[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E463-E464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              RISK ASSESSMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                      HON. BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, February 27, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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 cost and 
     benefits in major rules, and for other purposes.
  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. Chairman, the costs of doing an effective and needed risk 
assessment doesn't bother me very much if in the long run those 
expenses are more than covered in the costs saved down the road. 
However, I am skeptical that the $25 million threshold is a figure 
where we can get the biggest bang for our buck. The threshold set out 
under this bill to conduct risk assessments is $25 million. However, 
Executive orders in the past issued by President Ford, Reagan and 
Clinton set the threshold at $100 million. OMB in 1993 concluded that 
97 percent of the total rulemaking costs on the economy came from rules 
with a dollar threshold over $100 million. Like the companies who 
rightly complain that we shouldn't spend millions of dollars to get 
Superfund sites, water and air one additional percentage cleaner, I 
question whether we should be spending so much money in conducting 
additional risk assessments to reach an additional 3 percent of the 
regulations that have a financial impact on the economy. Additionally, 
H.R. 1022 requires a risk assessment for permits under Federal program. 
Does this mean that every State that issues a Clean Water Act section 
402 permit must conduct a risk assessment before finalizing any permit? 
Let's make sure that we are adopting the most cost effective law as we 
[[Page E464]] can by looking at the potential scope of the bill.
  I am also concerned about this bill's potential financial impact on 
our States. Just last month we passed a bill to curb unfunded Federal 
mandates on unwitting States. However, upon closer analysis of this 
bill, I feel that there might be possibility that States will bear the 
impacts and financial burdens of conducting risk assessments. Many 
States act as the agents of the Federal Government in enforcing certain 
laws. This bill would require the Federal Government, or any entity 
acting ``on behalf of a covered agency in the implementation of a 
regulatory program'' to conduct risk assessments.
  I will be offering an amendment later during the debate to solve the 
potential unintended consequence. It has the support of the National 
Conference of State Legislatures and the Governor from Arkansas.
  I hope that my colleagues will support some of the bipartisan 
amendments that will be offered during the course of debate to 
eliminate some of the bureaucratic nightmares in this bill.


                          ____________________