The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RESCISSIONS BILL” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S9777-S9792 on July 12, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RESCISSIONS BILL
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I was on the floor earlier today trying to just present some clarity about the rescissions bill. I will not go over my remarks I made earlier, but, Mr. President, the simple point I made was that Senator Moseley-Braun and I, Friday and today, always made it clear that we had several amendments, altogether four amendments, and we agreed to 50 minutes on each amendment, to be in the evening and the stacked votes the next day, and equally divided for summary, 50 minutes equally divided. That seemed an eminently reasonable proposal, especially for a bill where there were changes from what we had done in the Senate and wanted a chance to make some changes in this piece of legislation.
That was rejected by the majority leader, Mr. President, which amazed me. I mean, to argue that Senators cannot come out and have some amendments and some discussion about a peace of legislation so people know what is in there, it seems to me to go against the grain of what we are about and what representative democracy is about.
Now I see something put out by the Republican Policy Committee, ``The Cost of Delay: The Filibuster * * *.'' So, Mr. President, could I just read from the dictionary about what a filibuster is? ``The Cost of Delay: The Filibuster * * *.'' Here is the definition of ``filibuster'' right out of the dictionary. ``The use of obstructionist tactics such as the making of prolonged speeches or the introduction of irrelevant material for the purpose of delaying legislative action.''
Our amendments are hardly irrelevant. They deal exactly with these cuts. We wanted to have some offsets. We agreed to a time limit on the amendments; less than an hour for each one. And now I see this accusation of the filibuster.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to, if I could read one more time the definition of ``filibuster.'' Maybe my colleague could further explain what the filibuster is, although I----
Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I cannot think of a better colleague to do that for me. One more time before we get into these kinds of accusations and this kind of attack politics, ``The Cost of Delay: The Filibuster * * *.'' ``Filibuster. The use of obstructionist tactics such as the making of prolonged speeches or the introduction of irrelevant material for the purpose of delaying legislative action; an instance of the use of such tactics, especially in the United States Senate.''
Again, when Senators have amendments to a piece of legislation, very relevant, and agree to a time limit, and make it very clear that all we want is an opportunity to have a debate and discussion so people know what the priorities are of this rescission bill and some opportunities to improve it as we see it and better represent our constituents, that is hardly a filibuster.
My second point, by the way, Mr. President, is there is no delay on our part. The delay is on the part of the majority leader who will not accept an eminently reasonable proposal. There is probably not a Senator in the U.S. Senate, Democrat or Republican, I say to my colleague from Utah, who does not believe that it is important for us, especially if we do not block a motion to proceed and especially if we have a time agreement, to have an opportunity to improve a piece of legislation.
I would be pleased to yield to the Senator.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield, I just enjoyed the Senator's remarks. And as someone who has seen filibusters on both sides, it is a little more than long, interminable speeches and irrelevant materials being brought up. The fact of the matter is that we have now been on this E. coli matter for 2 solid days when the original bill took care of that problem. Then to resolve it even further, to make it more explicit, Senator Dole brought his amendment forth yesterday, and it passed and solved it again.
Now we are talking about exempting all of the HACCP rules, basically everything that the Department of Agriculture wants to do. To be honest with you, we know that this amendment is an amendment just plain geared to try to stop this bill, because if you exempt one agency, then we will see 50 people in here arguing to exempt other agencies or other agency particulars or other special interests. And we would like to just see them all covered.
Now, the E. coli is taken care of. The meat problems are taken care of in this bill. They were taken care of before we got into this amendment process. We have been tied in knots for 2 days over this E. coli problem that was taken care of in the original bill. We have tried to solve the problem for the other side by restating it. We have put new language in this bill. And, frankly, there is a belief on the part of many--I think some on both sides of the aisle, many--that there is delay for delay's sake here.
Now, whether that is true or not, I am not going to say this early in this stage of the bill. But it looks to me like it is starting to smell like it is true. And it is no secret that this is a bill that many on the other side and some on our side do not want to pass. But the vast majority here in the Senate do. And I think it is time to go ahead.
Now, we do not have a time agreement. I have tried to get a time agreement. It has been objected to or at least they have asked me to withhold until the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana can be thoroughly examined by the other side.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. HATCH. I might also add that the Senator from Louisiana could have modified his amendment at a whim, as it sat on the desk up here before we talked about a unanimous consent agreement. And he modified it. And in a very innocuous--
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. HATCH. I thought he yielded the floor. I apologize. I thought he yielded the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just so the Senator would--I will let the Senator from Ohio respond, but just for a moment, I want the Senator from Utah to know, I was actually not referring to this piece of legislation at all.
Mr. HATCH. You were referring to something else?
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct. I just want to make it clear that when I see a piece of literature coming out on a rescissions bill titled ``The Cost of Delay: The Filibuster * * *,'' I just wanted to read for some of my colleagues who make these accusations the definition of ``filibuster.'' It seems to me when Senators are going to be engaged in these kinds of attacks, we ought to be clear what a filibuster is. So, I read the definition of ``filibuster.'' And I will do it one more time. Dictionary definition: ``The use of obstructionist tactics such as the making of prolonged speeches or the introduction of irrelevant material for the purpose of delaying legislative action.''
Our proposed amendments are not irrelevant. They are directly relevant to this bill. We have offsets. We have agreed to amendments. We have agreed to time limits on those amendments. That is in no way, shape or form a filibuster.
I do not want to interrupt the flow of discussion about this bill, but I must say that if this goes on, I am going to have to come out here and start reading definitions of democracy and other such terms that are important to the way we conduct our business.
But, Mr. President, before I yield the floor, let me just make it clear one more time. I did this morning, and I want to say it one more time. Senator Moseley-Braun and I have been very clear. We were clear Friday; we are clear now. The bill comes over, changes are made, changes are made late Thursday night, changes that are made that we think make this rescissions bill not the bill that was passed out of the Senate.
We think it could use improvement. We think the people in the country do not know about some of these changes. We are not at all sure that some people's priorities are to cut low-income home energy assistance, summer jobs training, job training for dislocated workers, or counseling programs for seniors when it comes to consumer protection on health policies that they purchase. Therefore, we wanted the opportunity and desired the opportunity and made it clear to have some discussion. I do not know why my colleagues are afraid of some limited discussion about this so people in the country know what is in it. But it certainly is not a filibuster. We are ready to proceed as soon as there is no longer any delay, and I certainly hope the majority leader will be willing to let us go forward.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, let me clarify this. There was an agreement worked out between the leaders. Senator Hatch was in the process of reading that. There was disagreement with it from Senator Johnston, who is a coauthor of S. 343, the Dole-Johnston bill. He wanted to change his amendment in some respects in the middle of the unanimous-consent request. I wanted to see what the changes were, which I do not think is at all unreasonable. If they were innocuous, fine, we would go ahead with it. It turned out they are a bit more substantive than I anticipated--dates changed, wording changed. So we have had staff working on it as fast as we can, checking with people who are more familiar with this than some of us.
So that is what is going on right now. There was no intention to delay on our part whatsoever. It is just that in the middle of a unanimous-consent which we thought we had agreement on, changes were made in what we were about to vote on supposedly at 5 o'clock. I do not think it is unreasonable at all to know what it is we are voting on when something is being changed. That is the problem.
They are in the cloakroom right now. I think we are going to have agreement on this shortly, but I am not willing to agree to a unanimous-consent request until we know what the vote is going to be on. We thought it was going to be on the amendment that we debated all day. The amendment has changed somewhat. As soon as this is worked out, we can set the vote.
There is no attempt to delay. The change is made not in favor of the Glenn-Chafee bill, but one of the coauthors of the Dole-Johnston bill. That is the reason we are where we are with this delay.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I have been following the debate in an effort to understand exactly what the ramifications are of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] and the second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston].
The manager of the bill, the Senator from Utah, has discussed the matter with me, and in order to try to obtain some clarification, I called the Secretary of Agriculture to try to understand the specifics as to what is involved here on the inspection of meat and poultry.
I favor regulatory reform and, in the course of the debate and amendments for consideration, I have supported amendments which will reform the regulatory process to try to eliminate some of the red tape which is now present. But I do believe that when it comes to matters of health and safety, we have to be very, very careful about how the reform measures impact the regulatory process. Furthermore, the regulatory process has to be reasonable so business can proceed without undue regulations.
There is general agreement today that there is excessive governmental regulation, and it is not easy to find the appropriate balance. In my judgment, it depends upon the specifics.
The Secretary of Agriculture pointed out to me the problems which have been discussed at some length regarding E. coli bacteria and salmonella. He said that for some 10 years, there has been an interest in the scientific community in moving beyond the traditional touching and smelling; that from the E. coli and salmonella, some 4,000 people die each year and several hundred thousand are made ill; that the proposed rulemaking, which was submitted in January, has brought comments from many, many people, thousands of comments, and they are in the process of considering those comments.
The Secretary says there will be appropriate consideration so that there will not be an undue regulatory burden. He has received many complaints from the small packers who complained, understandably, about the cost in the testing, and there have been some complaints that they have not had enough of an input in the process. Secretary Glickman says that there will not be a final rule until there has been very substantial input from small business.
The second-degree amendment which has been offered by Senator Johnston would exempt, as I understand it, the rulemaking process which Secretary Glickman is concerned about here but would not stop at a later time somebody going back and insisting on the kind of cost analysis which might invalidate the rule which the Department of Agriculture is considering at the present time.
A question which is on my mind is whether there should not be some input from the Secretary of Agriculture who could make recommendations so that we could have legislative language which would protect the small packers, the small business people and have some guarantees against excessive regulations, but which would not tie the Secretary's hands on taking the steps which are necessary to guarantee the safety of meat and poultry.
On this date of the record, it is my view at the moment, and I am prepared to listen to further argument, while the amendment by Senator Johnston is a significant step forward in exempting the current regulatory process at least for the time being, that it is not a guarantee that there will not be some revision at a later time which would jeopardize the sanitary condition of meat and poultry.
My colleague from Utah, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked me to review it to try to give him my thinking, because there is a vote count going on now. As I see it at the moment, I would support the Johnston amendment, but similarly I would support the Daschle amendment. I told my colleague from Utah it might be useful to have a discussion on the record.
Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my colleague's candor. Actually, the Dole amendment yesterday solved the problem. Johnston solves it even further. What apparently the Secretary of Agriculture does not like is the petition process provided in this bill.
I just suggest that if, 5 years from now, science dictates there is a need for a change, what is wrong with having the petition process to help to effectuate that change? That is what is provided for here.
