William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I have not seen it, and we are looking at another amendment at this time.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Can the distinguished Senator from Louisiana say what he is proposing at this time?

Mr. ROTH. We apparently do not have a copy of that version of the amendment. Mr. President, I regret to say that we just received this modified language, and we have not had an opportunity to study this matter to determine exactly what its implications may be. So if it is all right with the leader, I think maybe we ought to set this aside for a moment so that we will have the opportunity to review the language and then proceed. Instead of that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time not be counted against either side.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH. We have just received the language of the distinguished Senator's amendment. I would like to address some questions to the Senator from Wisconsin. As I understand, you are striking out the words, ``shall not exclude'' and inserting in lieu thereof, ``shall permit the agency to include.'' Now, it is my understanding that your amendment would allow an agency to include an individual on a peer review panel that may have an interest in the outcome of the review, is that correct?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ROTH. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROTH. That was my understanding, and I appreciate the answer. I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have to say to my distinguished friend from Ohio, he stole the words out of my mouth. I was going to also comment on the excellence and the persistence with which the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has pursued the problem of conflict of interest. I would like to ask my distinguished friend one question. In S. 343, in connection with peer review, it is provided that in peer review, that shall not exclude any person with substantial and relevant expertise as a participant on the basis that such a person has a potential interest in the outcome if such interest [[Page S 9896]] is fully disclosed to the agency and the agency includes such disclosure as part of the record, unless the result of the review would have a direct and predictable effect on a substantial financial interest of such person. It is my understanding that your amendment has no effect or impact on that section; is that correct?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. ROTH. And Senator Hatch.

Mr. ROTH. We have no request at this time for anyone to speak in opposition. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH. Finally, for the information of all Senators, there could be as many as four rollcall votes beginning as early as 8:30 this evening. Therefore, Senators should be on notice of these upcoming votes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the debate on the time agreements already entered for this evening, the Senate proceed to vote in sequence, with the first vote being the standard 15-minute vote and any remaining stacked votes be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 13 minutes that remain in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment be reserved for Senator Lott and 5 minutes reserved for Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. ROTH. Without using the time of the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield so I can make a further unanimous- consent request?

Mr. ROTH. I yield 1 minute.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma 5 minutes.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ROTH. Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator Pryor offers his amendment regarding private contractors, that no amendments be in order, or in order to the language proposed to be stricken; that there be 30 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form; and that when the Senate votes, the vote occur on or in relation to the Pryor amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator Feingold offers his amendment regarding peer review, that no amendments be in order, or in order to the language proposed to be stricken; that there be 15 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form; and that when the Senate votes, the vote occur on or in relation to the Feingold amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator Feingold offers his amendment regarding equal access, that no amendments be in order, or in order to the language proposed to be stricken; that there be 30 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form; and that when the Senate votes, the vote occur on or in relation to the Feingold amendment.

Mr. ROTH. I will be happy to yield 10 minutes. But first, I want to make three unanimous-consent requests.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. The Administrative Procedure Act exception, as I said, applies to S. 343 equally. But we do have a better exception. The APA exception only applies to notice and comment for the rule. The exception in S. 343 applies to cost-benefit analysis, and that is what is critically important.