William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. ROTH. I reemphasize a point I made earlier that it can only be challenged in court to have the analysis made. It does not result in the rule itself being terminated. As a matter of fact, this section starts out that a major rule ``may be adopted and may become effective without prior compliance with the subchapter.'' But a second question I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from Ohio is, he spoke about E. coli and of food poisoning and a number of others. And yet I do not find any of those matters to be listed in the Democratic list of concerns with S. 343. There were presumably 9 major problems with the legislation plus another 17 minor problems. But I do not recall seeing any of these issues being included as part of the problems with the 777 version of the Dole-Johnston substitute. I have in my hand the document given to us by the Democrats as areas of concern with the legislation before us. At 9:30 this morning, we were supposed to have a discussion of these provisions or concerns. That was not held. But nowhere--but nowhere--do I see the issues raised in this paper that the distinguished Senator raised this afternoon.

Mr. ROTH. That is totally inaccurate. There is nothing in the legislation that says the rule terminates.

Mr. ROTH. Or a threat.

Mr. ROTH. I think it is important to understand that, in a case of health or safety threat. It does not have to be an emergency. The legislation provides that an exception can be made in the case of an emergency or health or safety. So there are three different exceptions. So there does not----

Mr. ROTH. Yes.

Mr. ROTH. Again, as far as E. coli is concerned, that specifically is covered in our legislation. But again I would like to know the line and page in S. 1001 where there is an exception to the cost-benefit analysis along the same lines contained in S. 343.

Mr. ROTH. Let me point out that in S. 343, it specifically provides that ``A major rule may be adopted, may become effective without prior compliance with this subchapter if, A, the agency for good cause finds that conducting cost-benefit analysis is impracticable due to an emergency or health or safety threat that is likely to result in significant harm to the public or natural resources.'' My question to you is, where is there that kind of exception, that kind of waiver in 1001?

Mr. ROTH. I would point out to the distinguished Senator, what we are talking about is a future rule. And if we are not in the immediate case, there are going to be other situations where there are going to be serious threats to health or safety. My question to you is, where is the exception in your legislation where it is impracticable to be making a cost-benefit analysis?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to raise two or three questions with my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Ohio. I would like to point out that the legislation of the distinguished Senator from Ohio, S. 1001, of course, contains cost-benefit analysis, the same as does the bill before us. But in contrast to the legislation that we are considering which has an exception to the cost-benefit analysis, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Ohio could tell me where S. 1001 contains any exception from the cost-benefit analysis where it is impracticable because of an emergency or health or safety threat?

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

Mr. ROTH. Regarding the statement the Senator just made, a question referring to that.

Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator withhold that request? I had a question or two I would like to ask him. [[Page S 9862]]

Mr. ROTH. May I ask who has the floor?

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

Mr. ROTH. But nowhere does it say the rule terminates. In fact, to the contrary. It says the rule goes into effect. The language that the Senator just quoted does give the right to go into court and require the agency to make the appropriate study. That is all it does.

Mr. ROTH. It says here in the legislation a major rule may be adopted and may become effective without prior compliance with the subchapter. It specifically provides the rule shall become effective.

Mr. ROTH. That is true.

Mr. ROTH. The question is, was it violated? If they do not make the study within the times required, then, yes, they can go into court and force the agency to make the study. There is nothing in it that requires the termination of the rule.

Mr. ROTH. I do not think the court would terminate the rule. A person could go into court and ask that they force the agency to comply with the requirement that the analysis be made. I think the important point to recognize and understand, there is nothing in this legislation, unless the distinguished Senator form Ohio knows something I do not know, that provides for the termination of the rule.

Mr. ROTH. It is true under the original legislation that not later than 180 days after the promulgation of the final major rule to which the section applies, the agency shall comply with the provisions of the subchapter, and as therefore necessary revise the rule. But I am not aware of anywhere where it says the rule is terminated.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. ROTH. I would say that I can support the amendment proposed by [[Page S 9840]] my distinguished colleague from Louisiana. I would certainly be happy to look at the suggestion from the Senator from Ohio. I think it is important that our process be realistic, that we do not expect the impossible from the agencies.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.