John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

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. 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. Are you asking me a question?

Mr. GLENN. Might I ask 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. Let me ask this, then. Does the Senator from Delaware believe that rules in the pipeline now that deal with health and safety should be permitted to remain in effect without having to go through a whole new series of hoops?

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. That means they have to go back through a whole new procedure that will delay them for years and years.

Mr. GLENN. Would the Senator agree, then, that we should change S. 343 to just say that rules in the pipeline stay in effect?

Mr. GLENN. Without any challenge, without having to go back and go through the requirements of S. 343, is that correct?

Mr. GLENN. You cannot guarantee getting these things through. Ours leaves things in the pipeline, and we have no petition process. The rules in the pipeline would stay in effect. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. GLENN. I would reply to my friend from Delaware that I think the major difference that protects the health and safety of the people in this country is that all the rules that are under S. 1001, all the rules in the pipeline stay in effect. We would not knock any of them out. We did not send them back and make them go through another long and lengthy process during which time the people would not have the same protection. And also we have no petition process in S. 1001. These things can be bogged down.

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

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. Followed by subchapter--if the agency in good cause finds conducting cost-benefits impractical and so on, but then not later than 180 days, which is now changed to a year after promulgation. The final rule to which this section applies, ``the agency shall comply with the provisions,'' if they have not done so, it would be subject to judicial challenge. With the provisions of this subchapter, each one of those subchapter provisions would have to be met, or the judicial challenges, and it is thereafter necessary to revise the rule, and if they have not done that, it would still be subject to judicial challenge.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I point out that the second-degree amendment starts out with ``It is the sense of the Senate.'' That is all it is, a sense of the Senate. It does not give anything binding and has no standing in law whatsoever. It just says the thoughts of the Senate at the moment happen to be that. What we are talking about is giving real protections here that the Senator from California is offering as a proposal to exempt this from some of the requirements that would be imposed upon it by S. 343. One of the reasons she is concerned about this, of course, is because the existing rule, as has already been pointed out, is going to be improved. They have an improved regulation coming out supposedly in October. That would be subject now to all of the review processes. It would have to go back through all of the requirements that are in S. 343, the Dole bill. That does cause delay. My colleague from Utah asks: Why can we not get it out? They have 3 years. What is the delay? If they are concerned about this, why do we not get that out? I think there is a lack of knowledge around here about what a regulation is and how voluminous it could be. We used as an example yesterday just one. Let me give an example. This is important for people to understand. Regulations are not something you go over there for and have a little meeting, decide this is what you are going to put out, and then you put out the regulation. They are required by the law that we passed here to go through multiple procedures such as peer review, public meetings, and scientific analysis in all of these areas. I use this as an example to show why it is not so easy to get a regulation out.

Mr. GLENN. Just a moment until I finish my statement here. Now, it was also brought up that our side of the aisle, apparently it is being talked about that we are delaying things somewhat. It was said that the administration is sending up red herrings. Last night, the distinguished majority whip, I believe, termed them nit-picking on our side. Yesterday, since we started debate on this bill, we have had 16 amendments put out, 11 by Republicans; 6 of those were withdrawn; we had five votes on Democratic matters here and these were on such things as E. coli, killing 500 people a year; cryptosporidium, from which 100 people died--foodborne diseases kill 3,000 to 7,000 people annually-- votes on Abraham and Nunn on small business matters; Senator Dole put forward an E. coli amendment himself; Johnston-Levin combined to deal with supermandate problems. So I do not see that these are nit-picking, and these are not red herrings. These are very substantive amendments, most of them dealing with the health and safety of the people of this country. What the Senator from California is talking about is something that is very important--mammography, the standards for it, and surely having that exempted so that they would not have rules delayed for several years, or the potential for the new and improved rules, they hope, to be delayed for several years, while S. 343, if passed, would force them to go back into a reanalysis that could take a lengthy period of time, as I indicated, from what happens under just one regulation and all the voluminous paperwork which is part of that process. I do not see these things as being nit-picking as they were referred to last night, nor do I see them as a red herring now. So I would like to point out once more before I yield the floor here that the second-degree amendment by the distinguished majority leader is a sense-of-the Senate and nothing more. It is not binding in law. And that is what the Senator from California is talking about. I do not disagree. I do not know whether I would vote for this sense-of-the Senate or not. I presume that I would. But it still does not have standing in law. And so it means nothing except it is filling up the tree and trying to delay things further, I guess. Delay on this one certainly is not coming from our side of the aisle. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. The Senator does not think there would be a judicial challenge?

Mr. GLENN. I think that is guaranteed in this. We would have a judicial challenge to this, and the rule would be out because the studies had not been completed.

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. The rule could be judicially challenged because it had not complied with the requirements of the legislation, so there would be a judicial challenge. The Senator is right. There would have to be a judicial challenge, but we are such a litigious society today, I do not doubt there would be multiple lawsuits if there is any crack in the law that can benefit a meatpacker or food processor or whoever it may be.

Mr. GLENN. Let me reverse this. Does the distinguished Senator from Delaware----

John Glenn

Speeches

Manage analytics