[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   ELEVATION OF EPA TO CABINET STATUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica,] is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to reclaim my time in 
this special order, which I think is extremely important to the House 
of Representatives and to the people of this great Nation.
  You know, I came to this body just a year ago with many hopes and 
dreams and aspirations that we could, in fact, change some of the ways 
and reform some of the manner in which Congress conducted the people's 
business.
  Here we are on the eve of an opportunity that I consider a great 
opportunity for this body and my colleagues to consider probably the 
most important regulatory reform issue of the 103d Congress.
  Tomorrow, when we consider the question of elevating the EPA to 
Cabinet-level status, we will have an opportunity to cast several 
votes. One of those votes will be on the rule. That is an important 
vote because, if I may, I would like to discuss the history of how we 
got to that situation and how the questions of regulatory reform will 
be reflected in our actions tomorrow on this House floor.
  As a member of the Committee on Government Operations, I became 
concerned after a number of hearings about the lack of direction, the 
waste, fraud, and abuse, the lack of focus in our Department of 
Environmental Protection. EPA, I found very quickly after a number of 
hearings, was an agency out of control, an agency without focus. As we 
considered in my committee, the Committee on Government Operations, the 
question of elevating that agency to Cabinet-level status--and it will 
be the 15th Cabinet-level status designated in the U.S. Government--the 
question came to mind: How could we bring some focus, how could we 
bring some direction to this embattled and misdirected, misguided 
agency? Time and time again I heard repeated that we must seek a way to 
address the problem of regulatory reform in EPA and within Government.
  Now, I cannot come here before the House and say that I can change 
every agency of Federal Government, nor do we have the opportunity to 
make those changes. But tomorrow, for the first time in many years and 
probably in this decade, we will elevate the EPA to Cabinet-level 
status, and it is my wish and my desire to ask my colleagues to join 
with me tomorrow to defeat the rule that brings to the floor the EPA 
elevation legislation without a risk-cost-benefit analysis amendment.
  What we were asking our committee to decide--and we had the votes to 
do that within the Committee on House Government Operations--is simply 
add an amendment that says that EPA shall look at the risk-cost-benefit 
analysis and analyze the implementation of new regulations in that 
light.
  What is the risk? What is the cost? What is the benefit? Do this 
simple analysis process.
  We offered that amendment. As is now history in this body, we were 
ruled out of order because the amendment was ruled nongermane. Again, I 
might say at this point, in committee I offered that amendment with a 
gentleman from the other side of the aisle, who had his name first on 
the amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], who has done 
a remarkable job, I might say, in presenting this issue to the Congress 
and to the American people.
  But we offered that in committee in a bipartisan fashion, and we were 
rejected. We did get a small concession that a hearing be held on the 
issue, and I might tell my colleagues and the American people that that 
hearing was held today. But that hearing was no excuse for inaction by 
this Congress. That hearing was merely an airing of some of the side in 
the debate.
  What took place next was our requesting before the Committee on Rules 
the opportunity to bring this question to debate before the floor of 
the House of Representatives.
  What happened here was, again, the door was slammed, we were denied 
the opportunity to bring forth to the House of Representatives an 
amendment, an opportunity to discuss here in the Halls of the people's 
Representatives' Chamber the important question of how we reform this 
agency as we elevate it to this Cabinet-level position.
  We repeatedly asked the Committee on Rules to consider a number of 
versions, including one version which I drafted, and we had the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Karen Thurman], my distinguished colleague, 
who was at the forefront of that effort before the Committee on Rules. 
My name appeared second.
  Again, we were denied the opportunity.
  A rule came forward, and in that rule we may have an opportunity to 
debate tomorrow, and that is one reason that I asked that this rule be 
sent back to the Committee on Rules to give the American people and 
this Congress an opportunity to hear a debate on this important issue.
  The manner in which we are going to conduct the people's business in 
this agency has a tremendous impact on the daily lives of every citizen 
in this Nation. Just this week we have had the Governors from around 
the United States meeting in Washington, and they have discussed the 
various issues confronting us. Some are very important, like health 
care; but even within that health care package that has been presented 
by this administration are 79 unfunded Federal mandates.
  But within the discussions and deliberations and even prior to the 
discussions by the Governors that took place here, the Governors wrote 
to the members of the committee and wrote me and said, ``Congressman 
Mica, we need a risk assessment amendment. We need risk assessment 
language so that on EPA, as an agency when it is elevated to Cabinet 
level and you address this question, is something we have some handle 
on and so we know what the costs are and what the benefits are as we 
add more regulations and more unfunded mandates to our local 
governments.
  Today the Governors' Association met again, and today they reaffirmed 
their commitment to risk assessment provisions enacted hopefully by 
this Congress. Again we will not have many opportunities to discuss 
this issue.
  Before I go any further in this special order, I do want to also pay 
tribute to the courage of Senator Bennett Johnston, who in the other 
body had an identical amendment passed known as the Johnston amendment, 
which requires a risk-cost benefit analysis be conducted by EPA, and 
that was passed by a 95-3 vote.
  I learned this today in the hearing as Senator Johnston came before 
our committee and testified in the special hearing on risk assessment 
prior to the vote tomorrow: He said that he thought he had worked out 
an agreement by the administration; he thought he had worked out the 
provisions by which this was an acceptable approach to bring some 
regulatory reform, to bring some focus, to bring some guidance to this 
misguided agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, and to bring 
some of the costs in line to our State and local governments and to our 
business, industry, and agriculture, which have been so heavily 
impacted by the rules and regulations promulgated and set forth almost 
weekly by the EPA over these years. But he told our committee that has 
been abandoned. Now they have been fighting this, and they are fighting 
the rule so that tomorrow we will not have an opportunity to bring this 
matter before the House.
  They campaigned from the President on down, to the First Lady, of 
course, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Carol 
Browner, who even went into the home district of Mr. Condit during the 
recess to talk to his constituents.
  But really all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot change 
the tide in what is taking place here in our country.
  Again, let me say that I have some statistics on what this costs 
every family. The cost of government regulation has gone just totally 
through the ceiling. Let me give you a Heritage Foundation report of 
1992. Just listen to these figures, if you will. The aggregate costs of 
Federal regulation are now estimated as somewhere between $881 billion 
and $1.6 trillion annually. This burden, which now trivializes and 
rivals the tax burden, imposes costs of between $8,388 and $17,134 per 
household. So regulation has become, next to taxation, one of the 
biggest burdens imposed by the Congress on the American public, and we 
will not have the opportunity to debate this if we do not send that 
rule back and ask for fairness, ask for an opportunity for regulatory 
reform.
  Again let me say that this may be the only time in this Congress that 
this question is addressed. We have heard threats from the opposition 
who said that this will never see the light of day. But I can assure 
the Members that it will see the light of day on this issue, because of 
its financial impact to every citizen, to every farmer, to every 
industry, to every individual in this country. The burden is now 
becoming awesome.
  What is remarkable about this is that we are not discussing this 
problem, this problem that has such an impact on jobs, such an impact 
on American competitiveness. More than NAFTA, more than any trade 
agreement that we could concoct and devise with our trading partners, 
regulation and regulatory reform are things that this Congress must 
address. So again all we are asking for is the opportunity to be heard 
and to have this debate take place here.
  Another factor in this matter is that for the average citizen, the 
average homeowner across this land, the biggest item in the property 
tax bills that are being passed on in water bills and sewer bills are 
all these regulations. And the question is: Do some of these things 
make sense?
