[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E515]]
              RISK ASSESSMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                          HON. CARDISS COLLINS

                              of illinois

                    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:

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have many of the same 
concerns about H.R. 1022 as I did about the regulatory moratorium bill 
and the unfunded mandates bill when they were considered on the House 
floor. Rather than improving the efficiency of Government, these bills 
establish complex procedures and endless possibilities for legal 
challenge.
  Each of these bills, for example, provides for judicial review of 
agency decisions. this simply means that clever lawyers can tie up 
regulations and other agency actions in litigation for months, even if 
an agency thinks it has acted within its authority.
  This is an especially critical problem for health and safety matters 
that may need to be exempted from requirements risk assessment, cost 
benefit analysis, and peer review under H.R. 1022. With the courts 
looking over their shoulders, agencies may be inhibited from acting 
quickly when quick action is needed to save lives.
  I do not believe that making it more difficult for agencies to 
protect the public health and safety is something the American people, 
nor I hope most of my colleagues, would support.
  I also believe it is wrong to force all regulations to go through the 
same type of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and peer review, 
as provided in H.R. 1022.
  If we let risk assessment become our goal, rather than a tool to 
achieve our goal, then risk assessment itself can be harmful and an 
obstacle to serving the public interest.
  What happened in the early years of the AIDS outbreak is a good 
example. In the early 1980's, a few scientists proposed that AIDS could 
be transmitted to others through transfusions of blood from a person 
with the AIDS virus.
  The Food and Drug Administration and the blood products industry 
thought there would be alarm and panic, if the public were warned of 
this possibility. Instead, they insisted they had to be absolutely sure 
before they could say anything publicly.
  As a result, all kinds of risk assessments were done--Comparison 
risks, substitution risks, as well as cost benefit analysis. For more 
than 2 years, the proposal that AIDS could be transmitted through 
transfusions was analyzed before evidence was so overwhelmingly 
conclusive, that the FDA and the blood products industry finally issued 
their warnings to the public.
  During that 2-year period, tens of thousands of people were exposed 
to AIDS contaminated blood. Had the blood banks initiated their 
policies earlier to screen for AIDS contaminated blood, countless lives 
could have been saved.
  The lesson to be learned from the FDA's experience is that agencies 
need flexibility. A one-size-fits-all approach to risk assessment and 
cost benefit analysis can be harmful and contrary to the public 
interest. We need to be encouraging agencies to evaluate possibilities, 
but we do not want to insist that they continue to perform risk 
assessment and cost benefit analysis in order to satisfy some 
requirement of law, when what they are looking for might be right in 
front of their eyes.
  For this reason, I oppose H.R. 1022 and believe that rather than 
reducing regulatory burden, its most significant effect will be to 
prevent Federal agencies from performing their most important function: 
protecting the public health and safety.
  I urge may colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  

                          ____________________