The fact of the matter is that the Daschle amendment exempts the Department of Agriculture rules asserting hazard analysis and critical control point systems from S. 343. Those are the systems that deal with E. coli in meat and poultry. Now, it is not necessary because yesterday the Senate, by a large margin, accepted Senator Dole's amendment that makes it absolutely clear what was already present in S. 343, that the bill contains emergency exemptions from cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment requirements of the bill. Consequently, where an emergency exists, where food safety from E. coli bacteria exists, S. 343 would permit and allow for a prompt promulgation of the HACCP rules.
Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HATCH. First, I will add one other thing. The Johnston amendment takes care of the problem without exempting a rule from the bill, which is a very bad precedent. If we exempt one rule, everybody will be in here with their own special rules. We think all of the agencies should have the obligation under this bill to pass reasonable regulations.
The Johnston amendment makes clear that the proposed rules in the pipeline as of April 1, 1995, will not have to redo cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. This applies to the E. coli and food safety USDA-proposed rules, as well.
Now, as I understand it--and I think it is a silly argument--those arguments for the Daschle amendment want a complete exemption for the Department of Agriculture rules because that would mean there would be no costly petition pursuant to section 633 of S. 343, and the petition need not be done. I call that silly because the petition process should lie for proposed rules prior to April 1, 1995. If it turns out that scientific assumptions underlying the bill are erroneous, or the rule turns out to be burdensome, why not allow for the petition and the agency rule? The rule would still be in effect if the petition is filed, so one can argue that safety will not be harmed.
So we do not think that is essential. We think Johnston covers the problem and Dole does. We do not think there should be an exception for one aspect of regulation that would open the bill for all kinds of arguments that other aspects should be accepted at all. The petition process guarantees that we have the best science, and that petition process goes on for years.
Mr. SPECTER. If my colleague will yield for a question, there are a number of questions I would like to discuss with the Senator from Utah, but I will start with the core question. When you talk about not wanting to have an exception because then you would have other exceptions, is not the issue of safety and health as it relates to meat and poultry a very, very unique circumstance which justifies an exception for that very important category? What other categories would the Senator from Utah anticipate seeking exemptions? Because if there are other categories where an exemption is accorded on a case-by-case basis, I think that is something the Senate ought to consider.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator would allow me, Mr. President, I will answer. The unique circumstance of meat and poultry inspection is not unique, but it is an unusual circumstance, in that you have a rulemaking that is already mature, that has been out there for a couple of years, and they have already done a cost-benefit analysis and it is ready to go into operation, I think, later this year or early next year. In other words, it is ready to go, and the unusual circumstance is that you do not want to have to go back and redo that. And under the Johnston amendment, that would be exempted from the provisions of this bill, so that the rule can go into effect.
Now, with respect to future rulemakings, 2 years from now or 5 years from now, we are saying this activity, even though it deals with public health, ought to have to go through the same scientific evaluation as any rules, because almost all of this bill is concerned either with safety, with health, or with the environment. If we are going to exempt this, then why not product safety? You know, automobiles kill a lot of people. Why not the Clean Air Act? The Clean Air Act kills more people than E. coli by factors of hundreds. Hundreds of people die because of asthma, or whatever, because of unclean air. There is no problem with emergency rules. We have that taken care of, and we have a further amendment, even better, to take care of that.
But the point is, you do not want to exempt future rules from scientific evaluation, from risk assessment, and from cost-benefit just because they deal with health, because almost everything deals with either health, safety, or the environment. We do want to exempt this rulemaking, which is ready to go forward and which will protect the public. We do not want to delay that.
The Secretary of Agriculture has a very legitimate concern there. But we do not want to come along on a case-by-case basis and exempt anything that relates to health or safety or the environment, which is important, too, because then you have no bill left.
Mr. SPECTER. Has there been an effort made to seek any exemption beyond this one on the Department of Agriculture?
Mr. JOHNSTON. As part of the unanimous consent, we had requested that there be an agreement that there be no other amendments once we vote on the Daschle amendment with respect to health or safety. That was not agreed to on this side.
Frankly, I have been asking around about what is next on that, and I have heard, well, there might be one on mammography, there might be one on cryptosporidium. Who knows? It is health and it is important, sure; everything is important. But under the Johnston amendment, any ongoing rulemaking is not going to be stopped. That is going to be allowed to go into operation. And if any emergency situation beyond that comes up, the bill will allow you to take care of the emergency situation. But if you have a new rulemaking, even though it relates to health, or safety, or the environment, that ought to pass scientific muster just like everything else because, look, great wrongs are committed in the name of health. In fact, most of the problems have been committed in the name of health.
Mr. SPECTER. Both ways.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Both ways. But we are correcting that with the Johnston amendment. And then, other than that, we subject all rules to good science. That is what this bill is basically about.
Mr. SPECTER. If I may reply for a moment to what the Senator from Louisiana has commented about. I would be interested to see in the unanimous consent request if the issue is just limited to the Department of Agriculture. That would be very weighing on my mind on how I vote on the Daschle amendment.
I support the Johnston amendment. I think it is a decisive step forward. I discussed this earlier today off the floor with the Senator from Louisiana. I think it is a step forward. But I want to know what other specific situations might rise to the level of the problem of the E. coli and the salmonella.
Is it not true, if I may ask, whether there is not a lookback procedure, as the expression is used, even with passage of the Johnston amendment, that would open the door to reevaluation of this regulatory process that the Secretary of Agriculture is now engaged in?
Mr. JOHNSTON. What it provides is that a year after the effective date, the Secretary or the agency shall list all rules which he or she thinks should be reviewed and that he or she thinks cannot pass muster under the bill; that is, where the benefits do not justify the costs.
So that the Secretary himself or herself, if they want to review one of these rules, they can. They can do that anyway, today.
In addition to that, if someone out there feels aggrieved, they can file a petition for a review. That is the lookback the Senator is talking about. But it is a high threshold.
They have to show a substantial likelihood that they could not meet the test. The basic test is that the benefits justify the cost.
Mr. SPECTER. To what extent does the Daschle amendment change that?
Mr. JOHNSTON. It would exempt it from any scientific evaluation as provided for in this bill whatever.
For the future, or lookback or anything else, this would be it. No questions asked. It would be business as usual with respect to this activity.
Mr. HATCH. If I could just add to my colleague from Pennsylvania, we do not believe anything should be exempt from S. 343, because what S. 343 requires is that we consistently push for the best science available.
Frankly, the problem the Johnston amendment does deal with is what you do with proposed rules before the effective date. The amendment would set the date of April 1, 1995, as the cutoff date. Anything before that date, including E. coli rules, will not have to redo already done risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis--if, in the discretion of the head of that agency, they have already done that.
We do not want to have to do unnecessary, duplicative risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis. That is what his amendment does.
Frankly, safety is not the issue in this matter. Safety is taken care of through the Johnston amendment. Money is really the issue. Frankly, there is little or no reason for the Daschle amendment, once we have the Johnston amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleagues. I will confer further with the Secretary and further study the matter.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I was going to suggest as a way to handle this unanimous consent that I send an amendment to the desk at this time, and that the unanimous consent refer to the amendment at the desk. I will not do so until Senator Glenn or the representative of the minority leader comes out.
I suggest if we do that, we send a Johnston amendment to the desk, have the unanimous consent refer to the Johnston amendment and to the Daschle amendment in the way that it is now stated.
Mr. President, I see Senator Glenn. I was going to suggest I send an amendment to the desk, and that the unanimous consent refer, then, to the amendment at the desk.
Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, and I do object right now, we are spelling out what the changes are that have been made so we can comment on them briefly before we go to the unanimous consent request. That is being prepared. It should be ready within 4 or 5 minutes. I would rather do that and then send it to the desk.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator could refer to it in the unanimous-consent.
Mr. HATCH. I do not see a problem of sending it to the desk.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I still object until we have a chance to look at this.
Mr. President, I object, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
The Chair, in his capacity as a Senator from the State of Wyoming, suggests the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Johnston be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment, the text of which both sides are acquainted with, and a vote occur on the first-
degree amendment with no second-degree amendments in order after 5 minutes of debate, divided equally between Senators Johnston and Glenn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. I further ask that following the vote on the Johnston amendment, Senator Daschle be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment, the text of which is the pending Daschle amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order, and a vote occur immediately on the amendment without any intervening debate or action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Daschle amendment, no other amendments regarding the USDA HACCP rules proposed on February 3, 1995, be in order during the pendency of S. 343.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1504 to Amendment No. 1487
(Purpose: To provide that risk assessments conducted to support proposed rules may be used to support final rules that are not substantially different with respect to the risk being addressed)
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Roth, proposes an amendment numbered 1504 to amendment No. 1487.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 50, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following new paragraph:
``(4) If the agency head determines that--
(A) a final major rule subject to this subchapter is substantially similar to the proposed major rule with respect to the risk being addressed;
(B) a risk assessment for the proposed major rule has been carried out in substantial accordance with section 633; and
(C) a new risk assessment for the final rule is not required in order to respond to comments received during the period for comment on the proposed rule; the head of the agency may publish such determination along with the final rule in lieu of preparing a new risk assessment for the final rule.''
1. On page 19 strike out lines 11 through 13 and the words
``than 30 days after such date of enactment),''.
2. On page 20, line 9 strike out the words ``(or, in the case of a notice of proposed rulemaking'' and strike out lines 10 through 12.
3. On page 43, amend line 11 to read ``agency after the effective date of this subchapter''; strike out lines 12 and 13; and strike out ``section 623'' on line 14.
4. On page 48 amend lines 4 and 5 to read ``effective date of this subchapter, the head of each''.
5. On page 97 relable subsection (b) as subsection (c) and insert a new subsection (b) as follows:
``(b) Any rulemaking pending on July 12, 1995 for which a notice of proposed rulemaking or a proposed rulemake has been published in the Federal register before April 1, 1995 shall not be subject to the provisions of subchapter II or subchapter III of chapter 6 of title 5 U.S. Code except for section 623 (relating to review of rules).''
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that the Johnston amendment will not be opposed because the Johnston amendment is not now a substitute to the Daschle amendment; the Johnston amendment is a freestanding amendment which exempts the inspection of meat provisions from this subchapter. In other words, it allows that rule to go forward without any delay at all. I believe everyone is for that.
The controversial amendment will be the Daschle amendment which will follow this because, if and when we adopt the Johnston amendment, it will solve the problem of the rulemaking. But what it will do is exempt totally the whole area from future rulemaking. If we do that with respect to inspection of meat and poultry, then what is next? Cryptosporidium, clean water, the Clean Air Act, car seats for kids, radioactivity? It sets a precedent to exempt everything from this bill and, if health is the standard by which you exempt matters from scientific determination, then why do a risk assessment at all because almost everything in this bill--almost everything--has to do with health, safety, or the environment.
So, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote for the Johnston amendment. I expect that almost everyone will. I urge that they vote against the Daschle amendment, as that undermines this whole bill because it sets a precedent for taking everything out of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis and scientific determination.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the Johnston amendment, as revised, will exempt from the cost-benefit and risk assessment provisions of this bill any pending rules proposed before April 1 of this year. However, Senator Johnston's amendment does not solve the E. coli problem, since it would continue to subject the HHCCP rule to a petition and look-back process, as well as judicial review. That is of considerable concern. These procedures could expose this important public health rule to unnecessary and potentially life-threatening delay.
In addition, Senator Johnston's amendment would continue to apply the requirements of this bill to many rules now in the pipeline which were proposed after April 1. Those rules would be subject to all of the requirements of the bill--cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment petitions, and look-back.
This amendment would continue to allow the bill to delay rules that are currently in the pipeline, such as protections against cryptosporidium, unsafe mammography standards, and other important rules.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Johnston amendment and yes on the Daschle amendment, which would clearly permit the HHCCP rule, a rule that would protect the public from tainted meat, to go forward without change.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 seconds.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am surprised that Senator Glenn is now opposing the Johnston amendment because earlier today he said if the Johnston amendment were freestanding, he would support it. It is still a good amendment. It takes care of the problem. It prevents any delay in any pending rule now, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and 6 seconds.
Mr. GLENN. Earlier today, I said I might. I wanted to see the language. I think it was good that I said that earlier. We have had a couple of changes here in the middle of the unanimous-consent request that changed the nature of this.
So I did not make a commitment to vote for this in whatever form it might come up. I am for the general principle being proposed, but not the way this was developed today.
So I yield the remainder of my time, and I am ready to go to a vote.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GLENN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 301 Leg.]
YEAS--69
AbrahamAshcroftBaucusBennettBingamanBondBreauxBrownBumpersBurnsByrdCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenConradCoverdellCraigD'AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciExonFairclothFordFristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHarkinHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsJohnstonKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnellMurkowskiNicklesNunnPackwoodPresslerPryorRobbRothSantorumShelbySimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner
NAYS--31
AkakaBidenBoxerBradleyBryanDaschleDoddDorganFeingoldFeinsteinGlennGrahamInouyeKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurray PellReidRockefellerSarbanesSimonWellstone
So the amendment (No. 1504) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Daschle amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the amendment been proposed?
Amendment No. 1505 to Amendment No. 1487
(Purpose: To protect public health by ensuring timely completion of the
United States Department of Agriculture's rulemaking on ``Pathogen Reduction: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems''
(proposed rule, 60 Fed. Reg. 6774, et al., February 3, 1995)
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call up the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an amendment numbered 1505 to amendment No. 1487.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 19, line 5, stike out ``or''.
On page 19, line 7, strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof a semicolon and ``or''.
On page 19, add after line 7, the following new subparagraph:
``(xiii) the rule proposed by the United States Department of Agriculture on February 3, 1995, entitled ``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems'' (proposed rule, 60 Fed. Reg. 6774, et al.).''.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Daschle amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second
The yeas and nays were ordered.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1505. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 302 Leg.]
YEAS--49
AkakaBaucusBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyBryanBumpersByrdChafeeCohenConradDaschleDoddDorganExonFeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennGrahamHarkinHollingsInouyeJeffordsKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayNunnPellPryorReidRobbRockefellerSarbanesSimonSnoweSpecterThompsonWellstone
NAYS--51
AbrahamAshcroftBennettBondBreauxBrownBurnsCampbellCoatsCochranCoverdellCraigD'AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciFairclothFristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHutchisonInhofeJohnstonKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnellMurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerRothSantorumShelbySimpsonSmithStevensThomasThurmondWarner
So the amendment (No. 1505) was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senate majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I understand--if I could have the attention of my colleagues--I understand the Senator from Wisconsin has an amendment on which he is willing to accept a time agreement of 30 minutes. We were going to propose 30 minutes and any second-degree amendment be limited to 20 minutes equally divided and must be relevant to the first-degree amendment.
I do not have a copy of the second-degree amendment. There may be one or more second-degree amendments. But if we could start off on the premise that the Senator from Wisconsin had 30 minutes, maybe by the time he finishes, we will have a copy of the second-degree amendment. Will that be OK?
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we would certainly want to accommodate some time agreement, but I think in order to accommodate any specific time agreement, we would want to see the second-degree amendment. If we could do that, just as soon as we see it and have a chance to look at it, I think we could lock into a time certain. But I would be reluctant to lock into any time until we had a chance to look at it.
Mr. DOLE. In the meantime, the Senator from Wisconsin will proceed on the basis we hope to have a time agreement?
Mr. DASCHLE. That will be all right.
Mr. DOLE. So any of my colleagues who would like to eat, I think it is safe to say there will be no votes until 8 p.m.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, how long did the majority leader wish to proceed?
Mr. DOLE. Hopefully for a while. I understand the Senator from Delaware will have an amendment following disposition of the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. We are not moving too quickly. There are still, as I understand it, numerous amendments. We have not had the major amendment from the other side, the Glenn amendment.
So, we will be here for a while yet this evening.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have had some delays on both sides.
Mr. DOLE. Right.
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have a number of amendments we are sort of waiting to get cleared on the other side having to do with the problem Senator Glenn pointed out on 180 days within which to perform a risk assessment. We want to extend that to a year. That is something on which we are just waiting for an answer. It is a very simple, straightforward amendment.
There is another one having to do with Superfund. Those are really big amendments. If we got those adopted, I think it might change the sort of mood, our procedure.
They are not, apparently, ready, so I do not insist on it. But I hope we could get a procedure for clearing these amendments on the other side as well as on our side.
Mr. DOLE. Right. I do not know if we have had any cleared on either side, but I think we should try to cooperate where we can. As far as I know, nothing has been cleared.
Mr. KERRY. Will the majority leader yield for a moment? Madam President, I ask the majority leader. We have a list, a series of sort of major items, and then some less major, that have been presented some time ago. We did, in the day before we departed for the recess, have a negotiating process that at least had just begun. That broke up with the notion that at some point we might hear from people whether we could get back and see if we could make more progress.
It is my sense the Senator from Utah has, in good faith, offered to sit down. The Senator from Louisiana has. The difficulty is both of them have also had a requirement to be on the floor for a significant period of time, so it is very hard to try to accomplish what I think might be possible, which is to have progress in the negotiating effort.
I do not know if that means, therefore, it might make sense to have a prolonged quorum call in the morning, or maybe come in a little later and give us time to get together and see if we could find some commonality. But we are still waiting for a response with some specificity to those things that have been submitted.
Mr. HATCH. If I could answer the distinguished Senator?
Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Utah for that purpose.
Mr. HATCH. If I could answer the distinguished Senator, it is my understanding that both sides are pretty well aware of what we can agree to and what we cannot agree to. But I would be happy to sit down in the morning and go over every detail and see what we can do.
But we have given responses to that. It is my understanding staff has been informed of what our positions are.
Mr. KERRY. Well, Senator----
Mr. HATCH. If that is not so, I will be happy--I would be happy to sit down anyway, because there may be things we can work out.
Mr. KERRY. It was my understanding, in conversations a few moments ago with the Senator from Louisiana, that he thought we had the capacity to accommodate a particular concern on the decisional criteria which we had some colloquy on yesterday on the floor and some further conversation on today.
Mr. HATCH. Let us sit down and see if we can.
Mr. KERRY. But we still do not actually have language or an agreement to do so, so we are in this sort of nebulous area. I think it would be helpful if we could find the time to work through those critical areas. At that point, a lot of our people who would like to vote for this bill if we can fix these things will have the ability to decide whether we are close to that, whether that is a reality or not. I think it would help determine what the course will be on this legislation.
Mr. DOLE. We had a brief discussion last night, I guess before we adjourned, with the Senator from Louisiana because the Senator from Ohio raised a question last evening about 9 major areas of difference and 23 minor areas of difference which consumed--I do not know--25 or 30 pages of suggestions, or a number of pages.
I think we are in the process--at least I understand Senator Hatch and Senator Johnston may be in the process--of going through those one by one trying to get some response to the Senator from Ohio. But that does not mean we should not meet and see if we cannot make further progress.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the leader will yield, I have completed that process and given answers for those. But we will be happy to meet as well and talk about what the answers are.
Mr. LEVIN. If the leader will also yield for that, I understand from the Senator from Utah that the responses that we now have that we can take a look at overnight are also reflecting his own views and the views of others on that side of the aisle.
Is that fair?
Mr. HATCH. I think that is fair. I think it is correct. Of course, we are going to continue this dialog throughout this process. There will be an attempt to accommodate folks on both sides of the aisle. We are getting down to where we are going to have to battle out some of these issues.
Mr. DOLE. We have, I might add, requests for morning business for about an hour and a half in the morning. That might accommodate concerns, and give Senators time to sit down and at least go over each of the items.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. It is my understanding that the Senator from Wisconsin will be recognized to offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 1506 to Amendment No. 1487
(Purpose: To protect the public from the dangers of Cryptosporidium and other drinking water hazards by ensuring timely completion of rulemaking to protect the safety of drinking water from microbial and other risks)
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1506 to amendment numbered 1487.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 19, line 5, strike out ``or''.
On page 19, line 7, strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof a semicolon and ``or''.
On page 19, add after line 7 the following new subparagraph:
``(xiii) any rule proposed or promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency that relates to the control of microbial and disinfection byproduct risks to human health in drinking water supplies.''
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, we have heard the arguments made by proponents of S. 343 stating that the emergency exemption section of this bill will protect urgent health and safety regulations in the pipeline. However, a careful reading of the legislation reveals that many essential regulations would not be protected under this section or the bill as a whole. My amendment will address a particularly serious omission: namely regulations to protect the public from the dangers of cryptosporidium and other drinking water hazards.
Simply, what my amendment does is exempt pending EPA regulations regarding cryptosporidium and related waterborne parasites from the strictures of this bill.
Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with the cryptosporidium parasite because of the recent outbreak of this waterborne disease in my State of Wisconsin. As many may recall, the water supply in Milwaukee was contaminated with this parasite in 1993, and 104 people died. Let me repeat, 104 people died. And more than 400,000 became severely ill as a result of drinking ordinary tap water.
As we continue this debate, I urge my colleagues to keep in mind, this bill is not just about how many forms businesses should be required to fill out, this bill is about peoples' lives.
Over the years, we have come to take for granted the safety of our drinking water. We have done much to protect American water consumers from devastating waterborne disease and death that plagues so many other countries in the world. But we have become complacent about the safety of our drinking water--perhaps too complacent.