  I heard Senator Bennett Johnston today when he testified before our 
committee so eloquently describe some ridiculous extremes this agency 
has gone through. He cited the examples that have cost us so much. For 
example, he talked about Carbon-14 regulations that were promulgated 
and issued by EPA that have cost us $3 billion, and as to the amount of 
Carbon-14 that they ended up regulating, actually more occurs in the 
human body than the EPA was regulating, and they spent $3 billion on 
this escapade.
  On toxic dump clean up, Senator Johnston gave an eloquent example of 
problems and costs that have been incurred by EPA regulations. For 
example, we spent millions and millions of dollars to decide whether 
you can eat dirt for 70 days or 240 days. This is the type of 
regulation that your tax dollar is being spent on.
  There is the example we have seen of the clean up of asbestos. We 
spent $53 billion on asbestos, and come to find out, after they had 
sent out all these rules and regulations and requirements for change 
out and everything, actually disturbing the asbestos can be more 
harmful to health and safety in many cases in the removal process than 
leaving it in place.
  Then on the questions that Senator Johnston also brought up, there 
was the regulation of arsenic. EPA wants to regulate 2 to 3 parts per 
billion of water allowed in arsenic versus 30 parts. Thirty parts of 
arsenic, which sounds like a horrible toxic substance, 30 parts per 
billion is about the amount of arsenic you get out of eating one plate 
of shrimp.
  These are the kinds of exercises that the Environmental Protection 
Agency has spent billions of your tax dollars on.
  Let me say here that I consider myself someone who is interested in 
the environment. I consider myself someone who is interested in leaving 
this planet and our great land in better shape than we found it in, and 
also for the future of my children and future generations. I am not 
here as someone who is opposed to the environment. I am a Member who 
thinks that we should be concerned about what EPA focuses its attention 
on. We have only limited resources in our Federal Government, and we 
must address some of these issues.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield for just 1 minute.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friend tonight in this 
special order and first of all congratulate him for the very courageous 
position he and many others in this body are taking in support of the 
risk assessment amendment.
  As the gentleman knows, the fight has been led on the Senate side, as 
the gentleman just mentioned, by my own Senator, Senator Bennett 
Johnston. I happen to be the sponsor of the same bill on the House 
side. The gentleman has been a leader, as the House knows, on this 
issue in the House.
  It is critical that we get this issue addressed at some point. I and 
others tomorrow are going to join the gentleman in opposition to this 
rule because the rule denies us a chance to give Americans that debate 
on whether or not the environmental policy should be balanced against 
the needs of humans and property owners, make sure that in fact we do 
not cost people out of business and their jobs and their livelihoods. I 
want to congratulate the gentleman on his effort.
  I also will be urging a ``no'' vote on the rule because we will not 
have a chance to offer a takings amendment, because so often the 
rulings of EPA and Corps of Engineers on the Wetlands 404 Permit 
Section, amount to takings of private property. When the Corps and the 
EPA come along and tell you that you cannot use your property any more 
because the public has a bigger interest in it than you do, that is a 
taking as far as I am concerned.
  These risk assessments, these takings ought to be addressed when we 
put the EPA Cabinet level. We ought to oppose this rule tomorrow and 
give this Nation a much needed debate on these topics.
  Mr. MICA. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your comments and 
thank the gentleman for adding his words of support here tonight. It is 
true that other amendments relating to property rights, relating to 
unfunded mandates were also ignored in this, and this is not a partisan 
issue. This is an issue that affects every man, woman and child, every 
business, every local government.
  And you are so correct, too, in that if we do not address this here, 
it will continue. And it will only get worse, because we have the Clear 
Air Act coming up for renewal, clean water, Superfund and other 
questions of property rights and unfunded mandates that will not go 
away.
  So again, I thank you so much for taking time to come to the floor 
and express your support.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think it was 
Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs who did one of their 20/20 shows and 
interviewed people in California who lost their homes to the fires not 
too long ago. And who lost them because they were forbidden to do what 
in previous years they had been ordered to do, which was to disc around 
their homes the brush and the bushes that were a cause of these brush 
fires. They were not allowed to do it. In fact, they were forbidden to 
do it because of the Endangered Species Act suddenly came along and 
protected a thing called a Kangaroo Rat.
  To homeowners who violated the law and disced around their homes, 
they saved their homes. Others who followed the law did not protect 
their homes and lost them. That kind of cost is real to us in our 
society. The people in the Northwest who lost their jobs in the mills 
to the Spotted Owl controversy, the fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico who 
lost their fishing boats, some committed suicide over the fact they 
could not pay the bills anymore because they were required to pull a 
tab in their net in order to comply with the EPA regulation.
  Those are real costs in our society. We ought to know these costs. We 
ought to understand the risk, when we go about providing necessary 
environmental protections in our society.
  I wish you good fortune in this effort. I hope tomorrow we can debate 
this rule and give this Nation a chance to debate those costs, those 
risks, the kind of assessment that ought to be made before we push 
forward with heavy-handed Government regulations into the lives of 
human beings, particularly those who live in the wet and wild 
environments of our country, as so many do in my native Louisiana.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his 
kind remarks. I cannot tell him how much I appreciate his support. 
Again, the bipartisan fashion in which this is being offered, because 
we have a real problem and we need real solutions. We should have this 
issue discussed on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  I know that Members are under a tremendous amount of pressure, that 
various individuals in high positions have contacted them in support of 
defeating the position I have taken here, that tomorrow we expect the 
Vice President to come up and meet with the freshmen Democrat Members 
and arms will be twisted. But I am asking Members to hold strong and 
that we also, in the best interests of the American people, that we 
address this issue, that if we do nothing else in our terms, whether it 
is one term or 10 terms in Congress, that we seek to improve the 
question of regulatory reform, which has become such a burden.
  Before the gentleman had added his support, I was giving the House 
several areas in which I felt that there are just almost humorous and, 
actually, it cannot be humorous, because it is so costly to the 
taxpayer, but frivolous mandates and regulations that are set forth by 
EPA.
  For example, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, every water system in 
the Nation is required to monitor for DBCP, the herbicide used on 
pineapples, which are grown only in Hawaii, unless a specific waiver is 
obtained.
  The waiver is expensive and difficult for the water system and 
expensive, again, for the State, which has to judge the merits of the 
waiver application and tailor its program accordingly.
  Look at the hoops that we make our local governments go through, our 
water supply systems, and the expense this adds to the people's water 
bills and their utility bills and just the cost to business and 
industry which is astronomical.
  What is interesting is, with all the things that EPA regulates, 
because they are unfocused, because they do not have a risk assessment 
policy in place that is working, examples like the contaminant that we 
just recently had in the water in Washington and also is responsible 
for the death of 40 people in Milwaukee and drove a million residents 
in the Washington area to drink only bottled water for 4 days, that 
particular chemical contaminant is not regulated by EPA.
  In a 1986 law, Congress set forth 83 other specific chemical 
contaminants that are required to regulate, but the one that has caused 
death and inconvenience and tremendous expense they do not regulate. So 
again, we have example after example of an agency out of control.
  I would like to submit for the Record additional examples of EPA 
regulatory craziness and costliness to the American taxpayers. Again, 
tomorrow we had an opportunity to be heard on this issue. Again, I do 
not stand here alone in support of this. I do have many colleagues that 
support we and many associations who support me.
  As I mentioned, the National Governors Association, which, of course, 
is a bipartisan organization, is in favor of conducting risk assessment 
for new environmental regulations. They faxed me a copy of their 
recommendation, and their recommendation reads:

