[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2345-H2373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, on roll No. 178, the Markey amendment to 
H.R. 1022, I intended to vote ``no'', and inadvertently voted ``yes''. 
I would like the Record to reflect this, and as such I submit the 
following February 24 correspondence to my colleagues for the Record to 
illustrate my support.


                 support peer review in risk assessment

  We strongly support requiring Federal regulations to be based on 
sound scientific principles, and urge our colleagues to support the 
peer review provisions of title III in H.R. 1022. This provision would 
establish a systematic program for sound scientific review of risk 
assessments used by agencies when promulgating regulations addressing 
human health, safety, or the environment. We believe that peer review 
is a critical component of sound science, and is necessary for accurate 
risk assessment analyses involving complex issues.
  We spend an exorbitant amount complying with regulations. These costs 
totaled a whopping $581 billion in 1993, and ultimately increased the 
price for every good and service purchased by the American people. 
These regulatory costs are nothing more than a hidden tax on American 
consumers and business.
  Some critics of the risk assessment provisions in H.R. 1022 believe 
those organizations or sectors impacted by a regulations should not be 
allowed to serve on their review panels. This notion, however, subverts 
the very intention of sound science--to base decisions on all relevant 
and available information without color or prejudice.
  Peer review panels should include scientists from affected sectors as 
well as consumer interests and any outside interest. Doing so will 
allow risk-based analyses to maintain balance and flexibility, thereby 
ensuring agencies use sound science in their decisionmaking.
  Some critics have suggested that including interested parties in the 
peer review process compromises the integrity of human health, safety, 
or environment regulations. However, the precedent for peer review 
already exists. Congress has consistently supported legislation 
requiring the use of comprehensive peer review panels for environmental 
and safety issues.
  For example, the Science Advisory Board [SAB], created under the 1969 
National Environmental Policy Act, was established to conduct peer 
reviews for EPA regulations. To be a member of the SAB you must have 
the proper education, training, and experience; there are no 
restrictions on affiliation. Further, the National Advisory Committee 
on Occupational Safety and Health as mandated under the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act is to be composed of ``representatives of 
management, labor, occupational safety and occupational health 
professionals and the public.'' The Energy Policy Act, which Congress 
passed in 1992, requires a peer review panel on electrical and magnetic 
fields. This peer review panel must contain representatives from the 
electric utility industry, labor, government, and researchers.
  Peer review is a commonsense approach that must include all 
interested parties, and as such we urge you to support the peer review 
provisions in title III of H.R. 1022.
                amendment offered by mr. barton of texas

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barton of Texas: Page 36, after 
     line 2, insert the following new title, redesignate title VI 
     as title VII, and redesignate section 601 on page 36, line 4, 
     as section 701:

                       TITLE VI--PETITION PROCESS

     SEC. 601. PETITION PROCESS.

       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide an 
     accelerated process for the review of Federal programs 
     designated to protect human health, safety, or the 
     environment and to revise rules and program elements where 
     possible to achieve substantially equivalent protection of 
     human health, safety or the environment at a substantially 
     lower cost of compliance or in a more flexible manner.
       (b) Accelerated Process for Certain Petitions.--Within 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of 
     each Federal agency administering any program designed to 
     protect human health, safety, or the environment shall 
     establish accelerated procedures for accepting and 
     considering petitions for the review of any rule or program 
     element promulgated prior to the effective date of this Act 
     which is part of such program, if the annual costs of 
     compliance with such rule or program element are at least 
     $25,000,000.
       (c) Who May Submit Petitions.--Any person who demonstrates 
     that he or she is affected by a rule or program element 
     referred to in subsection (b) may submit a petition under 
     this section.
       (d) Contents of Petitions.--Each petition submitted under 
     this section shall include adequate supporting documentation, 
     including, where appropriate, the following:
       (1) New studies or other relevant information that provide 
     the basis for a proposed revision of a risk assessment or 
     risk characterization used as a basis of a rule or program 
     element.
       (2) Information documenting the costs of compliance with 
     any rule or program element which is the subject of the 
     petition and information demonstrating that a revision could 
     achieve protection of human health, safety or the environment 
     substantially equivalent to that achieved by the rule or 
     program element concerned but at a substantially lower cost 
     of compliance or in a manner which provides more flexibility 
     to States, local, or tribal governments, or regulated 
     entities. Such documentation may include information 
     concerning investments and other actions taken by persons 
     subject to the rule or program element in good faith to 
     comply.
       (e) Deadlines for Agency Response.--Each agency head 
     receiving petitions under this section shall assemble and 
     review all such petitions received during the 6-month period 
     commencing upon the promulgation of procedures under 
     subsection (b) and during 15 successive 6-month periods 
     thereafter. Not later than 180 days after the expiration of 
     each such review period, the agency head shall complete the 
     review of such petitions, make a determination under 
     subsection (f) to accept or to reject each such petition, and 
     establish a schedule and priorities for taking final action 
     under subsection (g) with respect to each accepted petition. 
     For petitions accepted for consideration under this section, 
     the schedule shall provide for final action under subsection 
     (g) within 18 months after [[Page H2346]] the expiration of 
     each such 180-day period and may provide for consolidation of 
     reasonably related petitions. The schedule and priorities 
     shall be based on the potential to more efficiently focus 
     national economic resources within Federal regulatory 
     programs designed to protect human health, safety, or the 
     environment on the most important priorities and on such 
     other factors as such Federal agency considers appropriate.
       (f) Criteria for Acceptance of Petitions.
       (1) In general.--An agency head shall accept a petition for 
     consideration under this section if the petition meets the 
     applicable requirements of subsections (b), (c), and (d) and 
     if there is a reasonable likelihood that the revision 
     requested in the petition would achieve protection of human 
     health, safety or the environment substantially equivalent to 
     that achieved by the rule or program element concerned but a 
     substantially lower cost of compliance or in a manner which 
     provides more flexibility to States, local, or tribal 
     governments, or regulated entities.
       (2) Final agency action.--If the agency head rejects the 
     petition, the agency head shall publish the reasons for doing 
     so in the Federal Register. Any petition rejected for 
     consideration under this section may be considered by the 
     agency under any other applicable procedures, but a rejection 
     of a petition under this section shall be considered final 
     agency action.
       (3) Consideration.--In determining whether to accept or 
     reject a petition with respect to any rule or program 
     element, the agency shall take into account any information 
     provided by the petitioner concerning costs incurred in 
     complying with the rule or program element prior to the date 
     of the petition and the costs that could be incurred by 
     changing the rule or program element as proposed in the 
     petition.
       (g) Final Agency Action.--In accordance with the schedule 
     established under subsection (e), and after notice and 
     opportunity for comment, the agency head shall take final 
     action regarding petitions accepted under subsection (f) by 
     either revising a rule or program element or determining not 
     to make any such revision. When reviewing any final agency 
     action under this subsection, the court shall hold unlawful 
     and set aside the agency action if found to be unsupported by 
     substantial evidence.
       (h) Other Procedures Remain Available.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to preclude the review or revision 
     of any risk characterization document, risk assessment 
     document, rule or program element at any time under any other 
     procedures.

     SEC. 602. REVIEWS OF HEALTH EFFECTS VALUES.

       Within 5 years after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     review each health or environmental effects value placed, 
     before the effective date of title I, on the Integrated Risk 
     Information System (IRIS) Database maintained by the Agency 
     and revise such value to comply with the provisions of title 
     I.

     SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title:
       (1) The term ``Federal agency'' has the same meaning as 
     when used in section 110.
       (2) The terms ``rule'' and ``program element'' shall 
     include reasonably related provisions of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations and any guidance, including protocols of general 
     applicability establishing policy regarding risk assessment 
     or risk characterization, but shall not include any permit or 
     license or any regulation or other action by an agency to 
     authorize or approve any individual substance or product.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to offer this 
amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin], and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  The basic point of this amendment goes to the thrust of the bill. 
Under the bill that is before us today we are putting in place a 
mechanism by which we can do a valid scientific risk assessment. We are 
putting in place a process by which new laws and rules and regulations 
that flow from them, there has to be a scientific risk assessment done.
  The bill before us today, however, does nothing to require a review 
of existing rules and regulations. The economy today is laboring under 
a burden of somewhere between 400 and 600 billion dollars' worth of the 
existing regulations and costs the average American family about $6,000 
per year.
  If Members think that some of the existing rules and regulations 
should be reviewed, if Members believe that some of the existing rules 
and regulations should be subject to review, then they should vote for 
this amendment. If Members think that every existing rule and 
regulation that is on the books today is sacrosanct and should not be 
reviewed, vote against the Barton-Tauzin-Crapo amendment, because what 
the amendment does is set up a very structured process by which any 
affected party out in the country can petition the relevant agency for 
a particular rule or regulation to be reviewed.
  It has to be a major rule as defined under the bill, in other words, 
has a cost impact of $25 million or more on an annual basis.
  We allow a 6-month window by which parties petition the affected 
agency. We then allow the 6-month window for the agency to consolidate 
the petitions and decide which if any of the petitions have merit. Then 
we allow an 18-month period for the rules and regulations that do have 
merit that need to be reviewed, and as each of these windows opens and 
shuts, the first 6 months' window to petition, when it closes then you 
have a second 6-month window open up. Altogether there are 8 years' 
worth of windows for the petition, there are 8 years' worth of windows 
for agencies to review the petition and then there are 9\1/2\ years of 
windows for the agencies to actually make a decision on a petition 
process.
  We have done everything we can in drafting the amendment to make sure 
that there are no frivolous
 petitions offered. We require that when the petitioner comes forward 
that they supply document that there is an alternative that will have 
the same amount of impact on either a most cost-effective basis to 
society or give more flexibility to State and local governments.

  We do not try to supersede any of the other procedures in place that 
may allow for rules and regulations to be reviewed under some other 
natural process.
  Our amendment has tremendous support. The Alliance for Reasonable 
Regulation supports it. There are over 1,500 organizations in that 
alliance. The Chemical Manufacturers Alliance supports our amendment, 
the National Federation of Independent Businesses support our 
amendment. Altogether there are over 3,000 groups around the country 
that are strongly supporting this amendment.
  Again, the bottom line is if Members think the existing rules and 
regulations that are on the books today need to be reviewed then the 
petition process, if adopted, is the only thing that guarantees such a 
review may occur.
  If Members think everything that has been passed in the past 100 
years is OK, then Members would vote against it.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. I 
think it is reasonable. I think there ought to be some way for citizens 
to appeal what they consider to be unreasonable rules. There then ought 
to be a mechanism to consider this appeal. I think the gentleman has 
answered both questions in a very nice way, and I urge support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his 
support.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to see how this works. An aggrieved 
party petitions for a rule to be reopened; then who makes the decision 
in that first instance?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. There is a 6-month period for all petitions to 
be received by that particular agency. The agency will consolidate 
those petitions if they are similar in nature, and then the agency 
makes a decision as to whether to accept the petition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] has 
expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Waxman and by unanimous consent, Mr. Barton of 
Texas was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If in the petition the petitioner has shown that 
there is adequate documentation to show that there is reasonable cause 
that the petition should be reviewed, then the agency has to review it.
[[Page H2347]]

  Mr. WAXMAN. The agency must review at that point?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. But based on the petitioner presenting evidence. 
You cannot just say I think it all ought to be looked at; there are 
very substantial evidentiary requirements that are required for the 
petition.
  Mr. WAXMAN. And if the agency still disagrees, what happens then?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. You have 6 months in which to present your 
petition and then the agency has 6 months to look at the petition. The 
agency then makes a determination. If it is a negative determination 
that says no, we do not want to review it, the agency has to publish 
reasons why it reached the negative determination and show that it had 
substantial evidence to prove that it should not review the regulation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Is that challengeable in court?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It is challengeable under the existing laws. We 
do not put in a new burden of proof in terms of judicial review.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Under the Administrative Procedures Act.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct. If the agency says yes, we are 
going to review it, then there is an 18-month period during which the 
agency has to review it. It is not an open-ended review. We create an 
18-month period, once they have made the decision they shall review it. 
Then there is 18 months in which they have to review it, so they cannot 
let it go on indefinitely.
  Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman indicated they would have to come up with 
the same result in some other way. How is that spelled out in the 
gentleman's amendment?

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the ``purpose'' it says,

       The purpose of this section is to provide an accelerated 
     process for the review of Federal programs designated to 
     protect human health, safety, or the environment and to 
     revise rules and program elements where possible to achieve 
     substantially equivalent protection of human health, safety, 
     or the environment at a substantially lower cost of 
     compliance or in a more flexible manner.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman withdraws his 
point of order.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] would engage 
in a colloquy and answer a couple of questions, in the committee report 
from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I say to my friend from 
Texas, the language in the section 3401, in paragraph 2, ``any person 
may petition'' was the language that the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce adopted. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
adopted no language whatsoever on looking back like that. The language 
you have adopted is any person who demonstrates that he or she is 
affected by a rule may submit a petition.
  What is the difference?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the difference is the language 
that we adopted in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] wanted to substitute any person, which 
would literally be anybody breathing in this country. In consultation 
with people both for the amendment and opposed to the amendment after 
the markup in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we decided to seek 
a middle ground between any person and a person who has a direct 
financial interest, so the standard we chose was an affected person. 
Now, an affected person is still a very broad definition. It is 
somebody affected in a cost way by the rule or regulation or living in 
an area that is affected by the consequences of the regulation.
  So an affected person is not quite as broad as any person, but it is 
still a very broad definition.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time and posing another question, 
the CBO scored or estimated $250 million for the cost of this bill, 
moving, raising the threshold from $25 to $100 million. It would cost 
the Government $250 million.
  Have you calculated, or has CBO calculated, the difference in cost, 
the additional cost in bureaucracy
 and litigation and hiring more employees and all of that to do a 
lookback at all of these cases over the next 8 years, a lookback at all 
of these regulations that could be brought up?

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, first of 
all, we do require that anybody that petitions be able to show that 
there is going to be substantially lower cost of compliance and more 
flexible cost of compliance. So on a net basis we think it is going to 
save money on a net basis.
  No. 2, we do not require that any additional employees be retained to 
do this review. We happen to believe that there are enough Federal 
employees in the affected agencies that can do the review.
  So I am not going to prevaricate and say that I have done an 
extensive cost analysis of our amendment. But we do not believe that it 
is going to bear an additional cost to society. In fact, we think it 
will save money.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, I think that is the reason 
this amendment in the end makes no sense. It is a question of, again, 
as much as the rest of the bill does, it is more lawyers, more 
litigation, more employees working for these agencies because they are 
going to be swamped with petitions.
  Business after business after business is going to file against 
regulations that have been handed down; consumer groups, citizen 
groups, environmental groups, other people are going to open up these 
rules, again, rules that have already been agreed to, rules that 
businesses are living under, rules that the public benefits from in 
many cases, clean air, clean water, pure food, safe consumer products, 
all of that, and we are opening this up again. It is more bureaucracy, 
more layers of government, more costs.
  At the same time it is more judicial review, and it is again another 
reason that this bill in the whole is a problem, and this amendment 
particularly takes the bill that is already loaded down with too much 
bureaucracy and litigation and loads it down even further, and it loads 
it down for the next 8 years, for the next 16 6-month periods, if you 
will, and ends up putting us behind the eight ball more.
  For us not to calculate the cost and just say, yes, Government is 
going to be able to do that, is simply misleading the public and 
misleading the other Members of this House.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, I make a 
couple of points on his point. No. 1, if the bill passes, there are not 
going to be as many new rules and regulations promulgated. I think that 
is a given. So there are going to be people that have time to do that.
  No. 2, in the petition, the system that we set up, we require that as 
part of the petition the information be shown that which shows that the 
rule or program element concerned can be administered at a 
substantially lower cost of compliance or in a manner which provides 
more flexibility to the States. So we are attempting, you know, nothing 
is certain in this life except death and taxes, But we are attempting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of Ohio was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, we put 
language in the amendment where we are attempting to mandate there be a 
lower compliance cost.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am not a lawyer, but you can drive a truck 
through that kind of language, and anybody that feels harmed or hurt in 
any way by a regulation, whether it is a business that is trying to run 
around a regulation and wants to dispose of waste in Lake Erie or an 
environmental group that thinks they have been wronged by a regulation, 
they always can find a way to fit their complaint into that language 
and open this back up. There will be plenty of rules and regulations 
suggested or handed down by agencies that will go through all of 
[[Page H2348]] this 23-step process. It will cost all of us as 
taxpayers more money, and it is simply not being honest with the public 
to say that it is not really going to cost more money, because in the 
end it is going to cost government a whole lot more money. It is going 
to mean more judicial review, more expense, more litigation, more 
government, more bureaucracy. It simply does not make sense.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are once again faced with a critical 
decision in the debate as it is setting up here; it is showing the 
basic difference in philosophy in how we are going to approach the 
critical concerns in this country about Federal regulation.
  This process will change the bill in a very fundamental and important 
way. The bill, as it now stands, stops the Federal regulators from 
continuing the abusive growth of Federal regulations in unjustified 
ways for the future.
  This process, the petition process, allows a look back at some of the 
existing regulations. It has already been said in debate on this floor 
that the existing regulatory burden we face in this country is the 
issue that is bringing us to this debate itself. If all we do is 
protect ourselves against future abuses, we fail to look back at the 
very reason that brings us to the floor for this debate, and that is 
the existing Federal regulatory bureaucracy that is crushing our 
economy and invading the lives of Americans in almost every aspect of 
their lives.
  It has been discussed today that we have, and I have seen studies 
that show the burden on the American economy from the Federal 
regulatory system is anywhere from $400 billion to over $1 trillion, 
and that is every bit as real as a tax, as the taxes collected from the 
taxpayer every April.
  We have got to recognize that we must allow us to look back and 
correct the abuses in the regulatory system.
  The arguments being made against it are the same as well. First, it 
is thrown up this is going to allow for more lawyers to get into the 
act and for us to have more litigation. It seems that every time we 
want to correct the abuse in the Federal regulatory system, the 
counterargument is, well, that we take lawyers.
  The fact is we have got to decide as a Congress whether we want to 
move forward and create the mechanism for people to fight back against 
the regulatory abuse and the explosion of regulations in this country, 
or whether we want to say because we are afraid that it might take some 
legal review that we are going to take no action. I do not think that 
is a justification.
  The argument has been made that it is going to open up rules that 
businesses and people across this country are already adjusted to 
living under, and we ought to leave it alone.
  Frankly, as I have said, that is the very reason we are here. Yes, 
people in this country are living under those rules and regulations, 
but, no, they are not happy; no, it is not right for this Congress to 
just wink its eye at what has happened in the past and say we are going 
to go on in the future and let what now stands be unchecked and 
unreviewed.
  And then it is said, well, this legislation lets any person bring a 
proposal before the agencies for review. Well, frankly, I think that 
any person ought to have, who is affected by these regulations, the 
ability to bring it forward and have it reviewed.
  But we have provided in the bill for protections. Every 6 months the 
agency is entitled to collect the various petitions, organize them, and 
assemble them and review them under a specific regulation to which they 
apply. We have a funneling system put in place that will keep the 
agencies from being inundated by repeated petitions. They collect them 
all in a 6-month period and act on them one at a time.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical. You could say it is the 
core of the issue we are facing here today. We have got the vehicle 
there. Let us allow us now to look back.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying, ``Be careful of 
what you ask for, because you might get it.'' And I would urge my 
colleagues to keep that saying in mind, because if you ask for this, 
you very well just might get it.
  What is this amendment going to require of the Government? And what 
rights is it going to permit? Is this going to permit somebody to 
petition who is aggrieved in business, who feels he has been wronged 
with regard to a regulation which is imposing unnecessary costs on him? 
Yes, it is. But it is also going to permit Ralph Nader, the Sierra 
Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and ordinary individuals 
to do the same, because the language of the amendment says, ``Any 
person,'' any person without limitation as to who. And they can submit 
this petition each 6 months for 8 years, 15 times, and if they do not 
get what they want the first time, they can resubmit it, and in 
resubmitting it, they can again ask for the same relief.
  And when the agency has decided whether they are or are not entitled 
to the relief they have sought with regard to having the matter 
reopened, it is a final action. Now, for the benefit of my colleagues 
who do not understand these things, ``a final action'' is a word of art 
in the Federal law which says that that final action then is reviewable 
in court.
  So let us look. Any chemical company is subject to having a reopening 
on any of their additives or any of their agricultural pesticides every 
6 months for 8 years. They can be in court constantly and can be 
harassed under the provisions of this particular amendment.
  The auto industry, on fuel efficiency or auto safety or clean air, 
can be in court constantly, and the subject of whether or not they are 
entitled to have a particular regulation that is in place remain in 
place or be subject to having it reopened by some outsider is settled 
by this amendment. What it says is anybody who wants to can go in and 
force this process and can then, on the conclusion of the action of the 
regulatory body in approving or disapproving, have the matter opened to 
litigation by any person who has an interest.
  Now, let us look at an electrical utility. Let's suppose an 
electrical utility has gotten a particular ruling from the EPA with 
regard to emissions of sulfur. That particular judgment is open to 
review every 6 months for 8 years, and again it is subject not only to 
regulatory action of the agency but to judicial review. Imagine the 
harassment that can take place of the American electrical utility 
industry or any other industry in this situation.
  Let us go to others. A food additive, or fluoridation of water in a 
community, comes open at every turn, because that regulation is subject 
to this particular provision. The individuals affected can demand that 
this be done every 6 months for 8 years, and every American water 
company, every American municipality that delivers water is going to be 
subject to being sued under this and to have the whole matter carried 
through not only the entire administrative process but then subject to 
judicial review as often as a complainant may want. Every 6 months it 
can be done.
  I do not think this body wants anything of this character to be put 
in place. There are regulations in place which make sense, and there 
are regulations in place which do not, but if you are going to address 
the ones that do not make sense, I would beg you to understand that 
this is not just limited to one particular regulation, or one 
particular kind of regulation which might be hostile to industry, or 
which might cost too much, nor is this legislation going to be used 
only by responsible citizens or American businessmen concerned about 
competitiveness, but malefactors and irresponsible parties as well.
  It is going to open the door of the regulatory process to every 
crackpot, nut, special interest group that you might care to name, and 
they are going to run all the way from the environmental extremists to 
the right wing reactionaries, and all the way from crackpot left-wing 
advocates to reactionaries who think that industry is being excessively 
hurt by sensible regulations.
[[Page H2349]]

