Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)

[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
agree^{a 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.

____________________}}