-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/245a734470f13db8b5b7bb961357da62.pdf
911a2936640eda7b1d3e3b7b4e97893c
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
13645
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
[Regulatory] Reform Legislation House Debate [Binder] [3]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
92
3
4
1
�February 28, 1995
H2321
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
Iieople want the Brady law to keep sav- Specifically; this legislation would rise , in support of ' t h i s measure and
amend the eligibility requirements for 'commend the gentleman from Illisois
ingr lives.
The American people will fight to membership i n the VFW, so as to i n -. [Mr. HYDE] "aind the gentleman from
clude those servicemen and service-' Michigan [Mr.. CONYERS] for expediting
keep i t .
women who served "honorably on the the vote on this measure.Korean peninsula or i n its territorial
As they are. well aware, i joined the
SAVE THE SCHOOL LUNCH
waters for not less than 30 consecutive gentleman from Arizona [Mr. STLTUP]
PROGRAM
days, or a total of 60 days, after June and the gentleman from New York [Mr
. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked 30, 1949." This would recognize the he- SOLOMON] in sponsoring this bill which
and was given permission to address roic service and sacrifice of the Amer- is now before us.
the House for 1 minute and to revise ican troops who have served i n Korea,
Mr. Speaker, the Veterans of Fore:?h
and extend his remarks;)
including those stationed i n the de- Wars is one of 'the most highly reMr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. militarized zone between North and garded of the many veterans" service
•
Speaker, obviously I am not going to South Korea.
organizations that exist today. The
talk about the Brady bill, being from
This measure has already passed the. VFW is a volunteer organization, and
Texas. . . ,•
other body, on Februsiry 10, 1995. The . this bill would simply make more vetBut let me talk about school lunch principal sponsors of the. counterpart; .eraris who served overseasJin-Korea eliprograms and the importance of mak- House bill (H.R. 623) are the gentleman 'gible to join the organization.'
from Arizona [Mr. STUMP], the-distin-. ; Mr. Speaker, with that brief stateing sure that we save that program.'
In the. Houston Independent School gulshed chairman o f the Veterans' Af- ment, I withdraw my reservation of obDistrict next year we would lose a half- fairs Committee; the gentleman from jection.
.
. . .
million dollars for the school lunch and New York [Mr. SOLOMON], the distinThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
breakfast program. I h the State of guished chairman' of the Rules Com- objection to the request of the genTexas; we would lose $261 n i l l i o n i n a mittee; and the gentleman" from' Mis- tleman from Iiiinois?4-percent cut. The first round of cuts sissippi [Mr. MONTGOMERY],.the distin- - There was no objection. ^
included the school breakfast and guished former chairman of the Veter- • The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follunch programs. The second round of ans' Affairs Committee. A l l of these lows: ' r/" '
cuts last week from the Committee on . colleagues have been instrumental i n
I.';.'
S. 257 '•'
'
Appropriations Included funding for moving this legislation forward." ' '.• . v
Be it enacted by
House of R?psafe and drug-free schools.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker,; resentatives of the the Senate andof Ameriaz in
United States
I think this is a war on schools and a further reserving the right to object, I Congress assembled. That section 5 of the Act
war on education and a war on chil- yield to the gentleman from Arizona of May 28. 1936 (36 U.S.C. 115), Is amended to
dren, and ! would hope that we would [Mr. STUMP], the distinguished chair- read as follows: •
then look at this Contract With Amer- man of the Committee on Veterans' Af- .. VSEC 5. A person may not be a member of
•
' '"''
•"" '• . the corporation created by this Act ur.I-sss
ica . and see whether • providing I n - fairs.- "••
,. ..
crease^ funding, including $11 million . Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker. I rise i n that person— j . .
for two new airplanes the Army did not strong support of S. 257, a bill to amend • " "(1) served honorably as a member of shea Sorrequest, $20 million for a new runway the congressional charter of the Veter- •Armed Forces of the. United SUtes in which
eign war, insurrection, or expedition,
for a base that is on the Base Closure ans of Foreign Wars. Recently, I Intro- . service has been recognized as campaisr:Commission, $1 million for a bike t r a i l duced Identical legislation i n the medal service and is governed by the authorin North Miami Beach, I think we see House. H.R. 623. along with my good ization of the award of a.campaign badge hy
friends, SONNY MONTGOMERY-and JERRY the Government of the United States: or. .
the priorities have changed.
.
••: " . >
"(2)..while'a member of the Armed Forces
We are taking money away from SOLOMON.
This legislation would allow vir- ofthe United States,'served honorably on
breakfast and lunch programs and providing i t in this new Contract on Amer- tually all veterans Xvho have served i n the Korean peninsula or In its territorial l a Korea to be eligible for VFW member- tere for hot less' than 30 consecutive days, or
ica.
ship. We are. all familiar with • the ex- a total of 60 days, after June 30, 1949."
tremely dangerous nature of duty
The Senate bill was ordered to be
PROVIDING
VFW MEMBERSHIP along the DMZ and the constant threat read a third time,:wa.s read the third
ELIGIBILITY TO VETERANS WHO of war i n Korea. Clearly, those veter-.. time, and passed, and a motion to reSERVED IN SOUTH KOREA
ans of Korean service after June 30, consider was laid on the table.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- 1949, who served honorably for not less
mous consent that the Committee on than 30 days or a total of 60 days,
- - RISK ASSESSMENT AND COSTthe Judiciary be discharged from fur- should be able to.belong to the VFW.
BENEFIT ACT OF 1995
But under the VFW's current charter,"
ther consideration of the Senate bill
(S.. 257) to amend the charter of the only veterans who received an- expedi- ""The SPEAKER pro tempore. PursuVeterans of Foreign Wars to make eli- tionary badge are eligible to belong to ant to House Resolution 96 . and rule
-gibld . for membership those veterans the VFW. Many veterans who served X X I I I , the Chair declares the House i n
that have served within the territorial honorably In Korea cannot belong to the Committee of the Whole House on
• limits of South Korea, and ask for Its "the VFW because they did not receive the State of the Union for the further
the required expeditionary badge due consideration of the b i l l . H.R. 1022.
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate to restrictive DOD eligibility criteria.
• •
• 1145
The VFW's initiative-to include these
bill..
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there veterans of Korean seryice among its
. Accordingly, the House resolved i t objection to the request of the gen- membership is most commendable.
Mr. Speaker, today I mostly want to . self into the Committee of the Whole
tleman from Illinois?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, re- talke time to thank the distinguished House on the State of the Union for the
serving the right to. object, .and I shall chairman of the ju(V'''-ry Committee. further consideration of the bill (H.R.
not object at a later time, I yield to HENRY HYDE, and his staff for their ex- 1022) to provide regulatory reform and
to focus national economic resources
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. peditious consideration of this bill.
BYDE], the chairman of the Cpmmittee
The Judiciary Committee .has been on the greatest risks to human health,
on the Judiciary, for an explanation of working extremely long, hpurs for. sev- safety, and the environment through
eral weeks. I sincerely appreciate their scientifically objective and unbiased
the bill.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, this is'genu- taking the additional time to. consider risk assessments and through the coninely noncontroversial legislation. S. this matter of great importance to the sideration of costs and. benefits i n
major rules, and for other purposes,
2.'37 would amend the Federal charter of VFW.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mri Speaker, with Mr. HASTINGS of Washington i n
incorporation granted by Congress to
the Veterans of Foreign Wars i n 1936. further reserving the right to object, I the chair.
t
:
:
�H2322
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
February 28, 1995
The National Governors' Association
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. CRAPO] prerecommended this amendment to me
sented last evening on emergencies.
I think the amendment offered by the after i t reviewed the bill. .
I t gets the priority-setting process
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TRAFICANT]
is very helpful. I congratutete the gen- closer to where the priorities really.
tleman for his vigor i n pursuing this are, at the State and local levels.
This is noncontroversial amendment
issue, he pursued i t in committee. I
think he has come up w i t h language that I think improves the bill and is
which is very helpful, and we are pre^ supported by the State governments.
In support of my amendment, I would
pared to accept the gentleman's
point out some language that exists
amendmerit.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I thank. the gen- currently in the bill in section 17,
tleman from Pennsylvania and his staff where we talk about guidelines in confor the assistance we have received on sultation with State and local governAMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR! TRAFICANT i
ments, in section 109, study particiMr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I . their side of the aisle.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, will pants may include people from State
offer an amendment.
and local governments, and.then in sec-.
the gentleman yield? .
The Clerk read as follows:
tion 202, no final rule shall be promul' Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the dis- gated unless the incremental risk reAmendment offered by Mr. TRAFICANT: At
tinguished gentleman from Florida duction would be likely to jeopardize
the end of section 106 (page IB. line 25), add
[Mr. BILIRAKIS].
after the period the following:
the incremental costs incurred by
For the purposes of this section, the term - Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gen- State and local governments.
"non-United States-based entity" means-^.'
tleman for yielding; to me.
I think, Mr. QJiairman, you can see
d; any foreign government and its agenMr. Chairman, on behalf of the Com- froiri the tenor of the language already
cies; .
mittee on Commerce, the amendment
(2) the United Nations or any of its subsidi- is accepted. I too want to commend the in the bill that the amendment fits
ary organizations;. ....
very well into the goals of the legisla(3) any other international governmental gentleman from Ohio, for his wisdom tion where we take into consideration
body or'international standards-making or- and diligence, really. I t takes some State and local governments.
diligence sometimes because there is
ganization; or
As I indicated, the National Gov(4) any other organization or.private.entity no" question that we were not able to ernors' Association asked me to offer
without a place of business located in the afford as much time to this legislation
the ainendment on their behalf, which
United States or its territories.
as we ordinarily would like. Without I have done.
Mr. T.RAFICANT (during the read- the gentleman's amendment, who
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will
ing). Mr.. Chairman, 1 ask unanimous knows what the future might bode in the gentleman yield?
consent that the amendment be consid- terms of the definition of what was
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman
ered as read and printed in the RECORD. meant by the Intent of the legislators.
from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKER].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
So I commend the gentleman and
Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman
to the request of the gentleman from thank him for his contribution. .
for yielding.
Ohio?
Mr. TRAFICANT, I thank the genMr. Chairman, I think the gentlemari
There was no objection. •-:
:tleman, and also the fact his discus- has offered a very worthwhile amendMr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this
is a compromise version of my amend- sions on the World Health Organization ment, i t is a good addition to the priorment that f i t s in with the iritent.of the and some of those other bodies makes i t y section and will ensure Federal offi.
. . cials are not operating in a vacuum.
committee. I agree with the Chair that an awful l o t of sense.,
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to acMr. Chairman, I urge support of the
we must Identify what i n fact a noncept the amendmeht:
'
United States-based entity is. I believe • amendment. •.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
that that definition should be in the
. bill itself as we did with the gentleman the amendment offered by the gen- gentleman yield?
M n OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman
from Idaho, Mr. CRAPO'S, piece of legis- tleman from Ohio [Mr. TRAFICANT]. "
from Indiana [Mr. ROEMER].
The amendment was agreed to.
lation.
'. . . • • ....v. v Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman
So, with that, what I am saying is a
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OXLEY
for yielding to me •
non-United States-based entity is any
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman. I offer an
Mr. Chairman, we have viewed this
foreign nation or govemment and its amendmeht.
amendment on our side, and we see
agencies. United Nations or any of its
The Clerk read as follows:
that i t makes some valuable contribusubsidiary organizationa, other interAmendment offered by Mr. OXLEY: Page 37, tions to the legislation, and we are
national governmental bodies or stand- after line 2, insert:
ards-making organizationa or any - (b) STATE. LOCAL, AND TRIBAL PRIORITIES.— happy to accept I t . We note the good
other organization or private entity In identifying national priorities, the Presi- contributions from my friend, the genwithout a place of business located i n • dent shall consider priorities developed and tleman from Ohio [Mr. OXLEY], with
the United States or Its territories.;
submitted by Stat*, local, and tribal govern- the President considering the priorities
developed at the State and local levels.
That; basically, I think, captures the ments.':
intent of the committee^ and . defines- i^; Pag* 37; line 12, iIter„"report" insert "and : Mr. Chairman, we aiccept the amendthe parameters that are'^sjtfe'^eriougiT ^fadrtftM'deivirtopea and submitted by State, ment.'
Mr. OXLEY..I thank the gentleman.
for our country and for the world to local, and tribal governments.".
Mr. OXLEY (during the reading). Mr.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The question is on
understand..
.
...
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the amendment offei-ed by the genthat the amendment be considered as tleman from Ohio [Mr. OXLEY].
the gentleman yield?
• '
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the dis- read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR; ROEMER
tinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKER], chairman of the to the request of the gentleman from
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
Ohio?
\ ,
"
committee.
anamendment.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman
The Clerk read as follows:
. Mr.. OXLEY. Mr. Chairmari, this
for yielding.
Amendment offered by Mr. ROEMER: Strike
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has In would merely add to the priority-set- section 401 (page 34. lines 2 through 19) and
fact provided, I think, a yery useful ting provision i n title V I of the b i l l to Insert the following:
clarifying amendment. The amendment require the President to consider pub- SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
does track language that was In the re- lic health priorities developed by State
Nothing in this Act creates any right to Juport i n a manner similar to what the and local g o v e r n m e n t s . .
dicial or administrative review, nor creates
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN.' When the, Committee of the Whole rose bri Monday, February 27, 1995, the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr.
CRAPO] had been disposed of and the
bill was open for amendment at any
point.
. , •,
Six - hours and fifty-six minutes .remain for consideration of amendments
under the 5-minute rule.
Are there further amenuments to the
bill?
.
�.uiiUVyt^*.."
February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
H2323
any -right or benefit, substantive. or proce- . So I am a very strong supporter pf. maceutical patent, and you are 2 years
. 'dural. enforceable . at law or equity • by' a this legislation.-However, the judicial ahead of your competitor.
Instead of
party against the United States, its agencies
- or instrumentalities, its offlcersjjr employ- review section of this bill opens up the waiting for the Food and Drug Adminat the end
" ees. cir any other person.. If an agency action legal process to all new forms of litiga- istration to -promulgate
is subject.to Judicial or administrativei re- tion. Just as we were "arguing^ "Mr. tlieir final rule, which would now be
view under any other-provision of law, the Chairman, that because you can regu- under the current law under judicial
adequacy of any certification or other docu- late does not mean i t makes common review, under this bill's judicial rement prepared pursuant to this Act, and any sense to regulate, we apply the same view, a competitor of that business, a
alleged failure to comply with this Act. may standard with the Roemer-Boehlert competitor could delay the Food and
not be used as grounds for affecting on In- amendmeht to legal reform, tlutr~.befrom considering
validntlng such agency action, but state- cause you can sue does not mean you Drug Administration
that business's application, delay this
ments and information prepared pursuant to
this title which are otherwise part of the should go forward and sue.
process, and hurt what was a natural
record may be considered as part of the
This bill opens up judicial review to a advantage established by the privrte
record for the Judicial or administrative re- host of. new rulemaking processes, not sector in developing that patent: it
view conducted under such other provision of just at the end of the. rulemaking, would delay them unfairly, catch cp
law.
where we would like to keep i t and with them through the delay bf 2 year.',
Strike section 202(bK2) (page 29. line 24 maintain i t , but i t allows you several ^d
really use judicial review in a
through page 30.. line 6) relating to substan- bites out o f t h e apple now. not just .one csense that we do not want to see it utitial evidence and strllie "(l) In GENERAL.—" bite of litigation at the.end.but several
lized.
•••'•' ••.'.'' ••• ••::" '" :;•:- A ;
in section 202(b) (page 29. line 18).
bites during the rulemaking process.
; So, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by
Mr/ ROEMER (during the reading).
This will hurt businesses, i t will hurt
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous, con- environmental groups, i t . will cost saying this is a bipartisan amendment.
sent that the amendment be considered more money, and i t runs counter to the This received Republican votes i n comas read and printed i n the'RECORD.
very kinds of things we are trying to mittee. The issue is common sense to
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection do in this bill by using common sense. the real reform process, not just as I
to the request of the gentleman from
If we are going to use common sense have supported in the past, common
Indiana?
.. '
in rulemaking
and limit
regulations, Sense on effectiveness and risk assessThere was no objection. .
let us use common sense in legal re- ment; and flnally. i t uses the standard
of not arbitrary and capricious, which
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer form.
'.• '-.•'• '•• •
this amendment on behalf of myself
Now, i f you love the Superfund bill is a much better standard than sub. and the gentleman from New York [Mr. and you think that makes consultants stantial evidence of compliance which
BOEHLERT] as a bipartisan amendmeht and the lobbyists rich, you are going to this bill would.establish. Do not create a new cottage industry
to provide commonsense legal reform.
love this part of judicial review. This
; I rise as someone who has been a could be called the Full Employment of lawyers i n this town. Please support
strong' supporter of risk assessment,- Bill for Lawyers and Lobbyists, i f :this the bipartisan amendmeht offered by
somebody who believes that, with di- provision on judiciaJ review is main- myself and the gentleman from New
minishing resources at the Federal tained.
.....7
•
• "-••:•• York [Mr. BOEHLERT].
- level, that we need to apply those diLet me explain ih two areis why I . . Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman. I rise
minished resources, monetary
re- think this should be changed and would in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, today's debate on j u sources, ih the most commonsense way be changed by the Roemer-Boehlert bi^
dicial review is really a debate about
possible to promote 'new-public "poll- 'partisan amendment;''--^^v'-^: .. .
First of all, the new standard estab- Congress abrogating its responsibilities
cies, especially as they relate to the
'•enviionment and to other rulemaking lished under this bill is substantial evi- tp the courts and. In so doing creating
•procedures through our Federal agen- dence of compliance. Now, I am not a what can only be characterized, as my
lawyer, but merely reading those words coauthor of this amendment has decies.
We are at a time, Mr. Chairman, in the bill, "substantial evidence," on scribed, a flill employment opportunity
where we do not have the ability nor pages 29 and 30, shows you have a new for lawyers. ... •
As we did with such litigation nightr
the resources to go about throwing threshold and criterion to establish.
money at all kinds of problems, wheth- Right now, we have the threshold of i t mares like Superfund. we are creating
er it, be attaining clean a i t ' o r clean simply being not arbitrary and capri- potential for litigation that will choke
water, and where we have ..attained 95 cious. That is what, the court would our Nation's courtrooms and cost the
American taxpayers and the Federal
percent clean air or clean water and rule on. not arbitrary and capricious.
Now, when you set this new standard Government millions of dollars.
then mandating that we go ahead.and
clean up the remaining 2, 3. 4 percent of substantial evidence of. compliance,
•.
' o 1200
and finding that that did not have a and open this up throughout the ruleThe Congressional Budget Office has
subsiantial risk to the population and making process, we have the courts
that the money involved in cleaning then taking over i n science, in rule- estimated, that the implementation of
that air or water would have been a making, in regulation, delaying this this legislation will cost in the neigh-"
substantial waste of taxpayers' money. process a l l throughout the course of borhood of $250 million. By keeping the
current, judicial review language that
That simply is what we are trying to litigation.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of - the is found i n H.R. 1022 in place, our sociso in passing risk assessment cost-benefit analysis. I t provides some common gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROEMER] ety will likely spend far more than this
-. on unnecessary litigation. To date bilsense to rulemaking and to public pol- has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. ROEMER lions of dollars have been spent on
icy-making at the Federal level.
Mr. Chalrmahi I strongly support was allowed to proceed for 2 additional Superfund litigation, more than has acminutes.)
tually been spent on cleaning up
this iunendment.
Mr. ROEMER. This drives up costs, Superfund sites. We do not want to duMr. Chairman, I strongly supported
this legislation as a member pf the ma- diverts scarce resources that we are plicate that.
If we do not adopt the Roemer Poehjority last year when we had to fight tryiSs- io maintain with the sensible
the rules put forward by our own party cost-benefit analysis, and i t builds in lert amendment, we will end up spendthat were considering elevating the hosts, of delays that could in fact hurt ing more of the taxpayers' dollars and
industry's resources on litigation than
EPA... and many of us made the argu- businesses.
Let me give you my second examplei. we are spending on doing risk assessment i f you are going to elevate EPA
again,
shades
of
and give them more authority and Not only is there a new higher standard ments—once
more money, let us make sure they that will allow all kinds of litigation,' Superfund. And. incidentally, who is
apply risk assessment and cost-benefit but let us say you are a business and going to pick up the tab? I t is going to
analysis procedures. We fought algainst you are applying through the Food and be the consumer who will pay the ultiDrug Administration for a new phar- mate price.
rules proposed by our side.
;
:
�H2324
Under current law the
^« rtui/ pro
d
A
m
i n i , f
O
N
G
R
£
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
^CORD-HOUSE
a
can PolTto
S
V
^
f
^
February 28, 199S
S S J S f orm^
JUS • e
C
T
l
8
e
l
y
^
^
i ^ l y ? ^sss
m
1 1
I n
t h e
of J u d T c S S w ^ T e e l ? correction Is n e J l L tn ^ 7 ?
J
-would say thkt m«» ,
' d I
•
asse^rw^d ^
comforted i f this corre Hn
ely
"ft would make i t muo " ,
e.
r o n 8 r l
t h i s
b i 3 1
r
a
a n
S U P I , o r t
e x t r e m
C
n
w e r e
m a d
h
sass^B M^sss ses^sit
People. H.R. 1022 woul . J e i ^
6 1
d
1
' ^
S
^P S e e n ^
f ,
0 f
Ration- •
W e a 1 1
h
W h i c h
™PP6rt.l5S^S^Ir^
^ ^ s ^ t - P ^ s^r^^sttK. JM^r«5S^5:
^ S ^ i ^ ^ ^arHjvy''^
^•^as^^H^"
tiOM. holds that nek . t f f ' W
a w s a n ' J S E ? ' " f * " . wlnMar leM
"<JIIO .01 aollars
Regulations, many ofwhirh o
heinir
h«i
"
BS£H
—"VJUO oii-
»•-toil
0
' • country.-for ^rp f,ii fH„„ !. across this ••tether irom thef tnn-h n, " *
^ t i y - f S J j * "Peat
from t h f ^ ? ^
s this
mentatibn of r e ^ f a L ; / ^ **! P - M
" an4onS ? /
^t.
have oversiJhr 5 ^
'» Quagmire nf ^ i ^
^ars in . e do spend, bminnfi Tr U ^
^y agenciel
5
^djes^ouia
^ «tlg*U«a" P ^ e n t - r e L S ^ , 1
Itwal decisions and s c K f , t a k i n g
^ r
^
H
^
making decisions onH«
be .that.Ve r fa m b S ^ ^ f « n a b ^ y •ment. would p r o^ T w f5 ^?i dear, and
a K «
l
h
i
f r i n k i reasbmwy pure
ir
• ^ W 6 . it d S M t i n ^ "
too many ho^or S '
a<l • ^ s t r a t i V e P r o o ° ^
o stories t .
Provides for f u d ^ f • ®'
'
agency actions
sp
ir
nt a c r o 8
a
l m
w
y
e
d
a
t l s r I
f
b e
e
e
R e p u b
6 n u e
c
e
J
t o
e
r
1
n
n
n
C 0 U
V VU1U
t 0
U J a t o r
' W be
^e .
«g-
C o n
e
s
B
f o r
( i 0 U t l T S
0
J e
S s
0 0 n
F e d e r a l
n
n
0
m
a
k
e
8
t
M
,
W
^
S t s 8 h o u l d
r e a
0
e r t
a t e r
S
V e
n o r r
h a v e
h
W e
l e n
Ad
1
lnI
g
r
t 0
Ur
a m e n
a l t e r
A c t
1
PO
e
r
2
t 0
S
e
6
3
rlgKt
t J m e
P & S S a g e
o f
b i l
8
I
'
f r o m
M
ban on both SdS 5 ? ^ r * ? ' ,
d«eed by a - i e a r Co t
- *
a i S l ?
d
o f
r'^mb^ossfble S ^ ^
• » eproc s eTn w f t V t h p
«>«, Roemer-Boehllr^
rr^^.^
^oeniert
a.mendment.
th
-i-un. regulations should eo f n ^ *
tte courts achieves none of t &
The need to prevent H R J ^ , ^ ^
*saeratlng mountains of M \ , ,
«ie
^h
""al
w h
o n
r e V i e w
d-
j U d l C i a l
e
m
e v l
-
Iff"
•I'
I
I
�T :
February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
H2325
Mr. CJhairman, let me first say that I thresholds put i n , and thet ability .to ment passes. The fact is!'even some of
have great respect for the two gentle- litigate throughout the. rulemaking the standards under present law would
"
"
""
men offering the amendment, bnt I process.
•''". '"
not be available to us under the gentlehave to say that, based on the debate
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, if. I could man's amendment.
-•:--'.
we had last night, this is more of the take back my time. I guess essentially
Mr: OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaimsame. This bill, not the amendment but the gentleman says thait he is satisfied ing my time, the gentleman from
/ the bill, is about accountability. I t is with the status quo and what is going Pennsylvania is absolutely right. This
about making the regulators account- on in terms of what is happening out i n is a status quo amendment. I f you are
able to somebody.
the regulatory world. This bill Is de- happy with the existing status QUO as
The reason we are here today is be- signed to l i m i t and to get some com- ftir as regulations are, concerned, then
cause the regulators over these/ last 40 mon sense back i n this' regulatory you want to support this amendment.
; years have been essentially unanswer- process. I f the gentleman would conr But let me read the language of the
able to anybody when these regulations cede to me that he is willing-tb allow Roender amendment: "Nothing In this
oome pouring out of the Federal Reg- the existing regime to take place i n a l l act creates any right to Judicial or adister. So the bill is about trying to get those statutes. he has . mentioned, I minlstraltive review, nor. creates any
some ticcountability i n the process, and would say, fine, liet us have an -argu- "right or benefit, substantive or proceI fear, and I know, .that this amend- ment about that. •^v-V^.-^X v^-'-'^^':-..dural, enforceable at law or equity by a
ment basically strips away that ac- '••: •'-' .^••- .i^5^^
t h e ' U n i t e d 'States.-Its
countability and allows those reguagencies or instrumentalities, i t s offilators to run roughshod, over businesses
But do not try to esyntially gut this cers or employees, or any other periand industry i n this country that are particuiar bill and say we are going to son." . - '- •-•
.
_'.'. .
trying to create jobs and trying to cre- rely on the existing statutes, when i n
Then i t goes on to say, " i f any agenate products!
fact those existing statutes, particu- cy action is subject to Judicial or adMy friend, the gentleman- from Indi- larly the regulations that have ema- ministrative review under any other
ana. T think, is . i n error and. totally nated from them, have been a tragedy. provision of law, the adequacy of any
misrepresents or misreads the bill or have gone far beyond even the neces- certification or other document prethe provisions i n the bill when he says si ty for what the bill called for, the pared pursuant to this Act, and any althat we are going to provide more than original bill called for, and in. my esti- leged failure to comply with this Act.
mation your amendment really does may not be used as grounds for affectone bite of the apple.
." Let me refer the gentleman to the damage the bill!
ing or invalidating such agency action
language in' title IV under Judicial Re.. ..^ '
MT. ROEMER. I f the gentleman w i l l * *. *_•• .
view, the section he seeks to amend. I further yield, just as. i t would be a . • I t essentially means . bureaucrats,
quote as follows from line 7:
tragedy, as the gentleman from Ohio keep on turning out those regulations,
V'Tlie court with jurisdiction to re- knows, to continue to let regulations and we do not have any way I f this
view final agency action under the tie up this country i n terms of. its amendment passes to have . any ac-'
statute gmntlng the agency authority scarce resources and its public policy countabillty whatsoever.. I think that
to act shall have jurisdiction to re- debate, i t is an equal travesty not to Is a', travesty! We basically have review.* * *" Then i t goes on i n line 13 use common sense to reform the legal jected this argument last night i n the
again tb talk about final -agency ac- aspect here and to allow litigation td Brown amendment, and I think that
tion, and that indeed is the target here proliferate and explode.
this is essentially part of the Brown
that we are trying to emphasize.
That is what the bill w i l l allow to substitute. I t should be rejected just
This is really a business-as-usual happen. We are trying to prevent that. like the Brown substitute was last
. amendment for the bureaucrats, and I Let us use common sense both i n l i m i t - night, and I yield back the balance of
ami ;5ure that most, of the Miembers ing bureaucracy and regulation, and i n my time.
have probably gotten some entreaties applying common sense tb legal re- . Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to
from the bureaucrats asking them to form.
-Strike the requisite number of words.
support this amendment.
Mr. OXLEY. Reclaiming my time, ! Mr. Chairman, there is really a deep
By the way, Mr. Chairman, t h i s , Mr. Chairman, I.yield to the gentleman problem with the legislation and the
amendment was offered by the gen- from Pennsylvania.
provision that we are considering at
tleman from Illinois [Mr. Rusli] i n our
Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman this point i n time, and that is a quescommittee. I t was defeated oh a bipar- for yielding. The gentleman from Indi- tion-of Judicial review. Historically, i n
tisan vote.
ana has referred to common sense. this country the courts hiave vacillated
I think this amendment, i f i t were to Common sense tells you that using between micromanaging adminlstrabe adopted, would essentially gut this OMB for the last 20 years or so has tive agencies In rare circumstances,
bill. I t would make i t unenforceable been disastrous.
: . . : . . i n d adopting an essentially hands-off
and would provide no particular acThe CHAIRMAN. The time bf the approach. The standards for Judicial recountability. There is no hammer for gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OXLEYJ has view of rulemaking has iessentlally
some kind of regulation unless we have expired.
'
* • been one that grants very substantial
judicial review! Judicial review is real(By unanimous consent, Mr. OXLEY deferences to the agency process. This
ly at the heart of what we are talking was allowed to proceed for 2 additional is review of rulemaking as opposed to
about.
.
minutes.)
adjudicatory procedures within the
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, w i l l the
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, Tyield to agency. - . = ^ . . . . • • • : . - - y •
gentleman yield?
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
.. The legislation that we are considerMr. OJCLEY. I am pleased to yield to
Mr. WALKER. Common sense w i l l ing extends the requirements for rulemy friend, the gentleman from Indiana. tell you using OMB for the last 20 years making to include peer review, to i n Mr. ROEMER. Mr: Chairman, the or so has not worked. Congressional elude risk analysis, cost-benefit analygentleman, I think, misrepresents both. oversight over the last, 40 years has not Bis. These are very far-reaching extenthe intent and the effect of this amend-, rvirked. I f we want to provide common- sions. And the question that is before
'ment. Certainly i f the Roemer-Boeh- sense standards, look at what is hap- the body is i f we have sucii i^r-reaching
lert. amendment was adopted, judicial pening. Common sense" tells you the extensions, what Is the role of judicial
review would be alive and well. I t just standards that the gentleman wants us review In this context? Because essenis not pervasive through the process.
tb rely upon have not worked: We have tially what we have now are three difWhat we are saying is that we s t i l l ended up with a regulatory nightmare, ferent documents, that the court could
have OMB's ability for oversight, we ahd the gentleman wants to preserve review. First, i t would have the rule i t h&ve congressional oversight, and we that nightmare.
self and whatever agency explanation
have the Administrative Procedures
His admonition here just a moment there" -is for the rule! Second, there
Act. A l l this is still intact. We just do ago is that those are what would be would be the risk assessment. Third;
not want to see the expansion of new available to us i f . in fact, his amend- . there would be the peer review.
:>
,:
i
w
t
D
�H2326
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
February 28, 1995
Mr. WALKER. Mr, Chairman.. will
Now. assuming, that all .of. these simply be returning in the other direcsteps, all of these documents are nec- tion and'we will be. revisiting this only the gentleman yield?
essary as a part of the process, the a regular basis. Mr. GILCHREST.,I yield.to the gen.
• question is should we take lhis .to its
Mr. GILCHREST: Mr. Chairman, I tleman from Pennsylvania.
logical extreme and have the courts" move to strike the requisite number of
Mr. WALKER. I just wanted to go
then comparing the rule With, the risk words.
back. I do not want the gentleman to
analysis and with the peerreviewproc(Mr. GILCHREST asked and was get too far. away from the point he
ess, and the courts ultimately deciding given permission to revise and extend made earlier. Are final agency rules
bow should that. peer, review process . his remarks.).
available for judicial review, now?
and the risk analysis be! interpreted by.7 , Mr. GE-iHREST. Mr.'. Chairman, I Under existing law, when final ruies"
the agency in the preparation bf the-. rise in. support of the amendment. The are made, are they eligible for judicial
finalrule:.:
i^;'. ^-,,
. rigid ..discussion here.is about who has review at the present time?I submit that at. this , point : we are' . the responsibility of overzealous regu- Mr. GILCHREST. The answer is yes;:
taking historic action to begin with by latprs and who has defaulted pn that but i t has not been done sufficiently
extending the risk analysis-and., the .'. responsibility,, has it been the regu- enough so the idea that we should have
peer review process to all agency rule- ; labors of has i t been Congress? Who has judicial review in this context for'cost-.
making. To Uke .this; to v t h e ' y f ^ t ^
kccouhtable, responsible benefit analysis is appropriate; point of having full .arid coiiipiete judl-!, position to follow the law through the
Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will
cial review of how that. risk assessment, regulatory process to see how it. has yield further, I am confused. The gen" and peer review was conducted and how impacted oh business, on industry, on tlemari says. we are going to add a
. i t was considered by the^agency! would... the -private sector, on environmental whole new wave of litigation. The fact
in my bpihibn: result ih ., the courts' "regaiations,.on all of these things? Who is the exact: standard in the bill, that
micromanaging the-, .adihinistrative .. .has reneged on their responsibility?
process. '-.. \
'/
^.;i^-<&:>;£2-.1. • would' tell you in this room today final agency regulations and rules are
judicial review is in
... Now; you may say this, is desirable;".' that i t is the Congress"that has reneged in fact subject to now. If we do not do
because we feel the agencies have ,de-. .on the responsibility to follow through, fact the law right
. faulted. I submit that that fails tb rec- ' to see where , the regulations have gone it in this bill, that backtracks from
where the law is right now. The genognize at least two critical consider- too" far/;'. .
ations. First of all, most of the agency
Who should the regulators be respon- tleman appears to be looking to backrulemaking that.is so controversial i n ' sible to then? Should they be responthis country did not come full-blown sible. to the courts, or should they be' Mr: GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, refrom the heads of the agencies themr., .. responsible, to us, Members of Con- claiming my time, the judicial review
selves. Instead, these,.7rules.: cari. be gress? Arid I would tell you emphati- section of this bill is in my judgment a
traced back to acts of Congress which cally,.that the regulators who we ap- much more onerous requirement that
in amazing detail told tHe agencies point, who we give responsibility to, has not been in the law in the past.
- what they were supposed to do'. And i f -who we determine what their latitude . Mr. WALKER. . If the gentleman'
we only would look at what we did In . is. ultimately the responsibility of the would yield further; could the genCongress, we would better understand ! regulators is not the courts, i t is the tleman tell me where this is more oner-,
bus than the present law is?
why the American public is so frus- ..Congress/
Mr. GILCHREST. Let me .give an ex' trated with what -bur: administrative V i Mr. Chairman..if there is an irony
agencies have; donij. ,V'iV^"^.\- - ^ ^ V ^ . here in this.bill, i t is .that at the. same ample, of. the practical effect of this
" r: Second, we fail to recognize fimtythis , time' tlult'the House committees are provision as i t now existus and has not
tool of judicial review canTbe usied-and ^considering legislation to deal with the existed in the past. This provision will
abused by every interest grbup.,'ijl ^ou^i^'.-iH^blem.. of' excessive litigation in provide parties who are opposed to regsociety that is unhappy; with,the' rule,,' our society, we are about to pass a bill ulatory actions with the means to
both to challenge the rule on the mer- which is agoing to throw final decisions delay or stop them, regardless of
its and to .delay . its implementation; ofresolving • these problems in the whether the agency complied with the
Litigation quite often is. ah exercise in xourts. "^he defendant will be the Gov- bill. Anyone opposed to a regulation
delay."Litigation is quite often used by ernment, and the legal bills will be need merely challenge the propriety of
the cost-benefit analysis to tie the regthe loser, who decides that that group paid by the taxpayer.
or. he or she cannot win in the'political-."^. I aim' hot opposed to efforts to put ulation up in court, and every analysis
• process, so.now they will resort".to the ' cbst-benefit analysis into the regu- would be subject to challenge.
courte.;..., ..' ".. : ^
I am not opposed to- There are 60 different ways that this
. Sometimes these grbup aire' ehviron- ithat, arid I may very well support this challenge can be litigated. Just let me
mental. , consumer,, conservation and bill with some of the modifications, in- read some of the proposed challenges.
similar groups. Other times they , are eluding this. But allowing parties to Does risk assessment appropriately adbusiness groups. And If we'provide full challenge final regulations on the ben- dress the reasonable range of scientific
opportunity for any group" that feels efit of cbst-laenefit is certainly not a uncertainties? If no single best estiaggrieved by a rule , to relitigate! the step toward more eifficient government, mate to risk is given, does risk assessrulemaking process, inf court,^eAara,,,:, Opponents .of .this amendment will ment include an appropriate discussion
going to find that we have.'h^stning*
is the only of multiple estimates? If a risk assesseffective decisionmaking in the execft- .way to force the agencies to implement ment includes multiple estimates of
Uve branch of goyermnent.'^. ..#^&V.Vrisk -assessment. I disagree. We, the risks, are the assumptions, inferences,
Now, this may, indeed, be. the goal "of .Congress, through the oversight re- and models associated with such mulsome Members of this body, but;!.know, fsponsibilities of these regulatory agen- tiple estimates equally plausible?
that in my visits with the.business and ..cies, are eminently capable of making There are 60 of these things.
'financial community in-my district,' the agencies do exactly what we want
Mr. Chairman, I would. request the
thait they find that a very significant ; them to do, and i t is our ultimate re- Members support the Roemer-Boehlert
part of the rulemaking process is: im-. spbnsibility, we. Members of Congress, substitute.
portant for the well-being of their in-^ arid not the courts,
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman. I
dustry. and. they want Government ,1 know the supporters of the bill in- move to strike the requisite number of
that works and works effectively and is xluded the amendment out of fear; and words.
fair, but they do.not want Government this is.real fear and this is historical
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
thait is ineffective and iriebmpeterit.,:;:^ ?eiar. thi'sjs the real thing, that the the amendment. The other side has
So I urge that this ameridment be agehcies would simply ignore the re- made an awful lot of arguments in supadopted, that we take a" go-slow, ajH quirements. of the bill, and I am sure port of the amendment, trying to de^proach, and riot take this to -the,oppo-' thait judicial; review language is well- feat the judicial review provisions of
the bill. One of the arguments that was
site extreme where the pendulum will intehUoned.; .:. .
;
:
;
r
:
_
:
'- .;•-••'"• •.-.;,;^iy/*v*v-vvsV'^Zh&i
•'
�CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-CHOUSE
February 28, 1995
H2327
• made was that, i t takes two bites from took place over the years 'probably "'esses' which will undoubtedly be refinsd
would have taken place'iri any case. "- . " with the passage bf time. The inclusion
the apple:
.
A point that I guess was riot made as in the bill of a. National Peer Review
,1 would like to read maybe pertinent
sentences, i f you w i l l , of section.401. yet is that the gentleman's amendment Board and Office of Management "and
judicial Review. "Compliance or non- would remove the substantial evidence " Budget review of risk assessment and
compliance by a Federal agency with test. Under the Administrative- Proce- 'cost-benefit arialysis w i l l provide at&e. the - requirements of this Act shall be dures Act. final agency action as we quate guidance and oversight to ensure
reviewable pursuant to the statute know is only overturned when i t is- ar- ' that these tools are being properly u i i granting the agency authority to act bitrary and capricious. Of course, that Hzed: The idea that.lawyers and judges
or, as applicable, that statute and the is, I ' think most everyone would agree, are soiriehow equipped to assess t i e
Administrative Procedure Act. The very deferential to the agency, because quality of scientific procedures is a l of the very high burden for people to most humorous.
• court with jurisdiction to review final bear to prove that an agency is acting
Without this amendment, we w i l l
. agency action," underlined, "final in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
permit.any party to engage in dilatory
• agency action under the statute grantOf course. The legislation applies a 'tactics by going to court to force an.
ing: the; agency authority to act shall
substantial evidence test,.which means agency to provide substantial eviderx-e
•. have jurisdiction to review, as the
that i t is complying with each criteria
same time, the agency;s compliance that an agency must present substan- vbutlined i n this .bill. I f we. demand that
tial evidence, that i t complied with the
• with the 'requirements of this Act. act. I see nothing: wrong with that. The an 'Sgericy' "justify its action before" i t
. When a! significant risk assessment bill substitutes a substantial- evidence has completed that action, nothing w i l l
document or risk characterization doc- test for the arbitrary and capricious 'ever get accomplished. In order to
umenf subject to title I is part, of the test so that the . agencies must really rriove our economy forward with new
administrative record in a final- agency demonstrate to a court that they are niedicines, chemicals, pesticides, and
• action," and then i t goes on. -.
complying with the act's cost-benefit other products, we will have to assUm
.• an iattbrney to every Federal bureaurequirements.
*•
• 1230 '
Mr. Chairman, for all of those rea-' crat because everything we try to do to
. The point .of the matter is that i f we sons I oppose the ainendment. ...- .., ".•Improve;our' economic well-being and
ha.d underlined final agency action, . Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, w i l l the 'bur.overall quality of life will be l i t i maybe the point" would have gotten gentleman yield? . ',
.. : •.':.'.. . gated to death before the process gets
across.-There is not any attempt under
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield .to.the gen- j'bff the ground'. " '.
this legislation to have more than one tleman from Indiana.
" " . : " ' • . ' • . 'r Uhder this aniendment. judicial rebite at the apple. I t is the final agency -Mr. ROEMER. M r / Chairrrian, just view w i l l s t i l l exist, but i t will occur at
action that is reviewable and only reading through the report, i t certainly ' the end' of the process: And as a gen... .' that. •.
appears from the report language that tleman frorn the Republican side pofctI would go further here. I t was said such, things as risk assessment guide- .v'e'd out during bur consideration of this
by my very close Mend, my colleague, lines, are they subject to judicial.-re- ' ameridrrierit in "the Science Committee,
i
i t h i s is the sa'me. arrangement that was
we came into the Congress together, we view under this new- language?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. In terms of the final agreed bri for the iirifurided mandates
are very close friends, disagree pri this
.;.;
-legislation. So i f you supported the j u issue, the gentleman from New York agency action, yes.
Mr. ROEMER. So that' is new, that dicial review provisions of the un. [Mr. BOEHLERT], he is my close friend,
'"".' •'•')? funded inandates bill, you should, be
but anyhow basically he referred to the does expand the scope.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairirian, Tmove to able to support this amendment.
• environmental revolution, I. suppose,
• " 1 am .riot a scientist or a lawyer, but
that has taken place over the last 20 strike the requisite number of words.
years a,nd how many of those good . Mr. Chairman, I rise i n support- of. the. I can assure yoii that litigation is not
things would not haive taken place were amendment offered by the gentlerrian an essential component . of the scithis type of language in effect at that from Indiana' [Mr. ROEMER] cospon- "eritific process. Let 'us keep the lawyers
sored by the gentleman from New York. out of tiie laboratories and judges from
point i n time.
He used the illustration of the lead [Mr. BOEHLERT] and also cosponsored gauging the quality of science. Let the
gasoline ban. In truth, a recent article by myself and several other of us who professionals make scientific and technical determinations. Once their action
published by the Harvard" Center for serve on the Science Committee.
will still be
Risk Analysis shows that risk assess- ; This amendirient is necessary to en- is complete, therethe lawyers plenty of
to work
sure that the regulatory process does opportunity for
ment and cdst-benefit analysis, the
not become an eternal playground; for their magic. Vote for this amendment
same procedures, the same procedures lawyers. In asking agencies to. use the and stop the insanity.
1_ "
required i n our bill were central to the tool of risk assessirient,'we are trying
Mr. MCINTOSH/. Mr. . Chairirian. I
' JiPA's lead gasoline ban.
to ensure that regulation is based .on inove tb strike the requisite number of
• I quote,
sound science. As currently writteri, ..words, and I rise in opposition to the
EPA chose not to lise the traditional-meth- passage bf this bill will allow any party,
ods of regulatory toxicology and instead em- to litigate agency a'ctions before they amendrnent. — / ployed modern methods of risk assessment In have even been completed. Judicial re- ~ -Mr."Chairrrian. I believe-that the judicial review provision of this bill is one
phasing out lead In gasoline.
view can be used tp interfere in the sci. The point I think is that this is con- entific process and delay timely , con- of the key features in protecting r.he
isidered to be . such a terrible, radical sideration of. new medicines and other regulated community, average Americans, from the threat of over regualway to go. In all of our hearings., in all products.
tions and regulations that do not rr-.eet
of our markups, throughout all of our
Currently, the courts can review' a the test of good science and cost-ber.edays of markups, the other side who
." opposed this legislation basically got final agency, action on the basis bf f l t arialysis.
The question has been raised about
up and said, well, we agree with risk whether the action was arbitrary, and
analysis; with risk assessment, with capricious. In this law, we are requir- whether we w i l l create a plethora of
cost-benefit analysis. The gentleman , ing agencies to use over 50 new specific legal'actlons ard increase the problem
from Maryland just made the same procedures i n carrying out risk assess- iri the United-Sstates of too many law•- comment. Well/ i f there is an agree- ment and: cost-benefit analysis. I f an suits; The key difference here is that
ment, then what is wrong with this agency's action does not meet, these what this provision does is allow c i t i new criteria, that error will be consid- zens to challenge the Government
bill? '
-•'
:: I-would suggest to Members that i t is ered by the courts, as part of their r e - when they have not followed their, own
law i n d their own. requirements. It is
-•
very possible that i f we had this legis- view of a final agency action.
I believe that our Nation needs to'use very different from a sitiiaitlon where
lation i n effect at that point'ip time,
that quite a few, i f not all of the envi- risk assessment and cost-benefit analy- we are creating lawsuits between citironmental radical revolutions .that sis, but they are relatively new pfoc- 'zens in the private sector.
1
v
;
:
4
:
:
r
:
�132328
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HQUSE
February 28, 1995
Historically, if we look at two acts it is OK for the agency to violate the failure to follow this act: That is what
that had very broad general applica- law, not to follow risk assessment and the gentleman's amendmeht does.
tion, the NEPA Act and the Regulatory cost-benefit analysis, to ignore the will
'If it did only what the gentleman
Flexibility Act, NEPA contained a ju- of this Congress, the will of the people said/1 might understand this amenddicial review provision which allowed of this country expressed in. its rep- ment, i t goes well beyond that. I t says
members of the private sector to re- resentative body, to ignore it com- clearly -'any alleged failure to comply
quire agencies to do an environmental pletely "and do what they have been with this act." What does a common,
impact statement. Now, only when doing for years and that is never do a normal reading of that mean? It means
chat was established as a matter-of law proper risk assessment, cost-benefit if you did not follow the act, if you did
did that law become effective: Govern- analysis.