                              {time}  1545

  The result of the adoption of this amendment, very frankly, is not 
only going to be to bring the administrative process in this Government 
to a halt by compelling tremendous relitigation, reexamination of every 
existing rule but it is going to go further. It is going to harass and 
drive American industry to its knees.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleague a series of questions 
that relate to the impact of this bill on the Great Lakes States, 
because my district has more shoreline than any other district except 
Alaska.
  As you know, the Army Corps of Engineers operates and maintains 
approximately 12,000 miles of commercial navigation channels; it 
maintains 297 deep draft harbors and 549 shallow draft harbors. Under 
the River and Harbors Act of 1899, the Corps of Engineers issues 
permits to private contractors for most harbor dredging. In addition, 
the Corps of Engineers issues general and regional permits for 
dredging--for instance, in New York and New Jersey.
  Under title I, dealing with risk assessment, on page 8, beginning on 
line 5 and ending on line 9, it says that this title applies to ``any 
proposed or final permit condition placing a restriction on facility 
siting or operation under Federal laws administered by the 
Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of the Interior.''
  Later in the same title, on page 25, on lines 12 and 13, the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers is listed as a ``covered Federal agency''; I 
assume for purposes of the rest of the title.
  My question to the gentleman is: Does this bill apply to individual, 
regional, or general permitting actions by the Corps of Engineers for 
dredging?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Bliley].
  Mr. BLILEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, individual, regional, or general permitting actions by 
the Corps of Engineers for dredging under the Rivers and Harbors Act 
are not included as significant risk assessment or characterization 
documents for purposes of title I. The corps could, by rulemaking, add 
such actions to the scope of title I but the act does not mandate this 
outcome. Title II applies to major rulemaking and such major 
rulemakings may subsequently affect the permit program.
  Mr. STUPAK. In addition to dredging activities, the Corps of 
Engineers has 376 projects under construction. Does this bill apply to 
construction projects under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of 
Engineers?
  The corps also owns or operates 273 navigation lock chambers, 
including one in my district--the Poe Lock System at Sault Ste. Marie, 
MI. Does this bill apply to the lock systems under the jurisdiction of 
the Army Corps of Engineers?
  Mr. BLILEY. The bill does not apply to construction projects or 
operations of lock systems per se. The bill only addresses regulatory 
programs to protect health, safety, or the environment.
  Mr. STUPAK. As I said, I am concerned about the impact of H.R. 1022 
on the Great Lakes. As you may know, the Great Lakes shoreline covers 
more than 11,000 miles--a distance equal to almost 45 percent of the 
Earth's circumference.
  About 25 million people get their drinking water from the Great Lakes 
and the St. Lawrence River, and each day, 655 billion gallons of Great 
Lakes water are used for various purposes. Ninety-four percent of this 
water produces 20 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity by passing 
through hydroelectric plants.
  Which brings me to my next question. In 1986, a Russian-flagged ship 
introduced into the Great Lakes a nonindigenous species--the zebra 
mussel. Zebra mussels attach themselves to hard surfaces like pipes, 
making them very difficult to remove. They quickly gang up on a desired 
target, clogging water intake and distribution systems.
  These animals have cost municipal and industrial water facilities 
millions of dollars in cleanup and control costs. They've disrupted 
Great Lakes recreation, causing thousands of dollars in damage to 
boats, docks, buoys, and beaches. Over the next decade, scientists 
estimate that the cost of the zebra mussel invasion for Great Lakes 
water users could go as high as $5 billion.
  And they're spreading beyond the Great Lakes. The flood of 1993 has 
helped the mussel spread as far south as Louisiana; it pushed the zebra 
mussel over levees, up rivers and drainage ditches and into sewage 
treatment plants and other riverside facilities.
  Section 1201(f) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 
Control Act authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to conduct research to find a solution to the problem of 
nonindigenous species like the zebra mussel, sea lamprey, and European 
ruffe.
  My question to the gentleman is: Does this bill apply to research 
projects conducted by NOAA?
  Mr. BLILEY. Research projects, themselves, do not fall into the 
mandatory definition of significant risk assessment or characterization 
documents. If such a document were used as a basis for a major 
rulemaking or report to Congress, then title I would apply for the 
rulemaking or report to Congress. NOAA, however, can add risk 
assessment or characterization documents to coverage through a new 
rulemaking.
  If title I requirements applied, they would require disclosure, best 
estimates, and comparisons. These requirements are broadly viewed as 
important benchmarks which should be followed for all risk assessments 
and characterization.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
engaging me in a colloquy and creating this legislative history.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, of all the things that I have had a chance to vote on, 
I am more excited in voting on this amendment than just about anything 
we have done here, because to me the November 8 election said something 
pretty strong, that we feel distant from our government. The gentleman 
from Michigan talked about groups that were extreme in nature being 
able to talk to their government. I think one of the reasons we had 
such an extreme change in the way the country is being run is because 
people felt very alienated from this country, they felt alien from 
regulatory bodies that could pass on huge costs of doing business in 
private and public life, and nobody could ask commonsense questions.
  Of all the things that I voted on in this Congress, I am very proud 
to support the opportunity for average citizens, not crackpots, not 
nuts, to be able to come and talk to their government in a meaningful 
fashion, something that has been lost in this country.
  There are triggers in this bill. It has to have a $25 million effect 
in the aggregate before you can petition your government. Twenty-five 
million dollars is still a lot of money in South Carolina, and still a 
lot of burden to bear in this country. And when $25 million gets to be 
nothing, then we really do have a problem here.
  The exciting thing to me, Mr. Chairman, about this amendment is it 
allows average, everyday citizens, people trying to make a living, 
trying to pay the bills, to come to their government and ask them to 
give answers to commonsense questions, making the government 
accountable, having to explain why they regulate the way they do, 
having to explain the benefit and, yes, the cost. That is something 
that is missing in government in 1995, and, yes, this amendment will 
bring government back to the people more than anything I can think of.
  I would ask every Member of this body who believes that the U.S. 
Government has gotten distant from its people to vote for this 
amendment which allows you to petition your government to answer your 
questions. What a novel concept in democracy.
  I move very urgently that we pass it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. [[Page H2350]] 
  I want to point out that a good part of the debate, at least 
yesterday, was on the point this bill was going to be prospective. We 
are not going to open up all the laws on the books now to protect the 
public health and environment.
  This particular amendment specifically goes backward and says we are 
going to look at and review Federal programs designed to protect human 
health, safety or the environment, to revise rules and program 
elements, where possible, to achieve certain results.
  Now I want to give a real-life example of what is likely to happen 
under the circumstances under this proposal so that we can understand 
that this is a likely result that I think the proponents of this 
amendment would not want to see happen.
  Under the Clean Air Act, in order to achieve the pollution reductions 
of VOC's, which cause ozone, there is a requirement that there be a 
strategy to reduce pollution on those that cause the pollution.
  The pollution caused by big polluters, like
   automobiles or smokestacks or factories, the reduction is anywhere 
from $2,000 to $10,000 per ton, according the testimony from the head 
of the Environmental Protection Agency.

  But if you ask that the reductions not be from the major polluters 
but from individuals by requiring them to spend money to be sure that 
their older vehicles achieve the reduction requirements or achieve what 
their cars are supposed to achieve by way of emission reductions, the 
Environmental Protection Agency has told us that would be nearly $500 a 
ton. Now, that could mean that the auto industry, or a factory or a big 
polluter can come into EPA and complain about the regulations that have 
been imposed on them by their own States and say that, ``We don't think 
it is reasonable because you can achieve an equivalent reduction but 
going after individual drivers and owners of vehicles.'' And they will 
be right because it is more cost effective to achieve the same 
pollution reduction.
  But what we have to ask ourselves is, is that the result we would 
want to see? If individuals are going to have to bear the costs to 
repair their cars, the older the car the more polluting it will be and 
therefore the more it may cost to repair it. That means, often, low-
income people will have to spend that money. But it is a more cost-
effective way to achieve the result.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], who is the 
proponent of this amendment, would he want to see a regulation that 
imposes controls on a major polluter be relieved of that responsibility 
by having the burden placed on individuals to bear the costs because it 
would be a less costly may to achieve the same results?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out that we do not change the law, we do not 
change the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act specifics that if a certain 
percent of environmental increase in air quality is going to come from 
stationary sources, we do not change that, but we could under this 
amendment----
  Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is wrong on that point, 
because the Clean Air Act says you achieve the reduction and achieve it 
any way that the State thinks is appropriate. They develop an 
implementation plan. They can develop a mix of strategies; they do not 
have to go after stationary sources for a certain amount or vehicles 
for a certain amount. They factor in all the sources of pollution.
  The point I am making is they may well have decided to tell a factory 
to spend a couple of thousand dollars per ton in order to achieve the 
reductions from a major source. But that major source can now come in 
and say, ``Wait a second, you can get the same result from an 
individual car owner at a less expensive rate, and we demand that you 
do that.''
  As I read that the gentleman's amendment, the EPA would have to go 
along with that petition.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the petitioner, in the gentleman's case, the 
mobile source industry, shows substantial evidence they can achieve the 
same result with greater flexibility and lower costs, EPA does have to 
agree to review it. Then it has to make a final decision, and it has to 
prove that final decision with substantial evidence. Then the current 
law kicks in on the review.
  Mr. WAXMAN. My point is that, using the criteria the gentleman set 
out in his amendment, they are going to establish that case that they 
do not have to have the burden placed on them as a major polluter 
because they can achieve the same result by requiring individual 
consumers who own vehicles, through an inspection and maintenance 
program, to achieve those same reductions, but at a cheaper rate.
  Therefore, as I read the gentleman's amendment, they would be 
mandated to grant that petition.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. But the bottom line is we want cleaner air at 
lower cost or more flexibility. And I think we both agree on that.
  Mr. WAXMAN. But I do not think that is the bottom line because I do 
not think the major polluters ought to get out from under by shifting 
the burden on individual citizens, since ordinary people that are going 
to have to pay the cost out of their pockets, many of whom would not be 
able to repair their cars sufficiently to achieve the standard, and 
that is why I object to this amendment.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on a visit to the British 
parliament recently I learned something rather interesting about a 
phrase we use in America, a phrase called ``in the bag,'' and when we 
say something is in the bag, we normally mean it is completed, it is a 
done deal.
  Mr. Chairman, the phrase comes from something that refers to this 
amendment and is appropriate to the discussion of why this amendment is 
vitally important and why it should be passed.
  In the history of the British parliament and the fight for democracy 
with the monarchs in Great Britain the concept of petitioning the 
government for redress was a very important concept, one that was won 
at great cost and great loss of life in that struggle between monarchy 
and tyranny and the rights under a democracy. The British Parliament 
has come to respect that right to petition as such a strong right that 
it now includes in its construction a bag, literally a bag, that is 
placed at the door of the Parliament, and, when a petition arrives from 
the people of Great Britain and is accepted by the Parliament, that 
petition goes in that bag. Hence the expression ``It's in the bag.''
  The expression means it is a done deal, the Parliament can no longer 
ignore the wishes, the petition, of the people of the country. The 
government must respond to the people in their request for some action, 
some redress of wrongs, some correction of some grievance, and so it is 
with the Barton-Crapo-Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment literally does the same thing for the 
people of America. It says that when the people of this country who are 
affected by rules and regulations of this Government honestly believe 
and can substantiate with documentation to that effect, that our 
Government has passed a rule or regulation which unduly burdens their 
life which could be amended to provide the same equivalent protection 
to safety, health, and the environment as the old regulation does, 
which could be revised so that they could live with it with less cost, 
fewer job losses, fewer plant closures, fewer property damages, fewer 
impacts upon small businesses; if there is a way to have the same 
protection, and yet do it with less of an impact of regulation in our 
lives, this amendment says the people shall have the right to petition 
the Government and that petition is in the bag. Government cannot 
ignore it, but it must act upon it in a given and expressed time period 
where the Government must review it.
  Now it does not say that the Government must take the action that I 
petitioned them to take. It simply says, ``If I support my petition 
with enough documentation to justify a request that 
[[Page H2351]] substantial protection, the same equivalent protection 
provided under the old rule, can be made available with a more flexible 
rule, one that will cost our citizens less, one that will employ, in 
fact fewer lost jobs in our society, one that will shut down fewer 
plants, one that will let us continue to be a productive society and 
yet have the same safety, health and environmental protection as the 
old rule, that the Government cannot ignore that petition. It is in the 
bag, and the Government must consider it.
  Now let me read to my colleagues the most important section in our 
amendment. It says that the purpose is to revise rules and program 
elements where possible to achieve substantially equivalent
 protection of human health, safety or the environment at a 
substantially lower cost of compliancy or a much more flexible manner.

  Mr. Chairman, those are the goals of this thing, and that is the only 
basis upon which petitions can be filed and accepted by the Government 
agency. I ask,

       Who among you would not want our Government to review its 
     rules to find out if we can have the same protection and 
     still have people employed in this country? Who among you 
     would not want our government to review its rules to make 
     sure that small businesses did not have to shut down, that 
     mills don't have to close, that our country can go on working 
     and producing food and fiber for our families and have the 
     same equivalent protection?''

