[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 36 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2234-H2260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              RISK ASSESSMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ACT OF 1995

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 96 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
                               H. Res. 96

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1022) to provide regulatory reform and to 
     focus national economic resources on the greatest risks to 
     human health, safety, and the environment through 
     scientifically objective and unbiased risk assessments and 
     through the consideration of costs and benefits in major 
     rules, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally divided among 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members 
     of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Science. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to 
     exceed ten hours and shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Diaz-Balart] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 96 is a modified open 
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment 
and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995. The purpose of this legislation is to 
provide regulatory reform and to focus national economic resources on 
the greatest risks to human health, safety, and the environment through 
scientifically objective and unbiased risk assessments and through the 
consideration of costs and benefits in major rules.
  In addition to the 1 hour of debate on this rule, the rule provides 
for 2 hours of general debate, with 1 hour equally divided between and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Commerce 
Committee, and 1 hour
 equally divided between and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Science Committee.

  After general debate is completed, the bill will be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule, for a period of time not to exceed 
10 hours. I would like to emphasize that any Member will have the 
opportunity to offer an amendment of the bill under the 5-minute rule. 
I believe this is a fair process, in that, again, it will allow any 
Member with a suggestion for improvement of this legislation, to bring 
it up for consideration by the full House in the form of an amendment.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 96 brings to the floor H.R. 1022, a 
bill which is the product of intense negotiations to reconcile the 
differences between bills marked up and reported out by the Committee 
on Science and the Committee on Commerce. Both committees had 
jurisdiction over title III of H.R. 9, the Job Creation and Wage 
Enhancement Act, and I believe that this compromise legislation is a 
balanced and appropriate vehicle for floor consideration for purposes 
of amendment to achieve the goal of setting a comprehensive risk 
assessment policy for the Federal Government.
  This legislation, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995, 
consists of six major provisions. Title I deals with presenting the 
public, and Federal executive branch decisionmakers, with the most 
scientifically objective and unbiased information concerning the nature 
and magnitude of health, safety, and environmental risks in order to 
provide for sound regulatory decisions and public education. Title II 
requires Federal agencies to prepare information regarding costs and 
benefits for each major rule within a program designed to protect human 
health, safety, or the environment Title III establishes peer review 
requirements for rules that are likely to increase annual costs by $100 
million and calls for the establishment of national peer-review panels 
to review agency practices concerning risk and cost assessments. Title 
IV sets up the applicable judicial review requirements. Title V 
requires each covered Federal agency to publish a plan concerning 
procedures for receiving and considering new information and revising 
risk assessments or rules where appropriate. And finally, title VI 
requires the President to issue biennial reports addressing risk 
reduction priorities among Federal regulatory programs designed to 
protect human health.
  All too often, although well-intentioned, Federal regulatory costs 
are vastly out of proportion to the concerns that the regulations were 
meant to address.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1022 reforms the Federal regulatory process in a 
sound 
 [[Page H2235]] and reasonable manner and will hopefully help us avoid 
some of the unintended consequences we have encountered in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 1022 is a good bill, and I defer to the 
judgment of the chairmen of the committees that reported this bill, who 
have stated that 10 hours is ample time for the amendment process. If 
we work together in a spirit of cooperation and comity, and do not 
resort to dilatory tactics, we should be able to have a thoughtful 
amendment process to enable us to improve the bill from its current 
form, in necessary.
  I strongly support the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 
and urge adoption of this open rule for its consideration.
                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this rule because it limits the amount 
of time allowed for considering amendments to the bill it makes in 
order, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995. This is a very 
complex bill which many Members believe is seriously flawed, and the 
rule for its consideration ought to ensure that Members have an 
adequate amount of time to offer amendments which would improve it.
  Mr. Speaker, we understand the desire of the majority to have H.R. 
1022 considered in a timely manner. However, based on our experience 
during the last 2 weeks considering four bills which were also subject 
to a 10-hour limit on the amendment process, we can realistically 
expect that the actual amount of time spent debating amendments will be 
much less than 10 hours--somewhere between 6 and 8 hours.
  During consideration of this rule in the Rules Committee on Friday, 
we offered an amendment to strike the 10-hour time limit on the 
amendment process, since it was our first preference not to have any 
limit at all. That amendment was rejected on a straight party-line 
vote.
  We then offered an amendment to lengthen the time provided for the 
amendment process to 20 hours, the amount requested by the gentleman 
from Michigan, the ranking minority member of the Commerce Committee, 
Mr. Dingell. If one-quarter to one-third of the time is likely to be 
consumed by voting, then actual time spent debating amendments would be 
between 12 and 16 hours. That amendment was also rejected on a party-
line vote.
  Finally, we offered an amendment to exclude time spent on recorded 
votes from the 10-hour limit. That change would have meant that there 
would actually be 10 hours in which to debate amendments, rather than 6 
or 7 or 8. But that amendment, too, was rejected on a party-line vote.
  As I said, the majority's desire to have a time limit on the offering 
of amendments is understandable, but their insistence on including in 
that limit the time it takes to hold recorded votes is not. Our request 
to exclude time spent on recorded votes was a very reasonable one which 
should have been accepted. Besides providing more opportunity to a 
greater number of Members to offer amendments, it would have made the 
arduous process of paring down and prioritizing amendments--which 
Members on both sides of the aisle are affected by--significantly less 
difficult.
  Furthermore, if time spent on recorded votes is not excluded from the 
limit, sponsors of amendments are put in the uncomfortable position of 
having to choose between seeking a recorded vote, or foregoing that 
recorded vote in order to increase the likelihood that other Members 
will get a chance to offer their amendments. It is simply not fair to 
put Members in that position.
  The argument that was made in the Rules Committee against excluding 
time spent voting from the 10-hour time limit was that such a change 
would encourage dilatory tactics--that opponents of the bill would call 
for recorded votes on every amendment. But, in fact, by not excluding 
voting time, a parliamentary tactic of another sort can be employed by 
the bill's proponents--and in fact, has been. Three times during 
consideration of amendments to the Regulatory Transition Act, Members 
who agreed with the outcome of the amendment on voice vote called for 
recorded votes in order to consume time alloted for considering 
amendments.
  Partly as a result of that tactic, the amount of time spent actually 
debating amendments to the Regulatory Transition Act was only 6\1/2\ 
hours, and 15 Members who wanted to offer amendments were unable to do 
so.
  Mr. Speaker, the time limit on the amendment process would not be 
quite so troubling to Members on our side of the aisle if it were not 
for the fact that the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act, like many 
of the other Contract With America bills, did not receive adequate 
consideration prior to floor consideration.
  This is a bill which makes extremely far-reaching changes in the 
Federal regulatory process. Yet the Science Committee, which has 
principal jurisdiction over the bill, dispensed with subcommittee 
hearings and markup entirely, and held just 2 days of hearings at the 
full committee level.
  The committee began markup of the bill 3 days after the hearings, 
before the committee had received many of the agency responses it had 
requested analyzing the impact of the bill and responding to questions 
asked by witnesses. And, the chairman of the committee presented 
extensive amendments changing the scope and application of the bill at 
markup, without giving other Members any time to prepare amendments in 
response.
  The other committee of jurisdiction, Commerce, also dispensed with 
subcommittee hearings and markup, and held just 2 days of hearings at 
the full committee level. The committee began markup 5 days after the 
hearings, without giving minority members a copy of the markup vehicle 
until the day before they began amending the bill. That left members on 
that committee, as well, without sufficient opportunity to prepare 
amendments.
  In addition, the bill that this rule makes in order is not the 
version of the legislation that either committee reported--it is a 
version that was introduced just last Thursday, which neither of the 
ranking minority members had adequate opportunity to review prior to 
testifying at our Rules Committee hearing on Friday.
  The tragedy of this hasty and deficient committee process is that it 
contributed to the loss of an opportunity to bring to the floor a more 
reasonable and rational regulatory reform bill which would have had the 
support of virtually the entire membership.
  We all agree that better use of risk assessment, cost-benefit 
analysis, and peer review could help make the regulatory process more 
rational, efficient, and cost-effective, and would result in 
regulations that are less expensive and less onerous to comply with. A 
great deal of work toward that end was done by the Science Committee in 
past Congresses under its former chairman, now the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  However, the bill before us is an ill-considered piece of legislation 
that will have widespread unintended consequences and make legitimate 
regulation much more difficult. In its present form, it would: Set up a 
cumbersome and costly procedural maze which is likely to require more 
Federal employees and agency costs at a time we are trying to downsize 
the Federal bureaucracy--by imposing a whole new set of regulatory 
requirements on top of existing ones which are already too complex; 
invite massive amounts of new litigation; establish a nonscientific 
process of comparative-risk analysis; permit peer review panels to be 
dominated by scientists who have financial conflicts of interest; and 
impose an inflexible and unrealistic requirement that agencies certify 
that benefits outweigh costs before issuing final rules.
  Particularly troubling is the fact that the bill's decision criteria 
for issuing rules would supercede such requirements in existing health, 
safety, and environmental laws. By applying these new requirements to 
such laws as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, this legislation 
threatens to overturn the important health protections citizens have 
under those laws.
  [[Page H2236]] Fortunately, in the course of consideration of this 
bill, we shall have the opportunity to change many of its most 
worrisome features. Several worthwhile amendments will be offered and, 
we hope, adopted. A complete substitute, offered by Mr. Brown of 
California and Mr. Brown of Ohio, would cure all of the bill's most 
serious problems, and we hope that Members from both sides of the aisle 
will give it their support.
  Mr. Speaker, again, we oppose this rule because of the restriction it 
imposes on the amount of time allowed for the amendment process, and I 
urge Members to vote ``no'' on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart] for yielding me this time, and I want to commend him for 
the great job he does as a new and a very valuable member of the 
Committee on Rules. He really is producing results.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of another open rule from the 
Committee on Rules. I rise further to enthusiastically support this 
bill, the Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Act of 1995.
  This bill is the third in the Republican five-part series of bills to 
reform the Government's byzantine regulatory system. Later this week 
the House will take up H.R. 926, the Regulatory Reform and Relief Act. 
And then it will take up H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection Act, 
which I helped to write, and which I am so proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, legislation like the measure before us today is exactly 
why you and I, Mr. Speaker, came to this Congress back in 1978.
  In fact, the Clinton administration has substantially increased the 
number of wacky Federal regulations, and they have opposed our efforts 
over the last 2 weeks to reform the regulatory process.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill requires risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis on regulations contemplated by Federal agencies. It is as 
simple as that. All too often Federal rules are promulgated with faulty 
science or, even worse, with political objectives in mind. This 
legislation sets forth the very scientific principles that must be 
adhered to in the conduct of the rulemaking process. In my upstate New 
York district, regulations that were developed with no regard to 
scientific evidence are threatening to close paper mills that employ 
thousands of people in the Glens Falls and other upstate regions. The 
EPA-proposed cluster rules, which set emission standards for the pulp 
and paper industry, could have been a much improved regulatory product 
had a cost-benefit analysis been conducted, but it was not.
  Mr. Speaker, regulations to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act 
sound great, do they not? But in my district, they are yet another 
example of the regulatory chokehold the bureaucracy has on this Nation. 
Just listen to this: The cost to the small towns in my district is 
astronomical. The town of Keene, NY, with only 209 water users, has got 
to come up with a half-million dollars under the new regulation. The 
village of Lake Placid, with 2,485 users, $4.2 million. Where are they 
going to get the money from? And the village of Lake George, with only 
933 users, $5 million. Boy, I just wonder where all this comes from. 
Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous, considering there has not been a 
waterborne disease in Lake Placid in over 50 years.
  Mr. Speaker, unemployment in my area is twice the level of that of 
the State of New York, and my district cannot afford any more of these 
ill-conceived, ridiculous regulations. They have got to be stopped. The 
Republican Congress is about to turn the tables on the regulators in 
Washington.
  For years business and industry have been forced to jump through 
hoops to satisfy regulators in the bureaucracy. Well, if this 
legislation becomes law, we are going to turn that around.
  The executive branch in the future will be forced to jump through 
those same hoops, conducting commonsense studies before they can saddle 
business and industry and local governments with these kinds of 
ridiculous regulations.
  The rule to provide for consideration of this dramatic reform pill is 
an open rule allowing for a
 10-hour amendment process. This type of time capsule encourages 
Members to organize with their colleagues in advance and consult with 
their respective leaderships on which amendments should be offered 
inside the 10 hours.

  The minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], 
supports this kind of concept. He said so before our joint committee on 
reform task force. Such a time capsule allows for a fair and open 
amendment process within the time constraints made necessary by our 
ambitious agenda which was endorsed at the polls last November.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said it before on this floor, but with each 
passing week, there is new evidence to support my assertion that a 
bipartisan coalition in this House is implementing the second Reagan 
Revolution. There have been large Democrat votes in this Congress in 
favor of such monumental reforms as the balanced budget amendment, the 
line-item veto, meaningful crime bills, and the regulatory moratorium 
bill just last week which passed the House by a vote of 276 to 146. A 
lot of good conservative Democrats voted for it on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I fully expect the same bipartisan group to come 
together and pass this piece of legislation. I urge support for the 
rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, last week the House passed 
H.R. 450, placing a temporary hold on Government regulations until 
commonsense risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis is passed and 
signed into law. As the ranking member on the subcommittee that drafted 
the regulatory moratorium legislation, I believe that our current 
regulatory process has become unworkable most of the time. The current 
process is too often made up of senseless rules and regulations that 
cost us time and money without producing a benefit.
  Today we will consider and vote on H.R. 1022, a viable risk 
assessment bill which is the first step towards the lifting of the 
moratorium. H.R. 1022 is a commonsense approach to risk assessment that 
is essential to tangible and effective regulatory reform. Not only does 
H.R. 1022 make the regulatory process more reasonable by forcing 
Federal agencies to use sound science and practical common sense, but 
it also requires Government agencies to prioritize regulations, so that 
the most critical health and environmental risks are addressed first.
  I speak for several of my Democrat colleagues who support this bill, 
and I can firmly say we support the rule and support H.R. 1022 in it's 
present form. If we were in charge of writing risk assessment 
legislation, I can say that we may have not drafted the bill exactly as 
it is, however, H.R. 1022 is a good start, and we do support this basic 
approach to risk assessment.
  Some of my colleagues are arguing that enough time has not been given 
for adequate consideration of H.R. 1022. This is simply not the case. 
When we debated H.R. 450 last week, we had 1 hour less than has been 
given today for H.R. 1022. The time given last week for the regulatory 
moratorium was more than enough for thorough consideration. 
Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that those disputing the rule, 
will oppose this bill regardless of the amount of debate or with any 
amendments.
  Again, last week the House passed a moratorium on Federal regulations 
as a first step to achieving commonsense regulatory reform. H.R. 1022 
is the next critical step to more sensible and rational regulation. 
This bill lays the groundwork for what the American people have 
requisitioned Congress to do. The American people want the Federal 
Government out of their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the rule 
and vote for final passage of H.R. 1022 without amendments.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker].

[[Page H2237]]

