John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

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. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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. 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. It would not have to because in the pipeline that is covered, and we have no cutoff threshold that would knock it out of the pipeline, we let things in the pipeline stay in there. So E. coli-- incidentally, while we are on the subject of E. coli, here is out of Tennessee right now, July 4, five cases of E. coli being treated. One woman, I think one child has already died, I believe it is. These are the press reports I was just handed a few moments ago, multiple newspaper reports about an E. coli outbreak in Tennessee right now. So these were not theoretical things we were talking about on the floor yesterday.

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. In the future--if we are talking about in the future, I think both pieces of legislation are pretty much identical to what happens in the future. We are talking about the interim period.

Mr. GLENN. I reply to my friend from Delaware, in our legislation, S. 1001, rules in the pipeline are permitted to go ahead and be in effect, where under S. 343, they would have to go back and would have 1 year to comply. If they did not comply, then I do not see anything in here at all that says it could not be judicially challenged, which it could.

Mr. GLENN. No, that is not----

Mr. GLENN. I am serious about that. One comment and then I will yield.

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. This is all on the same subject, though.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I was going to put in a quorum call because the distinguished Senator from California had to unavoidably be absent for a few minutes, and she asked I put in a quorum call. I did not know whether this was going to go on very long or not. I would like to wait until she comes back. She will return within 10 minutes, I understand. And I hate for all the discussion going on on her amendment without her being in the Chamber. She asked me to put in a quorum call for just a few minutes, and I will do that and delay things for just a few minutes. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN. I suggest the absence of a quorum temporarily.

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

Mr. GLENN. I ask my distinguished friend from Delaware, is there anywhere in there that says there cannot be a judicial challenge? I know there is not. That means there would be a judicial challenge, the analysis would not be completed, the time would have run out.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous for 2 more minutes.

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

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. I am happy to yield to the Senator.