John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would like to reply to the distinguished majority leader's statement. I want to make it very clear that in S. 343 we say [[Page S 9858]] that if there is a real problem, the agency can make an exception and say that the rule can go in. But the rule that could involve safety, health, E. coli, and cryptosporidium and all the rest of these things, in the original legislation, could only be in effect 180 days, to give them a chance to take into account all the requirements of the law, and then unless they had it done within 180 days, the regulation that protected the health and safety of people in this country would be negated. It would no longer be effective. Now we have changed that on the floor this evening with the proposal by Senator Johnston that makes it 1 year instead of 180 days. Most of these regulations take 3, 4, 5 years to come into final form. We still have the danger there that we can, with this legislation, have a requirement to complete all this re-analysis in 180 days. It is not done, the regulation goes out, and whether it dealt with E. coli, cryptosporidium or the other things that have caused actual deaths in the country and we know are dangerous, and not need a new investigation, but the regs would be knocked out.

Mr. GLENN. I think that would be the general attitude all the way through this thing. Unless we know what is coming up on the second- degree amendment, we are not likely to agree to a time agreement on it. If we can agree to these things without second-degreeing everything----

Mr. GLENN. If the majority leader will yield, we are going to try to get time agreements for everything coming to the floor from now on. I hope we can get 15 minutes a side for everything that comes to the floor. We are going to propose that. I hope people listening can think about this and agree to it. We have been wasting time with people talking, and also on various subjects that do not have anything to do with the legislation that we are considering here. So I hope everybody can come up with time agreements, if possible.

Mr. GLENN. Then maybe we cannot get time agreements.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Senator Boxer has to come to the floor.

Mr. GLENN. We have to wait on the time agreement. She can go ahead and proceed. I will not object to the UC.

Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object. I wonder if it will be possible to get a time agreement. Will the Senator give us any idea how much time it will take? We are going to try to--I will tell everybody I would like to get time agreements on everything that comes out from now on.

Mr. GLENN. Yes. We were getting in a little time situation here where the Senator from New Jersey was going to speak I believe on a similar subject. I wanted to make sure everybody was aware of what the parliamentary situation was in case the majority leader comes back to the floor and we finish the work on the Johnston amendment.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Earlier on we were waiting for a reply to a proposal by Senator Johnston on the Superfund withdrawal bill. The majority leader indicated that he would check on his side and get back to us. I believe it was agreed--correct me if I am not correct--that the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, was to be recognized to speak on her amendment with the idea that, if the majority leader came back, we would then complete action on the Johnston proposal after which time she would be permitted to continue. Is that correct?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lisa Haage be permitted privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 343.

Mr. GLENN. She points out some 46,000 women die every year from breast cancer. It is the second leading cause of death in women, and thousands of lives can be saved if we go ahead and get the standards out, get going with these things, set standards for mammography, x rays, and all the other things that go into this. The Mammography Quality Standards Act, enacted back in 1992, established some of these standards. The purpose of MQSA was to ensure that all the mammography that is done is safe and reliable, it does not cause more problems than it is trying to cure. The first phase of all this program has been completed. To complete implementation we need the final rules, still, that will establish the full range of standards necessary for a national quality assurance program. There has been extensive cooperation with the committee that is dealing with this, the National Mammography Quality Assurance Committee, five public meetings and a lot of witnesses, and the rules are scheduled to be proposed in October of this year. The proposal will include a number of the standards required under the statutes, such as guidelines for radiologic equipment, consumer protection provisions, and breast implant imaging. Improving the quality of mammography translates directly into earlier detection and the likelihood of successful treatment and survival. The delay in implementation of this final rule, due to the unnecessary and duplicative requirements that would be imposed by S. 343, because this does not meet the April 1, 1995, cutoff, will delay significant improvements in this life-saving program. So the Secretary urges the Senate to ensure that the MQSA final rule be allowed to proceed without delay. That is what the Senator from California does. That is the reason I rise to speak on behalf of her proposal. Privilege of the Floor

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.

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. She has an amendment, but she could start speaking on it.