  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule to provide consideration 
of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995.
  This legislation is an important part of the regulatory reform 
package which the House began debating last week. Over 15 years ago, 
the first risk assessment bill was introduced in this House by our 
former colleague, Don Ritter. Since that time, Congress has held over 
22 hearings on this subject. In this body, 10 of these hearings have 
been in the Committee on Science, 4 in the Committee on Commerce, 2 in 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and 2 in the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Last year, the Committee on Science marked up and reported the Risk 
Assessment Improvement Act of 1994. Many of the provisions of title I 
of the bill we will debate today were contained in that act and were 
later added to the Environmental Technologies Act.
  In fact, I have a chart here of where we were with the bill that was 
in the 103d Congress and where we are with the present bill.
  You will see that the bills in many ways are very, very close. So, 
therefore, we are not talking about new subject matter, by any stretch 
of the imagination. The amendment which set forth the principles of 
risk assessment and risk characterization was passed by the House by a 
vote of 286 to 139. Because they were strong and meaningful guidelines, 
however, these principles were not enacted.
  Today, after 15 years of debate and 15 years of study, it is time to 
act. In fact, I was amazed to hear all of the talk in the Committee on 
Rules the other day when testifying about the need to do this. The fact 
is something has gone terribly wrong in our regulatory structure, and 
we need to do something about it. And Member after Member, on both 
sides of the issue, came up and said we have to do something about it.
  Well, the fact is we have gone 40 years. The regulatory system in 
this country has become a nightmare, and we have done nothing.
  Now, when we attempt to do something, some members of the Committee 
on the Rules and others come to the House floor and suggest, ``We have 
got to do something, but now is not the time. The hearings that were 
held were too quick; we can't do it in 10 hours of debate.''
  I am fascinated by the 10-hour debate argument because when I looked 
back, I found out on House Resolution 299 in the previous Congress, we 
were told at that point that 1 hour of general debate and 4 hours of 
amendment process was in fact--now, get this--it was an open rule.
  According to a gentleman on the other side of the aisle, a member of 
the majority party at that time, he said that is an open rule. He said, 
``After careful consideration the Committee on Rules granted this time 
limit request that is both fair and reasonable.''
  Now imagine that. We come out here with 10 hours, and we are told 
somehow this is a horrible problem being visited upon the minority. The 
gentleman who made that statement in the last Congress was none other 
than Mr. Beilenson, who is handling the bill before us at this time. He 
called that an open rule, 4 hours of debate, and he said it was fair 
and reasonable.
  Now, the question is whether or not 2\1/2\ times that amount of time 
is even more fair and reasonable.
  I think it is, particularly given the magnitude of the bill that we 
have before us.
  What people have come to the conclusion across this country is that 
it is time to rationalize our regulatory process. Our constituents 
understand that risk is a part of everyday life. It is a phenomenon 
which had confronted mankind since the beginning. Most are willing to 
accept the fact of risk. It is time to use good science to ensure that 
the regulatory burden we impose on the American people provides them 
with the protection from real hazards, not the exaggerated risks of the 
zero-tolerance crowd.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. It is time to get on with the 
debate, and I congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] 
for bringing it forward.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate, I yield 5 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking 
minority member on the Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the claims of bipartisanship are extraordinary here. And 
they are completely unfounded. Mr. Speaker, there is a wonderful story 
I told my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], at 
the Committee on Rules about a stew which was abominable in taste and 
appearance. The customer said, ``This is horrible. I want to talk to 
the cook.'' The cook came out and he said, ``What kind of stew is it?'' 
The cook said, ``It is one-horse, one-rabbit stew.'' The guy said, 
``that is remarkable. What is the recipe?'' He said, ``Very simple. 
Equal parts, one horse, one rabbit.''
  That is the kind of bipartisanship you are seeing today.
  Frankly, I would be ashamed to present this bill to the House of 
Representatives. The rule does little to rectify the abuses and the 
failures that have taken place procedurally with regard to the 
presentation of this legislation.
  First of all, the inadequate hearings; second of all, inadequate 
notice; third of all, total inability for the people to understand what 
is in it.
  Next, total misunderstanding on the part of my colleagues over here 
on the other side of the aisle as to what this legislation does or how 
it is going to work or what its impact is going to be.
  This legislation drips unintended and unforeseen consequences. No one 
here knows or understands what are going to be the consequences of this 
legislation.
  The process that we are embarked upon is bottomed on a careless, 
sloppy, slovenly, partisan and irresponsible legislative process. It is 
done in a way which has precluded intelligent participation on the part 
of all the Members.
  I think the greatest complaint that the people of the United States 
are going to have with this particular piece of legislation when they 
have had a chance to observe what has happened is the fact that they 
have never been brought into the process.
  The legislation we have before us was never the subject of hearings, 
there has been no open discussion amongst the Members. What has 
happened is that the chairmen of the two committees, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], 
have had a series of meetings somewhere, where they have quietly, 
without attention or notice to any individual, come up with changes to 
the bill.
  Now, ostensibly these changes would correct abuses which my 
colleagues found. But they never consulted with anybody about what the 
abuses were. And they never consulted with the members of the committee 
on both sides of the aisle as to what were the failures or the defects 
in this legislation.
  Now, the art of Federal regulation is really a constitutional 
exercise. It is something which is required to meet both the 
requirements of statutes as set forth in the Administrative Procedures 
Act, which is actually a codification of the constitutional 
requirements of due process, and the provisions of the Constitution, 
which sets forth the right of every American to be heard in connection 
with the regulatory processes of this Government.
  It is interesting to note that no consideration has been given as to 
whether the affected regulations are good or bad, whether they need to 
be adopted or whether they do not, whether there is, in fact, an 
emergency; whether, in fact, there is some urgent need for the 
legislation from the standpoint of consumers or environmentalists; or 
from the standpoint of the American business community.
  The moratorium passed last week is going to preclude the adoption of 
many regulations which are desperately needed by American business. One 
of the interesting things it would probably do is preclude the sale of 
about $6.9 billion in licenses to the American telecommunications 
industry, something which is of great urgency to 
 [[Page H2238]] them and upon which American competitiveness, not only 
in the field of the telecommunications but elsewhere, is heavily 
dependent. My colleagues over there have never paid appreciable heed to 
that and were probably vastly surprised on this point the other day 
when considering the same question.
  Similarly, this legislation today has the potential for preventing 
the duck season from going forward in the fall. And to deal with other 
important matters of public business where American industry 
desperately needs relief from regulations now in place or where it 
needs regulations which would permit it to better compete around the 
world.
  I would think that if we are to adopt a rule today, we ought at least 
not kid ourselves. We ought not tell ourselves, nor should we tell the 
American people, that this legislation has been heard, that its authors 
know what it does or that the Committee on Rules, in putting it on the 
floor, is honoring the practices and tradition which make for 
responsible and careful legislation that does not carry dangerous 
future surprises for the American people.
  Mr. DIAZ-BELART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley].
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to accompany 
H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995.
  I want to commend Chairman Solomon and the Rules Committee for 
bringing forward an open rule that will allow an honest and open debate 
of this part of our Contract With America.
  Such open rules have not been the custom of the Rules Committee under 
Democratic leadership. In the 103d Congress, for example, the Rules 
Committee granted open rules less than half the time.
  Let me point out some recent examples of the abuse that came from 
this practice. In the 103d Congress, proponents of risk assessment and 
cost-benefit legislation were denied a vote on the Thurman-Mica risk 
and cost-benefit amendment to the bill to elevate EPA to Cabinet-level 
status. The Rules Committee issued a restrictive rule, despite the fact 
that the Senate approved similar risk and cost-benefit amendments to 
EPA Cabinet legislation by a vote of 95 to 3. This restrictive rule was 
defeated by a vote of 227 to 191, and the EPA Cabinet legislation was 
never brought to the House floor.
  With respect to Superfund in the 103d Congress, the Rules Committee 
received proposed amendments in early August of last year, but never 
issued a rule, and the Democrats never brought Superfund to the floor. 
One amendment of concern to the Rules Committee was a cost-benefit 
supermandate proposed by Representatives Geren, Condit, Shuster, and 
Mica. That amendment stated: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of 
this Act, the incremental costs shall be reasonably related to the 
incremental benefits.'' The power of this commonsense amendment struck 
fear into the Federal bureaucracy and its allies in Congress. Rather 
than allow the will of the working majority to prevail, the Rules 
Committee decided not bring the Superfund legislation to the floor.
  Today we bring legislation to place Federal regulatory programs on a 
more sound footing. The Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 
requires objective and unbiased risk assessment and careful analysis of 
regulatory alternatives. This legislation is long overdue. We cannot 
continue the incredible expansion of the regulatory octopus into the 
business of State and local governments and the regulated community. 
Furthermore, we must restore credibility to the regulatory process.
  Some oppose these changes in favor of the status quo. Under this open 
rule, we can debate amendments from either side. I urge my colleagues 
to support this rule to provide for consideration of important 
regulatory reforms, an important part of our Contract With America.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are looking at another restrictive rule and 
this one prevents Democrats from offering amendments to another 
Republican attack on our country's health, safety, and environmental 
laws.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues promised a lot of open rules 
and they are not keeping their promise.
  They said all of the contract items would be brought up under open 
rules. Mr. Speaker, only 5 out of 14 contract items have been brought 
up under open rules, the rest have been restrictive.
  And Republicans promised that they would grant 70 percent open rules. 
But, so far, less than 30 percent of the rules and procedures they have 
brought up so far have been open.
  I think my Republican colleagues are finding out that governing is a 
lot harder than it looks.
  And today's bill is another example. As I said up in the Rules 
Committee, this bill creates an expensive, bureaucratic mess, and will 
only end up endangering American families.
  And it is not cheap. CBO estimates that this bill will cost at least 
$250 million every year, or over 1.6 million school lunches. That's a 
lot of peanut butter sandwiches to waste.
  Once again we are looking at a badly drafted, wide-ranging Republican 
bill that Members will not be able to amend because of the 7-hour time 
cap.
  I say 7-hour time cap because Republican time caps include votes--so, 
10 hours is really only 7 hours, and dozens of Members end up being 
shut out of the process.
                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, I am submitting under leave to include extraneous matter 
a list of Members who were precluded from speaking under this so-called 
open rule.
  There have been 10 Members on the law enforcement block grants who 
were precluded from speaking under a so-called open rule, a rule just 
like this. There were eight Members who were precluded from speaking 
under the National Security Revitalization Act under a rule just like 
this. Fifteen Members were precluded from speaking on a regulatory 
moratorium.
  Mr. Speaker, the material I am including is as follows:

   Amount of Time Spent on Voting Under the Three Restrictive Time Cap  
                    Procedures in the 104th Congress                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Roll                    Time on  
     Bill No.         Bill title      calls    Time spent      amends   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        8  2 hrs, 40     7 hrs, 20   
                    Incarceration              min           min.       
                    Act.                                                
H.R. 728.........  Block grants....        7  2 hrs, 20     7 hrs. 40   
                                               min           min.       
H.R. 7...........  National               11  3 hrs, 40     6 hrs, 20   
                    security                   min           min.       
                    revitatlization.                                    
H.R. 450.........  Regulatory             13   3 hrs, 30    6 hrs, 30   
                    moratorium.                min           min.       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Members Shut out by the 10 hour Time Cap 104th Congress:
       This is a list of Members who were not allowed to offer 
     amendments to major legislation because the 10 hour time cap 
     on amendments had expired. These amendments were also pre-
     printed in the Congressional Record. There may be other 
     Members who did not pre-print their amendments but who were 
     nonetheless shut out of the process because the cap time had 
     expired.
       H.R. 728--Law Enforcement Block Grants--10 Members.
       Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Kasich, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Stupak, Mr. 
     Serrano, Mr. Watt, Ms. Waters, Mr. Wise, Ms. Furse, Mr. 
     Fields.
       H.R. 7--National Security Revitalization Act--8 Members.
       Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Meehan, Mr. 
     Sanders(2), Mr. Schiff, Ms. Schroeder, Ms. Waters.
       H.R. 450--Regulatory Moratorium--15 Members.
       Mr. Towns, Bentsen, Volkmer, Markey, Moran, Fields, 
     Abercrombie, Richardson, Traficant, Mfume, Collins, Cooley, 
     Hansen, Radanovich, Schiff.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. Members need a 
chance to fix this bill and protect American families from another 
risky waste of money.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, would my very good friend please yield to 
me?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. To my very good friend, yes, I will yield.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, to my very good friend from Boston, let me 
say that I hope the weather is better in Boston than it is in New York. 
I just flew in in an awful storm, and I am still a little upset.
   [[Page H2239]] I was just reading the gentleman's remarks, and may I 
quote? It says here, ``Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 562 is an open 
rule. I urge its adoption.''
  That was on the American Heritage Act on October 5, which gave us 1 
hour of debate and only 3 hours on this huge complex bill.
  I say to the gentleman one more time, you never had it so good. We 
are treating you twice as fairly as you treated us. Never in the 
history of this Congress has a minority been treated as fairly as we 
are treating you.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I take back my time.
  I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], you said that 
would never happen again. You said you were going to come forward with 
open rules so everybody could fully participate. I say to the 
gentleman, if you want to emulate our Congress, fine, but I thought you 
were coming in with a new broom, that you were going to sweep clean and 
give all open rules. This was going to be a new Congress. You said 
that, and Mr. Gingrich said that.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is telling us is that 
even though the gentleman from New York, the day after we were sworn 
in, said we would have all these open rules, we are really not having 
them. These are not open rules. I say to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, we do not have open rules at all, do we?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The time of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has expired.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in every one of the rules we 
granted, that 4-hour rule, we had time left over. So nobody was 
precluded.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I should hope 
so. We do not need to waste all those words.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, on the 
bill just last week, we had Members who could not offer amendments. We 
had Members on the crime bill that could not offer amendments.
  What the gentleman is saying is this: They are saying that it is 
necessary to reduce the time that Members can speak in order to meet 
the 100 days, in order to get this legislation through, and the heck 
with individual Members and their ideas. They are saying they are not 
going to let them voice their ideas on separate bills. That is what 
they are saying.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman in the Chair that he 
knew personally about this. I say to the gentleman, you were frozen 
out. You had a preprinted amendment and you could not get your 
amendment on the floor under this so-called open rule.
 So I do have to convince you, but I think the other Members on the 
other side of the aisle should really take a look at what they are 
doing. The reason we have had so many closed rules is because the 
definition of closed rules was written by my very dear friend, the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon].
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know some antics can somehow get some very clear 
things confused. We are all trying to focus in on the words that were 
stated before when it was stated in the last session by our colleagues 
on the other side that we had 4 hours of debate without restricting 
what amendments could be introduced, and during those 4 hours it was 
all an open rule, and today we are permitting in addition to the 3 
hours for the rule and the 2 hours for general debate, in other words, 
1 plus 2 and 3 hours, we are permitting 10 hours for amendments, and 
now our colleagues are saying that that is not open.
  I think either it is unclear or there is an element of unfairness.
  Beyond that, at this point, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is 
yield 1 minute to a distinguished new Member of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand], a member of the Committee 
on Science.
  (Mrs. SEASTRAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act.
  For too long we have stood by and watched the regulatory monster 
engulf the small businessman and woman and the entrepreneur. In just 2 
years, the Clinton administration has added 126,580 pages of 
regulations to the Federal Register. This is more than any other 
President since the last 2 years of the Carter administration.
  Federal regulations cost our country hundreds of billions of dollars 
every year. For weeks now we have heard opponents of risk assessment 
argue that it will create additional bureaucracies and cost more money. 
I do not believe either is the case.
  What bothers Federal agencies about this legislation is that it will 
slow down the promulgation of burdensome regulations and save money. 
Risk assessment legislation will dramatically reduce the overall costs 
to society. Why shouldn't Federal agencies be required to justify 
choosing a costly $150 million solution to a problem that could be 
solved by a $10 million solution with the same benefits?
  Mr. Speaker, sound regulations are necessary to protect health, 
safety, and the environment. This legislation will ensure that 
regulations are in fact sound.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a Member who has supported 
the regulatory reform embodied in H.R. 9. Clearly, the time has come 
for a thorough examination of our regulatory structure and the 
scientific methods we use to make judgments about protecting public 
health and safety. The use of consistent, state-of-the-art science is a 
long overdue remedy for the plague of unnecessary and burdensome 
Government regulation.
  I am pleased that this issue is receiving the attention it deserves; 
however, I must express my dissatisfaction with the way in which the 
Congress has considered this legislation. In the Science Committee 
markup of this bill, members were not given the bill text until an hour 
after the markup was scheduled to start. Members were then given less 
than 2 hours to redraft their amendments to a bill that bore little 
resemblance to the original
 draft of title III of H.R. 9. We then spent the ensuing 10 hours 
marking up title III, at the same time that Commerce Committee was 
marking up the same title.

  Now, I have to wonder why either committee bothered marking up the 
bill at all. The bill we are considering here today has dropped 
language that was reported by both committees and now contains totally 
new language that has not been reviewed by either committee. These are 
not small technical subsections we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, 
there are some of the most important elements of this legislation, such 
as the judicial review provisions, which have been redrafted at the 
last minute with no substantive review.
  Among the new issues that concern me the most are the inclusion of 
permits in the scope of this bill's requirements. Most of these permits 
are State-issued. Are we now requiring the States to perform risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis on all their permitting? Mr. 
Speaker, that would seem to me to be an unfunded mandate. I would be 
more certain of this if we had had the opportunity to review this 
concern in committee, but since permits weren't mentioned in the bill 
we marked up, this issue remains unresolved.
  I sincerely believe that is the goal of Members on both sides of the 
aisle to make true progress toward easing the control of a distant 
Washington bureaucracy. In order to accomplish this, many of us on this 
side joined with majority in passing important unfunded mandates 
legislation. Now, through either carelessness or hypocrisy, we may be 
imposing many new burdens on State and local government. This rule 
provides for a mere 10 hours consideration of new, highly technical 
language 
 [[Page H2240]] that will impact every economic sector. This is no way 
to govern, I urge opposition to the rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], chairman of a subcommittee of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to accompany 
H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995.
  With the adoption of this rule, the House will take another important 
step toward implementing in the manner in which the Federal Government 
writes regulations to protect the public from certain health, safety, 
and environmental risks.
  I remind my colleagues that we have been working on this legislation 
for several years. In the previous Congress, we had a number of 
hearings on risk assessment and cost-benefit reforms. In 1993, the 
Senate passed risk assessment and cost-benefit language in the form of 
the so-called Johnson amendment by 90 votes.
  In early 1994, a bipartisan coalition of House Members defeated a 
restrictive rule that would not allow for consideration of similar 
amendments by a vote 227 to 191. Later in the year, the Walker 
amendment, which provided language requiring objective and unbiased 
risk assessments and comparisons, passed the House by a vote of 286 to 
189.
  The criticism of the rule before us today is ironic when I remember 
how Superfund legislation was handled in the previous Congress.
  Last year, the Commerce Committee, with full administration support, 
passed a national risk protocol for Superfund and language requiring 
that
 the presentation of risk information be objective and unbiased. Those 
provisions created judicially reviewable and enforceable requirements.

  Yet that legislation went nowhere, because the Rules Committee would 
not issue a rule for fear that risk and cost-benefit amendments would 
be approved on the House floor.
  That is why I applaud the Rules Committee under Chairman Solomon's 
leadership for bringing forward this rule to allow open debate on risk 
assessment and cost-benefit legislation.
  I acknowledge that some differences remain today among Members of the 
House. There are differences on the threshold for regulations that 
should be subject to this legislation; there are differences on whether 
the requirements of this legislation should be judicially reviewable; 
and there are differences on whether the requirements of this bill 
should apply to existing regulations.
  The proposed rule provides sufficient time and opportunity to debate 
these differences and I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the 
ranking member of the Committee on Science.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am ambivalent about this rule. I think we need 
considerably more time than is available to thoroughly debate this 
bill. On the other hand, it does not vary too much from previous bills 
and future bills that we are going to have.
  My problem with the bill so far has been the procedures by which it 
was brought to the floor, which have been commented on with great 
eloquence by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and 
others. I think everyone would agree it is not legislative 
craftsmanship to present legislation to committees or to the floor 
which have not been adequately considered, to have only the briefest of 
hearings on legislation, and not have a full exploration of all of the 
implications.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], 
compared this bill to the risk assessment bill that we had last year, 
pointing out that we only had 4 hours on that bill, whereas we are 
getting 10 hours here.
  What needs to be said, and I hoped the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker] would mention this, is
 that last year's bill was only one title of the six that are contained 
in this bill; that it related only to risk assessment for EPA. This 
includes many more aspects of regulatory control, including risk-
assessment characterization, cost-benefit analysis, peer review, and a 
number of other things, and applies it to 12 different departments of 
the Government.

  We have asked for reports from those departments as to the impact on 
them, and we have not received those reports. We need to explore what 
that impact is on these others, including the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and the Corps of Engineers. We do not have that information, 
and it needs to be discussed at great length.
  We all agree that regulatory reform needs to be done. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] pointed out that we have had 15 hearings 
on risk assessment, for example, 10 of them in the committee which he 
now chairs. I will say to you that I have been the author or coauthor 
of all of these bills, including the initial one the gentleman referred 
to brought by Mr. Ritter. I have tried to focus my best efforts on the 
issue of focusing the science of risk assessment.
  Unfortunately, I failed. It is not because we did not try. We have 
gotten bills to the floor and passed. We have actually made good 
progress. There is no disagreement. The President has announced within 
the last week a comprehensive regulatory reform program which includes 
most of the things included in this bill.
  What I fear, Mr. Speaker, is that in this particular bill we are 
asking for more than can be delivered from the existing state of the 
science of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. In doing so, we 
are going to add to the complexity, make regulation more difficult, 
make it more costly, and the old adage applies, ``Be careful what you 
ask for, you may get it.'' Because that is the situation we are in at 
the present time.
  Most Democrats would like to support this bill if it were properly 
drafted. We do not think it is. We will have a substitute which we 
think includes all of the good parts of the bill, and leaves out those 
parts which will cause trouble in the future. I am going to urge all of 
my friends on both sides to support the substitute, to give it thorough 
consideration. I think they will find it is a bill that the Senate 
would pass and the President would sign. The present vehicle before us 
meets neither of these criteria, and it would, in fact, be a horror, a 
tremendous imposition upon the American business community which you 
would hear a great deal from your constituents about in the near term.
  Mr. Speaker, my comments are directed less at this rule and more at 
the process which has brought us here today. For over 30 years, I have 
served in Congress and have been proud to have participated in a number 
of historic debates in this institution. I have both supported and 
opposed the status quo and joined and opposed Members of the other 
party, and my own party, in these efforts. But at the end of the day, 
win or lose, I have always felt some pride in the work that had taken 
place here.
  Today, as we consider this legislation, I no longer feel that pride. 
In reviewing the progress of this bill, I do not feel that the public 
interest is being served, in either the content or the course of this 
bill. From the start of this bill's consideration in committee through 
today's action on the floor, I have felt as though adherence to an 
arbitrary schedule and the need to punch tickets to mark legislation's 
progress makes this place more like a railroad than the greatest 
deliberative body in the world. And, believe me, I have been railroaded 
by the best of both parties over the years as I have taken principled 
but unpopular positions.
  But what specific problems do I have with this process? First, 
subcommittee hearings and markups were dispensed with. Initially, the 
chairman proposed a single day of full committee hearings, to be 
composed of a single panel of witnesses sympathetic to the bill. 
Administration requests to testify were rejected until we were forced 
to ask for a second day of hearings, as provided by the House rules, to 
ensure a more balanced hearing process.
  Then, the redraft of title III of H.R. 9, the precursor of H.R. 1022, 
was written behind closed doors and without any input from Democratic 
Members. At full committee, this redraft was presented as a chairman's 
en bloc 
 [[Page H2241]] amendment the evening before the full committee markup. 
Our staff had received a set of the chairman's proposed amendments 
labeled ``draft'' the night before the markup, but we did not get the 
final version until the day of the markup. Then, in markup when Members 
protested this process, the chairman decided to change his series of en 
bloc amendments into an entire substitute. The markup was suspended for 
2 hours while we read the substitute, tried to understand its 
implications, and then drafted amendments to it. A request for a 1-day 
postponement of the markup was refused by the chairman, on the grounds 
that the bill was scheduled for consideration on the House floor the 
following week. This was not the case.
  After both the Science Committee and Commerce Committee acted on 
February 9 to meet this hurried schedule, we waited while the two 
committee texts were merged. We waited for 2 weeks, until February 23, 
when the new text was introduced as H.R. 1022. The new text was changed 
substantially from the reported bills and we have spent the weekend 
trying to understand again what the impact of this legislation is. Now 
it is on the floor, while many of our colleagues are not even here, 
apparently hurried up again to meet some arbitrary deadline.
  I would remind my colleagues that the legislation we are discussing 
is not some simple commemorative bill. H.R. 1022 proposes to 
fundamentally change the direction of the Federal regulatory system, in 
ways that even the authors of the bill cannot understand. Last week we
 considered and passed a temporary regulatory moratorium. This bill 
will, in effect, become permanent regulatory moratorium, by virtue of 
its complexity, ambiguity, and cost.