  Mr. Chairman, that is what this amendment does. It says when the 
people of our country affected by the rules this Government makes 
petitions this Government to look over its rules and to see whether or 
not there is not a better way to do it, that the Government ought to 
hear it and the Government ought not deny those petitions. It ought to 
accept them, take them into the bag, if my colleagues will, and give us 
a chance to get a better rule.
  That is all it says, that is all it does, and anyone who opposes this 
amendment, says that they are just happy as a lark with any old rule 
that puts people out of work, and costs us too much in small 
businesses, and creates to much of a problem in our society, and we are 
not going to do anything about it. If risk assessment cost analysis has 
value for the future, it also has value for citizens who want to 
petition this Government about wrongs and to redress those wrongs with 
a petition process that looks back at an old rule that could be made 
better. This is all this does.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to call to my colleagues' attention one last 
section of the amendment that is probably equally important. It says 
that nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude the review 
of revision of any risk assessment or risk characterization document, 
rule or program element at any time under any other procedures. It says 
in effect that while we create the accelerated review process where 
Government has to take account of the petitions filed by people in this 
country, that we still reserve the right of our people to petition this 
Government and to seek changes under any other procedures, any other 
rights guaranteed under our Constitution, protected.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, under that Constitution is a right bought and 
paid for with many, many lives in the history of the struggle for 
democracy against tyranny. The right to petition Government is what we 
are debating today on this amendment.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Those of you who believe in that right, who 
believe that Government ought not ignore the wishes of the people of 
this country when they petition Government, ought to vote for this 
amendment.''
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues we could almost call the 
Barton amendment the hallelujah amendment because for many of us who 
have been in the private sector and have worked all our lives trying to 
live with all the regulations, the fact that we can now finally 
petition the Federal Government, hallelujah! So I compliment my 
colleague for what he is doing here.
  We have heard examples from the gentleman from California [Mr. 
WAXMAN], these hypothetical examples, but let me give my colleagues a 
clear example that has occurred which could have been petitioned, it 
could have been redressed, and it could have been stopped:
  In the early 1980's, Mr. Chairman, Government scientists argued that 
asbestos exposure could cause thousands of deaths. Congress responded 
by passing a sweeping law which led cities and States to spend between 
$15 and $20 billion to remove asbestos from public buildings. However 3 
years ago EPA officials acknowledged further research. Ripping out the 
asbestos had been a mistake. In fact they pointed out that this mistake 
had really raised the exposure of the public to the dangerous asbestos 
fibers which became airborne during removal.
  To the EPA it was a mistake. To the American taxpayers it was a $20 
billion mistake. Wasted. I ask, ``Wouldn't it have been nice, 
colleagues, to have had a second chance at that rule, to have the 
opportunity to petition the EPA to change its needless rule to save the 
American taxpayers $20 billion?'' Again and again examples like that 
are going to occur.
  To those colleagues that are watching on television, we need to pass 
this amendment, hallelujah amendment.
  I want to conclude. Last term I was involved as a ranking member of a 
committee called Commerce, Consumer Protection and Trade. We had 
discussion on redesigning a 5-gallon bucket that is used for painting 
and hauling water. The Consumer Product Safety Commission analyzed it 
because a few children got caught in it, and their heads got caught in 
it because of negligence by the parents. They issued--the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission issued--a 101-page report. In the report the 
staff notes that one of their suggestions to the industry was making 
the bucket so that they deliberately leak. It is being objected to by 
the bucket makers. Naturally the bucket maker is a little concerned 
about designing a bucket that deliberately leaks. According to the 
report, quote, industry representatives claim that they do not envision 
any use for a bucket that leaks.
  My colleagues, now is the time to pass the hallelujah amendment. I 
compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, for what he is 
doing.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I also would like to congratulate the gentleman who 
produced this amendment in a bipartisan fashion. I think that this 
probably is the most exciting thing that I have witnessed in my 54 days 
in Congress.
  There are two parts of this amendment that I believe are very 
important.
  What have we been doing for 2 days? For 2 days we have debated the 
changes needed with the rules and regulations that have been oppressive 
to the American people.
  Why did we ever write H.R. 1022? Because the American people have 
finally said that they have had enough of a bureaucracy that tells them 
what to do from morning until night.
  What is my standing in this bill, in this debate? Well, I have only 
been a Congressman for 54 days. I have not had the last 10-15 years 
writing legislation in terms of our air quality. But I have lived in 
the economy of this country, and I have lived under the impressive 
oppressive rules and regulations that this great large bureaucracy in 
Washington, DC, feels that they know best how I should live.
  Part of the problem is I guess I am a rebel. I am much like those 
rebels who opposed the king, who did not want to be told what to do 
from the minute they get up to the minute they go to bed, and I do not 
want to be told what to do from the Federal Government, 435 elected 
officials and millions of bureaucrats.
  This bill is not, my colleagues, necessarily just about General 
Motors and Dow Chemical. I agree with my friend from South Carolina 
when he says that this is a bill for the people, and it excites me 
every time I read this part of the bill, and if I may, Mr. Chairman, I 
will. [[Page H2352]] 
  Any person who demonstrates that he or she is affected by a rule or 
program element referred to in subsection B may submit a petition.
  That is what is important here. People at home do not believe they 
have any control over their lives. They believe we want to control 
their lives right up here. This will give them great good feelings to 
know that they, as an individual, can petition their government to 
change what we are doing.
  I heard earlier this afternoon the question asked what does it 
require of the Government, what does this amendment require of the 
Government. I ask, ``Who amongst you is standing up and saying, `What 
does this rule require of the small business man?''' I am ready to hear 
a little bit more of that in this body than just what does it require 
of the Government.
  I ask each of my colleagues to consider strongly passing and voting 
for this amendment, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo]. I think this is exciting legislation.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barton-Tauzin-Crapo 
amendment. Too often we hear about how Washington works in a vacuum. 
Too often, when the American public thinks of Washington, they think of 
government bureaucrats sitting behind a desk doing their own thing. To 
often they see a government which thinks it has all the answers. Too 
often they also see a government that is afraid to admit when it is 
wrong.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe we do not have all the answers. Maybe we 
did make some mistakes in the past. Maybe someone else knows something 
we do not. And maybe, just maybe, it is time we started listening and 
then acting.
  This amendment establishes a process for agencies to update old 
regulations using the most current scientific data. The public would be 
able to submit scientific data to Federal agencies and have those 
agencies check the findings of old rules against new information.
  Right now, when a private party asks a Federal agency, particularly 
EPA, to review new data and possibly modify the current understanding 
of a particular substance or activity, there is
 no guarantee that the study will even be looked at. And often it 
isn't.

  This amendment simply requires agencies to consider and respond to 
new information in an open and timely manner. It keeps the scientific 
underpinnings of regulations evergreen.
  This amendment is really about continuous improvement. It is about 
making government respond to scientific changes and advancements. Mr. 
Chairman, it's about common sense--regulations should be based on the 
best available information. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
the Barton-Tauzin-Crapo amendment.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. We have heard a 
lot of compelling arguments as to why we ought to do this particular 
amendment, and many of them make a great deal of sense. The fact is 
that many people are disturbed about regulations that are already on 
the books.
  I personally am concerned about making the regular legislation before 
us work, because I feel very strongly that putting a process into place 
that brings good science and common sense and smart actions into the 
process is in fact the right thing to do. But I also know that if you 
take the step too far, that makes this into a litigious bill that in 
fact destroys our ability to do all of that kind of work, and we will 
in fact destroy that which we are attempting to do out here.
  Now, I want Members to think for a moment about that whole cart of 
regulations that was rolled in on the floor when we were debating 
another bill the other day, stacks and stacks of books and paper, of 
Federal Registers of all the regulations that were done in just 1 year, 
and virtually every one of those regulations has somebody out there 
that does not like them.
  Now, you think of all those pages and pages and pages of regulation, 
and then you think of all the people that have some complaint about 
each of those regulations, and you think about the numbers of petitions 
that could potentially be filed and the amount of litigation that is 
going to come from all of those filings, and all of a sudden you are 
going to have these agencies at a point where they will not be able to 
do some of the things we want them to do; namely, to put into effect a 
process for good science and common sense.
  I would like to see this process work. I do not want to pass a bill 
that is simply an employment policy for lawyers. That is what I am 
afraid this amendment does. I am afraid that our attempts thus far to 
limit the amount of litigation that would be necessary under the bill 
are in fact undermined by what we do with this amendment, and I do not 
want to turn this bill into a lawyers' employment act.
  The amendment by opposing reachback does something different from 
what we have done in the bill thus far. We have made a prospective 
bill. We have said that from now on in we are going to require 
regulations to come under the kinds of reviews that we have. The 
reviews that are in the bill are in fact designed for that kind of 
prospective status. You undermine our ability to do that when you pass 
this particular amendment.
  The fact is that we can get to a lot of the regulations and the laws 
that are presently on the books over the next several years as this 
process rolls forward. Put the bill into effect that sets up a good 
process, and what you will have then is a series of bills coming up for 
reauthorization. At every one of those reauthorizations the bill then 
becomes covered under what we have brought to the floor today. That 
seems to me to be the right kind of process.
  I know that the big guys, the National Association of Manufacturers, 
the chemical manufacturers, the petroleum people and so on, they all 
want this amendment. They have all worked very, very hard. But I have 
got to tell you, I think that it stands the possibility of being the 
exact kind of lawyers' employment bill that will destroy exactly the 
things
 that we are trying to accomplish here.

  I would hope the Members would reject this. I think it is being done 
with good intent. I realize there is a body of regulation out there we 
would all like to get to, but let us get a process that works. Let us 
make this thing work as a way of demonstrating then that we can handle 
the whole body of regulation. There are literally tens of thousands of 
pages of regulation.
  I have got to tell you one other thing that bothers me. I agree with 
some of the Members who have stood up and talked about the fact that 
any person can bring an action under this bill, and that sounds like a 
great American tradition. Trouble is, ``any person'' also includes 
foreigners, my friend, any person who wants to bring some damage to 
this whole process. But remember we are in a global environment, and by 
doing that, it also means any foreign interest can make a determination 
they are going to come in and disrupt regulations that may in fact in 
some cases protect our businesses.
  It seems to me that is not something we want to do just haphazardly 
on the floor. I have got a concern that we are doing something here 
that we may not understand the full implications of. I would like to 
think that we could do this bill the right way, and it seems to me 
doing it the right way is to reject the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding. His eloquence in opposition to this has moved me to rise in 
order to compliment him for his good judgment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Brown of California and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. It was my feeling initially that this bill 
might [[Page H2353]] not be germane to the legislation because as the 
gentleman correctly points out, this is an effort, through the 
improvement of risk assessment, characterization and cost-benefit 
analysis, to improve prospectively the regulatory process. This goes 
way beyond that to retrospectively in effect seek to review every kind 
of regulation that is on the books.
  But I was persuaded by the ambiguity of the Parliamentarian that this 
might be germane.
  Mr. WALKER. Parliamentarians are often ambiguous.
  Mr. BROWN of California. It is true that the impact of this amendment 
overwhelms the impact of the rest of the bill, and it is more 
appropriately considered in connection with other efforts at regulatory 
reform.
  It was also my feeling, since you and I are primarily concerned with 
the non-regulatory aspects, that others should carry the burden of 
opposing this. But I think that it is appropriate that we suggest that 
this would in effect hamstring the entire, not improve, hamstring the 
entire regulatory process.
  Now, some have said that most Members would not like that. I think 
there are Members here who do want to hamstring the Federal Government 
in every way that they can. While I can understand that, I cannot 
support it. My only reason for possibly supporting this would be that I 
guarantee you it would cause the bill to be vetoed if it ever were to 
get through.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman and certainly respect his 
opposition. I would like to see if the gentleman could tell me where 
there is additional litigation required by the petition process, 
because we do not preclude any potential litigation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Barton of Texas and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Walker was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we do not add anything in the 
petition process that requires litigation or precludes litigation that 
could exist under current law.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, first of all to bring 
the process in the first place, you are going to require it to come in 
in a form that can in fact be done by the agencies, and the agencies, 
in collecting all of this material and so on, are going to have to put 
it in a form that legally reflects the regulations. So right away you 
set up that process.
  Ultimately, I assume, it is my understanding that under the bill you 
subject it to the same judicial review that is already in the bill. You 
do not include judicial review in your petition, but in relating to the 
rest of the bill, you bring it to the stage of judicial review. So all 
of that regulation, all of that cart of regulations brought on to the 
floor the other day, if all of that was challenged, it would also be 
subjected at some point to judicial review.
  So while it is not stated in your amendment, the effect of your 
amendment is to dramatically increase
 the amount of regulation that would come under judicial review.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield 
further, I would respectfully disagree with that, because we set up a 
process that is fairly circumscribed as to what has to be in the 
petition, the time frame the petitions can be reviewed, and we do have 
a date certain in which if the agency determines to take a petition, 
that they have to consider it and make a ruling. So none of that is 
litigious.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but under that ruling, 
under the provisions of the bill, this is a final action subject to 
judicial review at that point.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, the bottom line, and I respect the gentleman for letting me ask 
some questions, we simply have to have a way to at least review 
existing rules and regulations that allows America to come in and 
request this. We disagree on that.
  Mr. WALKER. No. But I understand that. But we have some idea of what 
we are dealing with in terms of regulations. For instance, we know that 
in a period of time in the early nineties, about 2000 EPA regulations 
were written. We know how many of those fall over the $100 million 
mark. We have some idea how many fall over the $25 million mark. We 
have some idea how much we are going to be dealing with over the next 
few years as these agencies write the regulations.
  What we do not know under the gentleman's process, since any person 
can come in and complain about anything ever done in the regulatory 
sense of the Federal Government, we have no idea how that may explode.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We have the same requirements. It has to be the 
$25 million threshold. We do not change that. We require quite a bit of 
documentation in the petition process. We also require they show it 
would be cost effective.
  Mr. WALKER. All of that documentation process is going to involve 
attorneys and all kinds of people in order to do the appropriate 
documentation. That to me is litigation. The idea that any citizen is 
going to be able to pop out of the woodwork and bring it in, the 
gentleman describes it correctly, that is not really going to happen. 
You are going to have monied interests that are going to be involved 
here.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment and support 
the comments made by the committee chairman, who spoke just a few 
moments ago, although I come at it from a somewhat different angle, 
speaking from my scientific background.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to repeat a warning I gave during our 
discussion of this bill in the Committee on Science. Risk assessment is 
in fact an idea whose time has come. It is a good idea. But at the same 
time, let us not assume that this is a panacea, that it is going to 
resolve regulatory difficulties, and that everyone is going to agree 
with the results and say hallelujah, this is wonderful, and now we can 
do this and save money and still protect the environment.
  It is difficult to do. There are many factors involved which are not 
fully understood, as we can see just from the debate here over the past 
day. It is not going to be a panacea, it is going to be difficult to 
implement. The number of people who truly understand risk assessment 
and how it proceeds is limited in this Nation, and we have a 
considerable amount of expertise to build up.
  In other words, I support the bill. I am anxious to see it go into 
effect. I hope it works as well as I think it will. But I believe that 
we have to evaluate how well it works and get a better handle on it 
before we try to broaden it too much. For that reason, I oppose this 
amendment, even though I do commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton] because the amendment is indeed better than the original 
version that was contained in the Committee on Commerce version of the 
bill.
  I believe that as written, and given the nature of the backlog of 
cases out there that people are concerned about, this amendment would 
result in overwhelming the process and perhaps in fact very likely 
making the entire risk assessment process unworkable. I think it is 
very important to put this bill in place, prove that it does work when 
properly applied, and develop the experience and expertise that we need 
to really make risk assessment work and work well.
  We will have ample opportunity in the future to broaden the process, 
to adopt the petition process, and to go back and review other 
regulations. But I truly worry that we will overwhelm the system, we 
will overwhelm the process, we will overwhelm the people who are 
available to do risk assessment, unless we proceed carefully and first 
of all establish the process according to the bill, demonstrate that it 
works, and then it is going to become, if we succeed, as I hope we do, 
so self-evident that this process should be used in all cases, that in 
fact we should go ahead and apply it to other cases.
                              {time}  1630