In the aftermath of the Milwaukee cryptosporidium outbreak, EPA, water utility organizations, local government officials, and public interest groups have worked together to agree upon a plan of action. All parties agree that the cryptosporidium problem must be addressed. And now all parties have agreed on the way to fix this problem. EPA is in the process of issuing three regulations to implement this agreement, in order to prevent the devastation that crippled Milwaukee from occurring again. But S. 343 threatens to stop the process dead in its tracks. While that may not be the intention, I believe that that will be the outcome.
In cooperation with the regulated industry and public interest groups, EPA is moving forward on three regulations:
First, the information collection rule, which requires water utilities to collect data about the contaminants, like cryptosporidium, in their water. Based on the information collected, the next two regulations will be finalized.
Second, the enhanced surface water treatment rule, which, based on the information collected, will require new treatment and filtration methods to protect against cryptosporidium and related parasites, and
Third, the disinfectants/disinfection byproducts rule, which will propose standards on certain harmful byproducts that
are created as a result of using chemical disinfectants to treat drinking water.
This is not an example of a Federal agency issuing ridiculous regulations in a vacuum. Instead, this is an example of the Federal Government finally addressing a problem that should have been addressed long ago. And it is an example of a cooperative effort with all involved parties.
Given the overwhelming need and support for these regulations, we should not be subjecting these regulations to the time consuming and extremely complicated labyrinth of S. 343.
I would like to briefly mention just a few of the problems that S. 343 poses for the pending cryptosporidium protection regulations.
First, S. 343 would stop EPA from gathering information on cryptosporidium. One of the first things EPA is doing, even before setting drinking water standards, is to gather information from water utilities to gain a better understanding of the problem. This is a common sense approach. The information gathered will help the agency and the water utilities gain a better understanding of the nature of the cryptosporidium problem and other less-known waterborne parasites. The rules cost would make this information collection rule subject to the strictures of the bill. But this creates a catch-22: The whole purpose of this rule is to gather information to be able to judge the costs and benefits of creating new standards to protect against waterborne diseases. So it would be impossible to do a cost benefit analysis on the effort to gather data. This makes no sense.
A second problem with S. 343 is that it could stop EPA from issuing stronger drinking water rules altogether. Without the information collection EPA has proposed, it will be impossible for EPA to conduct a full risk assessment as required under S. 343. Further, S. 343 makes it nearly impossible for EPA to specify the technology needed to adequately treat water to address cryptosporidium. Instead, the bill requires use of least cost alternatives, and establishment of vague performance goals that make it difficult to protect consumers.
It is highly unlikely that these regulations would be covered by the emergency exemption in the bill. How could the EPA possibly win a court challenge--and I am certain there would be a court challenge--on whether this rule is responding to an emergency? The information collection rule, which starts the whole process, is to determine the extent to which there is an emergency. Certainly for those of us who have watched the human devastation in Milwaukee, there is no question that an emergency exists. And I know that my colleagues from Texas, Georgia, Oregon, Nevada, and other States that have had recent outbreaks view this as an emergency, as well. But we still must determine the extent of the problem nationwide. And that's a time consuming process. Can you imagine the opponents saying, ``Well, if you're planning to spend 18 months collecting information it can't really be an `emergency.' ''
One final note on the emergency exemption we have been hearing so much about. The emergency exemption just delays the cost benefit analysis requirement by 180 days. It does not waive the cost benefit analysis. Having to do a risk benefit analysis mid stream would disrupt the data collection process.
Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to protect the drinking water rules which are in the works. More than 45 million Americans use tap water from systems that have been found to have cryptosporidium. Everyone agrees that we have a problem here. And, everyone agrees on the solution. My reading of the Dole-Johnston bill is that it would certainly delay and even stop this solution. My amendment would ensure that does not happen.
Madam President, S. 343 is intended to streamline the regulatory process and bring common sense to government. However, there are times when lack of action on the part of the Federal Government does not make sense. If we had stricter water treatment standards in place, maybe the tragedy in Milwaukee would not have happened.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in full support of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl]. I cannot express to my colleagues in the Senate the significant urgency with which regulations on cryptosporidium, other waterborne parasites, and disinfection byproducts, need to move forward. EPA has negotiated a series of regulations with the cooperation of water utilities and public interest groups to require public water systems to test for cryptosporidium and other parasites and issued them as a proposed rule package. Using information from these negotiations, the EPA has also indicated its intent to prescribe particular treatment and filtration techniques to prevent waterborne disease outbreaks. Mr. President, this regulatory reform bill should support, not hinder, the results of negotiated rulemaking. Bringing the potentially regulated community together with the regulatory agency to discuss in a constructive way the content and scope of governmental requirements in negotiated rulemaking is the type of process that helps to ensure our objectives in regulatory reform.
Lest anyone in this body think that cryptosporidium is either just Milwaukee's problem, or an unfortunately vogue parasite brought into the limelight 2 years ago, cryptosporidium has been widely detected in public water systems, including here in Washington, DC, in 1994. In a September 30, 1994, Congressional Record statement, I described the contents of a three-part NBC news ``Dateline'' series that ran on cryptosporidium. Though the news show time limits prohibited a listing of all the cases of concern, the program reported that between 1986 and 1992, the Centers for Disease Control reported a total of 102 drinking water disease outbreaks linked directly or indirectly to microscopic parasites, viruses, and bacterium striking 34,155 people in 35 States.
Concerns with cryptosporidium outbreaks continue. On June 15, 1995, the CDC and EPA issued additional guidance for people with weakened immune systems, such as people with HIV and AIDS, cancer and transplant patients taking immunosuppressive drugs, and people with genetically weakened immune systems, to take extra precautions in consuming municipal water such as boiling their water or using a cyst-certified water filter to protect against cryptosporidium.
Some 400,000 people, of all States of health, became ill in Milwaukee and my colleague from Wisconsin and I have seen firsthand the ongoing health problems and the significant institutional response and coordination challenges that Milwaukee citizens continue to face, in the absence of regulation.
I also remain concerned about the health risks posed by disinfection byproducts, rules that were proposed to control the
amount of disinfectant byproducts allowed in drinking water at the same time that safeguards would be strengthened against disease-causing microorganisms such as cryptosporidium. According to the fall 1994 EPA Journal, chemicals used to disinfect drinking water, such as chlorine, form byproducts that can harm human health. For example, chronic exposure to excessive amounts of trihalomethanes, a class of byproducts, can cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, heart and neurological effects, and effects on fetuses. The proposed rule would lower the maximum contaminant level for total trihalomethanes from 100 micrograms per liter to 80 and address 6 other by-products.
In conclusion, our efforts to reform the regulatory process should not thwart rules that are needed and consensus-based, such as the rules on cryptosporidium. The citizens of Milwaukee, and indeed the citizens of many other major cities, are asking for the Government to respond to this public health concern. I believe exempting these rules from this bill is both the responsible public policy course, and the right thing to do.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KOHL. 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. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to insert in the Record supporters of the Kohl amendment to exempt microbial and disinfection byproduct rules from S. 343. Those organizations are: American Oceans Campaign, Clean Water Action, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, National Association of People with AIDS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GLENN. 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. GLENN. Mr. President, let me congratulate the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] for taking the initiative on this matter. His constituents were hard hit in Milwaukee not long ago when they had some of these problems with cryptosporidium. It resulted in around 100 deaths and some 400,000 people ill. So he brings this to our attention. He certainly has the personal experience of knowing what happened back right where he lives with people he knows.
For that reason, I fully support the Senator from Wisconsin on this amendment to ensure the health and safety of our people. As I stated earlier when talking about the E. coli bacteria, this bill, S. 343, does not, in my opinion, provide that essential balance of regulatory relief and protection of the American people, and there does have to be that kind of a balance.
That is why I supported the minority leader's amendment on the USDA E. coli meat and poultry inspection rule. And that is why I support this amendment on rules addressing cryptosporidium. The current dangers to public health from contaminated drinking water were made clear by the outbreak of cryptosporidium in the water supply of Milwaukee, WI. As I said a moment ago, it resulted in an estimated 100 deaths and over 400,000 illnesses. I do not know the population of Milwaukee, but that means just about everybody around that area was sick for a while--
400,000 people ill, and some ill enough that around 100 died from this--died.
So the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin would exempt this critically important rule from the burdensome requirements of this bill. I support this amendment in order to show how important rules that are already underway will be delayed and can be stopped by the regulatory reform bill before us.
I stated earlier the situation with this rule reminds me of the regulatory moratorium we had before us not long ago except now we are calling it regulatory reform. Rules that are in the pipeline and will be final soon must still go back to square one all over again. Even with the emergency exemption that the proponents of S. 343 keep pointing to, this rule would still be subject to all the petition provisions, be subject to all the judicial review opportunities, the agency review of rules, and et cetera, all the things that are provided.
Also, the emergency exemption in S. 343 does not really exempt anything from the bill. It would be only temporary at best. It only provides for a 180-day grace period after issuance of the rule. That is, it gives an agency an additional 180 days to comply with the requirements of the bill and that is it.
Now, at the end of the 180 days, all of the onerous requirements of S. 343 kick in again. No exemption then. Just new opportunities for challenges, uncertainty, and delay.
Now, I guess the people who wrote this assume that 180 days was enough to do all the investigating that would have to be done. But some of these rules and regulations take years and years to finalize. Yet, we are saying, Do this within 180 days or you have to go back and start all this all over again. It is just a new opportunity for challenges, uncertainty and delay.
What will happen to the implementation of the rule when it faces those prospects? Well, regardless of the Senator from Wisconsin's amendment, the cryptosporidium rule will be caught in the vise of S. 343 and public health will suffer. The potential delays for this rule are very real. So there will be the additional deaths and sicknesses. They will be very real, too. Those sicknesses and deaths will be to those Americans who possibly assume wrongly that their water is safe to drink.
This amendment is certainly a step in the right direction to protect the health of the American people. But it certainly is not enough. S. 343 will catch other important rules, and overall it will make the jobs of the agencies to protect health, safety, and the environment much more difficult.
S. 343 simply does not fulfill my two principles for regulatory reform: regulatory relief and protection for the American people. And I repeat for the umpteenth time on the floor, there has to be a balance between those two. That is why I, along with Senator Chafee and many others, have introduced S. 1001, which we believe is a balanced regulatory reform proposal. It is a tough bill. It is not an easy bill. But our bill would not shut down these important rules that are already in the pipeline.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I strongly encourage them to take a hard look at our alternative proposal for regulatory reform, S. 1001. It makes amendments like this unnecessary.
Mr. President, I would like to also talk for a moment about problems for control of cryptosporidium with the amendment to exempt prior proposed rules, the Johnston amendment, so-called, that we just passed.
Now, the amendment we passed, which I voted against, would raise several problems for control of cryptosporidium, even apart from the likelihood that the continued application of the section 623 petition process would have the effect of nullifying the exemption.