  This bill adds hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to the 
Federal Government--the Congressional Budget Office's limited estimate 
is $250 million--imposes unfunded mandates of the same order of 
magnitude on State regulatory permitting agencies, and imposes mandates 
on industry to produce the scientific data to feed the process created 
in this bill. Yet, we have no clear idea what the scope of these costs 
is. We are only told that the costs must be absorbed by the regulatory 
agencies, already underfunded for their current work load. A simpler, 
more effective bill could improve regulations. This bill will do the 
opposite.
  There are a host of other questions raised, but not answered by H.R. 
1022. For example, the bill has been rewritten from its original form 
to include many special exemptions and carve-outs for specific 
industries. What are the impact of those changes? We do not know.
  The bill overrides unspecified provisions of existing law. The final 
list of which laws and which provisions have been overridden is 
unknown. Even Members of the other side have stated that the committee 
is unable to identify which provisions of existing law would be 
affected, much less knowing in what fashion. A partial list of affected 
statutes includes the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA], the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act [RCRA]: in short most of the environmental laws of the country. 
Does the bill pick up other statutes such as the Americans with 
Disabilities Act? We simply do not know.
  I could go on, but we will be hearing more about the specifics of 
this bill during the debate. I just want to make the point that this is 
a very complicated and serious bill we are discussing and we do not 
understand its impact. Worse yet, the leadership on the other side, 
judging by their actions, is not even interested in taking the time to 
explore the impacts. Their main interest is in meeting their 100-day 
schedule for their contract.
  So as with other bills in recent weeks that have moved without full 
disclosure, we must again take to the floor to try to explore the 
effects of this complex bill during the course of the amendment 
process. Yet even this process is narrowed by an arbitrary limit on 
debate designed to make the legislative trains run on time. So, I will 
object to this process, make the best use of the time we have, try to 
fix some of the worst parts of this bill, and hope that the public 
forgives us since we know not what we do.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Health and Environment.
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. H.R. 1022 is an important 
piece of legislation, and I know many Members have a strong interest in 
it. That is why the Commerce Committee and the Science Committee 
requested an open rule--to give Members the opportunity to offer 
amendments to this legislation on the Floor of the House. The rule 
before us was crafted to provide time for thorough discussion of these 
issues.
  Some of my colleagues argue that we are proceeding too swiftly. 
However, I believe that the regulatory horror stories which we have all 
heard suggest that Congress has waited far too long to establish 
accountability in Federal regulatory programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the issues addressed in this legislation are not new. My 
colleague and friend Mr. Moorhead of California introduced risk 
assessment legislation in the last Congress, legislation that now forms 
the basis for title I of H.R. 1022. A hearing was held on that bill in 
the Commerce Committee in 1993, and similar provisions were included in 
environmental legislation which was approved by the committee in the 
103d Congress.
  The risk assessment bills passed by the Commerce and Science 
Committees have been available for nearly 3 weeks. As soon as the 
differences between the two bills were reconciled last week, the 
compromise language was made available to all Members. In large part, 
the compromise language merely reflects the provisions already approved 
and made public in the separate committee versions.
  I hope that we will be able to pass this bill sometime tomorrow with 
broad bipartisan support. We did pick up some support from our friends 
on the other side of the aisle during the Commerce Committee markup, 
and it is my impression that there are a number of others who would 
like to support the bill. Hopefully, the compromises we reached with 
the Science Committee will help to bring more of my democratic 
colleagues on board.
  We have moved quickly through the legislative process this year, but 
we have worked to ensure that the bill has been open to full review. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this open rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
final 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton].
  (Mr. MANTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is a misguided answer to 
a serious problem. In an attempt to curb excess Government regulations, 
H.R. 1022 would threaten the public's health and safety, encourage 
court challenges to new regulations and cost at least $250 million 
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  I regret that risk assessment is being considered by this body as 
part of the Contract With America because I wholeheartedly agree that 
our Government's regulatory process should be redesigned and 
streamlined. I believe consumers, producers, and State and local 
governments would benefit from legislation designed to curb exhaustive 
review by the executive agencies, thereby bringing products to the 
market faster and enabling swifter action for protecting public health 
and safety.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 1022 achieves none of these goals.
  Rather than streamlining Government, this bill would add yet another 
layer of burdensome bureaucracy. By requiring agencies to complete 
copious and scientifically meaningless risk assessment and cost benefit 
analyses, I believe this bill would delay regulatory action instead of 
reforming the process.
  If the House leadership had allowed the committees of jurisdiction to 
complete subcommittee markup of the legislation and work to fashion a 
bipartisan bill, I honestly believe we could have crafted risk 
assessment legislation which lessened the load on American business 
without risking the health and safety of the public.
  Unfortunately, the rigors of the artificial 100-day schedule did not 
allow the Commerce or Science Committees to meaningfully address the 
issue. I look forward to the day when the concepts of governing and 
legislating rather than political partisanship again become the focus 
of this institution.
  There is compelling evidence that this bill has not been adequately 
considered. The bill changed throughout 
 [[Page H2242]] the House Commerce Committee's consideration of the 
bill mostly to address unintended consequences of the original measure. 
For example, the bill as introduced, would have resulted in long delays 
for FDA approval of new lifesaving prescription drugs. Furthermore, 
this legislation applies to agencies not covered by the version of the 
bill approved by the Commerce Committee, including the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
  In order to address the concerns of regulated industries, the 
majority counsel revised whole sections of the bill just hours before 
committee markup.
  While it is not unusual for the legislative process to uncover 
drafting problems as a bill moves through the House, the speed with 
which this bill has moved means that there is a high probability that 
many problems with this bill have not yet been found.
  The minority will offer a series of amendments today and tomorrow to 
address the most obvious shortcomings of this bill, however, the fact 
that we are voting on a bill today which was not drafted until last 
Thursday means that none of my colleagues can be sure exactly what the 
impact of this bill will be.
  I want to caution my colleagues that they should carefully assess the 
risks of voting to pass this rule and H.R. 1022.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead], the distinguished vice chairman of the full 
Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. MOORHEAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule for this bill.
  When I introduced H.R. 2910 in 1993, legislation that formed the 
basis for title I of H.R. 1022, my aim was only to provide a sensible, 
open framework for the Government to analyze and address risks. Our 
former colleagues, Al Swift, took an interest in the issue and held a 
hearing on the bill.
  The legislation we will have before us today and tomorrow addresses a 
number of issues, but I am pleased that its foremost requirements are 
the ones from my bill that tell agencies to look at risks objectively 
and present scientific findings in an unbiased manner. Objectivity is 
not a controversial idea; we should expect no less in our Government's 
presentation of science.
  The Rules Committee has provided plenty of time for debating all the 
issues surrounding this bill. We have been debating them for several 
years already. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule to bring 
this important legislation to the floor.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  (Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, from the other side we hear claims that we 
had a bill with a cap on it with 4 hours, and this has a 10-hour cap. 
But the bill that we had the cap on for 4 hours had one title; this has 
four titles. The bill that we had a cap on of 4 hours left nobody, 
nobody without being able to put his or her amendment in. Their caps 
have caused over 40 people to be left not able to put their amendments 
forward. So it is not exactly the same situation, not exactly the same 
bill.
  But, more than that, the promise was made to the American people that 
the 103d Congress' action in the Committee on Rules would never be 
repeated; that they will come out with open rules. That is all I am 
asking for. I am not saying we were worse or better. They just violated 
their statement. They said they would be coming out with open rules, 
and they have not done it.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the rules make in order consideration of 
H.R. 1022. The committees of jurisdiction, however, reported out H.R. 9 
with amendments. My question is, has the committee reported on H.R. 
1022?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state that that bill was not 
reported from committee.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. So the bill that was heard before the Committee on Rules 
is not on the floor today? This is a bill that was not heard by the 
Committee on Rules?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is informed that the Committee on 
Rules held a hearing on H.R. 1022.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. But reported out H.R. 9.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No, the Committee on Rules reported out a 
special order on H.R. 1022.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Continuing my parliamentary inquiry, is it not true that 
with regard to the Budget Act and the reporting requirements in clause 
2 of rule XI, the points of order prohibiting consideration of a 
measure, these requirements apply only to reported measures?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Budget Act point of 
order that would apply if H.R. 9 was reported does not apply to H.R. 
1022, is that true?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not speculate on points of 
order against other measures.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the rule could have made in 
order H.R. 9 with the text of H.R. 1022 as the original bill for 
purpose of amendment, and the Committee on Rules often reports bills 
like that. That would have required waiving points of order.
  Instead, in this instance the Committee on Rules opted to discharge 
the Committee on Science, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the 
Committee on Government Reform, and instead the Committee on Rules 
decided to make in order a bill that no one reported, and in that way 
they avoided waiving all points of order. Am I correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would indicate that is a 
rhetorical question, and not a parliamentary inquiry.
                              {time}  1530

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Bereuter]. The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Diaz-Balart] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of Members who may have 
amendments that they would like to proffer, the Committee on Rules 
would suggest that any Members that would wish to engage in colloquies 
for the purpose of making legislative history should consider doing so 
during general debate. That way the time taken for such colloquies, of 
course, would not be counted against the time on the amendment process, 
the 10 hours of the amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. There is no Member of this House 
who may have a suggestion to improve this legislation who would like to 
bring it forth in the form of an amendment who is precluded from doing 
so under this rule. It is a completely open rule. There is a 10-hour 
time limit after the 2 hours of general debate for the bringing forth 
of amendments, but no one is precluded, as I have stated, from bringing 
forth any amendments.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman had four similar rules that 
had caps on them. The Members whose amendments were preprinted in the 
Record so they would be sure of having their amendment heard were not 
heard. How can the gentleman give any Members today, make a statement, 
stand and say that their amendments absolutely would be heard?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is, to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, is that we have 2 hours now 
for general debate, after which there is 10 hours for Members who have 
amendments to bring them forth. There is preclusion. They do not have 
to have printed them anywhwere in order to bring them forth. If there 
are no dilatory tactics, if Members who have serious amendments wish to 
bring them forward during the next 2 days, 10 hours of debate, they can 
do so.
  [[Page H2243]] Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say that first of all, the contract 
items are concepts. They are subject to refinement. That is what we are 
doing here today.
  I had a call in my office last Friday from a woman. She said to me, 
what is all the whining about? Why do you not get down to business and 
do the people's work?
  That is exactly what we are doing here. That is why the approval 
rating of this Congress has gone from 18 percent up to over 50 percent, 
because are getting it done.
  Second, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] wants us to go 
upstairs. He wants us Republicans to pick your Democrat amendments to 
make in order on this floor. We are not going to do that. We are not 
going to take you off the hook. If you have amendments to offer on your 
side of the aisle, you select the items. You lay out the time for 
debate on them, and you bring them to this floor. Do not try to put the 
blame on us. We are recognizing your conservative Democrats. They have 
been gagged for 40 years by your leadership. No longer. They can act.
  They can work their will on the floor of this House.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, if it is a free and open debate and 
everybody can act, how come all these Members got shut out in the last 
four rules that had caps on them.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, with due diligence they 
would have all been recognized in proper order. They should go see 
their respective leaderships on both sides of the aisle. That is what 
this Member does, and he gets his amendments in order on the floor.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is not true, when you talk about 
dilatory tactics, there were amendments up there that passed on 
rollcalls with zero votes against or one vote against that were called 
by your side and those matters took 20 to 25 minutes out of these 10 
hours? So where are the dilatory tactics coming from?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, my friend is getting at a vote on an 
amendment, which is not a dilatory tactic. That is representing 600,000 
people back in our districts. That is what we were sent here to do.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Even though there are no votes against it?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is sounding sort of like what 
the woman called me about. Let us get down to the people's business.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, last year I got a call from a lady and she 
said, ``What is all that whining about by Mr. Solomon and all those 
people from the Rules Committee?''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, she must have found out, because she voted 
Republican and so did most of the people throughout the country.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, the Chair 
postpones further proceedings on the question of adoption of the 
resolution until later today, but not before 5 p.m.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 96, rule XXIII, 
and the order of the House of Friday, February 24, 1995, the Chair 
declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1022.

                              {time}  1535


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1022) to provide regulatory reform and to focus national economic 
resources on the greatest risks to human health, safety, and the 
environment through scientifically objective and unbiased risk 
assessments and through the consideration of costs and benefits in 
major rules, and for other purposes with Mr. Hastings of Washington in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today the Committee on Science and the Committee on 
Commerce are bringing forth for consideration the Risk Assessment and 
Cost-Benefit Act of 1995. It is the hope of its sponsors that by its 
enactment the bill will usher in a new era of rationality in the 
imposition of regulations implementing safeguards for human health, 
safety and the environment.
  This bill will require the use of sound science and sound economic 
principles to determine if there is a national basis for imposing new 
and costly regulations on the American people. It will, for the first 
time, establish a consistent basis by which disparate laws can be 
measured and integrated. It will, for the first time, communicate to 
decision makers and the public the nature and magnitude of risks they 
face in an objective and unbiased way.
  Title I of the bill requires that when a Government agency undertakes 
a risk assessment it fully discuss the methods which were used by the 
agency to determine the extent of the risk. The bill would require the 
agency to identify any policy or value judgments, as well as the 
empirical data that went into the assumptions underlying the risk 
assessment. Once the risk is identified the legislation would require 
an agency to characterize the risk in such a manner so as to identify 
what is the best estimate for the specific population or natural 
resource which has been characterized. This means that we will know 
what is the most likely, plausible level of risk, in many cases, for 
the first time, and not just the most unrealistic worst case scenario.
  Further, the legislation requires that an agency provide the public 
with comparisons of risks that are routinely and familiarly encountered 
in everyday life. What is more dangerous--driving a car? What is less 
dangerous--being struck by lighting? What is equally hazardous--
drinking a glass of orange juice every day? It turns out so much of 
what we regulate or ban fits this kind of scenario. This bill will be 
truly eye-opening. Thanks to a compilation of ideas of Sherry Boehlert, 
Connie Morella, Vern Ehlers, and Tim Roemer, the bill requires ongoing 
research and training in risk assessment so that the science of risk 
assessment is not frozen in place. Title I also mandates a study of 
comparative risk, a provision offered by Science Committee Member Tim 
Roemer.
  Title II of the bill provides for an analysis of risk reduction costs 
and benefits. The legislation requires agencies, when undertaking such 
an analysis, to consider alternative regulatory strategies which would 
require no government action, accommodate differences among geographic 
regions, and employ performance or other market-based mechanisms that 
permit the greatest flexibility in achieving the identified benefits of 
the rule. Title II would further require that before an agency can 
issue a regulation, it must show that:
  First, the analysis used to issue the rule are based on objective and 
unbiased scientific and economic evaluations;
  Second, the incremental cost reduction or other regulatory benefit 
will be 
 [[Page H2244]] likely to justify, and be reasonably related to, the 
costs incurred by governments and private entities; and
  Third, that the strategy employed is more cost-effective or flexible 
than the alternatives considered.
  Furthermore, title II states that if the criteria of that title 
conflict with existing law the new criteria shall supersede that law, I 
emphasize, only to the extent that such criteria are in conflict. This 
title gives further guidance to the agencies and OMB to report back to 
the Congress in order to identify these conflicts.
  Title III will require that risk assessments and cost-benefit 
analyses shall have the benefit of a peer review process when the 
proposed rule is expected to result in an annual increase in costs of 
$100 million or more.
  Title IV of the bill will provide for judicial review under the 
Administrative Procedure Act and the statute currently granting an 
agency authority to act. This will provide the critical enforcement 
mechanism to assure bureaucracy compliance with the requirements of 
this act.
  Title V will require each covered federal agency to establish 
procedures to review any previously published risk assessment or risk 
characterization document, based on the criteria in title I, if such 
criteria or new scientific information received at the agency would be 
likely to alter results of the prior risk assessment of risk 
characterization. The agency could further revise or repeal a 
regulation supported by that modified risk assessment.
  Finally, title VI will allow agencies to better set priorities to 
allow agencies to concentrate precious resources to target major risks, 
instead of minor or nonexistent risks.
  I want to make a few observations about the bill as a whole. First, 
its provisions are measured. It exempts from its purview emergencies, 
military readiness, product labeling, and State compliance programs or 
plans. Risk assessment criteria are not mandated for screening 
analysis; health, safety, or environmental inspections; or the sale or 
lease of Federal resources or regulatory activities that directly 
result in the collection of Federal receipts. The bill's aim is 
targeted at major assessments and major rules, thus a $25 million 
increase in cost threshold is established for titles I and II, the 
proactive sections of the bill. And, many of the requirements of the 
bill are mandated under the condition of feasibility. ``To the extent 
feasible'' as used in the text of H.R. 1022 means doing everything 
possible to meet a requirement given the constraints of time, money, 
and ability.
  The opponents of this bill will tell you that this legislation is 
overly prescriptive. They say that it imposes too much of an 
administrative burden on the Government. To this we reply that it is 
about time that the body worries more about the burden on the public, 
and less about the burden on the bureaucracy.
  The opponents of this bill will tell you that this bill will freeze 
in place the science for doing risk assessments. We reply that this 
bill will do no such thing, but it will require that sound, unbiased 
and evolving science be used to formulate regulations.
  The opponents of this bill will tell you that this bill will not 
allow the Government to regulate health, safety, and the environment. 
We reply that there is nothing in this bill that would prevent 
justified regulations from being promulgated, as long as they are based 
on scientific fact and the costs don't exceed the benefits.
  The opponents of this bill will tell you that this legislation was 
rushed to judgment. We reply that the committees of jurisdiction have 
been studying risk assessment for over 15 years. It is time to act. In 
fact, we reported a very similar bill out of committee last year with 
only one major addition.
  If Members take a look at the chart, they will see that last year's 
bill included the best estimates. It included comparative risk. It 
included substitution risk. Yet the cost-benefit analysis and rules 
were not included in last year's bill. Peer review was included for the 
purpose of guidelines, and judicial review was included.
  In other words, what we did last year was very, very similar to what 
is in the bill that we have before us today.
  This is nothing new. It is nothing coming out of the blue. It is 
interesting to note though what happened last year. When the committee 
decided in its wisdom to have a stronger provision for the risk 
analysis than what the committee and the committee chairman wanted, we 
reported this bill that then never came to the floor.

