I think this amendment is a bad idea in and of itself, but let us understand what is at stake. If we defeat the rule, we are defeating the idea of elevating the EPA Administrator to Cabinet level. That is a worthwhile objective, and we should not defeat the rule that would allow us to accomplish that result. But let me say from an environmental point of view that we have some laws, like the Clean Air Act, where we have standards tied to health and the Clean Water Act. We have standards tied to technology in the FIFRA where we balance the risks and benefits; in other words, the substantive law that the EPA is handled differently. I do not think we ought to have one-size-fits-all restrictions on risk assessment to be handled in the same exact way on every environmental issue. Now, the fact of the matter is EPA does do risk assessment. Risk assessment is a very useful tool.
On the recordFebruary 2, 1994
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Waxman addresses the importance of elevating the EPA Administrator to Cabinet level and discusses environmental law standards.
Share
More from Henry Waxman
Mar 11, 2019
the Federal Government would maintain its commitment to sharing the costs of providing basic healthcare and long-term coverage to vulnerable Americans.
Nov 20, 2014
I thank my colleague for those generous comments, and I am pleased to be here today to express why this bill should not pass. Mr. Chairman, the bill is called the Promoting New Manufacturing Act. We would all want to do that--what a nice…
Dec 2, 2014
But yesterday Takata responded that, quote, 'the currently available reliable information does not support a nationwide determination of a safety defect,' end quote.