First, the interim enhanced surface water treatment rule [IESWTR] to address waterborne microbial contamination, was proposed on July 29, 1994. This proposal did not actually contain a specific approach to control such contamination, but as an integral part of the negotiated agreement with stakeholders, including the drinking water industry, it set forth general control options that might be part of a final rule and request for other options. This was done because, per the agreement, the final rule was to be developed after and based on a large effort by the industry to gather scientific information on microbial and related drinking water contaminants. By being made very general as controls, as agreed, the proposal would expedite the regulatory process after the data collection.
Second, given how little of necessity that the proposed IESWTR told about the controls to be required in a final IESWTR, judges may conclude it would be irrational to apply the exemption to a proposed rule which arguably does not fulfill the normal function of a proposal--to describe the initially intended direction of the regulatory agency's approach to controls on the particular issue.
Now, given the general rule of legal interpretation that the legislative body not be presumed to have intended an irrational result and the concern elsewhere in the bill, and in this amendment, that notice in the Johnston amendment--that notice suggests final rules should be substantially similar--substantially similar to proposed rules, some judges might find this a basis for deciding that Congress could not have intended any proposal made before April 1, 1995, to include this proposal.
Further, as the word interim suggests, the regulatory negotiation left open the potential that further controls might be needed for cryptosporidium, and the IESWTR did not necessarily represent the full regulatory response appropriate for cryptosporidium. The concept for the interim rule to be promulgated as quickly as reasonably possible after the information collection was completed shows the intent of the reg neg to put in place--regulatory negotiation--to put in place whatever controls were quickly attainable but still solidly science based.
Thereafter, if implementation of the interim-enhanced surface water treatment rule left a substantial remaining risk to health from cryptosporidium, that risk could be addressed in an enhanced surface water treatment rule. Therefore, even if the proposed IESWTR did prove to be exempted under this amendment, any later enhanced surface water treatment rule clearly would not be exempted. I bring that up because it does apply to cryptosporidium and specifically with regard to the Johnston amendment that we passed just a short time ago.
So once again I urge my colleagues to support the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. He points out the dangers because there were dangers in his State that resulted in around 100 people dying and some 400,000 ill. I think knowing that the danger, knowing that that is what has already occurred, to say that we should take any chance at all or make any requirement for going back and doing new analysis, new risk assessment, we know the risk is there. Doing new cost-benefit ratios, doing new everything when we know what the danger is, I think would be a mistake.
So I fully support the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, and I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment when we have a vote here in a half hour or so. And I hope that it will pass because it is something that is needed to protect the health and safety of this country so we do not have more outbreaks such as the disastrous one that happened in Milwaukee.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KOHL. I would like to thank very much my colleague from Ohio for the kind words he said about this amendment and, of course, for the arguments most importantly that he has presented in support of this amendment.
In the aftermath of the Milwaukee incident, Mr. President, EPA negotiated a package of regulations to protect citizens against future outbreaks. All interested parties participated in this regulatory negotiation, people like water utilities, local officials, public interest groups, and others. And now all parties have agreed to these regulations. They feel strongly about moving ahead as quickly as possible.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the very broad list of groups that have participated in the very cooperative, commonsense regulatory process.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Regulatory Negotiation Committee, Disinfectants and Disinfection byproducts rule, membership list
Scott Bernstein, Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, IL; David Bailey, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC; James R. Elder, Director, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; Paul Foran, Illinois Commerce Commission, Danville, IL--representing National Association of Regulated Utilities Commissioners; Joe Glicker, Portland Water Bureau, Portland, OR--representing unfiltered surface water systems; Barker G. Hamill, Chief, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, Dept. of Environmental Protection and Energy, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ--representing Association of State Drinking Water Administrators; George Haskew, President, Hackensack Water Company, Harrington Park, NJ--representing American Water Works Association; Robert J. Hirsch, Council Member, City of Myrtle Beach, Myrtle Beach, SC--representing National League of Cities; Donald Jackson, South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, Branford, CT--representing Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; Edward G. Means, Director, Water Quality, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA--representing National Water Resources Association; Kim Mortensen, Chair, Bureau of Epidemiology and Toxicology, Ohio Department of Health, Columbus, OH--representing Association of State and Territorial Health Officials; Erik Olson, Senior Attorney, National Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC; David Ozonoff, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA--representing Conservation Law Foundation; Scott Rubin, Pennsylvania Office of the Consumer Advocate, Harrisburg, PA--representing National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Margot F. Saunders, National Consumer Law Center, Washington, DC; Ronald Twillman, Manager of Laboratories, St. Louis County Water, St. Louis, MO--representing National Association of Water Companies; Chris Wiant, Director, Tri County Health Department, Englewood, CO--representing National Association of County Health Officials.
Mr. KOHL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, here we go again. This is a very similar amendment my dear colleague from Wisconsin has brought up. It is quite similar to what we have been debating for the last 2 days.
Yesterday the adoption of Senator Dole's amendment makes crystal clear that S. 343 contains several provisions that deal with health and safety emergencies.
Any rule, including any proposed EPA rule dealing with cryptosporidium, is not delayed by the Dole-Johnston bill. The bill waives the requirement for notice and comment procedures when emergencies occur. I do not know how much more clear we can make it than we have made it in this bill.
The bill waives the cost-benefit requirements when emergencies occur. The bill waives the risk assessment requirements when emergencies occur. Simply put, S. 343 will not--let me just emphasize that, will not--in any way delay the promulgation of a rule when health and safety emergencies require quick public action.
I understand my colleague from Wisconsin--and I know he is very sincere and he is literally trying to solve a problem that he thinks does exist, but we have solved that problem in the prior language that has been put in this bill.
In any event, rules to protect against cryptosporidium microbes are already in place. The public safety is protected today. As we stand on the Senate floor, the public safety is protected.
When EPA enforces a rule, it does so through an adjudicatory order, not a rule. This is important. When an inspector or EPA official shuts down a water processing plant or water reservoir by an order, they do so by an order, not a rule. Such orders, which are not rulemakings, are explicitly exempt from S. 343--explicitly exempt from S. 343.
So nothing will stop the EPA from issuing an order, not a rule, but an order shutting down a water plant or a water processing plant if they find that plant and that water not to be safe.
As to the petition process, it is true that a proposed rule, such as the cryptosporidium proposed rule, may be subject to S. 343's petition process. But this is a good thing.
Why is it a good thing? Years from now when perhaps new science requires a new standard, why should we not put into this bill--which we have--a provision that a petition should be granted to require an agency to look at the latest scientific data? That is what is involved here. We just want all decisions in the future to be made on the best available science so that the decisions will be right.
More important, we put protections in this bill to make sure that the rulemaking by the regulatory agencies is done in the highest form and in the best sense. If a rule becomes burdensome, why should not the rule be reviewed? If we find that there is a scientific change that merits reviewing the rule, why should we not use the best science to do so? That is what this bill does. It is a commonsense bill. It is pure and simple common sense.
The Dole-Johnston bill protects health and safety. The Dole-Johnston bill does not delay the promulgation of emergency rules or even apply at all to orders that enforce agency health and safety rules. And that is something that has not been brought out in our debates up to now, that orders are not covered. Orders can be issued by these agencies and, frankly, emergency rules can be obtained where an emergency exists. The bill is explicit on it. The bill makes it clear. The bill protects the American public, and the bill requires that the best science be used through the years in these areas.
So there is no need for this amendment and, frankly, it is the same issue as we had with regard to the E. coli issue. We have solved that problem. We have an emergency provision in this bill that will allow true emergencies to be taken care of without worrying about risk assessment or cost-benefit analysis until afterwards. And in this particular case, the EPA can issue an order to correct it, if there was a cryptosporidium problem, without any consideration at all and would accomplish exactly what the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin would like to accomplish.
So I hope my colleagues will recognize this and realize that we have to get serious about passing a bill that literally makes a lot of sense, makes common sense, invokes the best science available, not only today but as science develops into the future and, basically, does everything that we really need to have done to force the bureaucracy to be more responsible with regard to the issuance of rules.
That is why this bill is so important, because we can get rid of a lot of the irresponsibility of the bureaucracies in this society, bureaucracies that are eating us all alive and many times without justification, while at the same time upholding rules that are truly drafted, that work, that make sense, that are in the best interest of health and safety and meet the highest scientific standards necessary to protect the American public.
So I hope, as much as I respect my colleague from Wisconsin--and I do, and we work together on the Judiciary Committee--I believe that this amendment is not needed. I know it is not needed. The bill covers these problems, and I hope our colleagues will be willing to vote it down.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to make it clear that I believe this is an emergency, and I would like to think my colleague from Utah agrees we have an emergency situation here. But we also have to understand this is not a situation where there can, under any circumstances, be quick action. This is not a situation where there can be an immediate order. We understand in order to gather the information necessary to promulgate the rules and regulations some amount of time necessarily, if unhappily, but necessarily will take place, and that is why, first, we have to understand we have to gather information.
So I say to my colleague from Utah that if he believes that this situation is covered in the bill, then let us just make it clear. There is no sense getting involved in belaboring the point. Again, if, as my colleague from Utah says, this matter is already addressed in the bill--I do not believe it is--but if he believes that it is addressed in the bill, then there should be no harm in reiterating this point. What I am saying is, let us not leave it later on to lawyers to dispute and to decide, to argue whether or not the bill covers this particular cryptosporidium problem.
Let us simply make it clear with this amendment that it does insert it into the bill in any way in which my colleague from Utah wishes to do that, because I think I hear him saying that there is a problem with cryptosporidium that needs to be addressed. I think he has said that very clearly. He is saying that the bill addresses it.
What we are saying--and what many people would say--is that the bill does not address it. So I do not think it is too much to ask of my colleague from Utah to understand that people are terribly concerned that S. 343 will not derail the cryptosporidium problem and that we are asking for his assurance in the bill that the cryptosporidium problem will not be put off the tracks because of the way in which the bill is written and because of the way in which lawyers then will be able to bring all kinds of arguments against taking action on cryptosporidium.
So I think that is a reasonable request insofar as our colleague agrees that the cryptosporidium problem needs to be addressed and should not be set aside by S. 343.
Mr. HATCH. I believe the cryptosporidium problem is being addressed here and under current law. We even make it stronger under this bill. But the important thing is that we do not think anything should be exempted from this bill, because this bill, by not exempting these matters, requires that the best available science, as it evolves into the future, be applied to these types of issues.