                              {time}  1545

  The ultimate closed rule was applied. We never considered the 
legislation on the floor. It was simply held because the committee had 
wanted to go further than what the leadership of the committee had 
determined to do.
  Therefore, what we have before us, finally, is a bill that we can 
actually act on. It is about time. The American people think it is 
about time. It is the kind of bill that the American people have been 
looking for.
  If this bill is not passed, we will continue to have situations where 
Federal regulators have run amuck. For example, EPA has required 
billions of dollars to be spent to remove asbestos from schools, when 
the lifetime risk that a child, exposed for 5 years to commonly 
occurring levels of asbestos fiber, will contract a fatal asbestos-
linked cancer is 1 in 2.5 million. By contrast, that same child has 1 
chance in 5,800 of dying from a motor vehicle accident.
  Consider, for a moment, the opportunity cost of that this extravagant 
waste of funds has engendered. All across this land school boards are 
claiming they do not have the resources to educate our children, yet 
local communities have been required to spend money to address a very 
limited risk.
  The money spent could have been used to improve the quality of 
education, which would have made a real, not an imaginary, difference 
in a child's life. Rules such as these have no basis in common sense. 
The irony is that the removal of the asbestos has actually created a 
greater risk by releasing more fibers into the air than would have been 
present by leaving it dormant--a substitution risk that could have been 
identified if that rulemaking had been done under this bill.
  Although the bill before us is not the entire solution, it does 
provide a prospective basis to begin a degree of rationality in our 
regulatory system.
  The opponents of this measure would continue the status quo, but as 
this Congress is a departure from the past, so is this legislation. I 
ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting a sensible new 
framework for regulatory analysis.
  The regulatory process we want to bring about is a smart and sensible 
regulatory process, rather than a dumb and dumber regulatory process. 
Right now we have a dumb and dumber regulatory process that brings 
about very bad results in too many instances. This will allow us to 
become smart and sensible. That is the way we should regulate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have indicated earlier that I think the time is ripe 
for regulatory reform, and for improvements in our risk assessment and 
cost-benefit analysis. I know that the Members on that side feel very 
strongly about this, and I can assure them that the Members on this 
side feel equally strongly that something needs to be done.
  The problem, as I see it, Mr. Chairman, is that in our haste to get 
something done, we may create a problem that is greater than the one 
which we seek to cure. This is the purpose of this debate, is to 
explore that aspect, not whether or not we need to improve regulatory 
reform, we know we do, but whether or not this bill and its contents 
represents an improvement, or whether it causes problems.
  Frankly, the reason that on our side we feel we need more time is 
because this is the only way we can educate Members on both sides to 
what both the benefits and problems of this bill are. It is the only 
way we can educate the public, to the degree that they pay any 
attention to what we are doing here.
  Hopefully the media will pick up the message, and hopefully it will 
get to our colleagues on the other side, and ultimately, to the 
President, so he can 
 [[Page H2245]] determine whether we have acted to correct the major 
deficiencies or whether they still remain in the bill.
  Therefore, it is not just because we want to hear our voice in 
support of some amendment. It is because we are part of a much broader 
process which is important to the American people, and we want to use 
this time as well as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to H.R. 1022 in its present 
language. The press releases that accompanied the unveiling of the 
bill, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, formerly H.R. 9, 
promised a simplification of regulation, an elimination of redtape, a 
fair and open governmental process in which everyone could participate, 
and a downsizing of Government. Somewhere between the issuance of that 
press release and today's debate, something went terribly wrong.
  H.R. 1022 is an ``Alice in Wonderland'' version of those original 
goals, goals which, as I have already stated, are shared on a 
bipartisan basis, I might add. H.R. 1022 establishes a more convoluted 
process, adds to the expense of regulation by many hundreds of millions 
of dollars, has unintended consequences that even the Republicans admit 
they cannot determine, favors big business over small business, has had 
dozens of special interest loopholes added behind closed doors, and 
sets up a judicial quagmire that has trial lawyers dancing in the 
street in anticipation of the legal actions needed to straighten the 
bill out. I will detail these claims in just a moment.
  The sad part of today's debate is that none of this was necessary. 
Members on both sides of the aisle want true regulatory reform. 
Previous Republican administrations worked diligently to improve the 
regulatory process.
  I have already indicated that I joined with former congressmen, 
Republican Congressmen to introduce these bills many years ago, and 
have continued to work diligently to improve the legislative framework. 
We struggled with similar legislation last year and came very close.
  The Clinton White House issued Executive Order 12866, which seeks to 
reform the way the Government conducts its regulatory business. The 
Vice President's Reinventing Government work is starting to move this 
process along, as well. Democrats and Republicans were prepared to work 
together on this issue and fashion a bipartisan approach to regulatory 
reform, but the bill before us today cannot be called bipartisan, any 
more than it can be called true regulatory reforms.
  The bill slows down and complicates the regulatory process. The bill 
describes the detailed steps required to be taken in the course of a 
regulatory decision, using so much detail that it ties the regulatory 
agency in knots. This process adds hundreds of millions of dollars in 
cost to the Federal Government. To that, we must add the cost imposed 
on the private sector and State governments.
  The CBO cost estimate is only an inkling, because it admits it does 
not have adequate information, but it says a quarter of a billion of 
dollars, without even counting the impact on many agencies which they 
could not get figures from, or the impact of tieups as a result of 
litigation.
  Since the process described in H.R. 1022 requires more scientific and 
economic data to be provided, this reform process will require industry 
to conduct innumerable studies at great cost to the private sector. In 
addition, since permits are included under H.R. 1022, and since State 
governments issue many of the permits under Federal regulatory law, 
such as the Clean Water Act, State governments will have the provisions 
of H.R. 1022 imposed upon them. What the cost will be of doing full-
blown risk assessment for State permitting decisions is anyone's guess.
  I should add that since H.R. 1022 sets up such a complicated process, 
it will take more resources just to keep track of the process, let 
alone participate by generating the data required.
  What is the differential effect on business in this situation? Big 
business and trade associations inside the beltway have the money and 
staff to keep up. Individual smaller businesses outside of Washington 
are going to have a tough time in this new process.
  I do not know if the changes made to the provisions of this bill were 
designed by big business, trying to squeeze their smaller competitors, 
or by trade associations, trying to drum up business. Perhaps neither 
of these occurred. However, the end result is the same: a more 
complicated regulatory process takes more money to participate in.
  Small businesses do not have much money to spare. That is why they 
started this regulatory revolution. H.R. 1022 inadvertently penalizes 
them, and I think we can expect a repercussion from small business as 
great as their original campaign to reduce the pervasiveness of Federal 
regulation.
  H.R. 1022 overrides existing law and applies to ongoing process in 
ways that even the supporters of the bill cannot detail. Which statutes 
are being superseded? What regulatory processes are being affected? I 
note that even many of my Republican colleagues are concerned with 
these questions, and expressed their concern in supplemental views in 
the report to accompany H.R. 9, from which I quote, and this is the 
Republican Supplemental Views:


       The committee was unable to identify which provisions would 
     be affected, much less in what fashion * * *. (T)itle III may 
     undermine landmark laws that were enacted only after years of 
     work and discussion to create a delicate balance of 
     interested and affected parties--laws that range from 
     protection of food and drinking water quality to aviation 
     safety, hazardous waste management, and preservation of 
     wildlife. (Supplemental Views, Report No. 103-33, Part 2.)

  After all of this talk of comprehensive reform, starting with the 
original press releases on the Contract, I would point out to my 
colleagues that this reform does not apply to all regulations. We have 
``reformed'' the process for Government to challenge a potentially 
harmful product, drug, pesticide, or chemical, and take it off the 
market, or restrict its use. However, the process of getting these 
products on the market has been exempted from these ``reforms.'' This 
is like announcing a program to improve highway safety, and then make 
it tougher to revoke a suspected offender's driver's license.
  Mr. Chairman, let me shorten my remarks somewhat and come to a 
conclusion. I look forward to an opportunity to improve this seriously 
flawed bill, and will be offering a substitute, along with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown. In addition, 
individual amendments will be offered to correct some of the problems I 
have mentioned.
  I hope that those who share my feelings on H.R. 1022 as currently 
written will join with me in an effort to improve the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1022, the 
Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995. This legislation is long 
overdue.
  On January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act took 
effect. NEPA declares that it is the policy of the United States ``to 
create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in 
productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 
requirements of present and future generations.''
  Unfortunatly, somewhere along the line, we've lost sight of this 
important balance between economic and environmental concerns. And as a 
result, we have more and more Federal regulations that impose enormous 
costs for minimal, even hypothetical, benefits in public health.
  A series of articles published in the New York Times in 1992 pointed 
out this problem. In one of those articles, the author wrote:

       In the last 15 years, environmental policy has too often 
     evolved largely in reaction to popular panics, not in 
     response to sound scientific analysis of which environmental 
     hazards present the greatest risks. As a result * * * 
     billions of dollars are wasted each year in battling problems 
     that are no longer considered especially dangerous, leaving 
     little money for others that cause far more harm.

  An EPA-appointed panel of experts apparently agrees. In a March 1992 
report entitled ``Safeguarding the Future,'' these experts cast serious 
doubt on the quality of science used by the 
 [[Page H2246]] Agency to justify its regulatory programs. Even many 
agency personnel perceived that EPA science was ``adjusted to fit 
policy.''
  We tried several times in the previous Congress to make improvements 
in the way Federal regulations are written, but each time we were 
rebuffed. In November, the American people sent us a message, loud and 
clear: Tame this regulatory beast. Our constituents demand that we 
break the Federal Government's stranglehold on job creation and get the 
Federal Government out of decisions that are best left to individuals, 
State and local governments.
  H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995, contains 
commonsense propositions. Title I seeks to ensure that risk assessments 
and risk communication are open, objective, and sufficiently 
informative to serve the needs of decisionmakers, the regulated 
community, and the public.
  Title II seeks to ensure that major rules that would increase costs 
by $25 million are the subject of careful analysis and reasonable 
decision criteria.
  Title III sets out a consistent system of peer review for regulations 
that would increase annual costs over $100 million. Title IV makes 
clear that the act is enforceable in court against Federal agencies. 
Title V provides that there be procedures and priorities for the review 
of risk assessments and rules. Finally, title VI requires the President 
to report on opportunities to set regulatory priorities among Federal 
regulatory programs.
  These provisions are responsible management tools. Some say weaker 
legislation is all that we should do for now. I disagree. We cannot 
afford to do less than this bill requires. Some say risk legislation 
should not be subject to judicial review. I disagree. Risk legislation 
must be enforceable; there should be no double standard where the 
Federal Government is not subject to review by courts, but State and 
local governments and businesses are.
  Some say we should not disturb existing law, even when that law 
results in regulations that are expensive and inefficient. I disagree. 
For a number of years we have been adding layers of regulations. It is 
time to take a fresh look at the process we use to regulate risks to 
public health and the environment.
  We will see in this debate who clings to the status quo of 
bureaucracy gone awry, and who is really interested in meaningful 
regulatory reform. I urge my colleagues to support the Risk Assessment 
and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, everyone in this Chamber wants protective 
health, safety, and environmental standards issued by the United States 
Government agencies to be done on the basis of good science and good 
regulatory practice. That is not the issue. Indeed the question of how 
these matters are dealt with in the regulatory agencies has long been a 
special concern of mine because of lack of fairness, because of bad 
science, and because of other defects in the process.
  However, it must be noted that the behavior of the regulatory 
agencies--EPA and the other agencies which are engaged now in seeking 
to protect the health and the welfare of the American people, and 
agencies that are seeking to protect the economy of this country, to 
see to it that our securities markets and our other financial 
activities are conducted well and safely and in conformance with 
Federal law--are indeed not only important but are responses, in almost 
every instance to requirements imposed on those agencies by the 
Congress.
  Washington is not full of crazy, run-amok bureaucrats running around 
seeking to penalize honest Americans and to create economic hardships 
or other hardships for the American people. That is quite an unfair and 
untrue image.
  It must be observed that what is going on here is that the agencies 
downtown are responding to a set of highly complex laws written by the 
Congress of the United States. In the case of environmental laws, they 
are responding to legislation which is not only enormously complex but 
enormously controversial, regulations which were written in response to 
clear mandates from this Congress which require particular actions to 
be taken.
  One of the remarkable things about this is that several of the 
Governors who were denouncing the clean air bill that we passed a few 
Congresses ago for its not being strong enough, such as the Governor of 
California and the Governor of Wisconsin, who still hold those 
offices--although the Governor now of California was at that time a 
distinguished senior Senator from his State--were demanding that we 
pass not the laws that we passed but legislation which was indeed much 
stronger and much more punitive in character, something which I 
resisted with considerable vigor.
  It is fair to say the use of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis 
and peer review will be helpful. These are important analytical tools, 
and they will help the agencies to do their job better, limit burdens 
on private industry, reduce Government regulatory activity and 
Government waste, and see to it that our legislation is properly 
handled.
  The Government does not need and should not tolerate excessive 
industry regulation, nor should it excuse sloppy or biased regulatory 
programs, whether they are biased toward the environmental groups or 
toward business groups.
  I feel, however, very firm and very strong in the belief that 
environmental health and safety laws which the Congress has adopted 
after careful consideration are on the books for good reasons. 
Admittedly these are complex pieces of legislation. They are because 
they have to be, because the subject matter is complex. And to unwisely 
impose now a whole new spectrum of additional requirements and 
mandates, equally complex, upon an already complex system of laws and 
regulations is simply to compound the difficulties that this Nation 
confronts.
  Business will find it harder, environmental groups will find it more 
difficult, and the laws and the
 regulations will be more complex. They will take more time, and the 
lawyers will have a better time and make more money simply because we 
have compounded a situation which is now overly complex and made it 
still more so.

  How was it that this got to be so complex? It got to be so complex 
because this Congress wrote that legislation, and because the agencies 
are now seeking to carry out the laws which were written by this body.
  The health and safety and environmental laws written by the Congress 
are almost always done on a bipartisan basis as the votes on the House 
floor indicate. The clean air bill was passed by something like 403 to 
5. In the frenzy to complete the Contract on America within 100 days, 
we have taken out a contract on the history of good legislation and 
upon the body of good statutory law, and indeed upon the processes of 
this institution.
  As if the Congress now is not going to be satisfied with a flawed 
process for passing this legislation, H.R. 1022 is literally a contract 
on the health and the safety of the American people, and on the 
environment that we will be leaving to our grandchildren.
  According to every responsible prediction and estimate, H.R. 1022 
will create more paperwork, not less, and increase the number of 
Federal employees who must be involved in the decision-making and the 
litigation questions. It will also take more time, and it will add to 
the miseries and the costs of business as business seeks to live with 
Government regulation.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost 
the Federal Treasury at least a quarter of a billion dollars more every 
year, and CBO has not yet completed accounting for the costs. 
Preliminary estimates from the executive branch indicate that more than 
1,500 new bureaucrats would have to be hired to carry out the extensive 
and prescriptive requirements of H.R. 1022 in administering now a much 
more complex regulatory process.
  My Republican colleagues are increasing the size of Government with 
this bill, at the same time that President Clinton is making a real 
effort 
 [[Page H2247]] and real progress in streamlining and downsizing 
government.
  My comment to the American people would be: If you like increased 
bureaucracy, bigger Government, more work for lawyers, more delay, and 
more costs to American taxpayers, then H.R. 1022 is the bill for you.
  Republican and Democratic Presidents have alike proposed and Congress 
has enacted specific laws establishing protective standards for 
identifiable threats to human health, human safety and the environment. 
These statutes cover a wide range of concerns: protecting women from 
breast cancer, protecting children from unsafe toys, regulating 
emissions of toxic air pollutants, ensuring airline safety, providing 
for the safety of workers in the workplace, and providing for clean 
water, clean rivers, and safe food. Each was passed for a real and 
important group of reasons based on particular circumstances posed by 
clearly identifiable threats.
  H.R. 1022 cosponsors now want to override these carefully crafted 
protective standards of existing law with a uniform set of decision-
making criteria, one-size-fits-all criteria, which by the way are 
different in many respects than the criteria in the bills reported by 
either of the two committees.
  It is interesting to note that no hearings were held on the matter 
that we are now considering on the
 floor. The bills that were considered in the committees are different 
than that which is now before us. Proposals which were in the bills of 
both committees have vanished in some strange process that can only be 
explained by my colleagues on the majority side. And proposals which 
were in neither have all of a sudden appeared to raise new questions 
about the legislative history and what it is that the Congress is doing 
here today.

  Do we know what laws are going to be impacted by the legislation 
before us? No. No one can tell us that. We do know some. I had asked 
the cosponsors of the bill to provide a comprehensive list when the 
Committee on Commerce marked up this bill. They said, ``Of course. We 
will be delighted to do so.'' But that list is not yet before us.
  In addition to changing the protective standards of existing law, 
H.R. 1022 will cause significant delays in issuing regulations 
important to industry, either to provide regulatory relief or relief 
from existing burdens. This bill is going to slow down the giving of 
relief to industry on matters which are important to industry, which 
will make the United States more competitive, and which will reduce 
costs to American industry.
  Ironically, most of the regulations my Republican friends complain of 
were issued by Republican administrations, like the asbestos 
regulations raised earlier by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker].

                              {time}  1610

  Important health and safety protections for the public like these 
will also be delayed. I would like to now address some of these 
regulations, since my colleagues on the Republican side were never able 
to tell us what would be the consequences of being caught in this Rube 
Goldberg construction which they are now inflicting upon the American 
people, leading to multiplied gridlock and diminishing the agencies of 
government and the rights of the American people and American business.
  In 1992 the Congress established the Nation's first nuclear waste 
disposal facility in New Mexico called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 
or WIPP, which will receive nuclear waste material currently being 
stored at more risky storage facilities around the country. WIPP cannot 
open until EPA promulgates regulations setting forth operating 
standards to protect the public health. The Department of Energy 
indicates that these will be significantly delayed under H.R. 1022.
  New Federal Aviation Administration rules to enhance safety standards 
for commuter airlines in the wake of recent tragic air crashes were to 
be issued on
 a fast-track basis by December 1995. According to FAA, these new 
safety enhancements will be delayed for some indefinite period by the 
requirements of H.R. 1022.

