John Johnston

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader for his comments. Mr. President, this amendment, in my view, is totally unnecessary, but if it helps to clarify and reassure, then I will support it. The provision that it amends was one of those provisions put in at our behest, and agreed to by the majority leader, in order to take care of this very situation. Whether it is cryptosporidium, E. coli bacteria, or Ebola virus-- whatever--the bill already covers that kind of health emergency. The bill says that you do not have to comply with either cost benefit or with risk assessment if they find that there is an emergency or health or safety threat that is likely to result in significant harm to the public or to natural resources. Mr. President, it is clear the bill already covers that, and this was one of those 100-odd amendments that were accepted by the majority leader at our behest. I believe it has been a very good bipartisan effort. It is not a complete and perfect bill yet. We still have some amendments which we hope will be accepted. There is an ongoing dialog about that. Mr. President, I am still very hopeful this bill can be passed overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle. I hope we can proceed not with drawing lines in the dirt and lines in the sand and tossing bombs at one another, but, rather, try to make this bill a more perfect bill, a better bill. Believe me, Mr. President, risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis is needed by the taxpayers who are overburdened in this country today, and just to try to defeat this bill by phony issues is not the way to go. We should try to improve it with real amendments. I believe that the distinguished Senator from Utah, the floor manager of this bill, and I believe the majority leader, will show cooperation, because they have so far. I will vote for this amendment. It is totally unnecessary. The bill already covers this kind of emergency.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Does that not cover the exact things the Senator from Illinois was talking about, the boy with the asthma, the kid with the lead?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator from Iowa for yielding.

Mr. JOHNSTON. The bill out of committee did have the sunset and did not have any ability to get court orders to order the agency to take action.

Mr. JOHNSTON. He yields the floor or yields for a question?

Mr. JOHNSTON. He will not yield for a question?

Mr. JOHNSTON. The bill you voted for in committee.

Mr. JOHNSTON. With a 5-year extension.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. About 5 million. When they affect small business, they are likely to be a major rule. But we have that provided for in the Coverdell amendment of yesterday with the reg-flex, and I believe that solves that problem. What we do not want to do is get agency overload here so that those rules which are burdensome to small businesses would not then be able to get--you would not have time to get your petition done because the agency would be so overloaded with other rules. I suggest to my friend that going to $100 million is not going to be difficult for small business because you have already protected them under the Coverdell amendment, and they are likely to be $100 million rules if they have broad application to small business, in any event.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Actually, rules that affect small businesses--how many did we say there were, how many million in this country?

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield, I wonder if the majority leader would entertain an amendment at this point to make the bill not applicable to any notice of proposed rulemaking which would commence on July 1, 1995, or earlier? In other words, those on-going regulations which would still be subject to the petition process, so you would not have to go back and redo and replow all that same ground. Do you want time to think about that?

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator withhold? As long as we have got to wait for this, let me say that, Mr. President, this amendment is viewed very, very seriously by an awful lot of people on our side and by the administration based on this question of agency overload. I really believe, as someone who has been involved in this risk assessment now from the very start, that this is a very legitimate concern of the administration. The American Bar Association gives this question of the definition of ``major rule''--it is the very first and most important criticism they have of S. 343. It is the most important criticism, or one of the most important, of the administration, one of the most important concerns over here. Now, Mr. President, we very much need to pass this legislation. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will give us enough votes to let us pass it. This is one of those important amendments that does not in any way derogate from the importance and the central value of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis. But it may have a lot to do with making it workable. I mean, the American Bar Association is not out to do in small businesses or small communities in our country. They are simply aware, as they say, it will sweep too broadly and, therefore, dilute the ultimate impact of the bill. Quoting from the American Bar Association: This change is crucial for Association support. That is, American Bar Association support. We can pass a bill without the American Bar Association support, I understand that. But they are enthusiastic supporters of the concept, as I am the person who first proposed risk assessment here on the floor, but we have to make it workable. To go up to $100 million simply makes this more workable, Mr. President. Nothing could be worse than to have this vast plethora of regulations all of a sudden dumped on agencies unable to contend with them, unable to find the peer review, unable to have budgets that will cover the cost of cost-benefit, unable to hire the scientists to do the studies to do the risk assessment, and otherwise unable to meet deadlines. That is a formula for chaos. That is why the American Bar Association thinks we ought to go to $100 million. That is why the administration thinks so, and that is why I think so. So, Mr. President, this amendment will help pass--not only help pass and get signed into law--this legislation; it will make it workable. Everybody wants this legislation to work when and if we pass it, and I believe we are going to be able to pass it, because I think the spirit of the floor, and of the proponents, certainly the majority leader, Senator Hatch and others, has been to accommodate reasonable criticisms in the present draft of S. 343. I really believe that is true. I think the acceptance of that last amendment showed that kind of spirit, and I hope we can get that kind of spirit on this $100 million amendment. This is really a crucial amendment, as the American Bar Association has said, as the administration has said. I have not gone along with all of the administration's criticisms of this bill. As a matter of fact, I have not gone along with most of the administration's criticisms of this bill. I think some of it may be previous versions that they are criticizing. I think some of it may be a fictitious bill that has never been offered and is not now on the floor that they are criticizing. But, Mr. President, this $100 million criticism--that is, the criticism of the $50 million being too low and the desire to go to $100 million--is right on target. It is what it takes to make this bill workable. I beseech and implore my colleagues to let us get this limit to $100 million where the bill can be allowed to work. Mr. President, if none of my colleagues has further debate, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would be prepared to yield back the balance of my time. Can we have a vote at this time?

Mr. JOHNSTON

Mr. JOHNSTON. All right.

Mr. JOHNSTON. With all due respect, I would ask my friend to look at the provisions. The only difference in the peer review in the Glenn substitute and in our peer review is that we do permit informal peer review panels whereas the Glenn substitute does not. In other words, it is more stringent.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I would submit to my dear friend----

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. First of all, are you aware that the Glenn substitute has peer review in it of an even stronger variety than is contained in S. 343?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I had three comments with respect to the Secretary's letter. First of all, his comments about peer review. Mr. DASCHLE: I would be happy the yield for a question.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Did the Senator wish to ask a question?