If we exempt cryptosporidium, make an exception for it--as the minority leader wanted to do with the last amendment on the E. coli and meat and poultry inspection problems--then we are not guaranteeing that we will apply the best and finest science into the future. We provide for emergency relief here. We do provide that orders are not to be interfered with. So there is plenty of power in the law right now to resolve this problem. This bill will help to do it anyway. The emergency provisions, I think, are more than adequate and, I think, crystal clear.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will ask a question of my friend from Utah, or a generic question. It seems to me that what is happening here on the last amendment and this amendment is that we are allowing ourselves to be captives of a rule that we are setting out that makes no sense. This generalized notion, when one states it, that there should be no exemption sounds like a rule of equity. There should be no exemption. But when cryptosporidium--not a thing you take home in your lunch pail to feed to your children, not a thing that anyone can find any rational basis for thinking it could be beneficial in the food or water chain anywhere along the line. To suggest that you cannot take something that is of nothing but destructive capacity when ingested by human beings and explicitly exempt it from this process that is being put in place, seems to me to make one a victim of your own rule--a rule that is of no value in and of itself.
This generalized notion that everything is on the table, everything has to be considered, is a little bit like saying that when we do the Federal budget, everything is on the table, including whether or not we have an army, or everything is on the table, including whether or not we continue to have a Constitution. There are certain things that are not on the table, and there is no value in anything other than keeping them off the table. Other things that are of such clear, damaging consequences to the public at large should be taken out of the general rule we have here, and we should say flatout, no, flatout cannot--
cannot. There is no tolerance level for certain things.
I think we are getting caught up, and we are acting like lawyers. I am a lawyer, and I do not accuse my friend from Wisconsin of being a lawyer. I know he is not. Everybody always says, ``Do not call me a lawyer.'' Many of us here are lawyers, and we are sounding like lawyers. We are setting up rules. It is almost a tautology that we are constructing here. We are penalizing ourselves by making ourselves subscribe to a generalized proposition that makes no sense.
And so I compliment my friend from Wisconsin in insisting that this change take place. And I think, to put it on the other side of the coin, what the Senator from Utah is saying--what damage is done to this legislation by doing what the Senator from Wisconsin wants? If we are going to err, does it not make sense to err on the side of seeing to it that there is not a repeat of the situation that occurred in the Senator's State? Does it not make sense to err on that side? What damage are we doing to a specific industry, a specific economic interest, a specific company by doing what the Senator wants? And even if we were, so what?
I find this to be getting to be a very tortured discussion. So I hope our colleagues--and I know the last thing in the world my colleague from Utah would want to happen would be to change the law in such a way that we increase the possibility of what the Senator from Wisconsin is trying to prevent from happening again. This bill requires the agency to conduct all of the analysis required by this bill within 180 days, even if there is an emergency.
I thought an emergency meant an emergency. I do not think the American people think that when they talk about emergency, they are talking about 180 days. Is that an emergency? How many people could we lose in 180 days? How much damage can be done? That is 6 months. We are not talking about an emergency where somebody says, I found this out today and tomorrow it stops. That is, I think, an unrealistic timeframe for conducting risk assessment and peer review and cost-benefit analysis, all of which is required.
Assuming those requirements can be met, the bill then allows regulated parties to come in and challenge whether the benefits justify the cause, or that the agency adopt the cheapest regulatory alternative, or whether any analysis that is conducted has been done properly, or any number of other issues that can be litigated under this bill. The rule could be tied up in litigation. The parties could seek injunctions to prevent it from going into effect, based on the cumbersome requirements of the bill. And once the rule went into effect, industry could also petition to seek a repeal of the rule, or seek interpretation of the rule, or seek a waiver or an alternative method of compliance. If denied, they could then litigate these issues again in court.
This bill already recognizes that some types of rules should be exempted from the requirements. For example, the bill already exempts rules affecting the banking industry--deposit insurance funds, the farm credit insurance fund. It exempts rules relating to financial responsibility of brokers, dealers of futures, commission merchants, and safeguarding investor security. It exempts anything relating to the introduction of a product into the market. Some of these exemptions could well be sensible on precautions, given the complex, cumbersome, expensive process required by this legislation. But certainly a rule affecting, in this case, cryptosporidium, or in the case of the last amendment, meat inspection and safety, is at least as important as to whether or not those exemptions which I just mentioned, including the banking industry and financial transactions, should be exempt.
So we do have in this legislation, in essence, what the Senator from Wisconsin is seeking.
But guess what it is for? It is not for public health and safety. It is for what my Republican friends seem most concerned about, and they should be concerned, I agree with their concern. But it seems they are concerned about property. Property. Not people--property.
Banking industry, deposit insurance, farm credit insurance. We exempt that, why not exempt things that kill people? I am not arguing we should not exempt what they exempted.
What I do not understand is the generalized statement made that everything is on the table. It is not all on the table. The rules affecting banking are not on the table the same way as the rest. Deposit insurance funds are not on the table the same as everything else.
It is kind of funny. It reminds me--I have been here a long time. I remember when there was a move for the neutron bomb back in the 1970's when Carter was President. The virtue of the neutron bomb was that it killed only people and does not destroy property. That was a really great benefit of the neutron bomb.
We are going to make it very, very difficult under the version my Republican friends are offering, to be able to protect the public on matters relating to things like cryptosporidium or E. coli and many other things, but not difficult to protect the public interest when it comes to Federal deposit insurance.
Now, I think we should do what we have done as it relates to these economic interests, but what I do not understand is why is the thing the Senator is talking about, which literally, if not handled well, causes death, human life is lost, why is it not treated the same way?
I suggest to my friend from Wisconsin, keep at it. Do not buy on--
which I know he does not--to the argument that everything is on the table. Everything is not on the table. Everything is not being treated the same way. Things affecting public health and safety are put in one category because business has interest in those things. Things that affect business in terms of potentially being exposed financially are exempted from this cumbersome process.
Do not let them kid you, Senator. These folks understand what they are doing. They understand what they are doing. They are making it easier to make a mistake when it comes to public health and safety and making it, as they should, difficult to make a regulatory mistake when it comes to financial transactions.
I do not think that is what the American people want. I think if you gave them a choice, would they take a risk on a Federal bureaucrat overstepping his or her bounds when it came to clean water, or take a risk at overstepping their bounds when it came to financial institutions, what do you think they would pick? I think they would say, ``I would run the risk of having an overzealous person take care of my water, an overzealous person taking care of my meat, an overzealous person taking care of the air I breathe.''
I know the Senator from Wisconsin. We have worked together too long. If anybody abhors bureaucracy, it is the man from Wisconsin. The Senator is the most no-nonsense businessman I have ever come across.
That is why the Senator has been such a successful businessman as well as such as successful Senator. The Senator is one of the few people on the floor of this Senate who knows how cumbersome bureaucracy can be, who is frustrated by it as a businessman, and worked his way through it to become an incredibly successful businessman, is on the floor here saying, hey, wait a minute, we are going too far here.
I hope the public understands what this is about because it is so complicated. We can get so caught up in this. What does peer review mean? What does it mean when we are talking about all of these various aspects of the bill?
It comes down to simple things. From my standpoint, when it comes to cryptosporidium, which I can hardly pronounce but I know full well what the consequences of its ingestion, I am not as worried about some feckless bureaucrat out there exercising unreasonable power. I do not like bureaucrats exercising unreasonable power. But I want to say this is the place I least worry about it, least worry about it.
Let me say, I would rather have some obnoxious bureaucrat making sure there is no E. coli in the hamburger my kid eats at McDonald's than I would worry about a bureaucrat overstepping their bounds in terms of telling banks what they can and cannot do.
Is it not funny how this debate goes when it comes to money, when it comes to dollars? We do not want to fool around too much. When it comes to human life, when it comes to public health and public safety, well, then, we know how the bureaucrats are.
This is not a defense of bureaucrats. I am a cosponsor of the Glenn bill. I want to remind everyone when the Glenn bill came out in another form--same substance but under another title several months ago--the environmentalists were against it.
The Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Delaware are not up here being purists. We realize that bureaucracy gets in the way of business. We realize bureaucracy increases costs unnecessarily for consumers. We realize that Washington does not know all the answers, have all the answers.
That is what the Glenn bill does. But this goes too far. It goes too far. As I said, I think I will go back to my home State, I will not speak for the Senator's State or any other State in the Nation, even presumptuous for me to speak of my own State, although I think I understand it as well as anyone.
I have listened as hard as anyone over the last 25 years I have been in office. I make a bet. Ask them whether or not they are worried about whether or not someone is being overzealous and protecting their water, someone is being overzealous and protecting contaminants in the meat, or feces in the meat that they ingest, and whether that is something they really think the Senate should be worried about right now, and my guess is they are going to say ``You know, Senator, I don't think you are doing enough to make sure my water is clean. I don't think you are doing enough to make sure that the meat, the fish and the poultry I ingest lacks contaminants. I don't think you are doing enough to make sure that the environment and the air I breathe and the water I swim in and the beaches I bathe on are clean.''
``I do think you are right, Senator, that worrying about pink flamingos and spotted owls and endangered species can be taken to a ridiculous extreme. Senator, when it comes to the water my kid drinks, when it comes to the hamburger my kid eats, when it comes to the beach my kid swims on, I do not think you are doing enough.''
Is that not the essence of what this debate is about? Which side can we err on? I think the Senator from Wisconsin is erring on the right side. I would suggest that this notion that everything is on the table, treated the same way, is not accurate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Delaware. I could not agree more with his comments. He is talking very clearly about the things that affect human health and safety, the things that the American people have repeatedly insisted that they care about, are concerned about, and do not want to see any mistakes made concerning their human health and safety.
What happened in Milwaukee, which has happened to a lesser extent in other communities, but what happened in Milwaukee, we lost 104 people because the water developed a parasite that was not protected.
What the EPA now is doing, I want to say again, the EPA is now in the process, along with water utilities and other concerned interest groups, without anybody disputing the process that is unfolding, the EPA is in the process of collecting information which will result, finally, in setting up rules and regulations regarding the treatment of drinking water.
Now, I would challenge any Senator, the Senator from Utah or any other Senator, to come to Milwaukee and tell the people that in this regulatory reform bill the Milwaukee situation and the EPA process which is now unfolding is or is not absolutely protected.
I think if we would have to tell them that we think it is protected but we cannot absolutely guarantee that the process that is unfolding is protective, I do not think that any public official could stand up in Milwaukee and make the case and satisfy people in Milwaukee that he or she was doing his job.
We had the outbreak. We lost 104 people. And 400,000 people got sick. There is a process of unfolding to see it does not happen again,
not only in Milwaukee but all across the country. What we are simply asking is that this process be guaranteed to unfold, and that there not be any chance that S. 343 could impede that happening. It seems to me, I suggest to my colleague from Utah, that is a reasonable request to make, and a reasonable assurance to ask for, as we move ahead with S. 343.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have reached a point where I really appreciate my colleague. I know they have had a particular problem. I know he is trying to solve it, as he always does. He is a sincere, dedicated Senator, and I appreciate it personally. And he is a friend.