  EPA is now contemplating and working on deregulatory action under the 
Toxic Substances Control Act pursuant to a rule adopted in December 
1994 which would save the economy better than $2 to $4 billion in 
control costs for PCBs. The proposed changes will reduce disposal costs 
and provide additional flexibility to industry. They will add to our 
competitiveness and reduce the burdens on American industry. They will 
be delayed by this legislation.
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year proposed a rule to update 
seismic standards for any new nuclear reactors built in the United 
States. In its proposal, the NRC noted that reviewing seismic safety 
rules for nuclear power plants is particularly timely because of the 
possible renewed interest in nuclear reactor siting for a new 
generation of nuclear reactors. The certification and other 
prescriptive requirements of H.R. 1022 would delay those safety 
regulations and create a situation where industry will not be able to 
move forward on important safety regulations which will benefit not 
only consumers and environmental groups, but also American industry.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated lead-based 
paint regulations being promulgated to address risks from childhood 
lead poisoning in Government-owned and Government-assisted housing 
would be delayed by 2 to 3 years.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed 
regulations pursuant to a requirement of law enacted by this Congress 
to provide improved protection against head impacts in the interior of 
cars and light duty trucks. The estimates of the agency is that, for 
each year of delay, 1,000 lives will be lost and 600 injuries will 
occur.
  Mr. Chairman, there are literally thousands of other examples of 
delay of important health and safety standards that will come to light 
as this legislation moves forward. And the delay of deregulatory 
actions which could result from the passage of H.R. 1022 will be 
substantial and costly to the American economy.
  The unknown and unintended consequences caused by the hurried 
consideration of this legislation will emerge for Members in 
embarrassing and unwanted ways in weeks and months ahead.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. I urge them to support the 
substitute which will be offered, and I urge them to adopt the narrower 
amendments which will be offered to eliminate wrongful, mischievous and 
evil consequences of different parts of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the person who deserves the ``I don't get 
it'' award for 1994 is the one who recommended to the President that he 
buy Dave McCollough's Truman biography and give it to key operatives to 
read in preparation for the 1996 campaign against what they perceive 
will be a do nothing Congress. This will not be the do nothing 
Congress. This will very much be a do something Congress.
  The challenge is to do something that is responsive to the problems, 
and there is no doubt about it, in this area we have a lot of problems. 
Overregulations, and excessively costly regulations are two of the big 
ones and we have to be responsible in addressing them.
  I would suggest that Terry Davis, who is the director of the Resource 
for the Future Center for Risk Management capsulizes it nicely when he 
said in a recent article in the winter of 1995 issue of his 
publication, ``If the varied interests with a stake in environmental 
policy can reduce the ideological and partisan coalition that has 
characterized the risk debate so far, and if they can accept both the 
uses and limitations of risk assessment, the risk debate could lead to 
a new era of more effective, efficient, and equitable environmental 
program.''
  I would submit to all of my colleagues that is something, that is an 
idea we can all embrace.
  I serve on one of the committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on 
Science, and I think the committee did a pretty good job under the 
leadership 
 [[Page H2248]] of Chairman Walker, but I submitted, along with a 
couple of my colleagues, some supplemental views to our committee 
report. And among other things we say we agree with the majority on the 
need to address risk assessment, and cost-benefit analysis. However, we 
do have some severe reservations about title III of the Job Creation 
and Wage Enhancement Act.
  Under existing law, final agency rules and orders are judicially 
reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act. Without 
clarification in title III of the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement 
Act, courts may hold that risk assessment guidelines themselves are 
reviewable, which is sure to lead to excessive litigation. We believe 
that risk assessment guidelines should not be reviewable.
  Additionally, we believe that compliance with title III requirements 
should be reviewable only in the context of a challenge to a final 
agency rule or order. Without such a provision, this legislation may 
exacerbate existing litigations problems and stifle efforts to resolve 
conflicts within a Federal agency.
  Title III requires Federal agencies to conduct resource intensive 
formal risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis. To me, that is the 
trial lawyers employment act of 1995.
  I will submit the balance of my statement for the Record because it 
is worthy of note.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that was discussed at 
quite a length at the committee level. It deals with section 106 that 
refers specifically to recommendations or classifications by a non-
United States-based entity.
  One of the things we have done around here in the Congress of the 
United States that has caused an awful lot of overregulation is because 
Congress has been basically nebulous and vague on the directives that 
it places in its legislation.
  Non-United States-based entities, and the bill says if it becomes 
Federal law that ``no covered Federal agency shall automatically 
incorporate or adopt any recommendation or classification made by a 
non-United States-based entity concerning the health effects value of a 
substance without an opportunity for notice and comment,'' without an 
opportunity for notice and comment. I think this bill begs for a 
definition of a non-United States-based entity. It does not in fact 
redefine or reinvent the wheel by any chance, but I will be offering an 
amendment to this bill.
  The Traficant amendment says for purposes of this section, the term 
``non-United States-based entities'' means an entity that is No. 1, 
incorporated outside the United States, No. 2, has its principal place 
of business outside the United States, or No. 3, is the United Nations 
or any of its divisions.
  The reason why I say this is because the World Health Organization 
could say that a certain substance is a carcinogen or not a carcinogen 
and under this bill if they are not determined to be a non-United 
States-based entity, that would automatically be without notice and 
comment given. The Traficant amendment would say that any organization 
outside non-United States-based entity as defined by this decent 
perimeter would enforce in fact the language of the bill as it is 
designed and intended to do. I am hoping for the support on this. This 
was sort of a modified version in the committee that was met with basic 
approval and I think it should be in the bill, not in report language, 
and it should be specific since the bill speaks to non-United States-
based entities.
  I ask for support on this amendment.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the 
Environment.
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, in September, 1993, the Clinton 
administration issued its National Performance Review, which stated 
that private sector costs from Federal regulations were ``at least $430 
billion per year--9 percent of our gross domestic product.'' Others put 
the total annual costs to the private sector and State and local 
governments at between $500 and $850 billion per year. To put this in 
perspective, this is more than the total amount of discretionary 
domestic spending by the Federal Government each year.
  As if this weren't enough, the U.S. EPA estimates that it will impose 
93 regulations on society during the next year, each of which will cost 
between $25 and $100 million
per year. The Department of Agriculture estimates that it will add 200 
regulations annually with costs in that range. And the Food and Drug 
Administration says it will add another 25 regulations per year with 
costs between $25 and $100 million. That's an additional 318 
regulations for just these three agencies over the next year, with an 
added cost to society every year of $8 to $32 billion.
  H.R. 1022 is sensible legislation that, among other things, will help 
us ensure that whatever amount society spends on regulation is 
justified by the amount of benefits from those regulations. We are 
committing a huge proportion of our economic resources to health, 
safety, and environmental regulation. That is the way it should be. It 
should be beyond debate that we need to make sure we are getting real 
benefits for all that we are investing.
  Cost-benefit analysis is only one part of H.R. 1022. The other major 
part is a series of requirements that will ensure that when an agency 
determines how much benefit society is receiving in the form of reduced 
health, safety, or environmental risks, it uses objective science and 
presents its findings in an unbiased, open manner. Lest we hear today, 
and we are hearing today, from opponents of the bill that these 
provisions are designed to weaken health and safety standards, let me 
assure you that this is not the case. We are not striving for some 
particular policy outcome. We are trying to make sure that when we make 
regulatory decisions based on risk assessments that we are basing our 
decisions on science and not on policy preferences.
  Unfortunately, that has not always been the practice in the past.
  I am going to go into some what I consider examples of regulatory 
overkill.
  The cost of EPA's hazardous waste listing for wood preserving 
chemicals is $5.7 trillion per theoretical life saved or cancer 
incidence avoided. The cost of EPA's municipal solid waste landfill 
standards is $19.1 billion per theoretical life saved or cancer 
incidence avoided. Clearly, I think everyone would agree with me, these 
costs are excessive, given the risk involved.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act currently limits arsenic levels in 
drinking water to no more than two to three parts per billion. However, 
a regular portion of shrimp typically served in a restaurant contains 
around 30 parts per billion
  We all remember the Alar scare of 1989. As a result of the Alar 
scare, the damage to the apple industry nationwide--from growers and 
processors to retailers--totaled hundreds of millions of dollars. Even 
growers who did not use Alar on their apples were devastated.
  However, scientific studies showed that Alar was not carcinogenic in 
either rats or mice. But UDMH--a breakdown product of Alar--when 
consumed in massive doses--equivalent to a human consuming 19,000 
quarts of apple juice daily over a lifetime--did cause some blood 
vessel tumors in mice.
  In 1991, the OSHA regional office in Chicago issued a citation to a 
brickmaker for failing to supply a Material Safety Data Sheet [MSDS] 
with each pallet of bricks. OSHA reasoned that a brick could be 
poisonous, because when sawed, it can release a small amount of the 
mineral silica. The fact that this did not happen much at construction 
sites was of no consequence.
  Brickmakers, fearing lawsuits, began sending the form so that workers 
would know how to identify a brick--a ``hard ceramic body with no 
odor''--and giving its boiling point--``above 3,500 degrees 
Fahrenheit''. In 1994, after 3 years of litigation, OSHA finally 
 [[Page H2249]] backed down and removed the poison designation.
  Mr. Chairman, for those reasons we think that this legislation is so 
necessary.
  At the joint hearings on title III of H.R. 9, a number of witnesses 
highlighted examples of the need for risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis:
  Ohio EPA Director Donald Schregardus testified that of the 52 
synthetic organic chemical pesticides for which U.S. EPA requires 
testing, only 9 were used in the State of Ohio in quantities that might 
be detected. The State and local communities were forced to spend 
thousands of dollars and significant time proving to U.S. EPA that 
those pesticides were not a problem, instead of using resources to 
solve real drinking water concerns.
  Ms. Barbara Wheeler of the National School Boards Association 
emphasized that inaccurate risk assessment on asbestos has diverted 
billions of dollars from schools. The formulation of public policy on 
the asbestos issue was ahead of the scientific evidence to establish an 
accurate risk assessment; the result was that millions of scarce 
educational dollars were wasted. EPA's science ignored the variations 
in risk from different types of asbestos and focused on tests involving 
brown asbestos--the most hazardous type. However, the asbestos found in 
most schools was white asbestos, which is much less hazardous.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires warnings 
that crystalline silica--one of the most commonly occurring elements in 
rocks and sand--is a carcinogen. In California--a state famous as a 
beach-lover's paradise--bags of sand used to fill children's sandboxes 
are labeled with a warning that sand is known to cause cancer.
  The labeling of silica as a carcinogen was the result of a study on 
rats which were exposed to 100 times or more the amount of silica that 
workers in even the dustiest of conditions would be exposed to. 
However, similar studies on mice and hamsters failed to produce 
carcinogenic results.
  OSHA's Hazard Communication standard--a ``right to know'' 
regulation--requires employers to post Material Safety Data Sheets 
[MSDS] explaining chemicals used in the workplace. MSDS violations 
account for more citations than any other OSHA rule. Unfortunately, 
these sheets are often difficult to understand or border on the absurd.
  For example, the suggested remedy for exposure to charcoal dust is 
``seek air,'' and for exposure to sawdust: ``flush with water.'' One 
construction company was cited by OSHA for failing to provide a 
Material Safety Data Sheet for Joy dishwashing liquid.
  During our hearings in February, Dr. John Graham from the Harvard 
Center for Risk Analysis said that the most urgent need for health, 
safety, and environmental regulations is ``a statutory requirement that 
Federal agencies report realistic estimates of risk based on the best 
available science.''
  Dr. Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon University said ``Congress should 
instruct regulatory agencies to use the best scientific knowledge, not 
``conservative'' decision rules. Agencies should explore all plausible 
alternative scientific theories and explain why they chose a particular 
theory.'' That is what we have done in this bill. Objective science 
presented in an open manner will help us and the agencies make better 
decisions, and it will also help the public understand what kind of 
risks it is facing.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a reasonable, 
common sense initiative that will help ensure that we provide 
appropriate protection for the public.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time and I rise in opposition to the legislation that 
is before us today. It is a Frankenstein monster of ill-conceived and 
excessive provisions grafted together from bits and pieces of the 
Science Committee and Commerce Committee reported versions of the so-
called Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995.
  Unfortunately, the only people whose jobs are going to be enhanced 
and created and whose wages are going to go up will be the attorneys of 
the United States who will be litigating under this legislation for the 
next decade, countless billable hours, filing lawsuits to challenge 
virtually every action taken by Federal regulators and legions of 
bureaucrats needed to generate the mountains of paperwork necessary to 
comply with the complex substantive and procedural requirements of the 
act.
  I am particularly concerned because it could transfer scientific peer 
review panels into special interest pleadings. This legislation allows, 
believe it or not, the lobbyists and the scientists of the industries 
being regulated to sit on the scientific peer review panels that are 
going to judge whether or not the regulations should be put on the 
books to protect the public health and safety and environment. It is 
absolutely a built-in conflict of interest that will result not only in 
bad laws being put on the books, but endless litigation as people 
challenge the rules that are finally put on the books.
  In addition, it would construct a legislative labyrinth of procedures 
which would have to be engaged in. We would have no reason to close 
down House Annex 2. Just like the final scene of Raiders of the Lost 
Ark, we could need to fill it with all of the regulations, all of the 
procedures that had to be gone through in order to ensure that the 
regulators of the lost ark had been tied into knots and made absolutely 
powerless by the Lilliputians of bureaucrats and peer reviewers who 
will block any meaningful health, safety or environmental regulations 
from being placed upon the books.
                              {time}  1630

  And finally, all of this is subject to judicial review, thousands of 
lawyers crossing fingers back in their law firms right now, praying 
that this bill goes through.
  We have billable hours of such a gargantuan number that it is almost 
unimaginable.
  This is a bill which is a dream for lawyers across this country.
  And finally, the safety of our Nation's nuclear powerplants, of the 
nuclear waste sites, protecting children against unsafe toys, 
preservation of our natural environment, clean food, clear water. Is 
our water too clean? Is our food too safe? Are the airlines too safe 
against any disasters befalling the American people?
  And finally, before we avoid making policy on the basis of false or 
misleading, anecdotal information, for example, over the last several 
days we heard one of the proponents of this legislation claim that the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission had a regulation requiring all 
buckets have a hole in the bottom of them so water can flow through and 
avoid the danger of someone falling face down into the bucket and 
drowning. Sounds bad. Now, that would be ridiculous regulation, if it 
existed. But the truth is that there has never been such a rule, and 
there never will be such a rule.
  The fact is that nearly 30 infants, toddlers, each year have been 
drowning in 5-gallon buckets, and the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission has worked with the industry to come up with a program of 
voluntary labels warning parents about the drowning danger. Voluntary.
  This is an example of the public-private sector cooperation which is 
prevalent through many areas of the regulatory world.
  I urge my colleagues throughout this debate, first make such that 
lobbyists and scientists of the companies being regulated cannot serve 
on the peer review panels; second, ensure that there is no reduction, 
no reduction in the overall health, safety, and environmental 
protections that are offered to all Americans; and, ensure that at the 
end of the day that we have not turned back the clock of progress which 
we have made in extending the life expectancy of all Americans, which 
is what has happened over the last 30 and 40 years in this country. Let 
us not tie the hands of those who have been committed to health and 
safety so that the private interests, the special interests, can go 
back to an era where those products that endangered the public were 
made available without any warning, without any protection against 
danger.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we had at least 1 person stand up and defend the 
present regulatory system. I did not think we were going to have that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Salmon].
  (Mr. SALMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is too unreasonable to 
require the Federal Government to operate based on good science, and I 
do not think it is unreasonable to expect that 
 [[Page H2250]] the Federal Government should do a cost-benefit 
analysis before rules are promulgated.
  Let me tell you a little bit of a horror story as a State legislator 
I had to deal with in the State of Arizona. We came under fire of the 
Federal Government because of the 1990 Clean Air Act, and basically we 
were told not only what the outcome should be of our plan to avert 
destruction by the Federal Government, but also what the modality 
should be. In fact, it was dictated to us that we must institute the 
IM-240 program, which is about three to four times more costly than the 
existing vehicle emissions testing and takes about four to five times 
as long, those that have to wait in line for the tests. Could you 
imagine all the smog and pollutants that are put into the atmosphere 
while they are waiting an extra hour in line with their cars running?
  Finally, I would just like to say we have an opportunity to turn all 
of these, this madness around, and I hope we get a chance to do that.
  Look before we leap.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  (Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and enlarge her 
remarks.)
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, several years ago when New York City was 
experiencing one of its garbage strikes, there was a young fellow who 
was getting very, very upset with the garbage that was piling up in his 
apartment. He did not know what to do, so one day he put it into a box, 
wrapped the box with gift wrapping paper, put it in the back seat of 
his car, and waited for someone to steal it. It worked.
  Well, Mr. Chair, I would say to you that that is exactly what we have 
here. We have some garbage wrapped in pretty paper.
  Now, I know that people will say that since I am speaking against the 
bill I am really against any change in how we regulate business and 
industry in this country. Not true. As a freshman who ran on reform and 
as the child of small business people, I want very much to see our 
regulatory climate improved in this country, but as someone with a 
degree in biological anthropology and a law school graduate, I also 
believe in science and logic, and neither of those things are to be 
found in this bill.
  It increases costs. It overrides existing laws around health, safety, 
and the environment. It creates a labyrinth of procedures, and so 
encourages litigation that its only possible outcome must be a desire 
to have paralysis by analysis.
  It purports to require good science, but when you look at the bill, 
we see that it mandates participation, or allows, forces participation 
for people who have an income interest in the outcome of the 
deliberation. It sets up vague standards.
  When I talked to the scientists in my district, the University of 
Michigan is in my area, I asked them what they thought about the bill. 
It is interesting. One professor pointed out that while the word 
``cost'' is used over and over and over again, and defined in several 
ways, the word ``benefit'' is never defined. It is never talked about. 
And his last comments in this area are interesting; he says, ``These 
admissions by themselves are a dead giveaway about the intent of this 
bill.''
  And so I say to you, Mr. Chair, that, yes, there is pretty packaging, 
but underneath of it, 1022 is still garbage.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  (Mrs. THURMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mrs. THURMAN. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia very much 
for yielding this time to me.
  I rise today as a longtime supporter of risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis.
  This legislation puts to use good science and common sense over 
political priorities which arise from the vicious circle of 
unsubstantiated media claims and subsequent public fear about 
exaggerated risk. Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis allow us to 
prioritize our finite resources to those risks that truly threaten 
society.
  We all have examples of outrageous regulations forced on the American 
people that drive up costs to consumers and businesses.
  There was a television special last year hosted by John Stossel on 
the issue of risk assessment which was titled ``Are We Scaring 
Ourselves to Death?''
  Let us look at risks which actually shorten our life spans, airplanes 
by 1 day, hazardous waste by 4 days, air pollution by 61 days, crime by 
113 days, driving 182 days. In the last decade, we have heard Alar, 
Perrier, cellular phones, carpets, coffee. They have all been 
dramatized by the media and the public for the risk they pose, and yet 
no one on this floor expects to pass legislation outlawing everyday 
hazards like stairs, which kill a thousand Americans, and bikes, which 
kill 700 Americans each year.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that I ran for Congress was to 
foster and renew strong partnerships between citizens and their 
Government.
  The President stated in an executive order requesting Federal 
agencies and departments to conduct risk assessment that the United 
States is overburdened with Federal regulations and that the American 
public deserves a system that protects and improves their health, 
safety, environment, and well-being, and improves the performance of 
the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on 
society.
  The legislation before us achieves this goal. Risk assessment and 
cost-benefit analysis was also adopted as part of the Southern 
Legislative Conference priority agenda, and in the State of Florida 
this year, Governor Lawton Chiles is considering similar legislation.
  As we are forced to allocate scarce resources to combat the most 
serious threats facing our health, safety, and the environment, risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis are important management tools 
necessary in crafting sound public policy. We can no longer enact 
unnecessary regulations here in Washington. It is not fiscally 
possible.
  By basing our Nation's regulations on these principles, we stand to 
forge rather than force that strong partnership.
  In addition, through the use of risk assessment and cost-benefit, we 
can identify those areas around our Nation, particularly the poorer 
regions, that are in need of Federal regulatory protection. The 
Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting Office assert 
such analysis might increase the net benefits of Federal regulations, 
might reveal cost-effective alternatives, and might actually justify 
stricter regulations..
  In a recent Time-CNN poll, 68 percent of the American people favored 
environmental regulations being subject to a cost-benefit analysis. 
Another survey by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis showed similar 
results.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people want their Government to produce 
necessary and meaningful regulations and not burden them with 
unnecessary ones.
  Opponents will argue $125 million to implement this bill is too 
costly, but they will fail to mention the cost of compliance of $430 
billion annually, 9 percent of our gross domestic product. As cited in 
the Vice President's national performance review, the time is now to 
enact this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for sensible regulatory reform and vote 
for H.R. 1022.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. 
Chairman, this legislation is long overdue. Risk assessments and cost-
benefit analyses are critical to the economic health of our nation's 
citizens, businesses, and local governments.
  As a member of the Science Committee, I understand the importance of 
H.R. 1022 and the common sense approach it will bring to the regulatory 
process. It is the first step in restoring logic and order to our 
nation's regulatory nightmare.
  [[Page H2251]] If used properly, risk assessments serve as an 
important basis for sound regulatory and risk management decisions.
  But, if there is no rhyme or reason to the process of assessing risk, 
they can harm industries and destroy jobs.
  Let me give you an example of how manufacturers in my state are 
affected. One of the biggest industries in the Southeast and in 
Tennessee, my home State, is the appliance manufacturing industry. This 
industry employes over 28,000 people in Tennessee and over 50,000 
people in southern States like Florida, Georgia, North and South 
Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, and Kentucky.
  Mr. Chairman, the biggest threat to this industry is not foreign 
competition. Believe it or not, the biggest threat to this industry is 
the impact of federal regulations. More and more, these costly, and 
unreasonable regulations are redirecting human, financial, and 
technical resources to comply with the growing number of Government 
mandates.
  The appliance manufacturing industry is one of the last remaining 
true American manufacturers. More than 80 percent of the major 
appliances used by American consumers are produced here in the United 
States.
  The total impact on the appliance industry of a growing burden of 
federal regulations is a serious and immediate concern to manufacturers 
in my state and the entire Southeast region of the country.
  That is exactly why I introduced an amendment during committee mark-
up which explicitly requires regulators to consider the total burden of 
government regulations on companies or products, of any industry, and 
to accurately evaluate financial impacts on manufacturers in all 
industries.
  Currently, the Department of Energy does not take into account 
consideration of the total financial or technical resource burden on 
manufacturers of continuously redesigning all of their major products 
to meet the standards.
  What is more absurd is that neither the EPA or the Department of 
Energy coordinate with one another to take into account the problems 
manufacturers have in meeting separate, and often conflicting, 
standards at the same time.
  As you can imagine, these EPA and Department of Energy standards are 
often times conflicting, which simply adds to the manufacturers' cost 
of compliance.
  For the sake of our Nation's manufacturers, I strongly urge passage 
of this bill.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I found this debate to be quite useful, and I regret 
very much that there are not more Members who are here to listen to it 
and to participate in it. I say that because I have a number of Members 
who expressed a desire to speak who are not here on the floor right at 
this moment, and I consider that to be regrettable.
  Nevertheless, during the course of this debate, there are going to be 
statements made probably on both sides which are going to be difficult 
to verify and which, in some cases, may be a slight distortion of the 
truth.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], for example, cited 
purported EPA regulation of buckets to require a hole in the bottom. I 
do not know whether that is a true story or not.

