Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as anticipated today, President Clinton, in a ceremony at the White House, announced that he was taking steps to normalize U.S. diplomatic relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In his statement, President Clinton cited progress in POW/MIA cooperation. But, unfortunately the President did not address the central issue, and that is, does Vietnam continue to withhold information and remains which could easily be provided? The President ignored this question in announcing his decision, for the very good reason that all signs point to Vietnam willfully withholding information which could resolve the fate of many Americans lost in the war. On Veterans Day in 1992, President-elect Clinton stated, ``There will be no normalization of relations with any nation that is at all suspected of withholding any information.'' That was President-elect Clinton's standard. The standard was not simply cooperation. The standard was not simply allowing field operations. The 1992 standard was at all suspected of withholding any information. No normalization if there is any suspicion of any withholding of any information. By 1994, the standard has clearly changed from suspected of withholding information to selective cooperation. As I said yesterday on the Senate floor at about this same time, if President Clinton was unable to state unequivocally that Vietnam had done all it could do, it would be a strategic, diplomatic, and moral mistake to begin business as usual with Vietnam. President Clinton has made his decision today. Congress has no say in this decision. In the coming weeks and months, Congress will monitor the progress of relations with Vietnam. Our role will not be passive. Congress must approve any additional funds for United States diplomatic operations in Vietnam. The Senate must confirm any U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam. Any further improvement in relations will require action by Congress--granting of most-favored-nation status or beginning any operations by the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or the Trade and Development Agency. President Clinton said today that we should look to the future. I agree that we should look to the future, and examine future Vietnamese cooperation on POW/MIA issues, as well their record on human rights in the aftermath of today's announcement. But as we look to the future we should not and will not forget the past--especially the importance of doing all we can to resolve the fate of those Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my leader time to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues, because I know a lot of people are wondering about the balance of the evening, we are trying to find an additional amendment or two we can bring up tonight and have votes on. Again, let me indicate it is not very long to when the August recess is supposed to start. We would like to get some of this work done. So I think it is incumbent on all of us, if we can maybe have the Johnston amendment on thresholds offered and voted on tonight? The $50 to $100 million?

Mr. DOLE. You will do that this evening?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think this amendment will be accepted. Let me just say for the record here, there is an effort to try to work these things out on a bipartisan basis. We have had some success in this area. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his cooperation. I think it does answer some of the questions that some have raised, legitimate questions. We have tried to address legitimate questions as we did in the last amendment, though I do not think the amendment was necessary--nor, for that matter, that this one is [[Page S 9696]] necessary. But if it helps to move the bill along, obviously we are prepared to do that. Mr. President, opponents of S. 343, the regulatory reform bill, have repeatedly expressed concern that it would override existing laws providing for protection of health, safety, and the environment. They have made this argument despite the fact that the bill clearly states that its requirements ``supplement and do not supersede'' requirements in existing law. They have made this argument despite the fact that every sponsor of S. 343 has insisted that its provisions do not override requirements of existing law. It is ironic that this language is similar to language in other statutes, and no one seems to have had difficulty understanding the plain meaning of the phrase before. As I stated yesterday, I do not for 1 minute really believe that Ralph Nader or President Clinton's staff are unaware of the language in our bill. But it apparently is inconvenient to focus on the facts--that tends to get in the way of demonizing the bill and its supporters. Mr. President, I, and the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, and every other supporter who has spoken has made crystal clear that what we seek to achieve with this legislation is that cost-benefit criteria are put on an equal footing with requirements of existing law, where that is permitted by existing law. We do not seek to trump health, safety, and environmental criteria. Many opponents, in the guise of criticizing what they call a supermandate, really want a supermandate in the opposite direction. That is, they want any perceived conflict between an existing statute and considerations of cost resolved in a way that would effectively deprive a cost-benefit analysis of any real meaning. There are times, as I have said--and the bill says--that such a result is appropriate. But it cannot be appropriate in all instances. Otherwise, what the opponents are really saying is that the tremendous costs to the American family--about $6,000 a year--are an irrelevant consideration. Well, I do not think it is an irrelevant consideration to the American family. I do not think it is irrelevant to the American small or medium-sized business struggling to survive. And it should not be irrelevant to us. So, I reject such an extreme approach. Other opponents however, insist that they want the same thing as we do--that is, a level playing field where considerations of cost are just one part of the agency decisionmaking process, no less and no more important than the requirements of existing law. Where Congress has already spoken and stated a policy judgment that considerations of cost are not appropriate, that policy judgment would stand. Our regulatory reform legislation does not seek to change that result. For those who have suggested that we seek the same objective, it appears that the problem is one of interpreting the current language-- they have suggested that it would be more clear to state clearly that S. 343 does not override existing laws. In my view, there is no reason not to reemphasize as clearly as possible what the bill does not does not do. Therefore, Mr. President, I offer an amendment making clear that the requirements of S. 343 are not intended to ``override any express statutory requirements, including health, safety or environmental requirements.'' This is an effort to remove any perceived confusion or murkiness in the former language, and I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think if we could now have a time agreement on the Johnston amendment, then that would let our Members know how much time they might have between now and the time of the vote.

Mr. DOLE. An hour equally divided?

Mr. DOLE. Could we make that 40 minutes equally divided?

Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, one of the nine dealt with an amendment we just disposed of.

Mr. DOLE. There is some progress being made there, but I think it is fair to say there will be no more votes tonight.

Mr. DOLE. Let me yield to the Senator from Utah to respond.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, there will be no further amendments offered but there will be debate on the bill. I think there are a number of colleagues on either side who wish to make statements on the bill. Hopefully, we can find some amendment that can be offered, laid down early in the morning, so we can get an early start. Maybe in the meantime we can address some of the questions raised by the Senator from Ohio and get some response so we can move on. We would like to finish this bill tomorrow night if we could. Which we cannot. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to make an inquiry now if there are any amendments on either side that can be offered so we can have another vote or two this evening? As I understand, the Senator from Ohio indicates there are no amendments on that side.

Mr. DOLE. We are looking at one from the distinguished minority leader. We have not had a chance to review that yet.

Mr. DOLE. Does that mean you are about to run out?

Mr. DOLE. Are there any at this point?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

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

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

Mr. DOLE. It may be just a matter of--well, I will go ahead and fill up the tree and amend the bill in two degrees. Amendment No. 1494

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask there now be a period for routine morning business with Members permitted to speak for not more than 10 minutes each.