Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I would point out that with lead particularly----

Mr. BOEHLERT. But what I point out to the gentleman is this. That we are after the final rule. If the final rule does not pass the commonsense test, there is a way to do with it under the Administrative Procedures Act. What the gentleman is suggesting is all during the risk assessment process the lawyers would just line up one behind the other and challenge everything that happens during the risk assessment process.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BOEHLERT. We have got the Administrative Procedures Act. We know that. That is the vehicle to challenge any final rulemaking, and we have got the arbitrary and capricious standard. What this would do is subject the whole risk assessment process to judicial review, which means we would be tied up--talk about the full employment act for lawyers, we would be tied up in courts forevermore at a cost of millions and millions and millions of dollars for everybody involved. That is why we so strongly object to it. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the person who deserves the ``I don't get it'' award for 1994 is the one who recommended to the President that he buy Dave McCollough's Truman biography and give it to key operatives to read in preparation for the 1996 campaign against what they perceive will be a do nothing Congress. This will not be the do nothing Congress. This will very much be a do something Congress. The challenge is to do something that is responsive to the problems, and there is no doubt about it, in this area we have a lot of problems. Overregulations, and excessively costly regulations are two of the big ones and we have to be responsible in addressing them. I would suggest that Terry Davis, who is the director of the Resource for the Future Center for Risk Management capsulizes it nicely when he said in a recent article in the winter of 1995 issue of his publication, ``If the varied interests with a stake in environmental policy can reduce the ideological and partisan coalition that has characterized the risk debate so far, and if they can accept both the uses and limitations of risk assessment, the risk debate could lead to a new era of more effective, efficient, and equitable environmental program.'' I would submit to all of my colleagues that is something, that is an idea we can all embrace. I serve on one of the committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on Science, and I think the committee did a pretty good job under the leadership couple of my colleagues, some supplemental views to our committee report. And among other things we say we agree with the majority on the need to address risk assessment, and cost-benefit analysis. However, we do have some severe reservations about title III of the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act. Under existing law, final agency rules and orders are judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act. Without clarification in title III of the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, courts may hold that risk assessment guidelines themselves are reviewable, which is sure to lead to excessive litigation. We believe that risk assessment guidelines should not be reviewable. Additionally, we believe that compliance with title III requirements should be reviewable only in the context of a challenge to a final agency rule or order. Without such a provision, this legislation may exacerbate existing litigations problems and stifle efforts to resolve conflicts within a Federal agency. Title III requires Federal agencies to conduct resource intensive formal risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis. To me, that is the trial lawyers employment act of 1995. I will submit the balance of my statement for the Record because it is worthy of note.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Schroeder amendment, and I am glad to hear the conversation ongoing here between the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the author, the gentlewoman from Colorado, and my colleague from New York [Mr. Schumer]. Currently, H.R. 728 contains no money for research and development of law enforcement technologies, and this amendment would appropriate a mere fraction of the block grant authorizations for 3 years to focus on the development of technology assistance. This is critical. Wyatt Earp would recognize much of today's police technology, and it has been a long time since Wyatt Earp was around. Law enforcement officers must be afforded the opportunity to take advantage of new technologies to take that proverbial bite out of crime and to prevent injury and alter the balance of powers criminals possess to control America's streets. I want the good guys to have all the technology they need on their side. All over America we have outstanding research facilities. In my own congressional district, Rone Laboratories, one of the premier military laboratories anywhere in the world, with responsibility for command, control, communications, and computer technology, is working cooperatively with the National Institute of Justice to develop the type of technology that our law enforcement officials can effectively use to wage war on crime. It is an exciting concept. I applaud the initiative and effort of the gentlewoman from Colorado. I once again thank my colleague from New Mexico, and the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. McCollum, for outstanding leadership in this area, and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hyde. We want the good guys to have what they need. All of us want to stop the bad guys, the guys we are after. With technology advancements that make them better able to do what they want to do, and when our guys try to get in there, they do not have the equipment they need. There are all sorts of possibilities. One could hold something the size of a pack of cigarettes in their hand and point it at a crowd and be able to detect a weapon instantly. They could detect illegal substances under special circumstances. There are all sorts of exciting developments taking place in the marketplace out there. The other thing that really thrills me and should thrill all of us is the fact that we are getting such magnificent cooperation from our military laboratories. They are reaching out. They are making available their expertise to work in sensitive areas like this. So I rise in the strongest possible support of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to give it the attention it deserves and to take advantage of it, because it is good for America.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment.