[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   H.R. 3171, USDA REORGANIZATION ACT

                                 ______


                       HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 7, 1994

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, we are all pleased to have 
contributed to the effort initiated by the administration to reorganize 
the Department of Agriculture. I participated in the effort to slow the 
consideration of this bill by the House, not because I objected to 
reorganizing USDA, but because I objected to language that I believe 
was designed to cripple USDA's regulatory authority and to set a 
precedent for this in other Government agencies. This bill is likely to 
be the only one which will emerge from this Congress which contains 
provisions on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis of major 
regulations promulgated by the Agency.
  The language contained in the conference bill is the product of long 
negotiation, and represents a good-faith effort by all who are 
concerned about this issue. I believe that we have provided a viable 
starting point for a debate that is sure to continue into the next 
Congress. This language is the basis for an experiment which will 
provide us with some tangible evidence of the utility of risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analyses in regulatory decision making.
  I would like to offer my views on the proper role of risk assessment 
and cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory decisionmaking process. The 
most strident proponents of these provisions in this Congress claim 
that their goal is to ensure that state-of-the-are scientific 
information is used to direct Agency rulemaking. They claim that they 
are not interested in weakening health and safety standards or 
environmental protection, but are simply trying to ensure that 
regulations are cost effective and that our scare resources are 
utilized efficiently. This is about good government and fiscal 
responsibility.
  The compromise language that appears in this conference report 
represents a good-faith effort to foster these goals: the original 
language offered in the House Agriculture Committee was not. I believe 
that if it were, there would not have been such concerted efforts made 
to reassure all of the supporters of commodity and price-support 
programs that these provisions would not apply to them. This puzzles 
me, and has contributed to my continuing skepticism of the merits of 
these proposals mandating the use of these analyses. If the goal is 
good government, fiscal responsibility, and cost-effective decision 
making why did my colleagues rush to restrict these risk assessments 
and cost-benefit analyses to a subset of regulations promulgated by 
USDA? Why were these provisions only offered in the context of 
regulation in the areas of public health and environmental protection? 
Good government and sound decision making should apply throughout the 
Government in all contexts.
  Risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses are two valuable tools 
that can and should be used to assist decision makers in developing 
cost-effective regulatory policy. However, I believe that it is a grave 
mistake to require analyses that will overburden the Agency, and 
produce results that are designed to confuse the public and ridicule 
regulatory actions that are taken to protect public health and safety 
and the environment.

  By contrast, the provision for comparisons of risks included in the 
bill we passed ensures that sensible, relevant comparisons will be 
utilized to provide useful information to the public and to USDA 
regulators. I believe that this compromise provision on regulatory 
analysis is now in a form that will guide the regulatory process not 
destroy it. Our scientific knowledge base is impressive, but it is not 
complete enough to allow anyone to predict with certainty the nature of 
the risks which we impose upon ourselves through the many actions taken 
by individuals and industries in our society.
  The promulgation of regulations is necessary to protect public 
health, safety, and the environment and to prevent us from having to 
spend increasingly scarce Federal dollars to clean up or mitigate the 
unintended effects of our economic activities. Pollution prevention is 
one of the most cost-effective strategies that we can pursue. If we had 
regulated the disposal of toxic substances earlier, we would not be 
facing the tremendous cleanup and litigation costs of Superfund today. 
We cannot afford to foreclose options to regulate potentially hazardous 
activities. It is too expensive in human terms and in financial ones.
  Whether they recognize it or not, many of the risk assessment 
proposals that have been offered in this Congress start from the 
assumption that pollution is not a risk to human health and the 
environment. They make the argument that if we cannot prove that some 
action results in a measurable risk, agencies should assume the action 
to be risk-free and issue no regulation. This type of strategy will 
lead to agencies issuing regulations only after some problem is 
evident, and, unfortunately, for victims and taxpayers, the regulation 
will come too late to prevent damage to health and the environment and 
the outlay of Federal dollars to mitigate the identified problem. I 
believe that we should recognize the limits of our knowledge, learn 
from our past mistakes, and permit agencies charged with the task of 
protecting public health, safety, and the environment to provide an 
adequate margin of safety for all of our citizens.
  I hope that we can cast aside some of the unproductive efforts of 
this Congress and begin to discuss intelligent approaches to fostering 
the use of valuable analytical tools in a way that will assist Federal 
regulatory agencies in developing cost-effective policies to protect 
human health, safety, and the environment.

                          ____________________