Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, I think that is the reason this amendment in the end makes no sense. It is a question of, again, as much as the rest of the bill does, it is more lawyers, more litigation, more employees working for these agencies because they are going to be swamped with petitions. Business after business after business is going to file against regulations that have been handed down; consumer groups, citizen groups, environmental groups, other people are going to open up these rules, again, rules that have already been agreed to, rules that businesses are living under, rules that the public benefits from in many cases, clean air, clean water, pure food, safe consumer products, all of that, and we are opening this up again. It is more bureaucracy, more layers of government, more costs. At the same time it is more judicial review, and it is again another reason that this bill in the whole is a problem, and this amendment particularly takes the bill that is already loaded down with too much bureaucracy and litigation and loads it down even further, and it loads it down for the next 8 years, for the next 16 6-month periods, if you will, and ends up putting us behind the eight ball more. For us not to calculate the cost and just say, yes, Government is going to be able to do that, is simply misleading the public and misleading the other Members of this House.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time and posing another question, the CBO scored or estimated $250 million for the cost of this bill, moving, raising the threshold from $25 to $100 million. It would cost the Government $250 million. Have you calculated, or has CBO calculated, the difference in cost, the additional cost in bureaucracy and litigation and hiring more employees and all of that to do a lookback at all of these cases over the next 8 years, a lookback at all of these regulations that could be brought up?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] would engage in a colloquy and answer a couple of questions, in the committee report from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I say to my friend from Texas, the language in the section 3401, in paragraph 2, ``any person may petition'' was the language that the Committee on Energy and Commerce adopted. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology adopted no language whatsoever on looking back like that. The language you have adopted is any person who demonstrates that he or she is affected by a rule may submit a petition. What is the difference?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on what basis does the Chair rule that in this 10-hour rule that the Committee on Rules has generously given us and under the 5-minute rule for our time, that the time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] is taken away and part of it is given to someone else when he did not yield? Under what parliamentary rule is that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Brown amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and I are offering. This amendment allows a critical element to the protection of our public health and safety to continue. This amendment ensures that agencies be provided the flexibility to act rapidly in the event of a serious threat to public health or public safety. Our history is replete with examples where the prompt action by a Federal agency prevented death or prevented serious injury. In Lorain County, OH, in northeast Ohio in the 13th district, the Centers for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection Agency are currently working with the Ohio Department of Public Health to avoid calamity from the use of a deadly pesticide in a residential area in Elyria. Within days these agencies were working together to mitigate the contamination, to relocate families, and to clean up the problem. Without this amendment, agencies will spend more time in risk analysis and litigation than responding to these urgent situations. In addition, while lawyers will have full employment, many of our constituents could become seriously ill or die waiting for Federal action.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, we were told by the Parliamentarian that 6:40 is the final time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. It looks to me that it is past 6:40. I call for a vote, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Under what rule may we exceed 6:40?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, under what rule is that? Would the Chair cite the rule?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, in the committee report on page 36, Mr. Walker's Committee on Science talks about the Clean Air Act as superseded, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, RCRA, superseded. One issue, after another, after another. I say, If you don't like the Clean Air Act, let's debate the Clean Air Act. It passed this Chamber overwhelmingly, passed the Senate overwhelmingly. If we want to dismantle clean air, as apparently people on the other side of the aisle do, let's debate it. Let's not try a back door approach where people don't really quite understand exactly what's happening when you supersede these laws. Let's come out. Let's have hearings. Let's have longer hearings than we had in committees on this legislation where both sides come out, both sides can talk about it. We can hear what the issues are and really decide. Does the public want us to undo the Clean Air Act? I do not really believe that.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown-Brown substitute amendment to H.R. 1022. This substitute provides a common sense approach to risk assessment without creating a lawyers' paradise. It ensures that public health and safety will continue to be protected. At the same time it enhances the decision-making process to ensure that our resources are spent on our most critical prioritized needs. Risk assessment and management provide valuable tools with which we can identify the most critical threats to health and safety of Americans and establish a system of priorities to address these problems. In time of scarce resources, it is essential that we plan appropriately and demand sufficient information to make decisions based on sound science. Risk assessment can help us do that. Risk assessment practices, however, must not in and of themselves become a burdensome process. This bill as currently drafted is loaded with unintended consequences and will effectively derail the last 25 years of accomplishments in protecting the public's health and safety. I remember when parts of Lake Erie were dead. Today my daughter can swim in Lake Erie. I remember when the Cuyahoga River was on fire. Today it is an essential water route for interstate commerce. We have in this country the cleanest air, the safest drinking water, the purest food, the safest consumer products in the world. It is not an accident we were able to do that by working together with Government and business and regulations and making sure that those products were safe, the water was clean, the food was pure and the air was clean. Citizens of northeast Ohio continue to be concerned about the high rates of breast and prostate cancer in that