       It is recommended that the federal environmental policy be 
     based on a clear set of priorities and that the Federal 
     Government commit to certain principles when adopting new 
     environmental mandates.

  This is just the beginning of their recommendation and their support 
of a risk assessment, which I will also submit for the Record.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors, in a resolution adopted June 22, 1993, 
said, ``Be it further resolved that the United States Conference of 
Mayors calls on the Congress and the President to perform risk 
assessment and cost benefit analysis on all legislation which requires 
mandates on State and local governments.''
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors, interestingly enough, I have another 
document here on the stationery of the municipality of Anchorage, and 
this letter was sent to Senator Johnston in support of his amendment.
  It says, ``Mayors from 49 States have signed this letter because we 
need your help. Something must be done early in the 103d Congress to 
assure that environmental protection investments are made where they 
accomplish the greatest good.'' And here I have the names of numerous 
Mayors throughout the Nation.
  The National Association of Counties, one of the most prestigious 
organizations in the United States, at the root of local government, 
that represents over 3,000 counties across this great Nation, sent a 
letter to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
chairman of the Rules Committee, urging him to allow the Mica amendment 
to be offered as part of the EPA Cabinet level elevation bill. They 
explained in their letter how they are drowning in regulations and that 
my amendment, the Mica amendment, would offer them some hope.
  Here is what they said in their letter, again, on behalf of over 
3,000 county governments, which attempt daily to comply with the vast 
number of environmental mandates.

