David Cay Johnston

It is because, Mr. President, the definitions in section 621 state clearly that the term ``benefit'' means the reasonably identifiable significant, favorable effects, quantifiable and nonquantifiable.

The court has had a chance to review this and has given such orders as are necessary, which might be--I guess what the court would order is a schedule. Public comments to be completed by such and such a time. Final rule by such and such a…

If everybody wants the rule to sunset it can sunset. You can terminate a rule today.

Look, we have a whole big section there that speaks for itself, of course, that means the risk analysis and cost-benefit, and it means peer review. And, as I said earlier, there will be times when procedural defects, if someone calls them…

No. They have already had--first of all, they have had 1 year after the expiration--I mean after the effective date of the act. They have had 3 years minimum initially, plus they have had these 2 years--that is 6 years. They cannot extend…

With this bill, the opponents look for ghosts and trouble everywhere, they find it everywhere, and they apply to it the wrong solutions. Mr. President, this language is clear, and I do not care who says otherwise. Show me where that is…

This is the exception. There is no rule that needs to be reviewed, unless the agency head wishes to in his sole discretion, and that is not reviewable.

I believe this is a well-drawn amendment now. It speaks to a much needed principle of the law, and that is that Federal officials ought to tell the truth. And we ought to be able to rely on them when they do. This amendment carries out…

I thank the Senator. On page 4, line 15 of his amendment, it says if the Secretary cannot make the certification required under section 1(C), he shall notify the Congress and publish his statement. 1(C) says, the main part there, that the…

Not true, Mr. President, I tell my colleague, because there is nothing here--first of all, I do not know of any statute that says a minimum of so many parts per million with discretion to go higher.

I do not know whether the Senator understands what I am saying. Did the benefits justify the cost of your--what was it--did they or did they not?

You see, his hypothetical was that if you add a little bit of extra cost, you get a big benefit.

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?

May I suggest here a way, perhaps, to get at this question of conflict? Part of my problem is to say that ``in the event of conflict''--in my judgment there is no possibility of conflict. We have written conflict out. So, therefore, you do…

Is my friend aware of, on page 49 of the Dole-Johnston amendment, where it explicitly says, ``This subchapter shall not apply to risk assessment performed with respect to--'' you go down to ``(C), a human health, safety or environmental…

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

The reg-flex amendment which we adopted yesterday which was designed to take care of small business includes in its definition of small entity, small governmental jurisdiction, which goes on to mean government, cities, towns, townships…

We do not admit of that possibility. Mr. President, I think this has been a very useful exchange. And I hope, maybe following up on this, we can make clear that those health-based standards and technology-based standards of the…

I would have no problem with proper language to do that. The problem is that, first of all, I think we have very clear language right now. I think it is very clear. The offered language creates its own ambiguity.

I tell my friend that it is indeed a complicated statute. But I think it is clear, and the problem is that--you talk about will ``social'' embrace all these things. We say ``benefit'' means the reasonably identifiable--this is page 13…

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…

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…

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…

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…

There will be a level of discretion between a minimal list interpretation and a maximum interpretation where the agency can pick that interpretation and is not overruled unless their judgment is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of…