part of the State. They believe the cause could be the pollutants of a previous day. Did we address the most serious concerns when we cleaned up Lake Erie or cleaned up the Cuyahoga River? We do not know. We should find out. Risk assessment and analysis can help us do that without it becoming the lawyers' for employment act. Listen to some of the comments, Mr. Chairman, that have been made about this legislation. A former Republican chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said this legislation would shift the financial, legal and moral burden of dealing with pollution from the polluters to the victims. A former Republican EPA Administrator under Presidents Bush and Reagan said the proposal would render the Nation's environmental laws by and large unworkable and unpredictable by creating a procedural nightmare and endless litigation. More bureaucracy, more lawyers, more government. The Natural Resources Defense Council report said the bill would dismantle laws that have worked, would block improvements to public health, would pay polluters to bloat the deficit and would dramatically increase bureaucracy and litigation. Mr. Chairman, the evidence is overwhelming that this legislation would have enormous unintended consequences for the public health and safety of all Americans. Twenty-four Members of the House, a dozen Republicans and a dozen Democrats signed a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to urge Members to think this legislation through and to address three major concerns about the bill. Our substitute addresses these concerns in a way that does not diminish the science of risk assessment, which I support, or create endless bureaucracies or litigation. Our substitute is patterned after a Republican proposal of 2 years ago. It is a reasonable alternative. It is a strong risk assessment bill without bureaucracy, without more lawyers, without more government, and without the unintended consequences that the authors of this bill have not foreseen because of the quick way in which it passed the committee. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members of the House to look carefully at the substitute. The substitute makes sense. It is a reasonable middle-of- the-road, down-the-middle approach. I ask support for the Brown-Brown substitute.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it narrows the definition of ``emergency.'' During the hearings that we had, as brief as they may have been, as uncomplete as they were, we heard witness after witness come in front of the committee concerned about the lack of flexibility given to the agencies to be able to deal with an emergency. This narrows the language even more by constructing a very narrow definition of ``emergency.'' Let me give two or three examples. When the Centers for Disease Control receive information about severe outbreaks of illness related to chryptosporidia, it can act to ensure that the outbreak of the illness is limited. Prompt action is essential; not more lawyers, not more bureaucracy, not more government, not more Rube Goldberg ways to stop these agencies from acting quickly in an emergency basis, in imminent endangerment of the public. When contaminated blood, another example, can be removed from hospitals and blood banks before it is used, before it infects some unsuspecting victim with HIV, the public health is protected, people's safety is protected. Mr. Chairman, let me give another example. When a local nuclear reactor is not running quite right, should the NRC have to wait for a meltdown before it can react? Obviously not. They ought to be able to anticipate prior to an emergency, again to protect the health and protect public safety. It simply makes sense. This amendment takes away any flexibility, and is one more example of adding to bureaucracy, meaning more lawyers, more government, more litigation, going in the exact opposite direction that people in this country want. I ask for a defeat of the amendment. Tomorrow there will be an amendment to make sure that they have the authority, that agencies have the flexibility, to act to prevent an emergency situation to protect people's public health and public safety.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise because of concerns about H.R. 1022. First of all, I am proud to live in a nation with the cleanest air, the purest food, the safest drinking water, the safest products, the safest working conditions, of any country in the world. I am proud of that. I think that obviously the people of this country are proud of the working conditions, proud of the clean air, and safe drinking water, and pure food laws, and the consensus that this country has arrived at on both sides of the aisle in making the standard of living in this country as high as it is and making the environment in this country as good as it is. I live on Lake Erie in Lorain, Ohio, 25 or so miles west of Cleveland. Twenty years ago parts of Lake Erie were literally dead. The Cuyahoga River caught on fire in the city of Cleveland. Today--as I said, I live on the lake. I have two daughters that swim in Lake Erie. People drink the water in Lake Erie. It is a wonderful resource for all kinds of commercial purposes, for all kinds of activities around the lake, and we have been able to do that in this country because of the cooperation of business and the cooperative of government and the active citizens that have cleaned up that lake and made it safe and made it what we would like it to be. Certainly sometimes government does overreach, and, when government does overreach, it is up to us to deal with those regulations one by one, not with a meat axe approach like H.R. 1022 does, but to deal with it case by case by case. That is why I support risk assessment. That is why I support good scientific based information, risk assessment, cost- benefit analysis. That is why it makes sense to do it case by case by case, not the way that H.R. 1022 does. What H.R. 1022 will bring to this society in this government is more regulation, more bureaucracy, more lawyers, more litigation. That is why many groups around the country have called this the lawyers' full employment bill. It simply does not make sense to pile more government, more bureaucracy, more litigation, more lawyers on top of what we now have. It simply does not make sense. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I will offer a substitute amendment later this evening. It will set a higher threshold for rulemaking which will save government money and save private sector money. It will allow for appropriate judicial review which will cut the costs of litigation, will mean fewer lawyers rather than more lawyers. It will mean less litigation rather than more litigation, and the Brown-Brown substitute will provide for peer review with no conflict of interest so that, when regulations are considered under risk assessment, that the decisions will be made fairly, without undue private interference from those groups, or those industries or those businesses that have something to gain by that interference. The substitute, the Brown-Brown substitute which we will offer later, means less money, less litigation, less bureaucracy, less conflict of interest. It simply makes sense, Mr. Chairman.