       We support the Mica amendment. Repeatedly, county officials 
     inform us of regulatory requirements promulgated by EPA that 
     are based on inadequate scientific analysis or that fail to 
     assess the minuscule risk being addressed compared to the 
     enormous cost of reducing those risks further.

  Again, I will submit this letter for the Record.

                              {time}  1850

  In a letter to me on November 17, 1993, the National Federation of 
Independent Business expressed their support for the so-called Mica 
amendment. ``Environmental regulations are killing on our small 
businessmen.'' They recently conducted a survey of their members and 
discussed the results of that survey in their letter. Listen to what 
they said. This is November 17, just a few months ago.

       Risk assessment is an essential element in creating sound 
     environmental policy. A recent field survey ranked 
     environmental regulation as the fourth largest problem faced 
     by small business owners. While NFIB members are clearly 
     supportive of a clean and healthy environment, they are 
     concerned about the increasing number of regulatory 
     initiatives being issued without a comparative cost-benefit 
     analysis.

  Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include a letter from John J. Motley 
III, vice president, Federal Government Relations, the National 
Federation of Independent Business:

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                                November 17, 1993.
     Hon. John L. Mica,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Mica: On behalf of the 600,000 members 
     of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I 
     urge you to support the Thurman-Mica Risk Assessment 
     amendment to H.R. 3425, the Department of the Environmental 
     Protection Act.
       Risk assessment is an essential element in creating sound 
     environmental policy. A recent NFIB field survey ranked 
     environmental regulation as the fourth largest problem facing 
     small business owners. While NFIB members are clearly 
     supportive of a clean and healthy environment, they are 
     concerned about the increasing number of regulatory 
     initiatives being issued without a comparative cost/benefit 
     analysis. NFIB has long supported legislation which will 
     ensure a balance between benefits and costs in the 
     development of regulations.
       The Thurman-Mica amendment will inject a reasonable 
     standard into environmental regulation. It will ensure that 
     small business owners and individuals will not be forced to 
     spend thousands of dollars complying with regulations which 
     are not efficiently and effectively addressing real risks. 
     This amendment will allow for an assessment that will compare 
     need, allow for alternative courses of action, and ensure 
     that adequate scientific analysis has been undertaken.
       It is important to note that the amendment does not lessen 
     EPA's authority or obligation to protect public health or the 
     environment. It simply states that it is time for Congress to 
     establish a rational process to set priorities so that the 
     greatest environmental benefits can be achieved.
       This widely supported, bi-partisan amendment is an 
     important issue that deserves to be addressed within the 
     context of the EPA cabinet elevation bill. If the amendment 
     is not made in order by the House Rules Committee, I urge you 
     to oppose the rule on H.R. 3425.
           Sincerely,

                                           John J. Motley III,

                                                   Vice President,
                                   Federal Governmental Relations.
  The national independent business groups all support this approach, 
this commonsense, businesslike approach that so eludes this Congress.
  The National League of Cities, again, in their governing principles, 
their statement of October 11, 1993, and I quote, ``Federal, State, and 
local governments should utilize scientifically objective, unbiased 
assessments as a tool in determining environmental policies,'' and go 
on in support, again, of a risk-cost-benefit approach that only makes 
sense.
  Not only businesses and industries are being affected by this, but 
agriculture, farmers who are struggling under the heavy weight of 
regulation, know the burden that I am talking about here. Each of my 
colleagues received a letter yesterday from the American Farm Bureau 
Federation asking them to oppose the rule and allow the Mica amendment 
or allow a risk amendment the opportunity to be debated here on the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  In case the Members have missed their letter, I am going to read one 
paragraph that highlights their feelings toward environmental 
regulations. I quote from their letter to all of the Members, dated 
January 31, 1994:

       For America's farmers and ranchers, rapid growth of 
     environmental regulation in agriculture has resulted in 
     tremendous costs, along with compliance and management 
     implications. The impact is both direct and indirect as 
     agriculture also strives to comply with the plethora of State 
     and local regulations stemming from unfunded Federal 
     mandates.

