John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. I know, but when was the notice of proposed rulemaking? That has been in operation--that has been out there for years.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, did the Senator not just tell me the notice of proposed rulemaking was 1993 or something?

Mr. JOHNSTON. You gave me a date in 1993 there?

Mr. JOHNSTON. There had to be a notice of proposed rulemaking prior to the interim rule.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Under the rules, in order to accomplish what we wanted to accomplish, we had to amend a different page and section of the bill. The guts of this would be identical with a couple of really stylistic changes. The way it would read is: Any rulemaking pending on July 12, 1995, for which a notice of proposed rulemaking or a proposed rulemaking has been published in the Federal Register before April 1, 1995--et cetera.

Mr. JOHNSTON

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, [[Page S 9780]] 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. JOHNSTON. The Senator could refer to it in the unanimous-consent.

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. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

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. JOHNSTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSTON. We have had some delays on both sides.

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. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

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. JOHNSTON. That would be good.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. One more question. Did the bill which the Senator has touted that came out of committee by, I think, a unanimous vote, not provide for a sunset of all bills with no extension at the end of 10 years on the sunset provisions. Did that bill not so provide?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I ask my friend, would he not agree that benefits to health, safety, or the environment are by their nature nonquantifiable; human life, health, clean air?