  In other words, I oppose the amendment because I believe it is going 
to be deleterious to the bill and deleterious to the goals of the 
sponsor of the amendment. [[Page H2354]] 
  I urge the defeat of the amendment and the passage of the bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1022 is a good bill. It will dramatically change 
the way regulations are promulgated in this country and bring some 
common sense into the process. However, there is one serious flaw--it 
does nothing to improve regulations that were promulgated under 
standards lacking in cost-effectiveness or based on poor science. The 
Barton-Tauzin-Crapo amendment addresses this problem.
  The current cost of regulation on the economy is conservatively 
estimated to be $500 billion annually. This translates into $10,000 for 
a family of four. To put it another way, 10 cents out of every dollar 
goes to pay for the cost of regulation. The current lack of risk 
assessment and cost/benefit analysis means resources are being used 
inefficiently and only adding to this burden.
  We need to address the issue not only of unreasonable prospective 
regulations, but also of those that are currently weighing down the 
economy. Under this amendment, any party affected by a major regulation 
or risk assessment covered in H.R. 1022 can ask the Federal agency to 
review its rule to take into account new information on risk and/or 
cost.
  The review is only available in cases where the petitioner 
demonstrates that existing regulations are not cost-effective methods 
of addressing the targeted risks. The point of this amendment is to 
give citizens the opportunity to find better ways to achieve the same 
protections currently provided.
  Some concerns have been raised about the potential for increased 
lawsuits as a result of this process. Several points should be made in 
response:
  In the first place, remember that a petition process already exists 
under the Administrative Procedures Act, complete with judicial review. 
The Barton amendment simply expedites the process for the agencies 
covered by this bill.
  Further, no new rights to go to court are created by this amendment. 
Citizens retain their right to judicial review under the petition 
process currently in the APA.
  To prevent frivolous petitions, the amendment sets up many hurdles. 
The burden is placed on the petitioner to provide the scientific and 
economic evidence to support the rule revision. The result is that few 
petitions are likely to be offered.
  Additionally, because petitions can be filed only to decrease costs 
imposed by regulations or to make them more flexible, antibusiness 
interests are not likely to file petitions. Nor can antibusiness 
interests use this amendment to increase the costs or make regulations 
more inflexible.
  The bottom line is this: H.R. 1022 establishes improved risk 
assessment and cost/benefit standards for new regulations; why should 
we leave untouched the scores of current regulations that fall short of 
these standards? Instead, we should allow citizens to petition agencies 
with their ideas for revising existing regulations to achieve the same 
amount of protection at a lower cost of compliance, in a more flexible 
manner, and using sounder science.
  There are many who have had years of experience complying with these 
regulations and seeing firsthand the inefficiencies of how they work--
or do not work. Where they can identify a way to do things better for 
less cost, we should welcome the opportunity to take advantage of their 
experience to make the process more efficient and more effective.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman referred throughout his 
remarks to American citizens. The gentleman would grant that the 
language in the bill would give the same rights to foreign citizens as 
Americans citizens, would it not?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would assume so.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. I find no problem with that. If foreign citizens are 
creating jobs in this country and are being regulated by this country, 
they ought to have the right to petition, if they have a better idea on 
how to save costs and implement these regulations in a more efficient 
way.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. DeLay], has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Coleman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding to me.
  Being in opposition to H.R. 1022, in many ways I viewed this as 
really a character of many of the valuable aspects of risk assessment.
  Instead of imposing a $100 million threshold before setting into play 
the complex cost-benefit analysis proposed by the bill, this bill sets 
a $25 million threshold; is that correct?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We set a $25 million 
threshold because we said if you set a $100 million threshold, you 
eliminate 95 percent of the regulations that we are trying to bring 
good, efficient cost-benefit analysis to.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
notice the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the bill ``is harder on 
Federal regulators than even industry thinks wise.''
  I just thought I would point that out. Another little problem which I 
consider a missed opportunity.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the fallacies of the 
arrogance of the elite into thinking that it is more important for the 
bureaucrats to have an easier time to impose regulations rather than 
American citizens.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and 
Cost-Benefit Analysis Act. I do so with some reluctance, because I made 
a concerted effort to find reasons to vote in favor of this 
legislation. I am a firm believer in the benefits of cost-benefit 
analysis. Indeed, when I worked in the Texas State Legislature, we 
operated under the principles of cost-benefit analysis, and the results 
were quite positive.
  Under such a system, we were required to determine whether the costs 
imposed by our legislation would be more than offset by the benefits to 
public health, safety, and economic well-being. I strongly support such 
a system. I know that it eliminates wasteful and unnecessary 
regulation, and that it lends greater legitimacy and force to those 
regulations that provide important safeguards for human health and the 
environment. I know the Congress needs to pass a similar bill. But once 
again, I find myself confronted with a bill that I simply cannot 
support.
  The current administration has already made substantial gains in 
streamlining and improving the Federal regulatory process. Under an 
Executive order issued in September of 1993, every regulation with an 
economic cost of over $100 million is subject to an agency cost-benefit 
analysis. This is an important first step, and there is a great deal 
that we can do to further this efforts. We need to give greater 
consideration to the views of those affected by regulations, including 
those who must perform regulatory tasks. We need to move away from 
litigation as the solution to the regulatory nightmare, and instead 
solve the problems at their source: the regulatory agencies. We need to 
show flexibility in our evaluation of existing regulations. The 
administration supports such initiatives. We have the opportunity to 
draft legislation that will complement this endeavor. H.R. 1022 
represents a missed opportunity.
  The bill before us today is, in many ways, a caricature of many of 
the valuable aspects of risk assessment. Instead of imposing a $100 
million dollar threshold before setting into play the complex cost-
benefit analysis proposed in this bill, H.R. 1022 sets a $25 million 
threshold. The Wall Street Journal noted on February 9 that in this 
respect, the bill ``is harder on Federal regulators than even industry 
thinks wise.'' The $25 million threshold is simply too low. It will 
impose a costly and time-consuming examination process on regulations 
with economic effects so minor that they do not warrant this level of 
scrutiny. That translates into the squandering of taxpayer dollars.
  Additionally, rather than eliminate the legalistic nightmares often 
associated with regulations, this bill will compound them. By allowing 
judicial review for regulations deemed [[Page H2355]] noncompliant with 
the terms of H.R. 1022, we are inviting years of litigation on numerous 
regulations. This will not be good for business; it will not be good 
for the environment; it will not be good for human health. No one will 
really benefit from the glut of court cases that will occur as the 
result of this bill. And we have rejected an amendment that would 
prevent this litigation explosion.
  Furthermore, under the guise of giving increased consideration to the 
views of affected groups and front-line regulators, this bill allows 
for review panels with inexcusable biases. Those industries with large 
financial interest in regulatory issues at stake would, under the terms 
of the bill, participate on a Federal peer review panel. Major 
polluters will now play a legitimate role in illustrating why their 
financial interests are more important than clean air or water. Peer 
review should not be skewed so far in favor of powerful industrialists. 
Yet that is the situation created by H.R. 1022.
  Finally, I have stated that we should look with critical eyes upon 
past regulations, and see what can be fixed. But H.R. 1022 fails to 
take a rational course of action with respect to this aspect of 
regulatory reform. Instead, it threatens all of the progress that we 
have made over the past few decades through regulation. The bill 
ensures that in cases where the new law conflicts with old regulations, 
the old regulations are systematically superseded. This puts important 
legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act 
at risk.
  In the name of numerical scientific analysis, we are threatening to 
gut regulations which, through the years, have had extremely positive 
effects on the lives of the people of this country. In short, Dr. 
Gibbon, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy 
testified the bill ``would place the safety of all Americans in the 
hands of recipe-following number-crunchers whose idea of public health 
is the bottom line on a ledger sheet--the very antithesis of what we 
should be doing.''
  I am not ready to give up on regulatory reform. I believe there is 
still time for an effective and prudent bill to be passed by this body. 
We still have the opportunity to work with the Senate in crafting a 
piece of legislation that will stop the relentless regulatory regime. 
We can still create a law that will allow us to work with the Clinton 
administration in their efforts to change the regulatory system.
  I would like to have the future opportunity to vote in favor of a 
more carefully framed risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis act. 
But I am disappointed that the rush to meet the 100-day deadline of the 
Republican contract has resulted in such shortsighted legislation, 
which I believe will put many Americans at risk. Therefore, I am voting 
against H.R. 1022.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of question, a lot of debate, a 
lot of rhetoric about whether this amendment would in fact increase the 
amount of litigation in this country. There is no question about that. 
It certainly would increase the amount of litigation. There is good 
reason for that.
  Who would question in this body that there have been a number, a 
large number of laws, regulations and rules that have been enacted in 
this country that are both egregious and punitive, that have had the 
law of unintended consequences take place.
  And if I have the picture correct on the arguments as to why this 
bill should be defeated, it is this, that Mr. Constituent, Mrs. 
Constituent, the reason I had to vote against the Barton amendment was 
that we have passed so many laws and so many rules and so many 
regulations that are egregious and punitive and that are wrong and that 
have had unintended consequences that we now are afraid that there is 
going to be so many legal actions taken that we have to vote against 
the Barton amendment because we have overwhelmed you with this type of 
rules and regulations and so now we are afraid of the brunt of your 
anger and the brunt of your legal actions against the Government for 
the rules that we have passed that we cannot allow you the opportunity 
to redress those situations.
  I want to speak and give one particular example from my district. As 
I campaigned before the election in November, I had the opportunity to 
talk to a gentleman in my district who is the CEO of a large oil and 
gas company that owns and operates an oil refinery in Louisiana. And he 
said in their budget over the next 5 years they have budgeted $1.5 
billion to meet EPA standards as they impact their oil refinery in 
Louisiana.
  And his comment was this, we have no problem with the goal that the 
EPA establishes for us for clean air and clean water for those citizens 
that live in and near the community that our refinery operates in, but 
the problem we have is this, we have no problem with the goal. But the 
problem is the rules that establish how we reach the goal are so rigid 
that in fact if we could use our own ingenuity, our own enterprise and 
left to our own device, that we could meet or exceed the goals 
established by the EPA and cut the cost $1.5 billion, we could cut the 
cost in half, save $750 million.
  You want to know what the cost of this regulation is, the cost of 
this amendment? It is that we will improve the efficiency and the 
effectiveness of the business community, thereby increasing the number 
of jobs. We talk a lot about improving the living conditions and the 
wages of the common man. That is what this amendment is all about, is 
by relieving the regulatory burden that we have already placed upon the 
backs of our business community and the industries in this country 
today, we want to give them an opportunity to relieve themselves of the 
burden, the law of unintended consequences, thereby creating more jobs, 
improving the standard of living. That is what the Barton amendment is 
all about, and that is why I rise in support of the Barton amendment 
today.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. There has been some talk that somehow it is just 
the big business interests that support this amendment. The American 
Petroleum Institute does support it. The Chemical Manufactures 
Association does support it. But the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses, which is a small business organization, supports it. And if 
you look at the list, the Alliance for Reasonable Regulation and you 
look through all the companies that support the bill, they also 
specifically support the Barton-Tauzin-Crapo amendment. There is some 
companies in here, while I am not personally cognizant of them, I do 
not think Barney Machinery Co. is a big business. I do not think the 
American Lawn Mower Co. is a big business. So it is small business, the 
people that exist, and as the gentleman pointed out, have to live day 
to day under these regulations that are supporting this very important 
amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my chairman of the Committee on 
Science, I rise in support of the Barton amendment, because I think 
that it is important to stop the Government regulation and the 
strangulation that is happening to the American jobs. This Barton 
amendment is going to allow the average American citizen to rise 
against regulations. It sets up a process that allows them to have a 
voice in this, because I think many of these regulations were 
developed, they implemented using some type of a risk assessment 
approach that would be somewhere between a 5-year weather forecast and 
voodoo.
  Unfortunately, it has not stopped the long arm of big Government from 
getting into my home State of Kansas. There is a heavy equipment 
dealership in Kansas City, KS. Dean runs it, and he has fallen subject 
to the net of CERCLA, which is the Comprehensive Environmental Response 
Compensation Liability Act. His name showed up on a 1972 ledger. This 
came up last December so it had been brewing for some time, 22 years, 
but he had $127 worth of waste that was put into the now closed Doepke-
Holliday landfill in Kansas City, KS.
  The company had shipped some paper cardboard boxes, some similar 
debris. It was not hazardous waste. Yet the law places a burden on Dean 
to prove it. Because Dean and 17 other companies are minimal 
contributors to this landfill, the EPA has given them the option of 
paying $10,000 to $20,000 each to settle potential cleanup problems. If 
they do not pay this amount of money, then they will run the risk of 
paying that portion of the bill later on which could be as high as $10 
million.
  So this current regulation is putting them under a problem. They 
would like [[Page H2356]] to fight against this problem, this 
regulation. But under current law they have not.
  We talked about the increased amount of litigation that would go on 
here. I think there are safeguards in place. I have another man in my 
district that would really like to get at some current regulations. He 
recently sent me a Privacy Information Act that was given to him by the 
ATF when he applied for a gun license. He is not going to be able to 
fight this even under the Barton amendment because he will not be able 
to prove the $25 million threshold as a safeguard that is in place. But 
under this form it says that the information that he will provide to 
this Federal U.S. Government bureaucracy says that they may disclose 
this information to a foreign government. And he is upset by that and 
would like to fight it. But because of the safeguards that are in 
place, there will be no court action on this one issue.
  So I think that there are safeguards in place. I think it allows the 
average American citizen to fight against the loss of his job by 
grouping together inside the guidelines, and I would stand here in 
support of this amendment.
                              {time}  1645

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. CHAIRMAN, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 220, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               AYES--206

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     Lipinski
     Miller (CA)
     Pickett
     Rush
     Ward

                              {time}  1703

  Messrs. DEUTSCH, OWENS, MARTINEZ, MANZULLO, TOWNS, NETHERCUTT, 
MOAKLEY, JOHNSON of South Dakota, and DOYLE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HYDE, ROTH, BURTON of Indiana, and KASICH, and Ms. PRYCE 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by Mr. Hayes

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as 
follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes: On page 8, at the end of 
     line 3, add the following:
       ``Nothing in this Section (iii) shall apply to the 
     requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.''

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that simply furthers 
the purposes of this act, the purposes which I wholeheartedly support 
in regulatory reform.
  It merely says that under the permit section that there are some 
permits like section 404 of the Clean Water Act that ought to be 
clearly distinguished from some of the language of the bill in its 
application.
  I have spoken to the majority, and I would certainly yield to the 
distinguished chairman for any comments he may have.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, we in the Committee on Commerce see what 
the gentleman from Louisiana is attempting to do. We in the majority 
have examined the gentleman's amendment and agree that there was no 
intention to include wetlands permits under the Clean Water Act. 
Section 404 is also sometimes coordinated with the Corps of Engineers. 
An exclusion would be consistent with the colloquy I had earlier today 
with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. This is the gentleman's amendment on page 8, is that 
correct?
  Mr. HAYES. That is correct, yes, sir.
  Mr. WALKER. We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  [[Page H2357]]
  
                   amendment offered by mr. boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert: Page 29, strike line 18 
     and all that follows through line 6 on page 30, and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:
       (1) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to modify any statutory standard or requirement or 
     to alter any statutory or judicial deadline. No failure or 
     inability of an agency to make the certifications required 
     under this section shall be construed to bar an agency from 
     acting, or to authorize an agency to fail to act, under other 
     statutory authorities.
       (2) Failure to certify.--In the event that the agency head 
     cannot make any certification required under this section, 
     the agency head shall report to Congress that such 
     certification cannot be made and shall include a statement of 
     the reasons therefore in such report and publish such 
     statement together with the final rule.

  Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out at the outset, 
this amendment has bipartisan support and is strongly endorsed by every 
environmental and consumer advocate group that is identified with this 
legislation. That is critically important.
  H.R. 1022 makes regulations that are being issued pursuant to 
existing laws subject to risk and cost-benefit analysis. I agree with 
the authors of H.R. 1022 that these analyses should be done. By 
conducting the analysis outlined in H.R. 1022, agencies will be 
assessing regulations in a manner which should lead to more reasonable 
regulations, and that is something we all want, more reasonable 
regulations.
  However, H.R. 1022 carries the use of risk and cost-benefit analysis 
one step too far. Under this bill, critically important health and 
safety regulations could be stopped if one of the many elaborate 
analyses required under this measure could not be certified.
  This means that existing statutes debated and approved by Congress 
could be, in effect, gutted because some administrative bureaucrat 
could not certify, for example, that the regulations was the most 
flexible regulation option. Existing law would be superseded by the 
supermandate language of H.R. 1022.
  Let me read this language. It appears on page 29 of the bill, lines 
18 through 23.

       Nothwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, the 
     decision criteria of subsection (a) shall supplement and, to 
     the extent there is a conflict, supersede the decision 
     criteria for rulemaking otherwise applicable under the 
     statute pursuant to which the rule is promulgated.

  What my amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is ensure that risk 
assessments and cost-benefit analyses are done. However, when there is 
a conflict between a regulation arising from legislation debated and 
approved by this Congress and an assessment done by some bureaucrat, 
the head of the relevant agency will report the conflict to Congress.
  Congress, the people's elected body, will then examine the conflict 
and, where appropriate, amend the statute giving rise to the 
regulation. The U.S. Congress, not some nameless, faceless bureaucrat, 
will decide our Nation's health, environment and safety policies.
  I would like to now read the amendment that the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and I are offering.

       Section 1, Rule of Construction. Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed to modify any statutory standard or requirement 
     or to alter any statutory or judicial deadline. No failure or 
     inability of an agency to make the certifications required 
     under this section shall be construed to bar an agency from 
     acting, or to authorize an agency to fail to act, under other 
     statutory authorities.
       Section 2. Failure to Certify. In the event that the agency 
     head cannot make any certification required under this 
     section, the agency head shall report to Congress that such 
     certification cannot be made and shall include a statement of 
     the reasons therefor in such report and publish such 
     statement together with the final rule.

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has broad bipartisan support, and for 
good reason. It provides for risk assessment to be used in a manner 
that improves our laws, not gut them on an ad hoc basis. We support 
taking a hard look and revising where warranted existing health, safety 
and environmental standards. But the way to accomplish this is through 
a statute-by-statute examination, not through a shotgun approach that 
will likely do more damage than good to the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan coalition led by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and myself is assuring that risk 
assessments are used effectively. I urge support of the Boehlert-Hayes 
amendment. We have a very, very important responsibility in this House. 
Let me stress, every single environmental agency that has examined this 
proposed legislation and this amendment is supportive of this effort as 
is every consumer advocate group.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert 
amendment which ensures that the risk assessment bill does not override 
existing laws.
  The Boehlert language is necessary to safeguard critical safety and 
health regulations and the people which these regulations are designed 
to protect.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the good intentions of this bill, the Boehlert 
amendment is needed because this legislation is poorly drafted, hastily 
reviewed, and now before us without a clear understanding of its 
consequences.
  Let me give my colleagues one ominous example of what we are faced 
with here:
  During the Commerce Committee markup of the bill, I offered an 
amendment which highlighted the unintended dangers posed to women's 
health by this bill, specifically breast cancer.
  What I did was subject one bill--the Mammography Quality Standards 
Act--to the requirements of the risk assessment bill. Not only did this 
example show how dangerous this bill is to women's health and 
mammography standards, it demonstrated how little the framers 
understand it and the effects it will have on current laws and 
regulations.
  The Mammography Quality Standards Act helps ensure sound mammography 
services by regulating facilities which provide mammograms.
  Under the bill considered by the Commerce Committee, the FDA, which 
implements the mammography act would have needed to perform a series of 
complex, costly, and time-consuming risk assessments and cost-benefit 
analyses before those regulations could take effect.
  As a result, this important law could have gone unenforced or been 
subject to lengthy court procedures.
  Mr. Chairman, breast cancer is already the second leading cause of 
death in American women and 50,000 women die each year from this 
disease.
  We all know that without a known cure, the key to battling this 
devastating killer is early detection. Mammograms can detect breast 
cancer up to 2 years before a woman or her doctor can feel a lump and 
if the disease is found at these early stages, it is 90-100 percent 
curable.
  Prior to passage of the Mammography Quality Standards Act, there were 
no national, comprehensive quality standards for mammograms that 
applied to all facilities.
  Quality needs to be assured at these facilities--studies show that 
faulty diagnoses or early tumors due to poor image quality or incorrect 
interpretations result in delayed treatment, more costly medical 
procedures, and higher mortality rates.
  Mr. Chairman, when I offered my amendment at the Commerce Committee I 
asked if the mammography bill would be affected by the risk assessment 
bill. With the assistance of the majority counsel, the majority 
response was ``yes'' the risk assessment bill would affect provisions 
of the Mammography Quality Standards Act.
  Despite this acknowledgement by the majority, my amendment to exempt 
critical women's health protections from this drawn out process was 
defeated along party lines. In fact, one of my Republican colleagues 
said he could not support the amendment because it would prevent us 
from setting appropriate priorities--in other words, there might be 
higher priorities than providing women with good-quality mammograms; 
there might be higher risks than the deadly disease of breast 
cancer. [[Page H2358]] 
  After the committee reported out the bill, I received a memo from the 
chairman of the Health and Environment Subcommittee informing me that 
after taking another look at the bill, the Mammography Quality 
Standards Act would not be subject to the requirements of the risk 
assessment bill because it is administered by the Department of Health 
and Human Services which is not subject to the requirements of the 
bill. The chairman said in the memo that the point would be clarified 
in the committee's report.
  This point was never clarified in the committee's report.
  And upon checking myself, I learned that although HHS has statutory 
authority over the bill, the FDA, which is subject to the bill, 
implements the Mammography Quality Standards Act and therefore has 
administrative authority over the bill.