Again in support of the action we are taking.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the entire letter written by Mr. 
Dean R. Kleckner, president, American Farm Bureau Federation:

     January 31, 1994.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The American Farm Bureau Federation 
     requests that you oppose passage of the rule governing debate 
     of the EPA Cabinet bill, H.R. 3425. We are very disappointed 
     over the failure of the Rules Committee to allow the House to 
     consider and debate amendments by Representatives Thurman and 
     Mica on risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis.
       For America's farmers and ranchers, the rapid growth of 
     environmental regulation in agriculture has resulted in 
     tremendous cost along with compliance and management 
     implications. The impact is both direct and indirect as 
     agriculture also strives to comply with the plethora of state 
     and local regulations stemming from unfunded federal 
     mandates.
       The American public has many competing worthwhile and 
     socially desirable goals such as economic growth and 
     environmental protection. Without a sound foundation in risk 
     assessment and cost/benefit analysis we will be hindered in 
     our efforts to make the best and most cost-effective public 
     policy decisions.
       We respectfully urge your opposition to the rule on the EPA 
     Cabinet legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                             Dean R. Kleckner,

                                          President, American Farm
                                                Bureau Federation.

  Again, in another recent letter, and this letter is dated January 31, 
also this week, and it went to each Member of the House of 
Representatives, and this House cannot ignore these pleas from 
business, industry, and here again agriculture, this plea is from the 
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. They support 
a risk-benefit analysis approach, because it will help reduce 
burdensome regulation. They explain in their letter that the current 
system is ineffective. They say here, and I repeat in their words, 
which I leave for the Record, that ``the system is broken. We must 
address this issue,'' and the Congress must act on this, and we must 
send that rule back and have an opportunity to be heard on this.
  Another important industry, the Fertilizer Institute, sent a letter 
January 18, supporting the so-called Mica amendment, and they put this 
in very simple terms. They said it will save jobs, and they make their 
plea to each of the Members of this distinguished body.
  In a letter to Senator Bennett Johnston, which I wanted to share with 
the Members, he offered this amendment, as I said, in the U.S. Senate. 
The National Association of Neighborhoods expressed their strong 
support for the amendment because they believe that the money saved 
from doing risk assessment, by doing risk assessment, will be 
redirected to inner cities.
  Now is this going to affect poor people? We have talked about 
business, we have talked about industry, we have talked about the 
middle class, and we have talked about the burden on homeowners with 
taxation, but even inner city representatives are asking this Congress 
to take this into consideration, so that the limited resources that we 
have can be expended for people who have other human needs and basic 
needs, instead of wasting the billions that we have described on 
chasing rainbows that we can never get to.
  I do notice the presence of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Zimmer], who requested a few minutes. If he is prepared, I would like 
to yield a few minutes before I go on and mention a few of the other 
areas of support, letters of support that we have garnered in our 
effort.
  The gentleman from New Jersey has been indeed a leader on this issue, 
and has influenced some other legislation as it will come before the 
floor when the EPA elevation bill comes forward.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
command the gentleman for bringing this issue to the floor, and for his 
leadership on the issue of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
  I think the Committee on Rules has done all of us a disservice by 
keeping from the floor the kind of debate we need on cost-benefit 
analysis, because I believe this will be the pivotal issue in 
environmental policy in the years to come.
  I consider myself a strong environmentalist. I am proud to have been 
endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club. I 
believe that not to use effective cost-benefit analysis, not to use 
effective risk assessment, is really antienvironmental.
  The fact is, we do not have enough resources nationally to solve all 
of our potential pollution problems, all of our potential health 
problems, all of our potential problems for wildlife habitat. We have 
to prioritize. Because we do not have all of the resources we need to 
solve all of these problems immediately, or ever, we have to decide how 
to get the best results for improving human health, the best results 
for preserving our environment, and the best results for limiting toxic 
pollution with the resources at hand.
  The only way we can do that is by intelligent risk assessment. I am 
pleased that the Government Operations Committee adopted my amendment 
to the legislation elevating EPA to Cabinet level, which would create 
an Office of Environmental Risk in the new Department of Environmental 
Protection.
  I believe, even with that amendment in the bill, we need to address 
the question of cost-benefit analysis, because the EPA and 
environmental policy nationwide have been unfocused and have been 
frittering away scarce resources.
  A recent independent study has concluded that 80 percent of the budge 
of the Environmental Protection Agency is spent on relatively low 
priority risks to human health and the environment, and I think we do 
not have that kind of money to waste. That misallocation of Federal 
resources reflects the much greater economic cost and waste imposed on 
the private sector and on State and local governments.
  The only way we are going to be able to figure out how to get the 
most bang for the buck, not just within EPA or the new Department of 
Environmental Protection, but also within State and local government 
and within the private sector, is to have good scientific analysis, 
good economic analysis, and use the best tools we have to make policy 
and to make choices.
  It has been said that to govern is to choose. Some opponents of this 
approach do not want us to choose. They want us to attack every part 
per quadrillion of every potential carcinogen in the world. We cannot 
afford to do that. We have to choose where the risks are the greatest.
  One example is indoor air pollution, something that the Government 
and the private sector have not spent a relatively large amount of 
money on. Scientists agree that it is far more dangerous to have 
relatively high levels of radon in one's home than it is to live next 
door to a Superfund site.
  However, because we have not had the necessary focus on the 
analytical discipline in the EPA and in other environmental agencies, 
we are not adequately addressing those sorts of problems. We are 
missing the opportunity to save far more lives than are being saved 
with the scattershot approach that we are currently using.
  For these reasons, I do believe we should defeat the rule tomorrow so 
we can fully debate the cost benefit amendment that the Senate recently 
approved by an overwhelming vote.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Zimmer] and appreciate again his leadership in coming out here very 
late in the evening when the House has conducted most of its regular 
business to take a few minutes and participate in this special order, 
to try to again bring attention to this Congress, and the House, and 
the American people on this important issue. I thank the gentleman 
again for his leadership and his participation.
  Going right to the point that the gentleman was making about limited 
resources, I was talking just a minute ago about how this affects 
different levels of American society and those who are in the inner 
cities, those who are in the urban settings who may wonder what is in 
it for me, how does this effect me. I just quoted from one inner city 
neighborhood, and now I will quote from a letter from National Center 
for Neighborhood Enterprise which was sent to the chairman of my 
committee, Mr. John Conyers, and was sent to me. We were discussing and 
debating this issue in committee and they said,