. not do risk assessraent cost analysis at
ment agencies had to determine what
failWhat purpose is there in passing such all, by any procedure, the allegedmakei
their actions would do to affect the enure to. follow this act does not
vironment. It has become a very 'suc- an amendmeht, if i t is not to defeat the any difference. Therefore, the agency
cessful act in terms bf requiring Gov- . very purposes of the bill? If an agency can Ignore this law and go on its way,
ernment to be responsive to environ- never has to answer in court for its and no judicial review will ever hapfailure to follow the law in this coun- pen.
mental concerns.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, how- try, what on earth are we here doing
Mr. Chairman, i f we want that effect
. ever,.did not contain a judicial review passing laws requiring agencies to folprovision and for' years now agencies low the law? If we, in the same law we in this bill, just vote against the bill,
have had routine boilerplate that says, ' pass, say i t is OK not to follow the law, do not ask us to pass this amendment.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise
yes, we have complied with the regu- what are we, doing, here? The bottom
latory flexibility provisions that re- line is, if you believe in this law, if you to . strike the requisite number of
. quire us to give small business special believe that agencies ought to do rel- ' words.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendconsideration in reducing regulatory evant and important risk analysis, risk
burdens..
.... ... .
characterizations, and they do what all ment. We have an amendment that is
of us hope this Nation will begin to do, trying to say. that we will not enforce
The clear examples that these two consider cost in the equation and look the regulations, or .not allow, the citishow is that without judicial enforce- for the least-cost alternatives by which zens to enforce the process to be able
ment, without allowing citizens to be we regulate our society and in all these to identify what is true risk, what is
able to keep a check on their govern- important areas, i f you really believe true benefit.. I think one of the conment agencies, provisions that they in that principle, how can you possibly cerns IJiave is that i f we applied this'
have to live by will be ignored at least vote for an amendment that says in the amendment to every environmental
in their intent, if not in fact.... .
ijudicial review of whether or not the regulation and every environmental
So for. that, reason. I strongly support statute .has been followed, i t does not law in this country, I think both sides
the judicial review, provisions in this matter whether the agency followed of the aisle would agree that it would
bill and would urge all- bf my col- the statue, i t will have no effect upon gut the public health protection asleagues to vote against the amend- the judicial Interpretation of the rule- pects of the laws of this Nation. I think.,
that that is the intent of this amendment.'
.: •
making by the agency?
ment, is to gut this bill, not to protect
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move
If on the other hand you believe in it, not to enhance i t .
to strike the requisite number of
this bill, you. must defeat' this amendwords.
..
-•
Mr. Chairman, all I have to say is
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to ment, because this' amendment lit- that those who stood in this House and
the amendment offered by my good erally defeats the bill.
spoke about the concerns about the
friend, the gentleman from Indiana. - Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the lawyer full employment act, I sure. .
[Mr. ROEMER], and urge its defeat. The gentleman yield?
hope to. see them standing ln line to
amendment and the bill have one thing
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gen- support us as we get into tort reform.
in common. The amendment and the tleman from Indiana.
I think that is a problem. I agree with
bill refer to the judicial review that is '•"" Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would my colleagues that that, is a major,
already available, in the statutes that' just say to the gentleman from Louisi- problem, one we must address, but this
create the regulatory authority that is ana, who I knpw is a strong supporter is not the source ql the problem. That
affected by this bill. •
.• ,:•/• •
bf this legislation, what the Roemer- is going to be another day, anotherCurrently the law permits judicial re- Boehlert amendment concentrates on battle, another agenda. _
view of agency actions across-a broad is . the final action, the. substance of
The source of the problem here is
span of regulatory authority. That ju- what that agency finally promulgates that we need that dose of reality in our
dicial review occurs at the final option as a rule, not all the little piddly pro- environmental and public health stratof the agency. Nothing has changed in cedures that go into making that rule egy to make surt we protect the public
- this bill in that regard. . .
that this bill opens up as possible ac- health. What this amendment will do is
There is still a judicial review pro- tion on judicial review. We are focused say that the public would not have the .
vided by the current law for agency ac- on the final action and the substance, right to be able to draw on the facts of
tions at the end when the agency not the procedur^and the processes.
the process to come to conclusions;
makes a final determination.,.
Mr. TAUZIN.. Reclaiming my time,^ that the judicial system would not be
:-. The. bnly difference, betweenkVthis,. , the, gentleman's amendment does not able tb consider the fact-that flawed
amendment and the bill is whercTthis Just' say 'do not look at the procedure. data causes flawed results. -amendment says that in that agency The gentleman's amendment says that
Mr. Chairman, garbage in, garbage
action judicial review no question can the alleged failure to comply with this out. If the science that goes into makbe raised regarding the adequacy of act, the alleged failure to conduct risk ing the conclusion is not sound, then
certification or other documents pre- assessment, the alleged failure to do a the result is not going to be sound, ahd
pared pursuant to this. act. And here is cost-benefit analysis has nothing to do we have to look at the process as we
the most important and relevant .part, with the court's ability to say that this get into it. I think the result is absoand any alleged failure to comply with . rulemaking is invalid.
lutely essential. I agree with my colthis act may not be used as grounds for .
league that the result is what really
affecting or invalidating the rule.
• 1245 '
matters.
.What this amendment says, in effect, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's
However, to judge the result we have
is that you can have judicial review of amendment says it does not matter to look at the evidence as it was being
the agency's action but the agency's whether you did not even follow any . developed. If we ignore good science in
failure to follow this law is not grounds procedure, whether you ignore this law the development of a strategy, we are
in that judicial review for affecting or completely, the rulemaking is still ignoring the public's health and we are
invalidating the rulemaking by the going to be valid because the judicial ignoring good public strategy. Thereagency. In short, this amendment says department cannot review the agency's fore. Mr. Chairman, I ask strongly that
s
:
�February 28, 1995
H2329
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD^'HOUSE
this, amendment either be defeated or
we have the guts to stand UP and say
"This is what we want to do across the
board, we want to do this with all our
environmental regulations, we want to
eliminate Judicial review and deny the
public the ability to look at how bureaucrats come to these conclusions."
but do riot do i t just with this bill.
Have the guts to do i t with all the bills
that have been passed for the last 40
years through this House, because
without that then we are picking up
this alone.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
geritleman yield?
-.
. Mr. BILBRAY., I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. I just want to say, Mr.
Chairman, the gentleman is impugning
that many of us are saying we want to
gut this bill. Much before this gentleman entered this body, Members on
this liide were working to pass this leg-.
islation last.year. -We do not intend to
gut this bill. We have been working
hard in a bipartisan way to pass risk
assessment.
. Second, Mr: Chairman, the gentleman's comments are very interesting
in that they admit that the gentleman
wants evidence from the rulemaking
. process entered into judicial review.
That; is what we are saying, should not
happen. We are saying, look at the subStance in tthe final rule, not all the evidence that goes iri through the past 3
or 4 years in the rulemaking.
Last, I would just say to the gentieman that we are not eliminating judicial review. We still have OMB over.-sight, we have peer review, substantial
peer review and sunshine. We have congressional oversight. We still have the
. Administrative Procedures Act.
. AU that will make sure that , that
process works. We are not eliminating
judicial review.
Mr. BILBRAY. Reclaiming jny time,
Mr. Chairman, on the items' that are
being used to make the determination,
the gentleman is. The trouble is when
we eliminate that judicial review of
the merits of the components to come
to the conclusion, we are then denying
all the facts to be on the table when
these things are being corisidered. ..
I would, just like to say to my colleague. I am not impugning his intenr
tion. I am pointing out the fault of his
strategy when i t comes down to this,
thnt the fact is that we do have a judicia.l system that is part of the envirori. mental. strategies of this country. It
has always been, right from the beginning. .
Without that review you will then be
sa.vi'Kg that one group of environ.mental strategy will have judicial muscle! throughout the entire process and
one part from now on will not be allowed to flex that muscle, will not halve
access to that.
• 'Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the'
gentleman further yield?
Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the. gentleman from Indiana.
i Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, is ..the
gentleman then.saying, in terms of evi"dence. did a certain agency read-a scientific review article; were the laboratories in sufficient cleanliness or shape
for this rule to be promulgated? .; V •'
Are we really trying to open up this
kind of minutiae for judicial review of
the evidence put together in the. final
rulemaking? We are going to see an explosion of litigation-.
.
.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman -from California [Mr.
. tleman fTorii Indiana [Mr. ROEMER] and
the.: geritlemari" from New York [Mr.
BOEHLERT] what we would have, on
court battles on cost-benefit ainalysis
arid risk assessrrients, and we would
have thousands of those court battles,
both sides are going to be able to find
legitimate scientists, perhaps armies of
them, who are willing to contest the
validity of a single cost-benefit, analy• sis.- ' : ::.. - -.-;,- '
- '" ':
• By encouraging the judicial review of
every one of these cost-benefit analyBILBRAY] has expired.
ses, this bill makes the cpiyt the final
(By unanimous consent. Mr. BILBRAY arbiter of disagreement:? within the sciwas allowed.to proceed for 1 additiorial entific community, while the Roeir.erminute.)
•*
Vv'-T" , - • Boehlert amendment brings a measure
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairmari, what - of sanity :by baying, Yes, the courts
we' are saying is if and when those de- will review' the "entire, the firial^'the
tails are considered, they should; .be
but Should not
considered to see if ihat is minutiae whole, record, of the scientificget into
the minutiae
that would have determined of could involved in the risk assessment debates
and the
determine fact from fantasy! ',:'>•; ;"
If the gentleman is scared of Judicial cost-benefit ajialysis.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that
review looking at that fact or fantasy,
then please understand" that every this amendment weakens the bill. In
other environmental law that we have fact, I would asseft it does not weaken
on the books goes through the same the bill. Lawsuits under the bill can
process in the courts one'way. or the just as well increase regulation as to
other. The trouble is i t does not look decrease it, and certainly colleagues
at the cost-effectiveness, it Just looks ffom California would know that i t was
at how the process was followed going not the EPA that decided to impose the
Clean Air Act, the Federal implementowards the execution of the law. ••;
What has happened now is we are try- tation plan in that State. • - .
ing to add this reasonable, clause. In; . --.-EPA was.forced to do so as a result of
that i t is a mandate that Goverriment a'review iri Federal court by environnot only try to do something, it..tries mental organizations, arid there are
to do i t intelligently. That is all we are going to be a great many public interest groups willing to sue individuals,
asking.- •
- •*
:- ,-'•:;..:
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman,. Lihove to public interest- groups willing to sue
strike the requisite number of words. ""• 'T;he Federal Government, to require :mMr.. Chairman, I rise to support- the . plementation of even stronger regulaBoehlert-Roemer amendment; -and- to tions! '" ^f^-V'-fi::: v - j : - .- - •
aissert in the strongest possible terms •'What.we are going to end up with.
that this is not an attempt to gut the Mr.. Chairman, is a great deal, of exbill. I t is not the Intent to gut the bill. penditure of time and money and enMf. Chairman, I think this issue, is ergy, and to what purpose? Who will be
really very sirnple: Do we want more better off for spending all of that
lawyers and more litigation at every money on the individual points in the
staite of the creation of Federal regula- final, regulation, in the final rule that
tions, or do we want better science in- is being- made? Certainly not Amefivolved in our risk assessment program-. cans who want to see reasonable cleanI am one of that half a: handful of ups without endless wrangling.
physical scientists among this-.mem-- ...Mr. Chairman, I do not think indusbership, and I can tell the Members . try will benefit, since they wiil lack
that scientists aire really not meant to any ability to rely on aigency decisions
be exhibit A in a court battle as to and plans for.the impact of regulations
what the precise level is: at which a that are subject to incessant court
given chemical may cause 'cancer, challenges arid court reviews. .
chemical or any substance may cause • ; r submit, Mr. Chairman, that the
cancer. Science is not capable of tell- only beneficiaries are really going to
ing, what that level is', v-.'*:->:•
••• be the" lawyers, the lawyers on both
One of the purposes of this bill,, I ' sides of these issues, who 'are surely
think, is to point out that there-are un- goirig to be the beneficiaries if we do
certainties over what the exact risks of not adopt the Boehlert-Rpemer amenda given substance, or activity may be.. ment.
In fact. Dr. Graham, from the Harvard
Mr. Chairman, let'us limit the funCenter for.Risk.Analysis, while he was that the lawyers have in this process
testifying in favor, of this bfU. neverthe Roemer-Boehlert
theless said, and 1. quote, "We are not and support . -••'.'
able to validate of know., for sure amendment:
-Mrs..
'Mr. Chairman. I
whether or not the prediction of the , iriove toMORELLA.requisite number of
strike the
model in fact proved to be correct." "
words. -"
•
Even after the fact, we- cannot know
Mr. Chairman, I-rise in support of the
the right answer for a given cost-bene- Roemer-Boehlert amendment. H.R. 1022
fit analysis.
contains new. expansive language on
Mr...Chairman, with the bill without court review which was actually not in
the amendment offered by the gen- the Committee on Science markup.
:
:
-
:
;
�H2330
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
This language would direct the . Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the
courts to examine the scientific biasis .gentlewoman will yield • further, the
of the risk assessment. They would Roemer amendment, prevents that, i t
have to follow section 104 and 105. says specifically—and I will read,
which would hold the rules unlawful i f ,".* .* * any alleged failure to comply
they did not do that.
with this Act, may not be used as a
Mr. Chairman, the courts, I believe, grounds for affecting or. invalidating
lack the expertise. They are not sci- such agency action"—It does not matentific experts. They lack the exper- ter how egregious i t is.
tise; they lack the time; they lack the
The Roemer amendment wipes it out.
interest, also, to •-io this for hundreds The Roemer amendment says you canof regulations which would come before not do it.
them.
•
.. •-.
• 1300
Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on
Science markup, the gentleman from . . Mr. BOEHLERT. Will the gentlePennsylvania [Mr. WALKER] promoted woman yield?
/
the soft of one-bite-at-the-apple conMrs.- MORELLA. I believe i t relies on
cept, and saying that the Administra- the APA. I yield to the gentleman from
tive Procedures Act would apply. The New York, one of the sponsors.
Roemer-Boehlert amendment .1 think 'C MT. BOEHLERT. We have got the Adwould make this the case explicitly, ministrative Procedures: Act. We know
that only final action is reviewable, v
that: That Is the vehicle to challenge
Therefore, Mr. Chairman,. I rise in any final rulemaking, and we have got
support of the amendment.
the arbitrary and capricious.standard.
. . .Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will What this would do is subject the
the gentlewoman yield?.
whole risk assessment process to judiMrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gen- cial review, which means we would be
tleman from Pennsylvania.
tied up—talk about the full employMr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, there is ment act for lawyers, we would be tied
no difference in the bill than what we up in courts forevermore at a cost of
did in the committee. We have ex- millions and millions and millions of
panded the language to some extent, dollars for everybody Involved. That is
simply to spell out what we were doing why we so strongly object to it. I thank
in terms of the Administrative Proce- the gentlewoman for yielding.
dures Act,, but W are doing exactly
e
Mrs. MORELLA. Already over $100
what the Administrative Procedures million is going to be exhaustively
Act now requires agencies to do under peer-reviewed. So we certainly, I think,
the bill, so I would say to the gentle- need the Roemer-Boehlert amendment.
woman that I worked very hard to proMr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will
tect the Committee on Science's pdsi- the gentlewoman yield again?
tioh with regard to Judicial review.: .
Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the genI think we have done that. I think tleman Jrom Pennsylvania.
the Committee oh Commerce, and the . - Mr. WALKER. One . of the problems
Committee on Science are very much is, what we have Just heard from everyin agreement on this! •.. • ••'•;:_„±:y. ^v;:,;.^ body is they do not want the AdminisMr. Chairman, I simply would not , trative Procedures Act to apply to this
want i t on the record that what we act: They want the Administrative
haye done here Is in any way different Procedures Act to be out there applytrom what tbe Committee on Science ing to other things, but they do not
decided to do. That is not the case. .
want the Administrative Procedures
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this Act to apply to this act.
gentleman did a great job in commit- . Mrs. MORELLA. The final action.
tee. My. understanding is, however,
Mr. WALKER. The standard we have
that what we axe saying is that the Ad- set is a standar: which is exactly simiministrative Procedures Act would lar to the Administrative Procedures
apply, would be lawful, unless there are Act: •, •..
.
arbitrary and capricious, unlawful
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, i f
statements that occur..
.,. . . . ; •
the gentlewomaif will yield further,
Right now in the bill the agency what we want is we want the Adminiswould have to prove with substantial' . trative. Procedures Act to apply to the
evidence that the activity was environ- •finai rule. We want to have a system
mentally risky.
where a final rule which is wacko,
Mr. WALKER. If the gentlewoman which does not make any sense, does
will continue to yield, substantial evi- not pass the commonsense test, we
dence is in the Administrative Proce- want to have a way to challenge that.
dures Act. • .
• '.. ,.: •
. But we do not want to have a wayMrs. MORELLA. Yes, arbitfary and all through this risk assessment , proccapricious.
ess, i f an agency comes up with a rule
Mr. WALKER. If the gentlewoman that makes sense, that addresses public
will continue to yield, i f I understand health' and public concerns, we do not
the gentlewoman, Mr. Chairman, what want to be able to throw out that rule
she is objecting to is if the agency because somewhere along the process
takes arbitfary and capricious action, somebody did not fill out a form on
she does not believe that that should page 12, line 3, section 2.
be subject to somebody's review?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
Mrs. MORELLA.. Mr. Chairman, that gentlewoman from Maryland' [Mrs.
should.be subject to review, T . rr: ; : ;
MORELLA] has expired. '
c
v
:
:
1
February 28, 1995
(At the request of Mr. WALKER and by
unanimous consent. Mrs. MORELLA was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional,
minutes:) Vr-.'t"';;:'.7-- .
.
Mrs MORELLA. I continue to yield
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. ..
Mr. WALKER. .The fact is that the.,
language in the bill says substantially
comply so that we can . deal with the
probl&iii. but the gentleman seems to
be ignoring the. language of his own
amendment.
•'• •"•'
I simply would point out that the
language within the Roemer amendment says any alleged failure to comply with this act may. not be used as
grounds for affecting or invalidating
the agency action. .
You cannot even get to where the
gentleman says he wants to be under
the amendment that you have before
us.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. It has been said over
and oyer and over again, there is nothing in the Roemer-Boehlert amendment that would erode the Administrative Procedures Act. If that is passed
and put into effect and we try to mitigate the litigation that is going to simply explode as a result of this new expansion under judicial review, there is
no.risk to this doing any kind of threat
to the Administrative Procedures Act,
and you still have the ability of OMB,
peer review panels, and a host of other
sunshine to be shone upon the regulations in the final action.
'
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words,
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think i t is important
that we clear up some of the argument
that is being made here today, and perhaps we ought to start by reading the
ainendment, itself. I understand the
reading of the amendment was suspended earlier.
But if we want to find our whether
this amendment eliminates judicial review-entirely, whether this amendment
basically guts the bill, let's read the'
amendment.
It says, "Nothing in this act creates
any right to judicial or administrative .
review, nor creates any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party
against the United States, its agencies
or instrumentalities, Its officers or'employees, or any other person."
It goes on to say, " I f an agency action is subject to judicial or administrative review under any other provision of law, the adequacy of any certification or bther document prepared pursuant to this Act and any alleged failure to comply with this Act may not be
used as grounds for affecting or invalidating such agency action."
,
I do not know how you can more
clearly state that you are saying we
are passing this bill but.it cannot be
{
�February 28, 1995
H2331
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
enforced, i t creates no rights for judicial njview, and i f there does happen to
be judicial review under some other
law, nothing in this act shall give anybody any rights for any protection
under the very provisions which we are
putting irito effect.
The fact is that this statute is critical. I t is) a process that America has
needed badly to require our administrative agencies to review the effectivene-'ss of their conduct. They must
assess the risk which they are addressing, tLSsess the co!?t of meeting that
risk in their regulation, and determine
whether the cost is justified by the
benefit that is intended to be gained.
If we dannot put that into law and
then require that. the agencies meet
that t.est| Wheri they are promulgating
regulatiori, then we are truly fooling
the American people when we tell, them
that we are trying to somehow bring
the agencies under control in the rulemaking process.
:
If tliat is not enough, the amendment
goes on tb. say that i t strikes the substantial evidence standard in the judicial review that this'act contains..
Let's clarify what we are talking
. about here. If we. do not have the substantial evidence standard in this legislation, that means that when, there is
. judicial review, and, by the way, I will
back up a, minute. .
It has bden. argued that we do not
want to open up the opportunity for
.he courts to look at the entire administrative record and see what has gone
on.
.
':•
Ladies and gentlemen, that is'exactly
what happens right now, under the adminisnrative review that is given to
each rulef as it is. reviewed under the
previous statutes that authorized those
rules.
I_
.
What w|e are. saying is that in final
agency action, not at each stage but in
. final agency action, when the,.rule is
already being reviewed, when, the entire administrative record is already
being reviewed, i t must also be reviewed for purposes of cost-benefit
. analysis. I
• We nje going further to say that the
standard of review shall be substantial
evidence, (The court must look to see
whether the agency acting had sub. stantial [evidence to document its
clairn that there was or was not a costbenefit to the rule which it is enforc' ing. • . [:.•' ' • .>' •
What this amendment seeks to do is
'"to make i t so the agency can get by
with, whatever i t wants if it- can simply
meet an. arbitrary and capricious
standard. |!
Thai; means that f ll the court has to
do is to say that there was a little slim
piece of evidence in this record that
justified whit the agency wanted; to do
•and so it|was not arbitrary or it was
^ ^ ^ t capricious, but. i t does not haye to
^^Pbk further, to see whether the weight
of the evidence was on one side or the
other.
I .'
There is already going to be the administrative review of these agency
rules under the Administrative Proce- • To. suggest that judicial review ia
dures Act which governs the., statute being able to take i t to OMB or being
which generate the rules themselves. able to take i t to the Congress, that is
What this statute does is say that when not judicial review. I t does not even fit
that review t&kes place, then there the title. All that says, is that you can must be administrative review also of take i t back into the political estabthe cost-benefit analysis and that cost- lishment in hopes that the politicians
benefit analysis must be Justified by will always be too nervous to do anysubstantial evidence in the record that thing that is real.
is already under review.
i ; What we have done here is we have
That is eminently reasonable, and all tracked the Administrative Procedures
you have to do iis read the words in this Act, we know what the effect of this .
amendment to see that i t is clearly a would be, and we do not believe that
killing amendment. I t is. saying, there is any way here of exploding liti"We've got a right here, we are creat- gation. That^is not what we are seek- '
ing a. great statute that allows us to . ing to do at all. But we do believe that
have cost-benefit analysis; but we don't there needs to be some kind of assurwant any agency to have to be forced ance that when agencies are doing the .
to follow it, we don't ^ant any person procedures necessary for risk assess- .
in America to have ftny .right created ment and cost-benefit analysis, they in
under this statute t.oVhave . the- agency, fact do what they are supposed to do
follow this legislation,' and'we .want to under the law. ••• v - t t , ' • >
be darned sure that it is not enforceThis idea that minor flaws in the
able if anybody goes t o . c o u r t . " ! ' process will bring about major litigaLast, there has been the argurnerit tion is just absolutely dearly wrong.
made here that this is goirig to .gen- The proponents of this amendment
erate mounds and mounds, of additional have not bothered to read what is
litigation across the country. Again,, under the judicial review, section on
this legislation authorizes judicial re- ; page 34 of the bill, because what i t says
view only when there is final agency is that the documents, i f they do not
action under a rulemaking which is al- substantially comply, then the fact is
ready under way under k .previous stat- that there is no judicial review. We
ute.
.... :<:••::•-: ^
have a substantial VrCompliance test ...
That. means that there Is already under the bill. '"^'CVV" ' V
going to be agency review under each
This idea that we ,.'are .'going to ex- "7review required by this" statute: i t is plbde a whole bunch of litigation on
not going to iricfease litigation.
minor points, i t is completely dealt .
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman,.I.move with. No minor discrepancies iare in
to strike the requisite . number of fact going to !be the cause for litigawords, and I rise in .opposition to the tion.
'•--'
'
amendment.
-;••• . '• .
: - I would also go back to pointing out
Mr. Chairman, this is .the ultimate that the legislative language that the
old order amendment.. This is. an at- gentlemari from Indiana and the gentempt to step back to the idea that big tleman from New York bring us here,
government has solutions to all bf our maybe it does not do what they inproblems and if we would only listen tb tended i t to do, but the fact is that i t
big govemment, big govemment will is misdrafted and. i t is a bad amendalways tell us the right things to do.
ment. .
. •
This is an amendment by people who
Because if in- fact they are clear in
do not want to see middle-class Ameri- what they are saying here on the floor,
cans use the law against the Govern- their amendment is specifically, oppoment but are perfectly happy to see the site of that. Their amendment is
Government use the. law against mid- meant, by words, to wipe out any
dle-class Americans. That Is exactly chance whatsoever. to have even the
the effect bf adopting the Roemer most egregious
procedural flaw
amendment.
•.'•,.-,-•';• norireviewable.
You adopt the Roemer amendment,
The agency cari do anything they
you say .the lawyers of the Goverriment want. They can disobey the law, they
can go out and pound the middle-class can completely set the law aside, they
Americans all they want, but middle- . can go ahead and do anything -they
class Americans are not allowed to iri want, and under the language, of your
any way use the law to protect them- amendment, what, you say is that that
selves against Government. I think cannot be used as a grounds for affectthat is the reverse of what we should, ing or invalidating such agericy action.
be doing.
•'•'•,' .-I cannbt believe that you are standFirst of all, let me tell ybu, anyone ing up saying you are for risk assesswho tells you that they are for risk as- " ment and then offering an amendment
sessment ana tney are for cost-benefit that says that you can do all these
analysis and then supports this amend- things ir. an agency and so on, you can
merit is trying to make a fool of you. violate the law in any way you want,
There is no way that you can say that and nobody can ask ybu about it. Noyou are for risk assessment and you body can review it. Nobody can change'
are for doing all.'these things but, "Oh. it.
by the way, let's not make i t enforce"Go ahead, bureaucrats. Do your
able."
thing. Whatever i t is you bureaucrats
Because the ultimate effect of this want to do, it's OK with us; It s fine.
amendment is to say, "Let's not have We love it. Just continue to regtilar.e
any .enforcement of it."
like you've been regulating. Continue
1
;
J
�H2332
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOT JSE
February 28, 1995
to popnd America the way you've been
D 1315
sion of law, the adeqriacy of any certifipounding America. Continue to wipe
What the gentleman is suggestirig is cation or other'docuriient prepared pur-'
out the small businessmen the, way all during the risk assessment process suant to this Act, and any alleged fail-,
you're been wiping out the small busi- the lawyers would just line"up one be- ure to comply with this. Act, may not
nessmen because they , shouldn't have hind, the other arid challenge, every- be used as grounds for affecting of inany rights under this act at all.*'
•
thing that happens during the risk as- validating such agency action." That is,
exactly the opposite of what the genIf that is what you want to do, your sessment process.
tleman just told us. "
• Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is spelanguage certainly accomplishes i t
Mr: 'BOEHLERT. Mr.
I would suggest, also, that the gen- cifically wrong. I f he goes arid checks there agairi we both agree weChairman,
are readtleman from New York told us that if" he Myill find out that ours applies to the ing the same thing, but I f the gen^
H.R, 9 had been in effect, we.would not final agency action. That is where our tleman says what I am saying is wrong
b? ahle to do the things that we have Judicial review takes place, is with often enough, that does not-mean he is done in the past such as the Clean Air final agency action as well. I t does not right. The fact of the matter is .we
Act. That is specifically refuted, by allow judicial review at each phase want final review of the regulation, not
along
It
is
JohnJD. Graham who is director of the re view,the way; on. simply says thereac- the risk assessment.
."
possible
the-final,'agency
Center for Risk. Analysis at Harvard tion:; -'
" Mr. WALKER:"' I . am saying to the
. " " '";"" ,'
School of Public Health. He makes a
gentleman from New York I am simply
siatement in. this morning's newspaper, • ..Read the. amendment;'..read-what .is readirig back his own words to him
that he would coirimit to law.
indicating that both the air bag stands : the.judicial review i n the bilL-."•
aji-d for automobiles and the phaseout ", ,"Mr. BQEHLERiT. That is where' , we
Mr. BOEHLERT.-i agree 100 percent,
. aLfe,..';'arid' the .gentieman - makes my
of lead in gasoline, each of which trahpoint," and he makes i t i n a very glib the words are exactly as the gentleman
spired during Republican administraread them, but. his interpretation is
tionsE involved substantial uncertainty" wajr, I might add. The fact of the mat- wrong.
ter is the gentleman wants to chaly.st both were approved after cost-bene- lenge the risk~as8essment process every
Mr. WALKER. My interpretation is
f i t analysis'.
;.
.
step of the way. We are saying we w i l l riot wrong because I will tell the genThe fact is that the standards under challenge the final rule i f i t does , not tleman the bottom line is what this"
this bill would 'have been used i n those' make sense, i t is not cost-effective, and would do. The bottom line is what this '
instances arid i t would have resulted iri i f i t does not protect women, infants would do is i t . would assure that we
would have even weaker laws than we
and children, we will check that.
regulation. ' V ' . .
Mr." BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairmaii," w i l l
Mr. WAi.KER. The gentleman is spe- do right now.. The fact is because of .
cifically wrorifr. The gentleman is abso- what the gentleman Is going to' do here
the gentleman yield?..
he would wipe but the ability that peoMr.. WALKER. I yield to^ the gen- lutely and specifically wrong. There ple now have.to take action. And so, he
are' no challenges all the way along the
tleman from New York. .
.
is invalidating law. What he is SEtyirig
Mr.[ BOEHLERT. I would point but way. Under. our amendment i t is in- is with regard to this particular com-".,
volved, with the final agency rule. This
tiiat with lead particularly——",
pliance law, we simply will not allow,
, The CHAIRMAN. The time of the. f i n a i agency rule is what we t r y to dd. the public in, that the agencies can '
gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. • : The. gentleman whips out even the have all of the lawyers that they want
ability tb even'review the final agency
WALKER] has expired.
v- '•;>.'
.
rule. The. gentleman from Indiana is on their side biit the public cannot
( A t j t h e request of Mr. BOEHLERT and
Shaking his head. Read . your amend- have any lawyers on their side; the
by unanimous, consent, M r . WALKER
ment,'read your ainendirient. I t says in' people cannot bring actions agailrist the;
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional the legislation, failure to comply with Govemment, but the Government can
minutes.)>-.,*,-';., >
this ACt "iriay not be. used as grounds continue to bring action against the
Mr.| WALKER. I continue t o yield to' for affecting br invalidaiting such agen- people. That is what the amendment is
tlte gentleman from New York; M
• cy action." That Is the final rules the all about.
Mr.j BOEHLERT. I would suggest that gentleman is talking about. You cari- .••Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairmari, will the
.
tiie substantial evidence test would not not invalidate i t even i f the agency has gentleman yield? have toeen passed arid that is why we absolutely disobeyed the rule. The gen- . Mr. WALKER. I yield to the. gen^
would have had the problem today with tleriian is knocking out the ability t o tleman from.Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman,.! think i t
do this thing; so ybu have totally oblitlead in gasoline, for example.'v ,.:
is important to point out, as the chairThe, substantial ^ evidence * did not erated the ability for judicial review.
Do not tell us that you have not done man has pointed out, that the reguccanef until after we had the test to
latory action we were talking about in
prove the point:"
'"•...'•
/ •; it; i t is specific to your language.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will this bill occurs only when the final rule
Mr.| WALKER. Substantial complihas been promulgated and the rule is
aitce is i n the iegislation we have be- the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to ; already under review. I-read'from the
fore lis. '
'
'•'• '-.•' :. ;' •
judicial review portion of this statute.
.Mr. | BOEHLERT. The substantial evi- the geritleman from Kew York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr Chairman, we I t says, "The court with jurisdiction to
dence test is! yes, but thie substantial"
review the "final" agency action under
evidence test was not. applicable 25 are .talking about the. final, rule oh the the statute granting the agency au-'
risk assessmerit; not thte . regulation;
yrars'ago arid had this legislation tha? which is what we want to. challenge, thority to act." That is the authority
yon are proposing right now been appli-. the final regulation If i t does not pass to. issue the rule, "shall have, jurisdicca.ble 125 years ago, we would riot have the common-sense test; •
tion to review, at the' same time, the
h i d that standard.
. .','.: ;.:• .
/ f . • Mr. - WALKER.;. But the gentleman agency's compliance with the requireMr. j WALKER. We have substantial should read his own ainendment. ments of this Act."
cocnpliance i n the bill that Is before
The CHAIRMAN. The; time of the : The CHAIRMAN. The. time of the
you. That is exactly my point..
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr..
Cnder the bill that, is before us, y/e WALKER] has again expired.
WALKER] has again expired.
hs.ve [substantial compliance i n here!(At the request of Mr. BOEHLERT and
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman. I ask
•wliich is exactly what the gentleman is by unanimous consent, Mr. WALKER unanimous consent the gentleman
suggesting... .
^ .
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional from Pennsylvania be allowed to proMr. j BOEHLERT: But what I point minutes.)'.: .• '
•
ceed for 2 additional minutes..
out'to'the gentleman is this. That we . ..Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman; let me' . The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
are after the final rule. I f the final rule read to the geritleman his own bill.. His to the request of the gentleman from
doe* hot pass the commonsense test;- own.amendment says, " I f an agency ac- Idaho?
Mr. BROWN of California/Mr. Chairtheme [is a way to do with i t under the? t i o n is subject to judicial or adminis'
'
Administrative Procedures •Act'.v-- •v*:*? trative review urider any other provi- man, I object. •
:
:
:
;
:
:
;
;
:
;
;
1
,
L ^.-.^.-^.^vs:; ,--£vS."":?*.
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
H233^
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chair- the facts as we proceed with what has
Jjy the gentlfeman from California.
man, I move to. strike the requisite otherwise been what I consider to be a
Mr. BROWN of California. I have number of words. •
. very helpful debate.
The material referred.to follows:.
been sorely) tempted by the inaccuraMr. Chairman, I am reminded o r a n
.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
cies that have been forthcoming:. But I old legal adage which goes something
• -PROTECTION AGENCY.
withdraw my objection for the. time like this: I f the facts are on your side,
you pound on the facts; i f the law is on
Washington, DC. February 28. 1995.
being.
\
Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL,
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection your side, you pound on the law; i f nei- Hon. GEORGE E. BROWN JR.,
to the requ'est of the gentleman from. ther are on your side, you pound on the House of Representatives,
table. And I sense an -awful lot of
Idaho?
[
.Washington. DC.
pounding, on the table going on here.
There was no objection.
• DEAR CONGRESSMEN-DINGELL AND BROWN: I
I agree with the gentleman from New am concerned that during the course of the
The CHAIRMAN, t h e gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 2 York [Mr. BOEHLERT]. that the gen- Floor debate oh H.R. .1022, The Risk Assesstleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALK- ment- and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995. there
additional minutes.
have beeii mischaracterizations of policies
ER]
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, i f the and is extremely glib i n his exposition and actions taken by the Environmental
he is also extremely emphatic and
gentleman will continue to yield, the. does a lot of pounding on the table, f j-v- Protection Agency. I am writing in an effort
legislation.[we are debating goes fur- **• I would like to call all of my col- to ensure that the debate before Congress is
ther to saj^ that . "When a significant leagues' attention to an article i n the based on full facts. I will address several of
risk assessment document or charac- Post this morning whidh describes i n the issues that have been used In this debate.
terization document subject to title I great detail some of the aspects of this - First. I would like to point out that I have
is part of the administrative record in legislation,, and the point that it:par- already changed the way EPA does business.
EPA has instituted major reforms in its rule. a final agency action, i n addition to ticularly makes is that a great deal of making processes and programs. Since comany other matters that the court may the risk assessment, risk characteriza- ing to EPA. I have worked diligently to inconsider in deciding whether the agen- tion, cost-benefit analysis is very tenu- still common sense into the Agency's efforts
cy's action was lawful, the court shall ous in its scientific basis. I t is. difficult to protect public health and the environconsider the agency action unlawful i f and i n some cases impossible to char- ment, by moving beyond one-size-fits-all regsuch sitrnificant risk assessment docu- acterize risk, to assess risk or to make ulatory approaches. This commitment has
ment or significant risk characteriza- cost-benefit analyses that come any- been translated to concrete action by our
tion document does not substantially . where close to the. mark. You can be a Common Sense-Initiative. I t addresses comprehensively a new. more cost effective
comply with the requirements of this thousand percent off. and one reason framework for six leading Industrial sectors.
section." | •
that you do not want a l l of these proc- A further demonstration of this change is
our Brownfields effort to turn contaminated'
The point is when agencies promul- esses, assessment characterization and urban areas into productive redevelopment
gate a rule i t does so under statutory cost-benefit analysis subjected to judi- sites; The very practical approach that we've
authority. [When i t has finalized its cial review is exactly that. You can tie taken in resolving implementation issues in
statutory authority and has promul- up the process/for ages on something the Clean Air Act also demonstrates the new
ted a rule, then and only then does that there is no answer tb. And i t EPA. These administrative solutions we
is allow ' the requirements of this . would be extremely undesirable to have have developed in partnerships with State
that happen.
and local governments for Implementing the
. atatute to be brought i n under adminisI t is the intention of this amendment Clean Air Act show our success.
trative review. I t . does not allow a
I am cpmiriitted
piece-by-piece administrative review to preclude that kind of an "effect from sus—driven by firmto flexibility and consenpublic health protection
and does not increase litigations by happening. I t is perfectly okay to re- goals, but flexible means for achieving them.
one case oyer what is already the situa- view the. adequacy of these various EPA has made major Improvements to Its
processes at the time of the final rule, science program through directing ita retion in current law.
' Mr. WALKER. The • gentleman is ab- but I call to Members' attention the search program toward risk reduction and
fact, that the agency itself has the new policies to assure peer review of science
solutely correct.
right to waive many of these things used in decision, making. And the Clinton
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will when i t finds that there is no way of Administration has made it clear we would
the gentleman from Pennsylvania achieving i t .
. ' ' ' . • support risk assessment legislation that is
yield?I
fair, effective and. affordable.
For the court to be able to. review the
Mr. WALKER. I am happy tb yield tb
Unfortunately the
H.R.
adequacy of something that could be have not only failed proponents of these 1022
to recognize
imthe gentleman from New York.
and may have already been waived be,Mr. jiOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let cause there is no way to achieve i t is provements, but ih floor debate have put
forth as the rationale for H.R. 1022 a series of
me stress, I want to add this for about just a ridiculous waste of time. "
examples that purport to represent EPA's
the 16th time, the rule, is reviewable,
I do not want to belabor this!':! think decision making processes as severely
but the risik assessment process is not. there has been adequate attention to flawed. In fact, these tales are-fraught with
that is what we want to have accom-. i t . But I . am disturbed at the frequent misinformation and sometime Involve deciplished as a result of what we are doing , repetition of nonfacts as horror stories. sions made over a decade ago—many are flatly
wrong.
Among
the
numerous
today. .' !'
' '.
I had hand delivered to me on the misstatements these proponents have made
Mr. WALKER. But the gentleman is floor a few minutes ago. a letter from are:
not tracking his own language, in that. the Administrator of the EPA which
It was stated that EPA set a drinking
We want i n fact the rule and that is states her concern over some of the water standard at 2-3 parts per billion (ppb>
what we want to do. But the agency misstatements made yesterday. I am of arsenic in drinking water, while shrimp
cannot, the. agency is not allowed not going to read I t . I will include the has a level of 30 ppb.
under our (procedure to totally violate letter and the examples i n the RECORD.
This is not the standard that EPA set. EPA
standard
water,
all of the .procedures; Under what the
In addition to that, I . have another setSa ppb. And for arsenic in drinking is not
the arsenic in shrimp
gentleman) is suggesting they are al- half a dozen which I have personally in- of O
lowed io violate all of their procedures vestigsi'ft':J, and I attempted yesterday scientifically comparable to that in drinking
and, oh, by the way, then you can have to respond to.some of the more obvious water. The arsenic in drinking witj:- is
toxic—the type in shrimp is not.
a review.
ones on the floor, but was unable to
A "Dear Colleague" letter stated that
That is not possible. That makes no cover them. I have another half dozen, someone would need to drink 38 bathtubs of
^Mnse, and! 1.would suggest to the gen- and I w i l l place those i n the RECORD water to experience a risk fTom.atraiihe in
^ B m a n that that Is exactly where his after the Administrator's letter outlin- drinking water.
This is Inaccurate. Even at the standard
ing the ones that she was concerned
^ R e n d m e n t takes us.
set by the EPA, drinking Just two liters of
So, I would simply point out that about.
water per day results in a one in 100.000 canunder the Administrative Procedures
I urge upon a l l of my colleagues not cer risk, which is equivalent to a projected
Act this is something which would be to pound on the table quite so much, 2600 additional cancers. Not only are people
backtracked on.
and to be a l i t t l e b i t more assured of exposed to atrazine through drinking water.
r
�CONGRESSIONAL RECORD^HOUSE
H2334
February 28, 1995
As the science improved, EPA's approach approach..The rule now regulates no one bebut through ingestion of pesticide residues
cause i t has not yet been finalized. How can
'
• as 1 well, thereby potentially • increasing the evolved: •
risks of exposure. In addition, two other pes- •• In .1990, based on EPA's studies, EPA re- any one say its shutting anyone down? In ad-,
ticides found, on food and in drinking water leased- new guidance ("purple book") which di'tion. EPA is listening to the industry and
may cause risks'to farmworkers and consum- recommended management i n , place when- " working to resolve these problems before the
ers via the same mechanism, and their risks- ever, possible and removal only to prevent ex- final rule comes out. I think that's a healthy
posure in building renovation'and remodel- sign of the way rules should be developed: As
should be considered collectively. .> '.
'' I t was said on the floor that EPA requires ing (the NESHAP regulation).' . _
the President said last week: Consultation—
the City of Anchorage, because its -.' In 1992 EPA completed, a study of the as- not confrontation, as the increased, judicial
wastewater is already so clean, to add fish bestos-in-schools bill (AHERA). The vast ma- review in this bill will cause.
wastes so that its sewerage can achieve suffi- jority c* asbestos actions (85%) involved
Just as the comment period envisior,\ the
cient reductions to meet Clean Water Act re- management in place, not removal.
Agency has since, for well over a year,, purquirements.
--'
sued an extensive and exhaustive process of
This is incorrect: EPA has. never required ' RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION FROM CONGRESSconsultation with a i r affected stakeholders,
• . , MAN BILIRAKIS ON M S W L F BENEFITS
Anchorage to do this. Anchorage already lias
.1 would like tb respond to Congressman including Industry and eri^ironmeritalists to
a lower reduction requirement because, i t has
respond to substantial evidence, presented to
been granted a waiver from the stricter re- Blli'rakis's allegation that the recent revised i t of the need to chang-e the proposed rule.
criteria for Municipal Solid Waste.Landfills
duction limits. Anchorage now successfully
The pulp and paper industry. Including the
meets this standard with existing equipment cost $19.1 trillion per life saved. This is ah
and would be required tb add extra capacity unsound manipulation of EPA's analysis." industry's trade' association and individual
only i f it-faces an increase in population, as presents an. exaggerated and one sided view paper companies, have been active and
would any citjf:-Anchorage chose^ to accept of the benefits of the regulation, and is a much-listened-to participants in these revi-'.
fish waste at the request of fish processors - gobd example of precisely why the use of net sions.
The proposed- pulp and paper Cluster Rule
because i t is a more, cost effective way to" benefits In this way is be misleading..
manage these wastes. •
. iFlrst,' the cost per cancer case avoided was is being specifically revised in response' and
It was alleged that EPA regulates "white inflated by using economic maneuvering to in recognition of the many concerns, comoiit" correction fluid and caused extensive "minimize lives saved.in the future by dis- ments and factual data brought to the Agenrecord-keeping problems for a small business counting. I f you refer to EPA's. analysis, cy by numerous participants in this' con^
.
you'll see that for one set of landfills (which sultation process.
in'Callforniaasaresult. '
[This' is wrong. EPA has never regulated would provide disposal to our nation for'30 - This process'of proposal, public cnmment •
• white oiit" The State of California did re- years), EPA estimated that 2 cancer cases and revision in response to important data
qaire-warning labels on products that con- would be avoided at a present value cost of brought to regulatory agencies by the out-'
side participants is exactly the way the regutain certain chemicals, through a Propo- $5.7 trillion. sition: • • .
' ':- • *
Second, ahd more importantly, Bilirakas's latory process is supposed to work. To cite a
. '.(Despite these inaccuracies, I am hopeful estimate completely disregards other bene- proposal that is likely to be dramatically
that the House debate on risk can focus oh fits associated with the rule. EPA identified different from the final product of this procour common'goals. We are working to be , a very important other benefit from the Mu-. ess; as i f that proposal was actually being
strong proponents of quality science and nicipai: Landfill regulation: that of avoided imposed on .that regulated community as the
" prioritizing government.' resources toward permanent contamination of one of our na- - final product, is a grossly misleading characthe most significant public health and ehyi- tion's precious natural resources, . i.e.. terization.
' ronmental problems. Our concern is that this groundwater^ Even with EPA's conservative
legislation, ih its current form, will under, "cost estimates, which did not Include remeRESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN BILIRAKIS'
mine these laudatory goals by elevating siihr diation of contaminated groundwater, but
ALLEGATION CONCERNING ALAR AND APPLES
piistic slogans to unworkable public'policy— simply importing water from another source.
In debate on the House floor. Congressman
ajpolicy that w i l l instead freeze science, lead EPA estimated that without the regulation.
to- tremendous regulatory gridlock, impul- US taxpayers would spend a present value.of Bilirakis stated that Alar was never shown
sively sweep away'cafefully thought-through $270 milllbh to Import water to. replace to be carcinogenic In either mice or ruts', and
health and environmental frameworks/ and' groundwater which had been contaminated that only UDMH, a breakdown product had
ever been shown to cause cancer. Furtherempower the courts to resolve, fundamental . by one set of landfills.
more, he stated that one would have to drink •
public'policy issues. '"'". '•'"
"' ' " • ' ! 1 ' ' / ' . . - : . • : - • • : , . . L. -... _. 19.000 quarts of apple juice daily to be at .
I appreciate your efforts to focus/discus
• RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN LONGLEV ON
risk.