                              {time}  1715

  The large bells went off. The reason why I take this time to explain 
all of this, which is a long story but a very important one, is that if 
we take the laws of the land today, and have to subject them to the 
language, and I only use this one example, the Mammography Standards 
Act, it does not pass muster.
  So I pay tribute to my colleague from New York and to the 
bipartisanship of this effort with this amendment. I think it is 
needed. I hope I have given a very good example of why it is needed.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and I do so for much the same 
reason that I opposed the previous amendment. In the case of the 
previous amendment there was an attempt to reach back, and in my view 
that does not make good sense in terms of this legislation. But this 
legislation is designed to do regulations prospectively, and that is 
what the author of this amendment now comes to us and tells us we 
should not be able to do. He says that under the laws that presently 
exist, even amendments written in the future ought not be covered by 
the provisions of the bill that we are passing.
  I just think that makes no sense. It seems to me that if in fact we 
are going to require good science on legislation that we pass now, we 
ought to require good science on things that were passed before. If we 
are going to require cost-benefits on legislation we pass now, we ought 
to require cost-benefit analysis on things that were passed before.
  This is not anything talking about regulations already in place. This 
is talking about regulations that the agencies are going to write in 
the months and years ahead. And it seems to me that the provisions of 
this bill should apply to those kinds of things.
  All we are requiring is risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis 
that are objective and unbiased. We are saying that the incremental 
risk reduction benefits of a major rule will be likely to justify and 
be reasonably related to the incremental cost of the rule and that 
regulation is either more cost-effective or provides more flexibility 
to State and local government or regulated entities or other options.
  That is all this bill is about, and all we are saying is regulations 
which are pursuant to the laws that are presently in place ought to 
meet that kind of criteria.
  In short, this legislation would supplement and if inconsistent with 
prior law would supersede the requirements of prior law when that prior 
law prohibits regulators from considering the criteria just described.
  Regulators should be forced to justify their laws. Why? We have 
already seen the kinds of things that too often happen and could be 
stopped if we had good patterns. For instance, under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, Columbus, OH, must monitor a pesticide that is only used to 
grow pineapples. I do not know how many pineapples are grown in 
Columbus. That is probably some overkill that is in the laws. Maybe 
some of that overkill could be utilized in better ways.
  The Superfund Program has cleaned up fewer than 20 percent of the 
hazardous wastes sites at a cost of $25 million per site. Much of this 
money has been used to clean up sites that pose no health risks. 
According to EPA's own data, only 10 percent of the Superfund sites 
pose actual health risks. The other 90 percent pose hypothetical risks 
dependent upon future behavior.
  Now once again, I think we ought to have some criteria that judges 
that, and if what we are doing is spending our money to clean up 
hypothetical problems rather than real problems, maybe we ought to get 
real, maybe we ought to start cleaning up real problems and have some 
process by which we evaluate that.
  There is the now famous incident where EPA required a hazardous waste 
dump site to be cleaned up to a point where a child with a teaspoon 
eating the dirt could eat a teaspoonful of dirt for 70 years under the 
provisions of the agreement.
  Well, I do not know, I mean kids in my area I know do from time to 
time go out and eat some dirt. Most of them, though, sometime before 
they reach age 70 stop that behavior. And it seems to me that once 
again we have a regulation that was written in a way that makes no 
sense. We ought to require regulators to have a higher standard.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. He 
points out a very interesting issue that we are going to be dealing 
with, wrestling with in our committee as far as Superfund is concerned, 
and the gentleman is absolutely right. The cleanup standards are beyond 
belief. They have driven the cost of the Superfund Program skyward when 
we are not really getting the cleanup where needed. It is based on poor 
science, it is based on politics, it is based on scare tactics instead 
of real science. And this bill is to address those kinds of 
inconsistent, very expensive kinds of propositions in the regulations.
  So, if the amendment were to be adopted, it would destroy the ability 
to really solve the problem of these new regulations that are coming 
about.
  We want to do them by each program and we will be doing those within 
the Superfund Program, but obviously if you believe in the regulatory 
madness that is going on right now, you would support this amendment.
  I suggest quite the contrary, so I appreciate the gentleman pointing 
out the Superfund Program. It is an excellent example of these 
regulations run amok.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for bringing this up, 
but I want to point out that if the agency cannot certify all of the 
things that are required in H.R. 1022, then the agency has to come back 
to the Congress and the Congress, the people's representative body, 
would make the determination.
  Mr. WALKER. But all we are saying in terms of prospective regulations 
is why do we have to have the extra step of coming back to the Congress 
for every regulation that is issued? Under present law they have to 
comply with these regulations. There is no need to come back to the 
Congress. All we want to say is for any new regulations written under 
old law there should be no need to come back to the Congress. All of 
this is going to come back to the Congress anyway because we are going 
to go back to reauthorization approaches. The gentleman wants to add an 
extra step with regard to old law and I think that makes the risk 
assessment more inflexible and does not make any sense in terms of 
where we are headed.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I would point out if the rule the gentleman is 
advocating were applicable 25 years ago, we would not have had the 
progress we have had with lead in gasoline.
  Mr. WALKER. I just absolutely disagree with that. The head of the 
Harvard School of Public Health, the risk analysis portion, says 
absolutely the opposite. Lead-based gasoline would [[Page H2359]] have 
been approved under science-based application.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. If I were 
trying to draft an amendment that very clearly defeated this bill, I 
could not have done a better job than the author of this amendment.
  This bill provides for two requirements in the law basically. It says 
that when a new rule is going to be promulgated by an agency it needs 
to do two things. It needs to do a risk assessment and it needs to do a 
cost analysis.
  Now if I were drafting an amendment designed to kill this bill I 
would see to it that I gave the agency a chance to avoid both of those 
requirements, and guess what? This amendment does exactly that.
  If the agency currently is writing rules under a statutory 
requirement that costs cannot be considered in the implementation of 
those rules, and many of our regulatory laws have such a provision, the 
endangered species is a good example. It says that once a species is 
listed you have to cover it, regardless of costs, regardless of how 
many people are put out of jobs, regardless of how many businesses have 
to shut down, regardless of how much private property has to be put out 
of commerce. It says you protect that species regardless of the cost of 
it.
  So, if you were operating under a statutory requirement that says do 
this and you do not have to worry about costs, under this amendment you 
would be protected in that statutory requirement. You would never have 
to do a cost analysis.
  Let us assume that you want to avoid doing a risk assessment as well. 
Under this amendment the author has included words to say that nothing 
in this act shall be construed to modify or to alter any statutory or 
judicial deadline. Here is the way you avoid risk assessment under this 
deal. You simply say we are under a statutory deadline. We do not have 
time to do a risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis. We have to meet 
this deadline, therefore, we have promulgated this rule without the 
benefit of risk assessment, cost-analysis.
  How do you avoid it under a judicial deadline? Let me tell my 
colleagues how cleverly some of these agencies work. Friends of the 
Earth sued our Interior Department recently and sued the Department on 
a claim that the Interior Department was not listing species fast 
enough. There were 4,000 candidates for listing before the Interior 
Department, by the way, nominated by a single biologist in most cases, 
and they were not moving fast enough to list these species. So Friends 
of the Earth filed a suit, and guess what our Interior Department did? 
It did not contest the suit, it did not go to court and argue that we 
really have to do a scientific study before we list a species. It 
instead went into closed doors, behind chambers and agreed to a consent 
judgment that said okay, we give up; we are going to list 200 new 
species within the next 18 months, regardless of whether we do any 
scientific review of whether those species ought to be listed as 
threatened or endangered. We automatically list 250 new species and 
under this amendment you have to meet this new judicial deadline of 18 
months so we cannot do a risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis of that 
rule listing 250 new species which may not be threatened, may not be 
endangered, but the Interior Department has consented to judicial 
judgment agreeing to do so.

                              {time}  1730

  If I wanted to defeat this bill, if I wanted to make sure you never 
did risk assessment, if I wanted to make sure all the statutes that say 
you cannot take cost into account are not changed by this bill, I would 
adopt this amendment. This amendment says you do not have to take cost 
into account. If the statute says that currently, this amendment says 
you do not have to do risk assessment if you do not have time. This 
amendment says you do not have to worry about risk assessment, cost-
benefit analysis if you are operating under a consent judgment that you 
agreed to, so list 250 new species even though they may not be 
threatened or endangered.
  This amendment ought to be defeated.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me stress to my colleague from Louisiana that I am 
fully supportive of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. Let us 
make that very clear at the outset. But if the agency involved could 
not make the certification required under H.R. 1022, that agency would 
have to report to Congress, and the People's House would make the 
ultimate determination, not some bureaucrat in the bowels of some 
building downtown. The People's House, the Congress.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The problem, if I can respond, is this House has already 
spoken in many of these regulatory statutes, and in many cases 
unfortunately those statutes were written in another day and time. 
Those statutes say you cannot take cost into account. This bill would 
change that. It would say from now on you take cost into account. You 
provide the same level of protection. You simply try to do it with the 
least-cost option. You do it with more flexibility.
  If this amendment is adopted, you go back to the old law. This bill 
to create risk-assessment, cost-benefit-analysis requirements is 
defeated by this amendment. This amendment ought to be defeated.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the substitution the 
gentleman from New York is attempting to offer, if he offers it 
successfully, in my opinion, it really guts the intent of this bill, 
because the whole reason that we are doing risk assessment is to say 
that we ought to put in process a basis, a system, that uses 
scientifically valid risk-assessment principles in a forward way in 
terms of new laws and new rules and in terms of existing law.
  If there is something underway already, they have to use these 
principles that we put in the legislation, and the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] very, very plainly states 
that nothing in the act shall be construed to modify any statutory 
standard or requirement in existing law.
  He also eliminates the substantial-evidence test that has been put 
into the legislation that says when we do risk assessment in the 
future, promulgate a new rule or regulation, you have to show there is 
substantial evidence proving it should be done.
  So there are a number of reasons that I think this is an unwise 
substitution. I oppose it. I would hope my colleagues would oppose it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me stress what is said in my amendment under that 
section entitled ``Failure to Certify,'' it says in the event that the 
agency head cannot make any certification required under this section, 
the agency head shall report to Congress that such certification cannot 
be made and shall include a statement of the reasons therefor in such 
report and publish such statement together with the final rule.
  Then Congress would work its will. We are the people elected by the 
citizens of America. We have the public trust in hand.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, what we have said in this 
act of Congress that is before us, H.R. 1022, we are saying in earlier 
sections that we want scientifically valid risk assessment to be used 
in the future, and we say in this section notwithstanding any other 
provision of Federal law, we want it to be used from now on if there is 
a conflict.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], who just defeated me on my 
amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, well, the gentleman and I are together on 
this one.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Hallelujah.
  Mr. WALKER. But the question is here what happens in terms of 
regulations, and the gentleman from New [[Page H2360]] York keeps 
reading this statement about coming to Congress. All they are doing is 
reporting to Congress. The final rule goes ahead despite the fact it is 
in violation of the cost-benefit analysis, so the gentleman has come up 
with a way of reporting to the Congress that we, the agency are going 
to disobey the law and the heck with you. That is exactly the kind of 
arrogance that we are hoping to stop with the bill that we are writing.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I think it is even worse than that. If you read the 
language, it says no failure or inability of an agency to make the 
certification is required under this section. The language of the line 
just above it says you are not required to do it. You are not required 
to do a cost-benefit analysis if it is going to alter any statutory 
requirement, for example, you have to consider cost. You are not 
required to do it if you are under an agency deadline. You are not 
required to do it if you are under a judicial deadline. If you are not 
required to do it, you do not have to issue any certifications either. 
It is a very clever set of language. If you read it together, it makes 
pretty good sense. If you can make sense out if it, it kills the bill, 
It ought not pass.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is why I am opposed to it. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is opposed to it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me tell you the case about Milwaukee, the 
cryptosporidium when 104 people died, 400,000 people were made ill 
because they drank the water from a public water system in one of our 
Nation's premier cities.
  I would suggest if we are able to determine the likely cause of that 
problem to protect other cities and other millions in the future, and 
there was a proposed rulemaking and somewhere along the line some 
bureaucrat screwed up, you would say then stop everything, we cannot go 
forward.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, on section 3, line 5, page 
4, it says the situation that the head of an affected Federal agency 
determines to be an emergency, the act does not apply.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is 
absolutely correct. He cites exactly the right chapter, and the fact is 
that that is an emergency situation that was raised by the gentleman 
from New York that certainly would covered under the provisions of the 
bill, and the agency head would be permitted to go forward without 
doing anything that is required under our bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Barton of Texas was allowed to proceed for 
2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
would point out that the dire emergency is behind us, not prospective, 
and what we are trying to do is prevent something like Milwaukee 
occurring again. We cannot foresee a dire emergency in the future.
  But if we analyze what happened in Milwaukee and we are trying to 
protect future millions in other cities and we come up with a proposed 
rulemaking that somewhere along the way something went awry during the 
development of that rule and someone made a mistake, we would stop 
everything in its tracks and say, sorry, millions of Americans, we 
cannot protect your water supply, we cannot protect you because 
somebody made a mistake and we cannot do it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, what we are saying is we can 
protect you but we want to use sound science to promulgate rules in the 
future and rules in the present that are based on existing law.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are being called upon today to legislate on the 
basis of anecdote and to pass a bill of rather doubtful benefit to the 
society on the basis of anecdote.
  My good friend, the chairman of Committee on Science, got up and 
talked about a pineapple pesticide which was used. This is required to 
be tested by the EPA. Why? Because it has been widely used in some 40 
States in crops until 1979. It is highly persistent. It is a 
carcinogen, and it has been found in the drinking water of 19 States, 
one of which would be Hawaii.
  I think we ought to look at what it is we are doing. If we are 
talking about cost-benefit analysis, let us have some cost-benefit 
analysis. Let us try and understand what this bill is really about.
  The bill is really about cost. I have been as critical of the EPA and 
other agencies for the inadequacy and the impropriety of their science. 
I am the only fellow around here who held hearings to denounce the 
misbehavior of EPA in terms of bad science, but let us talk about what 
we are concerned with here.
  This is a draconian bill. They have talked about science and peer 
review, but mostly, again, what has been discussed here has been cost.
  The question is that are we going to supersede all health, safety, 
and environment and other regulations if they cost too much?
  Well, let us look, and let us look at what really counts, and that is 
the benefits: Public health, public safety, safe and a wholesome 
environment. How can we tell that the benefit and the costs can be 
properly equated? What is the cost-benefit analysis that is going to 
determine the price of a healthy child? What is going to determine what 
is a safe workplace, and what is this worth to the American society?
  We have talked about infestation of microorganisms in water in a 
major U.S. city. What is the price of a clear glass of water? What is 
the price and the cost of the benefit of 400,000 people who do not get 
sick or 100 people who do not die? What is the price of a safe airplane 
ride to the American citizen? What is the price of a safe workplace? 
What is the price of a clean Lake Erie in which you can fish and swim? 
That lake was about to be a dead lake. What is the price of seeing an 
eagle flying overhead, and how are we to fix the cost-benefit ratio for 
removal of DDT from the society and that eagle flying above us which 
was about to be wiped out because of that?
  We are talking about the overturn of standards that have been 
regarded by the American people for years, indeed, for scores of years, 
and as the basis of their safety, as the basis of a healthy 
environment.
  People rely on these standards every time they get a drink of water, 
every time they take an airplane ride, every time they get in a car, 
every time they walk out of their house to breathe. Go to California 
now and look at the situation in Los Angeles. The air is safe, the air 
is clean. Why? because we passed legislation which did it.
  Was it as good as it should have been? No. I was roundly castigated 
for years because I sat on that legislation until we could work out a 
situation where it was going to make good sense.
  This House passed that legislation. That legislation says you will 
not consider costs in determining the safety of standards and 
regulations.
  This legislation is going to put that at risk and raise questions 
about it. The bill is purported to be about assessment of risk, but 
what this bill, again, is really about is just simply pulling the plug.
  I know my colleagues who support this legislation would say they do 
not support the idea we pull the plug on life, but today, without this 
amendment that is exactly what we are going to be doing. We are going 
to be pulling the plug on health standards. We are going to be pulling 
the plug on standards which protect the environment and which enable us 
to live with safety and with comfort with the environment of which we 
are a part.
  Now, I think it is better for our citizens to have the current law. 
If we have to address the problem of legislation to deal with the 
problem of inadequacy of cost assessment, and I think we have to do it, 
then let us do it by addressing the problem under amendment of each of 
the specific statutes that are involved here. Why? Because 
[[Page H2361]] here we are seeking to add one enormously complex set of 
regulatory practices on top of another set of regulatory practices 
which we complain.
  As I have pointed out to my colleagues in earlier comments, what we 
are doing is not just stopping legislation and regulations which are 
going to protect the health and safety and the welfare of the American 
people, but also which are going to adversely impact upon regulations 
and changes in regulations which will be of benefit to business.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment and to reject the bill.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would strike 
the supermandate provision contained in H.R. 1022. I have reviewed H.R. 
1022, and I have grave reservations about the bill in its current form. 
There is no question that we do need to reevaluate our environmental, 
health, and safety laws in order to reduce regulatory burdens and costs 
and to improve the protection of our citizenry. This reevaluation 
should be undertaken carefully and deliberately, on a statute by 
statute basis, with a full airing of views by all interested groups.
  This is not however, the approach that is taken in H.R. 1022. H.R. 
1022 would explicitly supersede every environmental and safety law on 
the books. This bill would prevent any new regulation from being issued 
unless the agency could muster substantial evidence that the benefits 
of any strategy chosen will be likely to justify, and be reasonably 
related to, the incremental costs.
  We all believe that agencies should execute the mandates of this body 
in the most cost-effective manner possible. However, the cost-benefit 
test embodied in H.R. 1022 would make it extremely difficult for an 
agency to take any rulemaking action whatever--whether good, or bad, or 
indifferent. Unless the agency was prepared to show in court that the 
benefits from a rule justified its costs, the agency would be unable to 
move forward. Agencies would be compelled to place a dollar value on 
the survival of an endangered species, the purity of a river, the 
breathability of our air. If the balance sheet did not come out even, 
or if a judge disagreed with the agency evaluations, then the 
regulation would be held unlawful under the bill before us.
  Make no mistake: H.R. is retroactive in its effect, whether or not it 
contains a reach-back petition process for reopening existing rules. 
H.R. 1022 is retroactive because for key statutes like the Clean Air 
Act, most of the regulations mandated by Congress have not yet been 
issued by the agencies. According to the Congressional Research 
Service, EPA has yet to promulgate 75 percent of the air toxics rules 
required by the act. These 75 percent of the clean air standards would 
fall within the purview of H.R. 1022 and most likely would never be 
issued at all if this bill passes in its current form.
  The Clean Air Act is but one of many laws that would be superseded by 
H.R. 1022. Laws governing hunting and fisheries management, the Atomic 
Energy Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Poison Prevention 
Packaging Act--these are just a few of the laws whose fate is in the 
balance today. Who among us can say with any degree of confidence what 
would be the effect of this risk/cost/benefit bill on these important 
statutes?
  Enviromentalists, consumer organizations, and labor unions are not 
the only groups to oppose H.R. 1022. Industry too has some significant 
misgivings about this legislation. Several major manufacturers have 
told us, over the past several days, that H.R. 1022 goes too far. 
Industry does not want a roll-back of environmental regulation; 
industry does not want to risk another popular backlash against its 
activities. In the recent Newsweek article on this bill, an official of 
Occidental Petroleum is quoted as saying, ``This reminds me of 1981, 
when industry shot itself in the foot.'' Industry has invested billions 
of dollars in emissions control equipment already: To rescind the rules 
that made that equipment necessary is to squander industry's prior 
investment.
  Mr. Chairman, in enacting the past 25 years environmental 
legislation, Congress has reflected the widespread public belief that 
protection of public health and the global environment are objectives 
of paramount importance to society. In my opinion, the public at large 
continues to hold these views.I therefore urge adoption of this 
amendment.
                              {time}  1745

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  I will confess I am not an expert on regulatory proceedings, but 
based upon what I have heard here this evening and on our earlier 
expressions that this method of revising badly needed risk assessment 
and cost-benefit analysis should really be applied on a department-by-
department basis in order to achieve the maximum effect.
  I think that this amendment moves us in that direction.
  What the basic point that it seems to me needs to be made is that in 
H.R. 1022 we have a valuable new process that is set into place which 
would help us make better regulatory decisions, but it requires that 
there be a certification process according to the criteria which result 
from this which override existing law.
  Now, it is my view that it is not desirable to override the existing 
law, for the reasons set forth far more eloquently than I can by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and others, that what we really 
need is to reconsider existing law and see if the original basis for 
that law's criteria--that is, whether or not it should not require 
cost-benefit analysis or risk assessment--still are valid. We can then 
proceed, ourselves, to make the judgment that is necessary to either 
correct the law or to bring it into accordance with the decision 
criteria resulting from the operation of H.R. 1022.
  This is a more moderate approach. I agree with that. It certainly is 
not satisfactory to those who want a revolution today. But I can feel 
much more comfortable with this kind of a process because I have been a 
party to putting into effect most of these regulatory laws over the 
last 30 years.
  On the air pollution legislation, for example, I should not have to 
repeat this, but 30 years ago this was the key to getting elected to 
Congress in California, to promise to cure air pollution, and I made 
that promise, and I failed to do so. But I have supported every effort 
to do so that has been made in Congress.
  And I think most of what we have done has been reasonable and 
valuable, and in southern California I can certify today we are far 
better off than we were 30 years ago or 20 years ago or 10 years ago.
  Now, we seek to pass this all-encompassing legislation which contains 
many valuable additions which I fully support, but we put into this a 
provision that says if the process results in decision criteria which 
are different from existing law, it overrides the existing law. And I 
think that is unwise.
  I think we need to reconsider the existing law, and the amendment 
provides for that, through the reporting process to Congress. But I 
think we should be very reluctant to override much of the health and 
safety and other legislation that we have passed.
  The gentlewoman from California spoke eloquently of the impact upon 
mammography standards, for example. I think we should be very careful 
to be put into the position of having the women of this country say the 
Congress neglected or showed no concern for the importance of 
proceeding with the laws that we put into place already, and proposing 
to override them through the effect of this risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis legislation.
  So I am very strongly supportive of the legislation offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. I join the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] in fearing for the consequences of the 
legislation before us unless it is amended in such a fashion, and I 
hope that you can all support the amendment of the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let us first of all make something very clear; that is, 
the supermandate language in this bill is [[Page H2362]] the guts of 
the legislation. If you are against the supermandate, you are against 
the bill; then vote for the Boehlert amendment. But if you want to have 
a reasonable risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis bill, then vote 
against the Boehlert amendment and vote for the bill.
  That is basically as simple as it can be. The gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] made it very clear, and he is right, that if you 
are against the bill, you want to vote for this amendment. So I think 
most Members recognize it is important we look forward in dealing with 
these kinds of legislation and give the opportunity for the Congress to 
set these kinds of standards. That is exactly what we get elected to 
do.
  I want to point out for the edification of the Members that we tried 
to carefully deal with the question that came up in our committee about 
mammography screening.
  The gentlewoman from California who has spoken earlier raised that 
issue. We worked very hard to make certain that that was taken care of. 
I want to stress that in the language in the legislation, on page 5, 
line 14, section 4:

       Program designed to protect human health. The term 
     ``program designed to protect human health'' does not include 
     regulatory programs concerning health insurance, health 
     provider services, or health care diagnostic services.

