[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2313-H2314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            H.R. 1022, RISK ASSESSMENT/COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gillmor] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1022, the risk 
assessment cost-benefit analysis bill. This legislation very simply 
puts common sense into the way the Government regulates.
  All of us have heard the horror stories from businesses and 
municipalities about the Federal regulations and the way that they have 
strangled their budgets only to have miniscule benefits result.
  Earlier today I hope my colleagues had the opportunity to review a 
dear colleague I circulated to all of them concerning the city of 
Columbus, OH. In it I noted that Federal regulations currently require 
the municipal water systems keep atrazine levels in drinking water 
below 3 parts per billion. A human being would have to drink 3,000 
gallons of water a day with three parts per billion atrazine to equal 
the dose found to be cancerous in rats.
  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under its constitutionally 
mandated authority, sets this level by using the most exposed 
individual risk assessment model, which assumes a person is to be 
exposed to atrazine every day for 70 percent years. To show how absurd 
this regulation is, to consume enough water to come even close to 
causing any health risk, an individual would have to drink 38 bathtubs 
full of water every day. City officials in Columbus found that 
compliance with this regulation would require a new $80 million water 
purification plant. For the same amount of money 3,700 teachers could 
have been hired at the average State teacher's salary.
  To further show how wasteful this three parts per billion Federal 
requirement is, consider the following: The U.S. EPA developed a health 
advisory for atrazine which states that a child could drink water 
containing 100 parts per billion for 10 days or 50 parts per billion 
for 7 years with no adverse effects.
  Mr. Speaker, it is for reasons like this that I am supporting H.R. 
1022. I believe it is reasonable to ask our Federal regulating bodies 
to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations. I support 
the idea of providing alternatives without making expense 
[[Page H2314]] the sole determinant of the best strategy.
  I believe that the peer review activities for more costly regulations 
are a good way to ensure the efficacy and the efficiency of our Federal 
rulemaking process. H.R. 1022 contains all of these provisions and 
makes the Federal Government a legitimate problem solver, not a problem 
maker.
  Some of my colleagues who have opposed this legislation say it will 
create a new bureaucratic mess and will benefit lawyers more than 
individuals. I must say that I find their arguments to be basically an 
attempt to cover up the regulatory mess they instituted.
  Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis using the best available 
data and input will bring out the best governing decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, this regulation protects the environment and public 
health because it means resources will be used to combat real 
environmental and public health risks and not be wasted on frivolous 
regulations and requirements.

                          ____________________