                              {time}  1645

  But it indicates a problem of how stories get around. The gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] made reference to the Alar problem, which 
I was quite familiar with and participated in it as a member of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  My recollection of that situation, which I deplored publicly on many 
occasions, was not that the EPA had overregulated, but that very 
vociferous consumer groups insisted that they had under-regulated and 
carried that through all the media to the point that it created a wave 
of hysteria against what EPA had actually done.
  Now, I hope that I am not mistaken in my recollection of the facts. 
It turns out that it almost ruined the apple crop that year, put severe 
stress on the people who supplied the Alar chemicals, and cost them 
most of their market, and led, I think, to their voluntary withdrawal 
of the commodity.
  These are the kinds of situations which deserve to be more fully 
explored.
  Unfortunately, it cannot be done here on the floor. I will confess my 
memory is not perfect on an event of this sort and by the time it gets 
perfect, it will be next week and we will have voted on the matter and 
it will be impossible to ascertain what the real facts were.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California, the vice chairman of the committee [Mr. Moorhead].
  Mr. MOORHEAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1022.
  This bill incorporates as title I legislation I introduced in the 
last Congress to set requirements for the assessment and 
characterization of risks.
  For risk assessment documents, it requires the following: A 
discussion of laboratory and epidemiological data and whether it shows 
a link between a substance or activity and health risks. An explanation 
of the assumptions the agency made and why others were rejected. A 
discussion of whether agency studies show the same results as real life 
data.
  Once the risk is assessed, it requires that the agency present the 
information fairly and openly, including the following: A description 
of who or what is at risk, a best estimate of the risk, and a 
description of how much scientific uncertainty there is. An explanation 
of how the agency believes the population would be exposed. A 
comparison of the risk to risks from other activities, especially ones 
that the public would understand. A statement of how much risk there 
would be from other alternatives.
  Title I only applies to risk assessment and risk characterization 
documents used by a list of covered federal agencies, not to all 
federal agencies, and only in connection with regulatory programs 
designed to protect human health, safety and the environment. It also 
only applies to certain agency actions, like final rules that have 
compliance costs for our country of more than $25 million, reports that 
agencies issue to Congress, environmental cleanup plans, certain permit 
conditions, and to the placement of a substance on a list of 
carcinogens or toxic substances.
  Title I is really fair legislation. It is not designed to roll back 
health and environmental standards or override existing laws. In fact, 
it explicitly states that it does not modify any existing statutory 
standard or statutory requirement designed to protect health, safety or 
the environment.
  We need this legislation to make sure that we are not ignoring real 
risks while we are regulating phantom ones. I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] will state 
it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise this gentleman who 
has the right to close the debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] or the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] would have the right to close.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my 
unwavering support for H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit 
Act.
  Additionally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Chairman Walker, and the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, for 
their leadership on this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 
November 1993 released a study which stated that the Federal Government 
devotes inadequate attention and resources to federal risk assessment 
research. Additionally, EPA's own Scientific Advisory Board noted that 
if the Nation's finite resources are spent solving low-risk problems 
rather than 
 [[Page H2252]] high-risk ones, then society will be exposed to higher 
risks with inadequate resources to deal with them.
  Regulatory costs is the single greatest hurdle facing U.S. businesses 
and is a big job killer. Businesses and local governments which were 
regulated spent more than $500 billion in direct and indirect costs in 
1993 twice the deficit to comply with federal mandates, and that figure 
is expected to climb to more than $650 billion annually by the year 
2000, roughly 3 times our whole defense costs.
  Almost 75 percent of this cost increase is expected to result from 
additional environmental, health and safety regulations. Beyond 
problems caused by the rising costs of government regulations, the 
regulatory process itself has become unduly rigid, unresponsive and 
inconsistent.
  We all lose because of irresponsible policies. Without risk 
assessment, the EPA does not have to use sound science in environmental 
regulation formation. Bias input can be used to adjust data to fit a 
policy agenda which is not looking out for business, local governments 
or the average citizen--who must comply with political agendas.
  We need to create confidence in our environmental regulations through 
risk and cost-benefit analysis. As a representative, one of my goals in 
representing my constituents in Congress has been to provide regulatory 
relief to local government and local employers and to balance this with 
the needs of people for a clean environment.
  Before we burden our economy and society with costly new laws and 
regulations or continue some of those now in place, we must be sure 
that the benefits justify the costs.
  Sound science, cost benefit analysis and risk assessment must all 
work together to ensure balanced environmental laws and regulations 
when they are enacted. The process must include: scientifically sound 
risk assessment; risk-based prioritization; and cost-effective risk 
management. In addition, there must be public participation in all 
phases of the process. These aspects must be at the heart of any 
environmental decisionmaking.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I, like everyone else, say we need to deal with this 
kind of legislation, but this piece of legislation goes too far. It is 
too extreme.
  Title II of H.R. 1022 provides new decisional criteria that elevate 
flexibility for industry and cost reduction above public health and 
safety. The bill rescinds the decisional criteria for balancing harms 
and benefits, both public and private, both known and unknown, that 
have been built into the Federal environmental protection legislation 
over the past 25 years. It requires EPA to bear the burden of proof 
that the benefits of regulatory actions are worth it.
  What this means in real terms is that the vulnerable Americans--the 
sick, the elderly, the newborn--can no longer be protected because 
their protection is too expensive. This also means that EPA would not 
be able to take any action that addresses many current health hazards, 
such as preventing the reoccurrence in the Nation's water supply of 
various bacterial diseases like the one that killed numerous people in 
Milwaukee and caused 400,000 illnesses, preventing the 70,000 deaths 
estimated to be caused each year by breathing air laden with fine 
particles or reducing airborne emission dioxin from waste incinerators 
located in residential communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I know firsthand about many of these kinds of 
conditions. This puts people's lives at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, title II of H.R. 1022 provides new decisional criteria 
that elevate flexibility for industry and cost reduction above public 
health and safety. The bill rescinds the decisional criteria for 
balancing harms and benefits, both public and private, both known and 
unknown, that have been built into all Federal environmental protection 
legislation over the past 25 years. It requires EPA to bear the burden 
of proof that the benefits of regulatory action are worth it.
  What this means in real terms is that vulnerable Americans--the sick, 
the elderly, the newborn--can no longer be protected because their 
protection is too expensive.
  This also means that EPA would not be able to take any action to 
address many current health hazards, such as preventing the recurrence 
in the Nation's water supply of microbial diseases like the one that 
killed numerous people in Milwaukee and caused 400,000 illnesses, 
preventing the 70,000 deaths estimated to be caused each year by 
breathing air laden with fine particles, or reducing the airborne 
emissions of dioxin from waste incinerators located near residential 
communities.


                               background

  Section 202(a) requires that the benefits of any major rule to 
protect health, safety, or the environment--one resulting in an 
increase in cost of $25 million or more--justify and be related to, the 
costs of the rule. That section also requires that there be no 
regulatory or nonregulatory option that could achieve similar benefits 
in a more cost-effective manner or in a manner providing more 
flexibility to the regulated entities. These requirements must be met 
by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record (section 202(b)(2)), a 
higher standard for agency rulemaking than the ``arbitrary and 
capricious'' standard required for agency rulemakings under the 
Administrative Procedure Act [APA].
  As a result, this bill supersedes, and rescinds, the decisional 
criteria for balancing harms and benefits built into all current 
Federal environmental laws. The mandates of environmental statutes that 
EPA rulemaking be necessary to protect human health or the 
environment--RCRA hazardous waste requirements--or provide an adequate 
margin of safety (Clean Air Act) or prevent the endangerment of 
drinking water supplies (Safe Drinking Water Act), to use just a few 
examples, would be fundamentally altered. Instead, EPA's rules under 
all environmental statutes would need to be based on a demonstration 
that the benefits of the action ``justify'' the costs and that there 
are no other options, including non-regulatory options, that are more 
cost-effective.
  Because of the substantial evidence standard, EPA will need to 
quantify costs and benefits to the extent possible. And, since many of 
the public and private benefits of environmental regulation are 
difficult to identify, let alone quantify, public health and 
environment will always be on the losing side of this kind of analysis.
  And the biggest losers in this kind of analysis are people who are 
the most expensive to protect: infants, older Americans, people with 
serious illnesses, people in rural areas, and people who live in low 
income areas. Prolonging the life of persons who are the most 
vulnerable may have little economic value.
  Similiarly, preventing people from becoming ill, a major benefit of 
new drinking water protection rules, for example, has little dollar 
value and would be unlikely to survive this analysis. As a result, EPA 
would not be able to require the additional water treatment that would 
prevent the recurrence of incidents such as the outbreak of 
Cryptosporidiosis in the Milwaukee water supply that resulted in an 
estimated hundred deaths and over 400,000 illnesses.
  EPA would also have great difficulty justifying new Clean Air Act 
standards to protect children from lead poisoning, asthmatics from 
sulfur dioxide, and cardiac patients from carbon monoxide. EPA would 
also not be able to revise the outdated rules for hazardous waste 
incinerators located in or near residential communities.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Norwood], a member of the committee.
  Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not just rise, I stand up with great glee to 
support H.R. 1022. I have for the last 5 years of my life lived under 
the rules of this Federal Government. Finally, I decided to run for 
Congress to try to get out of the way of the Food and Drug 
Administration, OSHA, and all the other regulatory agencies in this 
country.
  This bill is an important first step toward a Federal rulemaking 
system that solves legitimate problems cost effectively, a rulemaking 
system that cooperates with governments and businesses and that 
prioritizes potential risks to society based on objective science 
rather than subjective whimsy.
  I know that this town may not be full of crazy regulators or 
standards writers or enforcers, I do know there are a lot of them here, 
but Mr. Chairman, they are all over the country. And if I may cite a 
couple of examples which have a source: EPA regulations require 
municipal water treatment plants to remove 30 percent of organic 
material before discharging treated water into the ocean. What a good 
idea. Who could disagree with that?
  [[Page H2253]] Because water, though, in Anchorage, AK, is already 
cleaned, the town has had to recruit local fish processors to purposely 
dump 5,000 pounds of fish guts into the sewer system each day, thus 
allowing the city to clean the water and satisfy EPA requirements.
  Another wonderful example, Mr. Chairman: Montana rancher John Shuler 
was awakened one night by a grizzly bear rummaging through his sheep 
herd. He went outside with his guns and fired shots into the air in an 
attempt to scare them off. An unseen grizzly emerged from the dark to 
attack Shuler. Fearing for his life, Shuler shot the bear.
  The grizzly bear, you know, is on the endangered species list, Mr. 
Chairman, and Mr. Shuler was consequently fined $4,000 by the EPA.
  I am amazed today to hear people say that it is unfair to have a peer 
review committee where the very people who are being ruled and 
regulated are going to sit on that committee and be able to defend 
their families and businesses. I am amazed to hear the people that sit 
in the hearings, directors of agencies, complain about paperwork, 
complain about being regulated and complain about lawyers. For goodness 
sakes, that is what we have been living with for the last 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal regulatory costs are estimated to be over $540 
billion. Our supporters ask us to support H.R. 1022.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, title I of H.R. 1022 will 
cripple American industry. It requires extensive risk analysis which is 
time consuming, redundant, and unnecessary. It will apply to hundreds 
of thousands of American industries and businesses that need 
environmental permits or changes to permits they already have.
  The provisions of this title will result in huge delays in the 
construction or modification of the hundreds of thousands of industries 
and businesses that apply for any type of environmental permit or 
permit modification each year. And it is the permittee who will bear 
the cost of the delay and the redundant analysis. This is gridlock at 
its worst.

                              {time}  1700

  Also, because these analyses are required prior to EPA even proposing 
cleanup measures for oil or toxic spills, contamination of land and 
water will spread and grow more costly, and more dangerous, while 
awaiting these analyses. These analyses are required even if they are 
completely unnecessary for the cleanup. This kind of redtape and 
bureaucratic strangulation is absurd.
  Title I or H.R. 1022 requires that each significant risk assessment 
document and significant risk characterization document prepared by or 
for a Federal agency meet detailed analysis requirements prior to 
completing actions designed to protect human health, safety, or the 
environment. (Section 103(b).) Federal actions in which such 
assessments or characterizations are used and which do not comply with 
these requirements must be voided by the courts even where the document 
itself was tangential to the federal action.
  While risk assessment and risk characterization documents are 
necessary and important bases for federal regulatory action, the scope 
of this provision goes far beyond scientific risk assessment or 
characterization documents. In fact, risk assessment and risk 
characterization documents are sweepingly defined to include virtually 
any federal document which identifies, describes, or discusses any 
hazard (Section 110). Although the definition of significant documents 
narrows the scope of these provisions, the federal actions affected 
remain large, including all federal permits, major rules, and federal 
oil or chemical spill response plans.
  More importantly within those categories, all risk assessment 
documents or risk characterization documents, regardless of their 
significance, must meet the analysis requirements of sections 104 and 
105. Since almost any document prepared for a Federal permit, Federal 
permit modification, cleanup plan, or major rule will at least refer 
to, if not discuss, the hazards addressed by the federal action, almost 
all documents must meet the analysis requirements, even when that 
analysis is not particularly relevant or necessary for the Federal 
action.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a crippling American industry provision, and I 
ask that we reject H.R. 1022.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, today our Nation spends about $140 billion 
each year to comply with environmental regulations. That total will 
climb past $200 billion by the year 2000. Now these regulations are 
vital, but these costs mean that less money is available for other 
important needs like reducing crime, creating jobs, improving our 
education system, and, as we saw in committee in some cases, even 
allowing more money to go for medical science research that could be 
available with the cost-benefit analysis before we move ahead. 
Inefficient investments in regulatory programs reduces our ability as a 
nation to create new opportunities for Americans.
  I have been hearing arguments from the other side of the aisle that 
they want regulatory reform but not this reform. But my question is, 
``If you want reform, where have you been the last 40 years?''
  Mr. Chairman, what did they accomplish? Zip, zero, except add law 
after law, regulation after regulation, layer after layer of $50 
solutions to $5 problems.
  Opponents of this bill also argue that this will open the floodgates 
to litigation. I ask, ``What do you think we have now?'' At least for 
the first time we will get good science, and we will get some cost-
benefit analysis before these costs are imposed on small businesses, 
local governments and consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1022 should make the regulatory process more 
efficient and more productive instead of squandering time and resources 
treating relatively minor risks. This bill establishes criteria for 
identifying and treating the more serious risks facing the environment, 
public health and safety. When emergency rule-making authority is 
needed, this bill allows agencies to continue to use their emergency 
rulemaking authority.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I have always been and will continue to be 
a strong supporter of risk assessments and regulatory reform. This bill 
was intended to address real problems within the current system. 
However, this new version before us today differs from either bill 
considered by the Committee on Commerce or the Committee on Science, 
and it needs substantive changes if it is to address the regulatory 
morass now present.
  Implementation of its cumbersome procedures requires people. Using 
conservative CBO estimates this could mean putting about 5,000 people 
back on the federal payroll.
  This bill will result in an increase in risk assessments and cost-
benefits analyses by agencies from the current level of 80 per year to 
more than 2,400 per year.
  The cost to the Department of Defense for developing and implementing 
peer review for the base realignment and closure process alone will be 
estimated between $35 and $70 million per year. The Department of 
Transportation will have to perform risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis before issuing mirror requirements to help school bus drivers 
protect the safety of our schoolchildren.
  That is not the kind of reform our constituents would like to see, 
not to mention State governments coming under this.
  Talk about an unfunded mandate; H.R. 1022 would require State 
governments, when acting as agents of the Federal Government, to 
perform risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis on issuance of 
permits or even modifications to the permitting process. In my opinion 
this is the classic definition of an unfunded mandate.
   [[Page H2254]] Not only that, but the bill, as written, allows 
courts to determine the criteria for sound science, the impact which 
will certainly be endless lawsuits.
  Remember, my colleagues, it was 1991, after the Reagan-
administration-appointed judge who, after reviewing thousands of pages 
of scientific assessments, imposed a logging ban across much of the 
Pacific Northwest to protect the spotted owl.
  Finally, and unbelievably, as written H.R. 1022 allows individuals 
with a vested interest in the outcome to sit on peer review panels.
  Curiously, this contract that was created by legislators rightly 
concerned about the exercise of power by unelected bureaucrats would 
give the power to delay new regulations, some needed, to unelected peer 
review panels and the courts. I am for reform, as I said, but this bill 
must have substantive change to be worthy of its title.
  Mr. Chairman, in our haste to meet an arbitrary deadline on this 
legislation let us, please, not make an intolerable situation more 
intolerable.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise because of concerns about 
H.R. 1022.
  First of all, I am proud to live in a nation with the cleanest air, 
the purest food, the safest drinking water, the safest products, the 
safest working conditions, of any country in the world. I am proud of 
that. I think that obviously the people of this country are proud of 
the working conditions, proud of the clean air, and safe drinking 
water, and pure food laws, and the consensus that this country has 
arrived at on both sides of the aisle in making the standard of living 
in this country as high as it is and making the environment in this 
country as good as it is.
  I live on Lake Erie in Lorain, Ohio, 25 or so miles west of 
Cleveland. Twenty years ago parts of Lake Erie were literally dead. The 
Cuyahoga River caught on fire in the city of Cleveland. Today--as I 
said, I live on the lake. I have two daughters that swim in Lake Erie. 
People drink the water in Lake Erie. It is a wonderful resource for all 
kinds of commercial purposes, for all kinds of activities around the 
lake, and we have been able to do that in this country because of the 
cooperation of business and the cooperative of government and the 
active citizens that have cleaned up that lake and made it safe and 
made it what we would like it to be.
  Certainly sometimes government does overreach, and, when government 
does overreach, it is up to us to deal with those regulations one by 
one, not with a meat axe approach like H.R. 1022 does, but to deal with 
it case by case by case. That is why I support risk assessment. That is 
why I support good scientific based information, risk assessment, cost-
benefit analysis. That is why it makes sense to do it case by case by 
case, not the way that H.R. 1022 does.
  What H.R. 1022 will bring to this society in this government is more 
regulation, more bureaucracy, more lawyers, more litigation. That is 
why many groups around the country have called this the lawyers' full 
employment bill. It simply does not make sense to pile more government, 
more bureaucracy, more litigation, more lawyers on top of what we now 
have. It simply does not make sense.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I will offer a 
substitute amendment later this evening. It will set a higher threshold 
for rulemaking which will save government money and save private sector 
money. It will allow for appropriate judicial review which will cut the 
costs of litigation, will mean fewer lawyers rather than more lawyers. 
It will mean less litigation rather than more litigation, and the 
Brown-Brown substitute will provide for peer review with no conflict of 
interest so that, when regulations are considered under risk 
assessment, that the decisions will be made fairly, without undue 
private interference from those groups, or those industries or those 
businesses that have something to gain by that interference. The 
substitute, the Brown-Brown substitute which we will offer later, means 
less money, less litigation, less bureaucracy, less conflict of 
interest. It simply makes sense, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, for the last 40 years Washington, 
government, has been taxing and strangling both American families and 
American jobs, and let there be no doubt. Unneeded regulations are 
nothing more than a tax on the American public. I say to my colleagues, 
``You and I have paid the bill for the cost shifting of increased 
prices associated with the things we need to purchase. According to the 
Alliance for Reasonable Regulations, it is now estimated that the 
effective cost to an average family is over $6,000 per year. That's why 
the House passed in a bipartisan vote a moratorium on new regulations. 
Six thousand dollars a year for irresponsible, unneeded, expensive 
regulations prevents parents from keeping enough food, enough of their 
hard-earned money, to buy food and clothing and provide a comfortable 
living for their children.''
  Remember the cost of regulation is the most regressive type of tax 
because both the poor and the rich pay the same, and it is harder for 
the poor families. So, if we care about our kids and our families, and 
we all do, we should start to reduce the burden of unnecessary 
regulations and start to apply some common sense.
  I urge a vote for H.R. 1022, a vote for sound science and reasonable 
regulation.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis, a resounding yes.
  However, Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 1022 has been developed far 
too hastily to be considered as a sound policy prescriptive for public 
health, safety and environmental regulatory standards. This bill 
imposes inflexible and unrealistic requirements for regulatory analysis 
and decision making. Our Federal agencies will have to spend more time 
scrutinizing the regulations than gathering a base of research to 
support the proposed rule, the business that they should be in. The 
effect of this bill would be nothing more than to slow the regulatory 
rule-making business down to a crawl, and we cannot even begin to 
speculate what kind of effect such restrictions would have on public 
safety and public health. These administrative burdens are projected to 
cost at least $250 million a year if this particular bill is 
implemented, but yet we stand here, Mr. Chairman, and say that we want 
to cut costs and make government more efficient.
  We are creating problems rather than addressing them. Between 
expanding the scope of judicial review for virtually all Federal rules 
aimed at protecting health, safety or the environment and in a single 
broad stroke superseding various provisions of such laws, this bill 
becomes to a certain extent the mother of all risks.