  Now, the last time I looked, mammography screening would be covered 
under health care diagnostic services. So I put that issue to rest.
  We listened to the gentlewoman from California and others in our 
committee. That issue is not an issue in this amendment, nor is it an 
issue in this bill because we took care of it, as a result.
  Now, we spend some $430 billion to $700 billion on regulations. Does 
it not make sense, since we have already defeated an amendment that 
would look back that would keep us from looking back, to now take a 
look at an opportunity to take the new regulations that are coming out 
and apply reasonable cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment to those 
regulations?
  That really is the issue. The question is do you want to do that, or 
do you not? Do you want to stick with the status quo of these old 
regulations that are in many ways totally not based on science, or do 
we want to simply give regulators an opportunity to use good science? 
That is really what this is all about.
  Now, if we are going to believe our friend from New York, we are 
going to say we are just going to walk in place, we are going to, 
essentially, freeze the decisionmaking process and go back to what cost 
billions of dollars. I do not think that makes a whole lot of sense, 
and that is why the Boehlert amendment should be defeated, because it 
goes against the heart of what we are trying to do here, the very heart 
of this supermandate language.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I stress that I too favor cost-benefit analysis and 
risk assessment. What this amendment points out is that there are going 
to be disagreements in the future sometime and where there is a failure 
on the part of the agency to be able to certify all the certifications 
required in the bill, then that agency has to report back to the 
Congress, the people's House, and we debate it and we make the 
necessary changes.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have perhaps less confidence that that 
particular procedure will work. If they report back, they report back.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] said he has had a lot of 
hearings about some of the abuses in the regulatory process. It is true 
we have had a lot of hearings, but until today we have not done very 
much about it. Today we have a chance to strike a blow for reasonable 
regulations. That is why this bill is so important, and that is why, in 
my humble estimation, the amendment of the gentleman from New York 
cripples our ability to do that.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman would yield further, I want to 
increase the comfort zone a little bit by telling the gentleman that we 
are part of the new majority now, so things will be different now and 
in the future, in the Congress, in the way Congress responds to 
agencies.
  Mr. OXLEY. I am concerned that we get an overburdened effort. That is 
what the job is, it is for those regulators to make those regulations 
based on good science. That is what we want them to do. We do not want 
them to dump their problems into the Congress' lap. We are going to be 
authorizing Superfund, I say to my friend from California, we are going 
to be reauthorizing other programs, and that is clearly one of our 
goals.
  But it seems to me that in the overall scheme of things, we are 
dealing with regulations, this bill now, this bill now is a chance to 
get some common sense into that procedure, and then when we start to 
reauthorize these kinds of regulations and the regime that is used in 
the regulations, the regulators will be very used to them and they are 
going to be able to come up with a good response.
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise reluctantly, but not reluctant in support of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I say reluctantly rise because there is no one in the 
course of the last several years who has seen more of the consequences 
injurious to people by having regulators make rules not reflective of 
laws made by their elected officials and to make those rules without 
any correlation to actual risk and without any consultation of actual 
cost.
  So I rise reluctantly because I am in strong support of a legislative 
initiative, in support of the chairmen of both committees to which it 
was referred. But here is the problem I have and why I welcome the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]: This 
is breaking ground on important new legislation. In doing, section 202 
of the bill establishes a prohibition for the issuance of a rule that 
has not been certified to comply with the section's decision criteria. 
That is fine. But the decision criteria listed and described are 
described in terms that are not duplicated in any other Federal law.
  The point I am making is they are standards with which I happen to 
agree. It is an initiative on which I happen to be supportive. But it 
is new, and therefore it will be at variance with existing application 
of standards.
  The bottom line, I am saying, is there will always be a conflict 
between H.R. 1022 and other laws. And an administrative proceeding is 
going to leave a judge without previous decisions to look to for 
interpretation of this new language.
  Now, that being the case, we would wonder why we do not have a 
fallback and a recognition there should be a safety valve. And the 
answer is, once again, in the committee, a fallback was placed. There 
is language under one title of the bill dealing with risk assessment, 
saying, ``Hold it, here is a safety net. When there is a conflict we 
have got some exceptions, and we are going to make sure this escape 
clause works.''
  But for some reason that language is not incorporated in both titles 
of the bill. It is omitted in the one dealing with cost analysis.

                              {time}  1800

  I am simply saying, ``If you recognize the one, you ought to 
recognize the other, and we ought to have the sanity added so that, 
when we have this legislation go forward, and I believe this 
legislation should and will go forward, then we have not done untold 
harm to untold beings.''
  Mr. Chairman, there was a terrible news report earlier, a few days 
ago, about a hospital, I believe was in Florida, where an incredible 
and horrendous event occurred in which the wrong foot was amputated.
  Let me tell my colleagues, ``If we don't have some legislative 
language to be certain that the goal of this assessment, the goal of 
cost assessment, has a means by which we can actually enter into 
administrative law and review, and do so in the same process, we are 
going to cut off the wrong foot in the name of risk assessment.'' I, 
for [[Page H2363]] one, do not want to be part of that process.
  I do want to be part of a signing ceremony at the White House where 
the President hands a pen and says, ``Here is a bill for the kind of 
risk assessment that you and others have been fighting for for 8 
years.'' I want to be there for that event. I do not want to be
 going home to explain why I supported unintended consequences that 
were never envisioned by the best of intentions.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant--but strong--support of this 
amendment to keep from overriding, at this time, in a one-size-fits-all 
fashion, the statutory standards of virtually every Federal law 
protecting health, safety and the environment.
  I do so reluctantly because, as my colleagues know, I have long been 
a proponent of real risk assessment and cost benefit reforms. I am an 
original cosponsor, along with Bud Shuster and 14 other Transportation 
Committee members on a bipartisan basis, of legislation amending the 
Clean Water Act to add strong, new risk assessment and benefit-cost 
requirements.
  I stood shoulder-to-shoulder last Congress with most of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle and with many Democrats in working to 
have real risk assessment language added to the EPA Cabinet bill. As 
the Science Committee's Investigation and Oversight Committee Chairman, 
I held the first hearing of the 103d Congress stating the need for more 
and better risk assessment in our public policy decisionmaking process.
  There should be no doubt in the minds of H.R. 1022's managers, or 
others, that I support their efforts to build risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis into our laws to prevent wasteful, counterproductive 
regulations.
  In spite of this, or, more accurately, because I feel so strongly on 
this subject, I support this amendment based on the fear that the 
supermandate being proposed in H.R. 1022 is likely to be worse than the 
regulatory waste that we are attempting to address.
  I believe--and I don't say this lightly--that we are on the verge of 
committing the legislative equivalent of the terrible incident that 
occurred a few days ago in a Florida hospital. In this incident, which 
was widely reported by the media, a patient went into surgery to have 
an injured leg amputated. The doctors, though well-intentioned, removed 
the wrong leg by accident. My point is that it is the result and not 
the intentions that matter, and I firmly believe that the results of 
H.R. 1022's supermandate language may prove to be disastrous.
  The supermandate approach being taken in H.R. 1022 is flawed 
substantively, procedurally and tactically. Perhaps most alarming, 
however, is that no one on this floor--or anywhere else, I submit--can 
provide us with any meaningful explanation of how the bill's 
supermandate language is going to affect the individual statutes that 
underpin our system of health, safety and environmental protections.
  From a substantive perspective, section 202 of the bill prohibits the 
issuance of any rule that has not been certified to comply with that 
section's decision criteria. These criteria are listed and described in 
terms not duplicated in any other Federal law pertaining to health, 
safety or the environment. Subsection (b) of section 202 provides, 
however, that H.R. 1022's decision criteria supersede current law 
whenever there is a conflict between the two. Because every Federal 
health, safety and environmental statute contains standards and 
criteria that are at odds with today's bill, there will always be a 
conflict between H.R. 1022 and the other laws. All that remains to be 
determined is which conflicts can be described and which interest 
groups will benefit from these pre-ordained conflicts. The pursuit and 
debate of these conflicts will grind our legitimate regulatory 
processes, and our already-clogged courts to a complete halt as 
contestants--industry or public interest group; competitors within an 
industry; or private property owners and environmental organizations--
take their controversies to the courts based on their own conflict-
based arguments stating why H.R. 1022 should prohibit the rule in 
question from being promulgated.
  For a group of well-intentioned legislators, whom I am certain want 
to cure the ills our constituents suffer because of overregulation, 
this bill's approach is insane. It's worse than cutting off the wrong 
leg. It's like cutting off both legs to make sure you get the problem, 
wherever it is.
  My second reason for supporting this amendment is procedural. There 
is absolutely no good reason for us to be taking, at this time, the 
extraordinary and extreme step represented by the supermandate 
language. If we were in the last two weeks of the 104th Congress, then 
at least there would be an argument that there was not time to make 
changes properly. But we haven't even finished the second month of this 
Congress, and there will be plenty of opportunity in the next 18 months 
to address overregulation problems in a more reasonable, tailored and 
understood fashion.
  We will be reauthorizing the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water 
Act, Superfund, and the Endangered Species Act this Congress. As each 
of these bills move through committee and the floor, we should include 
the kind of risk assessment and cost-benefit provisions that make sense 
in light of particular structure, standards and experience of each 
statute. Where overregulation problems are being experienced with 
statutes not expected to be reauthorized this Congress, appropriations 
bills will be available as legislative vehicles to carry necessary 
corrections. And if, for some reason, there is a more pressing need, 
Speaker Gingrich has announced that we will soon be having ``Correction 
Days'' each month to do away with the most destructive and least useful 
Federal regulatory requirements.
  My third reason for supporting the amendment is tactical. The rushed, 
shotgun approach of H.R. 1022's supermandate language is producing a 
public relations backlash, reflected in numerous media stories like 
Time magazine's, ``Environmental Chain Saw Massacre,'' last week, that 
may do serious damage to our shared objective of incorporating risk 
assessment and cost benefit principles into the body of our Nation's 
laws. Taking the overbroad supermandate approach of H.R. 1022 may 
result in ``throwing the--risk assessment/cost-benefit--baby out with 
the bath water.'' That would be a tragedy.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is no comfort at all to me to hear from 
some of the supermandate language, ``Don't worry Jimmy, the Senate will 
fix it.'' We here in the House of Representatives are not staff for the 
real legislators in the Senate. Under the Constitution, we have an 
equal responsibility--indeed a duty--to develop laws in the best 
interest of our great Nation. It is a complete abdication of our 
constitutional obligation, as well as of the duty we own our 
constituents to pass legislation in the House that we know is 
defective.
  H.R. 1022's supermandate provision is seriously defective. It must be 
amended. Please join us in our efforts to do just that.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very simple and very brief. I say to 
my colleagues:
  You've heard a lot of discussion, you've heard a lot of legal 
language, you've heard a lot of lawyers talk on this piece of 
legislation, but very simple what this bill does, and what this 
amendment does, and what the, quote unquote, supermandate does, is 
allow, when we have to authorize or reauthorize pieces of legislation, 
that the regulation that comes out of that is based on the new law, 
that we actually can do cost based regulation. So all the discussion 
here, when you boil it down, is saying, whether you take an old law, 
whether it's the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act, and when you 
apply new law to that or reauthorize it, is that the regulations that 
come out of that hence forward are the same type of regulations under 
the same type of regulation writing that comes out of any new law that 
we'd write. So, if you want consistency, and if you want fairness, and 
if you want the ability for this country not be overwhelmed by old 
legislation and old regulation, you simply say that we do not pass this 
amendment that guts, quote unquote, supermandate, but what it does is 
allow us to go forward when we write, when we reauthorize, old bills or 
old pieces of legislation, and we write new regulation out of it that 
is very simple, very concise and very consistent.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to point out to the chief deputy whip that 
this year Congress is going to consider the reauthorization of the 
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund 
legislation, the Endangered Species Act. That is the time for this 
Congress to make the changes during that reauthorizing process.
  Mr. HASTERT. Absolutely, and, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman 
understands when we do those that, if we change that bill, or we write 
it, the regulations henceforth will be under the language of this bill, 
and that only seems sensible to do.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask the gentleman to yield one 
more time, well, I think then we have got some area of common ground, 
some agreement. We want the Congress, the elected Representatives of 
the people, to be making the decisions, the important decisions, not 
some nameless, faceless bureaucrat.
[[Page H2364]]

  Mr. HASTERT. If the gentleman from New York will listen for a second, 
Mr. Chairman, I would say, ``You know, we don't write the regulation. 
We write the law. We write the policy. And regulation that follows is 
done by the bureaucrats, you know, down the street. And what we're 
saying is when we write the regulation, that the regulations they write 
are based on the law that we're trying to establish here, and it's only 
fair that we do this, or we set this policy, and when you reauthorize 
and new legislation that comes forward from reauthorization is written 
on the same type of language and basis.''
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment. This supermandate in 
this legislation is about the most far-reaching proposal, has sweeping 
impact on existing environmental laws.
  Now those laws are up occasionally for renewal, and, when we revisit 
those laws, we ought to deal with problems in those laws, but under 
this legislation they are going to supersede all those laws as if they 
did not exist.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] said that all the 
precedents, all the court decisions interpreting the statutes involved, 
would be thrown out. They would have to look at it in the light of this 
one bill.
  This is what they call one-size-fits-all. Forget whether the Clean 
Air Act operates in a health based standard, or the Toxic Substances 
Act is a risk assessment bill, or some other legislation were designed 
to have a technology standard. Whatever those laws might have said on 
those points, we are going to ignore, and we are going to let this bill 
supersede those laws.
  Mr. Chairman, what is really at stake is a rollback of protections 
for people. The reason those laws were designed the way they were is 
based on the historical experiences.
  For example, in the Clean Air Act we had a law saying that, if there 
are toxic air pollutants, they ought to do a risk analysis before they 
set a standard, and so, when we had toxic pollutants that cause cancer, 
or birth defects, or neurological problems, in 1970 to 1990 the law was 
to do a risk based standard, and EPA could not figure out how to do 
that. So, after 20 years only seven standards were set for pollutants.
  Finally in 1990 we said in the Clean Air Act, ``This doesn't make any 
sense. Let's require the use of the technologies that will reduce these 
pollutants that cause such enormous harm,'' and that made a lot of 
sense, and, after the law was adopted in 1990, we have seen an enormous 
amount of progress in protecting people from tons and tons of these 
toxic air pollutants.
  In the urban areas of our cities we have a health based standard, and 
we say, ``Let's achieve the health based standard set of strategies to 
do it,'' and we have a law that has been working, it has been
 successful, but with the supermandate under this legislation we would 
not have a health based standard anymore. It would have to go to a 
cost-benefit analysis.

  The point that I want to make is really what is at stake are all 
these existing laws. If someone does not like the Clean Air Act, or the 
Toxic Substances Act, or the Endangered Species Act, when those bills 
come up for renewal let us fight the fight out. Let us debate those 
issues, not adopt something that has such sweeping consequences.
  Now we have to ask why are we facing something with such sweeping 
consequences. It is one of two, and maybe a combination of the two, 
motives. One is to, I think, not having thought through what the 
implications are going to be, or the second is, if they thought through 
very carefully what the implications will be, and those that have 
thought it through would like to weaken all of those environmental 
laws. I think this legislation before us is seriously flawed in that it 
goes back to existing laws, weakens them.
  I say to my colleagues, ``If you want to say for the future we ought 
to do cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, as a tool, that's fine, 
but not to take that analysis and tie up things for years.''
  In the toxic substances law, not under the clean air law, but the 
toxic substances law, they spent a decade trying to set one standard, 
and they finally set one standard, and it was challenged in court and 
then thrown out because not the standard was flawed, because they 
challenged the analysis.
  Economists can come up with different points of view when they look 
at an analysis. Everyone knows economists disagree with each other. But 
we are going to allow courts and judicial review to throw out laws and 
regulations to enforce those laws based on whether the analysis met 
some court's viewpoint.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from southern 
California, my good friend, and let us talk about the Clean Air Act for 
just a second.
  When we wrote the Clean Air Act in 1990, there was a provision in 
there for employer trip reduction. It was based off technologies that 
were going on in southern California, in my State, in Texas and other--
Pennsylvania and other States around the country. It has not worked, 
but yet that technology is in the law, and what we are saying, if we 
reauthorize that, that ought to be looked at as a cost-benefit 
analysis. If it does not----
  Mr. WAXMAN. If I can reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, just to tell the 
gentleman, I don't disagree with you, if you want to look at that issue 
on a cost-benefit analysis. But why take the whole Clean Air Act, which 
by the way was adopted by a vote of 401 people in the House voted aye, 
25 voted no? There was an initiative by President Bush and signed by 
him. Why take that whole law and toss it out because you have a 
supermandate in this risk bill?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to see this bill override, and destroy, 
the progress this Nation is finally making, after decades of inaction, 
to protect the American people from cancer-causing air pollution. This 
savings amendment would allow that progress to continue.
  From 1970 to 1990, the Nation conducted a full-scale experiment in 
the use of risk assessment to regulate toxic chemicals. During those 
years, the Clean Air Act directed EPA to use risk assessment to control 
air pollutants that can cause cancer, birth defects, neurotoxicity, and 
respiratory disease. More than 2.5 billion pounds of toxic chemicals 
were released into America's air every year, according to industry's 
own right-to-know records from the late 1980's.
  By 1990 everyone--industry, environmentalists, the States, and EPA--
was united in agreement that this experiment had failed. Over a 20-year 
period EPA was paralyzed in endless debates over risk assessments and 
cost-benefit analyses for cancer risks. In all this time, EPA managed 
to set standards for only seven toxic air pollutants.
  In 1990, Congress replaced the failed risk-based approach with a 
technology-based system that even many industries agree is proving to 
be practical, effective, and affordable. In the 4 years since 1990, EPA 
has achieved many times what was accomplished in the prior 20 years.
  Since 1990, EPA has taken steps that will eliminate more than 1 
billion pounds of toxic emissions annually from nearly a dozen types of 
industrial emitters, including chemical plants and steel industry coke 
ovens.
  H.R. 1022 would erase this breakthrough in a single stroke: It would 
re-institute the paralysis that reigned from 1970 to 1990.
  The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments establish a practical, affordable 
technology-based approach to controlling air toxics sources. The law 
lists 189 toxic air
 pollutants, establishes a clear footing for technology-based 
standards, and sets a detailed schedule for action.