But the point that I am making is that in this bill it is crystal clear that the regulators have every right to treat any cryptosporidium situation as an emergency and to pass the necessary rule or obtain the necessary orders to stop it. There is no reason to add anything else to this bill with regard to cryptosporidium.
The real point here is that there is nothing in the Dole-Johnston bill that delays, harms, impedes or hinders the promulgation of rules that protect health and safety of the American people--nothing. In fact, there is everything in this bill that would lead one to--and the bureaucracy--to meet the highest scientific standards of the time, not just of today, but as we go into the future.
These are some of the real reasons why this bill is so important and why we cannot exempt anything from the coverage of this bill that might be subject to regulation. The reason is because the bill's main emphasis is on using the highest form of science in order to resolve this. When you exempt something, you do not have to do that.
We have been putting up with really almost 40 years, now, since 1958, with the Delaney clause. The Delaney clause was enacted at a time when we only could determine scientifically parts per thousand--parts per million at the very most--in 1958. Today, because of the scientific advancements that we have had, and because of the scientific attainments that we have attained over these last 40 years, we can now ascertain through science parts per quintillion.
What that means is, parts per quintillion is like having a teaspoonful of water as part of all of the Great Lakes system. Yet we have this stupid, idiotic Delaney clause that requires zero risk with regards to anything that might be carcinogenic. And we have grandfathered foods that are carcinogenic because they have long been used, and we have barred foods that are not, where there is just a negligible risk, or no risk, really, of getting cancer from eating these foods. The fact of the matter is, that is what is wrong when you try to exempt something from what really are good, scientifically based legislative bits of language.
This bill will take care of cryptosporidium. The current law will, but this bill even does more. Because nobody is going to have any delay in any emergency where the bureaucracy would act anyway. Because they would not have to go through a risk assessment or a cost-benefit analysis in an emergency, pre-issuing the rule or order or whatever it may be. They would have to do the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment afterwards. But they could act immediately on any emergency situation. Any cryptosporidium problem would be resolved.
But more important, because we will not exempt cryptosporidium, the best possible science will be applied through the upcoming years; unlike the Delaney clause, where the worst possible science generally is applied, and where we, like I say, we do not know where we are. And where the rule is used to keep out substances and foods that really have no carcinogenic effect, where there is very negligible or very minimal--de minimis risk of harm to any human being--where we keep those off the marketplace. We have seen that time after time.
What we want to do, and what we are trying to do in this bill, is have the very best science we possibly can. We like the rule of common sense. We have no doubt that, if there is a threat to health and safety of the American population, and it becomes an emergency, that our regulators will immediately attack those problems. But they will attack them by having thought through this bill, and it is requisite that they do it in the right way and that they do it in a non-onerous way. They will not have to go through a risk assessment or a cost-benefit analysis before they act, in the case of true emergencies. Anybody who does not understand that does not understand the bill. There is absolutely no reason, absolutely no reason for us to make exemptions for, really, anything of this nature in the bill.
By the way, Senator Kohl has mentioned that EPA has negotiated an information-gathering rule dealing with cryptosporidium data, scheduled to be released next December. The argument just made that S. 343 will delay or impede the information-gathering rule is simply not true. The information-gathering rule is not covered by the cost-benefit and risk requirement provisions of the bill, of this bill. Research is not covered by the bill's requirements. So that needs to be made clear.
Just to make the point one more time, we do not want to exempt anything from this bill because we have confidence that our regulators are going to go after anything that threatens the health or safety of American citizens. I have no doubt about that. I do not think anybody else does either. We have provided specific language in this bill that, if there is a true emergency, they do not have to go through any delay at all. They can handle that emergency immediately. And we also provide in this bill, once the emergency is handled, that well into the future the very finest science is going to have to be applied in these instances.
Frankly, to go beyond that and to exempt something where we might wind up with another Delaney clause--I admit, people could say that is a stretch, but it is not. We do that all the time in this country. I think it is a real mistake. If you really want to solve the problem of cryptosporidium, then do it with the bill's language, where we provide for emergency relief by those who are concerned about these type of problems as they arise. And since cryptosporidium is something that everybody is concerned about, I cannot imagine any bureaucrat not being willing to solve the health and safety aspects of that particular problem.
We are prepared to go to a vote. I am prepared to move to table.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold the tabling motion, I would like to make several brief comments.
Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to withhold. I would like to move on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will try to decode this in what I understand to be, to use the phrase we all use here, basic old common sense.
What the Senator from Wisconsin is saying is: Hey, look, if a bureaucrat oversteps his bounds and comes up with some preposterous ruling relating to pesticides or parasites in the water, and says that one--I did not even know the figure the Senator used, but one teaspoon--whatever the measurement was that would equal one teaspoon relative to the entire Great Lakes--and says you cannot put that in the water, that amount,
if this is that ridiculous, there is emergency relief for the company which is doing that. It is called the Congress. That is the emergency relief. Come to Congress and say, ``That stupid bureaucrat just passed this rule saying you cannot have more than 1 part per hundred trillion of such and such in the water. We can pass a law. We can say no. It can be 5 million parts per trillion.'' That is the emergency relief I think we should have. But what is the emergency relief that he is suggesting for us, if in fact what is being done to the water system is damaging? It is this cumbersome procedure even under an emergency which is declared that takes months to occur.
So I think common sense dictates to me if a manufacturer--that is what we are talking about, a business, an economic interest--is in fact damaged because some silly bureaucrat comes up with a rule that makes it impossible for them to conduct business and does no harm to the water system, there is recourse, emergency recourse--the U.S. Congress.
What is the emergency recourse for the constituent in Wisconsin if in fact a pesticide is being put in the water that is causing serious damage? It takes time under this rule. The Senator says nothing is exempt. First of all, anything, any rule that does not affect $100 million worth of something is exempt from this process, this cost-
benefit analysis, this risk assessment laid out in this thick piece of legislation in both the Glenn bill and the Hatch bill we are talking about. So that is one exemption.
There is a second exemption, a series of exemptions. If you turn to page 16 of the text of the bill, it says it does ``not include''--
meaning that the cost-benefit analysis is not required for the following things: A rule that involves the internal revenue laws of the United States.
So what it says here is even if the IRS comes up with a stupid rule where a cost far outweighs the benefits, it is not reviewable under this law. Even if the rule of an agency that impedes an international trade agreement, and if in the implementation of it the cost far outweighs the benefit, it is not subject to this legislation. The list goes on. Just pick another one.
A rule or agency action that authorizes the introduction into commerce or recognizes a marketable status of a product. You would have the most damaging darned product in the world where the cost would far outweigh the benefit, and it is not reviewable.
So this idea that there is something sacrosanct here about not exempting anything, what the Senator is asking for is this incredible exception where his amendment would be the only thing out there. There are a raft of actions that mindless bureaucrats can take that are not subject to the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment required in this bill.
Why? Why? Why should we somehow now impose a rule of legerdemain here in the Senate saying, ``Senator, what you are asking for is an exemption. You are asking for something to be treated differently than the rest of the bill. And we just cannot do that. It will open up the floodgates here.'' No one said that. But that is implicit.
I would say to the Senator there are lot of things that are not subject to a cost-benefit analysis that mindless bureaucrats can undertake. I might add I do not think most bureaucrats are mindless. But let us pick that mindless bureaucrat.
In law school we always talked about a ``reasonable man.'' No one could always find a reasonable man. But we always talked about the reasonable man. We have the mindless bureaucrat wandering the halls of Congress and the floor of this body. He or she is the person we are all after. Well, if we find that mindless bureaucrat and he or she is mindlessly engaged in regulations relating to the Internal Revenue Code, we say, ``You may continue to be mindless. This does not apply to you.'' If they are talking mindlessly interfering with a rule, interfering with the introduction of a product into commerce, you say,
``You can continue to be mindless.''
The list goes on for two pages:
``(iv) a rule exempt from notice and public procedure under section 553(a);
``(v) a rule or agency action relating to the public debt;
``(vi) a rule required to be promulgated at least annually pursuant to statute, or that provides relief, in whole or in part, from a statutory prohibition, other than a rule promulgated pursuant to subtitle C of title II of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.);
``(vii) a rule of particular applicability that approves or prescribes the future rates, wages, prices, services, corporate or financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, acquisitions, accounting practices, or disclosures bearing on any of the foregoing;
``(viii) a rule relating to monetary policy or to the safety or soundness of federally insured depository institutions or any affiliate of such an institution. . . .''
It goes on and on:
``(xi) a rule or order relating to the financial responsibility of brokers and dealers or futures commission merchants, the safeguarding of investor securities and funds or commodity future or options customer securities and funds, the clearance and settlement of securities, futures, or options transactions, or the suspension of trading under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
``(xii) a rule that involves the international trade laws of the United States.''
They are all exceptions. There is not a cost-benefit analysis required for those; no requirement to do anything like any of this legislation we are about to pass. We can do that. Why cannot we do it for cryptosporidium or E. coli? What is the problem? Because there is emergency relief for an aggrieved party, if a mindless bureaucrat sets out a rule that has no relationship to science, and it is called the Congress. It can change the law. The bureaucrats can only make laws we authorize them to make.
Why provide this kind of hurdle for an agency attempting to protect the water supply of the Nation? Why provide this hurdle to catch the occasional overzealous bureaucrat overreaching and damaging the property owner, or damaging a business interest? Why not provide it with the 535 Members of the Congress?
If there is one side I would err on, I would err on the side of the Congress. But there are already significant portions of our commerce in this Nation that are legitimately and reasonably exempted from any cost-benefit analysis including any rule that does not have the impact of $100 million.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will take a minute to summarize again what my amendment is all about.
We have a problem of cryptosporidium in this country. We had an outbreak in Milwaukee, and we lost 104 people, leaving 400,000 people seriously ill. We had outbreaks in a dozen other communities in the country. I will not enumerate all of those communities. But San Antonio, Jackson County, OR, Las Vegas, and we had something here in Washington, DC, recently. There is no question about the need to promulgate rules and regulations.
As I said, the involved water utilities--and other interest groups--
all of them have agreed that we must set in motion the process we have to collect information and then promulgate rules to protect our water supply in this country from another outbreak of cryptosporidium.
No disagreement. And that process is now under way.
Now, people who have looked at S. 343, lawyers and other people--I am not a lawyer--have assured me that there is a real danger that under S. 343 as it is written the EPA process that is underway will be sidetracked, may very well be sidetracked. Some believe that it will. Some believe that it may be.
What we are asking for in S. 343 is assurance that the process now underway and agreed to by EPA and water utilities and other interest groups will not be sidetracked. That is all this amendment says. Let us see to it that the process is not sidetracked.
So I ask my colleagues to consider that simple consideration when they decide how to vote on whether or not to table this amendment which, as I understand, is going to be asked for by the opposition.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there other debate on the Kohl amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin.
