Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I will just say, we are not making much progress on this bill. We hope to have votes on into the evening. So I hope we will have some volunteers ready to offer amendments right after this vote.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. DOLE. I think both leaders are trying to determine how we can get to a vote. The Senator from South Dakota had an agreement where we would by consent vote on the Johnston amendment, followed by a vote on the Daschle amendment if Johnston was defeated; otherwise, it would be as amended, I assume. I am not able to get that agreement, but I would be prepared to vote on the Johnston amendment at this time.

Mr. DOLE. If the Senator from Vermont will yield to me to respond to the Democratic leader, I understand the suggestion. I think the Senator from South Dakota probably knows that if the Johnston amendment is accepted--I guess I could say first, would there be any objection to just accepting the Johnston amendment?

Mr. DOLE. I just want to be certain the Senator understands there could be a second-degree amendment.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the only change is that it becomes effective 1 day after the date of enactment in the second-degree amendment. As I stated yesterday, opponents of regulatory reform have avoided the merits and, instead, have engaged in scare tactics. [[Page S 9656]] One of the most recent, perhaps most offensive, of the scare tactics has been the suggestion that regulatory reform means tainted meat, specifically, further outbreaks of E. coli food poisoning. This is an insult to the American people. It is also false. Opponents know that this claim is false, and the media knows it. Yesterday, I included in my statement and accompanying fact sheet in the Record two specific provisions already in the bill to make it obvious that this bill would not hold up meat inspection rules. One provision allows the implementation of a regulation without first complying with other requirements of the bill where there is ``an emergency or health or safety threat.'' That seems pretty clear to me. That is in the bill. It does not get any clearer than that. It is a sign of either sloppy journalism or extreme cynicism, and this amendment ought to be named the Ralph Nader- Margaret Carlson-Bob Herbert amendment. I have listened to these commentators--who probably never read the bill--and they talk about the terrible things that can happen and that we are all going to eat tainted meat. Margaret Carlson said 5,000 people are going to die, and then she corrected it to 500 before the program ended. It seems that the media do not worry about the facts if they have a good story. I hope to send a message to the media--at least those three--and those on the left who need to read the bill, to read what really happens. The media have chosen to buy into these distortions in the face of language that makes clear that we have responsibly taken health and safety concerns into account. I do not believe for a moment that opponents are unaware of this health and safety exemption. But in an effort to ensure that we begin focusing on issues legitimately in this debate, I am offering an amendment to make crystal clear that S. 343, the regulatory reform bill before us, has no effect on efforts to address food safety. Period. End. That is it. No one here, Democrat or Republican, wants to interfere with food safety. I hope we can lay that to rest by having a big vote on this amendment. The words ``health and safety,'' already part of the bill, obviously include concerns about food safety. But this amendment adds the words ``food safety, included an imminent threat from E. coli bacteria.'' Mr. President, it concerns me that such distortions are being made. E. coli bacteria and the illnesses that occur as a result of that bacteria are serious problems for the people of this country. Every Member of Congress, regardless of party, is concerned. It is not a partisan issue and should not be a partisan issue. But opponents--I do not mean the opponents in the legislative body. I think the opponents have come from outside the bureaucracy and in the media. All these people who want to protect their little preserves are the ones who are peddling the false information and trying to scare people. Obviously, you can scare people if you distort the facts. Now that I have offered the amendment, opponents will no doubt come up with more imaginary scenarios. But I am putting them on notice that we chose the broadest possible phrase. In the event that somebody missed it, it is, ``emergency and health safety threats.'' We chose it in the first place for a very good reason. We want to make certain that every possible response to health and safety threats is exempted from delay where that is appropriate. Adding a laundry list, as opponents would have us do, undermines the very public policy goal opponents pretend they seek. This is so because it raises the possibility that someone could read this provision to exclude