       The use of risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis will 
     help us to allocate scarce resources in a more effective and 
     efficient manner. These tools will allow the Federal 
     Government to set more realistic priorities and thereby 
     address many environmental concerns that plague urban areas.

  So if we are spending, according to EPA, $137 billion to ensure safe 
drinking water, how much of that money is being wasted, how much of it 
is being spent in trying to attain levels that do not make any 
difference, that have no scientific proof of their impact but are 
costing billions of extra dollars? I just gave an example of being 
required to monitor for DBCP, which is a herbicide used on pineapples 
in one State only. How many more of those billions of dollars could be 
spent on real problems in our inner cities by regulatory reform, and 
risk assessment, and actually just a common-sense approach to 
Government regulation, which this is advocating, as it affects the 
lives of people in our inner cities? And we have support from those 
individuals.
  Most importantly, we have talked about some of these people, and many 
Members of Congress and the public are influenced by polls. It is 
interesting that I should receive Risk in Perspective, the Harvard 
Center for Risk Analysis, their January, most recent publication which 
has a question posed by the head of the publication: ``does the public 
support risk analysis?'' What is interesting in the results of this 
Harvard Center study is that more than any other question, and they 
asked a number of questions, this question received the highest 
response: Should government use risk analysis to identify the most 
serious environmental problems and give them the highest priority on 
environmental spending decisions? Eighty-three percent either strongly 
agreed or agreed. Twenty-one percent strongly agreed, and 62 percent 
agreed, higher than any other question about the environment that was 
posed to the American public in this particular poll.
  I submit that as a part of the Record, as follows:

                 [From Risk in Perspective, Jan. 1994]

                 Does the Public Support Risk Analysis?

       Until recently the topic of risk analysis aroused little 
     interest on Capitol Hill. During floor debate in the United 
     States Senate about a proposal to elevate the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to Cabinet status, Senator Bennett Johnston 
     (D-LA) offered an amendment calling for systematic use of 
     risk analysis in EPA rulemakings. The amendment passed the 
     Senate by a vote of 95-3.
       In the House of Representatives, which is now considering 
     whether EPA should be elevated to Cabinet status, questions 
     have been raised about the proper role of risk analysis. One 
     concern is that, in a democracy, environmental priorities 
     should be set by public opinion, not scientists. A related 
     concern is that the public may not be interested in the 
     technical analyses of risks, benefits, and costs required by 
     the Johnston Amendment. The House is expected to debate the 
     risk analysis issue in 1994. The debate may extend beyond the 
     specifics of the Johnston Amendment and include other 
     proposals to expand or restrict the role of risk analysis in 
     environmental policy.
       In order to discern public attitudes toward risk analysis 
     and related questions of environmental policy, HCRA 
     commissioned the survey research firm, Market Facts, Inc. of 
     Cambridge, Massachusetts to interview 1,000 Americans by 
     telephone. This issue of Risk in Perspective summaries the 
     results of this survey, which we believe is one of the first 
     to measure public attitudes about risk analysis.


                             nuts and bolts

       The survey employed a random digit-dial sampling technique 
     to obtain a representative sample of households in the United 
     States. The interviews were conducted over the weekend of 
     November 5-7, 1993.
       The seven statements and the overall numerical results of 
     the survey are displayed on the reverse side of this page.


                             basic results

       Like most previous opinion surveys, HCRA's survey found 
     public attitudes to be broadly sympathetic to the need for 
     more governmental activity to protect the public from 
     pollution. Of particular interest to the current 
     Congressional debate are the following findings:
       1. A majority of respondents supports elevation of EPA to 
     Cabinet status.
       2. A majority of respondents agrees with a core position of 
     the ``environmental equity'' movement, that more priority 
     should be given to addressing pollution problems that harm 
     low-income and minority groups.
       3. A majority of respondents agrees that the government 
     should use risk analysis when setting priorities for 
     environmental spending.
       4. A majority of respondents believes that the EPA should 
     inform the public of the benefits and costs of environmental 
     regulations, a key provision of the Johnston Amendment.
       HCRA was surprised about the breadth of public support for 
     risk analysis. It is ironic that the issue with the most 
     public consensus, the reporting of benefits and costs, 
     appears to be the major source of contention in the 
     congressional debates about elevation of EPA to Cabinet 
     status.