".
. .
sions on H.R. 1022 on the significant" issues/ '-" MAINE INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
this proposal presents..... V > . . .
Rep. Longley asserted that EPA imposed a
This is mistaken:
- ff sincerely...- .-:.
.• • .
\ requirement for motor vehicle inspection, UDMH, a potent carcinogen, is forrned
'' ' .
-;
CAROL M. BROWNER;
and maintenance (I/M) program for Maine from "Alar both in the fruit (apples), and
•T
-'•• '•-:.rs;.
Administrator. '• without conducting the required scientific when Alar Is ingested by people. I t is formed
studies.and in violation of the law. '
in the ,body, and is carried by the blood
RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN WALKER ON
.
EPA-in .fact, violated no laws relating to stream throughout the body, where i t can .
- ...'"^ •' -';' ' ASBESTOS-.."••
'7..//.
the imposition of the.I/M program in Maine. wreak its toxic effects.
. ; Congressman Walker alleged that children Maine is a part of the Northeast Ozone
I t is only sensible that such highly toxic
have a 1. in 2 aitd one half million lifetime Tfansport Region established by Sec. 184 of
cancer risk from-asbestos. He further alleged the Clean . Air Act. Congress determined in breakdown products should.be considered .
that EPA required removal pf asbestos from Sec. 184 that ozone ih the U.S. northeast is a' • when' assessing whether or not a chemical
schools and that i t would have made more reglonSl, not,a local, problem, and that cer- can cause cancer in humans. Doing this is
commpn sense to allow management in tain measures shquld be adopted throughout well established scientifically, and is recognized as valid by toxlcologists. as well as by
place.' ' •" -.- ;
that region regardless of the particular local scientists from many other disciplines.
• • The Congressman' is misinformed: EPA did, •air.quality conditions. ... ^
r.
In the case of Alar and UDMH. i t is not
take a risk based approaich to-.the.problem p'f., '•}'; "In^partlcular, the Congress mandated that
asbestos in schools: ' i f, r l > ' : , ' i ! , . . each metropolitan area 'with a population necessary to ingest 19.000 quarts of apple
|i Lets look at the history of this rule. EPA's greater,than 100,000 adopt and implement an juice to increase the risk of cancer, a much
approach to asbestos In schools' has evolved, enhanced I/M program. As- with all other smaller amount was calculated to be risky.
with the science: •
-. •-<.-; areas In the region, EPA required Maine to This is particularly important, because i t is
• / As early as 1982 EPA," required removal of. adopt Enhanced I/M for its larger metropoli- young children who often drink large quan-.
titles of apple juice, and whose young, growfriable asbestos,, or asbestos that is crum-- tan areas. - ing bodies, may be particularly sensitive.
bling and therefore. releasing fibers thatClearly, we do not want ourselves or our
cduld be breathed into children's lung where RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN SOLOMON'S A L L E they could cause cancer. The Agency offered ' CATION THAT E P A WILL SHUT DOWN THE children to be exposed to doses of a chemical
that have been shown to be overtly toxic and
other approaches like encapsulation for in- •'•'•PULP AND PAPER LNDUSTRY
In debate on the House floor Congressman capable of causing cancer. As a result, we use
tact asbestos.
I In 1985 EPA provided updated guidance Solomon alleged that EPA's rule to reduce scientifically accepted principles to extrapoPaper In- late to levels at which risk assessments indi(the "purple book") which placed more em- dioxin emissions.from the PulP
phasis on "management in place," but also dustry will shut down the Industry because cate that the risk is less.
Finally, i t should be pointed out that the
of the'high.cost of complying with the rule.
recommended removals
.'" '. -.
economic impact of- the Alar crisis was
This Is.untrue:
|. From. 1987-1990 EPA conducted new studies'EPA proposed this rule in 1992. After re- caused not by an EPA regulation or decision,
based on a new method (electron microsposy)
for monitoring asbestos before^Vdurihg,; and- viewing the extensive public comments, the but rather, by a public interest group pubafter removal.-..-„(;>' •it-.v. :: ;.W.-te?.«»'•• .EPA Is now extensively revising its original lishing Its concerns about these exposures.
:
:
1
:
:
a n < 1
,!
H •
�Febmary 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HOUSE
H2335
RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION FROM CONGRESSMAN BILIRAKIS ON BENEFITS OF WOOD PRE-
ment. The gentleman from Pennsylva- are, being basically ordered around,
nia [Mr. WALKER] just cited John .Gra- that they are being driven out of busi-SERVINGJ
'
'
• ham, the director of the Center for
ness, that they are being, damaged byI would like co respond co Congressman Risk Analysis at Harvai'd School of.
Bilirakis's allegation thac the-wood preserv- Public Health, and I think he is a good the mandates of people who have never
been elected.
ing hnzardous waste listing resulted in a cost,
of $7 trillion per life saved. The 7 trillion dol- referee. He just cited him saying good .. I f a citizen believes that he or she is
lar per statistical life assdciaced wich che things about this legislation. Here is being hurt or suffering damage because
wood preserving listing is-a perfect example what Dr. Graham said in the Post this an unelected official, someone i n an
the distoijcion and misinformacion chat cost morning: " I ' m not too crazy about this agency, has pot followed the new rule
benefit analysis can impose, on the regu- idea of opening up all regulations to j u - that we are setting down which says
.acory development process, EPA's escimates dicial challenge."
they should be basing their decisions
of chi; cose effecciveness were, nowhere near
Now, that is somebody that the gen- on good iscience, there should be. peer
chis amdunt--remember chere are many
ways co 'calculace cost/benefit ratios and tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr: WALK- review of the decisions, we should
there is no clear consensus on the proper ER] cited. That is precisely what we are make sure that there.,is'a risk assesstrying to do with this amendirient, is\ ment and that-there, is a cost-benefit
method, f
What is of greatest concern is that the 7 not open up all of these things to judi- analysis. I f an agency is not following
crillion number ignore noncancer health ben- cial review, have one bite of the apple
efits which could include avoidance of liver at the end of the process, just , ais the those rules, "and one bf our citizens
disease or birth defects. The 7 trillion also Administrative . Procedures Act -does . feels that the decision^ that they have
ignore adverse water, quality impaccs op right now. And I think- the distin- made is hurting them, "we are just sayecpsyscems .such as weclands. rivers, and guished ranking member for yielding.
ing they should have redress.
lakes chalt the agency determined would be
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman,
severely impacted if wood preserving wastes
'"* .-l' - ' • 1330' '
'
I move to strike the requisite, number,
continued co be unconcrolled.
' • t h i s is the way citizens have proWhat is also of interesc is chac che Agency of words.
. in dO'.'eloping-.this rule was particularly conMr. WALKER. Mr. Chairmari,''.will tected their, rights throughout our
country's history. I f the Government is
cerned about small business impacts; worked the gentleman yield?
with the SBA: did extensive analysis of che
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to my not following the law, whether i t is the.
" industry: and between proposal. and final colleague from Pennsylvania."
bureaucracy or elected officials, our
worked closely with che .wood preserving-inMr. WALKER. Mr..Chairman, I-thirik citizens have felt they could go to the
duscry arid ochers to carefully tailor the regulation to achieve a sound environmental that i t is interesting to note that.if we courts to.seek a solution to-their proboutcome (with minimal economic impact. In read Dr. Graham's statement,. he says lems tb prevent themselves from being
fact, most telling bf EPAs work in this- re- he is not too crazy about the idea of hurt and being damaged by an agency
gard was) chis rule scands as one of the few opening up all regulations to. judicial that is not following the rules as set
rules promulgated under RCRA that the challenge. The fact is we are not open- down by the Congress. This makes all
agenoy was not sued on! Cost benefit out-' Ing all of i t up to judicial challenge. I „the sense i n the world. .
comes are' clearly no measure, of and in fact think what he is probably referring to
'Gutting this from the Republican
often. misstate regulatory quality, environ- is all of the past regulations and so on:
proposal is a. way to basically restore
mental outl.ome, or economic impact. We are riot doing. that, this bill does the power to the bureaucracy to do
not do that at all.
- ' • . . . . ' : ' whatever they damn well want to do
RESPONSE TO REP. SALMON S COMMENTS 'ON
Second, I t seems somewhat interest- because they have got the. best motives
ARIZONA'S AUTOMOBILE LNSPECTION/MAINTEing to me, that we now have the argu- and the best intentions.. Well, best of
NANCE PROGRAM
ment that i f we have no knowledge . intentions do not cut i t . The American
Ch'.im 1: States" have no discretion in implementation of the "L-'M 240" auto inspec- about things we ought to go ahead and people know what the best intentions
regulate, but because we have, no of the bureaucracy are all about. The
cion/malncenance program.
Response: This-is not true. States have a knowledge we ought not be. able to do best of intentions of the bureaucracy
great deal of flexibility and discretion in, the risk analysis and do the cost-benefit are to say we have got to r i p the asbesdesign of .auto inspection/maintenance pro- analysis; that the lack of knowledge tos out of the walls of our schools to
•granis.
.
........
should increase oiir ability to regulate, protect our children, and find out that
Arizona was not required to adopt the but should not increase our ability to tens of billions of dollars have been
high-end|lL'M 240 program but chose to do so. review.
wasted that should have gone to the
Arizona chose LM 240 because .ihe State
That strikes me as exactly the oppo- education of our children instead of
found the program extremely cqst effective'
and preferable to putting tighter .'controls on site bf what the public has been saying having gone and been spent by public
now for some time. They would like us officials with the best of intentions, difactories', and other stationary sources.
I'M 240 controls pollution at J500/ton. to regulate on the basis of knowledge. recting our people to do exactly the opwhere controls on ocher sources cost $2000- And to have the argument, on. the .floor posite thing they should be doing.
10.000/con.
that the lack of knowledge means that '' We expect a procedure to be followed.
. Claim 2: People had co wait in line 4-5- the regulations should go forward is to We expect there to be cost benefit,
times'as[long:
.
me the inverse of what we ought to be
Response: This problem has gone away. endorsing i n the U.S. Congress. . • :• • - • risk-benefit, analysis. We expect there to be peer review. That is what is in
.Waiting lines were a problem'only during the
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the: legislation, arid we expect that i f
first week of the program in December.
we should/not lose sight of what this is" the unelected official, the bureaucracy,
There are no long lines now.
CliimjS: Program increased costs 4-times. . all about. What has happened is that is not following the law as we are setResponse: The old Arizona program cost the American people over the last 10 ting: it. down, the citizens of this coun- consumers $6 per .year. The new program' years, and over the last 20 years, have try will have a right to appeal' that
seen that enormous power has been through the judicial process. That is
costs $24 every 2 years, or $12 per year.
.: Bottom line: The new program is more ef- granted to unelected officials in.Wash- what this debate is a l l about. •
fective, more convenient,.less frequent, only. ington, DC. What we have seen is that
$6.niore per. year, and clearly preferable to Washington. DC, has absorbed and cen- . Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will
putting more expensive controls on other- tralized enormous powers and I t is not the. gentleman yield?
Mr/ ROHRABACHER. T yield to the
sources. . • • ' , , '
• ' •-'-•
in the hands of elected officials, but i n . -r
stead in. the hands of the.bureav.cracy,, gentleman-from New Yor^
• Mr. ROEMER'. Mr. Chairman,, will thein the hands of people who never, put ' Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman.' I "
gentleman yield?'
.
' .v want to say to the gentleman ybu have
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to themselves before the electorate.
stated; I . think very well, some of the'
the geritleman from Indiana
This is an attempt to try: to readdress •' same objectives that-1 share. Certainly
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would or to redress that issue; to bring some I want peer review.
. -',. ; .
like to'say we are all arguing back,and balance back to Washington, DC, , t o the . The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
forth-' jas legislators/- and attorneys . democraticprocess,, .to . respect the:'. gentleman- ; from California [Mr.
about our interpretation of this amend- - rights of pur people who feel that, thiey v ROHRABACHER] has expired.
'••• -. :
:
1
:
:
:
:
�H2336
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
February 28, 1995
Mr. GILCHREST. This is an extraor- ROHRABACHER was allowed to proceed
(AtTthe request of Mr. BOEHLERT and
by J
unanimous
consent.
Mr. dinary period of time where a l l of us for 2 additional minutes.)
ROHRABACHER was allowed to proceed are almost to the point of agreeing
Mr. BOEHLERT. I f the gentleman
for'2 additional minutes.) .
- that regulations have been too onerous will yield further. I have great regard
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Cliainnan, if in the past.
for the gentleman. We serve on the
the grentleman will yield further. I
But the gentleman made a comment - committee together. We oftentimes
want peer review. I am not sure I would about people i n California that were agree. But i t concerns me when we •
want O.J. sitting on his own jury, for not able to get the brush away from have stories, apocryphal stories, that
example, so we have some
questions their homes because of a rat that was are told: You know. I think President
about thatl There are a number of placed under the Endangered species Reagan, and I love him dearly, is s t i l l .
questions we have, .but in the final Act, and I have heard that argument searching the country for that welfare
analysis, we want what you want. . /.
before on. the floor. I t simply is not queen who was driving around i n a CadBut i am concerned. I am thinking of true. The Fish and Wildlife and the illac living high on the hog.
offering an amendment requiring a State game people worked with the
Mr. ROHRABACHER. She was actucost-benefit analysis on the entire bill, people i n the area that happened to be ... ally living i n the. bureaucracy.
because I do not think anyone has: the, the most .flammatory, most fire-prone
Mr. . BOEHLERT. The story told is
first clue on how much this is going to area on the face of the Earth. They allowed them to clear the brush up to a 'simply not so.
cost i n terms of litigation.,.;.
The General Accounting Office conI am wondering i f there is anyone^ point even sometimes 1.000 feet away cluded.
from the house. The point is during
the gentleman: or anyone advocating
The loss of homes during the California
passage of this legislation as is, i f any- that fire, a year or so ago. flaming cinfire was not related,
prohione has an idea how much is this going ders were flying at 80 miles an hour bition of disking in not related to theby the
areas inhabited
to [ cost American. industry, American more that a mile away, so the argu- Stephens kangaroo rat.
families, i n terms o f dollars and cents. ment you had to • protect the endangered species' i n lieu of their houses
I can go on at great length, and i t is
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my burning down simply is not true.
more than we would care to hear about
time to answer"; we know how many
hundreds of billions of dollars are being
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, i f I could on that story.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman
wasted right now. We do know i n Cali- just answer that by saying i n the parfornia, because of. unreasonable regular ticular case you are talking about, is talking about one fire at ons time.
tion by unelected officials, hundreds of that may or may not have been the We i n California know there are lots of
hopes were burned down because, why,; case. You may be accurate i n that fires, and many of them have been at, tributed because people cannot clear
they were not permitted to clear the. sense:
.. '
brush away from their, homes "because'
We have had lots of brushfires i n the brush.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I understand: I t is
i t might hurt the habitat of a few l i t t l e California, and we are very aware of
birdies, and those birdies, by the way, the nonsense that comes down from very clever to sort of give a story.. Evflew away, and their homes were regulators i n the hiame of protecting erybody thinks we are just heartless i f
burned as well. We think that that endangered species, maybe not i n that you are for • the Roemer-Boehlert
type of regulation, we need a cost-bene- particular case, but I w i l l tell you amendment, that you are against
fit" analysis of that regulation, and i f i there are numerous cases i n the La- women, infants, and children and evindeed, that cost-benefit analysis Is not guna Beach fire, and I am riot sure i f erything. under the Sun. I t simply is
given by the agency, that the homer that is the one you are referring to or not so. We are for the American people.
owner who might lose his home has a not, the people who have had their What we are trying, to prevept is endright to appeal this to the courts, and homes burned down believed that a less litigation.
the fact is, by the way, i n terms of nonsensical rulemaking process by
We want. the. ability to challenge
O.J., we do expect every citizen i n this unelected .officials caused them to lose rules that do not pass the • commoncountry to be judged by his peers, and their hprheis. We think there should be sense test. But we do not want to chalthat includes maybe having people who a judicial application of that.
lenge the process. Some bureaucrat
are O.J. Simpsons or whoever i t is,
Mr. GILCHREST. That is the area screws up on a bad day and go i n and
peiers, to be able to be part of the deci- where they could clear the brush. That challenge the whole rule simply besionmaking -process. That is what de- is what I was referring to.
cause something' happens during the
mocracy is. That is what our GovernMr. ROHRABACHER. In fact, in La- risk-assessirient process, that we do not
ment has been a l l about: ~
'
guna Beach, we feel, the way I read i t , find acceptable, and that is what we
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, w i l l is they could not.
are saying. .
the gentleman yield?
r.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, w i l l
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield t o the the gentleman yield?
the gentleman yield?
gentleman f r o m Pennsylvania;;'
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California.
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
specter of the cost of this is often
Mr. BILBRAY* There has been a
Mr.. WALKER. There is nothing in
raised by people who simply , do not major problem i n trying to clear and the legislation as i t is that says i f some
want to do i t . The fact is there i s j u s t . grub around residential areas. Now, the bureaucrat has a bad day that i t is
as good a chance , that we w i l l , i n fact;' incidence of wind, homes were lost. going to foul up the whole process, beend up saving money, because we w i l l That may be debatable. But the fact is cause again, i f you read, unless there is
i a t e higher-quality iegislation based there has been obstructionism to. the substantial compliance and so on, that
mpon good science and based upon a protection of homes through the the requirei:;ents of section 104-105, I t
cost-benefit analysis before we do i t . firebreaks, and the coastal sage shrub, just does not apply.
So you get higher quality regulation, because i t has been identified as an enMr. ROHRABACHER. The bureaucr
and i t costs you a l i t t l e b i t less, i t dangered species habitat, is a major racy, basically there is a feeling put in
costs you less money.
problem.
America,- that the bureaucracy people,
iThe CHAIRMAN. The time of the . Mr.- ROHRABACHER. I f people are whom they do not elect are making de«rentleman
froni . California . [ M r . going t o lose their homes, they should cisions that i n the end may impact on
be able to go to court to challenge whether they will be able to feed their
BOHRABACHRR] has again expired.
'(By
unanimous - consent, , Mr. those people making those decisions. families, whether they can live i n their
BOHRABACHKB was allowed to proceed-That is what this debate is about.
home safely or not, and i f we determine
ffor 2additional minutes.) .. . . - •;*?•*..> The CHAIRMAN. The time of the today, and that is what we are talking
(Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, w i l l gentleman from • California [Mr. 'about, today, that they should be able
ttbe gentleman yield^-tV-**:.-;--!^::^.-.-^^'." ROHRABACHER] has again expired. .
to appeal to a court i f those unelected
^ [Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield t o m y ' (At the request of Mr. BOEHLKRT and officials are not doing their job as Is
friend, the gentleman from Maryland..-;: by; ., unanimous . consent.
Mr. laid out by elected officials.
:
�CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOIJSE
February 28, '1995*
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the ainendment offered by the grentleman from Indiana-[Mr. ROEMER].
I'he ( question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes appeared' to have i t .
:
RECORDED VOTE
,
Mr. iROEMER. Mr.' Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The [vote'was taken by electronic device, and there were-^-ayes 192, noes 231,
not voting 11, as follows:
fkoll No! 177]
AYES—192
Abircrombie
Ac'icrman
Baldacci
'
Ba.-cla I
.Barrett (WI) '
Becerra,
Beilenson
Bentsen
'. '
Bereuter
Bemian'i
BUtiop
Blut*
Bcichlert
Br.'nior 1
BursklJ- •
Biiucher
Bi own (CA)
' Brown (FL)
' Brown (OH)
B].-yant|HTX)
'Cunlinl
C;istle I
.Clay. , •
. Clayton
Clement
Clyburn I '
Coleman
Collins I I D
Collins (Ml)
Conyers
''
Costello
Coyne
Danner
Davis |
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
DicKsi
.
mnijell
Dixon' .
;
DoKKCtt
Doylei .
Ourbln .
:•:^|rel
Eshoo
Evans
Fair |
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner • • .
.Flake .
'Foftlictta
Fordf
"
. Frank (MA)
• • Frost
• Furse
Geldcnson •
Ocplianlt
Gibbons
Gilchrest •
Gilnian,
Gordon.
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
<
Hastings ( F L j
Hayes
. Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
•Holden
.
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
' Johnson (CT)
• Johnson(SD)
Johnson. E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RD• Kennelly ••'
Klldee
Kleczka . .
Kllnk
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Lulher
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty .
Meehan
Meek .
Menendez .
Mfume
Mineta
-Minge • -•
- Mink
• Moakley.
'Mollohan
Moran
Morella-'
••
- Murtha - •
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor "
Payne(NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Petereon (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
. Rivers '
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-AUard
Sabo
, Sanders.
• Sawyer
' Saxton
Schroeder
Schumer.
Scott
Serrano
Shays
.Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
• Stark
- Stokes
' Studds
Stupak
Tanner
•Taylor (MS)
./Thompson
- Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
- Torricelli .
Towns
Traflcant
Tucker
Vento •
Visclosky
Volkmer
• Waters '
Watt ( N O .
Waxman
• Weldon (PA)
'• Williams
Wise
Woolsey :
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES-231
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey •
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker(LA) .
Ballenger
Barr.
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman'
Bevill
. Bllbray
Bilirakis
Bliley .
Boehner'
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder •
Brownback
B r y a n t (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
BunBurton
Buyer.
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
•" Chambliss
: Chapman
Christensen
H2337
^Amendment offered by Mr. SMITH of Michigan: Page Si-after line 18. insert the followiiig
. new section: '. _. . v ' -.' . - '
SEC. 5. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AMONG
FEDERAL AGENCIES
. Covered'Federal agencies shall make existing databases and information developed
under this. Act available to other Federal
agencies, subject to applicable confldentiiaiity requirements, for the purpose of me'etiug
the requirements of .this Act. Within 15
months after, the date of enactment of tils
Act; the President shall issue guidelines for
Federal agencies to comply with this sec' tion.
..O.-v;. '! ; V
- .'..•
• .-Pickett .
•
Hllleary
,
Chrysler
Hobson .
- ' - Pombo .'•'-"Clinger
. Portman Hoekstra
Coble
.'Pryce
Hoke
Coburn
• Quillen,
vHorn
•
Collins (GA")
Quinn* '
. Hostettler
Combest
..Radanovich. '
Houghton .
Condit
' Regula
Hutchinson Cooley
Hyde
Riggs "
Cox
- -; Roberts .
Inglis
Cramer
.'• Rogers
Istook
Crane
Rohrabacher • - .
, Jacobs
Crapo
Ros-Lehtlnen
Johnson. Sam
Cremeans
-, Roth •
Jones
Cubln
. Royce .
. Kasich _ .
Cunningham
. i, Salmon
Kelly
- •
Deal
:
Sanford .
Kim
DeLay
.. •. Scarborough
....
. King
Diaz-Balart
. Schaefer •
• Klngstca
Dickey
•'.:..•'' • 1400
.
.- Schiff
.
Knollenberg
Dooley
Seastrand
Kolbe
• ••
• Mr.. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. ChairDoolittle
s .' Sensenbrenner.'- '; mani the amendment before this body
: LaHood .
Dornan
-ffH Shadegg.... • ^ ' . ; i \ r :i
Dreier
•.. •• .\ Largent '
.ls simply^ an amendment calling on-die
Dunn
•* '•Latham . W ; * 8 h a w . a . V f - ; ; ' :
different agencies that might be workLaTouretto
Shuster ..
Edwards
• • Sisisky '
.
Laughlin
ing on associated risk assessment to
Ehlers Lazlo
'
'..Skeen;
; -.:
Ehrlich
share that informatiori and for the
: Skelton
Lewis (CA)
. Emerson
President to develop the guidelines on
i. Smith (MI) Lewis (KY) .
English
. the basis for which they share that i n . Smith (NJ)
Llghtfoot .
Ensign
Linder
. ^ ".• Smith (TX) ; formation,
•• ' . . - '
-.
Everett
'•' . I would just like to mention that, as
- Livingston
." .^Solomon
Ewing
• -Souder
LoBiondo
Fawell
'
a former Michigan OSHA commis. , Spence
- Longley
Fields (TX)
Stearns - . .*. .-. : sioner, 1 of 9 coirimissioners, I was B-e' Lucas
Flanagan
• Stenholm
- Manzullo
mendousiy frustrated as a member of
Foley
. Stockman'
..
'Martini'
'
Forbes
"that commission on having the direc. ' ,•
-. McCollum • ,. Stump
Fowler
. . .Talent • •, . '. • :• tion to sit around a table and develop
McCrery
Fox
all of the things we could think of to ,
' McDade . •,
. Tate.
.. .'.'• :
Franks (CT)
•Tauzin
McHugh
Frajiks(NJ)
make, the workplace safer.
Mclnnis
•:
Taylor (NC)
Frellnghuysen
Let me just say that risk assessment
•• : • Tejeda " ' . . . - ' .
Mcintosh
Frisa
'..Thomas
McKeon
.
; has been/ supported by both sides of
,• Funderburk ..
"'. ' Thornberry ' .
. Metcalf .
. Oallcgly
• this aisle. Democrats and Republicans,
- Tiahrt
Meyers
Oanske
Mica •
: " /:-Vpu>B ' ' :•••:
- ; f o r several years.: I am delighted i t is
: Gekas
T"-.. Vucanovlch "i.: - , rooming to a culinination. I am offering
Miller (FL)
Oeren .
...Waldholtz: Molinari .
Olllmor '
.
"an amendment to bring the best availGoodlatte '"
.. Montgomery. i
Walker .
able inforination for risk assessments
Moorhead
'.•'.Walsh • '•-.:•-:•
Goodling
cost-benefit analysis to the
Myers
Wamp
" .- . and
Goss' •
.,
Watts (OK) •
Myrick
.decisionmakers. Greenwood
Weldon (FL) •''
Nethercutt
Ounderson
-. A quick look though at the Federal
• Neumann
Weller
"
Gutknecht
Governirient directory reveals that
.
White
Ney
Hamilton
there' are dozeris of Federal offices
: •• Whltfleld
f : •
. Norwood
Hancock .
.••Wicker. •
Nussle
'
Hansen
whose purpose, is to collect statistics,
.. . Wilson
Ortiz
Hastert
and data, and information, and the
-•-. Wolf
Oxley '
Hastings (WA) .
. Members here may (think that Federal
: Young (AK)
Packard
Hayworth
agencies already share information,
. Young (FL)
Parker
Heney
.. Zellff
Paxon
Heineman
but I have found that this is not the
: Zimmer
• Petri
Herger
;
f
:
-
1
;
:
1
i
:
case. Recently negotiations between
. the. U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the EPA were fruitless, and the, in• Smith (WA)
Hunter •
Chenoweth
Velazquez
Lipinski.
dividual Administrators were unwilling
Duncan
' Miller (CA)
-WardOonzalez.
to share that information, and i t ended
Rush
Oraham
up having to go to the Secretaries to
demand the kind of relationship where
' •1357
i r i e agency would share basic database
. The Clerk announced the following .information w i t h another agency, and
pairs:
: .... .
in that particular case i t was on pes. On this vote:
'
ticides, arid we. ended up showing the
. Mr. " Rush for, with Mrs.; Ghenowe'th inforination that USDA had. ended up
against: .". •
•
•..>:.:: •• •"•' - '
showing EPA that the risks were much
Mr. Ward for, Mrs. Smith of Washington lower than they assumed. I t seems to
me this gets to the heart of H.R. 1022's
against. .
-Mr. LEWIS of California changed his objective of common sense regulation.
. Mr. Chairinan. I hope this, body w i l l
vote from "aye", to "no." .. ^
Mr.' SKAGGS changed his vote from support this amendment.
"no" to""aye."
•• • > .: Mr. BRCV.7I of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
So the amendment was rejected. '•
The result of the. vote was announced
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to
as above recorded.
'.
the gentleirian from California.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further . Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairamendments? .
••• ' •;
man, I want to commend the genAMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF
;
tlemari for his excellent amendment. I
MICHIGAN "
" '
can assure him from long experience
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chair- there is a breakdown i n data sharing
man, I'offer an amendment:
; "•
. quite frequently arimongst the agencies.
The Clerk read as follows:'
NOT VOTING—If - .
:
•'-• -'••,' .
-:'.; .•:' :• ;' .• ,:•:
•• '
;
�H2338
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-^HOUSE
I
!
February 28, 1995
This should help correct I t . and on our a bias in favor of obtaining an outcome that own doctor. Dr. Pangloss in fact; Dr.
side we would be glad to see i i i
.
consistent with such interest.
Pangloss will be placed on the panel,
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr, Chair-'- Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is and Dr. Pangloss of course always
man, I thank the gentleman from Cali-- a quite simple amendment, and i t goes wears his rose-colored glasses when he
fornia.
towards the objective of curing what is is looking at regulatory changes that
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, -.will a very glaring error which has been could impact on the nuclear industry.
Well, Dr. Pangloss would, in the words
built in.
the| gentleman yield?
i i r . SMITH of. Michigan. I .yield to . Mr, Chairman, the problem with this of Voltaire, say, "Well, a l l is for the
the'gentleman from Pennsylvania. ' ' 7 legislation is that i t , unbelievably, a^ best i n that this is the best of all posr
Mr. "WALKER. M r . Chairman, the lows for the corporate insiders, th -: lob-' sible worlds. There is nothing wrong
gentleman from Michigan [Mr, SMITH] byists, . the scientists, of companies with our industry, and therefore no
has' identified -what is a very relevant that are, in, fact, with financial inter- new regulations need to be placed upon
problem, has corrected i t , I think;, w i t h est i n the regulation which is being the nuclear industry."
Lhe,:wording of his-amendment, and-we considered, to! be able to sit on the peer
Now, Mr. Chairman, a]l of his fellow
are pleased to accept the amendment review.group which is going to be eval- Dr. Panglosses on the panel, all the
uating that risk, that regulation which other nuclear scientists on the panel,
as well.
- .
.
will agree, of course, - with Dr.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chair- will be put on the books.
. Here is the language from H.R. 1022 Pangloss.
man, I thank the gentleman.
>
that we are considering out here on the
Now should the regulators proceed
I have quite a bit of experience in the need floor today. Here is what i t says. I t
for regulatory reform.
v'
'
says that. peer , review panels, quote, with the adoption of the repatetion
As a former Michigan OSHA commissioner, shall not exclude peer reviewers merely notwithstanding the objection of Dr.
1 cannot begin to explain the frustration I had because they represent entities that Pangloss and all of the other nuclear
beinlg a member of the OSHA who were oon- .may have a potential interest i n the scientists who have been present on
cnually asked to think of additional safety . outcome," provided that interest is fully this panel, notwithstanding their obvious conflict of interest? The nuclear inmeasures. ••
•'
•disclosed to the agency.
dustry lawyers who are hired cah then
life group was asked to develop recWell,-what that means, my col- sue the agency using the Panglossian
ommendations not based, on safety needs—
but Ion a continuous volume of safety regula- leagues, is that the Gucci-clad lobby- dissent as exhibit A in their lawsuits
ists that are surrounding this building saying that the regulation should be
bons.
- •
1 futty support H.R. 1022's efforts to bring right now wondering how. the legisla- invalidated.
Now this conflict of interest is so obrealistic risk and economic information, into tion is going to turn out will have the
. capacity to actually serve on the peer vious and at such odds with the whole
rsguiatory decisions.'
Injaddition, 1 am offering ah amendment to- review panels. So, after they get done history of peer review panels in the his-"
bring the best available inforrrotion for risk as- sitting i n cur committees, listening to tory.of our.country t h a t . i t should be
sessments and cost-benefit analyses to the and lobbying on the legislation itself, removed.
The entire process here has other
decisionmakers. A quick look at the Federal they are. then able to put themselves
Government Directory reveals that, there are on the peer review panel and ulti- problems as well. I t excludes automatiinsert their
dozens of Federal offices whose purpose is to mately and. i f they are views into the cally an industry lobbyist if, .in fact,
record,
unsuccessful, to " there is only one company that is being
collect statistics, data, and information.
then turn over to their own corporate reviewed for a regulatory change. That
You may think that Federal agencies al- lawyers their dissents that can be used
ready share information but I have found that as the basis for an appeal in the courts would be such an obvious conflict of iness is not the case. .
• - ^ . y ^ if they are unhappy , with the regula- terest. However, the lobbyist^ and the
scientists for its competitors can serve
Recently negotiations were needed just to .tions.....
v . . ...
on the peer review panel, so i f the reguget USDA ahd EPA to share agricuttural data..
' Mr: DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will lation is put in place, and i t may hurt
This I data was needed to refine risk assess- the gentleman yield?
the competitors or i t . may help the
.-nents—to show that pesticide use was actucompetitors i f this one company is now
Mr. MARKEY. I
affy much lower than EPA had assumed: How . tleman.from Texas: yield to the gen- restrained, they serve on the
...
i:an Jwe expect better regulation if agencies,
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman. I ask.
The CHAIRMAN. The time ^ of the
irefosetoshare taxpayer funded research? • ^
This gets to the heart of H.R: 1022;s ob}eosrentleman. "Do you think that's gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
why they call this the job creation and MARKEY] has expired,
Cve of-commonsense regulation.
(By unanimous consent. Mr. MARKEY
Tnis amendment takes into account that wage enhancement act? Is this a full
some informationis confidential for business employment act for lobbyists to serve was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
;jnd security reasons. But if we are to be as- on peer .review committees i n those minutes.)
Mr. MARKEY. Now although a single .
lared good regulation, we must have the Feck r a r j times when we're not meeting?"
Mr. MARKEY. There is absolutely no company with a-hundred percent can•(KS! agencies share crucial inforriiaBoa
H.R 1022 requires agencies to consider aU question that right now law firms all not put a hundred percent interest in .
<y the pertinent information for commonsense across this country are looking; at.new that particular regulation, cannot have
raiguiation—my amendment makes sure theyreal estate space to hire the new junior its lobbyist serve on the panel, what i f
attorneys who are going to have to there are two companies and one comi$<=ithatinfomiation.
-r."... J
pany
be
The CHAIRMAN. The question is bh come on board i n order to begin the entire happens to and 90 percent of the
industry,
one other comcise ! amendment offered by the gen- process of. appealing - each and, every pany 10 percent? In that instance, the
part of this process and for their servi.i-eman from Michigan [Mr. SMITH]!:.
ice m the peer review panels for every industry lobbyists and scientists for
The.amendment was agreed to.
regulation which is going to be put on that company with 90 percent control
AVEKDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MARKEY .
can put their' own lobbyist on the peer
the books.. ..
i l r . MARKEY. Mr., Chairman. I offer
Now let us take this example. Let us review group as this scientific evaluaria amendment. The Clerk read.as'fol- look at the example of a nuclear power tion is going on. Absolutely unnecesplant that is very concerned that a new sary and i n fact something which' is
A-eniment offered by Mr. MARKEY. Page regulation might go on the books going to compromise the integrity of
. n. sa-iice line 23 and all that follows down ., which will ensure, that a l l cracked or any evaluation that is going to be
faroarh line 5 on page 32. (all of section rotting pipes in nuclear power plants made.
V>ZisS:2)i.*nA Insert:
are, i n fact, replaced so that the pipes - Now let. us think about, as we move
ITS! shall exclude peer reviewers who are as:ociao?d with entitles that may havp a flnaii- dp.not break, and the water is lost, and down the line as well, why we should
< iau or other interest In the outcome unless. the nuclear core is exposed without not do i t . Quite simply, because on the
books right now there ts a law. There is
tocb [interest Is disclosed tp the agency and proper water. >
•he agency has determined that such inteiy.. . Now under this regulation the nu- a law. I t is 18 U.5:0: 208 which includes
t i t wili not reasonably be expected to create .. clear industry, will be able to put their penalty of 2 years, or imprisonment, or •
1 3
i
;
t
r
h
e
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
a llO.OOO flne i f . in fact, peer reviewers
who participate personally and substantiailly in Govemment decisions
have aj conflict of interest' unless that
conflict is explicitly waived by the
agency.
That is the law today. I t has served
our country very well. We do not want
these peer review panels to be packed
with the very people who have a financial conflict of interest.
Mr. [DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, w i l l
the gentleman yield?
Mr. (MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. [DOGGETT; I ask. Do you mean
to tell me that you can get 2 years of
hard time right now for doing what
this piece of legislation now authorizes
and approves as a conflict of interest, a
conflict of interest that, I gather from
your (remarks, is mandated by this
statute?
Mr.j MARKEY. Right now under the
law any person who has this kind of a
conflict is absolutely prohibited, and i f
they try to get around i t without getting an exemption, then they do face
the penalty of 2 years i n Jail or a
$10,000 fine, and I think that changing
tliat kind bf a law that has protected
our country quite well from conflict of
interest is something tbat we should
very seriously deliberate on before the
. vote ttys afternoon.
' ,
• 1415
Mri OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of
the amendment. We had a long debate
about this provision and this amendment i n the committee. I t was defeated
handily on a bipartisan vote. This is
nothing else but a smokescreen, a red
herring. Essentially i t says, i f the Markey | amendment were to be adopted,
tJien i f you know anything at all about
i;he subject matter at hand, then you
cannot be on the peer review panel.
Youj are essentially eliminated because
you | know something. I t kinds of reminds me, Mr. Chairman, of the First
Lady's Health Care Task Force, where
to be qualified you did hot know anyt h i n g about health care or be a participant i n any of the health care delivery
systems.
11 would suggest to my friend from
Massachusetts that the language of the
bill' is very clear on peer review. Let
me'read i t to my friend. Peer review
panels "shall be broadly representative
and balanced and to the extent' relevant and appropriate, may Include
representatives of State, local, and
tribal governments, small businesses,
other rc^.esentatives of industry, universities, agriculture, labor, consumers', conservation organizations, or
other public interest groups and organizations."
That is a pretty broad category that
is included.
Now, we had testimony from a Professor Lave from Carnegie Mellon who
has served on .numerous peer review
panels. I asked the professor directly
H2339
during the testimony exactly r.what That "is staggering. Who is paying for
happens to those folks who would be " that? The people ybu are representingL
perceived as using that informatioh to - Now, the prestigious industrial countheir own benefit or their company's sel said more than 1,000 businesses and
benefit, and Professor Lave said "We their, tens of thousands of hard-worksimply beat the H out of them."
ing employees, have estimated that our
The point is that we, that the,people Nation's regulations bill now amounts
who testified, virtually every individ- to $600 billion a year: Let me repeat
ual who testified told our committee that! The regulations that the people
that the peer review process under this in this Congress, the majority,
haw
bill makes common sense, i t allows put on the people of this country, ss
people who know what they are talking $600 billion each year. That comes out
about to participate i n this, and that to $2,000 for every man. "woman, and
i n fact this is the most appropriate child in'America.
irr- ]
way to get the broadest possible, input
If ybti want to give the people a tax
into the peer review process.
•
-r break, or give the people a break, gire
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, will , the ...them a. break with these regulations.
gentleman yield? •• '•••$\SyMw'&*
-Take a look alt what OSHA is doing to
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman your people, the people that you are
from Wisconsin. • •
•''
;'
representing. Take a look a t what
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman. 1 thank these regulations are doing to onr
the gentleman for yielding. • - .
economy. . Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible
.. . The CHAIRMAN. The time of tbe
amendment. You can consider i t a good
amendment only i f you want to keep grentleman from Ohio [Mr. 0:iLEY] has
" .
the thinking we have kept for the last expired. •
(By unanimous consent, Mr. OXLEY
40 years. That is precisely the cycle
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
that we want to break.
T;. :-•
.
' No, God forbid that we have, some- minutes.)
body on the review boards that knows • Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, let nae
what they are doing. Our good friend simply point out there is no difference
from Massachusetts mentioned the between serving on a peer review paiiel
power plants. Well..who do we want sit- and having expert witnesses i n court.
ting on the review board?. Do we want We have expert witnesses in court day
somebody sitting on the review board after ^day i n this country. Many of
that knows nothing about the power theni are paid for their services, hot
plants, or do we want somebody there they provide expert testimony. They
that knows what they are-doing and are not going, to foul the process by the
what they are talking about? Certainly "fact they become expert witnesses.
.We have to understand in the peer rethe people i n . Congress do not know
enough or they would not have been view process, Mr. Chairman, that is
passing these laws for the last 40 years, what experts are for, to give their best
I just walked over to the dictionary information. Nothing is withheld from
and what is a peer? I t is a person who the public. They understand that they
is equal" to another i n ability, quali- have to reveal their employment and
fications, age, background and- social whatever particular ax they may have
status. That is. what Webster's hks to to grind. '".
say about i t . And that is what this lanBut that I think is a cynical attempt
guage is saying.
on the part of the sponsors of the
But the reason I want, to take this amendment to basically say anybody
time, and I am delighted you yield me who has any Interest in the issue is
this time, is because I am really con- somehow going to take advantage of
cerned about what these regulations that and take advantage of the system.
are doing to the people yon-and. I .are That is just an entirely unrealistic
representing. OSHA has come but with viewpoint of what this peer review
a rule, I Could not believe this at our process is a l l about.
last town hall meeting on Saturday, . Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balhas .come out now w i t h a rule,'if you ance of my time.
are building a l i t t l e three bedroom '"•'•.Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman. I move
ranch, like you have i n your place In' to strike the requisite number of
Ohio, Or Wisconsin or Massachusetts, words, and I rise i n support of the
in order to put on shingles or put on amendment'. .•
roof boards, you have to encase this
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given
house now with a net. That costs thou- permission to revise and extend his resands of dollars and additional time.
marks.)
When you put on shingles^ you have . Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman. I canto have mountain climbing equipment. not believe that my Republican colI mean, you talk about conunon sense? leagues do not understand the language
And who has to pay for It? The" iwdr of the b i l l , and I cannot believe that
guy that is working i n the mills that they do not understand the language of
has to pay the mortgage, he has to pay the amendment. The language of the
additional thousands, of dollars so the amendment corrects an obvious error
regulators in Washington can live high in the b i l l . The bill provides that peer
off the hog. No. The time for this legis- reviewers may not be excluded simply .
lation is long past.
'"•- ' "
because they represent entities that
Listen to i n this. I n the last 2 years, have a potential interest i n the. outthe current administration haa put out come. That is really what is at ques125,000 pages of additional regulation. tion here! Is peer review going to be
�February 28, 1995
.
„ < •
as s ^ S ^ - F ^
aiso w " " - , „ rascals may
" i ; the paragrapa
.7,, "shall not exthrough which t M
have a rea- -tW P
^ ^ ^ t j ^ substantial
h
c a n
Which are "flfoortant scientific anu au
re
p esent entities
r
e i
Mr BARTON^ of
~
-,
SSr t « ^ ^J eXautomatically tex-'
h
e
^ ^ r
entity,
e
y
do: I t h i n ^ Ui S S v S r ^ h e
K
- r t u ^ r d ^ y T h a t they a i , no,,
EJC the faith ofthe
a a B e ,
^
^wy
r f
n 0
.entieman-s ian-
M r . Chairman, if the
^ ^ ^ t o ^
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
Mr. MARKEY. Again, the point here
is; that there is a palpable conflict of
interest when you are the only com
p i n y | t h a t is going to be directly afflicted by the regulation. But the truth
if;, th'ere is built-in bias for companies
when there are three or four or five
that are going to be affected by the
regulation.
Here we basically say that they cannot, 'j'shall not" be excluded.
MrJ BARTON of Texas. Automatically .
. Mr! MARKEY. You are building in a
mandate that they not be excluded
merely because their lobbyist happens
to be someone that has an interest i n
the outcome. We are saying that that
is nojt a high enough standard that can
be established i n order to protect the
public health and safety.
Mri BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming
my Ume.. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
E.entieman for his comments. The point
is. we do not feel they should autornati'cally be excluded.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
frentieman from Texas [Mr. BARTON]
lias expired.
(By unanimous consent," Mr. BARTON
of Texas was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman , we do not automatically exclude
people because they . happen to represent) an interest that has an interest
. i n the pending rule or regulation and
the peer review. We understand that
chere are many of these rules and regulations that, are so technically complex
chat| we have to have experts. As long
:as wje fully disclose and guarantee that
:if the regulation specifically affects a
islngle entity they are not going on the
panel, for example, giveh the fact that
In subparagraphs 1 and 2 we are provid-.
ing (for a broad range of peer review,
that i t is.not just this one,individual,
that! we think the bill as is. should
stand. We get the outcoftie the gen' tleman from Massachusetts is attempting to obtain, but we do not put the
burden of proof on the peer reviewer.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I
mo^e to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise i n support o f t h e Markey| amendment.
-This reduces the danger of conflict of
interest that is inherent in t h i s . b i l l .
The concept of peer review, of having a
jury of one's peers, i n . t h i s case scientific peers, to review the work and
ensure we have good science is a very
gooii concept. But what we have here is
not) true peer review but, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has pointed out, phony peer review. Because we
are | going to ensure that lobbyists,
when they finish their work In this
great Capital, can go out and sign up
for the peer review committee.
I . know the gentleman .from Massachusetts had some further words on
that subject.
. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, .will
the,' gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
:
1
1
H2341
Mr. MARKEY. Mr.. Chairman, for . f This is a conflict of interest, clear
those who are listening right now.' and simple, loaded with potential for
think about i t in these, terms: for every lawsuits from here to eternity, i f . i n
regulation that is placed upon the fact, the Markey amendment, is aot
books or has been placed upon the adopted.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, will the
books by any of these agencies, there
are.25 experts i n America on the sub- gentleman yield?
ject who could potentially qualify for
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the genthe peer review group. Twenty of them tleman from Wisconsin.
have no conflict of interest; five of
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thamk
them have a conflict of interest.
;.; the gentleman for yielding. Here is ihe
The history of this country has been question.
that the agency selects amongst the 20
This conflict of-interest, when the
that have no conflict of interest so regulator is paid for partially by Sues
that the public can be sure that the that he.levies, is that not a. conflict of
health and safety regulation has i n fact interest? .
been analyzed by people who are not/^-^Mr. DOGGETT. I thought the best exgoing to financially benefit. ^ ^ ^ i ^ a n i p i e bn'cortQict' of interest' was tht
J
Under the amendment which I have last one the gentleman had with- Ihe
proffered, i f i n faqfc the company that silly regulation about covering the net
has a conflict of interest has a Nobel over the house, because there are a l o t
laureate.with a de minimis stake in the of Members here, on both sides of aisles
company, then they could make an ex- that are concerned about eliminating
ception saying there is no bias for that silly regul.Vtions.