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

Mr. GLENN. Just that we work further. The Senator from Louisiana is extending the time period from 180 days to 1 year, where that might be necessary to go back. And I mentioned the other day that the 6 months is hardly enough time to do another complete analysis the way these risk assessments and analyses go, and suggested that we lengthen that out to a year. This would be on a re-analysis. The Senator from Louisiana agreed with that. I would just question whether there might be some cases--I think they would be rare--where we require really more than a year because some of these things in the original or in the first instance takes several years, 4 or 5 years sometimes, to work out all the rules and regulations. But I think in most cases it would be covered by the 1 year. I am happy to go along with that. What we were discussing was putting something in this also, if at the end of a year there was still a health and safety matter that was still being worked out, to give the President a waiver authority to go beyond that 1-year period. The Senator from Louisiana was pointing out also that the President could introduce a whole new process. I would not think that would be necessary.

Mr. GLENN. Good. I think with that understanding, I am prepared on our side of the aisle to accept this amendment. I think it is good with the length of time. It will protect the health and safety and protect everybody.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I think this certainly is a move in the right direction. We discussed this informally a couple of days ago. I hope the year is adequate. I guess if we are discussing this again I might suggest a little longer time or at least put a waiver in for the President or something, and, if at the end of the year they really just cannot do it in that period of time, that the President be granted a waiver authority in that event. That would cover all bases it seems to me for the health and safety for all of our people. But certainly the doubling of time from 180 days to 365, to a full year, is a step in the right direction. I think by far the greatest percentage of cases this would certainly cover. They could do the analysis and the assessments and all the things that are required within that period of time. So I would be prepared to accept this. I have a little bit of doubt in my own mind as to whether 1 year covers all of the situations we might run into without having a Presidential waiver at the end of that in case they were really up against it in some analysis. I do not know whether the author of this, the Senator from Louisiana, would consider granting the President a waiver on the end of that. But in any event, I am prepared to accept the 1 year.

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

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, all time is yielded back on this side.

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Louisiana needs.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I rise to support this amendment by my friend from Delaware, our committee chairman. I think he is doing a service by proposing this amendment. He recognizes we cannot do everything. We do not have money enough to do everything we would like to do. We are trying to reform regulations. We are trying to cut back on regulations, onerous regulations. At the same time, what he is addressing is, even where we are trying to make serious approaches to matters like health and safety and so on, where we know we should be doing something in setting new standards for the whole Nation and for every single person, we will not have money enough to do all the things people out there would want done. What he is saying is we have to prioritize these. How do you do that? How do you make sure you get the greatest good out of every dollar that we spend on health and safety matters? There were a couple of key words there. This is a young science. That is exactly what it is. This comparative risk analysis is a fairly young science and it is a new methodology that is being put forward in how to deal with this. Most scientists who are involved with this, I believe, feel it has tremendous promise and can really guide us into doing a better job of setting our priorities at the Federal level. It can also tell us some things we should not do, by setting these priorities. It is not just to say we are going to try to do everything so now we will set the priorities of one, two, three, four; how we do these things and include everything in just because somebody came up with the idea. Comparative risk analysis can also say it is going to cost you so darned much to do this, or something else, we just cannot do that. So we would be better off taking that money and do overall more good in the long haul by spending that amount of money on something else, or two or three other things that might improve health and safety or whatever. So I am glad to support this. I believe I was added as a cosponsor a few moments ago. I think the distinguished author of this amendment asked I be included. If not, I do wish to be included as a cosponsor on this. I am glad to support it. I do not know of any opposition. I do not know whether the Senator from Louisiana wants to speak on this or not, but after he has had time to make remarks, I would be prepared to accept the amendment on our part.