                              {time}  1715

  We are risking public health, public safety, and threatening our 
environment. This Risk Assessment and Cost-benefit Act presently before 
us is more of a cost than a benefit. I urge my colleagues to solve the 
real problem the real way, with less bureaucracy.
  I might add, if I can, Mr. Chairman, to simply query the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], because I heard him complaining about, 
and I am a new Member, the high cost of asbestos removal regulations. I 
was just wondering as to when that particular rule was implemented. I 
was just wondering, as I am a new Member, why you mentioned the 
asbestos removal regulations that many of us did operate under. I am 
from local government. We had to respond to it. But I was wondering, 
since you mentioned it, whether you knew when that rule was 
implemented.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  [[Page H2255]] Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. I think it was during the 1980's.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I think it was during the Reagan administration. I 
would ask for your comment, at the time it was done under a Republican 
administration, the concern was we were trying to resolve this as it 
related to our children. We were looking to improve the safety 
conditions of our children, and I think we were working with the 
present scientific technology at that time.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentlewoman would yield, the problem is that even 
in the Reagan administration bureaucrats are bureaucrats, and they did 
not have any mandate to do good science. We are going to mandate them 
to do good science. It would have prevented that mistake from being 
made, whether it was during the Reagan, Carter, or Clinton 
administration. This bill is designed to make certain we do not have to 
go through that kind of problem once again. It was a disaster.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need good 
science. I think the science used at that time was the best science 
they could use, and I think we must be cognizant of that and be sure 
that we do nothing to damage the health and safety of our children.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives, regardless of what you have heard in the debate today, 
this is really a well-crafted bill. It is incredible to hear the 
opponents whine against this bill, because this bill does not do any of 
the things to any of the regulations they are talking about. This bill 
does not go back. This bill is not retroactive. This bill is 
prospective. This bill gives the President a say in this risk 
assessment process. This bill gives the agencies a say in this risk 
assessment process.
  This is a well-crafted, sound piece of legislation. Let me tell you 
something else this bill does for the future. Current law in many 
instances prohibits the use of cost as a criteria in assessing risks 
and benefits. This bill says for the first time that we will use a 
cost-benefit and risk assessment based on a set of criteria that makes 
sense in an orderly procedure.
  Let me give you some examples, if I may, of ridiculous approaches to 
requirements to assess risk right now. In 1992, OSHA cited a two-person 
company for not having material safety data sheets for Windex and Joy 
cleaning solutions. Here is a material safety data sheet that they are 
required to fill out. Is that a good use of our resources?
  EPA rules force dentists to keep logs for possession an disposal of 
White-Out. Here is White-Out correction fluid. It is classified as a 
hazardous waste. Is that a good use of our resources?
  Mr. Chairman, let me give you one more example--strawberries. 
Strawberries, EPA limits benzene to 5 parts per billion in drinking 
water. Strawberries naturally have 50 parts per billion. Does this make 
sense? Is this how we are protecting public health, safety and welfare? 
I say not.
  GAO cited in a study to this Congress that politics is the main 
criteria for choosing cleanup sites. What does that say to our children 
in inner cities? What does that say to the real risk to human life and 
human limb?
  Limited resources require that we do a better job. Let me quote John 
Graham, a Harvard professor, who said, ``Sound science means saving the 
most lives and achieving the most ecological protection with our scarce 
budgets. Without sound science, we are engaging in a form of 
`statistical murder,' where we
 squander our resources on phantom risks when our families continue to 
be endangered by real risks.''

  So this legislation today for the first time gives some direction to 
an agency like EPA, like OSHA, and says these are the risks. This is 
the way we will address these risks, and we will use cost-benefit 
analysis in the process. It is a good piece of legislation, and I urge 
Members to support it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains amongst the several 
of us allocating time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] has 5 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] has 10 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this bill would like 
the American people to believe that their health and safety will be 
jeopardized if this legislation passes, but nothing could be further 
from the truth. The American people have had to endure radical 
environmentalists screaming lies into their face for far too long. This 
bill insists that government will be basing its decisions on sound 
science, peer review, and cost-benefit analysis.
  What really is at issue here is the ability of power-hungry 
bureaucrats to intimidate the homeowner or the farmer or the small 
businessman or woman at will. It is a stake in the heart of big brother 
government.
  From now on, if local government and small enterprise is going to be 
driven out of business, it has got to be justified, and it has got to 
be justified on a reasonable condition, rather than just pandering to 
the paranoid screams of environmental Chicken Littles. In hearings 
before the Committee on Science, we watched as bureaucrats shed 
crocodile tears because this bill would cause unacceptable delays that 
would cost more and add layers of bureaucracy to their departments. In 
other words, Mr. Chairman, they are opposed to this bill because it 
would impose the same burdens on them that they have been imposing on 
the American people.
  Perhaps if this bill had been in effect, our public schools would not 
have been forced to spend $10 billion on a nonexistent asbestos 
problem, and instead could have used the money for educating our 
children. There are numerous examples of this monstrously costly 
nonsense, from cyclamates to alar, from lead paint to cranberries 
causing cancer.
  A vote for H.R. 1022 is a vote for rational regulation, sound 
science, and a vote against Big Brother bureaucracy. It is a vote for 
prosperity and safety for our people. I urge all of my colleagues to 
join with me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. The 
Risk Assessment and Cost-benefit Act of 1995 achieves two fundamental 
objectives. First, the bill ensures that the system of assessing risks 
and communicating that information to decision makers in the public is 
objective, unbiased and informative.
  Second, it ensures that the Federal regulatory process has an 
enforceable system that considers the incremental costs and benefits of 
each significant option for every piece of major legislation. I think 
that makes good common sense in the sense of common sense legal reform 
that we are trying to bring about.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to look at the Wall Street Journal 
just last week in which I found a very interesting column that was 
titled ``In Search of Zero Risk.'' It was written by a Kathryn Kelly, a 
principal of ERM--Environmental Toxicology International in Seattle, 
WA, who had some interesting points to make in terms of what we are 
looking at in our existing environmental standards.
  She says the ``acceptable risk'' criterion on which much of the 
current environmental regulation is premised has no basis in scientific 
fact, has received no serious review, and was in fact ``pulled out of a 
hat.'' At issue is the so-called ``one-in-a-million'' standard of 
acceptable risk for environmental contaminants.
  [[Page H2256]] She goes on to talk about how they talked to several 
people that were involved in this risk assessment and how they came to 
this one-in-a-million risk. I think the Members will find it 
interesting.
  She says, ``What is the origin of this criterion which has cost 
society billions of dollars? In 1991 my firm set out to solve this 
mystery. We contacted officials from the Bush White House, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the 
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and activist groups such 
as Greenpeace. The result, no one, not even the very Federal officials 
who currently use the one-in-a-million standard, knew what it was based 
on.''
  A sample of the responses: ``My mind is a complete blank.'' ``My, 
what an interesting question.'' ``It is an economic criterion, whatever 
that means.'' ``It is based on the chance of being hit by lightning, 
which is one in a million.'' ``It was a purely political decision made 
by several of the major agencies behind closed doors in the 1970's. I 
doubt very much you
 will get anyone to talk to you about it.'' Our personal favorite: 
``You really shouldn't be asking these questions.'' This from one of 
the Federal agencies.

  Now, I ask you, does the response from these so-called agencies make 
sense whatsoever in the real world? If you look at the statutes that we 
are dealing with, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the recent 
alar scare, the recent flap over asbestos in schools, you have to say 
to yourself, we have gone far too much in the wrong direction in trying 
to set these particular standards.
  It is unconscionable for a school district the size of mine in a town 
of 35,000 people to have to spend over $3 million removing asbestos 
from the school system that was found later to be perfectly safe, and 
was in fact safer had they left it alone than if they tried to get it 
out and put it back in the air.
  Or let us look at the Clean Air Act. You talk about a political 
decision. All of us remember, of course, the study that was 
commissioned where we spent over $600 million to study clean air, and 
particularly acid rain. I am glad to see my friend from California show 
up, because he was responsible for this mishmash that is the Clean Air 
Act.
  We had this NAPAP report. The NAPAP report supposedly was going to 
give us the information we needed to craft a good and effective clean 
air bill. What happened? In the tradition of the Congress, ready, fire, 
aim, the Congress actually passed a clean air bill before the NAPAP 
report came out. When the NAPAP report came out several months later, 
it was found that we were clearly killing a fly with a sledgehammer. 
That has meant in my home State of Ohio an increase already of 14 
percent for my electric rates for my constituents and constituents of 
other Ohio Members.
  Now, I ask you, does that really make any sense? Can you stand here 
and make a legitimate argument that after the NAPAP report came out, 
that the clean air bill, particularly as it related to SO2 made 
any sense? This is a good bill, it is a fair bill, it is balanced, it 
makes sense for America, and let us get on with it.
  Mr. Chairman, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 
achieves two fundamental objectives. First, the bill ensures that the 
system of assessing risks and communicating that information to 
decisionmakers and the public is objective, unbiased and informative. 
Second, it ensures that the Federal regulatory process has an 
enforceable system that considers the incremental costs and benefits of 
each significant option for every piece of major regulation.
  The biggest problem faced in preparing this legislation is that so 
many early laws simply provide for, or even allow for, these rules of 
reason. The bill states that three rules of reason must be met 
notwithstanding prior law. The act requires Federal agencies to certify 
that:
  (1) risk assessments and cost analyses are objective and unbiased;
  (2) the incremental risk reduction or other benefits of a major rule 
will be likely to justify, and be reasonably related to, the 
incremental costs; and
  (3) that the regulation is either more cost-effective or provides 
more flexibility to State, local, or tribal governments or regulated 
entities than the other options considered.
  I believe these are sound and reasonable principles. The current 
costs of Federal regulatory programs are estimated between $430 and 
$700 billion and increasing every day. Yet, Congress has never in any 
significant way reformed a Federal regulatory program to consider sound 
risk assessments and incremental cost-benefit analysis.
  Real reform means you must supersede the inconsistent old 
requirements to the extent they are not reasonable. We know this is a 
novel concept in a legislative body that has only added more regulatory 
programs and to a Federal bureaucracy defending its own weak programs.
  Why should we preserve a system based on biased risk assessments? Why 
should we preserve a system where costs are unjustified or 
unreasonable? Why should we preserve a system where regulations are 
inflexible or not cost-effective?
  Simply put, if the bureaucrats can't justify their rules, we should 
not continue to add more and more regulations with major costs.
  The debate over the last number of years has revealed strong 
differences among some Members about the role of the Federal Government 
and risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The view from outside 
the Washington beltway, from Governors, mayors, school boards and small 
and large businesses, is that there is a serious problem concerning the 
credibility and impact of Federal regulatory programs.
  A number of Members, however, believe that rules which increase 
annual costs between $25 and $100 million should not be subject to 
cost-benefit requirements. Many of these same Members advocate that 
risk and cost-benefit legislation should essentially be unenforceable. 
In my view, such an approach would shield the Federal bureaucracy from 
real accountability and effectively neuter the legislation.
  I am further reminded of how those who oppose judicial review for the 
Federal bureaucrats were eagerly prepared to impose penalties under the 
Toxic Substances Control Act on ordinary homeowners during real estate 
transactions. Last year I opposed Radon legislation which placed 
requirements on ordinary homesellers and even those who rented out 
rooms. Republicans argued that such an approach intruded on State law 
and would swamp the Federal courts with millions of violations during 
ordinary real estate transactions.
  We asked EPA to justify its support when the possible penalties were 
as high as $10,000 for failing to hand out a hazard information 
pamphlet. I offered an amendment to remove this provision, but the 
Administration and the Democratic leadership prevailed. Moreover, the 
League of Conservation Voters scored my amendment as an anti-
environmental vote.
  I think I can guarantee that such an approach to expand the Federal 
regulatory octopus to ordinary homeowners will not occur this Congress.
  I am struck, however, by the double standard and the passionate 
defense of the Federal bureaucracy by the same Members so willing to 
impose Federal penalties and litigation on ordinary homeowners. 
Congress has simply added new regulatory program upon new regulatory 
program. America is long over due for real change.
  I strongly support H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit 
Act. The bill provides a strong, enforceable system of accountability, 
disclosure, peer review, and careful analysis of regulatory 
alternatives. This is a critical building block for Federal regulatory 
programs to ensure that our national resources reduce real risks and 
set realistic priorities.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker].