Nobel laureate! But throughout the
But under the bill as you propose i t .
history of our country, every time OSHA has to have somebody from the
there is a regulation put on the books,: net manufacturer on the peer review
they always select from the 20 with nb committee to decide whether i t is reaconflict of interest. We have a l o t of sonable to put a net over the house.
experts i n America on a l o t of subjects. That is what the gentleman from MasThe misimpression being l e f t by the sachusetts [Mr. MARKEY] is trying to
authors of the legislation is that i n prevent.
fact there will be no experts that w i l l
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, w i l l
be allowed to participate. Just the op- the gentleman yield?
posite is the case. We w i l l have just as
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the genmany experts as we have ever had, but tleman from Massachusetts.
we w i l l ensure that, as we have i n the ; Mr. MARKEY. The example which
past, they w i l l not have a financial "the gentleman uses is absolutely ridicconflict of interest. I n that, way the. ulous. When a regulator Ones a compublic can be sure of the outcome.
pany for polluting, the money does not
I think that the misrepresentation go back to the regulator. The money
that goes on with regard to the amend- , goes back ' to the Federal Treasury.
ment and these horrific . examples of, When a lobbyist is on a peer review
regulations that have been placed upon panel, proposing that a regulation pass,
the books, assume that they, would not he gets rich i f that regulation is
be placed upon the books if, i n fact, the blocked.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
lobbyist for the company that was.
going to be affected by the regulation gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOGGETT]
could serve on the peer review group. has again expired.
In fact, as we know, i f that had been
(At the request of Mr. BARTON of
the case throughout the history of our Texas and by unanimous consent, Mr.
"country, we would have had no regula- DOGGETT was allowed to proceed for 2
tions to protect the health and safety additional minutes.)
of this country because the drug comMr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairpahies and the chemical companies and . man, will the gentleman yield?
the nuclear industry and every bther
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the genindustry would have packed every one , tleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the gentleof these peer review groups.
Let us not. for God's sake, leave any man's earlier comment, he said that
misimpression for anyone who is lis- the bill is going to create phony review
tening that there are not plenty of panels or at least has the potential tb
independent experts available to serve create phony review panels. I would
on every single panel that would ever ask i f the gentleman has read subparabe constructed by every single agency. graph 1 where i t says, panels consisting
Let us not for a second again think of experts shall be broadly representathat i f i n fact the Markey amendment tive and balanced, and then i t goes on
is accepted that the first thing that to say, represent State, local, tribal
they would decide is that a single com- governments, small business, other
pany would, and uie only company that representatives of industry,
could be affected by a. particular regu- : Do. you nnt believe that that paralation, of course, would be i n a clear graph which remains intact under the
conflict of interest and bias, i f their Markey ainendment is going to ensure
scientists and'their lobbyists sat on that.there is a true review panel?
the panel. So to a certain extent the
Mr. DOGGETT. Certainly that paragentleman's amendment, while clarify- graph, which was read by the distining, is redundant i n terms of what ia gulshed chair of the committee last
already offered as a real protection i n - night i n suggesting that I had misside of the Markey amendment.
- represented what this legislation does.
�K2342
CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS HOUSE
February 28, 1995
which I certainly had not, is the.kind words, and I rise ih opposition to the Texas [Mr. DOGGETT] and so on come up
with this kinds of language. They are
of general claim for a lack of bias in amendment.
these panels-. But we cannot just, read
Mr. Chairman! I think we ought to be • opposed to this bill. They do not. like
that- one section. We have to . move clear about what we are .doing here. it. They do not want this bill. They are
down to the' next section, and that is Some Members just have not bothered gping to vote against i t . They will do
where we tell, each one of these' agen- to read the language in the bill. I t re- everything possible to destroy it.'
cies that they cannot keep a lobbyist quires an independent and external
• 1445
off of these peer review committees. peer review. "Independent" means that
One of the things they are attemptT there does have to be some rtegree of
.
jThey have to put them on. I t is. not a
may or a maybe. I t is a shall not. I t is work to make certain that the people ing to do here is destroy i t by assuring
a-commandment to every one of these are independent. Then i t also says that that i t becomes unworkable, and i t beregula cory agencies that they cannot .. they shall provide, i t does not make i t comes unworkable when in fact what
voluntary, "they shall provide for the you have is the dumbness test for peer
keep off. these panels lobbyists;" ' j " creation of peer review panels consist- review, rather than the smartness test.
As the distinguished former-chair of ing' of experts," not Gucci shoe lobbyMr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman
;he Committee on Commerce indi- ists, but experts and shall be broadly yield. Mr. Chairman?
cated, while there may have to be bal- representative and balanced. So much . Mr. WALKER. The gentleman interance, there is nothing in this, legisla-. bf what we have heard here, today just rupts me i n the middle of my speech,
• tion that prevents an agency from hav- does not bear to ^the language that we but I am- happy to yield to the gening every single member on the panel begin with when'we set forth the sec- tleman from Texas.
ipeing someone, who has a financial in- tion.-- - ""
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. - Chairman, I ' ,
terest. They may have somebody who
Why did we go down and put a sec- thank the gentleman for yielding.
is a consumer, but they may stiil have,
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman do
a financial interest i n this. . .
"..'">'•„' tion in that says we shall not exclude
| Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, w i l l " peer reviewers with substantial and us the courtesy by ' just taking away
relevant .expertise? In large part be- that argument completely by excluding
the gentleman yield?'
cause the testimony before our com- lobbyists from these peer review panSir. DOGGETT. I yield to the gen-. mittee anyhow, was somewhat different els?
tleman from Massachusetts.
. from the way the gentleman from Mas- •• Mr. WALKER. I would say to the gen| Mr. MARKEY. They do have a. bal- sachusetts portrays i t . .
tleman.'that' I am perfectly willing.to
ance requirement in the law. I t has to
The fact is we are creating a system exclude lobbyists, but we did exclude
b|e'a balanced panel. But the balance, now- where we are likely to be looking themSvhen we said we had to have exfor example, for a nuclear regulation at things' that involve" a good deal of perts as a part of i t .
could be they have a nuclear manufac- technical expertise, that involve a good v This idea of lobbyists is. in fact a
turer. They have a nuclear chemist; deal of technical knowledge. We may, term being thrown around by gentleTjhey haive a nuclear waste disposal in fact, be-writing regulation that at men who want to play to public senticompany. They have a nuclear,' nu- Some point, for instance, affects an ments, and so on.
clear, nuclear. They all have conflicts ecosystem such as the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I
of interest, but i t is balanced i n its We niight want to have the premier ex- agree, we have a l i t t l e expertise among
conflicts although they all are against perts- on the Chesapeake Bay as part of the lobbyists, but some of them are scitrie public health and safety.- •
..
a peer-review panel. That premier ex- entists, and some do'come here on bills
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair- pert might be someone who works for like this and offer their testimony.
man, if the gentleman w i l l continue to the University of Maryland that might
Mr. WALKER. Some of the ones who
yield! they also have State govern- have a direct interest i n the outcome are true scientific experts.might actument, local government, small busi> of something with regard to the Chesa- ally be someone we would want to have,
peake Bay but under the gentleman's review. ,
ness.
• ... ...
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the' amendment would be. excluded from
Mr. DOGGETT. So . the gentleman
"the panel!
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOGGETT]"
wants them on these peer review panha!s again expired. ••'
, '". "
And so the fact is that what we are els? . . .
ijBy unanimous consent, Mr. DOGGETT doing is assuring, under the gentleMr. WALKER. As far as l am con- •
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional man's amendment, that the dumber cerned, we can exclude lobbyists. I
minute.) ,.
•• ?
•• • -r- you'are about the issue, the more like- want to have experts. .
Mr.-DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this is . ' ly you are to be able to participate in ,• Neither the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.' MARh i e saying we are going to have a jury : the peer review!
of jour peers for the .O.J. trial, and we. . I am not certain that that is what we KEY] nor what is in the bill is anything
will have a fair cross section of peers want to set up. I ' think what-we want but permissive. Both permit people .to
forj that, but we are also going to j e t to set up -is exactly what we do in the participate.
It- is just that with the gentleman
the lawyers for one side or the other bill to assure that those people who
seijve on the jury panel. What we want' have some knowledge about the issue from Massachusetts, what they want is
are, i n fact, involved in the peer re- an insider game to be played where,
is good science, not gobd advocacy;
only the agency gets to choose, the
i | could not disagree niore with the view.-' -'••. • •
gentleman earlier who said, well, we' - The gentleman from Texas suggests ., agency gets the choice here, and what "
fcaye got all these paid experts i n court.. that this is somewhat analogous to a they are going to do is pick the people
sroing^back and forth. I t will not be any"" jdrjr! I t is not a jury. These are people who like the agency bias.'
The gentleman from Massachusetts
different than that. • ' ' -:"• who are reviewing technical data. They
That is the problem. In too many of do not determine the outceme. Tlwy [Mr. MARKEY] wants to make certain i f
these caser you get whatever degree of •simply' review the technical data to this law goes into effect what we get is
expertise you pay for. We are not inter-' find out whether or not i t was honestly exactly the same kind of regulations
we have always gotten, those kinds of
e-sted in paid science. We are- not inter- arrivedat.
ested i n advocacy. We are interested in :• I t seems to me that that is where we regulations that the agency wanted in
balance, and i n keeping those who have want to have some people who .are very the first place., where they set out to do
an axe to grind off of these peer review knowledgeable about the subjects. And something good and end up doing somecommittees. That is what the amend- ' yet what there is an attempt to do here thing harmful because they did. not get
nnerit of the gentieman from .Massachu- ' is to take knowledgeable people out of broadly relevant expertise in the re-,
view.
sett's is designed to accomplish and the process.'
We want to change that. We want to.
whyj I rise i n support of his amend-i I understand why the gentleman.
ftfbm,Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] and the go to a new order solution that changes
:raent."-...
' . - - . "
M r . WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move gentleman from- Massachusetts [Mr. things in a way that makes some de-.
no strike, the requisite number 'of MARKEY], 'and-* .the gentleman from gree of . sense. Most of all in this, Mr
;
:
r
:
1
:
�J
'4.',:-:
February 28, 1995
:
7
TV
;
t
• tt
r
-^u •^ ^^t--^^V 7-- J??"'* ;'S-H ^?^*-T
I,
H2343
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD^ HOUSE
Chairman, what we are trying to do is make i t clear that i t is' not. just finan- There was no publication that, this is s.
to make certain that where we get cial, but Other interests i n the out- new rule.'
'•
down tb those narrow activities that come, which would qualify as bias. We
I say that there is a conflict of interinvolve) some real technical expertise, would want the agencies to look at est in these industries, i n these agenthat we can i n fact bring people onto other interests as well that may not be cies.
panels (who are truly knowledgeable financial.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, i f I
• about those subjects.
That is why I deliberately included may reclaim my time one final moI would be happy to narrow the focus those words after the f u l l committee ment, the point is i f there is a lobbyist
of the (language i n the b i l l ' i n a way markup'when that subject, was raised, if there is a scientist, we will not evea
that gets to that subject matter.
because I agree with the gentleman, call thern lobbyists, we" will just say
The ^CHAIRMAN. The time of the where, there is - bias, regardless of . employees of the company, i f they ha vie
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. whether there is a financial. interest, stock options i n the company that perWALKER] has expired.
there should be an ability to" remove sonally enrich them i f a regulation
(]3y unanimous consent, Mr. WALKER those people from the panel. . . ' - : ; : . . . does not go on the books, let us not k i d
ourselves,. there is a tremendous bias
wa;j allowed to proceed for 1 additional
However, that is the whole point. I t " with regard to how the individual w i l l
minute.)
does-not really make any difference
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman,. I f i n whether you are-going to get xich be- . view that regulation going forward.
• fact what we need-to do is just make cause the regulation ' is- corning' but " I f a Federal regulator passes a reguicertain that there.is language to assure your way, or your, whole career is. obvi- lation, he does not personally. or sbe
thf.t the only time this applies is i f ously So tainted by £ pattern of behav- does not personally , find any monetary
there are no other experts available,' I ior that that person should be excluded remuneration because of the passage of
that regulation or defeat of that regnam perfectly willing, to modify the lan- as well. .
•... "... . •-. .J •;'
lation. One might say they have a proguage in the bill to do that.
Mr. Chairman, T understand that fessional stake, rio question about i t .
Howev&r, with
the gentleman's
amendment, what we do is we exclude there aire some people who want indus- but they do not have a financial con, people who might have relevant exper- try lobbyists to serve on the panel„who cern, and that is really,the whole heart
tise to bring to a highly technical sub-: want a biased position to . be - rep- of this debate.
ject. and do i t i n a way that I do not resented, as part of these hearings.
I urge anyorie listening, i f they do
That is what the bill allows:'
.
thi nk makes any sense.
not believe people should have a finanThe amendment bans that. I t puts up cial stake, please vote for the Marker
Mr. j Chairman, I would hope this
amendment would be rejected. Dumb- a wall, and i f Members' want, I will add amendment. I t still allows for every
ness should not. be the standard for in the extra language which I haye other expert i n every field to serve <xn
peer review, i t ought to be a smartness which keeps out bias other than.finan- the peer review panels.
cial, so that the gentleman, can legititeiit. IMr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman,. wiH
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman. I move, mately object when i n fact there are the gentleman yield?
'to strike the requisite number of those who have other interests.
Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield UJ
. Mr. RiOTH. Mr. Chairman; will the the geritlemari frorri Pennsylvania.
words.
' .
• '. ; Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I'thinJk
-. The CHAIRMAN: Without objection, gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY, .1 yield to" the gen- I heard the geritleman say a l i t t l e
the gentleman is recognized for 5 mintleman from Wisconsin.
utes. |
while ago that he is sensitive about the
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, before we concern. " There was no objection.
Mr. (MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I . do talked abput OSHA, and this is imporThe CHAIRMAN. The time of t t e
not want to prolong the debate, except tant because.it is something'relevant gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
. to, here at its conclusion, make a sim- that is happening in. our society today. MARKEY] has expired.
plo point, once again. We do hot want When OSHA pays its staff, when OSHA . (At the request of Mr. WALKER and by
any: of these agencies to exclude ex- pays its bills, does that not come out of unanimous consent. . Mr. MARKEY was
perts.) We do not want anyone who cari the fines they impose? The answer is allowed to proceed for 2 additional
contribute to an evaluation of any of yes: OSHA is hiring new people. t>SHA minutes.)
these scientific questions to not be able is out there levying fines.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, w i l l
tc serve on any of these peer review
-Mr.. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, i f I the gentleman yield?
panels.
. .. may reclaim my time, let us.not con- " Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the genThei issue is bias. I f in fact the sci- fuse whether or not other people "are tlernan from Pennsylvania.
.Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the
entist , the lawyer, the lobbyist who is hired at agencies with the Issue of
being [offered as an expert has a bias on. whether or not the person gets person- geritleman has indicated that he is senthat issue, we are arguing that they ally enrichied by a decision which is sitive to the concern that there might
should not serve on that peer review made. No Federal employee can profit, be areas where you have a particular
panel j unless the agency determines by law,.'from any .decision which they. expert that serves and there could be
tha.t there is a significant contribution make. There is absolutely a .total'pro- some/ modest conflict of interest or
that can be-made, and the bias is inci- hibition against that. .!•.',. '.'-.'.•':',..'• something, and that is what he tried t o
.
drmtal.
• - . . . ,
•
I do not think i t is proper to equate correct in his amendment. /
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, w i l l the that situatiori with a Federal reguiatpr
I think maybe he is even, from what
gentleman yield?
•"
with the 'lobbyists' interests which a he said, sensitive to the fact of what we
Mr.) MARKEY. I am glad to yield to chemical," a tobacco, a drug, or; a toy heard in the committee, that there are
the gentleman from Virginia.
manufacturing concern would . have in fact people who might have experMr.) BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I am with the promulgation of a regulation tise in very, very narrow
technical
giad to hear the gentleman make the and'personal, enrichment of the-individ- areas that would have to be included in
these peer, reviews if the peer review is
statement. I wish we could haye had ual.
"
*
. . • r,.-'"'-•
his support i n the last Congress, when •••Mr. ROTH! I f the gehtleinan will con-', going to be done.in a good rew.,
EPA jwas doing its risk assessment on tinue to yield, Mr. Chairmari," i .think
Mr: Chairman, let me asK. the gensiicohdary smoke arid there was a gen- the gfentleman is.beirig a l i t t l e too dis- tleman; as I . said, I am willing to nar- •
tleman on our risk review pajiel that I ingenuous. I thirik i t . is. relevant: J f row the scope of the amendment. What
pointed, out froiri California who was a OSHA hires additionaf people, they ' if we. put slanguage up front i n theleading antismoking crusader, but I.did have to levy additiorial fines. . - .. .
amendment that said "Unless there are
riot hear anything from the gentleman.
Just the last couple of weeks ago available peer reviewers .with the
. I thank him fbr yielding to me.
when OSHA put out their latest regular equivalent or superior expertise and ex- MrJ.. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, i f I tion, they promulgated, the rule on day perience and no potential interest i n
may''reclaim my time, . i ' t h i n k ' i t is 1 at 7 o'clock.in the morning, and at .8. •the outcome, they shall not exclude
.
noteworthy that i n our language we o'clock they were -imposing, fines. peer reviewers-:"' '•
r
;
1
1
:
J
hi
�H2344
February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
In other words] the only way that the , that we are offering the amendments. being able to be proactive rather than
provisions in the bill would apply is if It is just the opposite, i t is to improve reactive. . '
there were absolutely no other kindis of it before i t does become the law of the I do not care if you are a representapeer reviewers with the kind of exx»r land;' '.ir - •• • • '-•-••'
•
tive of thklndustry or a representative,
tise that is needed in order to make' , Mr: BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move of an environmental group, to be inthese judgments; then we would have to strike the requisite number of volved in the initial process is absolanguage that would say where there words. '
lutely e&sentiaifor not only your agenwould be no potential interest in the Mf: Chairman, I rise in opposition to. da, be i t one way or the other, but for
outcome.
...
the amendment.-I understand the con- the process Itself and the finished prodLet. me ask the gentleman, is that cern of my friend, the gentleman from uct.
something that the gentleman would Massachusetts [Mr MARKEY], that
be willing to accept tb solve the com-- there may be a major problem here..
• 1500
mit'tee's problem, as well as his?
However', let me just sort of quote a
The CHAIRMAN. The question, is on
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if I representative of the Environmental the amendment offered by the genmay reclaim my time, the amendment Defense Fund, who stated at testimony tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MARwhich I haye offered already provides before the Committee, on Commerce, " I KEY],
that flexibility to the Federal agency. think in principle there are probably
The question was taken;
I t allows for the agency to make a de- very few exclusions that I would make, Chairman announced that the and the
noes aptermination that the interest would as'lohg as members of peer review pan-'
not Ibe reasonably expected to create a . els are experts in their area and there peared to have it.
bias, and therefore, to allow that iex- is an appropriate balance." :
RECORDED VOTE
pertl to testify.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr!. Chairman, I deI wish
.to my friend,
Mr. WALKER. The problem with the tleman . tb say Massachusetts, the gen- mand a recorded vote..
from
that I
A recorded vote was ordered.
isectilemari's amendment, Mr. Chair- have seen different peer review proc:man!.. i f he. will continue to yield, is
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17vihati i t presupposes that -these people esses work: I t is essential tb get every- minute vpte.
:ire | bad people and. should not be body who has expertise to be included • The vote was taken by electronic de^
iri the process, and not .to exclude vice, and there were—ayes 177," noes 247,
brought in.
' .,.'.
What we are suggesting Is that them."
not voting 10. as follows:
maybe, there is . a need for some lan- I think what the gentleman fears
• [ R o l l No: 178]
truage that would suggest that If there with regard to conflicts, the conflicts'
come from many directions. I would
AYES—177
i-re other kinds of peer reviewers availFurse
Nadler
ji&lejthat have no interest, the agency riot feel' i t would be appropriate, that Abercrombie
Gejdenson
Neal '
ought to look'to those people, but If just because somebody happens to be Ackerman
Andrews
Gephardt
Ney
there was nobody else, the agency employed by the Lung Association and Baesler
Gibbons
Oherstar
actively involved in that process,, that Baldacci'
rhouid have the discretion.
"Gordon
Obey
they should somehow be treated as if Barcia
Green
OH-er
I wonder i f the gentleman would go
Hall (OH)
Owens.
they are tainted arid unacceptable to Barrett (WI)
along with that, "
.- Becerra
Hall (TX)
Pallone
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the the review process.
Beilenson
Hamilton
Pastor
In'fact, Mr. Chairman, as long as we .Bentsen
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
HastinKS^FL)
Payne(NJ)
Hefner
Pelosi.
understand that there is an agenda, Berman
MARKEY], has expired.
Hilliard
Pomeroy •,
• lAt the request of Mr. WALKER and by and' where they come from. It is ,a Bevill
Bishop
Hinchey .
. Poshard
unanimous consent. Mr. MARKEY was major, contribution, because in reality Boehlert'
Holden
Rahall
Hoyer
aanjrel
aliowjed to proceed for 1 additional ' we'want those who" may come from dif- Bonior
Borekl
• Jackson-Lee
Reed
ferent spectrums to be at the table to Boucher
minute.)
Jacobs
Reynolds
Mr.| MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, again, build the consensus.
Brown (CA)
Jefferson
Richardson
Johnson (SD)
Riyers
I tiiink the gentleman is heading in the There may be those that are scared- . Brown (FL)
Brown
Johnson. E. B.
Roemer
right) direction, but It is not enough, Of what may be'.'termed the extremes Bryant (OH) • •
(TX)
Johnston
Rose
and i t is already covered by the lan- .finding...consensus.' j think we. should Cardin
.• Kanjorski
. Roybal-AUard
giiage which I have In my amendment. not only hqt'fear. it, we should embrace Chapman
Kaptur
Sabo
. Kennedy (MA)
Sanders
We make i t a'ban, but a ban which can the fact that consensus is. what we Clay
Clayton
Kennedy (RI)
Sawyer
tK: waived by the agency if they need want to find ,on. these issues, and. that Clyburn
• .Kennelly
Schroeder •
is where we can;
" '•
the experts.
Coleman"
Kildee
Schumer
Kleczka
Scott •
By the way! that is how every Fed- • Mr.-.--MARKEY:. Mr! Chairman; will Collins UL; '
'
Collins (Mil
Kllnk
Serrano
eral agency today now operates. We are the gentlemari yield?
Conyers
LaFalce
Shays
cot changing anything, we are not add- , Mr: BILBRAY. I yield to the- gen- Costello
LaTourette'
Skaggs
ing anything new here. There are peer tleman from Massachusetts.
•Coyne . ,
Levin
Slaughter
Danner
Lewis (GA)
Stark
r^«levl groups today, there have been" Mr. MARKEY. Mr» Chairman, again; de.la Garza
Lincoln
Stokes •
for 50 years, and\they have always used we are not excluding the companies DeFazio
•' Lofscren.
Studds
expert's. They will continue tp use ex-., that axe .affected. They can still par-. DeLauro ,
Lowey
Stupak
Luther
Tanner
tidpaW'legaUy 'by commenting upon Dellums ' ' .
peres;) .J^v".
.;. •.•••/;• :
•.
Deutsch
Maloney-,
Taylor (MS) 'rise only change we are debating here the regulation; by meeting with the
Manton
Tejeda
today !is whether or. not people" with fi- regulators, by-participating in any Dicks,: . .
Dinscell
Markey
Thompson
number of ways. "
..i.naaeial. conflicts of interest should be
Dixon .•
Martinez .
Thornton
Mascara
Torres Whkt we are talking about here is, as Dogsett
abie to serve on the panel. That is. the
Doyle •
Matsui
Toiricclll
the gentleman from Texas calls it, the Durbla
only thing in the debate.
McCarthy
Towns.
Historically, they have always had jury over here on the peer review Edwards.
McDermott
Traflcant
• McHale .
Tucker
tif; latitude of waiving/ i f they want panel-. Except for that One part of the Engel . '
Ebhoo
McKinney
Velazquez '
to. under the U.S.C. 208 that allows for .process, they are allowed to fully par- Evans ."
McNulty
Vento
th<! Federal agency to let those people ticipate, in mailing their'case and in enr Fair.
- Meehan
Visclosky
in if they needed them, so the law is al- suring that all the evidence and infor- Fattah
Menendez
Volkmer
Fazio
Mfume
Waters
ready there to do it: I do not know why mation is before this agency.
Fields (LA)
Watt(NC!
Mr. .BILBRAY:/Mr. Chairman, re-' Filner... - .- Mineta •
wearejchangingitatall.•.• •
Minge
Wasman
Again, to avoid the conflict of inter- claiming niy tirne','.the fact is. as the .Flake
Mink .
• • Williams
Moakley ,
Wise
.
es;. and again, i f I may in conclusion gentiemaii said;"except for participat-. Foglietta
Ford
Woolsey
jisst say to-the gentleman from Penn- ing in that process/ they can partidl- Frank (MA)- .' . Mollohan
Monncomery
Wyden
sylvania [Mr. WALKER], i t is not witti^:' pateMn the" rest of the process. The gen- Franks (NJ) . Morella
Wynn
the istention of killing this legislation tleman and I /know this' is the core bf Frost
Murtha
Yates
-
T
;
1
:
:
,
N
1
;
v
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
NOES-247Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CAi
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
. Barr |
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett'
Barton
Bass
Bateman
, Bereuter
Bllbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boohnei
. Bonllla
Bono
Brewster
Biowder.. .
Brownback
Bryant (TN i
- Biinn
Bunnlni
.Burr
Burton
Buyer
v
Ci'.llahaji
Cc.lvert
Ciunp
Crmdy
CMtle
Cliabot
Gliambl ss ,
. Chenoweth
Cliristenseo
Clirysle'r
• Clement
•Clinger
Qible
.Coburn
. Collins GA)
Combest
.Condit
' Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Ci-emeaiis
Cubln
Cunnlnirham
Davis
Deal
' DeLay
Diaz-Balart
, Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Doman'
.
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Geka-i
-Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman.
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
'Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen '
Hannan
Hastert
• Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Heney
Heineman
Herger •
Hllleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton .
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis .
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson. Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston.
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe •
.. Lallood .
Largent
Latham
Laughlin'
Lazlo-. •:
Leach
Lewis (CAi
Lewis (KY)
•Llghtfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
•Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh ' .
Mclnnis
Mcintosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
•Molinari
Moorhead
Moran
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle •
Ortiz,
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo .
Porter
• Portman: Pryce
• Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
• Regula'
- Rlggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtlnen
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 ( N O
Thpmaa
Thornberry
Thurman
. Tiahrt
• Torkildsen
Upton
. Waldholtz
. ' Walker
. Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OKI
• Weldon ( F L )
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker . Wilson
' Wolf
Young (AK)
Young ( F L )
Zellff
Zimmer
M r . B A E S L E R changed.his vote from
•"no" t o "aye." ..
: • . . ' ' •So the amendment was rejected. The r e s u l t of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
'
.'
H2345
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. C.,
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BARTOJI OF TEXA:?
M r . B A R T O N of Texas. M r . Chadrm a n . I . o f f e r an amendment.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
; The C l e r k read as.follows:
:Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, on roll No. 178, . Amendment offered by Mr. BARTON of
the Markey amendment to H.R. 1022, I in- Texas: Page 36, after line 2, insert the foIBowtended to vote "no", and inadvertently voted ing new title, redesignate titie V I as diUe
"yes". I would like the RECORD to reflect this, : V I I , and. redesignate section 601 on page 36.
and as such I submit the following February . line 4, as section 701:
'•' TITLiE VI—PETITION PROCESS
24 correspondence to my colleagues for the
SEC. 601. PETITION PROCESS.
RECORD to illustrate my support.
SUPPORT PEER REVIEW IN RISK ASSESSMENT
- . (2) PURPOSE.—The purpose, of this seccion
la ..to: provide an accelerated
We. strongly support requirirxj Federal regu- • review, bf Federal programs process for the
designated to
lations to be based on sound scientific prin- protect human health, safety, or the enviciples, and urge our celleagues tp support the ronment and to revise rules and program clepeer, review provisions of title III in H.R. 1022. ments where possible to achieve substanThis provision would establish-a systematic tially equivalent protection of human
program for sound scientific review of risk as- health, safety or the environment at a giubsessmer is used by agencies when promulgat- stantially lower cost of compliance c..- In a
ing regulations addressing human health, more flexible manner.' '•:. r
safety, or the environment. We believe that , (b) ACCELERATED PROCESS FOR CERTALt PEpeer review is a critical component of sound TITIONS.—Within 1 year after the date of enof this Act. the head of each Federal
science, and is necessary for accurate risk as- actmentadministering any program designed
agency
sessment analyses involving complex issues.
to protect human-health, safety, or the enviWe spend an exorbitant amount complying ronment shall' establish accelerated procewith regulations. These costs totaled a whop- dures for accepting- and considering petitlnazs
ping S581 billion in 1993, and ultimately, in- for the review of any rule- or program' elecreased the price for every good and service ment promulgated prior t o the effective date
purchased by the American people.. These of this Act which is part of such program, i f
the annual cdsts of compliance with stach
regulatory costs are nothing more than'a hid- rule • or program element are at le-^s:.
den tax on American consumers and busi- J2S.000,000. -r-.v^ ' •
..
'
:
ness.
' '-'
•••
' •"•'"• '' :'•. ' :v:: (c) WHO. MAY-SUBMIT PETITIONS.—Any perSome critics of the risk assessment provi- son who demonstrates that he or she is-afsions in H.R. 1022 believe those organizations fected by.a. rulfe or program element refenred
or sectors impacted by a regulations should to in subsection (b) may submit a petitsoc
not be allowed to serve on their review panels. .under this section. :
.(d) CONTENTS OF PETITIONS.—Each petition. This notion, however, subverts the very intenunder-this section shall inclmie
tion of sound science—to base decisions on submittedsupporting documentation, fnciadadequate
all relevant, and available information without ing, where appropriate, the following:
color or prejudice. .
' •'•••:
: (1) New studies or other relevant InfonruiPeer review panels should include scientists tlon. that provide the basis for a proposed refrom affected sectors as well as consumer in- vision of a risk assessment or risk characterterests and any outside interest. Doing so will ization used .as a basis of a rule or program
allow-risk-based analyses to maintain balance element.
(2) Information documenting the costs of
and flexibility, thereby ensuring agencies-use
compliance with any rule or program elesound science in their decisionmaking..
ment which is the subject of. the petition t n d
Some, critics have suggested that including information demonstrating that a rerisson
Dreier
interested parties in the peer review process could achieve protection of human heal-h.
Duncai
Dunn
compromises the integrity of human health, safety or . the : environment ' substantially '
Ehlers
safety, or environment regulations: However, • equivalent to that achieved by the rule or
•Ehrllcl
.the precedent for peer review already exists. program element concerned but at a substanEmerson
Engllsl
Congress, has consistently supported legisla- tially lower cost of compliance or in a manmore nexibility to.
Ensign
tion requiring the use of comprehensive peer ner which provides governments, or regeStates; local, or tribal
Everet
review panels for environmental .and safety is- lated entities.'Such documentation may i n Ewing
sues.
.' •
• ' - '.' . .-:-•' '; clude information concerning Investmecis
*
Fawollf'
Fields (1 TX)
For example, the Science Advisory Board; and .other.actions taken by . persons subject
Flanagan'
[SAB], created under the 1969 National Envir to the. rule or program element In good faith '
Foley
ronmental Policy Act,, was established to con- to comply.
Forbes
duct peer reviews for EPA regulations. To be (e) DEADLINES FOR AGENCY RESPONSE.—
Fowler
Fox |
a member of the SAB you must have the Each agency head^receiving, petitions under
Franks (CT)
proper education, training, and experience; this section shall* assemble and review all
Frellnghuysen
there are no restrictions on affiliation. Further, such petitions received during the 6-mocth
Frisa
the National Advisory Committee on Occupa- period commencing' upon the promulgation
NjC'T VOTING—10
tional Cafety and Health as mandated under of procedures under subsection (b). and darthereafter.
Lipinski
Gonzalez
Vucanovlch
the Occupational Safety and Health Act is to ing 15 successive 6-month periods expiration
Not later than 180 days after the
Meek
Ward
Gutierrez
be composed of "representatives of manage- of each such review period, the agency head
Miller (CAI
Hunter!
ment, labor, occupational safety and occupa- shall complete, the review of such petitions,
Rush
Lantos •
tional health professionals and the public." . make a determination under subsection (f)
The Energy Policy Act, which Congress to accept or to reject each such petition, and
• 1517
The C l e r k announced the f o l l o w i n g passed in 1992, requires a peer review panel establish a schedule and priorities for taking
on electrical and magnetic fields: This peer re- final action under subsection (g) with respect
rairs:
view panel must contain representatives from to each accepted petition. For. petitions act h i s vote:
On
the electric utility industry, labor, government,. cepted for consideratioh under this section,
Mr. Rush for. with Mrs. Vucanovlch • and researchers..
the schedule shall provide for final action
egalnst.
1
:
under subsection (g) within 18 months aft«r
�H2346
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
the expiration of each such 180-day period
and may provide for consolidation pf reasonr
ablyj related petitions. The schedule and priorities shall be . based on the potential to
more efficiently focus national economic resources within Federal, regulatory programs
desiped to protect human health, safety, or
the environment on the most important prir
orities. and on such other factors as such
Federal ager .:v considers appropriate.
February 28, 1995
mous consent that the amendment be document that there is an alternative
considered as read and printed in. the .that will have the same amount of impact on either a most cost-effective
RECORD.
' "'
. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection basis to society or give more flexibility
to the request of the gentleman from to State and local governments..
Texas? .. '
We do not t r y to supersede any of the
other procedures i n place that may
There was no objection.
. Mr; BROWN of California. Mr. Chair- allow for rules and regulations to be reman, I reserve, a point of order against viewed under some other natural proc-.!
ff)] CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTANCE OF PETITIONS. the amendment.
ess.
(1) LN GENERAL.—An agency head shall, acOur amendment has tremendous supMr. BARTON, of Texas.-Mr. Chaircept a petition for consideration, under this m a n , . ! am very happy, to offer this port. The Alliance for Reasonable Regsection if the petition meets the applicable
requirements of subsections (b), (c). and (d) amendment on behalf of myself; the ulation supports it.- There are over 1,500
and If tliere-is'a reasonable likelihood that gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. T A U - organizations i n that alliance. The
the revision requested-in the petition'would ZIN], and the gentleman from Idaho Chemical Manufacturers Alliance supports bur amendment, the National
achieve protection of human health, safety [Mr. CRAPO]. _
or the environment substantially, equivalent
The' basic point of this amendment Federation of Independent Businesses
to that achieved by the rule or program ele- goes to the thrust of the bill. Under the . support our amendment. Altogether
ment concerned biit a substantially lower
there are. over 3.000 groups around the
cosc'of compliance or in a manner, which pro- bill that is before us to^ay we are put- country that are strongly supporting
l i n g in place a mechanism by which we
vides more niexibility to States, local, or
can .do a valid scientific risk, assess- this amendment.
tribal governments, or regulated entities. •
.
Again, the bottom.line is i f Members
l2i FINAL AGENCY ACTION.—If the agency i ment. We are putting i n place a process
ne&ii rejects the petition, the agency head by which new laws and rules and regu- think the existing rules and regulasnail publish-the reasons for'doing so in the lations that flow from them, there has tions that are on the books today need
Federal. Register.' Any petition rejected for to be a scientific risk assessment done. to be reviewed then the petition procconsideration under this section may be conThe. bill before iis today, however, ess, if, adopted, is the only thing that
sidered by the agency under any other appli- does nothing to require a review of ex- guarantees such a review may occur, ..
cable procedures, but a rejection of a petiIf Members think everything that
tion under this section shall be considered isting rules and regulations. The economy today is laboring under a burden has' been passed in the past 100 years is
final agency actionT
... „•:.•(3) CONSIDERATION.—In determining wheth- of somewhere between .400 and 600 bil- OK, then Members would vote against
er to accept or reject a petition with respect lion dollars'.-worth of the existing regu- i t .
to any rule or program element, the agency . lations and costs the average American
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
shall take Into account any information pro- family about $6,000 per year.
geritleman yield?
vided by the petitioner concerning costs inIf Members thirik that, some of the Mr-BARTON of-Texas. -I yield to the
curred. In complying with the rule or pro-.existing rules and regulations should gentleman from Virginia, the distinrram element prior to the date ofthe peti- be reviewed,' i f Members believe that
guished chairman of the committee.
tion and the costs that could be incurred by
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I supchanging the rule or program "element as some of the existing rules and regulations should be subject to review, then port the gentleman's .amendment. .1
proposed in the petition.
ig) FINAL AGENCY ACTION.—In- accordance they should vote for this amendment. think i t is reasonable. I think there'
w i f j the schedule established under sub- If Members think that every existing ought to be some way for citizens t o '
section <e). and after notice and opportunity .'rule and regulation, that is on the appeal w"hat they consider to be unreafor| comment, the agency head shall take books today is sacrosanct and should sonable rules. There then ought to be a
final action regarding petitions- accepted not be reviewed, vote against the Bar- mechanism to consider this appeal. I
under subsection (f) by either revising a rule ton-Tauzih-Crapo amendment, because think the gentleman.has answered both
or [program element or determining not.to
make any such revision. When reviewing any what the amendment does is set up a questions i n a very nice way. and I
nnil agency action under this subsection; very structured process by which any urge support of the amendment.
the court shall hold unlawful and set aiside affected party out in -the country can
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the
ihe agency action if found, to be unsupported petition the relevant agency for a par- distinguished gentleman for his supby substantial evidence. .
ticular • rule o'r regulation to be re- port.
. (hi OTHER PROCEDURES REMAIN - AVAIL- viewed,. ^. . .
r.
Mr. .WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will
ABLE.— Nothing in this section shall be conI t has. to be a major rule as defined the gentleman yield for a question?
strued to preclude the review or revision of
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the
any risk characterization document, risk as- under the bill, i n other words,, has a
sessment document, rule or program element cost impact of $25 million or more on gentleman from California.
at any time under any other procedures. ..
an annual basis. - •
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman. I want
.SEC. 602. REVIEWS OF HEALTH EFFECTS VALUES. .. We allow a 6-month window by. which, . to see how this works. -An aggrieved
Within 5 years after the enactment.of this parties petition the affected Agency. party petitions 'for a. rule to be reAct. the Administrator, of the Environmental We then allow tljp 6-month window for opened: then who makes the decision in
Protection Agency shall review each health the agency to consolidate the petitions that first instance?
\
Dr|environmental effects value placed, before and decide Which i f any of the petitions
Mr. BARTON of . Texas. There is a 6the effective date of title I , on the Integrated" have, merit. Then we allow an 18-month month period for all petitions to be reRisk Information System (IRIS) Database period f o r the rules and regulations ceived by that, particular agency. The
maintained by.the Agency and revise such
•value to comply with the provisions of title - that do have merit that need to be re- agency will consolidate those petition's
viewe.i, and as each, of these windows if they are similar in nature, ar.d then
opens and shuts, the first 6 months' the agency makes a decision as to
SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS.window to petition, when i t closes then whether to accept the petition.
As used in this title:
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
(j!) The term "Federal agency"-has. the ..you have a second 6-month window
open up. Altogether there are 8 years' gentleman from Texas [Mr. BARTON]
.sar-.e meaning as when used in section 110.
worth of windows for the petition, has expired.
The terms "rule" and '•program eleirent" shall include reasonably related-pro-; there are 8 years' worth of windows f o r
(At the-request of Mr. WAXMAN and
visions of the Code of Federal Regulations agencies to review the petition and by unanimous consent, Mr. BARTON of
As'e any guidance, including protocols of gen- then there are 9V4 years of windows for Texas was allowed, to proceed for 2 aderi: applicability establishing policy regrard- the agencies to actually make a deciditional minutes.)
. i=e risk assessment or risk, characterization, sion oh a petitiqn process.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. If In the petiisu't shall not include atiy permit or. license
orltny regulation or other action by an agenWe have done everything we can i n tion the petitioner has shown that
cy, to authorize or approve any individual' drafting the amendment to make sure there is adequate documentation to
sabstance or product.• .; •.. •,'"- ' .;'.: ;.-. ." that there.are no frivolous petitions of- show that there • is reasonable cause
- Mr. BARTON of Texas.(during the fered. We. require that when the peti- that the petition should be reviewed,
reiading). Mr. Chairman. I ask unani-. tioner comes forward that they supply then the agency has to review i t .
i
-
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
H2347
Mr. fVAXMAN. The agency must re- Space, and Technology adopted no, lan- they are going to be swamped with peview at that point?
guage whatsoever on looking back like titions. .'.
•Mr. BARTON of Texas. But based on that. The language you have adopted Is
Business after business after business
the petitioner presenting evidence. You . any person who demonstrates that he is. going to file against regulations tnat
cannot just say,I think i t all ought to or she is affected by a mle may submit have been handed down: consumer
be looked at; there are very substantial a petition.
groups, citizen groups, environmencal
evidentiary requirements that are re- What is the difference?
groups, other people are going to opt?n
quired for the petition.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr: Chair- up these rules, again, rules that have
already been agreed to. rules that busaMr. WAXMAN. And. i f the agency man, will the gentleman yield?
still d sagrees, what happens then?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the nesses are living under, rules that tiie,
public benefits from i n many cases,
Mr. BARTON of Texas. You have 6 gentleman from Texas.'
months in which to present your petiMr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair- clean air, clean water, pure food, sale
tion and then the agency has 6 months man, the difference is the language consumer products, all of that-, and s e
to look at the petition. The agency that we adopted i n the Committee, on are opening this up again. I t is more
then makes a determination. If i t is a Energy and Commerce; the gentleman bureaucracy, more laye-s of governnegative determination that says no, from Massachusetts [Mr.. MARKEY], ment.^more costs:
wo do [not want to review i t , the agency wanted to substitute any person, which
At tive same time i t is more judicial
has to publish reasons, why i t reached would literally be anybody breathing review, and i t is again another reason
the negative .determination and show in this country. In. consultation with - that this b i l l i n the whole is a prcblem.
that i t had substantial evidence to people both for the amendment and op- and this amendment particuhtr.'y tak^s.
prove (that i t should not review the reg- posed to the air.Sndment after: the the bill that is already ioailad dewn
ulation.
.
markup i n the Committee on Energy with too much bureaucracy and litisraMr. (WAXMAN. Is that challengeable and Comrnerce, we decided-to seek a ' t i o n and loads'.it down even further,
middle ground between any person and and it. loads i t down for the next 8
in court?
Mr.j BARTON . of Texas. I t is a person who has a direct financial i n - years, for the next 16 6-month perio-is.
challengeable under the existing laws. terest, so the standard we chose was an if you w i l l , and ends up putting us beWe do not put i n a new burden of proof affected person. Now, an affected per- " hind the eight ball more.
son is s t i l l a very broad definition. I t is
in terms of judicial review. •
For us not to calculate the cost and
Mr. WAXMAN. Under the Adminis- somebody affected i n a cost way by the Just say, yes. Government is going t o
rule or regulation or living i n an area be able to do that, is simply misleadiiig
trative Procedures Act.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is cor- that is affected by the consequences of the public and misleading the othsr
' '
rect. If the agency says yes, we are the regulation.
Members of this House.
going to. review i t , then .there is an 18So an affected person is not quite as
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I f the genmonth period during which the agency broad as any. person, b u t . i t is still a tleman will yield further. I make a
has t;o review i t . I t is not an open- very broad definition.
•- X
Couple of poirits on his point. No. 1. i f
ended pview. We create an 18-month Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my the b i l l passes, there are not going to'
period.- once they have made the deci- Ume and posing another, question, the be as many new rules and regulations
sion ihey shall review i t . Then there is CBO scored or estimated $250 million promulgated. I think that is a given.
i:i months i n which they have to review for the cost of this bill, moving, raising, So there are' going to be people that
it., so[ they cannot let i t go on indefi- the threshold from $25 to $100 million. have time to do that.
nitely.
I t would cost the Government $250 m i l No. 2. i n the petition, the systc-m
Mr.j .WAXMAN. The gentleman indi- lion.
.
that we set up. we require that as part
cated they would have to come up with
Have yoii calculated, or has CBO cal- of the petition the information be
the same result i n some other way. culated, the difference i n cost, the ad- Shown that which shows that the rule
How [is that spelled out in the.gentle- ditional cost In bureaucracy and litiga- or . program element concerned can be
man's ameridment?
tion and hiring niore employees and all. administered at a substantially lower
of that to do a lookback at all of these cost of compliance or i n a manner
• 1530
cases over the next 8.years, a lookback which provides more flexibility to tae
Mr BARTON of Texas. Im the "pur- at all of these regulations that could be States. -So- we are attempting, you.
pose'i'-it says.
/
brought up?
know, nothing is certain in this life exTh^ purpose of this section is to provide an
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I f the gen- cept death and taxes. But we are ataccelerated process for the review of Federal tleman w i l l yield further, first of a l l , tempting.
prowams designated to protect' human
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
health, safety, or the environment and to re- we do require that anybody that petivise ijules and program elements where pos- tions be able to show that there is .gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN] has
sible to achieve.substantiaUy equivalent pro- going tp be substantially lower cost of expired. '
tection of human health, safety, or the envi- ' compliance arid more flexible cost of
(By unanimous consent. Mr. BRO-XN
•ronment at a substantially lower cost of compiiance. So on a net basis we think of Ohio was allowed to proceed for 1 adcompiiance or in a more flexible manner.
i t is going to save money on a net ditional minute.) .
"
• • ';•.'•'
The CHAIRMAN. Doe's the gentleirian basis.
Mr. BARTON of Texas.. I f the genfrom' California [Mr."BROWN] insist on
No. 2, we do not require that any ad- tleman will yield further, we put landitional employees be retained to do guage i n the amendment where we are
his p'oiht of order?
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chair- this review. We happen to believe that attempting to mandate there be a
man! the • gentleman withdraws his there are enough Federal employees i n lower compliance cost.
the affected'agencies, that can do the Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am not a lawpoint of order.
