David Cay Johnston

You can certainly quantify statistically those things. You cannot quantify the value and the value of the benefit.

The answer is we took care of whatever ambiguity there was at the behest of the Senator from Michigan. You will recall our negotiation on this, and we added quantifiable and nonquantifiable to the definition of benefit in section 621.

The answer to his question is, if it is parts per million of a toxic substance, therefore it relates to benefits to health or to the environment and, therefore, is specifically covered under the phrase that says where nonquantifiable…

The answer is that they could, because those parts per million would relate to a benefit to health or the environment and, therefore, would be a nonquantifiable benefit to health or the environment.

As I say, the simple answer is yes, unless congressional intent prohibits that by having spoken on it, and the Senator's hypothetical example would indicate by the use of the words ``at least'' that it is within a permissible…

Wait a minute. The statute is clear under the Chevron case, the Supreme Court case. What it said is that if the Congress has spoken on an issue and congressional intent is clear, then that congressional intent must be enforced. So that if…

If the phraseology of the statute is ``at least,'' then that in turn would give discretion to the agency head.

Let me answer the Senator's question. I think the simple answer is, yes, you can, but there is a caveat. If it is within the discretion of the agency head and the interpretation of the statute to have some leeway as to the interpretation…

Not yet. And you can go ahead and do what the statute tells you. Moreover, you can do more than the least cost of what the statute tells you. You can go beyond that if there are uncertainties of science, uncertainties of data or…

Let me tell you why. When you go to (c), then you cannot satisfy your benefits justifying the cost. But the statute required you to do something. And so you are required to go ahead and do what the statute says, notwithstanding that the…

If the Senator will let me answer, the question is, what is a conflict? If one statute requires something, a cost-benefit analysis, which this does, or a risk assessment and the other statute does not, is that a conflict or is that…

I will answer the question like this. I do not care how many Cabinet people say this thing is ambiguous. It is not. It is as clear as the English language can be. Now, whether they are ingenuous or disingenuous in their criticism, I do not…

If the underlying law says that, if applying the statutory requirements upon which the rule is based, the underlying law that requires the mammography, let us say, a rule cannot satisfy that criteria of subsection (b)--subsection (b)…

Here is what would happen. Within 1 year after the passage of this act, the head of each of the agencies shall look at all the rules under their supervision, determine which ones need to be looked at, and therefore come up with a…

Just very briefly, one of the biggest fights we have had about this bill--and make no mistake, it has been a fight--is about the question of supermandates; that is, whether this bill supersedes the underlying bill such as the Clean Air…

Under the definition of benefits, we have already included the quantifiable benefits. That is put into your cost-benefit ratio. This says that this is a little extra that you are able to add. If you are not able to quantify the value of…

Is the Senator aware that at my behest, we put in language in the bill contained on page 36 that says if scientific, technical, or economic uncertainties or nonquantifiable benefits to health, safety, or the environment identified by the…

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

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?

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.

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?

At the end of the 5-year period, it would sunset. Keep in mind that it did not get on the schedule and that the person at the agency was in charge of the schedule, and so he or she could advance the rule as quickly as he could. Would the…

I think the Glenn bill is ambiguous on that question. I do not believe S. 343 is in its present form. We will debate that at a separate time. I am simply saying that the Glenn bill is subject to the same thing on peer review that he says…

I invite my friend from Ohio to go back and read the letter. He may be also complaining about judicial review provisions. Did the Senator have any judicial review in his proposal?

Do I misread this when he says in the last paragraph on the first page that ``S. 343 would significantly delay this essential reform by requiring USDA to establish a peer review panel which satisfies the criteria in S. 343, submit a…