[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1994

                                 ______


                               speech of

                          HON. GARY A. CONDIT

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 28, 1994

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3171) to 
     authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reorganize the 
     Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes:

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting the following comments 
concerning the language that has been negotiated in conference 
concerning my risk assessment provision in the USDA reorganization 
bill, H.R. 3171. This language represents both important gains and the 
need to revisit this issue next year.
  As I am sure you are already aware, the risk assessment-cost benefit 
analysis issue is a major impediment to the passage of several 
important pieces of environmental and organizational legislation. The 
fact that we have been able to craft a compromise that accomplishes 
many of our original goals is significant.
  Specifically, I would point to the establishment of an Office of Risk 
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis as a major development in the 
field of regulatory reform. I am also pleased that this legislation 
will assure that USDA regulations dealing with health, the environment, 
or public safety will contain the information that the public needs to 
comprehend the risk; the costs of addressing it, and the benefits it 
will receive from these expenditures.
  There are, however, several shortcomings in the compromise that I 
would like to address. First, there is a fundamental weakness in the 
comparative risk language contained in the compromise. The language 
states that ``where appropriate and meaningful'' the Secretary shall 
include risk comparisons. I firmly believe that ``appropriate and 
meaningful'' is entirely too subjective of a standard. It is my belief 
that comparative risk should be an absolute requirement in this 
provision and it should only be waived if an apt comparison is an 
absolute impossibility, in which case a detailed explanation should be 
contained in the Federal Register along with the regulation.
  Another objection I have to the compromise document is that it allows 
the Secretary to skip the risk-assessment, cost-benefit analysis 
requirement altogether if compelling circumstances arise. This standard 
fails to establish any definition whatsoever for the word compelling.
  Compounding my frustration on this issue is the fact that I had 
prepared language based upon the President's Executive order on 
regulatory review in an effort to solve this impasse. My language would 
have restricted the exemption to emergencies, court orders and other 
provisions of law. Had I been extended the simple courtesy of being 
invited to the table to negotiate on my amendment I am confident that 
this issue could have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
  The only other major objection I have to the compromise deals with 
the evaluation component. My original language called for a full 
secretarial certification on the contents of the risk assessment/cost 
benefit analysis. I understand the view of those who objected to this 
provision, yet I cannot believe that this compromise has resulted in a 
clearer statute. On the other hand, I am greatful that the language I 
requested to reveal the cost imposed by regulation upon local, State, 
and other public and private entities was retained.
  During the next Congress I have every intention of aggressively 
performing oversight of the creation of the office. The statute states 
clearly that 6 months from enactment cost benefit and risk analyses 
will be published for all major regulations dealing with health, the 
environment, or public safety. I do not intend to allow this to be 
taken lightly.
  The farm bill will be reauthorized next year and I therefore intend 
to attempt to correct some of the shortcomings I have outlined by 
amending the appropriate regulatory titles in the bill.
  In closing, let me stress that risk assessment and cost benefit 
analysis has proven to be the great bill killer of the 103d Congress. 
The USDA reorganization bill is very likely going to be the only major 
legislation that will pass in this Congress that contains any strong 
risk assessment/cost benefit provisions. I am proud that I am the 
author of this language and greatful to those who assisted in its 
becoming law.
  We have finally established the starting line from which the 104th 
Congress can create a consistent, comprehensive, and coherent 
regulatory policy that incorporates risk assessment and cost benefit 
analysis.

                          ____________________