Mij. BROWN of.Ohio. Mr: Chairman. I review.
yer, but you can drive a truck through
move to strike the requisite number of
So I am not going to prevaricate and that kind of language.-and anybody
words.
say that I have done an extensive cost that feels harmed or hurt in any way
Mr. Chairman, i f the gentleman from analysis of our amendment. But we do by a regulation, whether i t is a busiTexas [Mr. BARTON] would engage in a not believe that i t is going to o.:.r an ness that is trying to n n around a regcolloquy and answer a couple of ques- additional cost to society. I n fact..we ulation arid wants to dispose of waste
in Lake Erie or. an environmental
cions. i n the committee report f r o m : think i t will save money.
the Committee on Energy ahd ComMr. BROWN of Ohio:.Reclaiming my" group, that thinks they have been
merce. I say. to my friend from Texas, time, I think that is the reason this wronged by a regulation, they always
the language i n the section 3401, i n amendment In the end makes no sense. can find a way to f i t their complaint
paragraph 2, "any person may peti- It. is a question of, again, as much as into that language and open this back
tionj" was the language that the Com- the rest of the bill does, i t is rriore law- up. There will be plenty of rules and
mittee on Energy and. Commerce yers, more litigation, more employees regulations, suggested or handed down
adopted.' The Committee on Science. working for these agencies because by agencies that will go through all of
�H2348
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
February 28, 1995
this 23-step process. I t will cost all of
Frarikly, as I-have said, that is the their agricultural pesticides every 6'
us as taxpayers more' money, and i t is very reason we are here. Yes, people in - months for 8 years. They can be in
simply not.being honest with the pub- . this .country are living under those court constantly and can be harassed
lic to say that i t j s not really going to' rules and regulations, but, no, they are under the provisions of this particular
cost more money, because in the end i t riot happy: no, i t is not f i g h t for this amendment.
is going to cost government a whole lot Congress to just wink, its eye at what
The auto industry, on fuel efficiency
more rnoney. I t is gping to mean more has happened i n the past and say we
' or aiito safety or clean air, can be in
judicial review, more expense,. more are going to go on in the future arid let
litigation, more government, more bu- what now stands be unchecked arid court constantly, and the subject of
whether or .not they are entitled to
reaucracy. I t sjnigly does not. make unreviewed.
. hav-j a.particular regulation that is in
sense, .•
And then i t is said, well, this legisla- place remain in place or be subject to
Bjlr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman. I move to tion lets any person bring a proposal having .it reopened.by some outsider is
strike the requisite number of words:
before the agencies for review. Well,
Kir. Chairman, I speak: on behalf of frankly, T think that, any person ought .'settled by this amendment. What i t
the amendment.
• \ to Have, who is affected by these regu- says is anybody who wants to can go in
and force this process and can then, on
rllr. Chairman, I think we are once lations, ithe ability to bring i t forward the conclusion of the action of the regagain faced with a critical decision i n and.have i t reviewed.
the debate as i t is setting UP here;.it is : But we have, provided i n the bill for ulatory body,: in approving br disshowing the basic difference in philoso- protections. Every 6 months the agen- approving, have the matter opened tb
phy in how we are going to approach cy is entitled to collect the various pe- litigation by any person who has an inthe critical concerns i n . this country titions,, organize them, and assemble terest.
• theni'. arid review them under a specific
Now, l e t us look at an electrical utilabout Federal regulation. ,J. •
This process will change the bill i n a regulation to which' they apply. We i t y . Let's suppose an electrical u t i l i t y
very fundamental and important way. have a funneling system put i n place has gotten a particular ruling from the
Th'e bill, as i t now stands, stops the- that will keep the agencies from being EPA with regard to emissions of sulfur.
Felderal regulators from contiriiiing the. inundated by repeated petitions. They . That particular judgment is open to reabusive growth of Federal. regulations collect them all in a 6-month period view every. 6 months for 8 years, and
and act on them one at a time.
again i t is subject not only to regu-'
in|unjustified ways for the future. :
This process, the petition process, alMr. Speaker,-this legislation is criti- latory action of the agency but to judi- .lows a look back at some o f t h e exist- cal.. You could say i t is the core of the cial review. Imagine the harassment
ing regulations, I t has already been issue we are facing here today. We have that can take place of the American
sa}d i n debate on this floor that the. ex- got the vehicle there. Let us allow us electrical u t i l i t y industry or any' other
industry in this situation.
istjing regulatory burden we.face i n this now to look back.
country is the issue that is bringing us\. Mr/DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move
Let. us go to others. A food additive
to|this debate itself.. If a l l we do is.pro- to' strike the- requisite number of or fluoridation of water in a commutect ourselves against future abuses,; .' words.." •
nity, comes open at every turn, bewe fail to look back at the very reason : .' .(Mr. iDINGELL asked and was given cause-that'regulation is subject to this
that brings us to the floor .for . this de-- • penriissiori to revise and extend his re- particular provision. :The individuals
bate, and that is the existing Federal' marks.):. . • - ••
affected can demand that this be done:
regulatory bureaucracy that is crush-:
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, there every 6 months for 8 years, and every
ing our economy and invading the lives is an old saying, ':Be careful of what American water company, every Amerof|Americans in almost every aspect of. you ask.for,"because you might get i t . " icari municipality that delivers water
their lives. . . ' • •
And I . would urge my colleagues to is going to. be subject to being sued
It has been discussed today that we ..keep that saying i n mirid, because .if under this and to have the whole mat-^
haive. and I have seen studies that show ybu ask for this, you very well Just ter carried through not only the entire
th|e burden on the American
economy might get i t :
administrative process but then subfrom the Federal regulatory system is., , What is this amendment going to re- ject to judicial review as ofteri as a"
anywhere from $400 billion to over $1 quire of :the Government?-Arid what complainant may. want. Every 6
trillion, and that is every bit as real as rights is . i t going to permit? Is this
a jtax, as the taxes collected from the going to permit somebody to petition months i t can be done.
I do not think this body wants anytaxpayer every April.
... r '.
who is aggrieved i n business, who feels
[We have got to recognize that we he has been wronged with regard to a thing of this character to be put. in
must allow us to look back arid correct regulation which is imposing unneces- place. There are regulations in place
sary costs on him? Yes, i t is. But i t is which make sense, and there are regu;
the abuses in the regulatory system- •
[The arguments being: made against f t also going to. permit Ralph Nader, the lations ih place which do not, but if
ai^ the same as well. First, i t is thrown Sierra Club, the Natural Resources De- you are going to address the ones that
up this is'going to allow for more-law- fense. Council, arid ordinary individuals do not.make sense. I would beg you to
yers to get-into the act and for us'to to do the same. Jecause theiariguage of understand that this is not just limited
have more litigation. I t seems that the .amendment says, "Any person,", to one particular regulation, or one
every time we want to correct, the any person without limitation as. to particular kind of- regulation which
abuse in the- Federal regulatory .sys4 who. And.they can submit this petition, might be hostile to industry, or which
tern: the counterargument is; well, each 6 rrioriths for 8 years, 15 times, and riiight cost too much, nor is this legisi f they .do not get what they want the lation going to be used only by respontliat we take lawyers,
The fact is we have got to decide as. first time, tl'.ey can resubmit i t , and in sible citizens or American businessmen
a Congress whether we want to' iriove resubmitting i t , they can again ask for concerned about competitiveness, but
malefactors and . irresponsible parties
forward and create the mechanism for the sarne relief.
people to fight back against th? regur
And when the agency has decided as well. .
laltory abuse and the explosion of regu- whether they are or are not entitled to
I t . is going to open the door of the
lations in this couritry. Or whether, we the relief they have sought with regard regulatory process to every crackpot,
want to say because we are afraid that to having the matter reopened, i t is a nut, special interest group that you
i t might take some legal review that final action. Now, for the benefit of my might care to name, and they are going
we are going to take no action. I do not colleagues who do not understand these to run all the way from the environthink that is a j u s t i f i c a t i o n . - .
things, "a final action" is a word of art mental extremists to the right wing
The argument has been made tliat i t in the Federal law which says that that reactionaries, and all the way from
is going to open up rules that, busi- final action then is reviewable i n court. crackpot
left-wing
advocates
to
nesses and people across this country
iSo let us look. Any chemical com- reactionaries who think that Industry
are already adjusted to living under, pany is subject to having a reopenirig is being excessively hurt by sensible
and we. ought to leave, i t alone. ;
on any of their additives or any of regulations.'
;
:
1
:
1
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
H2349
• 1545
one in my district—the Poe Lock Sys- . If. title I requirements applied, they
. The result of the adoption of this tem at Sault Ste. Marie. ML Does this would require disclosure, best . estiamendment, very frankly. Is not only bill apply 'to the lock systems under mates," and comparisons. These requiregoing to be to bring the' administrative thfe jurisdiction of the Army Corps of ments are broadly viewed as importinc
benchmarks which should be followed
process in this Government to a halt Engineers?
Mr. BLILEY. The bill.does not apply for all risk assessments and characterby. compelling tremendous relitigation,
reexamination of every existing rule to construction projects or operations ization.
but i t is going to go further. I t is going of lock systems per se. The bill only . Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman. I thank
to harass and drive American industry addresses regulatory programs to pro- the gentleman from Virginia for engagtect health, safety, or the environ- ing me.in a.colloquy..and creating t i i s
to its knees.
Mr. SjrUPAK. Mr. Chairman. I move ment."
legislative history.
• to strike the requisite number of
Mr. STUPAK. As I said, I am. conMr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman. I move
words, and I rise to engage in a col- cerned'about the impact of H.R. 1022 on to strike the requisite number of
loquy with the gentleman from Vir- the Great Lakes. As you may know, words:"
" " -.' '
'"' .
'
ginia [Mr. BLiLErj.
the Great Lakes shoreline covers more '- Mr. Chairman, of all the things that
than 11,000 miles—a distance equal to I haye had;a chance to vote on: I am:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my
colleague a series of questions that re- almost 45 percent of the Earth's cir- more excited in voting on this amendlate to; the .impact of this bill on the cumference.
ment, than-just about anything we have
About 25 million people, get .their -'done here, because to me the November
Great Lakes States, because my disdrinking .water from the Great Lakes 8. election said something prectjtrict has more shoreline than any
and the St. Lawrenc^ River, and each stxong, that we feel distant from our
other district except Alaska.
As you know, the Army Corps of En- day, 655 billion gallons of Great Lakes government. ' The gentleman from
gineers operates and ; maintains apr water are used for various purposes. Michigan ,talked about groups than,
proximately 12.000 miles of commercial Ninety-four percent of this water, pro- were extreme in nature being, able to
navigation channels: i t maintains 297 duces 20 billion kilowatt-hours-of.elec- talk to their government. I think one
.deep draft harbors and 549- shallow tricity by passing through, hydro- of the reasons we had such an extreme " - .' 1. change in the way the country is bein?
draxt harbors. Under the River and Har- electric plants. '
Which "'brings me to my next ques- run is.because people felt very alien"bon; Acjt of 1899. the. Corps of Engineers
issues permits to private contractors tion. In 1906, a Russian-flagged ship in- ated from this country, they felt aJies
for most harbor dredging,. In addition, troduced' into the Great Lakes a from regulatory bodies that could pass
the Corps of. Engineers issues general rionindigenbus species—the zebra mus- oh huge costs of doing business in priand regional permits for dredging—for sel: Zebra mussels attach themselves vate and public life, and nobody cculd
instance, in New York and New Jersey! to hard surfaces like pipes, making ask commonsense questions.
Under title 1. dealing with risk as- them very difficult to remove. They • Of all the things that I voted on i n
sesiiment, on page 8, beginning on line quickly gang up on a desired target, . •this Congress, I am very proud to sup•5 and ending on line 9, i t says that this clogging water intake and distribution port the opportunity for average citi. . . . . . .
title applies to "any proposed or final systems.
zens,--not crackpots, not nuts, to be
permit condition placing ti restriction - These animals have cost, municipal . able to come and talk to their governon facility siting or operation under and industrial water facilities millions ment in a meaningful fashion, someFederal laws administered by the Envi- of dollars in cleanup and control costs. thing that has been iost In this counronmental Protection Agency or the ;They've disrupted Great Lakes recre- try.
' '
.
ation, causing thousands of . dollars in
Dejiartment of the Interior."'
. ' There are triggers In this bill. I t has
Later in the'same title, on page 25. damage .to boats, docks, buoys, and to have a $25 million effect in the agon lines 12 and 13. the U.S. Army Corps beaches. Over the next decade, sci- gregate before you 'can petition your
of Engineers is listed as a "covered entists estimate that the cost of the govemment. Twenty-five million dolFederal agency"; I assume for purposes zebra mussel invasion for Great Lakes lars, is still a. lot of money in South
water users could go as high as $5 bilo f t h e rjest of the title.
Caroiina, and .still a lot of burden to
' 'My question to the gentleman is: lion.
And they're spreading beyond the bear in this,country. And when $25 milDoos this bill apply to individual, relion gets to be nothing, then we really
' gional.) or general permitting" actions Great Lakes. The flopd of 1993 has dp have a problem here.
helped the mussel spread as far south
by the .Corps of Engineers for dredging?
The exciting thing to me, Mr. Chair- "
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the as Louisiana: i t pushed the zebra mussel over levees, up rivers'and drainage, man, about this amendment "is i t algentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gen- ditches and into - sewage treatment lows average, everyday citizens. pec?ie_
plants and other riverside facilities. - .-:: trying to make a' living, trying to pay
tleman! from Virginia [BLILEY].
Section 1201(f) of the Nonindigenpus' the bills, to. come to their government,
:Mr. BLILEY. I thank-the gentleman
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Con-, and ask them to give answers to com- .
for yielding.
Mr.- Cha.irman, individual, regional, trol Act authorizes the National Oce-' monsense questions, making the gov- .
. or general permitting actions by the anic and Atmospheric Administratibri emment accountable, having to exCorps of Engineers for. dredging under • to conduct research to find a solution plain; why they regulate the way they
tho Rivers and Harbors.Act are.not inr to the problem of nonindlgenous spe- do. having to explain the benefi t and.
eluded] as significant risk assessment cies like the zebra mussel, sea lamprey,. yes, the "cost. That is something that is
'-.
•' ' ' missing' in government in 1995. and.
or characterization documents for pur- and European riiffe: '• " •
po:;es bf title I . The corps could, by
My question to the gentieman is: yes. this amendment will bring governrulemaking, add such actions to the Does this bill apply .to research ment back to the people more, than
scope of title I but the act does not projects conducted by NOAA? • •
anything I can-think of.
ma.ndate this outcome. Title I I applies
Mr. BLILEY. Research projects," • I would ask every Merhber of this
to major rulemaking and such major themselves, do not fall into the manda- .body, who believes that the U.S. GovTClemakings may subsequently affect ' tory definition of significant, risk as- ernment has gotten distant from its
tho permit program:
sessment or characterization docu- people to vote .or this amendment
Mr. STUPAK. In addition to dredging ments. I f such a.document were used as which allows you to petition your gov- '
acUvitjies, the Corps of Engineers has a basis for a major rulemaking or re- ernment to answer- your questions.
376. projects, under construction. Does port to Congress, then title I would What a novel concept in democracy.
th-.s bill apply to construction projects apply , for the. rulemaking or report, to " I move very urgently that we pass It.
under | the Jurisdiction of . the Army Congress. NOAA. however, can add risk vMr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman. I move
assessmeht or characterization docu- to .'strike the requisite number of
Corps of Engineers?
through
rrhe corps also owns or operates 273 ments to coverage ... •'' .'• ,,: a new rule- words, and I . rise in opposition to the
'•''' ''-••'' .." •••' amendment.
..... .
navigation lock chambers, including making.
;
:
;
\
�H2350
I.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
I want to point out that a good part, , . M r . WAXMAN. I yield to the genof the debate, at least yesterday, was tleman from Texas.
on the point this bill was going to be
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the
prospective. We are not going tp open gentleman for yielding.
up all the laws on the: books now to
Mr. Chairman, I point out that we do
lirotect the public health and environ- not change the law, we do not change
ment. .
..
the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act
| This particular amendment specifi- specifics that if a certain .percent of encally goes.backward and says we are. •vironmental increase i n air quality is
gjoing to look at and" review ..'Federal going to corne from stationary sources,
programs designed to protect human we do not change that, but we could
health, safety, or the environment, to .under this amendment
revise rules and program elements,where possible, to achieve certain: re-: • •,• Mr. WAXMAN.. Reclaiming my time,
suits. " '.''. .
'-"". ' ; : ' ' . '"••• the gentleman is wrong on that point,
• because the Clean Air Act says you
Now I want to give a real-life, exam- achieve the reduction and achieve i t
ple bf what is likely to happen under; any way that the State thinks is approthe circumstances under this proposal priate. They develop an implernentaso that we can understand that this is, tion^plari. They; can develop a mix of
a] likely result t h a t - I think the pro- strategies; they do not have to go after
ponents of -this amendment would not ^stationary. sources for. a certain
want to see happen:
aniount or vehicles for a certain
Under the Clean A i r Act, in order, to. amount. They factor in all the sources
achieve the pollution reductions' of of pollution.
vjOC's. which cause ozone, there is a re-',
This point ! am making-is they may
quirement that there be a strategy to
reduce pollution on those that cause well have decided to tell a factory to
spend a. couple of thousand dollars per
the pollution.. .-' „•
[The pollution caused by big. pollut- ton in order to' achieve the reductions^
ers, like automobiles or smokestacks froin a major source.-But that major
of factories, the reduction is anywhere source can now come in and say, "Wait
fijom S2.000 to $10,000.per ton, according ,a second, you can get the same result
the testimony froni the head of the En- „. froiri an individual car owner at a less
expensive fate. ..and we demand that
vironmental Protection Agency, > But i f you ask that the reductions yoii do that.''. not be from, the major polluters but \ As, I read that the gentleman's
Irpm. individuals by requiring them.to amendmerit, the EPA would have to go
spend money to be sure that their older along with that petition.
vehicles achieve the reduction requirer • " . Mr. .BARTON. of Texas. I f the petiments or achieve, what their, cars are tioner; i n , the gentleman's case, the
supposed to achieve by way of emission mobile source industry, shows substanreductions, the.Environmental Protec- tial evidence, they can achieve, the
ti'pn Agericy has told us that would.be same,result with greater flexibility and
nearly $500 a ton. Now, that could lower costs. EPA does have to agree to
mean that the auto industry, or. a fac- review i t . Then i t .has to make a final
tory or.a big polluter can come into decision, and i t has to prove that final
EPA and complain about , the regula- decision with substantial evidence.
tions that have been imposed on them Then the current law kicks in on. the
by their own States and say that,.;"We, review.'
don't think i t is reaspriable because
Mr: WAXMAN. My point' is that,
you can achieve an equivalent reduc- using the criteria the gentleman set
tion but going after iridividuai drivers . •out in his amendment, they are going
and owners of vehicles." And they will .to establish that case that they do not
be right because'it is more cost effec- have to have the V-urden placed on
tive to achieve the same.poliution re- them as a major polluter because they
duction. .
••' ••.\."-V. .
' •. can achieve the same result by requir. But what we have to ask ourselves is; ing: individual consumers who own veis that the result we would want to hicles, through an inspection and
see? I f individuals are going to.have to maintenance program, to achieve those
belar the costs to repair their; cars, the
older the car the more polluting i t will V same reductions, but at a' cheaper rate.'
Therefore',' as'-1.read the gentleman's
be and therefore the more i t may-cost
to| repair i t . That means, often, low-in- amendment, they would be mandated
come people will have to spend that to grant that petition.
money. But i t is a rriore cost-effective • Mr.. BARTON of Texas.- But the bottom -line is we want cleaner air at
way^to achieve the result: : . . ... ..:
lower cost or more flexibility. And I
i would like to ask the gentlemari think we both agree on that.
Irom Texas [Mr. BARTONJ,, who is the; ; Mr. WAXMAN. But I do not thinkproponent bf this amendment^would he - that is the bottom line because I do not
want to" see a regulation that iriiposes. thirik the major polluters ought to get
controls on a major polluter be re-,• o.ut. from under by shifting the burden
2'ieved of that responsibility by having on individual citizens, since, ordinary
ihe burden placed on individuals t o . people, that are going to have to pay
bear the costs, because i t would be a the. cost out pf their pockets, many of
Bess costly may. to achieve the^same rer whom would not be able to repair their
SUltS?'
••: - •-'.
^yry Vi;.
'^{^^ cars sufficiently to achieve the stand- M r i BARTON of Texas. Mr. .Chairr.;' ard; 'and.ithat.is w h y . I object to this,
-. 'iman. w i l l the gentleman-yieid?>:H.>'r^7- '' amendment; ~ '' •-- :
:
-
:
;
1
i
—J
February 28, 1995
• 1600
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairrrian, 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 Am-j.-^a, a phrase called " i n the
bag," and when we say something is in
the bag, we normally mean i t is completed, i t 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 i t 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 corne to respect
that right to petition as-such a strong
right that it' now includes in its construction a bag. literally a bag, that i s '
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 i t 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 i n their request for some action, some redress of
wrongs, sorrie correction of some grievance, and so i t is with the BartonCrapo-Tauzin amendment.
Mr. Chairman., this amendment l i t erally does the same thing for the people, of America. I t says that when the
people of this country who are affected
by rules and regulations of this-Government honestly believe and can Substantiate' with docurnentation 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 i t with less cost, fewer job losses. '
fewer plant closures, fewer property
damages, fewer impacts upon small
businesses; i f there is a way to haye the
same protection, and yet do i t with less
of an impact of regulation iri 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 i t , but i t
must act upon i t in a given and expressed time period where the Government must review i t .
'." "
Now i t does not say that the Government must take the action that I petitioned them to take.. I t simply says, " I f
I support my petition with endugh'documentation to justify a request that
:
�February 28, 1995 '
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
H2351
substantial protection, the same equiv- of the petitions filed by people i n this, Protection and Trade. We had discusalent' protection provided under the old country, that we still reserve the right, sion on redesigning a 5-gallon bucket
rule, I can be made available with a of our people to petition this Govern-- that is used for painting and hauMng .
mor^ flexible rule, one tha:t will cost ment and to seek changes under any water. The Consumer Product Safety
our citizens less, one that will employ, other procedures, any other rights Commission analyzed i t because a few
in fact fewer lost jobs i n our society, guaranteed under our . Constitution, children got caught i n i t , and t i e i r
one that will shut down fewer plants, protected. heads got caught i n i t because of raee
one that will let us continue to be a
In fact. Mr. Chairman, under that ligence by the parents. They issued—
prpduc'tive society and yet have the Constitution is a right bought and paid the Consumer Product Safety Comrsis'Same safety, health and environmental for with many, many lives in the his- sion issued—a 101-page report. In the
protection as the old rule., that the tory of the struggle for democracy report the staff notes that one of ttieir
Government cannot ignore that peti- against tyranny. The right to petition suggestions to' the industry was r^aktion.) I t is in the bag, and the Govern- Government is what we are debating ing. the bucket so that they delibment must consider i t .
today on this.amendment..
erately leak. I t is being objected to by
I say to my colleagues, "Those of you the bucket makers. Naturally the
Nojvlet me read to my colleagues the
most important section i n our amend- who believe i n that right, who believe bucket maker is a l i t t l e concerned
ment. I t says that the purpose is to re- that Government ought nqf ignore.the about. designing a bucket that'deiib• viseJrules and program elements where wishes of the people o f ' this "coimtry efately leaks. According to the report,
possible to achieve substantially equiv- when they, petition Government, ought quote, industry representatives claim
alent protection of human health, safe- to vote for this an^ndmeht." '.
that they do-not envision any use for a
ty oi'r the environment at a substan- . Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move bucket'that leaks.
. tially lower cost of compliancy or a to strike the requisite number of '.My colleagues, now is the time to
words.
'
' - pass the hallelujah amendment. I ctommuch more flexible manner.
(Mr. STEARNS asked arid was given plimentrmy colleague, the gentleman
Mr. Chairman, thtde are the goals of
this thing, and that is the only basis permission to revise and extend his re- froiri Texas, for what he is doing.
•
upon which petitions can be filed and marks.)
Mr., NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman. I
accepted by the Government agency. I - Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman. I rise
move to strike the requisite number of
in support of the amendment.
ask,
Mr. Chairinan. I would say to my col- words. " . '.
•- Who among you would not waint our Gov'srnrrient to review its rules to find out if we . leagues we could almost call the Bar- - Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the
can have the same protection and still have ton amendment the hallelujah amend- •amendment." '
peop e employed in this country? Who among ment because for. many of us who have
•Mr. Chairman, I also would like to
you would not want our' government to re- been in the private sector and have congratulate the gentleman who pro-,
view its rules to make sure that small busi- worked all our lives trying'to live with
duced this amendment in a bipartisan
nesses did not have to shut down, that mins
that-we fashion:" I think that this probably I s '
don't have to close, that our country can go all the regulations, the fact
on working and producing food and fiber for can now finally petition the . Federal the. most exciting thing that I riave
hallelujah! "SO B com- witnessed i n my 54 days in Congress.
our families and have the same equivalent Government,
protection?"
pliment my colleague for what he is ; There are two parts o f this air.s-nd' r .
•
'$'»>:..'".ment that I believe are very important.
Mr. Chairman, that is what this doing here.
We have heard'.examples from the
amendment does. I t says when the peoWhat have we been doing for 2 cays?
ple of our country affected by the rules gentleman from California [Mr.. WAX-. For 2 days we have debated the changes
this^ Government makes petitions this MAN], these hypothetical examples, needed with the rule's and regulations
Govj'ernmeht to look over its rules and but let me give my colleagues a clear that have been oppressive to the Amerto see whether or not there.is not a example that has occurred" which could ican people.
better way to do i t , that the Govern- have been petitioned; i t could have
Why did we ever write H.R. 1022? Bement ought to hear i t and the Govern- been redressed, and.it could have been cause the American people have finally
stopped:
ment ought not deny those petitions. I t
said that they have had enough of a buIn the early 1980's, Mr. Chairman, reaucracy that tells, them what to do .
ought to accept them, take them into
the bag, i f my colleagues y i l l , and give Government scientists .argued that as- from morning until night.
bestos exposure could cause thousands 'l.What is.iriy standing in this bill, in
us a chance to get a better rule.
That is all i t says, that is all i t does, of deaths. Congress, responded by pass- this debate? Well, t have only been a
ahd anyone who opposes this amend- ing a sweeping law which led'cities and Congressman for 54 days. I have, not
ment, says that they are just happy as • States to spend between $15 and $20 bil- had the last 10-15 years writing-legislaa lark with any old rule that puts peo- lion . to remove asbestos from public tion in terms of our air quality. But I
ple out of. work, and costs us too much buildings.. However 3.years ago EPA of- . have lived i n the ecoriomy of this counin small businesses,. and creates to ficials acknowledged further research. try, and I have lived under the impresmuch of a problem In oiir society, and Ripping out the asbestos had: been a
we (are not going to do anything about inistake. In fact they pointed out that sive .oppressive rules and regulations
it. I f risk assessment cost analysis has this mistake had really raised the ex- that this great large bureaucracy in
value for the future, i t also has value posure of the public to the dangerous Washington, DC, feels that they know
.for| citizens who want to petition this asbestos fibers which became airborne best how I should live.
•
.. •.•>, -• -- Part of the problem is I guess I am a
Government about wrongs and to re- during removal: .: • >
dre|ss those, wrongs with a petition
To the EPA i t was a mistake. To the rebel. I am much like those rebels who
process, that looks back at an old rule Americari taxpayers i t was ai$20 billion opposed the king, who did not want to
that could be made better. This is all mistake. Wasted. I ask. "Wouldn't i t be told what to do from the minute
this does. : '
have beeri nice, colleagues, to have had they get up to the minute they go to
Mr.. Chairman, I want to call to my a second chance at that rule, to have bed, and I do not want to be told what
colleagues' attention one last section the opportnrsit.y to petition the EPA to to do'from the Federal Government. 435
of | the amendment that is probably change its needless rule, to save the elected officials and millions of bureau
equally important. I t says that nothing American taxpayers $20 billion?" Again' crats.
in this section shall be construed to and again examples like, that are going
iThis bill is not, my colleagues, nec.
• •.
L - essarily just about General Motors and
preclude the review of revision of any to occur.
risk assessment, or risk characterizaTo ;those colleagues that are. watch- Dow Chemical. I agree with, my friend
tion document, rule or program ele- ing on television, we need to pass this from South Carolina when he says that
ment at any time under any other pro- amendment, hallelujah amendment.. ..- this Is a bill for the people, and i t excedures.. I t says in effect that while we
I want to conclude.. Last. term I . was cites me every time I read this part of
create the accelerated review process involved as a' ranking-• member of a the bill; and i f I may, Mr. Chairman. I
where Government has to take account committee called Commerce, Consumer w i l l .
:
�CONGRJESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H2352
Any person who demonstrates that tions should be based on the best availlie or she is affected by a rule or pro- able information. I strongly urge my
irram element referred to.in subsection colleagues to support the Barton-TauB may submit a petition.
zin-Crapo amendment.
Thlat is what is important here. People at home do not believe they have
• 1615
jiny jcontrol over their lives. They beMr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move
lieve we want to control their lives to strike the requisite number of
iright up here. This w i l l give them great words.
trood feelings to know that they, as an
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
individual, can petition their governthe amendment. We have heard a lot of
ment to change what we are doing.
compelling arguments as to why we
I heard earlier this afternoon the ought to do this particular amendijues'tion asked what does i t require of ment, and many of them make a great
iJie | Goverriment, what does this deal of sense. The fact is that many
.-imendment require of the Govemment. people are disturbed about regulations
it ask, "Who'.'.amongst you is standing that are already on the books.
up and saying, 'What does this rule reI personally am concerned about
(juire of the '.small business man?'" I
:im feady'toTiear a l i t t l e bit more of making the regular legislation before
.that' in thjs tiody than just what does i t us work, because I feel very strongly
that putting a process into place that
require of^th^T Government.
I ask each^of my colleagues to con- brings good science and common sense
isidef strongfy passing and voting for aaid smart actions into the process is in
this amendihent, and I congratulate fact the right thing to do. But I also
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BAR- know that i f you take the step too far,
TON] and the gentleman from Louisiana- that makes this into a litigious bill
(MrJ TAUZINJ and the gentleman from that in fact destroys our ability to do
idallo [Mr. CRAPO]. I think this is excit- all of that kind of work, and we will in
fact destroy that which we are ating iegislatidn.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I tempting to do out here.
Now, I want Members to think for a
nno\je to strike the requisite number of
moment about that whole cart of reguwords.. 'r
Mr. Chairriian. I rise in strong sup- lations that was rolled .in on the floor
peri
of tiie
Barton-Tauzin-Crapo when we were debating'another bill the
amendment. Too often we hear about other day, stacks and stacks of books
how Washington works in a vacuum. and paper, of Federal Registers of all
Too often. When the American public the regulations that were done in just
thinks of Washington, they think of 1 year, and virtually every one of those
government bureaucrats sitting behind regulations has somebody out there
a desk doirig-their own thing. To often that does not like them.
t i e y see a government which thinks i t
Now, you think of a l l those pages and
has | all the ^answers. Too often they pages and pages of regulation, and then
also see a government that is afraid to you think of a l l the people that have
admit when i t is wrong.
some complaint about each of those
wiell. Mr. Chairman, maybe we do not regulations, and you think about the
have all the answers. Maybe we did numbers.of petitions that could potenmake some " mistakes in the past. tially be filed and the amount of litigaMaybe someone else knows somethirig tion that is going to come from all of
we do not. Arid maybe, just maybe, i t is those filings, and all of a sudden you
time we started listening and then act- are going to have these agencies at a
ing-!
point where they will not be able to do
This amendment establishes a proc- some of the things we want them to do;
ess [for agencies to update old regula- namely, to put into effect a process for
tions using the most current scientific good science and common sense.
data. The public would be able to subI would like to see this process work.
mit scientific data to Federal agencies I do not want to pass a bill that is simaad have those agencies check the find- ply an employment policy for lawyers.
ings of old rules against new informa- That is what I am afraid this amendtion..
.. ment does. I am afraid that our atRight now, when a private party asks tempts thus far to l i m i t the amount of
a Federal ageincy, particularly EPA, to litigation that would be necessary
review new data and possibly modify under the bill are in fact undermined
thei current understanding of a particu- by what we do with this amendment,
lar substance or activity, there is no and I do not want to turn this bill into
guarantee that the study will even be a lawyers' employment act.
looked at. And^often i t isn't.
The - amendment
by
opposing
This amendment
simply
requires reachback does something different
agencies to consider and respond to from what we have done in the bill
new information in an open and timely thus far. We have made a prospective
manner.
It <•= keeps
the
scientific i l l . We have said that from now on in
b
underpinnings
of regulations
ever- we are going to require regulations to
green. •
come under the kinds of reviews that
This ameridment is really about con- we have. The reviews that are in the
cinuous improvement. I t is about mak- bill are i n fact designed "for that kind of
ing' government respond to scientific prospective status. You undermine our
changes and advancements. Mr. Chair- ability to do that when you pass this
man, it's about common sense—regula- particular amendment.
1
:
1
February 28, 1995
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 b i l l into effect that sets
up a good process, and what you will
have then is a series of bills coming up
for reauthorization. A t 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 i t stands the possibili t y 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 i t 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, i t 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.
I t 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 somethirig here that we may not
understand the f u l l implications of. I
would like to think that we could do
this bill the right way, and i t seems to
me doing i t the right way is to reject
the amendment.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the geintleman 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. I t was my
feeling initially that this bill might
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD^HOUSE
noc be germane to the legislation because as the gentleman correctly
points out, this is an effort, through
tho improvement of risk assessment,
chirac'terization and cost-benefit analysis, to improve prospectively the regulatory process. This goes way beyond
that to retrospectively i n effect seek to
review every kind of regulation that is
on the books.
)3ut I was persuaded by the ambiguity of the Parliamentarian that this
might be germane.
Mr. |WAL,KER. Parliamentarians are
often ambiguous.
Mr. BROWN of California. I t is true
that the impact of this amendment
overwhelms the impact of the rest of
the bill, and i t is more appropriately
considered i n connection with other efforts alt regulatory reform.
I t was also my feeling, since you and
I are primarily concerned with the nonregulaitory aspects, that others should
carry [the burden of opposing this. But
I •chink that i t is appropriate that we
suggest that this would i n effect hamstringj the entire, not improve, hamstringjthe 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 i n
every way that they can. While I can
understand that. I cannot support i t .
My only reason for possibly supporting
this would be that I guarantee you i t
would] cause the bill to be vetoed i f i t
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
gnntleman and certainly respect his opP()siti|on. I would like to see i f the gentleman could tell me where there Is additional litigation required by the petition process, because we do, not precludelany potential litigatiop.
. The. CHAIRMAN... The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
H2353
clude judicial review, i n your petition, comments made by the committee
but i n relating to the rest, of the bill, chairman, who spoke just a few moyou bring i t to the stage of judicial re- ments ago. although I come at i t from
view. So all of that regulation, all of a somewhat different angle, speakinsr
that cart of regulations brought on to from my scientific background.
the floor "the other day, i f all of that
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to rewas challenged, i t would also be sub- peat a warning I gave during our disjected at some point to judicial review. cussion of this bill i n the Committee
So while i t is not stated i n your on Science.- Risk assessment is in f a d
amendment, the effect of your amend- an idea whose time has come. I t is a
ment is to dramatically increase the good idea. But at the same time, let us
amount of regulation that would come not assume that this is a panacea, tha.t
under judicial review.
i t is going to- resolve regulatory difMr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair- ficulties, and that everyone is going to
man, i f the gentleman would yield fur- agree with the results and say hallether, I would respectfully disagree with lujah, this is wonderful, and now we
that, because we set up a process that can do this, and save money and s t i i l
is fairly circumscribed as: to what has protect the environment. • ""to be in the petition, the time frame
I t is difficult t o do. There are many
the petitions can be reviewed, and we
do have a date certfcin in which i f the factors involved which are not fully unagency determines to take a petition, derstood, as we can see just from the
that, they have to consider i t and make debate here over the past day. I t is not
going to be a: panacea, i t is going to be
a ruling. So none of that is litigious.
difficult to implement. The number of
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, re- people who truly understand risk asclaiming my time, but under that ruling, under "the provisions O f t h e bill, sessment and how i t proceeds is limited
this is a final action subject to judicial in this. Nation, and we have a considerable amount of. expertise to build up.
review at that point.
In other "words, I support the bill. I
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, i f the gentleman will continue to am anxious to see i t go into effect. I
yield, the bottom line, and I respect hope i t works as well as I think i t win.
the gentleman for letting me ask some But I believe that we have to evaluate
questions, we simply have to have a how well it.works and get a better hanway to at least review existing rules dle on i t before we try to broaden i t too
and regulations that allows America to much. For that reason. I oppose this
come i n and request this. We disagree amendment, even though I do corr.on that.
: niend the gentleman from Texas [Mr-.
Mr. WALKER. No. But I understand BARTON] because the amendment is inthat. But we have some idea of what we deed better than the original version
are dealing with i n terms of regula- that was contained in the Committer
tions. For instance, we know that i n a on Commerce version.of the bill.
period of time in the early nineties,'
I believe "that as written! and given
about 2000 EPA regulations were writ- the nature of the backlog of cases out
ten. We know how many of those fall there that people are concerned abour.
over the $100 million mark. We have this amendment would result i n oversome idea how many fall over the $25 whelming the process and perhaps i n
million mark; We have some idea how fact very likely making the entire risk
much we are going to be dealing with assessment process unworkable. I
over the next few years as these agen- think i t is very important to put this
cies write the regulations.
bill in' place, prove that i t does work
What we do not know under the gen- when properly applied, and develop the
WALKER] has expired.
tleman's process, since any person can experience and expertise that we need
(At the request of Mr. BARTON of come i n and complain about anything to really make risk assessment work
Texas and by unanimous consent, Mr. ever done in the regulatory sense of the and work well.
WALKER was allowed to. proceed for . 3 Federal Government, we have no idea
We will have ample opportunity i n
"additional minutes.) • - • '•'
how that may explode.
the future to broaden the process, to
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the genMr. BARTON of Texas We have the adopt the petition process, and to go
tleman from Texas.
same requirements. I t hat to be the $25 back and review other regulations. But
Mr.! BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair- million threshold. We do not change I truly worry that we will overwhelm
man, |we do not add anything i n the pe- that. We require quite a bit of docu- the 'system, we will overwhelm the
tition process that requires litigation . mentation in the petition process. We process, we will overwhelm the people
or precludes litigation that could exist also require they show i t would be cost who are available to do risk assesseffective.
under current law.
ment, unless we proceed carefully and
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reMr. WALKER. A l l . of that docu- first of all establish the process accordclaiming my .time, first of all to bring mentation process is going to involve ing to the bill, demonstrate that i t
the process i n the first place, you are attorneys and all kinds of people in works, and then i t is going to become,
going to require i t to come i n i n a form order to do the appropriate documenta- if we succeed, as I hope we do, so selfthat jean i n fact be done by the agen- tion. That to me is litigation. The idea evident that this process should be
cies, (and the agencies, i n collecting all that any citizen is going to be aole to used i n a.11 cases, that in fact we should
of this material and so on. are going to pop out of the woodwork and bring i t go ahead and apply i t to other cases.
have (to put i t i n a form that legally re- in. the gentleman- describes i t cor." • 1630
flects the regulations. So right away rectly, that is not really going to hap'"•ou set up that process.
pen. You are going to have monied inIn other words. I oppose the amendUltiimately, I assume, i t is my under- terests that are going to be involved ment because I believe i t is going to be
standing that under the bill you sub- here.
deleterious to the bill and deleterious
ject : t to the same judicial review that .. Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to to the goals of the sponsor of the
is already i n the bill. You do not in- oppose the amendment and support the amendment.
1
�H2354
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
February 28, 1995
I urge the defeat of the amendment . tions; why should we leave untouched regulators than even industry thinks
and the passage of the bill.
the scores of current regulations that wise."
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman. I move to fall short of these standards? Instead,
I just thought I would point that out.
strike the requisite number of words, we should allow citizens to petition Another l i t t l e problem which 1 conand I rise i n support of the amendment. agencies with their ideas for revising sider a missed opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1022 is a good existing regulations to achieve the
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, that is
bill. I t will dramatically change the same amount of protection at a lower one of the fallacies of the arrogance of
way regulations are promulgated i n cost of compliance, i n a more flexible the elite into thinking that i t is more
this country and bring some common manner, and using sounder science.
important for the bureaucrats tp have
sense into the process. However, there
There are many who have had years an easier time to impose regulations
is one serious flaw—it does nothing to of experience complying with these rather than American citizens.
improve regulations that were promul- regulations and seeing firsthand the i n Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman. I
gated under standards lacking in cost- efficiencies of how they work—or do thank the gentleman for yielding to
effectiveness or based on poor science. not work. Where they can identify a me.
The Barton-Tauzin-Crapo amendment way to do things better for less cost,
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1022, the
addresses this problem.
we should welcome the opportunity to Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis
The current cost of regulation on the take advantage of their experience to Act. I do so with some reluctance, becai I
economy is conservatively estimated make the process more efficient and made a concerted etfort to find reasons to
to be. $500 billion annually. This trans- more effective.
vote in favor of this legislation. I am a firm belates into $10,000 for a fantilly of four.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, w i l l liever in the benefits of cost-benefit analysis.
To put i t another way, 10 cents out of the gentleman yield?
Indeed, when I worked in the Texas State
every dollar goes to pay for the cost of
.Mr. DELAY. I yield to the gentleman Legislature, we operated under the principles
regulation. The current lalck of risk as- from Pennsylvania.
of cost-benefit analysis, and the results were
sessment and cost/benefit analysis
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the. quite positive.
means resources are being used.ineffi- gentleman referred throughout his reUnder such a system, we were required to
ciently and only adding to this burden. marks to American citizens. The gen- determine whether the costs imposed by our
We need to address the issue not only Ueman would grant that the language legislation would be more than offset by the
of unreasonable prospective regula- in the bill would give the same rights benefits to public health, safety, and economic
tions, but also of those that are cur- to foreign citizens as Americans c i t i - well-being. I strongly support such a system. I
rently weighing down the economy. zens, would i t not?
know, that it eliminates wasteful and unnecesUnder this amendment, any party afMr. D E L A Y . Mr. Chairman, yes, I sary regulation, and that it lends greater legitfected by a major regulation or risk as- would assume so.
imacy and force to those regulations that prosessment covered i n H.R. 1022 can ask
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman. I thank vide important safeguards for human health
the Federal agency to review its rule to thegentleman.
and the environment. I know the Congress
take into account new information on
Mr. DELAY. I find no problem with needs to pass a similar bill. But once again. I
risk and/or cost.
'. "
that. I f foreign citizens are creating find myself confronted with a bill that I simply
The review is only available i n cases jobs in this country and are being regu- cannot support
where the petitioner demonstrates that lated by this country, they ought to
The current administration has already
existing regulations are not cost-effeo- have the right to petition, i f they have made substantial gains in streamlining and imtive methods of addressing the targeted . a better idea on how to save costs and proving the Federal regulatory process. Under
risks. The point of this amendment is implement these regulations in a more an Executive order issued in September of
to give citizens the opportunity to find efficient way.
1993, every regulation with an economic cost
better ways to achieve the same pro- . The CHAIRMAN. The time of the of over S100 million is subject) to an agency
tections currently provided.
gentleman from Texas, [Mr. D E L A Y ] , cost-benefit analysis. This is an important first
Some concerns have been raised has expired.
step, and there is a great deal that we can do
about the potential for increased law- • (On request of Mr. COLEMAN, and by to further this efforts. We need to give greater
suits as a result of this process. Several unanimous consent. Mr. DELAY was al- consideration to the views ot those affected by
points should be made In response:
lowed to proceed for 1 additional regulations, including those who must perform
regulatory tasks. We need to move away from
In the first place, remember that a minute.)
petition process already exists under
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to litigation as the solution to the regulatory
the Administrative Procedures Act, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. COLE- nightmare, and instead solve the problems at
their source: the regulatory agencies. We
complete with judicial review. The MAN].
'Barton amendment simply expedites
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given need to show flexibility in our evaluation of exjthe process for the agencies covered by permission to revise and extend his re- isting regulations. The administration supports
such initiatives. We have the opportunity to
this bill.
• .•-. marks.)
I Further, no new rights to go to court
Mr. COLEMAN. M i . Chairman, I draft legislation that will complement this enare created by this amendment. Citi- thank the gentleman from Texas for. deavor. H.R. 1022 represents a missed opportunity.
sens retain their right to judicial re- yielding to me:
~
view under the petition process curBeing in opposition to H.R. 1022, i n
The bill before us today is, in many ways,
rently in the APA.
many ways I viewed this as really a a caricature of many of the valuable aspects
| To prevent frivolous petitions, the character of many of the valuable as- of risk assessment. Instead of imposing a
amendment sets up many hurdles. The pects of risk assessment.
$100 million dollar threshold before setting into
burden is placed on the petitioner t o ' Instead of imposing a $100 million play the complex cost-benefit analysis proprovide the scientific and economic threshold before setting into play the posed in this bill, H.R. 1022 sets a S25 million
evidence to support the rule revision. complex cost-benefit analysis proposed threshold. The Wall Street Journal noted on
The result is that few petitions are by the bill, this bill sets a $25 million February 9 that in this respect, the bill "is
likely to be offered.
harder on Federal regulators than even industhreshold; is that correct? .
Additionally, because petitions can. Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, that is try thinks wise." The $25 million threshold is
be filed only to decrease costs imposed correct. We set a $25 million threshold simply too low. It will impose a costly and
lay regulations or to make them more because we said i f you set a $100 mil- time-consuming examination process on reguflexible, antibusiness interests are not lion threshold, you eliminate 95 per- lations with economic effects so minor that
l i k e l y ' to file petitions. Nor can cent of the regulations that we are try- they do not warrant this level of scrutiny. That
antibusiness interests use this amend- ing to bring good, efficient cost-benefit translates into the squandering of taxpayer
dollars.
ment to increase the costs or make analysis to.
.
regulations more inflexible.
, Mr. COLKMAN. Mr. Chairman, i f the
Additionally, rather than eliminate the legalThe bottom line is this: H.R. 1022 (es- gentleman will continue to yield, I no- istic nightmares often associated with regulatablishes Improved risk assessment and tice the Wall Street Journal pointed tions, this bit! will compound them. By allowing
cost/benefit standards for new re gui a- out that the bill "is harder on Federal judicial review for regulations deemed
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H2355
noncompliant with the terms ot H.R. 1022. we have been enacted in this, country that . Mr. LARGENT. I yi^ld to the genare inviting years of litigation on numerous are both egregious and punitive, that tleman from Texas.
rogulations. This will not be good for business; have had the law of unintended con- ' Mr.. BARTON of Texas. There iiias
it will not be good for the environment; it will sequences take place.
been some talk that somehow i t is jmst
not be good for human health. No one will
And i f I have the picture correct on the big business interests that support
roally benefit from the glut of court cases that the arguments as to why this bill this amendment. The American Pecsowill occur as the result of this bill. And we should be defeated, i t is this, that Mr. leum Institute does support i t . The
have rejected an amendment that would pre- Constituent, Mrs. Constituent, the rea^ Chemical Manufactures Associaciaon
vent this litigation explosion.
son I had to vote against the Barton does support i t . But the National FedFurthermore, under the guise of giving in- amendment was that we have passed so eration of Independent Businesses,
creased consideration to the views of affected many laws and so many rules and so which is a small business organizatian.
groups and front-line regulators, this bill allows many regulations that are egregious supports it..And i f you look at the list,
for review panels with inexcusable biases. and punitive and that are wrong and the Alliance for Reasonable Reguiadion
Those industries with large financial interest in that have had unintended consequences and you look through all the comparugulatory issues at stake would; under the that we now are afraid that" there is nies that support the b i l l , they aiso
t(;rms|of the bill, participate on a Federal peer going to be so many legal actions specifically support the Barton-Tauzinruview panel. Major polluters will now play a taken that we have to yote against the Crapo amendment. There is some comlogrtiniate role in illustrating why their financial Barton amendment because " we "have panies in here, while ! am not personinterests are more important than clean air or overwhelmed you. with this, type of ally cognizant of them, I do n c i tiumk
water. Peer review should not be skewed so rules and rf.-gulatftns and. so now we Barney Machinery Co. is a big oasiness.
far in favor of powerful industrialists. Yet that are afraid of the brunt of your anger I do not think the American Lawn
i:; the situation created by H.R. 1022.
and the brunt of your legal actions Mower Co. is a big business. So i t is
Finally, I have stated that we should look against the Government for the rules small business, the people that exist,
with critical eyes upon past regulations, and that we have passed that we cannot and as the gentleman pointed out. have
see what can be fixed. But H.R. 1022 fails to allow you the opportunity to redress to live day to day under these reguiatike a rational course of action with respect to those situations.
tionp that are supporting this very i m this aspect of regulatory reform. Instead, it
portant amendmentI want to speak and give one particuthreatens all of the progress that we have
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman. I morve
made over the past few decades through reg- lar example from my district. As I to strike the requisite number of
ulation. The bill ensures that in cases where campaigned before the election in No- words.
