[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              RISK ASSESSMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 28, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1022) to 
     provide regulatory reform and to focus national economic 
     resources on the greatest risks to human health, safety, and 
     the environment through scientifically objective and unbiased 
     risk assessments and through the consideration of costs and 
     benefits in major rules, and for other purposes:

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the motion to 
recommit. During the final minutes of consideration of H.R. 1022, Mr. 
Walker amended the bill to apply all of the cost-benefit and other 
decisionmaking criteria to cleanups of our Nation's hazardous and 
radioactive waste site. Previously the bill applied only to major 
rulemakings above $25 million and did not impact cleanups.
  The Walker amendment which was offered without time for debate, will 
have profound adverse consequences for Superfund cleanups, for 
transferring property back to communities at closing military bases, 
and for the Department of Energy's program to dispose of high-level 
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and the WIPP facility in New Mexico.
  This amendment was adopted with no hearings by the committees of 
jurisdiction. It will slow down cleanups by years while the new factors 
are grafted onto the existing program. For Members with closing 
military bases or property in urban cities awaiting redevelopment--you 
can forget reutilizing the property for economic redevelopment if the 
amendment is retained in the bill.
  State laws which are now integrated into a process for deciding the 
appropriate level of cleanup will be preempted. Cleanups under the 
Walker amendment will be based strictly on a Federal cost/benefit 
analysis.
  Litigation opportunities will abound. How do the new criteria work 
with the existing law? Do cleanups still have to be protective of human 
health and the environment? How do factors like cost-effectiveness, 
cost-benefit, and flexibility apply in the context of cleanup? All are 
rich opportunities for lawyers and litigation while no cleanup occurs.
  Support this motion, allow cleanups to go forward, and let the 
committee's of jurisdiction reform the Superfund Program in a 
comprehensive manner.


                          ____________________