[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2310-H2311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SUPPORT RISK ASSESSMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1022, the 
Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act. This [[Page H2311]] legislation 
is necessary because of the immense cost piled onto the American 
economy by Federal bureaucrats. This bill establishes requirements for 
regulators to use risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis in creating 
the rules we live under. It requires development of peer review for 
regulations. It subjects decisions of agencies to judicial review. It 
requires the President to set regulatory priorities. It is a necessary 
step that we must take to free the American economy from burdensome 
regulations, but we have the opportunity to do better * * * to give 
small business the power to fight the bureaucrats on their own.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will do the most for the small 
businesses that can afford new regulations the least. H.R. 1022
 would help small business by allowing these companies to direct their 
scarce resources toward achieving the maximum environmental cleanup for 
the least cost. Small businesses are often more severely impacted by 
costly regulation than large businesses because the cost to comply with 
these regulations represents a larger percentage of the small 
business's operating expenses and profits. If a Federal agency is 
required to perform a risk analysis on regulations that impacts small 
business, small business is likely to be better able to afford to 
comply with the resulting rule. H.R. 1022 will result in fewer small 
business being financially bankrupted because of excessively expensive 
regulations.

  The wood preserving industry, which is very important to my district, 
is made up mainly of small businesses. This industry could have been 
devastated in 1991 when the Environmental Protection Agency issued a 
hazardous waste listings regulation, under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act. The tools of risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis were not applied in this act. The budget for the 1992 fiscal 
year stated that this RCRA regulation would have cost the wood 
preserving industry $5.7 trillion per premature death averted. This 
huge monetary amount would prevent one cancer case every 2.9 million 
years. That's one death every 2.9 million years. The regulation's 
costs, as noted in the 1992 budget, were so outrageous that the wood 
preserving industry was able to gain congressional support for a 
request that EPA work with the industry to craft a more cost-effective 
regulation. The negotiations resulted in a cost-effective regulation 
that was protective of human health and the environment. The wood 
preserving industry, with its' heavy small business component, was able 
to stay alive and facilities were able to comply with the regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect every industry to be able to rally 
support to save themselves from such bureaucratic nightmares. Mr. 
Speaker we should not expect every industry to be able to rally support 
to save themselves from such bureaucratic nightmares. We must give them 
the power to take on Federal regulators head on. We can do that if we 
approve the Barton amendment later today. The Barton amendment would 
give the average citizen the right to challenge Federal regulations 
themselves. It would force bureaucrats to review existing rules for 
their cost-benefit. Mr. Speaker, industries should not have to come to 
us to save them from overzealous bureaucrats. By passing the Barton 
amendment, we give individual American citizens the power to fight for 
themselves.
  The main principle of our regulatory reform system must be common 
sense. The Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act will force Federal 
bureaucrats to focus their regulatory efforts on what will benefit 
Americans the most. It will prevent Federal bureaucrats from forcing 
industries to spend millions, even billions of dollars without proving 
the responsibility of that action. It will force Federal bureaucrats to 
give cost-effective solutions the same consideration and the same 
weight as the extravagant ideal solutions they pursue today. This we 
must do. But, Mr. Speaker, I also hope my colleagues will realize that 
this is but a first step. We must also give our citizens the power to 
fight the bureaucrats themselves. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on the Barton Amendment and empower individual Americans.


                          ____________________