•. - •
the new law conflicts with old regulations, the vember, .1 had the opportunity to talk
to a gentleman in. my district who is
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to
old rejgulations are systematically superseded.
This puts important legislation such as the the CEO of a large oil and gas company my chairman of the Committee on
Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act that owns and operates an oil refinery Science, I rise in support of the Barc.on
in Louisiana. And he said in their amendment, because I think that i t is
at risk.
In the) name of numerical scientific analysis, budget over the next 5 years they have important to stop the Government regv/e are threatening to gut regulations which, budgeted $1.5 billion to meet EPA ulation and the strangulation that is
through the years, have had extremely posi- standards as they impact thfeir oil re- happening to the American jobs. Tens
Barton amendment is going to allow
tive effects on the lives of the people of this finery in Louisiana.
And his comment was this, we have the average American citizen to rise
country. In short. Dr. Gibbon, Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy testi- no problem with the goal, that the EPA against regulations. I t sets up a pracfied the bill "would place the safety of all establishes for us for clean air and . ess that allows them to have a voice in
Americans in the hands of recipe-following clean water for those citizens that live this, because I think many of thiise
number-crunchers whose idea of public health in and near the community that our re- regulations were developed, they i m i:> the bottom line on a ledger sheet—the very finery operates in, but the problem we plemented using some type of a risk asnntithesis of what we should be doing."
have is this, we have no problem with sessment approach that would be someI am not ready to give up on regulatory re- the goal. But the problem is the rules where between a 5-year weather loreform. I believe there is still time for an effec- that establish how. we reach the goal cast and voodoo.
-tive and prudent bill to.be passed by this are so rigid that in fact If we could use
Unfortunately, i t has not stopped the
t)ody.| We stiff have the opportunity to work our own ingenuity, our own enterprise long arm of big Government from getwith the Sanate in crafting a piece of legisla- and left to our own device, that we ting- into my home State of Kansas:
tion that will stop the relentless regulatory re- could meet or exceed the goals estab- There is a heavy equipment dealersfcip
gime. We can still create a law that will allow lished by the EPA and cut the cost $1.5 in Kansas City, KS. Dean runs i t . and
billion, we could cut the cost in half, he has fallen subject to the net of
ns to!
'
administration in
their efforts to change the regulatory system. save $750-million.
CERCLA, which is the Comprehensive
I would like to have the future opportunity to You want to know what the cost of Environmental Response Compensation
vote fn favor of a more carefully framed risk this regulation is, the- Cost of this Liability Act. His name showed up on a
assessmeht and cost-benefit analysis act. But amendmeht? I t is that we will improve 1972 ledger'. This came up last DecemI am| disappointed that the rush to meet the the efficiency and' the effectiveness of ber so i t had been brewing for some
100-day deadline of the Republican contract the business community, thereby i n - time, 22 years, but he had S127 worth of
has resulted in such shortsighted legislation, creasing the number of Jobs. We talk a waste that was put into the now closed
whicli I believe will put many Americans at lot about improving the living condi- Doepke-Holliday landfill in Kansas
risk, therefore, I am voting against H.R. 1022. tions and the wages of the common City. KS.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman. I man. That Is what this amendment is.
The company had shipped some paper
move to strike the requisite number of all about, is by relieving the regulatory cardboard boxes, some similar debris.
words, and I rise in support of this burden that we have already placed I t was not hazardous waste. Yet tfae
upon the backs of our business commu- law places a burden on Dean to prove
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of nity and the industries in this country i t . Because Dean and 17 other compa- ..
(juestion, a l o t of debate, a lot of rhet- today, we want to give, them an oppor- nies are minimal contributors to this
oric | about whether this amendment tunity to relieve themselves of the bur- landfill, the EPA has "given them tne
would in fact increase the amount of den, the law of unintended con option .of paying $10,000 to $20,000 each
litigation i n this country. There is no sequences, thereby creating more jobs, to settle potential cleanup problems. I f
question about that. I t certainly would improving the standard of living: That they do not pay this amount of money
increase the amount of litigation. Is what the Barton amendment is a l l then they w i l l run the risk of paying
about, and that is why I rise in support that portion of the bill later on which
There is good reason for that.
Who would question in this body that of the Barton amendment today.
could be as high as $10 million.
there have been a number, a large numSo this current regulation is putting
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairber bf laws, regulations and rules that man, will the gentleman yield?
them under a problem. They would like
1
w o r i <
w
, h
t h e
c , i n , o n
7
�H2356
February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
.Inglis
Istook
Johnson. Sam
Jones
Kasich .
Kim '
King "'
•
Kleczka
LaHood .
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
.Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY) •
LlghUoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas '
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
Mclnnis
Mcintosh
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
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 i t says that
the information that he will provide to
this Federal U.S. Govemment bureaucracy says that they may . disclose this
information to a foreign government.
And he is'upset by that and would like
jto fight i t . 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 i t allows.the average
American citizen to fight, against the
loss of his job by grouping together inside the guidelines, and I would stand
lere in support of this amendment.
Montgomery
Myers
Myrick •
' Neumann
Ney
• Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Pombo
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
RlggsRogers
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton' '
Smith (NJ)
Smith 1TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder •
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin.
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovlch
Waldholtz
Watts (OK)
Weldon IFL)
Weller
White
Whltfleld
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zcliff
;
;
1
_
:
:
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquuz '
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walker
Walsh,
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NCI
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wise .
Wolf
Woolsey '
Wyden
Wynn
Yates .
Zimmer
NOT VOTING—8
Gonzalez.
Gutierrez
Hunter
Lipinski
Miller (CA)
Pickett
Rush
Wart
• 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
NOES—220
Abercrombie
Fox
Ackerman
Frank (MA)
Andrews
Frellnghuysen
Baldacci
Frost
• 1645 .
Barrett (WI)
Furse
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on Bartlett
Oanske
: Bateman
Geldenson .
the amendment offered by . the genBecerra
Gekas
tleman from Texas [Mr. BARTON],
Beilenson '
Gephardt
The question was taken; and : the Bentsen
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Chairman announced that the ayes &p- Bereuter ..
Gilman •
peared to have i t .
- : BermanBlute
Goss
RECORDED VOTE \ '
' "
Boehlert
Green
Bonior
Greenwood
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. CHAIRMAN, I de- Borekl
Gunderson
mand a recorded vote.
Boucher. ; ,
Hall (OH)
A recorded vote was ordered. :
Brown (CA)
Hamilton
HarmanThe CHAIRMAN. This is a 17-minute Brown (FL)
;
. Brown (OH)- .
Hastlngs (FL)
vbte.
'• •'
Bryant (TXI
Hilliard
| The vote was taken by electronic de- Bunning.
Hinchey
Holden
vice, and there were—ayes 206, noes 220, Cardin
Castle.
Hoyer
as follows:
Clay
Jackson-Lee .
[ R o l l No. 179)
Clayton Jacobs
Clinger
Jefferson
AYES—206
Clyburn
Johnson (CT)
AUird
Chambliss
Everett . . Coleman
Johnson (SDK
Archer
Chapman.
Ewing
Collins (IL)
Johnson. E. B.
Armey
Chenoweth '
Fields (TX) '
Collins (Ml):
Johnston
Bachus
Christensen
FlanaganConyers
Kanjorski
Baesler
Chrysler
Forbes
CoyneKaptur
Bikfj- (CAi .
Clement ."
. Franks(CT) .
Danner Kelly
Biker (LA)
Coble '
Franks (NJ) ...
Davis,.. ..
. Kennedy (MA)
Ballenger
Coburn
Frisa' •
de la Oana'
Kennedy (RI)
Barcla Collins (OA)
Funderburk
DeFaiio
Kennelly
BanCombest
Gallegly ~
DeLauro •.- .
Klld*!
Barrett (NEi
Condit t . ' ' . Geren
Dellums. .
• Kingston
Barton
Cooley
Olllmor • " !
Deutsch.
_
Kllnk
Ban
Costello
Goodlatte.-••j'' L»' • Diaz-Baiart ---':.'-' . Klug ' <:,. ' •
BevtU
Cox
Dingell v ' •''•
Knollenberg . .
Ooodllng?.-':,"Bllbray
Cramer.
Gordon.
..
Dixon .
Kolbe .
Bilirakla
Crane .
Graham
Doggett .'
LaFalce
Bishop
Crapo
Outknecht - .
Doyle
Lantos
Bliiey
Cremeans
Hall (TX)'
Durbin '
Lazlo
Boehner
Cubln :
Hancock
Ehlers
Leach
Bonllla.
Cunningham
Hansen
Engel
Levin
Bono
Deal
Hastert
English
Lewis <GA)
Brewster
DeLay
Hastings (WA)
Eahob
Lincoln Browder
Dickey
Hayes
..
Lofgren
Evans
irownback
Dicks
Hayworth
Farr .
Lowey
Bryant (TN:
Dooley
Hefley
Fattah
Luther.
Bunn
Doolittle
Hefner
Fawell
Maloney
Burr
Dornan
Helniman
Fazio
Manton
Burton
Dreier
Herger
Fields (LA)
Manzullo
Sayer
Duncan
Hllleary
Filner . . . . . Markey.
Callahan. "
Dunn
Hobson
Flake' •Martinez
Calvert
Edwards
Hoekstra Foglietta
Martini
Camp
Ehrlich
Hoke
Foley . ...
Mascara
Casidy
Emerson •
Horn
Ford ..
. Matsui
Chalxit
Ensign
Hostettler
Fowler :
McCarthy
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
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)
Petrf
Poii.eroy
Porter
Portman
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Heed
Regula _
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivera .
Roberts
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-AIlard
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs •
Slaughter
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 (ill) 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.
I t merely says that under the permit
section that there are some permits
like section 404 of the Cleari Water Act
that ought to be clearly distiriguished
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.
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOEHLERT
5%
v.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman. I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BOEIILEHT: Page
29. strike line 18 and all that follows through
Une|6 on page 30, and insert in lieu thereof
ther 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. BOEKLERT (during the reading).
. Mr! Chairman, .1 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.
iClr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to point out at the outset,
this amendment has bipartisan support
anci is strongly endorsed by every environnientai 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
sh'ould 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 im-.
portant health and safety regulations
cpuld be stopped i f one of the many
elaborate analyses required under this
measure could not be certified.
This means that existing statutes de. batted and approved by Congress could
be, in effect, gutted because some administrative bureaucrat could not cert i f y , 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. I t appears
on page 29 of the bill, lines 18 through
23.
..
Nothwlthstanding 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
tiie rule ia 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 conflictj 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 amend-,
ment 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.st.-itutory 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. I t 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 i n
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. ';
1'::. Chairman, despite the good intentions of this b i l l , the Boehlert
amendment is needed because this legislation is poorly drafted, hastily re-,
viewed, 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:
••'"'•
. '
-
i
1
1
H2357
..During "the Commerce Commit-tee
."markup of the bill. I offered an amendment which highlighted the unintemded
dangers posed to women's health by
this bill, specifically breast cancer.
. What T did was subject one bill—ihe
Mammography
Quality
Siandaj-ds
Act—to the requirements of the risk
assessment bill. Not only did this example, show how dangerous this biii is
to women's health and mammography
standards, i t demonstrated how l i t t l e
the framers understand i t and the effects i t will have on current laws and
regulations.
. The Mammography Quality Standards Act helps ensure sound maminosrraphy services by regulating facilities
which provide mammograms.
; Under the bill considered by the
Commerce Committee, the FDA. wbich
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 regi3lat:cj:.5 could
take effect.
As a result, this important law could
have gone unenforced or been su'roect
to lengthy court procedures.
Mr. Chairman, breast cancer is already the second leading cause of deat^
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 devajtating killer is early detection. Mammograms cari detect breast cancer up to 2
years before a woman or her doctor can
feel a lump and i f the disease is found
at these early stages, i t is 90-100 percent curable.
Prior to passage of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. there
were no national, comprehensive Quali t y standards for mammograms that
applied to all facilities.
Quality needs to be assured at z'r.ese
facilities—studies show that faulty diagnoses or early tumors due to poor
Image quality or incorrect interpretations result in delayed treatment. .Tiore
costly medical procedures, and higher
mortality rates.
Mr. Chairinan, when I crffered my
amendment at the Commerce Committee I asked i f the mammography bill
would be affected by the risk assessment b i l l . With the assistance of the
majority counsel, the majority response was "yes" the risk assessment
bill would affect provisions of the
Mammography Quality Standards Acc.
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 cf
my Republican colleagues said he could
not support the amendment because i t
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. •
�H2358
:!!;'
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
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 i t 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 i n the committee's report.
This point was never clarified in the
committee's report.
And upon checking myself, T 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 aur
thority over the bill.
;
H
I
• 1715
. •
•
The large bells went off. The reason
n-hy I take this time to explain all of
this, which is a long story but a very
important one, is that i f we take the
laws of the land today, ahd have to
subject them to the language, and I
only use this one example, the Mammography Standards Act, i t 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 i t is needed. I hope I have
given a very good example of why i t is
needed.
J
"
. IMr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman., i rise
in opposition to the ameridment.
Sir. Chairman, I oppose thte amendment and I do so for much the same
reason that I opposed the previous
amendment. In the case pf the previous
amendment there was an attempt to
reach back, and in my view that does
not make goodi 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
thait under the laws that presently
exist, even amendments written in the
future ought not be covered by the provisi'ons of the bill that we are passing.
I ijust think that makes no sense. I t
seems to me that i f in fact we are going
to. require good science on legislation
that we pass now, we ought to require
rood science on things that were
.pass'ed befoie. I f we are goirig to require cost-benefits, on legislation we
Ijass 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 i t seems
to me that the. provisions of this bill
should apply to those, kinds of things.
A l l we are requiring, is risk assessments and 'cost-beneTl't analysis that
ai* objective and uribiased. We are say- ,
ing that the incremental risk reduction
beriefits 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
w . 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 i f 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 i f 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 S25 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 sorne criteria that judges that,
and i f 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
fbr 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 but and eat some dirt. Most of them,
though, sometime before they reach
age 70 stop that behavior. And i t 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 tb 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 gentlein'an is absolutely right. The cleanup
#
February 28, 1995
standards are beyond belief. They have
driven the cost of the Superfund Program skyward when we are not really
getting the cleanup where needed. I t is
based on poor science, i t is based on
politics, i t is based on scare tactics instead of real science. And this bill is to
address those kinds of inconsistont.
very expensive kinds of propositions in
the regulations.
So. i f the amendment were to be
adopted, i t 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 i f .
. 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. I t 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 i f 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. A l l 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
(
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
•haye been approved under sciencebased application.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman. I .move
to strike the requisite number of
words. |
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
thi;; 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 jbill provides for two requirements in the law basically. I t says that
whe n a [new rule is going to be promul, Kated by an agency i t needs to do two
things. I t needs to do a risk assessment
and i t rieeds to do a cost analysis.
Now i f I were drafting an amendment
designed to k i l l this bill I would see to
it that | l gave the agency a chance to
avoid both of those requirements, and
gueiis what? This amendment does exactly that.
If the agency currently is writing
rules under a statutory • requirement
thai, costs Cannot be considered in the
implementation of those rules, and
many of our regulatory laws have such
a provis|ion, the endangered species is a
good example. I t says that once a species is lasted you have to cover i t , 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. I t says you protect that
species regardless of the cost of i t .
So, i f j you were operating under a
statutor-y 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 usjassume 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, costanalysis.; .
How do you avoid i t 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 In.terior 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 j Department did? I t did not
ontest the suit, i t did not go to court
and argu|e that we really have to do a
scientific study before we list a species.
1
H2359
It instead went into, closed doors, beMr. BARTON of Texas Mr Chairhind chambers and agreed to a consent man, I move to strike the requisite
judgment that said okay, we give up; number of words.
Mr. Chairman. I would like to porsat
we are going to list 200 new species
within the next 18 months, regardless out that the substitution the genof whether we do any scientific review tleman from New York is attempting
of whether those species ought to be to offer, i f he offers i t successfully, i n
listed as threatened or endangered. We my opinion, i t really guts the. intent of
automatically list 250 new. species and this bill, because the whole reason tfc^t
under this amendment you have to we are doing risk assessment is to say
that we ought
in process a
meet this new judicial deadline of 18 a system, that to putscientifically basis,
uses
valid
months so we cannot do a risk assess- risk-asse'ssment principles in a forward
ment, cost-benefit analysis of that rule way in terms of new laws and new rules
listing 250 new species which may not and in terms of existing law.
be threatened, may not be endangered,
If there
but the Interior Department has con- ready, they is something underway a l have to use these principles
sented to judicial judgment agreeing to that we put i n the legislation, and tiie
do so.
_
. "amendment offered by the gentleman
from New .York. [Mr. BOEHLERT] very,
• 1730
' ^ '
yery plainly states that nothing in t i e
If I wanted to dafeat this bill, i f I act shall be construed to modify any
wanted to make sureryou never did risk statutory standard or requirement i n
assessment, if I wanted to make sure existing law.
all the statutes that say you cannot
He also eliminates the substantialtake cost into account are not changed evidence test that has been put Inzo
by this bill. I would adopt this amend- the legislation that says when we do
ment. This amendment says you do not risk assessment in the future, promulhave to take cost into account. I f the gate a new rule or regulation, you have
statute says that currently, this to show there is substantial evidence
amendment says you do not have to do proving i t should be done.
risk assessment if you do not have • So there are a number of reasons
time. This amendment says you do not that I think this is an unwise substihave to worry about risk assessment, tution. I oppose i t . I would hope nay
cost-benefit analysis i f you are operat- colleagues would oppose i t .
ing under a consent judgment that you ....Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, w i l l
agreed to, so list 250 new species even the gentleman yield?
though they may not be threatened or ;. Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the
gentleman from New York. " -.
endangered.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me stress w h i t
This amendment ought to be de- is said in my amendment under thax
feated
section entitled "Failure to Certify. " i t
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will says in the event that the agency head
the gentleman yield?
cannot make any certification required
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gen- under.this section, the agency head
tleman from New York.
shall report to Congress that such cerMr. BOEHLERT, Let me stress to my tification cannot be made and shall i n colleague from Louisiana that I am clude a statement of the reasons therefully supportive of risk assessment and for in such report and publish such
cost-benefit analysis. Let us make that statement together with the final ruie.
very clear at the outset. But i f the . Then Congress would work its w i l l .
agency involved could not make the We are the people elected by the c i n certification required under H.R. 1022. zens of America. We have the public
that agency would have to report to trust in hand.
Congress, and the People's House would ,_Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming
make the ultimate determination, not .my time, what we have said in this act
some bureaucrat in the bowels of some of Congress that is before us, H.R. 1022.
building downtown: . The People's we are saying in earlier sections that
House, the Congress.
we; want scientifically valid risk asMr. TAUZIN. The problem, i f I can sessment to be used in the future, and
respond, is this House has already spo- we say in this section notwithstanding
ken in many of these regulatory stat- any other provision of Federal law. we
utes, and i n many cases unfortunately want i t to be used from now on i f there
,.
those statutes were written in another is a conflict.
day and time. Those statutes say you
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, w i l l
cannot take cost into account. This the gentleman yield?
bill would change that. I t would say
.Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairfrom now on you take cost into ac- man, I am happy to yield to the gencount. You provide the same level of tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKprotection. You simply try to do i t ER], who just defeated me on my
with the least-cost option. You do i t amendmeht.
with more flexibility.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, well.
If this amendment is adopted, you go the gentleman and I are together on
back to the old law. This bill to create this one.
risk-assessment, cost-benefit-analysis
Mr. BARTON ofTexas. Hallelujah.
requirements is defeated by -this
Mr. WALKER. But the question is
amendment. This amendment ought to here what happens in terms of regulations; and the gentleman from New
be defeated.
"
,
1
;
�H2360
•,
5 '
1
i
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
York keeps reading this statement
about coming to Congress. A l l they are
doing is reporting to Congress. The
final rule goes ahead despite the fact i t
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 i t is even worse
jthan that. I f you read the language, i t
says no failure or inability of an agency to make the certification is required
under this section. The language of the
line just.above I t says you are not TCT
puired to do i t . You are not required to
ho a cost-benefit analysis i f I t is going
to alter any statutory requirement, for
example, you have to consider cost.
You are not required to do i t i f you are
under an agency deadline. You are not
required to do i t i f you are under a j u dicial deadline. I f you are not required
to do i t , you do not have to issue any
certifications either. I t is a very clever
set of language. I f you read i t together,
i t makes pretty good sense. I f you can
make sense out i f i t , i t kills the bill. I t
ought not pass.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is why I
am opposed to i t . The gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKER] is opposed
to i t .
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 i l l because
tliey drank the water from a public
water system in one of our Nation's
premier cities.
I would suggest i f 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, i t
says the situation that the head of an
affected Federal agency determines to
be | an emergency, the act does not
apply.
Kir. WALKER. I f the gentleman w i l l
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.
. ,
.
7
- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
genUeman 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 w"! are trying to do is prevent
something like Milwaukee occurring
again. We cannot foresee a dire emergency in the future.
But i f 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 ybu
because somebody made a mistake and
we cannot do i t .
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 f u ture and rules in tbe 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 i t
has been widely used i n some 40 States
in crops until 1979. I t is highly persistent. I t is a carcinogen, and i t has been
found in the drinking water of 19
States, one of which would be Hawaii.
I think we ought to look at what I t is
we are doing. I f we are talking about
cost-benefit analysis, let us have some
cost-benefit analysis. Let us t r y 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 tfte 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 i f 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
February 28, 1995
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 thie
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 hfealthy
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 i t .
Was i t as good as i t should have
been? No. I was roundly castigated for
years because I sat on that legislation
until we could work out a situation
where i t was going to make good sense.
This House passed that legislation.
That legislation says you w i l l not consider costs in determining the safety of
standards and regulations.
This legislation is going to put that
at risk and raise questions about i t .
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 tc 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 i t 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 i t , then let us do i t by
addressing the problem under amendment of each of the specific statutes
that are involved here. Why? Because
�February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H2361
here w.e are seeking to add one enor- the purview of H.R. 1022 and most like- consider existing. law and see i f the
mouslyj complex set of regulatory prac- ly would never be issued at all. if this original basis for that law's criteria—
tices on. top of another set of regu- bill passes in its current form.
'
that is, whether or not i t should not relatory practices which we complain.
The Clean Air Act is but one of many quire cost-benefit analysis or risk asAs I have pointed out to my col- laws that would be superseded by H.R. sessment—still are valid. AVe can then
leagues in earlier comments, what we 1022. Laws governing hunting and fish- proceed; ourselves, to make the judgare doing is not just stopping legisla- eries management, the Atomic Energy ment, that is necessary to either cortion ancl regulations which are going to Act. the Safe Drinking Water Act,, the rect the law or to bring i t into accordprotect the health and safety and the Poison Prevention Packaging Act>— ance with the decision criteria resultwelfare of the American people, but these are just a few pf the laws whose ing from the operation of H.R. 1022.
also which are going to adversely im- fate 'is in the balance today. Who
This is a more moderate approach. I
pact upon regulations and changes in among us can say with any degree of agree with that. I t certainly is not satregulations which will be of benefit to confidence what would be the effect of isfactory to those who want a revoluthis risk/cost/benefit bill on these im- tion today. But I can feel much more
business.
.
•
I urge my colleagues to adopt the portant statutes?
-comfortable, with this kind of a process
amendment and to reject the bill.
Enviromentalists. consumer organi- because I have been a party to putting
Mrs. IMORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I zations, and labor unions are not the into effect most of these regulatory
move to strike the requisite number of only groups to oppose H.R. 1022., Indus- laws.over the last 30 years.
words.
try too has some significant misgivings
On the air pollution legislation., for
Mr. Chairman. I rise in support, of about this legislation. Several major example, I should not have to repeat
this amendment, which would strike manufacturers have t o l d us, over the this, but 30 years ago this was the key
the supermandate provision contained past several days, that H.R: 1022 goes to getting elected to Congress in Caliin H.R. 1022. I have reviewed H.R. 1022. too far. Industry does not want a roll- fornia, to promise to cure air pollution,
and I have, grave reservations about the back of environmental regulation; in- and I made that promise, and I failed
bill in its current form. There is no dustry does not want to risk another' to dp so. But I have supported every efquestion' that we do need to reevaluate popular backlash against its activities. fort to do so that has been made in
our enyi|ronmental, health, and safety In the recent Newsweek article on this Congress.
laws in order to reduce regulatory bur- bill, an official of Occidental PetroAnd I think most of what we have
dens and costs and to improve the pro- leum is quoted as saying, "This re- done has been reasonable and valuable,
tection of our citizenry. This reevalua- minds me of 1981. when Industry shot and in southern California I can certify
tion should be undertaken carefully itself In the foot." Industry.- has in- today we are far better off than we
and deliberately, on a statute by stat- vested billions of dollars in emissions were 30 years ago or 20 years ago or 10
ute basis, with a full airing of views by control equipment already: To rescind years ago.
the rules that made that equipment
all interested groups.
^Now, we seek to pass this all-encomThis is not however, the approach necessary is to squander industry's passing "'.legislation which contains
. .
that is taken in H.R. 1022. H.R. 1022 prior investment. .
many valuable additions which I fully
would explicitly supersede every enviMr. Chairman, in enacting the.past 25 support, but we put into this a provironmental and safety law. on the books. years environmental legislation, Conr sion that says i f the process results in
This bill | would prevent any new regu- gress has reflected the widespread piib-. decision criteria which are different
lation ft-om being issued unless the lie belief that protection of public from existing law, i t overrides the exagency could muster substantial evi- health and the global environment are isting law. And I think that is unwise.
dence that the benefits of any strategy objectives of paramount importance to
I think we need to reconsider the exchosen will be likely to justify, and be society. In my opinion, the public at isting law, and the amendmeht. proreasonably related to, the incremental large continues to hold these views.I vides for that, through the reporting
costs.
therefore urge adoption of this amend- process to Congress. But I think we
We all believe that agencies should ment.
should be very reluctant to override
execute the mandates of this body in
much of the health and safety and
• 1745
the most cost-effective manner posother legislation that we have passed.
sible. However, the cost-benefit test
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. ChairThe gentlewoman from California
embodied in H.R. 1022 would -make i t man. I move to strike the. requisite spoke eloquently of the impact upon
extremely difficult for an agency to number-of words, and I rise in support mammography standards, for example.
take any rulemaking action what- of the amendment.
I think we should be very careful to be
ever—whether good, or bad, or indifferI will confess I am not an expert on put into the position of having the
ent. Unless the agency was prepared to regulatory proceedings, but based upon women bf this country say the Conshow in court that the benefits from a what I have heard here this evening gress neglected or showed no concern
rule justified its costs, the agency 'and on our earlier expressions that this for the importance of proceeding with
would be| unable to move forward. method of revising badly needed risk the laws that we put into place alAgencies would be compelled to place a assessment and cost-benefit analysis ready, and-proposing to override them
dollar value on the survival of an en- should really be applied on a- depart- through the effect of this risk assessdangered species, the purity of a river, ment-by-department basis in order to ment and cost-benefit analysis legislathe breatliability of our air. If the bal- achieve the maximum effect.
tion.
ance sheet! did not come out even, or i f
I think that this amendmeht .moves
So I am very strongly supportive of
a judg'? disagreed with the agency eval- us in that direction.
"
the legislation offered by the genuations, then the regulation would be
What the basic point that i t seems to tleman, from New York [Mr. BOEHheld unlawful under the bill before us.
me needs to be made is that in H.R. LERT]. I join the. gentleman from
Make no! mistake: H.R. is retroactive 1022 we have a valuable new process Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] in fearing for
in its effect, whether or not i t contains that is set into place which would help the consequences of the legislation bea reach-back petition process for re- us make better regulatory decisions, fore us unless i t is amended in such a
opening existing rules. H.R. 1022 is ret- but i t requires that there be a certifi- fashion, and I hope that you can all
roactive because for key statutes like cation process according to the criteria support, the amendment of the genthe Clean k i r Act, most of the regula- which result from this which override tleman from New York.
tions mandated by Congress have not existing law.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman. I move to
yet been issued by the agencies. AcNow, i t is my view that i t is not.de- strike the requisite number of words,
i r d i w to| the Congressional Research sirable to override the existing law, for and I rise in opposition to the amendirvice:. EPA has yet to promulgate 75 the reasons set forth far more elo- ment.
.! '• •
perceni. of [the air toxics rules required quently than I can by the gentleman
Mr. Chairman, let us first of all make
by the act. These 75 percent of the from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] and oth- . something very clear: that is. the
clean Mr standards would fall within ers. that what we really need is to re- supermandate language in this bill is
�H2362
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
;
p
February 28, 1995
the guts of the legislation. I f you are . Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will people by having regulators make rules
against the supermandate, you are the gentleman yield?
not reflective. of laws made by their
against the bill; then vote for the
Mr. OXLEY.. I yield to the gentleman elected officials and to make those
Boehlert amendment. But. i f you want from New York.'
rules without any correlation to actual,
to have a reasonable risk- assessment
Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gen- risk and without any consultation of
and cost-benefit analysis bill, then vote tleman fdr yielding to me.
actual cost.
against the Boehlert amendment and
Mr. Chairman, I stress that I too.
So I rise reluctantly because I am in
"vote for the bill.
•; . .. favor cost-benefit analysis and risk as- strong support of a legislative initiaThat is basically as simple as i t can sessment. What this amendment points tive, in support of the chairmen of both
|be. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. out is that there aie going to be dis- committees to which i t was referred.
|TAUZIN] made i t very clear, and he is agreements in the future sometime and But here is the problem I have and why
right, that i f you are against the bill, where there is a failure on the part of I welcome the amendment offered by
you want, to vote for this amendment. the agency to be able to certify all the the gentleman from New York [Mr
So I think most Members recognize i t certifications required in the bill, then BOEHLERT]: This is breaking ground on
is important we look forward in deal- that agency has to report back to the important new legislation. In doing,.
ing with these kinds of legislation and Congress,. the people's House, and we section 202 of the bill establishes a progive the opportunity for the Congress' debate i t and we make the necessary hibition for the issuance of a rule that
to set these kinds of standards. That is changes..
has not been certified to comply with
. exactly what we get elected to do.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have the section's decision criteria. That is
I want to point out for the edifi- perhaps less confidence that that par- fine. But the decision criteria listed
cation of the Members that we tried to ticuiar procedure will work. I f they re- and described are described in terms
carefully deal with the question that port back, they report back.
that are not duplicated in any other
came up in our committee about mamThe gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Federal law.
mography screening.
DINGELL] said he has had a lot of hearThe point I am making is they are
The gentlewoman from California" ings about some of the abuses in the
who has spoken earlier, raised that regulatory process. I t is true we have standards with which I happen to
issue. We worked very hard to make had a lot of hearings, but until today agree. I t is an initiative on which I
certain that that was taken care of. i we have not. done very much about i t . happen to be supportive. But i t is new.
want to stress that in the language in Today we have a chance to strike a and therefore i t will be at variance
the legislation, on page 5, line 14, sec- blow for reasonable regulations. That with-existing application of standards.
The bottom line, I am saying, is
is why this, bill is so important, and
tion 4:
. that is why, in my humble estimation, there will always be a conflict between
JprosTam designed co protect human
health. The term "program designed to pro- the amendment of the gentleman from H.R. 1022 and other laws. And an adtect human health" does not include regu- New York cripples our ability to do ministrative proceeding is going to
leave a judge without previous decilaiion" programs concerning health insur- that. •
"
ance, health provider services, or health care
Mr. BOEHLERT. I f the gentleman sions to look to for interpretation of
diagnostic services.
'•
would yield further, I want to increase this new language.
Now, that being the case, we would
|NOW, the last time I looked, mam- the comfort zone a l i t t l e bit by telling
^m'ography screening would be covered the gentleman that we are part of the wonder why we do not have a fallback
under health care diagnostic services. new majority now, so things will be dif- and a recognition there should be a
Sp I put that issue to rest..
ferent now and in the future, in the safety valve. And the answer is, once
jWe listened to the gentlewoman from Congress, in the way Congress responds again, in the committee, a fallback was
California and others in our commit- to agencies.
placed. There is language under one
tee. That issue is not an issue in this;
Mr. OXLEY. I am. concerned that we title of the bill dealing with risk as:,
ainendment, nor is i t an issue in this get an overburdened effort. That is sessment, saying, "Hold i t . here is a
bill because we took care of i t , as a re- what the job is, i t is for those regu- safety net. When there is a conflict we
sult.
lators to make those regulations based have got some exceptions, and we are
Now, we spend some $430 billion to on good science. That is what we want going to make sure this escape clause
S700 billion on regulations. Does i t not them to do. We do not want them to works."
make sense, since we haye already de- dump their problems into the Congress'
But for some reason that language Is
feated an amendment that would look lap. We are going to be authorizing not incorporated in both titles of the
back that would keep us from looking Superfund, I say to my friend from bill. I t is omitted in the one dealing
back, to now take a look at an oppor- California, we are going to be reauthor- with cost analysis.
tunity to take the new regulations that izing other programs, and that is clear• 1800
are coming out and apply reasonable ly one of our goals.
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessBut i t seems to me that in the over- • I am simply saying, " I f you recognize
ment to those regulations? .
all scheme of things, we are dealing the one. you ought to recognize the
That really is the issue. The question with regulations, this bill now, this bill other, and we ought to have the sanityis ho you want to do that, "br do you now is a chance to get some common added so that, when we have this legis-;
not:? Do you want to stick with the sta-. sense into that procedure, and then lation go forward, and I believe this,
tus] quo of these old regulations that"' when' we" start to reauthorize these legislation should and will go forward,"
are, in many ways totally not based on kinds of regulations and the regime then we have not done untold harm to
science, or do we want, to simply give that is used in the regulations, the reg- untold beings."
regulators an. opportunity to use good ulators will be very used to them and
Mr. Chairman., there was a terrible
science? That is really what this is all they are going to be able to come up news report earlier, a few days ago,
about.
'
with a good response.
about a hospital. I believe was in FlorNow. i f we are going to believe our
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given ida, where an incredible and horrenfriend from New York, we are going to permission to revise and extend his re- dous event occurred in which the
say we are just going to walk in place, marks.) •
wrong foot was amputated.
we are going to, essentially, freeze the
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to
Let me tell my colleagues. " I f we
decisionmaking process arid go back to strike the requisite number of words, don't have some legislative language to
whalt cost billions of dollars. I do not and I rise reluctantly, but not reluc- be certain that the goal of this assessthink that makes a whole lot of sense, tant in support of the gentleman;s ment, the goal of cost assessment, has
and | that is why the Boehlert arnend- amendment.
a means by which we can actually
ment should be defeated, because i t "
Mr. Chairman, I say reluctantly rise enter into administrative law and re?oes against the. heart of what we are because there is no one in the course of view, and do'so in the same process, we
trying to do here, the very heart of this the last several years who has seen are going to cut off the wrong foot in
.•supermandate language.
more bf the consequences injurious to the name of risk assessment." I , for
�February 28, 1995
H2363
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
one, do not want to be part of that whenever there, is a conflict between the two. velop laws in the best interest of our great Maprocess..
Because every Federal health.: safety and en- tion. i t .is a complete abdication of our oonI do want to be part of a signing cere- vironmental statute contains standards aiid cri- - stitutional obligation, as well as of the duty we
niony| at the White House , where tl^e teria that are at odds with today's bill., there • own our constituents to pass legislation in She
President hands a pen and says. "Here will always be a conflict between H.R. 1022 House that we know is defective.
if a bill for the kind of risk assessment and the other laws. All that remains to be de- ,: H.R. 1022's supermandate provision is serithat you and others have been fighting termined is which conflicts can be described ously defective. It must be amended. Please
for for 8 years." I want to be there for and which interest groups will benefit from join us in our efforts to do just that.
tliat event. I do not want to be going these pre-ordained conflicts. The pursuit and .-Mr.. ^ H A S T E R T . M r . C h a i r m a n . .1
home to explain why I supported unin- debate of these conflicts will grind our legiti- move to s t r i k e - t h e r e q u i s i t e n u m b e r o f
tended consequences that were never mate regulatory processes, and our already- words.
:*•:•: - -- .• •
clogged courts to a complete halt as contestenvisi'oned by the best of intentions.
- Mr. Chairman. I am going to be very
ants—industry or public interest group; comMr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant—but
. simple and very brief. I say to m i ' colstiong—support of this amendment to keep petitors within an industry; or private property leagues:
:. >
from overriding, at this time, in a one-size-fits- owners and environmental organizations—take ';.You've heard a l o t of discussion,
their controversits to the courts based on their
all fasriion, the statutory standards of virtually
you've heard a l o t of legal language,
every Federal law protecting health, safety own conflict-based arguments stating why
H.R. 1022 should prohibit the >iJe i n ^ e s t o n you've heard a l o t of lawyers talk on
and the environment.
from being promulgated. ;'5j.'X-^^^i^'?4S. -S:.' • this piece pf legislation, but very simI do| so reluctantly because, as my colple what this b i l l does, and what chis
leagues know, I have long been a proponent
For a group of well-intentiphed iegisiators. amendment does, and what the, quote
of real | risk assessment and cost benefit re- whom I am certain" want to cure the ills our unquote, supermandate does, is allow,
forms. I am an original cosponsor, along with constituents suffer because of overregulation,
when we have to authorize or reauthorBuo SHUSTER and 14 other Transportation this bill's approach is insane. It's worse than
ize pieces of. legislation, that the regnCommittee members on a bipartisan basis, of cutting off the wrong leg, It's like cutting off
legislation amending the Clean Water Act to both legs to make sure you get the problem, - lation that comes out of that is based
oh the hew law. that we actually can
add strong, new risk assessment and benefit- wherever it is.
"'.V •.
' U'
coii requirements.
My. second reason for 'supporting 'this • dp cost based regulation. So a l l the disI stood shoulder-to-shoulder last Congress amendment is procedural. There is absolutely cussion here, when you boil i t down.- is
with most of my colleagues on the other side no good reason for us to be taking, at this saying, whether you take an old law.
of the aisle and with many Democrats in work- time, the extraordinary and extreme, step rep- whether it's the Clean W ater Act or the
ing to have real risk assessment language resented by the supermandate language, ff we Clean A i r Act, and when you apply new
added to the EPA Cabinet bill. As the Science were in the last two weeks of the 104th Con- law to that or reauthorize i t . is that
Committee's Investigation and Oversight Com- gress, then at least there would be an argu- the regulations that "come out of tiiat
mittee Chairman, I held the first hearing of the ment that there was not time to make changes hence forward are the same type of regi03d Congress stating the need for more and properly. But we haven't even finished . the ulations under the same type of regulabetter risk assessment in our public policy de- second month of this Congress, and there win tion writing that comes out of any new
cisionm*ing process.
be plenty of opportunity in the next 18 months law that we'd write. So, i f you want
if you want,
fairness.
There) should be no doubt in the minds o f . to address overregulation problems in a more • consistency,'and
for this
H.R. 1022's managers, or others, that I sup- reasonable, tailored and understood fashion. ..and if you want the ability
port their efforts to build risk assessment and
We will be reauthorizing the Clean-Water cduntry.not.be overwhelmed by old legcost-benefit analysis into our laws to prevent Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,. Superfund, islation and old regulation, you simply
wastefulj counterproductive regulations.
and the Endangered Species. Act. this Con- say that we do not pass this amendthat
guts,
quote
unquote.
In spite of this, or, more accurately, because gress. As each of these bills move .through ment
I feel so [strongly on this subject, I support this committee and the floor,'we should include the . supermandate, b u t ' what i t does is
amendment based, on the fear that the kind of risk assessment and cost-benefit provi- allow us-to go forward when we write,
supormahdate being proposed in H.R. 1022 is sions that make sense in. light of- particular when we reauthorize, old bills or old
likely to (be worse than the regulatory waste structure, standards and experience, of each pieces of legislation, arid we write new
statute. Where overregulation problems are regulation out of i t that, is very simple,
that we are attempting to address.
I believe—and I don't say this, lightly—that being experienced with statutes not expected very concise and very consistent.
we tire oh the verge of committing the legisla- to be reauthorized this Congress, appropriaMr! BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, w i l l
tive equivalent of the terrible incident that oc- tions bills will be available as legislative vehi- the gentleman yield?
curred a few days ago in a Florida hospital. In cles to carry necessary Corrections. And if, for . • Mr. "HASTERT. I yield to the genthis incident, which.was widely reported by the some reason, there is a more pressing need, tleman from New York.
media, a|patient went into surgery to have an Speaker GINGRICH has announced that we will "..Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to
injured leg amputated, f h e doctors, though soon be having "Correction Days" each month . point out to the chief deputy whip that
well-intentioned, removed the wrong leg by ac- to do away with the most destructive arid least this year Congress is going to consider
cident. My point is that it is the result and not useful Federal regulatory requirements. .-' "r . the reauthorization of the Clean Water
the intentions that matter, and I firmly believei
My third reason for supporting the. amend- Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act. the
that the results of H.R. Id22's supermandate ment is tactical. The rushed," shotgun ap- Superfund legislation, the Endangered
language may prove to be disastrous.
proach of H.R. 10.22's supermandate language Species Act. That is the time for this
Th'? supermandate approach being taken in is producing a public relations backlash, re- Congress to make the changes during
H.R. 1022 is flawed substantively, procedurally flected in numerous media stories like Time that reauthorizing process.
and tactically. Perhaps most alarming, how magazine's, "Environmental Chain Saw MasSir. HASTERT. Absolutely, and, reever, is ttiat no one on this floor—or anywhere sacre," last week, that may do serious dam- claiming my time, i f the gentleman unelse, I submit—can provide us with any mean- age to our shared objective of incorporating derstands when we do those that, i f we
ingful
explanation
of how the bill's risk assessment and cost benefit principles change that bill, or we write i t , the
supermandate language is going to affect the- into the body of bur Nations laws. Taking the . regulations henceforth w i l l be under
. individual 'statutes that underpin our system of overbroad supermandate approach of H.R. .
the language of this b i l l , and that only
1022 may result in "throwing the—risk assess- seem? sensible to do.
health, safety and environmental protections.
From a 'substantive perspective, section 202 ment/cost-benefit—baby, out with the .bath
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, i f 1
"
of the bill] prohibits the issuance of any rule water." That would be a tragedy. •: -. . . ••
may ask. the gentleman to yield one
that has not been certified to comply with that
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is no comfort at.all more time, well, I think then we have
section's ciecision criteria. These criteria, are to me to hear from some of the supermandate got .some area of common ground, some
listed and 'described in terms not duplicated in language, "Don't worry Jimmy, the Senate will agreement. We want the Congress, the
any (ither| Federal law pertaining to health, fix it." We here in the House of Representa- elected Representatives of the people,
safety or the environment. Subsection (b) of tives are not staff for the real legislators, in the to be making the decisions, the imporsection 202 provides, however, that H.R. Senate. Under the Constitution, we. have an tant decisions, not some nameless,
1022':; decision criteria supersede current law equal responsibility—indeed a duty—to de- faceless bureaucrat.
:
?
r
s
:
�H2364
m
.
Iiii i-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
Mr. HASTERT. I f 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
i t has been successful, but with the
supermandate under this legislation we
would not have a health based standard
anymore. I t would have to go to a costbenefit analysis..
The point that " I want to make is
really what is at stake, are all these existing laws. I f 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 fac'ing something with such sweeping consequences. I t is one of two, and maybe
words.
-.- -.
•
.
a combination of the two, motives. One
Mr. Chairman, - I rise in favor of the is to, I think, not having thought
amendment. This supermandate in this through what the implications are
legislation is about the most far-reach- going to be, or the second is, i f they
ing proposal, has sweeping impact on thought through very carefully what
the implications will be, and those that
existing environmental laws.
Now those laws are up occasionally have thought i t through would like to
for renewal, and, when we revisit those weaken all of those environmental
laws, we ought to deal with problems . laws. I think this legislation before us
in those laws, but under this legisla- is seriously flawed in that i t goes back
tion they are going to supersede all to existing laws, weakens them.
those laws as i f they did riot exist.
I say to my colleagues, " I f you want
The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. to say for the future we ought to do
MXYES] said that all the precedents, a l l cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment,
jthe court decisions interpreting the as a tool, that's fine, but hot to take
statutes; involved, would be thrown that . analysis arid tie up things for
but. They would have to look at i t in •years."
the light of this one bill. . In the toxic substances law; not
I This is what they call one-size-fits- under the clean air law. but the toxic
all. Forget whether the Clean A i r Act substances law, they spent a decade
operates in a health based standard, or . trying to set one standard, and they f i dhe Toxic Substances Act Is a risk as- nally set one standard, and i t was chalsessment bill, or some other legislation lenged in court and then thrown out
were designed tb have a technology because not the-standard was flawed,
standard. Whatever those laws, might because they challenged the analysis.
have said on those points, we are going- % Economists can come up with difto ignore, and we are going.to let this ferent points of view when they look at
bill supersede those laws.'
r an analysis! Everyone knows econoMr. Chairman, what is really at mists disagree with each other. But we
stake is a rollback of'protections for are going to allow courts and judicial
p<2ople^ The reason those.laws were de-. review to throw out laws and regulasigned the way they were is based on tions to enforce those laws based on
the historical experiences. "'
.
whether the analysis met some court's
For example, in the Clean Air Act we. viewpoint.,
hald a law saying that, i f there are II, Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, will
toxic air. pollutants, they .ought to do a the gentleman yield?
risk analysis before they set a stand- . Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the genard, and so, when we had'toxic pollut- tleman from Illinois.
