The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RISK ASSESSMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ACT OF 1995” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E507 on March 3, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RISK ASSESSMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ACT OF 1995
______
speech of
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 28, 1995
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1022) to provide regulatory reform and to focus national economic resources on the greatest risks to human health, safety, and the environment through scientifically objective and unbiased risk assessments and through the consideration of costs and benefits in major rules, and for other purposes:
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the motion to recommit. During the final minutes of consideration of H.R. 1022, Mr. Walker amended the bill to apply all of the cost-benefit and other decisionmaking criteria to cleanups of our Nation's hazardous and radioactive waste site. Previously the bill applied only to major rulemakings above $25 million and did not impact cleanups.
The Walker amendment which was offered without time for debate, will have profound adverse consequences for Superfund cleanups, for transferring property back to communities at closing military bases, and for the Department of Energy's program to dispose of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and the WIPP facility in New Mexico.
This amendment was adopted with no hearings by the committees of jurisdiction. It will slow down cleanups by years while the new factors are grafted onto the existing program. For Members with closing military bases or property in urban cities awaiting redevelopment--you can forget reutilizing the property for economic redevelopment if the amendment is retained in the bill.
State laws which are now integrated into a process for deciding the appropriate level of cleanup will be preempted. Cleanups under the Walker amendment will be based strictly on a Federal cost/benefit analysis.
Litigation opportunities will abound. How do the new criteria work with the existing law? Do cleanups still have to be protective of human health and the environment? How do factors like cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and flexibility apply in the context of cleanup? All are rich opportunities for lawyers and litigation while no cleanup occurs.
Support this motion, allow cleanups to go forward, and let the committee's of jurisdiction reform the Superfund Program in a comprehensive manner.
____________________
