William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ROTH. I yield back my time.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Louisiana, for working with me to amend this proposal so it was acceptable on both sides of the aisle. I will be frank. I think it is a critically important amendment. I think we must, if we are going to accomplish the good we all desire, prioritize across agencies and within agencies. This will help enable us make better use of the resources that are available to make the quality of life better for the American people. Madam President, I urge acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. ROTH. Could I ask the distinguished Senator, what is the understanding?

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on the Roth amendment regarding risk-based priorities, there be 30 minutes for debate, to be equally divided in the usual form, and that no second- degree amendments be in order.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to encourage agencies to set risk-based priorities. This amendment incorporates the basic language in S. 291 which I introduced in January and which received bipartisan and unanimous support of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Such language is also in S. 1001, introduced by Senator Glenn. This language has been modified slightly through negotiations with Senator Glenn and Senator Johnston. I ask unanimous consent to add the names to my amendment of Senator Johnston and Senator Glenn.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I send a modified amendment to the desk.

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, this amendment would significantly improve upon the current section 635 of S. 343, and it would clarify to the agencies what is expected of them regarding priority setting. My amendment provides an effective date by which the agencies would set priorities to ensure they achieve the greatest overall risk reduction. It also defines certain terms such as comparative risk analysis, and most serious risk, to reduce ambiguity about their requirements. My amendment also lists covered agencies to which this requirement applies. This amendment will also ensure that the risk study is based on some science. The comparative risk analysis would have to meet the standards for risk assessment, risk characterization, and peer review already provided in S. 343. The amendment also makes clear that the comparative risk analysis across Federal agencies is institutionalized in agency practice. It is not a one-time event. Instead of specifying a particular scientific body to conduct a comparative risk analysis, the amendment allows OMB to consult with OSTB in arranging the comparative risk study across Federal agencies. Madam President, I would like to emphasize that I think it is critically important that we allow full public participation through the risk priority-setting process, and that this amendment assures an open process, allows public comment, and requires that policy judgments in the risk study be separated from scientific determination. In sum, this amendment will allow Members to be confident that the agencies will use the results of the comparative risk analysis in a meaningful way. It will help ensure that we generate or obtain greater risk reduction at less cost. Madam President, I would like to take some time to speak about the need for this amendment and what it would require. I believe that setting risk-based priorities offers the best opportunity to allocate rationally the resources of both the government and the private sector to protect human health, safety, and the environment. With this tool of comparative risk analysis, we can make our health, safety, and environmental protection dollars go farther, providing greater overall protection, and saving even more lives than the current system. The purpose of my amendment is to, one, encourage Federal agencies engaged in regulating risk to human health, safety, and the environment, to achieve the greatest risk reduction at the least cost practical; two, promote the coordination of policies and programs to reduce risk to human health, safety, and the environment; three, promote open communications among the Federal agencies, the public, the President and Congress regarding environmental health and safety risks and the prevention and management of those risks. There is widespread support for setting risk-based priorities by many distinguished experts. As the blue ribbon Carnegie Commission panel noted in its report, ``Risk in the Environment,'' the economic burden of regulation is so great and the time and money available to address the many genuine environmental and health threats so limited, that hard resource allocation choices are important. In the same vein, in 1995, National Academy of Public Administration report to Congress entitled ``Setting Priorities, Getting Results,'' recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency use comparative risk analysis to identify priorities, and use the budget process to allocate resources to the agencies priorities. The NAPA report recommends that Congress ``could enact specific legislation that would require risk-ranking report every 2 to 3 years. Congress should use the information when it passes environmental statutes or reviews EPA's budget proposals.'' A national comparative risk analysis also was one of the chief recommendations of the Harvard Group on Risk Management Reform in their March 1995 report ``Reform of Risk Regulation: Achieving More Protection at Less Cost.'' [[Page S 9838]] Justice Steven Breyer has emphasized the need for risk-based priorities in his outstanding book ``Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation.'' Finally, I should note that this idea has its roots in two seminal reports, ``Unfinished Business'' (1987) and ``Reducing Risks.'' To provide greater protection at less cost, I believe the Federal Government must systematically evaluate the threats to