.
ants that cause cancer, or birth, tie-,
Mr.. HASTERT. M r . , Chairman. I
fecjts, or neurological problems, in 1970 thank the geetleman from southern
to '1990 the law was to do a risk based California, my good friend, and let us
standard, and EPA could not. figure out. talk, about the Clean Air Act for just a
how to do that. So, after 20 "yeare only second: '''-'-" '-'; ' - •"
seven Standards w£re set for pollut-, When we wrote the Clean A i r Act in
ants.
1990, there was a provision in there for
Finally in 1990 we said in the Clean employer trip reduction. I t was based
Air|Act, "This doesn't make any sense. off technologies that were going on in
Letjs require the use; of the tech- southern California, in my State, in
nologies that will reduce these pollut- Texas and other—Pennsylvania and
ants that cause such enormous harm," other SUtes around the country. I t has
and that made a lot of sense, and, after not w:orked, but yet that technology is
the law was adopted in 1990, we have in the law, and what we are saying, i f
seen' an enormous amount of progress we reauthorize that, that ought to be
in protecting people from tons and tons looked at as a cost-benefit analysis. I f
of these toxic air.pollutants.:, v.-.-•
i t does not——In I the urban areas of our cities we:
Mr. WAXMAN. I f I can reclaim my
liave a health based -standard, and we time, Mr. Chairman, just to tell the
say. "Let's achieve t h e health based gentleman, I don't disagree with you, i f
standard set of strategies t o do i t , " and you "want to look at that issue on a
vre have, a law that has been working,: cost-benefit analysis.. But why take the
:
1
:
•
i i
•!
'
r
10
;
February 28, 1995
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 i t 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.
Ovet'a 20-year period .EPA was paralyzed in
endless debates over risk assessments ahd
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 riskbased approach with a technology-based system that oven many industries agree is proving to be practical, effective, and affordable. Ih
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 founds 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 paral-.
ysis 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 technolorjy-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-rby 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. If will
also be,used, at the turn of the century, to see
if high risks remain after the technology-based.
�4
February 28, 1995
H2365
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
first step. It so, the act calls for further verse those gains? Did Congress mean
progress (through risk-based control measures. i t when Congress decided to reduce inH.R. 1,022 would return us to 20 years of dustrial air pollution, or are we going
risk-based paralysis. The bill's risk assess- to reopen that issue at this time and
ment and cost-benefit decisionmaking criteria reverse those gains?
would supersede the 1990 Clean Air Act's
Mr. Chairman, ultimately this Contechnology-based approach. These require- gress iri those cases has the responsibilments are even more onerous than those that ity to determine the necessary levels of
failed before 1990.
protection for public health and enviUnder jthese criteria, lives of the most ex- ronmental protection, and in the reauposed and most vulnerable Americans may thorization process that is the time to
not Ije worth saving. EPA would protect the make that decision, not reaching back
most exposed or most vulnerable Americans
only if the extra lives saved—compared to the through the provisions of H.R. 1022 to
next weaker standard—justify the extra cost to do that aside from the reauthorization
process.
industry.
In a few weeks, we have the so-called PerWhat's worse, Americans' right to protection
from cancer-causing air pollution could depend sonal Responsibility Act on the floor of this
on what region they lived in or what company House. I challenge every member of this
House to show some pdtsonal responsibility.
they lived next to.
Thsse daunting requirements would effec- Reject this blind, blanket overhaul of our laws
tively hogtie the future efforts to continue re- and do the hard work of making changes statducing toxic air pollutants. The data simply are ute-by-statute.
not available to perform risk assessments for
Support the Hayes-Boehlert amendment.
189 different toxic emission sources emitted in Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment
innumerable coiwtoinations from hundreds of would create two different classes of reguladifferent kinds of facilities.
tions for the purposes of risk assessment and
In short, unless we pass this savings cost/benefit analysis—the first would be the
clause, both the industries that release toxic post-H.R. 1022 class, and the second would
air pollutants and the Americans who still be the pre-H.R. 1022 class.
breathe them would be condemned again to
The post-H.R. 1022 class of regulations
the WO-'iggo situation of paralysis by analy- would be subject to modem risk assessment
sis.
I
and cost/benefit analysis procedures based on
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the sound science, while the pre-H.R; 1022 class
gentleman from California [Mr. WAX- of regulations would be promulgated under
MAN] has' expired.
Mr. OliVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to outdated, inefficient, and inflexible procedures
with sometimes no attention paid to their cost
strike trie requisite number of words.
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given on the economy.
Does this make sense? .
permission to revise and extend his reThe American people have asked us to esmarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in tablish a reasonable regulatory system based
support of the Hayes-Boehlert amend- on scientifically sound risk assessment with atment.. In fact. I offered a similar tention paid to the costs versus the benefits
ameridment in the Committee on incurred. That is what this bill accomplishes.
Some are claiming that the bill will roll back
Science a week or so ago. This, .I think,
is a fairly straightforward issue.
all of our health, safety, and environmental
I agree with the purpose' of the protection regulations. Those who would make
amendment which is namely that, this claim have unfortunately resorted to scare
when the results of a cost-benefit anal- tactics.
ysis under this new law, H.R. 1022. apAs the chairman of the Commerce Commitpear to conflict with an existing statu- tee, Mr. BLILEY, has written, "Nothing in the bill
tory requirement, the existing law itself changes a single existing health, safety,
should not be overwritten except by a or environmental regulation currently on the
specific new act of Congress. Without books. This bill only applies to new regulations
this amendment, Mr. Chairman, H.R. and situations where the agency revises an
1022 has the potential to reach back to
eviscerate every law on the books de- old regulation through a public notice and
signed to protect peoples' health and/or comment process."
H.R. 1022 is not a supermandate—instead,
environment.
it establishes consistent, clear standards
Congress already has a process, as under which all new regulations will be prohas been| pointed out, for fixing laws mulgated. The Boehlert amendment would gut
which are. not working as we wanted this bill and I urge a "no" vote.
them to clo. and that is the reauthorThe CHAIRMAN. The question is on
ization process. Hopefully we will reauthe amendment offered by the genthorize the Clean Water Act, the
Superfund law and a number of others tleman from New York [Mr. BOEHthis year,' and many of them have been LERT],
The question was taken; and the
criticizedl for requiring extensive and
expensive! remedies not consistent with Chairman announced that the noes apcost-benejfit criteria. But the right peared to have i t .
time to deal with that is during the reRECORDED VOTE
authorization process.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I deMr. Chairman, this becomes fish-or- mand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
cut-ba.it time. Did Congress mean i t
when Congress decided by huge votes
The vote was taken by electronic deto reclucej sewage pollution in our riv- vice, and there were—ayes 181, noes 238,
ers, or are we going to reopen and re-- not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No 180]
AYES-181
Abercrombie
Gorton
AckermiLn
Ooss
Andrews
Hall (OH)
Baldacci
Hamilton
Barrett (IVI)
Harman
Becerra
Hastings ( F L j
Beilenson
Hayes
Bentsen
Helner
Berman
Hilliard
Bishop
Hinchey
Blute
Holden
Boehlert
Hoyer
Bonior
Jackson-Lee
Borski
Jacobs
Boucher
Jeflerson
Brown iCA)
Johnson ( C D
Brown (FL)
Johnson (SD)
Brown (OH)
Johnson. E. B.
Bryant (TX)
- Johnston
Cardin
Kanjorski
Castle
Kaptur
Clay
Kelly
Clayton
. Kennedy (MA)
Clement
Kennedy (RI)
Clyburn
Kennelly
Coleman
Klldee
Collins ( I D Kleczka
Collins (Ml)
Kllnk.
Conyers
Klug
Costello
LaFalce
Coyne
Lantos
DeFazio
Lazlo
DeLauro
Levin
Dellums
' Lewis (GA)
Deutsch
Lincoln
DICke
' Lofgren
Dingell
. Lowey
Dixon
Lmher
Doggett
Maloney
Doyle
Mantoo
Durbin
Markey
Engel
Martinez
Eshoo
Mascara
Evans
Matsui
Farr
McCarthy
Fattali
McDermott
Fazio
McHale
Fields (LAI
McKinney
Filner
'
McNulty
Flake
Meehan
Foglietta
Meek
Ford
Meyers
Fox
Mfume
Frank'(MA)
Mineta
Frost
Minge
Furse
Moakley
Oejdenson
Moran
Gephardt
Morella
'
Gibbons
Murtha
Gilchrest
Nadler
Oilman
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne(NJ)
Payne (VA i
Pelosi
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allarl
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 i.N'Cl
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Vales
Zimmer
NOES—238
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker(CA)
Baker(LA)
Ballenger
Barcla
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bllbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
BunBurton
Buyer
Callahan
Cilyert
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
Dlaz-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
�H2366
Hnnsen
HAStiLgs fWA)
yjywortli
Ketlev
He-lnemao
herger
HilleanKobson
K.itrkstra
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
c
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller ( F L )
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt .
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
. Paxon
Peterson ( F L )
Petereon (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce
Quillen .
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rlggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky •
Skeen Skelton
Smith (Ml)
Smith (NJ)
Smith ( T X j
Smith (WA) •
Solomon
Soude
Spenoe
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump •
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor <NCJ- .•
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tro f leant.
Upton
Vucanovlch .
Waldholu
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK<
Weldon ( F U
Weldon (PA*
Weller
White
Whltfleld
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
. Young ( A K J
Young ( F L l
Zellff
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
February 28, 1995
clarifies what is in the committee report.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlemari from Ohio [Mr. OXLEY].
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman. I thank
the gentleman for yielding to me.
I also am i n support of this legislation. I also support the amendment en
bloc and want to thank my colleague,
the gentlewomaii irom 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.
Nothing In this Act itse.f shall, without
Federal funding and further F-deral agency
action, create any new obligation or burden
on any State or local govemment or otherwise Impose any financial burden on any
State or local government in the absence of
Federal funding, except with respect to rou- tine information requests.
Page 16. beginning on line 8. after '•uncertainties" add:
KLm
"Sensitive subpopulations or highly ex>::c(,-su>n
posed subpopulations Include: where relevant
Lio:':enberg
and appropriate, children, the elderly, pregKolbe
nant women and disabled persons."L-iHcod
Mr. WALKER (during the reading).
Lirgent
Latham
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous conLaTourette
sent that the amendment be considered TAUZLN].
Liiighlin
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman. I simply
. as read and printed in the RECORD.
l>?ach
U<rts(CA)
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection want to say I support Uus amendment.
^ T : S (KY)
to the request of the gentleman from It ought to be passed.
Lu-htfoot
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman. I yield
Pennsylvania?Under
to the .gentleman from California [Mr.
There was no objection.
b:3loodo
L-^ley
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, CONDIT].
U.cas
(Mr. CONDIT asked and was given
there are 8 minutes remaining for dey.iaiullo
bate. The gentleman from Pennsylva- permission to revise and extend his reVininl
V .'Collum
nia [Mr. WALKER] will be recognized for marks.)
V:Cr«y
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman. I rise in
4 minutes, and a Member on the other
K:D4d«
support of the amendment and the bill.
side w i l l be recognized for 4 minutes.
y:Hagh
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman. I yield
The Chilr recognizes the gentleman
V:Iclos*
to the gentlewoman from Arkansas
from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALKER].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman. I yield [Mrs. LINCOLN].
NOT VOTING—15
(Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given
myself such time as I may consume.
Bi4fsler
Hunter
Rangel
ter
Lipinski
Rush
I will t r y to go quickly so. we might permission to revise and extend her reCfi
Livingston
Torres
.
be able to get to another amendment. marks.)
&-: i i a l e i
Miller (CA)
Ward
Mrs. LINCOLN. M r . Chairman, I rise
I f this could be taken on a voice vote.
G^tlerrel
Mink
William*.
Thlis amendment Is offered by myself, in support of the amendment.
• 1830
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OXLEY],
Mr. Chaiman, this is an amendment that
The Clerk announced the followihg the gentleman ft-om Pennsylvania. [Mr. has been worked out With Mr. OXLEY and Mr.
SHUSTERI. the gentleman from Louisi- CUNGER. Last month many ol us supported
poire:
ana [Mr. TAOZIN], and the gentleman H.R. 5, a Ml that would ease the amount o<
On the vote:
from Pennsylvania (Mr- CLINGER], unfunded mandates on the States. This
Mr. Rush fori virlth Mr. Cox against.
Mr. Ward for, with Mr. Livingston against. What is says is that we are going to i n - amendment is aimed to ensure that provisions
Messrs. MclNNIS, SKELTON. and clude environmental cleanup under in this Wil achieve the goal set forth under the
be sure the cleanup unfunded mandates bill by not adversely afROHRABACHER changed their vote 1022. We want
dollars are used wisely; subjecting fecting States. It has the full support from the
from "aye" to "no."
major cleanups to this legislation w i l l
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts go a long way i n doing that. Also, there National Conference of State Legislatures and
the State of Arkansas.
changed his vote from "no" to "aye."
la some concern about any kind of unAs you well know, States often act as
So the amendment was rejected.
funded mandates. The mandates are
The result of the vote was announced some of the most costly of mandates agents of the Federal Govemment in enforcing
Federal statutes. For example, under the
as above recorded.
when we deal with the environment.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Accordingly the Conference of Mayors, Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and the Resource Conamendinents to the bill?
of the top 10 most burdensome un- servation and Recovery Act. to name a. few,
AMENDMENT OFFERED BT MR. WALKER
ftmded mandates on State and local the States are delegated the authority to carry
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman. I offer governments. T are environmental
anamendment.
mandates. H.R. 1022 speaks to ease the out the requirements of the statutes and enThe Clerk read as follows:
burden of regulation. We ce:t-ainly do foroe their provisions. Because H.R. 1022 as
AmeDdment offered by Mr. WALKER: Page not want to add to i t . CBO was not able written explicitly requires risk assessments for
30. Alter 11ns 23, Insert:
to cost out what, i f any. costs may be documents prepared by or on behalf of a covSEC. IM. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP
passed onto the States. With this ered Federal agency in the implementation of
For purposes of this title, any determina- amendment that I am offering on be- a regulatory program designed to protect
lioc by a Federal agency to approve or reject half of the gentleman from Pennsylva- human health, safety, or the environment.
acv proposed or final environmental clean- nia [Mr. CLINOER] and myself, we offer States might be required to conduct risk asup plan for A facility tbe costs of which are
sessments when carrying out the provisions of
likely to exceed JS.000,000 shall be treated as protection against unfunded mandates. Federal statutes. Such documents tnclude the
c-jijor rule subject to the provisiona of this
There is also some concern about issuance of permits under the Clean Water
ctle (other than the provisions of section
aDKaKSt. As used in this section, the term definitions Of the bill that refer to sen- Act and the Clean Air Act.
Over 40 States have delegated authority
-environmental clean-up" means a correo- sitive subpopulations. That is included
c:ve action under the Solid Waste Disposal in this language as well to make cer- over the Clean Water Act's section 402 perA::, a remedial action under the Comprehen- tain that sensitive subpopulations mitting program. Under this bill, States acting
sive Environmental Response, Compenaa- would Include children, elderly, preg- on behalf of the Federal Govemment might be
t o t . and Liability Act of 1980. and any other nant women, and disabled persons: I t forced to conduct risk assessments for each
Horn
Hostettler
KouKhtoo
H'jtohinsoo
Hyde
Irslis
!?:ock •
Johnson. Sam
Jones
l
1
t
0
�February 28, 1995
H2367
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
pei mit 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
poOntial 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."
E'ecause of the ambiguity associated with
the potential costs and burdens placed on the
Stales 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.
It is the concern for these vulnerable, sub- - This amendment ensures that agenpopulations that encouraged me to sponsor cies be provided the f l e x i b i l i t y to acs
this amendment.
• . • .rapidly i n the event of a serious threat
As we have learned in recent years, aver-" tb public health or public safety.
ages and best estimates often tell us almost
Our history is replete w i t h examples
nothing about the way in which a risk will have - where t h e p r o m p t a c t i o n b y a Federal
an impact on real people. On average a drug agency prevented death or prevented
or device, a chemical or compound may be serious injury.
safe and effective, however, it may have terIn Lorain County, OH, in northeast
rible unsafe or ineffective consequences for Ohio in. the 13th district, the Centers
special subpopulations such. as the elderly, for Disease Control and the Environchildren, pregnant women, disabled people, or mental. Protection Agency are curindividuals with certain chronic illnesses.
rently working w i t h the Ohio DepartThose who are vulnerable in our society ment of Public Health to avoid calamneed to be concerned about health care ex- i t y from the use of a deadly pesticide
penditures, salary loss for . a lengthy illness, in a residential area i n Elyria. W i t h i n
and years of work lost to premature death. days these agencies were working toAnd this is all because they have no. option to" gether to-mi tigate the contamination,
choose the level of risk tb which they are ex- to relocate families, and to clean up
posed to a health hazard. I believe that the problem.
science cannot always explain complex or unWithout this amendment, agencies
I encourage my colleagues to support this usual relationships between the exposure to
commonsense amendment.
hazards and the potential health effects to all" w i l l spend" more time i n risk analysis
and litigation than responding to these
Ms.
MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, this people.
urgent situations.
amendment will alleviate concerns that have
. This amendment simply says that when nuIn addition, while lawyers w i l l have
been raised in both the Science and Com- merical risks are provided, estimates shall also
merce Committees by myself and the Con- be provided for these subpopulations where f u l l employment, many of our constituents could become seriously i l l or die
gre;.swoman from Arkansas regarding the such estimates are relevant.
waiting for Federal action.
placement of risk assessment and cost-benefit
I urge adoption of this amendment.
. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair w i l l allo. analysis requirements on State and local govMr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I recate 30 seconds to the proponents. I f
ernments.
serve the balance of my time.
This amendment hopes to clarify that enact- AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BROWN OF CALI- there is a Member on the other side
FORNIA TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. that wants to have permission to
ment of this bill will not place unfunded manspeak, the gentleman from PennsylvaWALKER
dates on State and local govemment jurisdicMr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chair- nia [Mr. WALKER] may close.
tions. This savings clause is needed because
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman. I
as currently written, the bill is unclear on the man, I offer an amendment to the
ask for support of the Brown amendquestion of whether State and localities will amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:'
ment.
.
havn to engage in costly risk assessments
Amendment offered by Mr. BROWN of CaliMr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairand cost-benefit analyses. It should be remembered that States often act as agents for fornia to the amendment offered by Mr. man, I yield to the gentlewoman f r o m
the Federal Government in administering laws WALKER: At the' end of the amendment, in- Texas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE].
sert the following:
Ms. JACftSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman,
sucli as the Clean Air Act and the Safe DrinkPage 4 strike lines,5 through 9 (all of para^
American people
ing Water Act.
graph (1) of section 3) and insert the follow•
^ *
"should not have to wait for agencies to
In fact, the Commerce Committee report ^ lng and redesignate paragraphs (2) through
study risks for months before acting to
states on page 50 that if we enact H.R. 1022, (4) as paragraphs (3) through (5), respecabate serious and i h some cases lifethe "affect on budgets of State and local gov- tively:
(DA situation that the head of the agency threatening conditions.
ernments is unclear." This bipartisan amendconsiders an emergency.
Last year, for example, the FDA rement, supported by the National Conference
(2) A situation that the head of the agency
on State Legislatures, would make clear that considers to be reasonably expected to cause ceived a report f r o m Canada of two
the bill will not impose an unfunded mandate death or serious injury or illness to humans, cases of salmonella poisoning i n i n fants using a particular Infant formula
on States and local governments. Therefore, I or substantial endangerment to private propmanufactured i n the United States.
urge my colleagues, who overwhelmingly sup- erty or the environment unless prompt acWe have t o be able t o save o u r i n ported the passage of the unfunded mandate tion is taken to avoid death or to avoid or
mitigate serious injury or illness to humans, fants and be responsive i n h a y i n g t h i s
bill last month, to support this amendment.
or substantial endangerment to private prop- provision t o provide f o r o u r A m e r i c a n
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to erty or the environment.
citizens.
. . .
thank my dear colleague from Pennsylvania,
Mr. BROWN of California (during the ' Mr. Chairman, the Brown-Jackson-Lee
Mr. WALKER, for Including the amendment reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask' unani- amendment to H.R. 1022 would allow agendealing with subpopulations offered by myself mous consent that the amendment to cies to take rapid response actions to address
and the gentlelady from Callfornia [Ms. the amendment be considered as read significant threats from toxic chemicals or effsLOFGREN]. Also, I would like to thank the gen- and printed in the RECORD.
charged oil, without the need to wait for
tleman from Ohio [Mr. OXLEY] for his support
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection lengthy risk assessments to be completed.
in getting this amendment in.
to the request of the gentleman from The amendment would expand section 3(1) to
This amendment seeks to cure one of the California?
exempt from risk assessment requirements
from not only classic emergencies, but also
many problems that arise when we try to put
There was no objection.
good and responsive science into law. Risk
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chair- those situations where prompt action is needassessment may help improve regulatory deci- man, this is a very simple amendment. ed to avoid death, illness, or serious injury to
sione, but good risk assessment doesn't guarMr. Chairman, I yield to the gen- the environment.
antee good regulatory decisions. Risk assess- tleman f r o m Ohio [Mr. BROWN] to exThe American people shouldn't have to wait
ment should supplement the regulatory goal of plain.
for agencies to study risks for months before
safeguarding public health, but should not
Mr.. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I acting to abate serious, and in some cases,
stand alone in the analysis.
rise in support of this amendment life-threatening conditions.
. This bill requires that a number of numerical which the gentleman from California
For example, the amendment would allow,
estimates be made; yet it expresses those es- [Mr. BROWN], the gentlewoman from without the delay of additional studies: repacktimates in a crude way that fails to take ac- Texas [Ms. JACKSON-LEE], and I are of- ing corroding drums before they leak; quickiy
counl of the special needs of vulnerable sub- fering. This amendment allows a c r i t i - relocating those people living |n dangerous-V
populations such as children, the elderly, and cal element to the protection of our contaminated areas that require cleanup—
disabled individuals.
public health and safety to continue. . moving them out of harm's way; stopping the
l
e
t
m
e
t
J
h
e
�H2368
(I i
m
i.
J-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
spread of contarrtnants from leaking underThe CHAIRMAN. The time, of the
ground storage tanks before drinking water is gentleman from California [Mr. BROWN]
affected; acting promptly to save wildlife and has expired.
beaches banned by oil spills; and quickiy supPARLIAMENTARY INQL-IRIES
plying alternate drinking water where commu- Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman. I
nity water has been contaminated with toxic have a parliamentary inquiry.
chemicals.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
Often these are not classic emergency situ- state it.
ations, but they are always situations where
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
fast action is critical to preventing greater on what basis does the Chair rule that
harm to surrounding communities and the en- in this 10-hour rule that the Committee
vironment. Would we not want agencies to be on Rules has generously given us and
freetorespondquickly to such serious situa- under the 5-minute rule for our time,
tions?
that the time of the gentleman from
Taking timely action before the contamina- California [Mr. BROWN] is taken away
tion spreads would also serve to avoid more and part of it is given to someone else
costly cleanups In the future, saving money for . when he did not yield? Under what parliamentary rule is that. Mr. Chairman?
both taxpayers as well as industry.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has disThis amendment makes good economic
sense, and It makes good sense. I. ask for cretion and the right to reallocate time
when there is a limitation on time.
your support.
^
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to - Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
thank my colleague, Mr. BROWN, for offering under what rule is that? Would the
this amendment designed to ensure that Fed- Chair cite the rule?
The CHAIRMAN. Rule XXIU.
eral agencies maintain the ability to respond
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, a
quickly to serious risks to the public's health
further parliamentary inquiry. It looks
and safety.
.
In particular, I am concerned about how to me that it is past 6:40. I call for a
H.R. 1022's copious risk assessment require- vote. Mr. phairman.
ments would impact the safety.of our Nation's, The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvawater supply.
-" •
The central importance of a safe drinking nia [MT.WALKER].
Mr., WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the
water supply was reinforced for me last November when Cryptosporidium, the parasite amendment to the amendment ought
which caused" more than T O deaths, in Mil- to be opposed.
O
waukee in 1993, was detected in New York Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman. I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
City's water supply,
There are few If any among us who are will- . The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
ing to accept a risk of significant exposure to state it.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
serious disease through our water supply. I
am pleased that my city of New York aggres- we were told by the Parliamentarian
sively monitors for Cryptosporidium through a that 6:40 is the final time.
watershed protection strategy. As of today, the The CHAIRMAN. That Is correct.
New York City water supply is in avoidance, ' Mr. BROW'N of Ohio. Under what rule
meaning that our water meets EPA standards may we exceed 6:40?
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
for avoidance of Cryptosporidium parasite.
the amendment offered by the genThere ara no Federal regulations which tleman from California [Mr. BROWN] to
cover this deadly parasite. However, New the. amendment offered by the genYork City has tested for this pathogen since tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALK-'
1992 as part of a cooperative effort with EPA.
. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of data ' ER]. . question was taken; and the
The
about how to.' avoid illness; from Chairman announced that the noes apcoptosporidium, which has only been a re- peared to have it.
portable disease since March 1994.
RECORDED VOTE
The bill before us today would require a
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman. 1
rigid approach to addressing unusual and new demand a recorded vote.
health problems, like Cryptosporidium. H.R. A recorded vote was ordered.
1022 woold require agencies like EPA to comThe CHAIRMAN. The Chair anplete more than 20 risk assessments before nounces thaf there will be a 5-minute
working with localities to address new-found vote on the Walker amendment, if a rehazards...
ur >z-v wrriMvca M . corded vote is ordered.
H.R 1022 would effectively tie the hands of • The vote was taken by electronic decities like New Yoifc which currently are work- vice and there were—ayes 157. noes 2G3,
ing (ointfy with EPA to address urgent situa- not voting 14, as follows:
tions like this public health issue. Furthermore,
[Roll No. 181]
H.R. 1022 would lead to unnecessary and poAYES-i57 .
tentially life-threatening delays in regulatory
Collins (ML
Abercrombie
Boucher
action to protect the people of New York.
Ackemuui
Brown (CA)
Coni'ers
I wart to congratulate my colleague for of- Andrew!
Brown (FLl
Coyne
Brown (OH)
de la Oana
fering this amendment designed to allow EPA. B*rcU
Barrett
Bryaot (TX)
DeFazio
the Centers for Disease Control, and other Beoerra (WI>
Cardin
DeLauro
agencies theflexibilitythey need to work with BeUtnson
Cl»y
Drllume
kxaliiies to respond quickly to serious threats Beaum . .
Clayton
Deutsch
Bermu Clement
Dicta
to health or safety. . .
^ • ; DLMOII
Clyburn
* urge my oolteagues to join me in support- BiehapBonlor
Coleman
DUon
ing this critical amendrnent
BorakJv
Collins (IL)
Dowett
-
i:5
February 28, 1995
Doyle
Ourbln
Eagel
Eshoo
Evans
FanFattali
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
FoslletU
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Oejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gordon
Green
Hall (OHl
Harman
Hasting (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefterson
Johnson (SD) Johnson. E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
KUdee
Kleczka
Kllnk
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis lOA)
Lincoln
LofRren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHMe
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendes
M£ume
Mineta
Minge
Moakley'
Moran
Murtha.
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne(NJ)
Paine (VA)
Felosi
Peterson (FLJ
Pomeroy
AUard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
NOES—263
Cubln
CimnlcRham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balan
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dcman
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
BUley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonllla .
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
BunBurton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss •
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Cobum
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Co*
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Elilere
Ehrlich
Emereon
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TXI
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks(NJ)
Frehnslmysen
Fnsa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
• Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Good; i t te
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Rahall
Raneel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-AIlard
Sabo
Sander*
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
SlauBhwr
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Thornton
Tomcelll
Traficant
Tucker
Velaajuei •
Vento
Volkmer
Waters.
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
' Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hllleary •
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houehton
Hutchinson.
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson. Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kinirston
KIlK'
KnulhiDberg
K.jibe
LaHood
Largent
La;ham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Laiio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Llghtfoot
Linder
Llnngston
Lo3iondo
Longley
Lucas „
Manzullo
Manlnl
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
Mclnnis
Mcintosh
McKt-on
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
MUler (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
.
�February 28, 1995
Montgomery
Moorbead
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
Rlggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtlnen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
. Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MH
Smith (NJ)
Smith tTX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NO
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
TorkUdsen
Towns
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovlch
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whltfleld
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zellff
Zimmer
vent the implementation of any regulations
CiAnother jirobtemfeihe"approachtoregulaonce a department or agency has certified the in one agency mig*notresenttbiataf
tions
impact of a proposed mle. The fundamental
another. For example, aresouceskm tha fugoal of this legislation istoallow the American expert was attempting to detennww the
ture
people and their elected representatives toamount of lives that would be saved by an
know the true cost of a proposed Federal reg- regulation.Using the EPA method he deEPA
ulatory action. With this information, which is that 6.400 deaths would to pretermined
often currently lacking, polfcymakers can make However, when the same research^
vented.
rational decisions that prioritize and balance the same data with the FDA method, he
used
the diverse needs of this Nation.' , U';;
came up with a figure of 1.400. ;
Finally, this legislation contains a phase-in ..-To put this in perspective, it is afcsotutety
provision before the requirement of a cost- necessary to assess the risk, determine
benefit and risk-assessment analysis kicks in. much it is going to cost to address it and how
By postponing the effective date. Federal great the benefit is if we do it And ens must
agencies will have at least 18 monthstogear be done consistently throughout the Ft I
up to perform these Important analyses in a .Government . J v w v w : . fi.--..-- - /'b'.^flt:
• w^This is not some far-out concept, this is
.
compliment the sponsors of this measure p|y common sense.
for providing this transition period. I am con- have been very active in this area and
::l
fident that because of this language, there will hard to convince people in the adrrinworked
not be any unnecessary or unanticipated bur. istration that we need a policy on this. During
dens placed on the executive branch oi our 103d Congress I successfully added
the
Government
.."
" . ':\
amendment to the Agriculture reorganization
- The requirement of cost-benefit arid risk-as- bill which creates an (Mce at Risk Assesssessment analyses is neither a new nor a rad- ment. ..
- ...• -.
ical idea. The Army Corps df Engineers has,
I think the time to act is now. H.R. 1022 preNOT VOTING—14
for instance, been performing these studies for sents the 104th Congress with a real opporBaesler
Lipinski
Torres
many years. I believe It is time for the rest of . tunity to begin assessingrisksin a coherent
Brewster
Martinez
Ward .
the Federal Government to get wifli the pro- . and consistent manner. People need to underOonzalez
Miller (CA)
Williams
gram.
*
Outlerrei
Mink
Wilson
stand the purpose and price of regiistions—
Hunter
Rush
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota Mr. Chair- and they need to be done ih an understandman. H.R. 1022. the Risk Assessment; and able manner. As it is donetoday,regulations
• 1858
Cost-Benefit Act is flawed legislation.iand
. Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed needs to be much Improved by (he Senate are complex and written in an jncanslstent
mariner.
his vote from "aye" to "no." .
and by the conference committee before I .'^Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is a
do the amendment to the amendmeht could vote for it on final passage. Nonethe- ^
, ^
, ^
was rejected.
less, I support the general thrust of requiring book on thetopic"Breaking the Vfcaous OThe result of the vote was announced risk assessment and cost-benefit tests' fbr
as above recorded.
Federal regulations and I will vote for this bill de'Vhe made thefollowingobservation:
When we... „ tiny,,„moderate and large
treat .
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on today as a means of allowing the debate
to
.
^
^
the. amendment offered by the gen- „„„,•„. .„ -rt,,,
,
•
... , • . .•
too mucn alike, we begin to resemble one boy
tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALK- continue. The cunent version of this legislation
^
«
o^wmtag*
ER].
reaucracy, an enormous increase in litigation drug warnings that^run on for several pages?
would lead to costly increases tn Federalcon- Will a public that hears these warnings coo
buaspirin bottles, or the pharmaceutical
and possibly a risk for health and safety
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, H.R. cerns. I am disappointed that the House lead- often and too loudly begin too often to ig1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit ership seems to be more concerned over nore them?
Act of 1995, is long overdue. I agree with the making political statements with this bill than
this is exactly what I am talking about We
bill's authors that it is essential that a cost- in crafting legal language which would actually need to restore some credibility to our regubenefit analysis be performed on the thou- serve the public interest. I do, however, be- latory process. H.R. 1022 helps this process
sands of Federal regulations that are prepared lieve that this issue should be moved on to the along. As it stands today, when you say the
.sach year. Without, this measure, the Federal Senate and conference committees fbr, hope- words Federal regulation, people cringe. It
Govemment would simply continue tp create, fully, more deliberate and responsible consid- should not be that way.
without any accountability, a growing mountain eration. I will not vote for this legislation at that " .Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, one of the
of new Federal requirements. In far too many time unless it has been significantly improved. goals of the Contract With America istogeneases, these regulations provide little, if any, Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, as many of you erate economic growth and encourage job cretieriefit to our economy, our environment, or are already aware l am a strong proponent of ation. Relieving the regulatory burden on indirisk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. :v viduals and businesses is essential to achievcur Nation as a whole.
I have formed this opinion because I recog- this objective. Today, the House of Reping
While H.R. 1022 is not a perfect product
and it will be refined throughout the legislative nize that we do not have infinite resourcesresentatives took a step in this direction by requiring Federal bureaucrats to assess the cost
process, there are several very sound provi- and we cannot address everyriskto health,
the environment or society. •';•> -vv:^'V--- of their actions.
sions which I would like to highlight. .
How then should we. determine which risks
First, the term "major rule" has been deWashington bureaucrats are costing us
fined to cover any regulation that is likely to to address?
$430 billion a year with regulations that often
re sult in an annual cost of S25 million or more. The way. things are being, done today has io do more harm than good. They are coming up
It is, therefore, highly unlikely that this bill change. Risks are regulated in a complete ab- with $50 solutions for $5 problems. Ifs time
would require a full blown cost-benefit analysis sence of scientific fact. Tonight's news maga- for common sense in Washington.
for annual and routine housekeeping regula- zine show becomes tomorrow's regulatioa • last year 69,000 pages of Federal rules and
tions like those that siriiply open or close var- Never mind that there might be 20 problems regulations were published. The process of
ious fisheries or stipulate the dates, hunting that are more pressing—they haven! been on regulating has become an industry in lawyers,
••
- times, and bag limits for-migratory bird spe- TV yet.
lobbyists, and special interests.
cies. Concerns about the effects on these
In 1987 EPA experts conducted a review of
These rules and regulations—9 feet of regutyfies of activities by the regulatory moratoriumwhat they felt were the greatest risks. When lations, if laid end-to-end—inpact every aspect
bill passed last week required us to exempt they collected all of the opinions, they pro- of Americans' lives. The rules are often conthem from the moratorium. The concern is not duced a report titled. "Unfinished Business." tradictory, and frequently conflict with State,
present here.
This report concluded that what experts felt county and local rules.
fiecond, although this legislation does re- were the greatest risks had funding priority
Specifically, H.R. 1022 would ensure that
quire cost-benefit analyses for major rules, it and the smallest risk had the highest funding risk assessments are objective, unbiased, and
dotis not mandate an outcome nor does it pre- priority.
subject to peer review. The cost tli
n
1
t
:
:
3 u p p o n e t
w h 0
o n
0
w o ] f
a s s e s s m e T ±
ow
r e a d 8
n
�H2370
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-^HOUSE
wiN eventually have on Americans must be
Whole House on the State of the Union, working families across this Nation get
taken into account, alternatives to complicated
reported that that Committee, having only the leftovers;
rules that might be more cost-effective must under consideration the bill (H.R.
had
Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be a
be considered, and a sound reason for the1022) to provide regulatory reform and bill about science, about risk assessregulation ih the first place must be dern- focus national economic resources ment. But It has not really worked out
to
onstrated.
: •••
•:^:.-~*'i. '- " \ ^ on the greatest risks to human health, that way. Because what this bill has
This legislation would simply require that the safety, and the environment through ended up being is a matter of placing
Federal bureaucracy assess the costs of their, scientifically, objective and unbiased the risk on ordinary Americans as far
actions on the rest of us. We are living in ah risk assessments and through the con- as their health and safety and placing
era of declining revenues, and we must make sideration of costs r . ' benefits in the. benefits in the hands of a few. One
choices and set priorities. And our Govern- major rules, and for other purposes, of the things we can do about i t is to
ment—bureaucrats as well as elected offi- pursuant to House Resolution 96. he re- try to sever the ties that bind the specials—must be accountable.: * •
:: , ported the bill back to the House with cial interests to this bill and give us
The problem is that we now tend to direct sundry amendments adopted by the not good science but good special treatour resources to relatively low-risk concerns Committee of the Whole.
ment for the few. That is what this
while other, more serious concerns receive litThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under conflict of interest amendment is
Ue attention. Since there's no standarized the., rule;..the previous question is. or- about."
method ofrisk-assessmentto be used dered/
The House
know that a
throughout the Government, policymakers are;. . Is a,separate vote demanded on any against this needs to to recommit vote
motion
is a.
unable to prioritize regulatory strategies in a ainendment? If not, the Chair will put vote to mandate that registered lobby•
common-sense manner. This bill allows us to them en.gros. '...
ists will rule, perhaps with a veto
concentrate scarce dollars where they will do
The amendments, were agreed to.
the most good, and analyze alternatives to - The SPEAKER pro tempore. The power, in these peer , review commitachieve the goal of public safety at the lowest question is on the engrossment and tees. .
I thought that perhaps the genpossible cost
third reading of the bill.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today i n - The bill was ordered to be engrossed tleman from Pennsylvania was going
opposition to House Resolution 1022. the Risk and read a third time, and was read the to do something about this. He talked
aboyt the possibility of doing someAssessment and Cost-Benefit Act/-1 am ex- third time.-;'
.. .
thing about i t during the course of the
tremely disappointed with the Tack of full con. MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR.
amendment offered by the gentleman
sideration of this important piece of legislation.
DOGGETT
I support regulatory reform.: In particular,-I "" Mr, DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a from Massachusetts this afternoon, but
we have had plenty, of time. We had
support cost-benefit analysis andriskassess- motion to recommit.
ment as tools to develop rational; regulations. The SPEAKER pro tempore, is the some time in committee, and nothing
,
has been done about it.
I have spoken with small business owners, oil gentleman opposed to the bill? 11? ~
and chemical companies, and other .constitu?o Mr! DOGGETT. I am, most. defini
definitely,- This bill as written for the first time
will mandate that an agency of this
ents who have relayed to me their stories of Mr. Speaker,
frustration over the regulatory process. IVe - The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Federal Government charged with proalso talked to constituents who are concerned Clerk will report the motion to recom- tecting public health and safety cannot, shall not, indeed, exclude a lobbyabout health, safety, and the environment their- 'rnlt. . / '
ist for a special interest group from
kids willgrow up in. Our job isto.find the ap; - The Clerk read as follows:propriate. delicate balance between the. inter-y M . DOGGET moves to recommit the bill serving, on a peer review committee,
ests of commerce, industry, and the environ: H-R. 1022. to the Committee on Science with exercising a potential ve|o power over
ment. This legislation is too quick of a fix to instructions to report the same back to the regulations to protect the public
solve such a complex problem. -. . V -.y: House forthwith with the following amisnd- health and safety.
Reforming Federal regulations will'help oiir : menta:'--''
. I do not believe there has been a day
Amend the heading of section 301 (page 31, recently that I have not received a leteconomy to grow. The time-consuming procread as follows:: .
ess of filling out environmental impact state- ;iine 2) tbPEER REVIEW PROGRAM AND PROHIBI- ter from some-lobbyist promoting this,
ments or hundreds of pages of s a business; SEC. 301. TION OP CONPUCTS OF INTEREST.
mM
,
bill. They can salivate over the prosloan forms are good examples of why refomr . Strike paragraph (3) of section „ „ „ (page pects under this bill. Every one of
„
301(a)
these letters has begun by telling me
is necessary. But this bill doesnt guarantee krunr2frhTO7gh page"32rto
about the desire for good science, but
regulations that are sensible. On the contrary, the following:
conducting across-the-boaidrisk-assessments. (3) shall exclude peer reviewers who have a when all was said and done, - all they
will lengthen the review process, transform, .^tentialflnancialinterest in the outcome: really wanted was delay and reduction
simple rules into complex monstrosities, and ^ "ftfrf DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this Is a of regulations.
cost taxpayers m i l l i o n s , . ' - y
short'amendment, 13 words, and i t Is a
That is why I am sure, Mr. Speaker,
Giveri time for thorough consideration, I be- short presentation on it after a lengthy that the distinguished Republican SenKeve that this body might haye crafted a sen- debate in which one Member after an- ator from Rhode Island, . Senator
sibte compromise. Unfortunately, this is not other , has. attempted to clean up this CHAFEE, has described this bill in its
that bill. Mr. Chairman. I must add that I cari- bill. . .,
* current form as a prescription for
not support a process which limits debate to . Mr-. Speaker, throughout the course gridlock and indeed i t is...;
only 10 hours and restricts the; number,of :' of 'this lengthy debate; one Member
What we can do at least is clean it up
amendments allowed for consideration. This is after another has sought to clean up through this motion to recommit so
not full and fair disclosure. The American peo* this bill and has been thwarted at that there is not this kind of blatant
pie expect and deserve a full airing of these every turn.: There is one recurring conflict of interest. That is all this
important issues in the Congress, and not this theme throughout the debate, and, one-sentence amendment and a new
reckless, hasty display. '.. : . ' that is, whether we are going to turn title on conflict of interest will do.
Once again, the job of fair and bipartisan the' public's business over tb special inWith this recommittal, and the
legislating is left tp the other body. That is a terests and their lobbyists,
amendment, we will see that the peer
terrible shame, because regulatory reform is
All this very simple motion to re- review process is not converted from
deserving of. much more thorough consider- commit does.is to send the bill back to being an objective scientific process
ation- ••;
recommit i t to'the committee to put in into only the best science that money
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the a conflict Of interest provision instead can buy, and we will not let the special
Committee rises.' _ ...
.--'._/ .:„" of committing .it and our Governmerit interests capture the whole regulatory
'Accordingly, ttie. Committee' rose; to special.interests,
process.
.ind the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. That is what the American people . Think about what that means and
KNOLLENBERG) having " assumed* the' want. They are tired of special inter- take the practical example of tobacco.
i:hair, Mr. HASTINGS-" o f Waiiihgtbh; ests coming to' this House and getting Two or three decades after we first
Chairman of the • dommittee of the special treatment while the hard- heard about the dangers of tobacco and
>
::
i :
:
if,'.
i:'
J
1
n1
;
v
;
r
;
1
w
,
1
7
1
I-
February 28, 1995
�i
February 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
:
I
I
H2371
cancer, we s t i l l cannot find a single to- with these oppressive . regulations. . continue to happen over and over again. Whal
bacco company study that shows there They should have a say i n this process we. want is to bring some common sense and
sound science into the process, so that reguis any link. They have, had some of the and that is what we want. -.
best scientists that money can buy but
Vote "no" on the motion to. recom- lations will serve the people, rather fran people serve the regulations.
when they are asked whether there is mit. .
Vote "no" on this motion to recommit
any link between tobacco and cancer,
Mr. Chairman, a New York Times article
you can see them, they are just from a couple of years ago summed up perMr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield • o
scratching their heads again, saying, fectly the prevailing criticism of Congress' and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OIELZY).
••Well, there might be, but not until EPA's choice of priorities:
. Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, this
my retirement vests."
In the last 15 years, environmental policy amendment really is not about the peer
That is the kind of scientists that has too often evolved largely in reaction to review process. That was dealt with in
this bill mandates have to be on peer popular panics, not In response to sound sci- the Markey amendment. The Markey
review panels across this country, and entific analysis of which environmental amendment went down as i t should
hazards present the greatest risks. As a have.
i t is wrong.
billions of dollars
We began with a desire for good result. . . . In battling problems are wasted
The provision in this bill provides for
each year
that are no
science, good science over good poli- longer considered especially dangerous, leav- everybody of every interest, labor and
tics, good science over silly regula- ing little money for others.. that _cause; far .environmental groups and business
tions, some of . which have come out more harm. ' .."v. ••"
•>.•.',..,..-.:•. . groups and everyone, to. participate i n
under Democratic administrations and
No one who supports this bill wants to harm the peer review process, and they have
some of which have come out in 12 of
to report any potential conflict of i n the last 14 years under Republican ad-, children or hiirt our err/ironment—the fact of terest. That is what makes this bill so
the matter is, every time you get out of bed
ministrations. What we have gotten is
strong.
not good science but good protection and start a new day you are faced with risks,
But really the opponents of this bill
for. special interests. We can do some- and every day you make decisions about
thing about that. We can rewrite this whether to accept those risks based on an who are trying to hide behind the mobill to attack special, interests, to at- analysis of the costs versus the benefits asso^ tion to recommit are worried about
three strikes and you're out. changing
tack silly regulations, all in the same ciated with them.
Likewise, the Federal Government must set a $25 million coverage to $100 million,
process. I f you believe that we ought
not to turn over bur Govemment to priorities on how to spend its limited re- changing the enforceable law in not alspecial interests, vote in favor of this sources. There is no way the Government lowing judicial review, and providing
motion to recommit and do something could ever protect everyone from every risk for prior, law to prevent consideration
about i t w i t h a strong conflict of inter- there is, and I donl believe Americans expect and to change the risk and cost-faeneflt
that. Risk assessirient and cost/benefit analy- analysis.
est provision.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sis will both help us focus on those areas that , This is an effort to try to stiCe the
opposition to the motion to recommit. are the greatest threat to the public, and pro- ability to change the way Washington
Mh Speaker, this is an amendment vide the data needed to make those tough works in its regulatory process. Mem•'•...: ..,..'
. >-".... bers should vote against the motion to
. similar to an amendment that was budgetary choices.
When granting a tolerance for a new peis- 'recommit. '
turned down by a vote of 247 to 177 earticide or an air pollutant, EPA's standard is . Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to
lier.
What this does is make certain that protection against a lifetime risk of one in a the gbntleman from Louisiana [Mr.
the peer review process would fail be- million for cancer. For a little perspectivejthe T A U Z I N ] . •.
cause i t assures that only those who chance of death by lightning is .35 times " as " .• Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I too want
know nothing about the subject would great; by accidental falls, 4,000 times as great; to urge a vote against this motion to
serve on the peer review panels. I t is and in a motor vehicle, ,16,000 times as great. recommit..