                               qualifiers

       As previous surveys have indicated, the intensity with 
     which the public holds particular viewpoints on environmental 
     policy is not always great. The fraction of respondents who 
     held a viewpoint ``strongly'' was relatively small on all 
     seven statements. Many respondents probably do not have well-
     formulated opinions on these issues. This suggests that 
     respondents might indicate a different viewpoint if they were 
     provided more information about these issues.
       This initial public opinion survey provides useful baseline 
     information about public attitudes toward the use of risk 
     analysis in environmental policy. As this analytical tool 
     becomes more familiar to citizens in the future, it will be 
     interesting to observe whether public attitudes change.

                                       HCRA'S ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SURVEY                                       
                                  [N=1,000 Americans in representative sample]                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            In percent                          
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                   Statement                       Strongly                               Strongly              
                                                    agreea       Agree       Disagree     disagree    Don't know
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The government is not doing enough to                                                                        
 protect people from environmental pollution...           19           47           26            6            2
B. The job of Administrator of the U.S.                                                                         
 Environmental Protection Agency should be                                                                      
 promoted to Cabinet status in the White House.           10           42           34            6            6
C. The government does a good job of using                                                                      
 science in the development of environmental                                                                    
 regulations...................................            3           39           42           10            6
D. The government should use risk analysis to                                                                   
 identify the most serious environmental                                                                        
 problems and give them the highest priority in                                                                 
 environmental spending decisions..............           21           62           12            2            2
E. When adopting an environmental regulation,                                                                   
 the government should inform the public of the                                                                 
 benefits and costs that are expected to result                                                                 
 from the regulation...........................           37           57            5            0            1
F. The government should give special priority                                                                  
 to solving environmental problems that are                                                                     
 more likely to harm low-income and minority                                                                    
 groups........................................           16           43           31            8            1
G. When scientists are unsure about how harmful                                                                 
 pollution is, environmental regulations should                                                                 
 be designed to err on the side of safety, even                                                                 
 if that makes regulations more expensive......           20           56           18            4            1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aPercent numbers may not add up to 100, due to (1) a small number of people who gave no answer or (2) rounding  
  to whole numbers.                                                                                             

  Some may say from this administration, and in fact, in the hearing 
that was conducted today did, that we can resolve this problem with an 
executive order, and I must say for the record that my very astute 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], asked a very 
pointed question to the Deputy Administrator of the EPA, Dr. Lynn 
Goldman. He asked Dr. Goldman: ``Dr. Goldman, would you want the 
environmental laws of this Nation adopted and enforced by executive 
order?'' Certainly the answer was no. Certainly an executive order is a 
very small resolution to the problem, and it is an attempt to put this 
question in the background by the administration, by the bureaucrats in 
EPA. But in no way does an executive order of the President supersede 
law.
  I must say that the Congress has passed many, many laws dealing with 
environmental protection and environmental regulation, and that is part 
of the problem here, that we have dozens and dozens of laws. This is 
just a listing that I have here of several dozen laws that have been 
enacted related to environmental reform and regulation, and many of 
these are well-intentioned, and many of these are good directives by 
the Congress. But the problem is we are choking, this country is 
literally choking in regulation, and somewhere we must consider the 
manner in which we look at all of these regulations, we prioritize the 
mission of our Environmental Protection Agency, and we decide what is 
the cost, what is the risk, and what is the benefit. It does not take a 
rocket scientist to figure all of this out.
  But we are choking, business is choking, industry is choking, 
agriculture is choking. The taxpayers, local governments, mayors, 
Governors are all pleading to make some sense out of this incredible 
array of regulations and laws relating to our environment so we do not 
head off in a direction where we spend billions of dollars trying to 
accomplish some goal that makes no sense, that has no benefit. And that 
is the question that we want debated here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. That is the question that all of these organizations, 
almost every aspect of American Government and business and life and 
agriculture, every activity you can think of, neighborhoods are 
pleading with this Congress to come forth and give us the opportunity. 
Do not hide in the corner of your office. Come out early and come out 
and vote if we have that opportunity, and do not be concerned about 
whether some individual in high places asks you to vote in some 
procedural fashion. We know that it is not just a procedural matter 
that we are dealing with here. We are dealing with the lives, we are 
dealing with the property, we are dealing with the welfare of this 
country, and we will not have that many opportunities for regulatory 
reform in this body. Rarely does the Moon and the stars and all of the 
planets get in the constellation so that, in fact, we can have an 
opportunity to vote on elevating a department to a Cabinet level.

  So do not be afraid by all of the king's horses and king's men who 
are coming and saying this is just a procedural vote. This is the only 
opportunity in the 103d Congress of the United States that you will 
get. This may be the only opportunity in this decade that this issue 
will ever see the light of day. And what I am saying here is that if we 
are successful, and we have an opportunity to put a cost-risk-benefit 
amendment in, to look at regulatory reform with one small agency being 
lifted to a Cabinet-level agency, one agency that the inspector general 
of that agency has said its law is out of control, it has lost its 
focus, lost its direction, the bureaucrats are running it, it is 
fraught with fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and only something that will 
refocus that agency will be the answer. So I am asking that we give 
that regulatory reform, that little tiny measure. We are not changing 
the whole structure of Government, we are not resolving all of the 
problems of Government, we are not resolving all of the problems of 
regulatory reform. But we do, in this Congress, in this week, in this 
House of Representatives, have an opportunity to address this one issue 
that we came here to talk about, that the people sent us here to deal 
with, which is reform, not to hide, not to be coerced because this vote 
is a procedural vote. And we can fool some of the people a lot of the 
time. But this is an opportunity to do something about the cost of 
Government and regulation at every level of Government in one good 
example that hopefully we could duplicate for the other agencies.
  I had one Member, and I will not quote his name, tell me that the EPA 
is just one little tiny example, that it is not really that important, 
``MICA, don't get bent out of shape about it. There is more waste, and 
fraud, and abuse, and mismanagement, and need for regulatory reform in 
other agencies.'' There may well be.