  This approach is bringing clear results. Since 1990, EPA has set 
standards for nearly a dozen major industries, reducing toxic emissions 
by more than 1 billion pounds per year.
  EPA has also proposed standards for municipal waste incinerators and 
medical waste incinerators that will reduce emissions of dioxin--one of 
the most toxic chemicals known--by more than 99 percent. The standards 
will also cut thousands of tons of mercury, lead, cadmium, and other 
highly toxic pollutants.
  The reason so much progress has been made so fast is that the act 
establishes a simple, workable criterion for standards: all major 
facilities of a given type must upgrade their pollution controls at 
least to the quality that has been achieved by the better-controlled 
facilities already in operation.
  Risk assessment still plays a role. It is used to add or remove 
chemicals or sources from the lists that require regulatory control. It 
will also be used, at the turn of the century, to see if high risks 
remain after the technology-based [[Page H2365]] first step. If so, the 
act calls for further progress through risk-based control measures.
  H.R. 1022 would return us to 20 years of risk-based paralysis. The 
bill's risk assessment and cost-benefit decisionmaking criteria would 
supersede the 1990 Clean Air Act's technology-based approach. These 
requirements are even more onerous than those that failed before 1990.
  Under these criteria, lives of the most exposed and most vulnerable 
Americans may not be worth saving. EPA would protect the most exposed 
or most vulnerable Americans only if the extra lives saved--compared to 
the next weaker standard--justify the extra cost to industry.
  What's worse, Americans' right to protection from cancer-causing air 
pollution could depend on what region they lived in or what company 
they lived next to.
  These daunting requirements would effectively hogtie the future 
efforts to continue reducing toxic air pollutants. The data simply are 
not available to perform risk assessments for 189 different toxic 
emission sources emitted in innumerable combinations from hundreds of 
different kinds of facilities.
  In short, unless we pass this savings clause, both the industries 
that release toxic air pollutants and the Americans who still breathe 
them would be condemned again to the 1970-1990 situation of paralysis 
by analysis.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] 
has expired.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hayes-Boehlert 
amendment. In fact, I offered a similar amendment in the Committee on 
Science a week or so ago. This, I think, is a fairly straightforward 
issue.
  I agree with the purpose of the amendment which is namely that, when 
the results of a cost-benefit analysis under this new law, H.R. 1022, 
appear to conflict with an existing statutory requirement, the existing 
law should not be overwritten except by a specific new act of Congress. 
Without this amendment, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1022 has the potential to 
reach back to eviscerate every law on the books designed to protect 
peoples' health and/or environment.
  Congress already has a process, as has been pointed out, for fixing 
laws which are not working as we wanted them to do, and that is the 
reauthorization process. Hopefully we will reauthorize the Clean Water 
Act, the Superfund law and a number of others this year, and many of 
them have been criticized for requiring extensive and expensive 
remedies not consistent with cost-benefit criteria. But the right time 
to deal with that is during the reauthorization process.
  Mr. Chairman, this becomes fish-or-cut-bait time. Did Congress mean 
it when Congress decided by huge votes to reduce sewage pollution in 
our rivers, or are we going to reopen and reverse those gains? Did 
Congress mean it when Congress decided to reduce industrial air 
pollution, or are we going to reopen that issue at this time and 
reverse those gains?
  Mr. Chairman, ultimately this Congress in those cases has the 
responsibility to determine the necessary levels of protection for 
public health and environmental protection, and in the reauthorization 
process that is the time to make that decision, not reaching back 
through the provisions of H.R. 1022 to do that aside from the 
reauthorization process.
  In a few weeks, we have the so-called Personal Responsibility Act on 
the floor of this House. I challenge every member of this House to show 
some personal responsibility. Reject this blind, blanket overhaul of 
our laws and do the hard work of making changes statute-by-statute.
  Support the Hayes-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would create two different 
classes of regulations for the purposes of risk assessment and cost/
benefit analysis--the first would be the post-H.R. 1022 class, and the 
second would be the pre-H.R. 1022 class.
  The post-H.R. 1022 class of regulations would be subject to modern 
risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis procedures based on sound 
science, while the pre-H.R. 1022 class of regulations would be 
promulgated under outdated, inefficient, and inflexible procedures with 
sometimes no attention paid to their cost on the economy.
  Does this make sense?
  The American people have asked us to establish a reasonable 
regulatory system based on scientifically sound risk assessment with 
attention paid to the costs versus the benefits incurred. That is what 
this bill accomplishes.
  Some are claiming that the bill will roll back all of our health, 
safety, and environmental protection regulations. Those who would make 
this claim have unfortunately resorted to scare tactics.
  As the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, has written, 
``Nothing in the bill itself changes a single existing health, safety, 
or environmental regulation currently on the books. This bill only 
applies to new regulations and situations where the agency revises an 
old regulation through a public notice and comment process.''
  H.R. 1022 is not a supermandate--instead, it establishes consistent, 
clear standards under which all new regulations will be promulgated. 
The Boehlert amendment would gut this bill and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 238, not voting 15, as follows:
                             [Roll No 180]

                               AYES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--238

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock [[Page H2366]] 
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Baesler
     Brewster
     Cox
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Rangel
     Rush
     Torres
     Ward
     Williams

                              {time}  1830

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On the vote:

       Mr. Rush for, with Mr. Cox against.
       Mr. Ward for, with Mr. Livingston against.

  Messrs. McINNIS, SKELTON, and ROHRABACHER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by Mr. walker

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 30, after line 23, 
     insert:

     SEC. 204. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP

       For purposes of this title, any determination by a Federal 
     agency to approve or reject any proposed or final 
     environmental clean-up plan for a facility the costs of which 
     are likely to exceed $5,000,000 shall be treated as major 
     rule subject to the provisions of this title (other than the 
     provisions of section 201(a)(5). As used in this section, the 
     term ``environmental clean-up'' means a corrective action 
     under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, a remedial action under 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980, and any other environmental 
     restoration and waste management carried out by or on behalf 
     of a Federal agency with respect to any substance other than 
     municipal waste.
       Page 4, after line 18, insert the following new section and 
     redesignate section 4 as section 5:

     SEC. 4. UNFUNDED MANDATES

       Nothing in this Act itself shall, without Federal funding 
     and further Federal agency action, create any new obligation 
     or burden on any State or local government or otherwise 
     impose any financial burden on any State or local government 
     in the absence of Federal funding, except with respect to 
     routine information requests.
       Page 16, beginning on line 8, after ``uncertainties'' add:
       ``Sensitive subpopulations or highly exposed subpopulations 
     include, where relevant and appropriate, children, the 
     elderly, pregnant women and disabled persons.''

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, there are 8 minutes remaining for 
debate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] will be recognized 
for 4 minutes, and a Member on the other side will be recognized for 4 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will try to go quickly so we might be able to get to another 
amendment, if this could be taken on a voice vote.
  This amendment is offered by myself, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley], the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger]. What is says is that we are going to include environmental 
cleanup under 1022. We want to be sure the cleanup dollars are used 
wisely; subjecting major cleanups to this legislation will go a long 
way in doing that. Also, there is some concern about any kind of 
unfunded mandates. The mandates are some of the most costly of mandates 
when we deal with the environment. Accordingly the Conference of 
Mayors, of the top 10 most burdensome unfunded mandates on State and 
local governments, 7 are environmental mandates. H.R. 1022 speaks to 
ease the burden of regulation. We certainly do not want to add to it. 
CBO was not able to cost out what, if any, costs may be passed onto the 
States. With this amendment that I am offering on behalf of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and myself, we offer 
protection against unfunded mandates.
  There is also some concern about definitions of the bill that refer 
to sensitive subpopulations. That is included in this language as well 
to make certain that sensitive subpopulations would include children, 
elderly, pregnant women, and disabled persons. It clarifies what is in 
the committee report.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I also am in support of this legislation. I also support the 
amendment en bloc and want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] for her good work on this and also the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], a member of our committee.
  These amendments make a good deal of sense. They track the specifics 
of this bill very well.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] 
for his work on this.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say I support this 
amendment. It ought to be passed.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Condit].
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and the 
bill.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas 
[Mrs. Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that has been worked out with Mr. 
Oxley and Mr. Clinger. Last month many of us supported H.R. 5, a bill 
that would ease the amount of unfunded mandates on the States. This 
amendment is aimed to ensure that provisions in this bill achieve the 
goal set forth under the unfunded mandates bill by not adversely 
affecting States. It has the full support from the National Conference 
of State Legislatures and the State of Arkansas.
  As you well know, States often act as agents of the Federal 
Government in enforcing Federal statutes. For example, under the Clean 
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, to name a few, the States are 
delegated the authority to carry out the requirements of the statutes 
and enforce their provisions. Because H.R. 1022 as written explicitly 
requires risk assessments for documents prepared by or on behalf of a 
covered Federal agency in the implementation of a regulatory program 
designed to protect human health, safety, or the environment, States 
might be required to conduct risk assessments when carrying out the 
provisions of Federal statutes. Such documents include the issuance of 
permits under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.
  Over 40 States have delegated authority over the Clean Water Act's 
section 402 permitting program. Under this bill, States acting on 
behalf of the Federal Government might be forced to conduct risk 
assessments for each [[Page H2367]] permit they issue. States neither 
have the financial nor the personnel resources to take on such a 
burden.
  The ultimate financial impacts of this bill on the States are 
unknown. Even in the committee report, CBO was unable to calculate the 
potential costs. CBO stated that the effect of this bill on State and 
local governments was ``unclear.'' ``CBO has no basis for predicting 
the direction, magnitude, or timing of such impacts.''
  Because of the ambiguity associated with the potential costs and 
burdens placed on the States under the mandates of this bill, we have 
agreed to this amendment to protect States against unfunded mandates. 
This amendment requires further Federal action along with Federal 
funding in order for States to comply with the requirements under this 
act.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will alleviate concerns 
that have been raised in both the Science and Commerce Committees by 
myself and the Congresswoman from Arkansas regarding the placement of 
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis requirements on State and 
local governments.
  This amendment hopes to clarify that enactment of this bill will not 
place unfunded mandates on State and local government jurisdictions. 
This savings clause is needed because as currently written, the bill is 
unclear on the question of whether State and localities will have to 
engage in costly risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. It should 
be remembered that States often act as agents for the Federal 
Government in administering laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  In fact, the Commerce Committee report states on page 50 that if we 
enact H.R. 1022, the ``affect on budgets of State and local governments 
is unclear.'' This bipartisan amendment, supported by the National 
Conference on State Legislatures, would make clear that the bill will 
not impose an unfunded mandate on States and local governments. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues, who overwhelmingly supported the 
passage of the unfunded mandate bill last month, to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my dear colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, for including the amendment dealing with 
subpopulations offered by myself and the gentlelady from California 
[Ms. Lofgren]. Also, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley] for his support in getting this amendment in.
  This amendment seeks to cure one of the many problems that arise when 
we try to put good and responsive science into law. Risk assessment may 
help improve regulatory decisions, but good risk assessment doesn't 
guarantee good regulatory decisions. Risk assessment should supplement 
the regulatory goal of safeguarding public health, but should not stand 
alone in the analysis.
  This bill requires that a number of numerical estimates be made; yet 
it expresses those estimates in a crude way that fails to take account 
of the special needs of vulnerable subpopulations such as children, the 
elderly, and disabled individuals.
  It is the concern for these vulnerable subpopulations that encouraged 
me to sponsor this amendment.
  As we have learned in recent years, averages and best estimates often 
tell us almost nothing about the way in which a risk will have an 
impact on real people. On average a drug or device, a chemical or 
compound may be safe and effective, however, it may have terrible 
unsafe or ineffective consequences for special subpopulations such as 
the elderly, children, pregnant women, disabled people, or individuals 
with certain chronic illnesses.
  Those who are vulnerable in our society need to be concerned about 
health care expenditures, salary loss for a lengthy illness, and years 
of work lost to premature death. And this is all because they have no 
option to choose the level of risk to which they are exposed to a 
health hazard. I believe that science cannot always explain complex or 
unusual relationships between the exposure to hazards and the potential 
health effects to all people.
  This amendment simply says that when numerical risks are provided, 
estimates shall also be provided for these subpopulations where such 
estimates are relevant.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
 amendment offered by mr. brown of california to the amendment offered 
                             by mr. walker

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Walker: At the end of the amendment, 
     insert the following:
       Page 4, strike lines 5 through 9 (all of paragraph (1) of 
     section 3) and insert the following and redesignate 
     paragraphs (2) through (4) as paragraphs (3) through (5), 
     respectively:
       (1) A situation that the head of the agency considers an 
     emergency.
       (2) A situation that the head of the agency considers to be 
     reasonably expected to cause death or serious injury or 
     illness to humans, or substantial endangerment to private 
     property or the environment unless prompt action is taken to 
     avoid death or to avoid or mitigate serious injury or illness 
     to humans, or substantial endangerment to private property or 
     the environment.

  Mr. BROWN of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as 
read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] to 
explain.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
which the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and I are offering. This amendment allows a 
critical element to the protection of our public health and safety to 
continue.
  This amendment ensures that agencies be provided the flexibility to 
act rapidly in the event of a serious threat to public health or public 
safety.
  Our history is replete with examples where the prompt action by a 
Federal agency prevented death or prevented serious injury.
  In Lorain County, OH, in northeast Ohio in the 13th district, the 
Centers for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency are 
currently working with the Ohio Department of Public Health to avoid 
calamity from the use of a deadly pesticide in a residential area in 
Elyria. Within days these agencies were working together to mitigate 
the contamination, to relocate families, and to clean up the problem.
  Without this amendment, agencies will spend more time in risk 
analysis and litigation than responding to these urgent situations.
  In addition, while lawyers will have full employment, many of our 
constituents could become seriously ill or die waiting for Federal 
action.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will allocate 30 seconds to the proponents. 
If there is a Member on the other side that wants to have permission to 
speak, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] may close.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Brown 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the American people 
should not have to wait for agencies to study risks for months before 
acting to abate serious and in some cases life-threatening conditions.
  Last year, for example, the FDA received a report from Canada of two 
cases of salmonella poisoning in infants using a particular infant 
formula manufactured in the United States.
  We have to be able to save our infants and be responsive in having 
this provision to provide for our American citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, the Brown-Jackson-Lee amendment to H.R. 1022 would 
allow agencies to take rapid response actions to address significant 
threats from toxic chemicals or discharged oil, without the need to 
wait for lengthy risk assessments to be completed. The amendment would 
expand section 3(l) to exempt from risk assessment requirements from 
not only classic emergencies, but also those situations where prompt 
action is needed to avoid death, illness, or serious injury to the 
environment.
  The American people shouldn't have to wait for agencies to study 
risks for months before acting to abate serious, and in some cases, 
life-threatening conditions.
  For example, the amendment would allow, without the delay of 
additional studies: repacking corroding drums before they leak; quickly 
relocating those people living in dangerously contaminated areas that 
require cleanup--moving them out of harm's way; stopping the 
[[Page H2368]] spread of contaminants from leaking underground storage 
tanks before drinking water is affected; acting promptly to save 
wildlife and beaches harmed by oil spills; and quickly supplying 
alternate drinking water where community water has been contaminated 
with toxic chemicals.
  Often these are not classic emergency situations, but they are always 
situations where fast action is critical to preventing greater harm to 
surrounding communities and the environment. Would we not want agencies 
to be free to respond quickly to such serious situations?
  Taking timely action before the contamination spreads would also 
serve to avoid more costly cleanups in the future, saving money for 
both taxpayers as well as industry.
  This amendment makes good economic sense, and it makes good sense. I 
ask for your support.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Brown, 
for offering this amendment designed to ensure that Federal agencies 
maintain the ability to respond quickly to serious risks to the 
public's health and safety.
  In particular, I am concerned about how H.R. 1022's copious risk 
assessment requirements would impact the safety of our Nation's water 
supply.
  The central importance of a safe drinking water supply was reinforced 
for me last November when cryptosporidium, the parasite which caused 
more than 100 deaths in Milwaukee in 1993, was detected in New York 
City's water supply.
  There are few if any among us who are willing to accept a risk of 
significant exposure to serious disease through our water supply. I am 
pleased that my city of New York aggressively monitors for 
cryptosporidium through a watershed protection strategy. As of today, 
the New York City water supply is in avoidance, meaning that our water 
meets EPA standards for avoidance of cryptosporidium parasite.
  There are no Federal regulations which cover this deadly parasite. 
However, New York City has tested for this pathogen since 1992 as part 
of a cooperative effort with EPA.
  Unfortunately, there is a dearth of data about how to avoid illness 
from cryptosporidium, which has only been a reportable disease since 
March 1994.
  The bill before us today would require a rigid approach to addressing 
unusual and new health problems, like cryptosporidium. H.R. 1022 would 
require agencies like EPA to complete more than 20 risk assessments 
before working with localities to address new-found hazards.
  H.R 1022 would effectively tie the hands of cities like New York 
which currently are working jointly with EPA to address urgent 
situations like this public health issue. Furthermore, H.R. 1022 would 
lead to unnecessary and potentially life-threatening delays in 
regulatory action to protect the people of New York.
  I want to congratulate my colleague for offering this amendment 
designed to allow EPA, the Centers for Disease Control, and other 
agencies the flexibility they need to work with localities to respond 
quickly to serious threats to health or safety.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] 
has expired.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on what basis does the Chair rule 
that in this 10-hour rule that the Committee on Rules has generously 
given us and under the 5-minute rule for our time, that the time of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] is taken away and part of it is 
given to someone else when he did not yield? Under what parliamentary 
rule is that, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has discretion and the right to reallocate 
time when there is a limitation on time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, under what rule is that? Would the 
Chair cite the rule?
  The CHAIRMAN. Rule XXIII.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. It 
looks to me that it is past 6:40. I call for a vote, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment to the amendment ought to be 
opposed.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, we were told by the Parliamentarian 
that 6:40 is the final time.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Under what rule may we exceed 6:40?
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announces that there will be a 5-minute vote 
on the Walker amendment, if a recorded vote is ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 263, not voting 14, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 181]