Mr. GLENN

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. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Yes, I do. Mr. President, I will not go on long because we have been on the floor a long time today. I do not want to let the wrong impression go out to those who may be watching. The impression was left perhaps by the distinguished chair in his remarks a moment ago here, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, as though we were delaying and we are not interested--it could give that impression; it could be interpreted that way, at least--and that somehow those for the Dole bill are in favor of regulatory reform, and those of us who have some other views about how that can be accomplished are somehow not as much in favor of regulatory reform. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have worked hard in committee, and the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, is maybe too modest. I have heard him say in committee that one of the major things he wanted to get into when he came here-- having been president of the city council in Detroit, he knew the impact of regulations and what they did to the business people and the community and the city government of Detroit, and what they did to the surrounding communities of Detroit, and he was determined to do something about it. I have heard on a number of occasions, both in committee and in private conversation with him, about his dedication to this, which is to his everlasting credit. I think we have worked on this specific legislation in committee for close to 3 years now. So this is not something that we come at lightly. We are as dedicated on the Democratic side to regulatory reform as anybody on the Republican side. We have some different views about how to get to it, that is all, and what is workable and what is not. That is our difference on this. It is not any difference in dedication. When I spoke on the floor and we opened up on this bill, my earlier remarks were exactly along that line. We are a united Senate on one thing, and that is the need for regulatory reform. But we also, at the same time, know that we must hit a balance. We cannot just do away with all regulations. I agree with the examples, and I can give a dozen more from Ohio that match those of the distinguished Senator from Colorado, on overregulation. That is what we have to correct. However, at the time we are doing this, do not throw out the good that the regulations have done in the country along with throwing out the excesses. We do have better health in this country because of regulations. Some have gone too far--yes. Do we have a better business climate in this country because of regulations? Yes, but there have been excesses in that area, too. So we certainly do have to correct these things. We agree with that. We are as united with the Republicans as anybody can be in our dedication to seeing that regulatory reform is carried out. We get the same comments from our business people and our organization people, our school people, our local government people, that the Republicans get when we get back home. We are as dedicated to this as anybody can be. Now I might say in committee, as was already referred to, we voted that out of our committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, under Chairman Roth, 15-0. Unanimous. Now, there is a different approach that Senator Dole has taken. I think our approach hits a better balance. That is all we are trying to do here, is make sure that balance is hit. What we are trying to do now in filing cloture is force a restricted time on this legislation--one of the most important pieces of legislation we will have before the Senate--we are trying to take a complicated bill, and instead of saying how good we will make it, we are saying we will spend minimum time on it, force your hand. We will spend minimum time off the floor, will not give time for amendments, for balance, for fairness, for consideration of those things. We will have minimum time on it. This will be a big concession on the Republican side apparently--big deal, we will have an extension from 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock to get everything that we want in this. Everything has not been considered in this bill. All amendments have not been considered. These are very complicated pieces of legislation-- both of the proposals. I just want to address one other thing. I just cannot agree with my distinguished colleague from Mississippi when he says we have gotten down to nit-picking on this. That is the phrase that he used. Some 500 people a year die from E. coli. Cryptosporidium killed 104 people, and made 400,000 seriously ill in Milwaukee a couple years ago. Senator Abraham and Senator Nunn addressed small business interests, Senator Dole addressed E. coli with his amendment, Senators Johnston and [[Page S 9800]] Levin put in the super mandates, so existing laws could not be superseded by something an agency does over here. Now, I do not think of those as nit-picking. I think these are health and safety matters for the people of this country. Anybody that was fair in looking at what has happened on this floor can certainly not come to the conclusion that these things have been nit-picking concerns on the Democratic side. Quite the opposite. These are life and death concerns, and it is the reason they were brought up, the reason we wanted to amend this. It is the reason I supported some of the amendments on this. Now, there have been negotiations that have gone on on this legislation in the past, as Senator Levin says. We cannot help but wonder whether this was good faith negotiation when we now have cloture filed against Members at this hour of the evening, after we thought we were closing down the Senate, and all at once, staff came running out and said, ``Did you know they filed cloture?'' They filed cloture. I thought that could not be. I thought there was a mistake. It happens that it is true. We want to work through this. Obviously we want to have a chance to do as good as we might otherwise have done. I want to disabuse anybody of the idea that we are not concerned about regulatory reform on this side of the aisle. We are as concerned and as dedicated to it as anybody, regardless of whatever political labels each may take. I yield the floor.