All those in favor of the amendment--the Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. KOHL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] is necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:
YEAS--50
AbrahamAshcroftBennettBondBreauxBrownBurnsCampbellCoatsCochranCoverdellCraigD'AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciFairclothFristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHutchisonInhofeJohnstonKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnellMurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerRothSantorumShelbySimpsonSmithStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner
NAYS--48
AkakaBaucusBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyBryanBumpersByrdChafeeCohenConradDaschleDoddDorganExonFeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennGrahamHarkinHeflinHollingsJeffordsKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayNunnPellPryorReidRobbRockefellerSarbanesSimonSnoweSpecterWellstone
NOT VOTING--2
HelmsInouye
So the motion to table the amendment (No. 1506) was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request. I am going to ask consent that the Senator from Delaware be recognized next to offer an amendment concerning risk-based priorities; that there be 30 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form; that any second-degree amendment be limited to 15 minutes to be equally divided and must be relevant to the first-degree. I do not know if any second-degree amendments are going to come from that side or not. Since it will not come from this side, maybe it will not be necessary that they be seen ahead of time.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I know the majority leader wants to speed this along, and I agree with that. We have been moving along pretty well. But I think without knowing what amendments might even be put forward and how serious they might be, I would not want to agree on time limits unless we had the amendments in advance and could look at them and decide how important they are. I will have to object.
Mr. DOLE. As I understand, the amendment of the Senator from Delaware is available.
Mr. ROTH. I ask the distinguished Senator from Ohio whether it might not be possible on my amendment, which has been cosponsored by Senator Biden, that we might not reach a time agreement on that.
Mr. GLENN. I thought the unanimous consent request was on all the--
Mr. DOLE. Thirty minutes on the Roth amendment equally divided and then any second-degree amendment 15 minutes.
Mr. ROTH. Can we agree there will be no second-degree amendments on this amendment?
Mr. GLENN. On this particular amendment, I probably would accept the amendment. I think there would be objection on our side to accepting the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we want to accommodate the Senator from Delaware. The problem is it takes the National Academy of Sciences out of the picture at least in part, and it is highly controversial, as I understand it, with the National Academy of Sciences. I confess, I have been working on these other amendments and have not had the time. It is not one of the most important issues, and we do want to try to work with the Senator from Delaware. I wish we had a little time to try to focus on it, because we want to try to find a way to accommodate.
Mr. ROTH. We will just lay it down tonight.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That would be good.
Mr. GLENN. We can lay it down tonight and discuss the time limit tomorrow. I would not want to agree to a time limit tonight.
Mr. DOLE. I understand. The Senator from Ohio is not prepared to consent to any agreement. I do not quarrel with that. The amendment will be laid down tonight, and then maybe tomorrow we can work out a time agreement.
There will be no more votes this evening, unless someone wants to have another vote; no more votes.
Tomorrow morning, there will be, as I understand it, a meeting with Senator Kerry, Senator Levin, Senator Johnston, Senator Glenn, Senator Hatch, Senator Roth and others.
Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1507 to Amendment No. 1487
(Purpose: To strengthen the agency prioritization and comparative risk analysis section of S. 343)
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], for himself and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 1507 to Amendment No. 1487.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Delete all of section 635 (page 61, line 1 through page 64, line 14 and add in its place the following new section 635:
SEC. 635. RISK-BASED PRIORITIES.
(a) Purpose.--The purposes of this section are to--
(1) encourage Federal agencies engaged in regulating risks to human health, safety, and the environment to achieve the greatest risk reduction at the least cost practical;
(2) promote the coordination of policies and programs to reduce risks to human health, safety, and the environment; and
(3) promote open communication among Federal agencies, the public, the President, and Congress regarding environmental, health, and safety risks, and the prevention and management of those risks.
(b) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section:
(1) Comparative risk analysis.--The term ``comparative risk analysis'' means a process to systematically estimate, compare, and rank the size and severity of risks to provide a common basis for evaluating strategies for reducing or preventing those risks.
(2) Covered agency.--The term ``covered agency'' means each of the following:
(A) The Environmental Protection Agency.
(B) The Department of Labor.
(C) The Department of Transportation.
(D) The Food and Drug Administration.
(E) The Department of Energy.
(F) The Department of the Interior.
(G) The Department of Agriculture.
(H) The Consumer Product Safety Commission.
(I) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(J) The United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(K) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(3) Effect.--The term ``effect'' means a deleterious change in the condition of--
(A) a human or other living thing (including death, cancer, or other chronic illness, decreased reproductive capacity, or disfigurement); or
(B) an inanimate thing important to human welfare
(including destruction, degeneration, the loss of intended function, and increased costs for maintenance).
(4) Irreversibility.--The term ``irreversi- bility'' means the extent to which a return to conditions before the occurrence of an effect are either very slow or will never occur.
(5) Likelihood.--The term ``likelihood'' means the estimated probability that an effect will occur.
(6) Magnitude.--The term ``magnitude'' means the number of individuals or the quantity of ecological resources or other resources that contribute to human welfare that are affected by exposure to a stressor.
(7) Seriousness.--The term ``seriousness'' means the intensity of effect, the likelihood, the irreversibility, and the magnitude.
(c) Department and Agency Program Goals.--
(1) Setting priorities.--In exercising authority under applicable laws protecting human health, safety, or the environment, the head of each covered agency should set priorities and use the resources available under those laws to address those risks to human health, safety, and the environment that--
(A) the covered agency determines to be the most serious; and
(B) can be addressed in a cost-effective manner, with the goal of achieving the greatest overall net reduction in risks with the public and private sector resources expended.
(2) Determining the most serious risks.--In identifying the greatest risks under paragraph (1) of this subsection, each covered agency shall consider, at a minimum--
(A) the likelihood, irreversibility, and severity of the effect; and
(B) the number and classes of individuals potentially affected, and shall explicitly take into account the results of the comparative risk analysis conducted under subsection
(d) of this section.
(3) OMB review.--The covered agency's determinations of the most serious risks for purposes of setting priorities shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget before submission of the covered agency's annual budget requests to Congress.
(4) Incorporating risk-based priorities into budget and planning.--The head of each covered agency shall incorporate the priorities identified under paragraph (1) into the agency budget, strategic, planning, regulatory agenda, enforcement, and research activities. When submitting its budget request to Congress and when announcing its regulatory agenda in the Federal Register, each covered agency shall identify the risks that the covered agency head has determined are the most serious and can be addressed in a cost-effective manner under paragraph (1), the basis for that determination, and explicitly identify how the covered agency's requested budget and regulatory agenda reflect those priorities.
(5) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Comparative Risk Analysis.--
(1) Requirement.--(A)(i) No later than 6 months after the effective date of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall enter into appropriate arrangements with an accredited scientific body--
(I) to conduct a study of the methodologies for using comparative risk to rank dissimilar human health, safety, and environmental risks; and
(II) to conduct a comparative risk analysis.
(ii) The comparative risk analysis shall compare and rank, to the extent feasible, human health, safety, and environmental risks potentially regulated across the spectrum of programs administered by all covered agencies.
(B) The Director shall consult with the Office of Science and Technology Policy regarding the scope of the study and the conduct of the comparative risk analysis.
(2) Criteria.--In arranging for the comparative risk analysis referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Director shall ensure that--
(A) the scope and specificity of the analysis are sufficient to provide the President and agency heads guidance is allocating resources across agencies and among programs in agencies to achieve the greatest degree of risk prevention and reduction for the public and private resources expended;
(B) the analysis is conducted through an open process, by individuals with relevant expertise, including toxicologists, biologists, engineers and experts in medicine, industrial hygiene and environmental effects;
(C) the analysis is conducted, to the extent feasible, consistent with the risk assessment and risk characterization principles in section 633 of this title;
(D) the methodologies and principal scientific determinations made in the analysis are subjected to independent and external peer review consistent with section 633(g), and the conclusions of the peer review are made publicly available as part of the final report required under subsection (e);
(E) there is an opportunity for public comment on the results before making them final; and
(F) the result are presented in a manner that distinguishes between the scientific conclusions and any policy or value judgments embodied in the comparisons.
(3) Completion and review.--No later than 3 years after the effective date of this Act, the comparative risk analysis required under paragraph (1) shall be completed. The comparative risk analysis shall be reviewed and revised at least every 5 years thereafter for a minimum of 15 years following the release of the first analysis. The Director shall arrange for such review and revision with an accredited scientific body in the same manner as provided under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(4) Study.--The study of methodologies provided under paragraph (1) shall be conducted as part of the first comparative risk analysis and shall be completed no later than 180 days after the completion of that analysis. The goal of the study shall be to develop and rigorously test methods of comparative risk analysis. The study shall have sufficient scope and breadth to test approaches for improving comparative risk analysis and its use in setting priorities for human health, safety, and environmental risk prevention and reduction.
(5) Technical guidance.--No later than 180 days after the effective date of this Act, the Director, in collaboration with other heads of covered agencies, shall enter into a contract with the National Research Council to provide technical guidance to agencies on approaches to using comparative risk analysis in setting human health, safety, and environmental priorities to assist agencies in complying with subsection (c) of this section.
(e) Reports and Recommendations to Congress and the President.--No later than 24 months after the effective date of this Act, each covered agency shall submit a report to Congress and the President--
(1) detailing how the agency has complied with subsection
(c) and describing the reasons for any departure from the requirement to establish priorities to achieve the greatest overall net reduction in risk;
(2) recommending--
(A) modification, repeal, or enactment of laws to reform, eliminate, or enhance programs or mandates relating to human health, safety, or the environment; and
(B) modification or elimination of statutorily or judicially mandated deadlines,
that would assist the covered agency to set priorities in activities to address the risks to human health, safety, or the environment in a manner consistent with the requirements of subsection (c)(1);
(3) evaluating the categories of policy and value judgments used in risk assessment, risk characterization, or cost-benefit analysis; and
(4) discussing risk assessment research and training needs, and the agency's strategy and schedule for meeting those needs.
(f) Savings Provision and Judicial Review.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any statutory standard or requirement designed to protect human health, safety, or the environment.
(2) Judicial review.--Compliance or non-compliance by an agency with the provisions of this section shall not be subject to judicial review.
(3) Agency analysis.--Any analysis prepared under this section shall not be subject to judicial consideration separate or apart from the requirement, rule, program, or law to which it relates. When an action for judicial review of a covered agency action is instituted, any analysis for, or relating to, the action shall constitute part of the whole record of agency action for the purpose of judicial review of the action and shall, to the extent relevant, be considered by a court in determining the legality of the covered agency action.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as I understand it, the intent is that I only lay down the amendment at the present time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DeWINE. 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. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
