John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Senator Pryor has one also.

Mr. GLENN. I am not sure in the future it is any different from this bill at all, as far as in the future. What we are talking about are all these things like E. coli, and cryptosporidium that there could have been a challenge made to them in this interim period after the April 1 cutoff.

Mr. GLENN. Well----

Mr. GLENN. I would point out----

Mr. GLENN. The Administrative Procedure Act says that when the agency, for good cause, finds and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore----

Mr. GLENN. What the Senator says is not correct, no matter what you say. Our bill has the Administrative Procedure Act to go along with----

Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield for my statement?

Mr. GLENN. No, it is not.

Mr. GLENN. I would point out to my friend from Delaware the exception for that would only be for 180 days. Then it has to go through all the reanalysis and may be held up for years.

Mr. GLENN. Could I have 20 seconds here? All of these agreements on who is going to come up with whatever, all the agreements on time are going to be contingent on not having second-degree amendments. I think we can work out time agreements or an agreement not to have second- degree amendments.

Mr. GLENN. Everything that is in the pipeline stays there. It does not have to go back for reanalysis. That is the reason.

Mr. GLENN. Well, I will ask a question. Would the Senator agree with the Administrative Procedure Act, that it covers our bill, in that when it says, ``When the agency for good cause finds and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons there in the rules issued, that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable and unnecessary and contrary to the public interest,'' it would also mean that the agency could control what is an emergency and not? In your bill, it goes back for a year's reanalysis. It is required.

Mr. GLENN. Might I ask a question?

Mr. GLENN. I ask this question with specific reference to the mammography proposal. Would it be the opinion of the Senator from Delaware that the mammography proposal and the proposal that will be made in October, and on which a lot of work has already been done, those should be permitted to go through and be in full effect without having to go back and comply with a lot of new rules and regulations, as required in S. 343? In other words, it could go into effect and stay in effect.

Mr. GLENN. But in that case, the rule would still have to go back and go through the new requirements of S. 343 on being reanalyzed, and a new rule as an improvement would not be able to go into effect until that had been completed, which may be several years later.

Mr. GLENN. Senator Lautenberg can accept a time agreement, but not if there is restriction on second-degrees.

Mr. GLENN. It is all on the same subject. I would rather wait until she gets back. I let this go a while in spite of her request. It is going to go on here for quite a while apparently, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN. I am talking about things in the pipeline that are not to be completed until after April 1. That is the whole area of contention right now--E. coli, cryptosporidium, and all the rest.

Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GLENN. A point I made a while ago on what is involved in a regulation is that the likelihood of this being completed in a year is probably not very good. It is probably pretty remote. Most rules take several years to finalize. What happens at the end of that 1-year period? It would be judicially challengeable and could be knocked out. That is the uncertainty we do not want to leave people with. That is the construction of the argument right there.

Mr. GLENN. One year. I am corrected on that. The original language was 180 days in the legislation. And the Senator from Louisiana changed that to 1 year. And that is correct. That has been changed.

Mr. GLENN. I think the difference on this, I reply to my friend, is that you have so many more decisional criteria that have to be complied with in this and all complied with within a year, which is not likely, in most cases, to be completed within a year.

Mr. GLENN

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

Mr. GLENN. The Senator could start with the agreement that when he gets an answer back, she would be willing to yield the floor for that disposition.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we were discussing the proposal by the Senator from California, Senator Boxer. I wanted to rise in support of the concerns she has expressed here. I think they are very valid. Yesterday, when we were talking about different areas that would be affected if we did not change the April 1 deadline, mammography was one of those things that would be affected and would have the potential of being delayed for almost an indefinite period, if they were forced to go back and start the same risk assessment, the same analysis program, all over again. Some of the pending rules that would be affected we listed yesterday, such as lead soldering, iron toxicity, a whole list of those. One was mammography. Let me read from a little summary of why we are concerned about this. The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, MQSA, requires the establishment of quality standards for mammography clinics covering quality of films produced, training for clinic personnel, recordkeeping, and equipment. MQSA resulted from concerns about the quality of mammography services that women rely upon for early detection of breast cancer. FDA is planning to publish proposed regulations to implement the MQSA. The potential magnitude of these regulations is substantial, and that is what the distinguished Senator from California has been addressing. Improving the quality of mammography translates directly into early detection of breast cancer, and early detection of breast cancer increases the likelihood of successful treatment and survival. An intramural was published December 21, 1993. This publication of proposed regulations--in other words, follow-on--is planned for October 1995, but it would not be exempt since that occurs after the April 1 cutoff time period that is in the legislation now. So that would mean that under S. 343 the whole process would probably be started all over again. That is why I do not think we want to see that happen. I do not think we want to see the standards delayed unnecessarily and set back the rules and regulations and place untold thousands of women in additional danger. I certainly rise to support the proposal made by the distinguished Senator from California. In addition to that, I do not believe that the letter from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was entered into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Shalala, dated July 12, addressed to the minority leader, be printed in the Record.