                               AYES--157

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--263

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan [[Page H2369]] 
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baesler
     Brewster
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     Lipinski
     Martinez
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Rush
     Torres
     Ward
     Williams
     Wilson

                              {time}  1858

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and 
Cost-Benefit Act of 1995, is long overdue. I agree with the bill's 
authors that it is essential that a cost-benefit analysis be performed 
on the thousands of Federal regulations that are prepared each year. 
Without this measure, the Federal Government would simply continue to 
create, without any accountability, a growing mountain of new Federal 
requirements. In far too many cases, these regulations provide little, 
if any, benefit to our economy, our environment, or our Nation as a 
whole.
  While H.R. 1022 is not a perfect product and it will be refined 
throughout the legislative process, there are several very sound 
provisions which I would like to highlight.
  First, the term ``major rule'' has been defined to cover any 
regulation that is likely to result in an annual cost of $25 million or 
more. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that this bill would require a 
full blown cost-benefit analysis for annual and routine housekeeping 
regulations like those that simply open or close various fisheries or 
stipulate the dates, hunting times, and bag limits for migratory bird 
species. Concerns about the effects on these types of activities by the 
regulatory moratorium bill passed last week required us to exempt them 
from the moratorium. The concern is not present here.
  Second, although this legislation does require cost-benefit analyses 
for major rules, it does not mandate an outcome nor does it prevent the 
implementation of any regulations once a department or agency has 
certified the impact of a proposed rule. The fundamental goal of this 
legislation is to allow the American people and their elected 
representatives to know the true cost of a proposed Federal regulatory 
action. With this information, which is often currently lacking, 
policymakers can make rational decisions that prioritize and balance 
the diverse needs of this Nation.
  Finally, this legislation contains a phase-in provision before the 
requirement of a cost-benefit and risk-assessment analysis kicks in. By 
postponing the effective date, Federal agencies will have at least 18 
months to gear up to perform these important analyses in a scientific 
and unbiased manner.
  I compliment the sponsors of this measure for providing this 
transition period. I am confident that because of this language, there 
will not be any unnecessary or unanticipated burdens placed on the 
executive branch of our Government.
  The requirement of cost-benefit and risk-assessment analyses is 
neither a new nor a radical idea. The Army Corps of Engineers has, for 
instance, been performing these studies for many years. I believe it is 
time for the rest of the Federal Government to get with the program.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1022, the Risk 
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act is flawed legislation and needs to be 
much improved by the Senate and by the conference committee before I 
could vote for it on final passage. Nonetheless, I support the general 
thrust of requiring risk assessment and cost-benefit tests for Federal 
regulations and I will vote for this bill today as a means of allowing 
the debate to continue. The current version of this legislation would 
lead to costly increases in Federal bureaucracy, an enormous increase 
in litigation and possibly a risk for health and safety concerns. I am 
disappointed that the House leadership seems to be more concerned over 
making political statements with this bill than in crafting legal 
language which would actually serve the public interest. I do, however, 
believe that this issue should be moved on to the Senate and conference 
committees for, hopefully, more deliberate and responsible 
consideration. I will not vote for this legislation at that time unless 
it has been significantly improved.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, as many of you are already aware I am a 
strong proponent of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
  I have formed this opinion because I recognize that we do not have 
infinite resources and we cannot address every risk to health, the 
environment or society.
  How then should we determine which risks to address?
  The way things are being done today has to change. Risks are 
regulated in a complete absence of scientific fact. Tonight's news 
magazine show becomes tomorrow's regulation. Never mind that there 
might be 20 problems that are more pressing--they haven't been on TV 
yet.
  In 1987 EPA experts conducted a review of what they felt were the 
greatest risks. When they collected all of the opinions, they produced 
a report titled ``Unfinished Business.'' This report concluded that 
what experts felt were the greatest risks had funding priority and the 
smallest risk had the highest funding priority.
  Another problem is the approach to regulations in one agency might 
not resemble that of another. For example, a resources for the future 
expert was attempting to determine the amount of lives that would be 
saved by an EPA regulation. Using the EPA method he determined that 
6,400 deaths would be prevented. However, when the same researcher used 
the same data with the FDA method, he came up with a figure of 1,400.
  To put this in perspective, it is absolutely necessary to assess the 
risk, determine how much it is going to cost to address it and how 
great the benefit is if we do it. And this must be done consistently 
throughout the Federal Government.
  This is not some far-out concept, this is simply common sense.
  I have been very active in this area and worked hard to convince 
people in the administration that we need a policy on this. During the 
103d Congress I successfully added an amendment to the Agriculture 
reorganization bill which creates an Office of Risk Assessment.
  I think the time to act is now. H.R. 1022 presents the 104th Congress 
with a real opportunity to begin assessing risks in a coherent and 
consistent manner. People need to understand the purpose and price of 
regulations--and they need to be done in an understandable manner. As 
it is done today, regulations are complex and written in an 
inconsistent manner.
  Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is a great supporter of risk 
assessment. In his book on the topic ``Breaking the Vicious Circle'' he 
made the following observation:

       When we treat tiny, moderate and large too much alike, we 
     begin to resemble the boy who cried wolf. Who now reads the 
     warnings on aspirin bottles, or the pharmaceutical drug 
     warnings that run on for several pages? Will a public that 
     hears these warnings too often and too loudly begin too often 
     to ignore them?

  This is exactly what I am talking about. We need to restore some 
credibility to our regulatory process. H.R. 1022 helps this process 
along. As it stands today, when you say the words Federal regulation, 
people cringe. It should not be that way.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, one of the goals of the Contract With 
America is to generate economic growth and encourage job creation. 
Relieving the regulatory burden on individuals and businesses is 
essential to achieving this objective. Today, the House of 
Representatives took a step in this direction by requiring Federal 
bureaucrats to assess the cost of their actions.
  Washington bureaucrats are costing us $430 billion a year with 
regulations that often do more harm than good. They are coming up with 
$50 solutions for $5 problems. It's time for common sense in 
Washington.
  Last year 69,000 pages of Federal rules and regulations were 
published. The process of regulating has become an industry in lawyers, 
lobbyists, and special interests.
  These rules and regulations--9 feet of regulations, if laid end-to-
end--inpact every aspect of Americans' lives. The rules are often 
contradictory, and frequently conflict with State, county and local 
rules.
  Specifically, H.R. 1022 would ensure that risk assessments are 
objective, unbiased, and subject to peer review. The cost these rules 
[[Page H2370]] will eventually have on Americans must be taken into 
account, alternatives to complicated rules that might be more cost-
effective must be considered, and a sound reason for the regulation in 
the first place must be demonstrated.
  This legislation would simply require that the Federal bureaucracy 
assess the costs of their actions on the rest of us. We are living in 
an era of declining revenues, and we must make choices and set 
priorities. And our Government--bureaucrats as well as elected 
officials--must be accountable.
  The problem is that we now tend to direct our resources to relatively 
low-risk concerns while other, more serious concerns receive little 
attention. Since there's no standarized method of risk-assessment to be 
used throughout the Government, policymakers are unable to prioritize 
regulatory strategies in a common-sense manner. This bill allows us to 
concentrate scarce dollars where they will do the most good, and 
analyze alternatives to achieve the goal of public safety at the lowest 
possible cost.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to House 
Resolution 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act. I am 
extremely disappointed with the lack of full consideration of this 
important piece of legislation.
  I support regulatory reform. In particular, I support cost-benefit 
analysis and risk assessment as tools to develop rational regulations. 
I have spoken with small business owners, oil and chemical companies, 
and other constituents who have relayed to me their stories of 
frustration over the regulatory process. I've also talked to 
constituents who are concerned about health, safety, and the 
environment their kids will grow up in. Our job is to find the 
appropriate, delicate balance between the interests of commerce, 
industry, and the environment. This legislation is too quick of a fix 
to solve such a complex problem.
  Reforming Federal regulations will help our economy to grow. The 
time-consuming process of filling out environmental impact statements 
or hundreds of pages of small business loan forms are good examples of 
why reform is necessary. But this bill doesn't guarantee regulations 
that are sensible. On the contrary, conducting across-the-board risk-
assessments will lengthen the review process, transform simple rules 
into complex monstrosities, and cost taxpayers millions.
  Given time for thorough consideration, I believe that this body might 
have crafted a sensible compromise. Unfortunately, this is not that 
bill. Mr. Chairman, I must add that I cannot support a process which 
limits debate to only 10 hours and restricts the number of amendments 
allowed for consideration. This is not full and fair disclosure. The 
American people expect and deserve a full airing of these important 
issues in the Congress, and not this reckless, hasty display.
  Once again, the job of fair and bipartisan legislating is left to the 
other body. That is a terrible shame, because regulatory reform is 
deserving of much more thorough consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Knollenberg) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 96, 
he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Doggett

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I am, most definitely, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dogget moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1022 to the 
     Committee on Science with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendments:
       Amend the heading of section 301 (page 31, line 2) to read 
     as follows:

     SEC. 301. PEER REVIEW PROGRAM AND PROHIBITION OF CONFLICTS OF 
                   INTEREST.

       Strike paragraph (3) of section 301(a) (page 31, line 23 
     through page 32, line 5) and insert the following:
       (3) shall exclude peer reviewers who have a potential 
     financial interest in the outcome:

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is a short amendment, 13 words, and it 
is a short presentation on it after a lengthy debate in which one 
Member after another has attempted to clean up this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout the course of this lengthy debate, one Member 
after another has sought to clean up this bill and has been thwarted at 
every turn. There is one recurring theme throughout the debate, and, 
that is, whether we are going to turn the public's business over to 
special interests and their lobbyists.
  All this very simple motion to recommit does is to send the bill back 
to recommit it to the committee to put in a conflict of interest 
provision instead of committing it and our Government to special 
interests.
  That is what the American people want. They are tired of special 
interests coming to this House and getting special treatment while the 
hardworking families across this Nation get only the leftovers.
  Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be a bill about science, about risk 
assessment. But it has not really worked out that way. Because what 
this bill has ended up being is a matter of placing the risk on 
ordinary Americans as far as their health and safety and placing the 
benefits in the hands of a few. One of the things we can do about it is 
to try to sever the ties that bind the special interests to this bill 
and give us not good science but good special treatment for the few. 
That is what this conflict of interest amendment is about.
  The House needs to know that a vote against this motion to recommit 
is a vote to mandate that registered lobbyists will rule, perhaps with 
a veto power, in these peer review committees.
  I thought that perhaps the gentleman from Pennsylvania was going to 
do something about this. He talked about the possibility of doing 
something about it during the course of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts this afternoon, but we have had plenty of 
time. We had some time in committee, and nothing has been done about 
it.
  This bill as written for the first time will mandate that an agency 
of this Federal Government charged with protecting public health and 
safety cannot, shall not, indeed, exclude a lobbyist for a special 
interest group from serving on a peer review committee, exercising a 
potential veto power over regulations to protect the public health and 
safety.
  I do not believe there has been a day recently that I have not 
received a letter from some lobbyist promoting this bill. They can 
salivate over the prospects under this bill. Every one of these letters 
has begun by telling me about the desire for good science, but when all 
was said and done, all they really wanted was delay and reduction of 
regulations.
  That is why I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the distinguished Republican 
Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, has described this bill in 
its current form as a prescription for gridlock and indeed it is.
  What we can do at least is clean it up through this motion to 
recommit so that there is not this kind of blatant conflict of 
interest. That is all this one-sentence amendment and a new title on 
conflict of interest will do.
  With this recommittal and the amendment, we will see that the peer 
review process is not converted from being an objective scientific 
process into only the best science that money can buy, and we will not 
let the special interests capture the whole regulatory process.
  Think about what that means and take the practical
   example of tobacco. Two or three decades after we first heard about 
the dangers of tobacco and [[Page H2371]] cancer, we still cannot find 
a single tobacco company study that shows there is any link. They have 
had some of the best scientists that money can buy but when they are 
asked whether there is any link between tobacco and cancer, you can see 
them, they are just scratching their heads again, saying, ``Well, there 
might be, but not until my retirement vests.''

  That is the kind of scientists that this bill mandates have to be on 
peer review panels across this country, and it is wrong.
  We began with a desire for good science, good science over good 
politics, good science over silly regulations, some of which have come 
out under Democratic administrations and some of which have come out in 
12 of the last 14 years under Republican administrations. What we have 
gotten is not good science but good protection for special interests. 
We can do something about that. We can rewrite this bill to attack 
special interests, to attack silly regulations, all in the same 
process. If you believe that we ought not to turn over our Government 
to special interests, vote in favor of this motion to recommit and do 
something about it with a strong conflict of interest provision.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment similar to an amendment that was 
turned down by a vote of 247 to 177 earlier.
  What this does is make certain that the peer review process would 
fail because it assures that only those who know nothing about the 
subject would serve on the peer review panels. It is one of those dumb 
and dumber amendments that probably should not come before the House.
  I yield to the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman has pretty well summed 
it up very quickly. Let me just say that in all of this cry for special 
interests being part of the peer review process, what the author of the 
motion to recommit wants to happen is his special interests get to 
serve on the peer review panels rather than our special interests. They 
want to load the system so that they can continue to control and 
manipulate the American economy and the American business men and 
women. That is what is going on here.
  For years they get a study and they make sure that the conclusion is 
written before the study is even done on these regulations. That is 
what they want to continue. They want to load the system with their 
special interests, with their environmental extremist groups, or with 
the labor unions, or the other special interests, the Ralph Nader 
groups, the Public Citizens, they want to load them up.
  What we want is a peer review process that brings everybody into the 
process and gets all points of view, particularly those people that 
have to deal with these oppressive regulations. They should have a say 
in this process and that is what we want.
  Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Chairman, a New York Times article from a couple of years ago 
summed up perfectly the prevailing criticism of Congress' and EPA's 
choice of priorities:

       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.

  No one who supports this bill wants to harm children or hurt our 
environment--the fact of the matter is, every time you get out of bed 
and start a new day you are faced with risks, and every day you make 
decisions about whether to accept those risks based on an analysis of 
the costs versus the benefits associated with them.
  Likewise, the Federal Government must set priorities on how to spend 
its limited resources. There is no way the Government could ever 
protect everyone from every risk there is, and I don't believe 
Americans expect that. Risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis will 
both help us focus on those areas that are the greatest threat to the 
public, and provide the data needed to make those tough budgetary 
choices.
  When granting a tolerance for a new pesticide or an air pollutant, 
EPA's standard is protection against a lifetime risk of one in a 
million for cancer. For a little perspective, the chance of death by 
lightning is 35 times as great; by accidental falls, 4,000 times as 
great; and in a motor vehicle, 16,000 times as great.
  Just to demonstrate the need for reform, I'd like to present a few 
examples of how our system has gone haywire:
  First, under the Clean Water Act, if flooding creates pools of water 
on someone's property as the result of a clogged-up drainage system, 
the owner may not clear the clog to drain the new wetland without 
Government permission.
  Second, EPA regulations require that municipal water treatment plants 
remove 30 percent of organic material before discharging treated water 
into the ocean. Because water in Anchorage, AK is already very clean, 
the town has had to recruit local fish processors to purposely dump 
5,000 pounds of fish guts into its sewage system each day so that it 
would have something to clean up and meet EPA's requirement.
  Third, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a newspaper company, wanted to 
build a new production plant near Lake Erie, a plant which would bring 
400 new jobs to the otherwise abandoned inner-city industrial area. But 
because of cleanup costs of $200,000 for residual chemicals, the 
newspaper chose to build the plant in cleaner suburbs.
  Another socially conscious Cleveland developer also wanted to develop 
a 200-acre industrial park downtown, but discovered he would have to 
spend $200 million just to clean up the property before beginning 
construction. He abandoned the project.
  I think everyone would agree that these are not the intended 
consequences of Federal rules and regulations, and yet these things 
continue to happen over and over again. What we want is to bring some 
common sense and sound science into the process, so that regulations 
will serve the people, rather than people serve the regulations.
  Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley].
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, this amendment really is not about the peer 
review process. That was dealt with in the Markey amendment. The Markey 
amendment went down as it should have.
  The provision in this bill provides for everybody of every interest, 
labor and environmental groups and business groups and everyone, to 
participate in the peer review process, and they have to report any 
potential conflict of interest. That is what makes this bill so strong.
  But really the opponents of this bill who are trying to hide behind 
the motion to recommit are worried about three strikes and you're out, 
changing a $25 million coverage to $100 million, changing the 
enforceable law in not allowing judicial review, and providing for 
prior law to prevent consideration and to change the risk and cost-
benefit analysis.
  This is an effort to try to stifle the ability to change the way 
Washington works in its regulatory process. Members should vote against 
the motion to recommit.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I too want to urge a vote against this 
motion to recommit.
  The bill as presently constructed says that anyone with any interest 
in the rule has to disclose that interest, whether you have an interest 
from an environmental standpoint, whether you have an interest from 
wherever you are coming from, from a labor or management standpoint. It 
allows all of those with expertise to serve on the panel provided you 
disclose your interest. That is they way it ought to be.
  This motion to recommit will defeat that provision of the bill. We 
need to defeat this motion to recommit.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman from Louisiana is absolutely correct. The 
bill calls for peer review panels that are broadly representative and 
balanced and include representatives from State and local governments, 
industries, small businesses, universities, agriculture, labor, 
consumers, conservation organizations, and public interest groups.
  We ought to keep that kind of broad language and reject that which 
the gentleman from Texas has offered.
                              {time}  1015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection. [[Page H2372]] 
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of 
rule XV, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if 
ordered, will be taken on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 250, not voting 10, as follows:
                             [Roll No 182]

                               AYES--174

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--250

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Browder
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     LaTourette
     Lipinski
     Martinez
     Metcalf
     Rush
     Ward

                              {time}  1931

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Rush for, with Mr. Metcalf against.

  Mr. PARKER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). The question is on the 
passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 286, 
noes 141, not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No 183]

                               AYES--286

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI) [[Page H2373]] 
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--141

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     Lipinski
     Martinez
     Rush
     Ward

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. VISCLOSKY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________