                              {time}  1910

  But I am saying somewhere we have to say here, this is where we 
start, this is where we give some opportunity, some honest response to 
the American people when we go back and face them eye to eye and say, 
``Yes, we have made one small step.'' and maybe it can be a model that 
we can make this Government work, that it does not have to work like a 
monkey farm, that it can work like a business, that it can have a 
commonsense approach and not destroy and choke the very livelihood of 
our cities, of our States, of our businesses, of our farms, the 
enterprise and activities that have made this a great Nation.
  So, all I am saying is, I ask my colleagues again to come down here 
and vote their convictions. Give this one little, tiny ray of hope, 
just the opportunity to be heard, and then we can work together. We 
should have the administration, we should have the Administrator, we 
should have the conference committee members all sit down and resolve 
this problem, because the American people deserve no less.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the dutiful employees of the House who 
have stayed tonight to hear this plea and this special order, and I 
thank you. I feel it is my responsibility as one small new Member to 
make one small improvement in this body, and I feel very strongly about 
it. I thank you so much for the opportunity to, in fact, make that 
presentation before the House. Mr. Speaker, I am including at this 
point in the Record the EPA examples, as follows:

                              EPA Examples

       1. Amazingly, the EPA is not required to regulate many 
     contaminants that actually occur in our water and threaten 
     our citizens; however, EPA is required to regulate 83 other 
     specific chemical contaminants that Congress wrote into the 
     law in 1986 and that MAY OR MAY NOT actually occur in our 
     water. There is no federal standard for cryptosporidium, the 
     disease organism that killed 40 people in Milwaukee and drove 
     a million Washington area residents to drink only bottled 
     water for four days.
       2. EPA's recent regulatory action requiring onboard 
     refueling controls on trucks is one example of why I am 
     concerned about EPA's lack of risk and cost/benefit analysis. 
     In this case, the American Medical Association had written to 
     Congress and said that any health benefits of such 
     regulations would be ``inconsequential,'' yet apparently a 
     major part of EPA's justification for the regulation was that 
     it would have important health benefits. It appears that 
     EPA's assessment of benefits under the Executive Order in 
     this case must have been based on worst-case risk assessment 
     and tenuous data or hypotheses, rather than the ``best 
     available data.'' The AMA and Inside EPA article referring to 
     this issue are attached. (NOTE: Cong. Dingell opposed the EPA 
     action as regulatory overkill.)
       3. For example, in 1992 the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration (OSHA) proposed safety standards to protect 
     workers from hazardous substances. This is a seemingly 
     laudable action. But, after review the Office of Information 
     and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) concluded that the proposed 
     standards would actually cost more lives than they would 
     save. OIRA used a statistical proof cited as evidence by the 
     D.C. Circuit Court that one premature death was caused by 
     each $7.5 million increase in regulatory expenditures. The 
     result: 8 to 14 more deaths per year would result from the 
     lowering of overall worker welfare through pay and job losses 
     due to the new regulatory burden, which is known to increase 
     mortality rates.
       4. For instance, a ban on diethylstibestrol (DES) 
     cattlefeed costs an estimated $178 million to aver a single 
     premature death. Although advocates of the DES ban argue 
     human life is worth any price, even $178 million, they miss 
     the point. It is an inescapable fact that alternative 
     activities, which could potentially save many more lives, are 
     being forgone.
       5. Likewise, under the EPA's hazardous waste disposal ban, 
     only one premature death is averted for each $4.2 billion of 
     costs incurred. Alternatively, these resources could be used 
     to keep 47,890 criminals in prison for another 3\1/2\ years. 
     Since criminals kept in jail would not be free to commit 
     crimes, the number of charges that would otherwise be brought 
     against these criminals would be reduced by: 22,680 for 
     violent crimes; 1,035 for murders; 586 for rapes; 1,191 for 
     other sexual assaults; 658 for kidnapping; and 7,711 for 
     robberies.
       6. For example, under the Clean Water Act, all cities with 
     more than 100,000 people are required to obtain permits for 
     all storm sewers that discharge rain water. This requirement 
     is expected to cost billions nationwide. In addition, the 
     estimated capital cost to ensure safe drinking water exceeds 
     $137 billion according to EPA. Under the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act, every water system in the nation is required to monitor 
     for DBCP, the herbicide used on pineapples, which are grown 
     only in Hawaii, unless a specific waiver is attained. The 
     waiver is expensive and difficult for the water system, and 
     expensive again for the state, which has to judge the merits 
     of the waiver application and tailor its program accordingly.

                          ____________________