anything not specifically included. I do not think that is what ought to happen. That is not our intent. We want the broadest possible language so that we can take care of all of the situations where health or safety threats exist. Mr. President, I certainly urge the adoption of this amendment. It seems to me, as I have said earlier, based on the misinformation, flatout distortions, and flatout false statements that I have read in the media, heard in commentary, heard on television, I offer this amendment. It should not be necessary to offer this amendment, but, as I have suggested, it is being offered to make certain that nobody misunderstands--nobody on this floor, on either side of the aisle. There is nobody that I know of who does not support food safety. Mr. President, I want to make an inquiry of the managers momentarily. In an effort to get a vote on this amendment and make certain this is the first amendment we will have a vote on, procedurally, I also would need to amend the bill itself. I am amending the substitute. But if I can have some assurance that we can have a vote without any further amendments to the bill on this issue, then I will not proceed to sort of fill up the tree. I make that inquiry of the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think this is a clear-cut issue. My view is that the amendment is not necessary. But this is an effort to have the opponents who are really concerned about this bill focus on the issues rather than trying to frighten the American people, saying that somehow anybody who is for this bill is out here trying to peddle dirty meat. That was a charge made over the weekend and in the past few days. I think probably it is in the interest of everybody who supports regulatory reform that the amendments be offered. I am the one being criticized by the media. ``Senator Dole's bill is promoting dirty meat.'' And some say maybe I am doing it for the [[Page S 9657]] meatpackers. Well, I do not know any meatpackers. I do not have any connection there. In any event, this is just to calm down the hysteria of some in the media. But they will get hysterical about something else. They are good on their feet. As soon as this matter is resolved, they will have some other hysterical notion or a figment of somebody's imagination, and some statement will be made, or there will be a ludicrous charge that they will pick up on. There are, unfortunately, some people in the bureaucracy who believe that the Government should do everything in America. They do not want any regulatory reform. They are not one of the American families who are paying an average of $6,000 a year for regulatory reform. They are not a farmer or rancher or small businessman or small businesswoman who is trying to make a living for their family and all they get are more and more and more regulations from the Federal Government. I happen to believe that regardless of anybody's party affiliation, if you are a businessman, a businesswoman, a farmer, rancher, whatever, you have to believe there are too many regulations and you have to believe there is some way to protect health and safety as we should, also, to make certain that there is some way we can review and make certain that some of these regulations never are implemented, because they have no benefit, a great deal of cost, and all they do is put a burden on somebody in America. Democrat, Republican, somebody out there will pay. That is why we find this coalition of the left and the media and those in the bureaucracy and others who are fearful they might lose a job, I guess, or they might make life easier for the average Americans, who are vitally opposed to any regulatory reform. I mentioned to the President this morning, we had a meeting at the White House, and I apologize to the managers for being late, this was a bill that I thought had potential to have broad bipartisan support. I met privately with the President after a regular meeting. I told him the number of changes we have already made, and we are prepared to look at other changes that are legitimate, and we are still having ongoing-- as I understand--the Senator from Utah has an ongoing discussion with Members on the other side. I will not repeat what the President said. I do not want to repeat discussions of the President, but I want him to understand, talking about bipartisanship, and lowering the rhetoric, this is an opportunity, right here, this bill. There is no reason this bill does not pass this body by a vote of 75 to 20 or 80 to 20--good, strong, regulatory reform bill. I would hope that we can continue in the spirit we have started. I want to commend the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, and the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, and others, including the Presiding Officer, who have been working on this on a daily basis. My view is if we were to work in a bipartisan way we can complete action on the bill this week. I am happy to yield the floor to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If there are no----

