[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]

 
                         EPA PROTECTS AMERICANS

  (Mr. WASHINGTON asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to follow the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Grams], whose office is next to mine over in the 
Longworth Building, because he talked about something I want to talk 
about, and that is the rule and the bill that we are going to vote on 
today, and what is cost-benefit analysis as it relates to the 
environment.
  Mr. Speaker, is there a cost-benefit when you have dirty water and 
dirty air, and our children cannot live and breathe? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has enough in it already. I think Members who 
are going to vote for the bill on final passage, but hide behind these 
gutting amendments, ought to come out from behind them and have the 
courage, that if they are opposed to EPA, then they ought to, by God, 
just vote against EPA. Do not try to hide behind this so-called risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
  Mr. Speaker, one final thing: when people talk about risk assessment 
and they talk about cost-benefit analysis, I want them to remember one 
incident. The beginning of cost-benefit analysis is when the Ford Pinto 
automobile and the Ford manufacturer knew that the gas tank, upon a 
rear-end collision, would explode. But they decided, based on cost-
benefit analysis, that it was cheaper to go ahead and pay for the 
people who would die in a fiery death in an automobile accident than it 
was to recall all the vehicles and replace the part.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not want that to happen to our environment.

                          ____________________