every day we lose is a day we lose in the recess period, which I think is understandable by most Members. I listened to the comments of the Senator from Louisiana, and I must say I apologize for not notifying him and others earlier. I had mentioned it in a press conference, and we thought it was fairly public knowledge, that we would file a cloture motion. But more important than the cloture motion is to determine when we can finish this bill and how many amendments there are, and whether we can get time agreements. We have made some progress, but it has been painfully slow. We started on this bill last Thursday. We had a lot of debate and we did a little debate Thursday before the recess, and a little bit Friday, and we have had 3 days this week. This is a very important bill. I did not think we would finish it this week, but I would like to finish by next Tuesday. I will discuss that with Senator Daschle, and I will have some announcement to all of my colleagues shortly after that time. Amendment No. 1507, as Modified

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, if I could come back to that in just a moment, I think we are about to get a consent agreement here. The Democratic leader is on the floor. First, let me indicate that after discussion with the Senator from Louisiana this morning, I did, as I indicated, have a meeting with the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, with reference to the cloture motion and the cloture vote. Obviously, we both have the same interest. We want to finish the bill. We do not want to shut off debate, but we do not want delay on either side--either side. And I regret not having a chance to indicate to the leader personally that the cloture motion would be filed last night, or to the managers. I was at home watching on C-SPAN the reaction of Senator Glenn and others. So what we have agreed to, and I will now propound that request--and then the Senator from South Dakota may have a comment--I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled to occur on Friday be postponed to occur on Monday at a time to be determined by the two leaders but not before 5 p.m. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. That is correct.

Mr. DOLE. I assume there will be Superfund legislation this year, and so at that time we would address the issues that are removed from this bill.

Mr. DOLE. The Senator can start speaking now. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.