Mr. DOLE. If there is no objection, when the Senator lays down his amendment, I ask unanimous consent there be 40 minutes equally divided on the amendment.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Levin, Senator Hatch, Senator Roth, and Senator Johnston, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold? I think there is still some unfinished business with reference to the last amendment there, under the consent agreement. Amendment No. 1492

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I think we want a rollcall. I read so much about this from Joan Claybrook and Ralph Nader, I want them to be assured by a unanimous vote that we heeded the great contribution, not only that they made, but the New York Times and other extremely----

Mr. DOLE. I think if we had a rollcall on the first one, then I assume the others could be disposed of by voice vote. We would be glad to ask consent that vote occur at 5:30.

Mr. DOLE. Could I get consent? I make the request there occur a vote at 5:30 on amendment No. 1493 and, if the amendment is agreed to, amendment No. 1942, as amended, be agreed to, and amendments numbered 1494 and 1495 be automatically withdrawn, and that the time between now and 5:30 be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. DOLE. Is leader time reserved?

Mr. DOLE. I ask that I might use my leader time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, just a short while ago, CNN reported that the so-called U.N. safe area of Srebrenica had fallen--Bosnian Serb tanks have reached the town center and thousands of the 40,000 Bosnians in the enclave have begun to flee. The main argument made by the administration in opposition to withdrawing the U.N. forces and lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia was that such action would result in the enclaves falling and would lead to a humanitarian disaster. Well, that disaster has occurred today--on the U.N.'s watch, with NATO planes overhead. If it was not before, it should now be perfectly clear that the U.N. operation in Bosnia is a failure. Once again, because of U.N. hesitation and weakness we see too little NATO action, too late. Two Serb tanks were hit by NATO planes today--hardly enough to stop an all- out assault that began days ago. As a result, in addition to thousands of refugees, the lives of brave Dutch peacekeepers are in serious danger. Mr. President, there can be no doubt, the U.N.-designated safe areas are safe only for Serb aggression. What will it take for the administration and others to declare this U.N. mission a failure? Will all six safe areas have to be overrun first? It is time to end this farce. It is time to let the Bosnians do what the United Nations is unwilling to do for them. The Bosnians are willing to defend themselves--it is up to us to make them able by lifting the arms embargo. Mr. President, I have just been on the telephone with the Prime Minister of Bosnia, along with Senator Lieberman, Prime Minister Silajdzic in Sarajevo. He was giving us the latest conditions in Srebrenica, one of the safe havens, where 40,000 men, women, and children are now fleeing Serb aggression. He also indicates that other safe havens are under attack, or threatened attack. It seems to me that if there was ever a moment when we ought to have a [[Page S 9694]] unanimous vote in this Chamber, it ought to be when we take up the resolution to lift the arms embargo. I do not know how many times it has been on the floor, how many votes we have had. We have had strong bipartisan support. And, in my view, I think it is growing. I am not asking about committing American troops. We are talking about giving these poor people who are being killed by the dozens every day a chance to defend themselves by lifting the arms embargo, which they have a right to do as a member of the United Nations, an independent nation under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. The right of self-defense is an inherent right, in my view. We deny them that right by not lifting the arms embargo. I said before, the U.N. mission is a failure. I commend the courage of the U.N. protection forces there. But it seems to me that the policy is not going to change. They have had little pin pricks and they called them air strikes. They knocked out two tanks. That was the effort by NATO. According to the Prime Minister, the U.N. representative, Mr. Akashi, waited until it was too late for the air strikes to have any impact. So we hope to work in a very bipartisan way--or a nonpartisan way, better yet--on this issue in the next week. I ask unanimous consent that a fax just received in the last hour from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from the Government's prime minister, Mr. Silajdzic, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. I will conclude by saying we have always had the argument that if we lifted the arms embargo, it would result in the fall of these enclaves, these safe havens, and that would lead to humanitarian disaster. That argument is gone today because it has been overrun by the Serbs. Forty-thousand people are fleeing, and other safe havens are being attacked. So that argument is gone. It ought to be perfectly clear that the U.N. operation is a failure. Once again, because of U.N. hesitation and weakness, we see too little NATO action too late. Two Serb tanks were hit by NATO planes, hardly enough to stop the all-out assault that began days ago. As a result, the lives of thousands of refugees and of the brave Dutch peacekeepers are in serious danger. The safe areas are safe only for Serb aggression. They are not safe for anybody else--not for the poor Moslems who are there, not for the peacekeepers, or the U.N. Protection Forces. They are being taken hostage again. So what will it take for our Government and other governments to declare this U.N. mission a failure? Will all six areas have to be overrun? Maybe it will take that much. So it is the view of many of us--and this is not partisan --that it is time to end this farce and let the Bosnians do what the United Nations is unwilling to do for them. The Bosnians are willing to defend themselves. In fact, this letter says that it is up to us to make them able by lifting the arms embargo. This letter says it is essential that the elected representatives of the American people immediately pass a bill to lift the arms embargo. This will provide a clear message that the American people do not want to deprive the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina of the right to defend themselves against aggression and genocide and possible massacre of thousands of civilians.