Just to demonstrate the need for reform, I'd " The " b i l l as presently constructed
one of those dumb and dumber amendments that probably should not come like to present a few examples of how our sys- says that anyone with any interest iri
tem has gone haywire:
the rule has to disclose that interest,
before the House.
First, under the Clean Wafer Act, if flooding whether you have an interest from an
I yield to the majority whip, the gencreates pools of water on someone's property environmental standpoint, whether
tleman from Texas [Mr. D E L A Y ] .
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speater, I think the as the result of a clogged-up drainage system, you have an interest from wherever
chairman has pretty well summed i t up the owner may not clear the clog to drain the you are coming from, from a labor or
very quickly. Let me just say that i n new wetland without Govemment permission. management standpoint. I t allows all
Second, EPA regulations require that munic- of those with expertise to serve on the
ull of this cry for special interests
being part of the peer review process, ipal water treatment plants remove 30 percent panel provided you disclose your interwhat the author of the motion to re- of organic material before discharging treated est. That is they way i t ought to be.
commit wants to happen is his special water into the ocean. Because water in An- This motion to recommit will defeat
interests get to serve on the peer re- chorage, AK is already very clean, the town that provision'of the bill. We need to
view panels rather than our special in- has had to recruit local fish processors to pur- defeat this motion to recommit.
terests. They want to load the system posely dump 5,000 pounds of fish guts into its
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman from
so that they can continue to control sewage system each day so that it would ..Louisiana is absolutely correct. The.
a nd manipulate the. American economy have something to clean up and meet EPA's bill calls for peer review panels that
. ••:
•
and the American business men and requirement .
are broadly representative and balwomen. That is what is going on here.
Third, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a news- anced and include representatives from
For years they get a study and they paper company, wanted to build a new pro- State and local governments, indus. make sure that the conclusion is..writ- . duction plant near Lake Erie, a plant which tries, small businesses, universities,
ten before the study is even done on would bring 400 new jobs to the otherwise agriculture; labor, consumers, conthese regulations. That is what they abandoned inner-city industrial area But be- servation organizations, and public inwant to continue. They want to load cause of cleanup costs of $200,000 for resid- terest groups.
"Wei ought to keep that kind of broad
thie system with their special interests, ual chemicals, the newspaper chose to build
with their environmental extremist the plant in cleaner suburbs.
language and reject that which the
Another socially conscious Cleveland develr gentleman from Texas has offered.
groups, or w i t h the labor unions, or the
other special Interests, the Ralph oper also wanted to develop a 200-acre indusNader groups, the Public Citizens, they trial park downtown, but discovered he would . " : " ' . '*' • 1015
have to spend $200 million just to (dean up
want to load them up.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
! What we want is a peer review proc- the property before beginning construction, He KNOLLENBERG). Without objection, the
[;.
eiis that brings everybody into the abandoned the project.
previous question is ordered on the moprocess and gets a l l points of view, parI think everyone would agree that these are tion to recommit.
ticularly those people that have to deal not the intended consequences of Federal , There was no objection.
rules and regulations, and yet these things
�CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
r
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 i t .
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, i f ordered, will be
taken on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic deT
vice, and there" were—ayes 174. noes 250,
not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No 1821
AYES—174
:
\i
:U .
i
Ackerman
Asdreurs
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerr*
BtflleDsob
bormui
I*»ill
Buhop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
boucber
brown (CAI
Bro<rn (FL)
Brown (OHl
Bryant (TX)
Cartin
Ch*pmajQ
Clay.
Clayton
CiertKOt
Ciyburn
Coleman
Collins ( I L )
Collins ( M I )
Caoyera. Coats !lo
Coyne
Iteaaer
fr? Is C a n
DeFaiio
KLauro
IMIums '
Drntsch .
Dxks •
Dmtfell
Dixon
Dwie
Cttrtjin
Edwards
Eijrel
FinPutah
Fazio
FMMI(LA)
FUner •
•rum u a
Foflie
Foni
!>»ek(MA)
lT»t
OeldcnsoD
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gordon
Green
Hall (OH)
Hamilton •
Hastings ( F L )
Helner
Hilliari
Hinchey
Holden
.. Hoyer _.
. .
Jackson-Lee
Jacob*
Jefferson
Johnson (SDi
Johnson. E B.
Johnston '
Kanjorski '
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA(
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Klldee
Kleczka
KllnkLaFaloe
-. L a n u t t .
Levin
Lewis (OA)
Lincoln :
Lofcren
. Lowey.
. ...
Luther'
Maloney '
Manton
Markey - '
Mascara--.
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermeU
McHale .
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan ' '
Meek
Menendet
Mfume
MiUerCCAl .' :•
Mine l a
Mln«e .
Mink
Moakley
Montfomery
MoreUa
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ohersiar
Obey
Olver
onu
Owens
Pallone;
Pastor
PayneINJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshart
Rahall
Rannel
Heed
Reynolds
'.
Richardson Rivera
Roemer
Roybal-AIlard
Sabo
Sanders •
Sawyer
Schroeder.''.-.
Schumer . :
Scott .
Serrano
Shays '.'..•
Skasirs
Slauifhter - Stark
Stokes
Studds
.•
Stupak .
Tanner"
Taylor i M 8 ) .
Tejeda .
Thompson
Thornton •
Torre*
Torrtcem
Towns
Traflcant
Tucker .
Velamaci
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer . , , .
Water*
W a d (NC>,
Wajtman
Williams
Wi»eWoolsey '
Wyden-.Wynn
. . .
Vates
NOBS—250
AlUri
ArA«r
Army
B.K.-SIU
B;A«-(CA)
SLiirr(LA)
iuUncnr
iurcta
Barr
tia;T»tt OfK).
Bartlett
Barton
Baas.
Bateman
Bereuter
Bllbray
Blllrafcto
BUtay
Blnte
Boehner..
BunllU '
- :••
Bone
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Buns •
Bunning '
Barr .
Bartoo Buyar • - .
:
Calvm
Hayworth
Camp
Hefley
Canady
Heineman
Castle
Hereer
Chabot
Hllleary
Chambliss
Hobson
Chenoweth
Hoekstra
Christensen
Hoke
Chrysler
Horn
Cliniter HostetUer
Coble
Houghton
Coburh' ' •
Hutchinson
Collins iG A ) - Hyde
Coiabem. .
Condit
Inglis
[stock
Cooley
Johnson iCTi
Cox
Johnson. Sam
Cramer
Jones •
Crane
Crapo
Kasich
Cremeans
Knlly
Cubln .
Kim
King
•
Cunnlnirham
Kingston
. Davis
Klug
Deal,
Knollenbent
DeLay
Kolbe
Dtax-Balart
•LaHood
Dickey
Largent
Dooley
Latham
Doolittle'
Laughlin
Dornan
Lazlo
Dteier • : •Leach
Duncan. .Lewis iCA)
DunnLewis (KY)
Ehlers
Llghtfoot
Ehrlich
' Linder
Emerson
' Livingston
Knglista
Ensign
LoBiondo
Longley
Everett
Ewlnf
.
Lucas
Manzullo
Fawell
Martini
. Fleldl. (TX)
McCollum
Flanagan.'
McCrery
Foley
McDade
. Fortes
McHugh
Fowler
Mclnnis
Fox
_ Franks ( C D
Mcintosh
McKeon
Franks (NJ)
Frellnghuysen
Meyers
- Mica
Frisa
Miller (FL)
Funderburk Gallegly
Molinari.
Mollohan
Oanske,',,
Oekaa
Moorhead
Moran
Geren .
Myers
OUchrest'
Olllmor .:
Myrick
Nethercutt
Gilman
Goodlatte
- Neumann
Ney
Ooodllng.
-.
Norwood
Ooa» — - * V
Nussle.
Oraharo
Orion
Greenwood • :
OxleyOunderson '
Packard Outknecht
HaJU(TX)
. Parker Paxon
Hasonck .
Payne (VA)
Hansen ..:
Peterson (FL)
Harrr^n' • '
Peterson (MM)
Haatert
Petri
Hastings (W A )
Hayes
.
.
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
RaUauovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrahac'ner
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith ( M l )
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TXI
Smith (WAi
SolomonSouder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm..
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas •
Thornberry
Thurman
. Tiahrt
Torkildann
Upton
Vucanovlch
. WaldholU
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Walts (OKI
Weldon ( F L i
Weldon (PAi
Weller •
White Whitrield- Wicker
Wilson
Wolf:
Young (AK)
Young (FL>
Zellff
Zimmer
N01*VOTING—10
LaTourette
Browder: • .
•Oonxates.—-t'-r.V." • L i p i n s k i .
Outlerrei • .
Martinez
Metcalf
Uaoter -.
Rush
Ward
• 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.
. KNOLLENBERO). The question is on
passage pf the b i l l .
the
Februan' 28, 1995
The question was taken; and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have i t .
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 Nu 183]
AVES-28b
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
baesler
Baker iCA)
Baker(LA)
Ballenger
Barcla
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill '
Bllbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Rlule
Boehner
Bonllla
bono
Brewster.
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunnin?
Burr.
Burton
Buyer.
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn .
Collins (GA)
Combeet
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubln
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Oana .
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn Ed warts
Ehlers •
EhrUch
. .
Emerson English
Ensign
Evercll
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TXi
Klanainn
Foley
Forbes
Fnwler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funilorburk
Galleifly
Ganske
Okas
. Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goes
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
HalKTXl
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WAi
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hllleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
' Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SDi
Johnson, Sam
Jones
. Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latliam
LaTourette
1 ftpyhh )
Lazlo
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
. Llghtfoot
Lincoln
Linder
r
1
Livinirston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas '
Manzullo
.Martin!
McCollumMcCrery
McDade
McHugh
Mclnnis
Mcintosh
McKfron
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller I F L i
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney '
Norwood
Nussle
prtu
bnon
On Icy
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne(VAi
Peterson ( F L i
Peterson (MN)
Petri
.
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
. Porter
Portman
Poshard
Prn>
Quillen
Quins
lUUaoovlcfc
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
. RohrnbacherKos-L-'>itinea
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith ( M I )
�February 28, 1995
S m i t h (NJ)
S m i t h (TX)
S m i t h (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Sp.'nce
Steams
Stenholm
Stwkman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tale
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor ( N O
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
' Towns
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovlch
WaldholU
Walker
Walsh
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Ber.nan
Boehlert
Bonior
BoPikl
BoucherBrown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryunt (TX)
Care in
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conjers
Coyne
DeFMlo >
DeLi.uro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dick!
Dlngill
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evann
Farr
Fatta h
Fazio
Fields (LA) .
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Franl: (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
Klldee
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
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whltfleld
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zellff
Zimmer
NOES—141
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne(NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-AIlard
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
House Calendar
printed.
:
and ordered
-
to be
• '.'
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER
AS COSPONSOR OF H R 70
..
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker; I ask
unanimous consent to remove my
name as a cosponsor of H.R. 70.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from California?;
There was no objection.
V
:
;
APPOINTMENT
OF" " -MS. V? JUNE
ELLENOFF O'NEILL ' AS DIRECTOR OF THE ^CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE
.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the . provisions of . section
201(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget
. and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,
Public Law 93-344, the Chair announces
that the Speaker and the President pro
tempore of the Senate on Wednesday;
February 22, 1995 did jointly appoint
Ms. June Ellenoff O'Neill as director of
the Congressional Budget Office, effective March 1, 1995, for the term of office .
beginning January 3, 1995.
H2373
• • 1945
PERMISSION FOR CERTAIN COM1MITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES
TO SIT TOMORROW. MARCH L
1995, DURING 5-MINUTE RULE
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker. I a s i
unanimous consent that the followimg
committees and their subcommittees
•be permitted to sit tomorrow while ths
House is meeting in the Committee of
the Whole House under the S-minute
rule; The Committee on Banking and
Financial Services; The Committee oa
Economic and Educational Opportunities; The Committee on Government
;Reforni and Oversight; The Committee
on House Oversight; The Committee <m
International Relations; The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and The Committee on Veterans
Affairs.
•
Mr. Speaker, i t is my understanding
that the minority has bejn consulted
and that there is no objection to these
requests.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
KNOLLENBERG). Is
there objection
to
the request of the gentleman frora
Texas?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, reserving the right to object.
I just want to concur that these are the
lists of committees that the minority
was consulted on, and we have no obANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR- jection.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservaMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES ON AMENDMENTS TO H.R. tion of objection.
956. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL ,.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
REFORM BILL
objection to the request of the gen(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given tleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I wish
HOUR OF MEETING ON
to announce to House Members that
TOMORROW, MARCH 1, 1995
the Rules Committee is planning to
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
meet on Tuesday, March 7, to grant a
rule which may restrict amendments unanimous consent that when the
for the consideration, of H.R. 956, the House adjourns today, i t adjourn, co
Common Sense Legal Standards Re- •meet at 10 a.m. on tomorrow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
form Act of 1995.
NOT VOTING—7
Any Member contemplating an objection to the request of the genGonzalez
Lipinski
Ward
ainendment to H.R. 956—the product l i - tleman from Texas?
Gutierrez
Martinez
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr
Hunur
Rush
ability bill—should submit 55 copies of
the amendment and a brief explanatidta Speaker, reserving the right to object,
• 1940
. to the Rules Committee, no later than once again I would acknowledge thax
this was discussed with the minority
Mr. VISCLOSKY changed his vote 3 p.m. on Friday, March 3.
from "aye" to "no."
The minority has no objection.
Members should use the Office of
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservaSo the bill was passed.
Legislative Counsel to ensure that
The result of the vote was announced their amendments are properly drafted tion of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
as above recorded.
and should check with the Office of the
A motion to reconsider was laid on Parliamentarian to be certain their objection to the request of the genthe table.
amendments comply with the Rules of tleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
the House.
I t is the intention of the Rules ComREPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVID- mittee to make the text of H.R. 1075 in
ING FOR CONSIDERATION OF order as a substitute to the r r r r ted NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE UP
H.R. 925, PRIVATE PROPERTY text of H.R. 956 for amendment purRESOLUTION OF INQUIRY ON
PROTECTION ACT OF 1995
MEXICAN PESO CRISIS
poses. This new text reflects the work
Mrs. WALDHOLTZ, from the Com- of both the Judiciary Committee and
(Mr. ARMEY asked and was given
mittee, on Rules, submitted a privi- the Commerce Committee on this permission to address the House for 1
leged, report (Rept. No. 104-61) on the issue. The copies of H.R. 1075 can be ob- minute.)
resolution (H. Res. 101) providing for tained from the majority offices, of the ' Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me
the consideration of the bill (H.R. 925), Commerce Committee or the Judiciary just take this moment to report to the
to compensate owners of private prop- Committee. Legislative Counsel, w i l l House, pursuant to the agreement that
erty ;:or the effect of certain regulatory draft all amendments to. this revised I made with the minority leader last
restrictions, which was referred to the, text.
, .
week, that we would give Members a
�r—
�t
February 28, 1995
H2313
: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
im.- will-be a deliberate, malicious-lie. AndIncreased by 23 percent. :During that Rep. Dave Obey,, senior Democrat'on- the they, will'repeat it, and repeat i t and repeat
)'. i
. period, the number of free mealg served House Appropriations Committee. -•
-Absurd."
in child 'care centers increased by 45 John Engler,responds Michigan's GOP Gov.
The Georgia Republican was addressinc re^
a leading proponent of giving
pei cent. The block grants would not re- states greater flexibility, to administer pro-- cent criticism, from Democrats.-, who cha.-ve
spond to the change in the school popu- grams. He says it's "offensive" to say Repub- that GOP proposals to end federal nuiri::o3
lation, which is expected to increase by licans would harm kids;.
programs for children as well as Medica:.; .
4 to 6 percent. I n the State of Texas
The school lunch program serves 24 million benefits for the poor would victimize t^ealone we would lose 4 percent of our children every day. Lunch is.free,for those weakest members of society.
: funding. Every September and all dur- whose parents earn less, than 130 percent of . "Any liberal who tells you.that we are cuting the year we have new children who- the poverty line and is heavily-discounted, ting, spending and hurting children is lying—
show up at our doors and qualify for for those whose parents earn less than 185 L-Y-I-N-G." said the House speaker.
these programs; We are not only cut- percent. I t sets a small subsidy, 20 cents a
ting 4 percent, but i f those new chil- lunch, for all other kids.
, dren show up, cliey would not have i t . The school breakfast program serves about H.R. 1022, RISK ASSESSMENT/COST'. , BENEFIT ANALYSIS "
Yesterday morning, before I left 5 million children daily and operates simi• " . -.
. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
Houston, I went to a. nutrition program larly.
Every child who meets the eligibility cri- ,the Speaker's announced policy of Janin che Heights part of iny district at teria is guaranteed ,a free- meal if his or her
the.Field Elementary School. That is a school participates , in the. prbgram. 'If a re- .' uary 4, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio
school that ha&90 percent of their chil- cession hits, federal funding increases to , [Mr.: , GILLMOR] ^ is recognized durins?
dren have free or reduced: lunch. What. meet greater demand.
morning business for 5 minutes.
'. •' -j-.'-:
.4 percent would we cut from, those 90 • The meals . must meet federal . dietary . Mr. GILLMOR. Mr.: Speaker. I
percent of those children and next year standards, nationally recommended for all strongly support H.R. 1022, the risk aswhen we have at least 20 more kids who Americans.
5 - • " •;
sessment cost-benefit analysis bilL
show up or are qualified, are we going . The.Republican measure, part ofthe effort This legislation, very , simply puts comto tell that principal or that teacher or to reform welfare, would end!the' federal- mon sense. into the way the Governthat food service worker; who does a guarantee that poor kids get meals. With,
ment regulates.:
hard job .there, that they cannot serve that goes the nutritional guidelines.
It would instead lump,school meal-pro-,
. those children?
'
A l l of ,us have heard the horror stograms together and give states a set pay-' ries from businesses and municipalities
ment, or block grant, to administer as they about the Federal regulations and th?
There are reforms we can do i n the choose. I t also would allow states to set
proirram, .but hot cutting off the rrieals . their own dietary standards.' _ '"
.' way that :they have. strangled their
that those children have. I saw that
The measure would allow legal . immi- budgets only to have miniscule benemeal. Th^y had cereal. They had the .grants—but not illegal bnes^to, get sub- fits result. : ; ..;-".-'-".-..'•'• •'- .
option of orange juicd and milk. A sidized meals.
Earlier today I hope my collear^es
Proponents argue that by cutting the mid- had' the opportunity to review a dear
. number of kids actually drank both the
orange iuice and the milk. They had dleman—federal bureaucrats—less .money colleague I ' circulated tb a l l of then :
would be wasted: on paperwork and."more
some Utile sausages.
concerning the .pity-of Columbus. OH.
would be spent on meals for poor kids..
I noticed this last Friday the Coriv- . They' say their block grants would .Increase In i t T noted that;-Federal regulations
mittee.on Agriculture cut the effort for funding by 4:5 percent annually—more than currently require , the municipal warer
the Food Stamp Program..
'
the rate of Inflation.-.
• / - aystems keep atrazine levels i n drinkI. am glad they are concerned about
Yet Democrats'say the increase, is less' ing water belpw 3 parts per billion. A
than they would' receive under the current human hieing would have to drink 3.000
. thai;; but I know we have some concern
about the food stamp abuses. But I system, which adjusts for.the rising number gallons'of water a day with three: pai cs
know I saw those children eating that of eligible school-age .kids. And thus,, they per ^billion atrazine to equal the dose
••"••...'.••,•
food. I would hope that the. Republican caint.a.cut.
"Every state will get less funding,""says found to be.cancerous i n rats.
majority would see the err o f their
• The U.S. Environmental Protection
ways on school nutrition ahd also • Walt Haake, a spokesmaln for the U.S. Agriculture Department. Overall; USDA esti- Agency, ••,under . its constitutional!y
change that, Mr; Speaker.
mates funding will be {309 million less next mandated authority, sets this level by
Mr. Speaker, I include :for "the year and $2 billion less over five years.
: RECORD the article to which J referred. . He criticizes the GOP bill . for allowing using the most exposed individual risk
[From the Houston Post, FeU 26, 1995]
states, to use up to 20 percent of their school assessment model, which .assumes a
person .. is. to be .exposed tp atrazine
• • SCHOOL LUNCH DEBATE SERVES UP HOT RHET- lunch money for other programs. .
ORIC BUT FEW COLD FACTS—HOW KIDS
Critics also say' governors of poorer every day for 70. percent years. To showstates-reven if they wanted to help kids- how absurd ..this regulation is; to
WOULD FARE UNDER CHANGE UNCLEAR
would have a tough time meering the greater consume enough water to come even
! (by Wendy Koch).
demand in a recession because their funding close to causing any health risk, an inWASHINGTON.—Uncle Sam would no longer would not automatically adjust..
guarantee poor kids'a free school .lunch if. a • "That is the unknown;. and the scary: dividual would have to drink 38 bathRepublican measure now gaining momentum part," says Taimi Cline, director .of nutrition tubs f u l l of water every day. City offifor the American School Food Service Asso- cials, i n Columbus found that compiiIn Congress; becomes law.
Ins tead, states would be free to decide who ciation, which, represents the. administrators ance with this regulation would require
of school meals.
a new $80 million water purification
gets what. ,.'
.;
Yet Republlcans bristle at the notion that plant. For the same amount of mont-y
• Democratic critics say kids would suffer
, because funding would fall; alhd states won't - governors, who face re-election, won't be re-, . 3,700 teachers could have been hired at
-.' ' ' .
.,•.....'.
the average State teacher's salary.
•have enough money in case a recession sponsive.
"Why would state, and
• strikes. Republicans argue kids would bene- that?" asks Kelly Presta, local officials do ; To further show . how wasteful this
majority spokes. fit because the system would be more effi- man for .the House Economic and Edu- three parts per billion Federal require cient.. •
•••• •.
:
cational Opportunities Committee', which ment is; consider the following: The'
Buo no one really knowsr-yet. .
U.S. EPA developed a health advisory
passed the bill. •„.:;' • '
'
(
Th'3 GOP bill, which scraps the 49-year-old
for atrazine which states that a child
school lunch program, passed a House com[Fror.:" ', j Houston Post, Feb. 26,1995]
' rfould drink water containing 100 r " " »
GINGRICH: FOES LYING ABOUT KIDS' -' •
mittee last'wee^ but needs the approval of
per billion for 10 days or 50 parts p^r
ROSWELL. GAl—House Speaker Newt Ging- biliioh.for 7 years with no adverse efthe ::ull House—considered likely—and the
rich lashed out. at. political opponents Satur- fects:
Senate—expected to be more difficult..
.'
.Evon if it passes, its'impact will depend on . day, saying anyone who claims Republicans
Mr. Speaker,-it is for reasons like
.
how each governor handles the new respon- Want to hurt children is lying.
- "They're going to argue meanness. They're this that I am supporting H.R. 1022. I
sibility of feeding kids.
• Still, there's no shortage of red-hot rhet- going to argue Republicans are for the rich. believe i t is reasonable to ask our FedAnd they're going.to argue Republicans want erar regulating bodies to. prepare a
; orie. " .
Democrats have accused Republicans of to hurt children," he told a gymnasium full cost-benefit analysis of proposed regur
trying to starve kids. "There are an awful . of loyal constituents here during a ^Vi-hOiir lations. I support the idea of providing
alternatives without making, expenh-.lot of poor kids, and some not-so-podr kids,, town hall meeting.
who wlll go.home.hungry," says Wisconsin
;
%
:
:
-
:
1
1
-I
�K2314
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
February 28, 1995
school .breakfast program. A happy
chiid. a k i d who -was having fun. who.
got to school early so that she could
get that l i t t l e lunch or l i t t l e breakfast,
rather, and have her. day ahead of her.
She was happy and bouncing around
and having a good time of i t . I talked
to a teacher about the school breakfast
program and school lunch program. I
said, what do they mean to you? And
she said they mean everything. Did you
ever consider the chore that faces a
teacher trying to teach a child who is
hungry? Thab.child is listless, stares at
its hands, stares at the floor, cannot
concentrate. I do not have a chance,
she said, i n terms of teaching that
child..- "
So we invest each year i n the basics
of providing nutrition for school lunch
So the Federal. Government, which is programs and school breakfasts so that
o'ften the butt-boy arid the target of so kids can go through that learning expemany criticisms, decided to really i n - , rience and come out happy, healthy,
vest money 'to ' reduce the. number of and learning. The Republicans have
low. birth weight babies. The program told us.we need :to cut that program,
we chose is one that has been around too. I hope we keep those images in
for awhile. . I t is called the WlC rPro- mind as we get into this budget debate.
gram. the Women, Infants and Chil- We certainly cannot have a strong
dren's Supplemental Feeding Program. America without strong children. I t is
MORE ON CUTS AFFECTING
And we decided to take some; of our a false economy for us to cut programs'
WOMEN AND .CHILDREN , precious Federal tax dollars anil put i t for children, and I hope that the GingThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under into our most precious asset, these rich Republicans w i l l think twice bethe Speaker's announced policy of Jan- children who-Will be tomorrow's lead- fore they make Vhese cuts.
.
U?JT 4, 1995,.the gentleman from .nii- ers, our kids.; L: -v.
nois [Mr. DURBIN] is recognized during
And you know what; i t is working. I t
m i m i n g business for 5 minutes. • .
is working because now 40 percent of
O 1010 '
<:Mr. DURBIN asked and was given the infants i r f America' are being
permission to revise and extend his re- . brought into the WIC. Program, kids'es' . THE 2-PERCENT SOLUTION
pecially ' vulnerable from low income
marks.)
• -.
•
The SPEAKER pro tempore ( M r
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, - this families. I am proud to. tell you that we
muming I would like to share a few are seeing the infknt death, rate i n this DICKEY). Under the Speaker's anstories with you that I think are appro- . country go down. Surely we s t i l l have nounced policy o f January 4. 1995, the
prUte when you look at the debate low-birth-weight kids but not as many gentleman from Colorado [Mr. ALLARD],
wh^ch we are facing here i n Washing- as we would without the WIC Program. is recognized during morning business
COK. not only this week but for the next
The reason I tell you. this story and for 5 minutes.
several weeks.
tell you the story about this l i t t l e i n Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, the
They are about some children. They fant is that we -are how- debating House of Representatives passed the
are 'aids that I remember biit I do not whether or not to cut the money for balanced
budget
amendment
last,
kmjw their names. Let. me tell,, you that' WIC. Program..' That is- right, month.. Today, the Senate will decide
whir• •.'
.•.
.
whether or not we are going to cut the the fate of this critical reform. WhethTae first child i remember was^in St. money for the program that i s ' t r y i n g er the vote is yes or ho. Congress will
Joim's Hospital i n Springfield-, I L i n to keep fewer iowrbirth-weight babies still need.a statutory mechanism to enmy district. I was ihvited to come to being born in America. In the name of" sure that spending is put or. a glidezhe unit there where premature infants a balanced budget, in the name of .cut- path to balance by the year 2002. l'proare being carea for and of course' you ting spending, i n the name of reducing pose the 2-percent solution. •
put on a gown ahd a mask and walk- i n . the Federal role, we are going to cut
Shortly, .! w i l l introduce legislation
.. •
vritii the nurse and the doctor. And this program.'
to establish caps that w i l l l i m i t overall
the;-- pointed to a tiny -little isolette
My friends, the Republicans on the spending growth to 2 percent a year. I f
witii a l i t t l e baby in there, no Larger other side say i t i? the . way to save this level is exceeded in any year, an
than the size of my hand, a baby that money.'Do you really save money with across-the-board sequester will kick iri
had. its eyes taped shut aad hadNmore a low-birtIi welght baby? Do you know and-force the necessarx'cuts. exciudirig subbs and monitors, i n its. small body how much i t cost at St. John's Hospital Social Security and certain' other conihaj; were imaginable.
several years ago . for that' low-birth- tractual obligations.
• ,•
Hie story of course was: that that weight baby? A t least SLOOO a day. So a
With 2 percent growth the Federal
oar>j.- was born; top soon and as a result pregnancy, which ordinarily would cost Government can balance the budget of. .
wowid be in this intensive care unit for $1,500 to $2,000 under normal cir^ 2002 and still spend $1 . trillion more
at ieast a month, and maybe longer cumstances. ended up with a baby that over the next 7 years than i t would
wits, the hopes that when she did come costs us. as taxpayers, $30,000 a month under a 7 year freeze. Two "percent
ou; at the end. she would then be able .with the hopes that that l i t t l e girl growth will allow us'to enact the taxto srow u t e a normal baby and lead a would come out o f that experience and cuts of the Contract With America and
lead a normal life and not need more' achieve the first balanced budget in 33
liora-ial life.
•'; •
years.
T^e heroic efforts that were being care afterward:
. a n i t rtaken for that infant are. repeated
What, a false economy. Yet the ReTwo weeks ago. I.attended a Budget
ever.; day across America. Unfortu- publicans argue that reducing the Committee field hearing outside of the
natsly. repeated too many times.
money for WIC is what America really beltway to hear the views of our constituents. Over L000 people showed up
Se'/eral years ago we took a.look a t needs.and really wants for its future:
Ute 'incidence of low-birth-weight ba- . Let me shift to another child, a child and the message was clear—cut spendbies in our country and found, some I saw in my own "hometown again, at a ing. Just do i t . . balance the budget.
che. sole determinant of the best straceu7"•• •
I believe that the peer review activities for more costly regrulations are a
cood way to ensure the efficacy and the
efficiency of our Federal rulemaking
process. H.R.. 1022 contains a l l of these
provisions and makes the Federal Government a legitimate problem solver,
no: a problem maker.
• .
Some of my colleagues who have opposed this legislation say.it will create
' n r:sv.- bureaucratic mess and w i l l benefit lawyers more than individuals. I
must say that I'Rnd. their arguments to
be basically an attempt to cover up the
regulatory mess they instituted. •
Risk, assessment and cost-benefit
analysis using the best available data
ani input will bring out. the best-governing decisions.
\ . '•
Mr. Speaker, this regulation protects
t i e environment and public health because i t means resources w i l l be used
to combat real environmental and public health risks and not be wasted on
f: ivolous regulations and requirements.
shocking-results. I t turns out that the
.infant death rate i n America was higher several years ago than in most industrialized ' countries i n the world.
Think about i t . Our.country, with the,
best medical resources, was still having
children born of low birth weight with
problems that really, haunted them,
many of them for the rest o f tlieir
lives, " ^ e n I talked to the head of the
medical school, • Dr. Richard Moy i n
Springfield, I L at . the SIU Medical
School, he said, "Congressman, the
saddest part of i t . this is entirely preventable; this is entirely preventable.
If we can bring - mothers i n early i n
their regular pregnancy, give theni prenatal care, we have the medical knowledge to deliver a healthy baby in virtually every case.": 1
r
1
�H2310
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
February 28,..1995
Auxiliary; Non-Commissioned Officers Assp: Americans are really very poor con- it maintains one of the most important features
ciation; PAC Pennsylvania Eastern Divislbh; sumers of health' care:. And why not? of the current FEHB Program—the. ability to
Polish American Congress: Polish Army Vet- /They havei" no choice anyway." Their pick a plan that fits the needs of each individerans Assoolation (S.W.A.P.J: Polish Falcons ''.only 'choice is what their employer can
o: America; Polish Falcons of America—Dis- '•>'et, if' ; he"cari get anything, or what ual or family.! .„•::..':.
The Federal Employee Health Access Act
trict 11; Polish Home Army; Polish National
A.Hance; Polish National Union; Polish they, can get, if they can get anything. also contains some important cost savings
P.oman Catholic. Union of North America; .They do not have, the-catalog and-the provisions. •
Po'.lsh Scouting Organization; Polish West^ options we all. have, once a year under
First, it requires that insurance'carriers use ,
em Association"; Polish Women's Alliance; opdn season;
standardized claims forms. This will reduce
P.-'. Donnp^'v & Sons. Company; Scottish - Now',, this does not cost the Federal administration waste as well as save time and
R:;e of Freemasonry—Northern Masonic':Ju- Governrrient anything.- All you do is
n.=dictlon; Scottish Rite of Freemasonry- get the./catalog, figure out what you money. "
Second, it requires insurance carriers to
Southern Jurisdiction; and Sons of The
want/ 'arid'then, you have to pay the provide enrollees with information about adArnerican Legion. ... •. ^
.-.'.u.,.;
premiiun' or you and your employer"
The Orchard Lakes Schools; The Retired . share the premium, or whatever, works vanced directives or "living wills." The use .of
living wills, gives patients an opportunity to
Enlisted Association (TREA); The Travelers
Protective Association; The Uniformed Serv- out, whatever ypuir negotiated position make critical decisions about their treatment, It
ices Association (TUSA); U:Si Marine Corps , -USi. ''B^t At'-getx '-yqu. a. -wide range, of "can.also save millions of unnecessary medical"
Combat • Correspondents"' Association;' U.S.' choices/It gets .you much better prices. bills: Pin Asian American Chamber of Commerce; It gets a much better cost relationship,
And finally, my bill establishes a demonstra. .:. tion project that allows enrollees the option to
>U'r:rainian Gold Cross; Women'? Army Corps and ! think i t is time we do it. •
Veterans' Association;, Womenls Overseas . I t is in the spirit-of this Congress, choose arbitration in order to settle malService League: and Woodmen, of the World. which has been putting itself under the
practice disputes. Individuals who
laws i t makes for other people, and i t option would either pay reduced choose this
iis time we now open the door to many copayments, or deductibles. Manypremiums,
health
THE; FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH of-the benefits that we have, that we surance plans already require participantsinto
: BENEFITS ACCESS ACT: ; :
now know because of the last 2 years' use alternative dispute resolution for malThe SPEAKER pro .tempore. Under historic.'health care debate that other practice claims. But, unlike my plan, they are
the Speaker's announced policy, "of Jan- people do not haye. This would be a not voluntary and they do hot pass any of the
uary 4, 1995. the gentlewoman from terrific'stress reliever for ari awful lot savings on to enrollees.
TColorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER] is recog- of American families who are either
The Federal Employee Health Benefits Acnized during morning business for.6 locked into their Job because they can- cess Act is' a common sense proposal that
riot get health care, or los't ;their job
minutes.- ;'
.>'-••. . ••
get health care, or. many, makes health care available and affordable to
Mi-s. SCHROEDER. Mr. ISpeaker, I and cannot tilings.
every American. If it works for Members of
many other
had been wondering when to introduce
Congress, why can't it work for the rest of the
the bilj that I introduced last year; • So I really hope that this body takes country?
When I got a letter today explaining this bill , very seriously, and that we
I
.the AMA's position on health care and pass i t out bf here, and we at least give eralurge my colleagues to cosponsor the FedEmployee Health Benefits Access Act.
preexisting'conditions I decided this people 'choices. That makes all' the
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.
' was the'day..:-,-" -'•• ••' .. •' .-'-''.;•-•." •.. : sense in the world;
• ". • Chicago. IL, February 13,1995:
You see; the AMA has a dictionary '• Mr. Speaker. I would ask to put this Dr. CAROL C. NADELSON, M.D., • .
where " they are talking about meno - letter from the American Medical As- Editor in, Chief, American Psychiatric Press.
Inc., Washington. DC.
rause as a preexisting condition.^ But sociation in the RECORD on preexisting
DEAR DOCTOR NADELSON: T h a t k you for
when they were asked why they were: cdriditions and menopause.
defining tha.t, they said they were only ' Mr.. Speaker, today I am introducing the your recent letter demonstrating the misuse
saying what the insurance companies Federal Employee Healths Benefits Access of an American Medical Association [AMA]
were saying, aiid the insurance compa- ,. Act. Jhe purpose of this bill is simple: to give statement on menopause. I appreciate hav.benefit of
nies are saying that is whey they con- the general public access to the same health ing the statement this Information.--insurance
The
quoted by the
sider menopause a preexisting condi- . care benefits as Members of Congress. ;
company is not AMA policy, but rather is a
tion and"axe denying payment:->:~":•;':'r :. We recently passed iegislation requiring definition taken from one' of the AMA's
If this continues, pretty,soon women Congress' to comply with the same laws that many consumer books. The purpose of the
are goirig to be a preexisting condition, we pass for the rest of the country. Well, it is AMA's consumer books is to educate thr
and no woirian is going to get health ' about timei we gave everyone the same health public about common medical conditions,
not to serve as rationale for classification oi
. care: But we. know that this is going on care we get.
While
with men, with women, with children; ' '..The. Federal Employee Health Benefits Pro- conditions by the Insurance industry. medithe cited defipltlon Is supported by the
with families, and we have a true, true grai j provides health care tb nearly 9 million cal literature, the AMA regrett> that its
health care crisis:.,
-'"' ^ '•"•;•;". •••"'."V;" Federal employees, retirees, and their fami- statement is being used by the insurance inThis" letter is what inspired me today lies;'It is a.proven plan and model for the rest dustry to deny payment for- treatments. In
to reintroduce my Federal employee bf the country. Enrollees are offered coverage addition, I wish to assure you that the AMA
rights
health benefits bill that I introduced : at group rates, are^iot barred .from coverage supports equal advocatefor men and women
any position that
last year. I t is very simple, i t only says on the basis of a preeexisting health condition, and does not the discrimination of women
would lead to
>;aifKJ^b; f^effo.enroll in a plan.of their choice .ih terms of their health care:-.'- v-r V - i ' : ;
> . every, American should be: entitled- $07
- ;'•" '.'
the same choices that we'as .Members' cluring aiffahnual open season.•"
Again, thank you for sharing -your conof Congress have, the President has,
My bill requires health carriers under the' cerns with me. I hope this information is
and over 9 million Federal employees, Fed-iral ^Employee' Health Benefits [FEHB] helpful.
retirees and their families have. ,. ;'.";:. Program to offer to the general public the
Sincerely.
.
That 'means once a year you get a same benefits that Federal employees and
JAMES S. TODD, M.D
catalog of a hole series of choices. You members of Congress receive. This means
are in a very large group. There are no that small businesses and individuals will have
preexisting conditions. Whether i t is access to the same deductibles, maximums, SUPPORT RISK ASSESSMENT AND
COST-BENEFIT ACT
menopause or anything else, yoii cah coverage, treatment, and quality care that
be in that pool, and i t has been tremen- every Member in this Chamber gets. Under
The SPEAKER "pro tempore. Under
dously cost effective. I think that this the bill, health care plans available to the gen- the Speaker's announced policy of Jan
is one thing we could certainly .do that - eral public would, be community rated, and ua'ry 4, 1995, the gentleman from Georwould make life a lot better for small -would not result in an increase cost or less of gia [Mr. NORWOOD] is recognized durinn'
employers, fpr"'self empl6yed people,' benefits to Federal employees.
morning business for 5 minutes.
and for many Americans. ~ . " .. ';•;"' .". FEHB access allows Americans to choose Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ri*'
the plan that is right for them. It does not re- today in support of H.R. 1022. the Risk
One of the things we learned from the
health. care debate. was . that most quire a standard package of benefits. Rather, Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act. Thij
:
1
:
:
!
;
:
�•t
February 28, 1995
S- CONGRESSIONAL R E C O R D ^ HOUSE
*
5
;
/
/
H2311
.. legislation is necessary because of the mares. We must give them the power to *;the;fjrst moments of life. That is what
imnninse cost piled onto the American take on Federal regulators head on. .We the Contract With America has beeconomy, by Federal bureaucrats. This can do that if we approve the .Barton jcome, a Contract on America's chil.•
bill establishes requirements for regu- amendment later today. The Barton dren.
lators.to use risk assessment and cost- amendment would give the-average, citr : t ln this morning's Washington. Post
benefit analysis in creating_the rules izen the right to challenge Federal reg- Louis Sullivan, the Secretary of HHS
we live under. It requires development ulations themselves. It would force bu- under President Bush, writes an article
of peer review for regulations. I t sub- reaucrats to review existing rules for about the importance of the Women,
jects decisions of agencies to judicial their cost-benefit. Mr. Speaker, indus- Infants, and Children Program. This is
• review. I t requires the. President to set tries should not have to come to. uis to a program that has now been in existregulatory priorities. It is a necessary save them from overzealous bureau- lence 20 years. I t may be the most sue- step that we must take to free the crats. By passing the Barton amend- cessful program in the world in
American economy from burdensome ment, we give Individual. American combatig low-birth-weight babies, pre.regulations;, but. we. have the oppor-. citizens the power to fight for them- mature births, and the results that
.".'"•:: -. '•' • .-. •.; - -.;_
tunity to do better * * * to give sma.ll selves. . •..
fllow froni those two events.
The main, principle of our regulatory
, business the power to fight the bureau.reform system must bejjommon sehse.. ....This has been our insurance policy to
..... .^crats on their own.
u,,.., ••-.•^v-;;
i i ^ H c k ^ - . t o W a y e « . against the hun--.;
• H iMr. Speaker/ this legislation will do The Risk Assessmerit arid 'Cost-Benefit ? dreds.:-jof thousands "of dollars'that a
Act . will force Federal bureaucrats tb
the most for the small, businesses that
. premature birth of. a low-birth-weight
' can afford new regulations the least. focus their regulators efforts on what baby will cost those taxpayers in the
will benefit Americans, the most. It will
- •••H.R. 1622 would help small business by
.first, few days and weeks of life.'This
. allowing these companies'. to direct prevent Federal bureaucrats flrom forc- has been . a program that has reduced
ing industries tb
their scarce resources toward achieving billions of dollars spend millions, even the Incidence . o f low-birth-weight
without'proving, the
the .maximum environmental cleanup
>
of that action. It' will births by some S percent imong the
for the least cost. Small businesses are responsibility bureaucrats to give cost- participants in that program. This is a "
force Federal
often.more severely impacted by costly effective solutions the same consider- program that does that for about $1.50
regulation than, large businesses be;..a day/and this & & program that the
as
cause the cost to. comply with these ation arid the same weightthey the ex- Gingrich Republicans and the Committravagant ideal solutions
pursue
regulations represents a larger percentdo. But, Mr. tee on Education and Labor, lockstep
age ol: the small business's operating today. This we must colleagues will voted to cut the money from last week.
Speaker! I also hope my
expenses and profits. If a Federal agen- realize that this is but a first'step. We ' So as we ; move into the second 50
• cy is required to perform a risk analy- must also give our' citizens the power days of the.contract, we. see a much
sis on regulations that impacts small to fight the bureaucrats themselves. I meaner, a much more callous approach
business, small business is likely to be urge, my colleagues to vote "yes" "on to the children of this Nation. What is
better able to afford to comply with the Barton Amendment and empower at stake here? What is at stake here is
-the res>ult>ing rule. H.R. 1022 will result individual AmericanSi ^••••'W-y ••. W the abili ty of thousands of women who
- in fewer small business being finanhave been iriedically certified to be at
cially, bankrupted because of excesnutritional risk arid at risk of giving
sively expensive regulations.
.
birth to a low-birth-weight baby of
~ The .wood preserving industry, which CONTRACT WITH AMERICA. TOUGH having a successful pregnancy. What
ON CHILDREN AND ELDERLY ...... these cuts mean, and the cuts in the
is very important to my district; is
made up. mainly of small businesses.. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under Committee on Appropriations last
O. O
O
This industry could have been dev- the Speaker's announced policy of Jan- week, is that this year l O O pregnant '
astated in 1991 when the Environ- uary 4, 1995, the gentleman ft-om Cali- women and. newborn infants will not be
mental Protection Agency issued . a fornia [Mr. MILLER] is recognized dur- allowed; to participate in this program
that has had dramatic success in help. .. hazardous waste listings regulation,. ing morning business for 5 minutes.
..under the. Resource Conservation and
Mr.. MILLER of California. Mr. ing the brain development of these
Recovery Act. The tools of risk assess- Speaker, there was great celebration children, in helping carry these fetuses
ment and cost-benefit analysis were by the Republicans on. the 50th day of •to--terrii, arid: having healthy pregnot applied In this act. The budget.for their' Contract With America of the riancies.
the 1 S2 fiscal year stated that this first 100 days that they had pror .-.-That is what the Republicaris' con9I
RCRA regulation would have cost the grammed to rewrite, the Federal Gov- tract wants to do. That is what Speakwood preserving industry $5.7 trillion" ernment and its rules and regulations.. er GINGRICH instructed the Committee
per premature death averted. This huge Yet on the 51st and 52d day we found on Education and Labor to do. Many of
monetary amount would prevent one out what this contn-act . was really those Republicans privately were say•..cancer case ievery 2.9 million years. about. It was a contract on the elderly ing they hate to do this, this should
That's one death, every 2.9 million and the children of this Nation, be- not be.done. they kriow i t is wrong, but
' years..The regulation's costs, as noted tween the actions taken in the Com- this is. what the contract calls for
in the 1992 budget, were so outrageous mittee on Education and Labor and the They have a greater allegiance to the
that.the wood preserving industry was actions taken in the Cpmmittee pn Ap- contract, a public relations stunt
- •: drawn up by a pollster, than they do to
. able to gain congressional support for a propriations. -.,':'.••'•:•••••'••.".•.• •.'••••'••;••.'.:
.request that EPA work with the indusWe saw iri the Comiriittee on Appro America's children and to the pregnant
. try to craft a more cost-effective regu- priations. in the rescissions'bill,to cut women of this country that run the
lation: The negotiations resulted in a money out of existing programs, 63 per- risk of having a pregnancy go wrong
cost-effective regulation that was pro- cent of all the cuts affect low-income and to. have to suffer all that that
•-.
tective of human health and the envi- Ainericans, children, and seniors. •means.
' ronment. The wood preserving indus- These same people are only responsible - What we are trying to assure with
try, with its' heavy small business for 12 percent of. the discretionary the Women, Infants, and Children Pro.component, was able to stay alive and spending within the budget.. That gram is that tiiese pregnant women
facilities were able to comply with the' means three times the amount is being will have the same joy I had at the
cut frorii these" programs fpr. elderly birth ofmy two sons, the same joy that
regulation.
Mr. Speaker, .we cannot expect every housing, to help elderly. people" pay I. had at the birth bf my granddaughter:
Industry to be able to rally support to their, heating, bills, and nutrition for .a:healthy pregnaricy and the kind of
• . save themselves from such' bureau- our children, and the most.vulnerable,, care' that a woman needs before she decratic nightmares. Mr. Speaker we and that is pregnant women at-risk of livers that birth, so that she can expeshould riot expect every industry to be giving birth to a low-birth-weight child rience . that joy, so that family canable to rally support ..to save them- and a newborn child bom at ..low birth have that, and not have to experience
selves froni. such bureaucratic night- weight that needs nutritional help at the sadness -of having a low-birth1
T
:
1
r
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Regulatory] Reform Legislation House Debate [Binder] [3]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 10
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36403"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 1
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-010-007-2015