[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             VOTE ``NO'' ON RULE ON EPA CABINET STATUS BILL

  (Mr. GRAMS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder they call the U.S. Senate the 
world's greatest deliberative body, because all too often here in the 
House the leadership will not even allow pressing issues to be 
discussed, let alone voted on.
  Choking off debate this time is the Rules Committee, which won't 
allow risk assessment and cost analysis amendments to H.R. 3425, the 
EPA cabinet-level bill, claiming they are not germane.
  Not germane, they say. Not relevant, they say. Not pertinent, they 
say.
  Well, since when has accountability to the American taxpayer not been 
relevant? Since when has conducting a risk assessment study before 
imposing more oppressive regulations on the public not been pertinent? 
Since when does this body ignore 94 percent of the American people who 
think the Government should conduct benefit-cost analyses on proposed 
environmental regulations? Not germane, you say? The truth is 
otherwise.
  Last year, with broad bipartisan support, we added an economic impact 
assessment amendment to the research and development portion of the EPA 
financing bill. A benefit-cost component was wise then, and it is 
certainly wise today.
  If you support open debate, accountability to the taxpayer, and sound 
science and risk analysis, vote ``no'' on the rule on H.R. 3425.

                          ____________________