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, in his book ``Breaking the 
Vicious Circle,'' Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer tells the story 
of a case he tried while he was on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. 
The case U.S. versus Ottati and Gross, involved a toxic waste site that 
had been substantially cleaned-up, so much so that small children could 
eat small amounts of dirt from the site for 70 days every year with no 
ill effects.
  Enter the Environmental Protection, Agency. The E.P.A. wanted the 
owners of the dump to spend an additional $9.3 million to make the site 
clean enough so that children could eat dirt there for 245 days 
annually--despite the facts that the site was in the middle of a swamp, 
no children played there and that the E.P.A. acknowledged that much of 
the remaining waste would evaporate by the year 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, as this amazing story demonstrates, we need risk 
assessment reform. The Republican plan strikes a balance between 
environmental protection and human safety, on the one 
 [[Page H2257]] hand, and environmental extremism and bureaucratic 
excess on the other. Burdening the private sector with costly and 
useless regulations undermines the cause of a sound environment, and 
costs jobs in the process.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, even the Clinton administration has admitted 
that the cost of private sector compliance with Federal regulations to 
be $430 billion annually--a full 9 percent of the gross domestic 
product. Other studies indicate that the true cost could be double this 
amount.
  The Republican risk assessment plan requires Federal agencies that 
issue health, safety or environmental regulations to perform risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis for any rule that would cost the 
economy $25 million or more. Our bill establishes peer review programs 
so that experts from outside the Government and ordinary citizens 
affected by Federal rules can give their imput. And our plan says that 
the President has to set regulatory priorities and report to Congress, 
every 2 years, on how to implement them.
  Mr. Chairman, we need risk assessment to protect our citizens from 
the worst excess of zealous regulators. Let's act now before the 
bureaucrats strike again.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren.
  (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1022 
and the peer review process contained therein. Any true regulatory 
reform must have as a fundamental principle a methodical process to 
evaluate the relative risk of a proposed regulation. That is where peer 
review comes in, and it is an integral part of this bill.
  Some critics have voiced skepticism over the peer review provision of 
H.R. 1022 because it does not require peer reviewers to be excluded 
solely because they represent entities that may have an interest in the 
regulation. Some feel that this sets a dangerous precedent, inviting 
conflicts of interest. Not only is there precedent for such peer review 
panels, Congress has in certain instances required panels to include 
labor, industry and others involved in an issue so that balance is 
achieved in a peer review process.
  Under the provisions of this bill, the panels are required to be 
balanced and all panel members must fully disclose any interest they 
have in the outcome. This same practice has been followed by a number 
of advisory boards already in existence set up by the Federal 
Government. For example, under the National Environmental Policy Act, 
the Science Advisory Board was established to conduct peer review of 
any proposed standard, limitation or regulation administered by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The Science Advisory Board is required 
to be composed of at least nine members with the only qualification 
being education, training and experience in evaluating scientific and 
technical information. Nowhere does it dictate who should or should not 
participate in the decisions because of their affiliation.
  Scientific integrity has been maintained under the Science Advisory 
Board. Nothing has been compromised.
  In another example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
established the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and 
Health to advise, consult with and make recommendations to the 
Secretary of Labor on issues under OSHA. Specifically, the committee is 
to be composed of representatives of management, labor, occupational 
safety and occupational health professions and the public. Clearly, all 
of these parties have a stake in the decisions made by this committee, 
but none is barred by participation based on that interest.
  The Energy Policy Act, passed by Congress in 1992, also requires the 
establishment of a peer review panel, and there are no requirements 
based on interest in the outcome.
  Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the peer review process of this bill 
are sound, and I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Idaho, [Mr. Crapo], a member of the committee.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, it is an important time that we have reached 
finally in the debate for regulatory reform. People across America know 
all of the examples, the schools that are facing a tremendous burden 
our regulations put on them, the libraries across our country, the 
hospitals, the people in every walk of life who have to face the 
significant requirements that are burdens of our regulations put upon 
them to require them to increase the safety to vary increasingly minute 
risks with virtually no analysis of whether the cost of reaching those 
increasingly minute risks or safety factors are justified.
  Today we have an opportunity to correct that, to require that common 
sense be applied when we are crafting regulations, to require that when 
we say that a certain goal is something that should be reached by the 
people in this country, that we know what it is going to cost them and 
that the benefits that are going to be gained by that expenditure money 
are justified by the analysis. This is what the American people want. 
It is no less than we should give them in the administration of our 
laws.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong proponent of risk 
assessment and effective government and cost-benefit analysis.
  Having grown up on a farm in eastern Arkansas and having seen in 
person both the tremendous waste, that government regulations can 
assist us in preserving our environment and our surroundings but also 
in being overburdensome as well as top heavy in regulatory needs. Risk 
assessment is a vital tool in forming cost-effective and well-reasoned 
federal regulations. It should be used to create a better and 
responsive Federal Government, not stymie things down with court 
actions or excessive delay.
  But I do have some concerns that the bill we are looking at today, 
this will happen under the current bill. Before we consider H.R. 1022 
further, we may have to take a time-out to do a cost-benefit analysis 
on this bill. CBO has made some conservative estimates that the bill 
will cost the Federal Government an additional 250 million a year to 
conduct risk assessment. This breaks down to approximately 5,000 new 
federal employees, including many new lawyers hired to defend agency 
actions.
  As we look at this bill today, I hope that we will work in bipartisan 
fashion to make it better so that it will be of great assistance to all 
of us across the Nation in making government more effective.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, there is an article that is working its 
way around the Capitol entitled, ``Whatever Happened to Common Sense.'' 
I think that is really what we are talking about with this bill today.
  I want to share with my colleagues two examples of people who have 
been in my office in the last two weeks.
  One of them was a cardiologist from my district. He was in town for a 
convention. They were talking about some of the technologies that are 
available today in Europe, Japan and even in Israel that are not 
available in the United States because of the bureaucratic 
tangle that they have to go through to get FDA approval.
  A second gentleman runs a little three-person business, and it is not 
in my district, but he has a partner in my district that by his own 
count, last year, they had to fill out 6,243 pages of bureaucratic 
paperwork. Whatever happened to common sense?
  That is what is before us today. I think the American people are 
tired of $50 solutions to $5 problems. We need H.R. 1022, and we need 
it now.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  We have had, as I have indicated before, an illuminating debate on 
this issue. But I think it needs to be stressed again that there is no 
basic difference on either side as to what we are trying to achieve. We 
want a more rational, less expensive, more common sense, to use the 
phrase of the last speaker, system of regulation. What 
 [[Page H2258]] seems to be causing us problems is a discussion of how 
we go about achieving this very desirable goal.
  I have pointed out in earlier remarks that every administration in my 
experience here, which goes back 32 years, has sought to achieve this 
same goal and failed. And most of those were Republican presidents, I 
might say. So I presume the response of the other side is, well, it was 
a democratic Congress that prevented these things from happening.
  That is not the case. The situation has been that those, many of us 
in Congress equally wanted to do that, but the situation did not point 
to an easy solution. It still does not.
  Unfortunately, on the other side, they believe that they have an easy 
solution. I think this is best illustrated by some of the anecdotes 
that we have heard here.
  The Republicans have done a very good job of packaging this as well 
as their other contract items. In critical areas they have used the 
argument that this is for the children. This always gets a marvelous 80 
percent response. If it is for the children, maybe 90 percent in some 
cases, that is the thing that needs to be done.
  What happened in the alar case? It was not EPA regulation. It was the 
Natural Resources Defense Council which held a press conference which 
belabored EPA for not regulating alar. And what happened then? Sixty 
Minutes picked it up and said, look what is happening to our children 
because they are being exposed to this poison. And EPA did not 
anticipate the undue concentration of apple juice in the diet of little 
children. And the demand was overwhelming throughout the United States 
for EPA to regulate more strictly than they had.
  Now, the same thing has happened in cases of asbestos, for example. 
It is well known that asbestos kills. It leads to a deadly, fatal lung 
disease. I was exposed to that problem 30 years ago, when workers at 
the naval shipyard came to me and said that they were getting sick and 
dying, and it was the children living in schools where there was 
asbestos insulation that caused the furor for asbestos regulation. I do 
not think that there was ever any mandate from EPA to regulate it, but 
there was a huge, popular demand from school boards and parents all 
over this country.
  Beware what you are doing because you may hurt some little children, 
and it will come back and bite you.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, earlier today a colleague of mine on the 
Committee on Commerce made a reference to outrageous regulations and 
paperwork that government would have to do if this bill passed. Well, 
let me tell Members something. On the first day we actually passed a 
law that said that Congress will start living under the rules we set 
for other people. Maybe this bill is saying, government will start 
living by the rules that everybody in the United States has to live 
under, that we have to consider the cost-effectiveness of our actions 
before we initiate them.
  I find it ironic to see the people that have been screaming for years 
that we need more regulation and more paperwork now point to a 
situation where we are asking government to reciprocate, all at once 
they are worried about it.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I who work on environmental issues 
throughout this Nation, I for one in California, have been appalled 
over the years that the fact that our environmental regulations sent 
down from Washington have not had the effect of protecting the public 
in a manner that would be the most cost-effective and, thus, avoiding 
benefit that could be perpetuated if we were focusing on cost-
effectiveness.
  In California, Mr. Chairman, we have for decades had a mandate for 
cost-effectiveness. It has not been a barrier to protecting the public 
health. It has been one of our greatest successes.
  In fact, in our Clean Air strategies, which I think all of us would 
agree is one of most successful programs in this country, California's 
clean air strategies have been made successful because we have a cost-
effectiveness mandate, not regardless thereof.
  I think that we also need to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we are 
talking about the public health when we are talking about cost-
effectiveness. We are talking about bringing some reasonable, logic 
into the formulation of our public health strategy. And I know there 
may be Members of this body that may get nervous when we talk about 
common sense and reasonableness, but that is all we are talking about 
here.

                              {time}  1745

  We are not talking about dollars and cents, we are not talking about 
business. From this Member's point of view, when we talk cost-
effectiveness, we talk about getting the most public health benefit for 
every dollar spent. The equates into the public health of our children, 
and without it, our children would be exposed.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this item, for our children's 
public health.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation for three 
reasons: it is a fraud, it is a rollback of 25 years of environmental 
progress, and it is just plain stupid. Let me explain what I mean.
  The proponents of this bill say that it is designed to improve the 
regulatory process. They say that all it does is inject common sense in 
the form of risk assessment, and cost-benefit analysis into rule-making 
process. This is a fraud. This bill is not about improving rulemaking, 
it is not about risk assessment or cost-benefit analysis.
  These are tools used now, wisely. They are very helpful in deciding 
what regulations are appropriate, but what they in fact do is create in 
this bill so many procedural hurdles to regulations that Federal 
agencies will simply be unable to protect the public health and the 
environment any more.
  Mr. Chairman, let me show the Members what I mean. I have a chart, 
and this chart illustrates the rulemaking maze created by H.R. 1022 and 
other components of the so-called Contract With America. The 
legislation adds so many review requirements that it will be virtually 
impossible for any agency to issue new rules.
  Agencies have to perform risk assessments, cost benefit analyses, 
cost effectiveness analyses, flexibility analyses, comparative risk 
analyses, to name only a few of the new requirements. The Environmental 
Protection Agency has told us that to comply with these new 
requirements they will need 1,000 new employees.
  The Food and Drug Administration has told us that issuing even simple 
rules, like standards to improve the detection of breast cancer during 
mammographies, could be delayed up to 2 years. Is this common sense? I 
doubt it.
  If an agency ever gets through this maze, it is then open to judicial 
review. H.R. 1022 makes the agency's risk assessments, cost-benefit 
analyses, all the other activities, subject to a court action, a 
lawyer's dream.
  Any industry that does not like the regulation that comes out of that 
maze can go into court and challenge the regulation, tie it up for 
years. These two charts that I have up now illustrate 60 new grounds 
for challenging agency actions; let me repeat that, 60 new grounds to 
go into court.
  That is laying it out for the lawyers to be able to tie up 
regulations that some big industry polluter does not like. For 
instance, a regulation can be challenged on the basis that the risk 
assessment did not sufficiently discuss laboratory data, or did not 
adequately discuss comparative physiology or pharmacokinetics.
  This is a fraud on the American people. The Members supporting this 
legislation are telling us they want to improve and streamline the 
rulemaking process. The truth, which they know but are not willing to 
tell the American people, is just the opposite. This legislation adds 
so many new procedural requirements it would allow any industry that 
opposes a new regulation 
 [[Page H2259]] to delay and litigate the regulation to death, no 
matter how essential that regulation may be.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a rollback of 25 years of health 
and environmental progress: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the 
safe drinking water laws, the Toxic Substances Act. All of these laws 
have been successful. The air is cleaner in so many parts of our 
country. You can swim in areas which in fact in the past have been too 
polluted to even stick your toe in, and the drinking water is going to 
be improved and has been improved throughout the country.
  However, the laws that are now being proposed this week would 
supersede all of the laws that I have mentioned and many others with a 
new set of requirements to roll back those standards.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. It is a rollback of 
important legislation that protects the health and the environment, and 
it just is not common sense.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995. This commonsense 
legislation will reform the way in which regulatory agencies set their 
rulemaking priorities.
  People across the country want regulatory reform. A recent article in 
the Washington Post cited a study showing that 69 percent of the public 
thinks that the Federal Government controls too much of our daily 
lives. People find it hard to believe that we are devoting precious 
resources to address risks that are so remote as to be negligible. We 
need rules that are rationally based, work better, and cost less.
  Government agencies, as well as private individuals and businesses, 
will benefit from risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. For 
instance, DOE is currently required to clean up sites across the 
country from its nuclear and weapons activities. These cleanups are 
subject to the requirements of RCRA and superfund. To the extent we 
add, through this legislation, reasonableness to the regulatory 
process, agencies of Government will benefit.
  The Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act will not undermine needed 
Federal safety guidelines nor will it prevent the Government from 
dealing with real environmental dangers. Instead, it asks Federal 
agencies to pursue the best alternative for the taxpayers' dollar. It 
is my view that the Government should justify the reasonableness of 
what it is doing to improve our citizens' lives, and that is exactly 
what this legislation is designed to accomplish.
  Some opponents of the measure decry it as a burden on the Federal 
regulatory bureaucracy. A burden on quick Federal regulation. I believe 
this is exactly what is needed. It is not unreasonable to ask the 
Federal Government to thoroughly review its regulation criteria to 
ensure the regulations are needed and efficient.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation makes sense and is long overdue. I 
urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding to me, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker], the chairman of the Committee on Science, for one great bill 
that we got out of Congress.
  I might say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] who 
preceded me that his other colleague pointed out that he wishes his 
party could have offered this legislation in the intervening 40 years 
since Republicans have been a majority, so he does not think it is a 
fraud. He does not think it is stupid. In fact, many people feel that 
this particular bill's time has come.
  Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1022, the 
Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Act of 1995. Many of us know that we 
spend up until the 15th of May to pay our taxes. That is how long we 
work to pay our taxes. We go to the 15th of July to pay for the 
regulations.
  This legislation represents the Republicans' commitment to achieve 
true reform of the way government works, and more importantly, it 
brings us closer to fulfilling the promise that we made to the American 
people.
  I find it some concern that there could be any opposition to this 
legislation, for truly, it is one of the most common sense bills we 
have brought before the House. It takes a rational look at irrational 
regulatory process. It forces agencies to slow down and look long and 
hard at each proposed rule.
  It forces out irrational regulation based upon upward bound 
technology, and implements, instead, a process that is both rational 
and fair. Rules and regulations would still exist, but they would 
finally be based upon sound science.
  This bill would force the Federal Government to live under the same 
rational rules that govern American households and businesses. The bill 
would require regulators to use their brains when making rules. They 
could no longer base their overly draconian regulations on the highest 
available technology, an idea that has led to a huge amount of 
increased regulatory burden on American taxpayers.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support and I urge all my colleagues to 
support this bill. Its time has finally come.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, as we conclude the debate, it seems to me 
that the main complaint we have heard from the opposition is the fact 
that we seem to be doing more in 4 months than they were able to do in 
40 years in terms of trying to deal with regulations.
  Nearly everybody that got up said they are for the intent of this 
bill. That is always the case. They are for it, they say, but not now, 
not soon, and perhaps not ever.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what we need to look at is the reality of where 
we are in this country today. Some have actually gotten up here and 
defended the present regulatory climate. The gentleman from California 
showed his chart, and he was all concerned about the fact that the 
regulators would actually have to do something about trying to make 
themselves more real in terms of science.
  Let us look at what is really happening in terms of this bill. This 
is the present regulatory climate, created by people who are now 
opposing this bill. All we are doing is we are adding four little boxes 
to the whole thing.
  What we are saying to the regulators is ``You impose all of this on 
the economy as a whole, you impose this on business, you impose this on 
individuals. Now we are going to ask you, in four little places, to do 
a little bit more.'' Now what we will get out of that is good science, 
we will get better regulations.
  Let me tell the Members who should be for this bill: anyone who has 
ever seen some Government regulations in some area he knows something 
about and thought or said ``That is really stupid. That person ought to 
be for this bill, because there is a lot of stupid regulation that goes 
on out there.'' American knows there are too many stupid Government 
regulations.
  This bill gives us a chance to stop being dumb and dumber, this bill 
gives us a chance to be smart and sensible. What this bill says is that 
the country has already undergone all kinds of turmoil as a result of 
what we have done in Government regulations. It is high time that 
bureaucrats also have to take a look at what they are doing. They have 
to apply good science, they have to apply common sense.
  Good science and common sense, that is what we are debating here. 
Some are for it, some are against it.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis Act of 1995.
  We have reached a point in our regulatory infrastructure where we 
have come to value to process over the product. Our goal should be to 
provide the best possible service to all Americans in terms of our 
public health and safety regulations.
  With this bill, we move a long way towards being able to deliver on 
this goal.
  The fundamental purpose of H.R. 1022 is to present the public, and 
Federal decisionmakers, with the most objective and unbiased scientific 
information available, concerning the nature and magnitude of various 
health, safety and environmental risks.
  [[Page H2260]] With this information available, we can help ensure 
sound regulatory decisionmaking, and improved public awareness.
  H.R. 1022 will also require analysis of costs and benefits for major-
rulemaking on human health, safety and the environment.
  Major rules are defined as regulations that are likely to result in 
an annual increase of $25 million or more in costs to State, local and 
tribal governments, or the regulated community.
  This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because in an era where we are 
necessarily focused on downsizing government and reducing federal 
outlays, it is essential that our available resources are allocated 
carefully and efficiently.
  We can no longer afford, if indeed we ever could, to simply throw 
money at a perceived problem.
  The examples of false alarms and wasted tax dollars are many, and we 
cannot maintain sound public health standards by setting policy based 
on the ``crisis du jour.''
  In San Diego we have 2 examples of regulations that are costly, and 
unnecessary and prohibitively burdensome.
  The first is the federally mandated secondary sewage standard.
  This is a requirement that will cost ratepayers billions and provide 
little benefit to the public or the environment.
  We also have an electronic light rail project that has been held up 
by various agencies' permitting processes for years.
  This is an environmentally beneficial project--one that promotes mass 
transit and clean air--and yet it has been tangled in a bureaucratic 
battle with various agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
and Army Corps of Engineers since 1992.
  It is truly an example of an environmentally sound public project 
held hostage by Federal agencies which are supposed to facilitate 
projects like this.
  As the New York Times recently stated, ``. . . environmental policy 
too often has evolved largely in reaction to popular panics, not in 
response to sound scientific analysis of which environmental hazards 
present the greatest risks.
  Critics, naysayers, and ``Chicken Littles'' claim that we are 
``rolling back 30 years of environmental protection.'' Please.
  What we are doing is assuring Americans the greatest degree of 
regulatory enforcement possible, based on sound science, with the 
limited resources we have available.
  It is unfair and ineffective to do anything short of this.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity here to respond to the American 
people's call for change, and to restore a measure of sanity and common 
sense to the Federal oversight which affects so many of them.
  I urge my colleagues to deliver on these positive changes, and join 
me in support of H.R. 1022.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill 
H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995.
  First, let me make clear that I favor having good information about 
risks so that we can fashion sensible regulations to protect human 
health and safety and the environment while cutting down on unnecessary 
bureaucracy. I am also in favor of sound cost-benefit analysis to 
improve economic efficiency.
  But I opposed H.R. 1022 because it does neither. On the contrary, it 
merely creates more bureaucracy, generate redtape, and reduces 
efficiency while providing no additional health, safety, or 
environmental benefits. In short, it is the exact opposite of 
streamlining government.
  The bill mandates a uniform set of regulatory procedures for Federal 
agencies without flexibility. While the model used to develop the risk 
assessment principles and guidelines included in the bill may fit some 
cancer risks, it is entirely inappropriate for regulating highway 
safety.
  Yet the Department of Transportation is required to follow the same 
rigid and inappropriate procedure to evaluate risks as at EPA. That 
simply doesn't make sense to me.
  What I see is that the bill is sacrificing the Federal Government's 
ability to protect human health and safety or the environment for the 
sake of maintaining regulatory uniformity. It will produce bad 
regulations, and will create an inflexible process that produces 
nothing but extra paperwork.
  Make no mistake, this bill does not benefit the average American; it 
benefits only corporate interests. It impedes public health and safety 
or environmental protection while making it easier than ever for 
businesses to make a quick buck at public expense.
  How else can you explain why industry representatives who have an 
interest in the outcome of a risk assessment are allowed to serve on a 
peer review panel simply by disclosing that interest? It is 
preposterous to suggest that such people do not have an unacceptable 
conflict of interest.
  And the bill is a sweet deal for lawyers. By opening up the process 
of risk assessment to judicial review, opponents of necessary health 
and environmental protection can tie up the regulatory process 
virtually forever. No working people, no children, no pregnant women, 
and no elderly will benefit from endless litigation. But the bill is a 
``full employment act'' for lawyers.
  This bill is also a back-door way to repeal important environmental 
legislation enacted in the last quarter century through its super 
mandate provision. If there are specific statutes or portions of 
statute that we want to repeal, fine, let's debate them openly and 
decide their fate. We should not use some procedural sleight of hand to 
supersede their authority.
  Finally, the bill would subject individual permits to the extensive 
procedural obstacles specified in it. It would grind the clean water 
permit program, for example, to a screeching halt. The law would 
require permits, but it could take forever to issue one.
  The bottom line is: the bill does not have the people's or the 
environment's interests at heart, only those of the lawyers and big 
business.
  I urge you to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. 
McHugh, having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1022) to provide regulatory reform and to focus national economic 
resources on the greatest risks to human health, safety, and the 
environment through scientifically objective and unbiased risk 
assessments and through the consideration of costs and benefits in 
major rules, and for other purposes had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________