health, safety and the environment that its programs address, and determine which risks are the most serious, most amenable to reduce in a cost-effective manner. This amendment requires each designated agency to engage in this evaluation among and within the programs it administers to better enable the President and Congress to prioritize resource agencies. The risk addressed by all of the designated agencies would be evaluated and compared. Now, the purpose of these analyses is not to dictate how the government uses its resources but to provide Congress and the President with the information to make better informed choices. These analyses will be useful for identifying unaddressed sources of risk, risks borne disproportionately by a segment of the population, as well as research needs. This information will foster a clear reasoning for regulating in one area over another, or allocating resources to one program over another. Finally, conducted in the public view, these analyses are likely to enhance public debate about these choices and ultimately create greater public confidence in government policy. Hard data will form the underpinnings of the analysis. Public values must be incorporated when assessing the relative seriousness of the risk and when setting priorities. After all, scientific data alone cannot say which of the following is at greater risk or which should be addressed first. Neurological damage, heart disease, birth defects, a plane crash, or cancer. The comparative risk analysis should be conducted in such a way that public values are asserted and considered. This will require including public input and the comparative risk analysis. When the analysis is completed, it should be clear to the public and the policy makers which part of the risk comparison reflects science and which part reflects value. To encourage the use of risk-based priorities, my amendment requires not only that each agency set risk-based priorities for its programs, but also for the OMB to commission a report with an accredited scientific body, to study the methodologies of comparative risk analysis and to conduct such an analysis to compare risk across agencies. The priorities identified must be incorporated into the agency budget, strategic planning, regulatory agenda, enforcement, and, as appropriate, research activities. When submitting its budget request to Congress each agency must describe the risk prioritization results and explicitly identify how the requested budget and regulatory agenda reflect those priorities. Subsection (d) requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to have an accredited scientific body conduct a comparative risk analysis of risks regulated across all agencies. Because comparative risk analysis is still a relatively new science, particularly when used to compare dissimilar risks, subsection (d)(4) requires that, even while the comparative risk analysis is being conducted, a study be done to improve the methods and use of comparative risk analysis. The study should be sufficient to provide the President and agency heads guidance in allocating resources across agencies and among programs to achieve the greatest degree of risk prevention and reduction. Subsection (e) requires each covered agency to submit a report to Congress and the President no later than 24 months after the date of enactment of the act, and every 24 months thereafter. The reports should describe how the agencies have complied with subsection (c) and present the reasons for any departure from the requirement to establish priorities. The reports should identify the obstacles to prioritizing their activities and resources in accordance with the priorities identified. At this time, each agency should also recommend those legislative changes to programs or statutory deadlines needed to assist the agency in implementing those priorities. This report back to Congress is a very critical element in readjusting the Federal Government's priorities so that we can truly achieve the greatest degree of protection for health, safety and the environment with our resources. Congress needs this information to make the necessary changes. Madam President, we all know that this is a time of limited budgets and economic uncertainty. I believe that most of us recognize the need to reduce the regulatory burden that costs the average American family about $6,000 per year. But at the same time, the public highly values a clean environment, safe workplaces, and safe products. And I must add, that I deeply share these values. I am an environmentalist--proud to be an environmentalist. I want to reduce unduly costly regulations, but still ensure that important benefits and protections are provided. So the goal I seek is smarter regulation. This amendment will promote smarter regulation. It will provide much- needed reform, not rollback. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this language--as they have done in S. 291 and S. 1001. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I yield to----

Mr. ROTH. I am happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. That is exactly the point I have been making.

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely. There is nothing in the legislation that terminates the rule.

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely.

Mr. ROTH. Here the exception applies. That is the purpose of this exception. It applies to those that are in the pipeline.

Mr. ROTH. It applies in the future.

Mr. ROTH. No, the Senator does not yield.

Mr. ROTH. Yes.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. ROTH. I will yield 3 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. ROTH. We are actually checking to see whether there is anyone who wants to speak in opposition.

Mr. ROTH. I will yield 1 minute.

Mr. ROTH. We will withhold. I understand there will be one more unanimous consent.

Mr. ROTH. For the purposes of unanimous consent.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.