WASHINGTON _ The House was expected to pass the RiskAssessment and Cost-Benefit Act (H.R. 1022) late Tuesday, a billwhich seeks to scale back the regulatory powers of federal agenciesby imposing new requirements for risk assessment and cost/benefitstudies.

H.R. 1022, a reconciliation of two bills reported out separately by theHouse Science and Commerce Committees, is largely drawn from asection in one of the 10 bills in the Republicans' Contract WithAmerica, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act (JCWE).

The reconciliation bill requires federal agencies that issue health,safety or environmental regulations to perform risk assessment andcost/benefit analyses for any new rule that would cost the economy$25 million or more. (Democrats offered amendments on Mondaythat would have raised that threshold to $100 million, but they weredefeated.)

Although the Republican-dominated House will likely pass H.R.1022, its future is by no means guaranteed. The Senate version of thebill is milder and support there is lukewarm. Recently, EnvironmentCommittee chairman Sen. John Chaffee (R-R.I.), criticized the Housebill as a "regulatory straitjacket." President Clinton has not made adefinitive statement on risk assessment-cost/benefit legislation buthas hinted of a veto.

Currently, there are mechanisms to assess the economic impact ofnew laws and regulations: legislation must be "scored" for budgetaryimpact by the Congressional Budget Office before it can proceed tothe House or Senate floor for debate; and regulations proposed by theExecutive branch (including agencies such as the FDA, theEnvironmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department ofAgriculture) must be reviewed by the Office of Management andBudget for economic impact.

H.R. 1022 seeks to up the ante considerably. Risk assessments andcost/benefit analyses prepared by would-be regulators would undergopeer-review by independent panels to ensure that they were based on"sound science." The panels would be staffed by "scientific expertsin the appropriate disciplines with recent professional experience"(panel members would have to fill out financial disclosure forms).

Risk assessments would be based on a "scientific evaluation of therisk addressed" and "supported by the best available scientific data."The analyses would have to "explicitly distinguish scientific findingsin risk assessments from other considerations affecting the design andchoice of regulatory strategies." Any "policy or value judgments"used in the analyses that were "non-scientific in origin" would haveto be explained and justified.

Preference would be given to "the least costly regulatory alternativethat accomplishes program objectives." If "health-based" standardsproved too expensive, they would have to be eliminated fromregulatory decisions.

Republicans have argued that H.R. 1022's provisions will freeAmerican business and the public from stifling over-regulation whilesome Democrats fear it will place undue burdens on regulatorsseeking to protect the public's health and safety. n

-- Lisa Piercey Washington Editor

(c) 1997 American Health Consultants. All rights reserved.