At this time, I would like to recognize the ranking minority member, Mr. Bliley of Virginia.

Mr. BLILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today we confront the fearful symmetry of science. While the modern world beckons science to eradicate disease, feed five billion people, and build the infrastructures necessary to sustain a high quality of living, scientific advances have also brought new threats to our health and safety.

There are many examples of our bittersweet relationship with science. Powerful drugs, which should be used to heal, are abused for self-gratification and cause further damage. Energy sources which free us to engage in fruitful commerce also trap us into dangerous dependency. Developing nations which need to industrialize to lift their people out of poverty may not discover until it is too late that they may be mortgaging their future by failing to protect the environment.

Science nearly always has both immediate and long-term effects. It is more than obvious that there are both benefits and risks in the application of science. It would be absurd to hold a referendum to ban any substance that is a toxin in a zeal to protect children. Such an extreme would eliminate all modern medicines and close every hospital, as well as make food so expensive that only the most well-to-do could afford the most nutritious fresh commodities. Reformers should not fail to recognize that children from lowincome families would suffer disproportionately from the effects of banning the use of synthetics for crop production. It is difficult not to overreact when it comes to the protection of our children, but, as policymakers, we must avoid perverse and unintended outcomes. Science has provided government with powerful tools such as risk assessment, and we should use this information to improve public confidence in decision-making.

We must not undermine public confidence by pretending that government regulation is nonexistent. Federal regulations impose direct costs on the economy of roughly $175 billion per year or more than $1,700 for every taxpayer in the United States. It is estimated that $100 billion of this amount is due to regulations on environmental hazards. Congress must assure that the executive branch has the tools it needs to set appropriate standards.

While all of us in Congress take the bureaucracy to task at one time or another for lax enforcement, we must also acknowledge that the overall level of enforcement activities is substantial. EPA administrative actions under the Toxic Substance Control Act, for example, have increased from less than 100 in fiscal year 1980 to more than 500 in fiscal year 1989. Over $28 million has been assessed in administrative penalties under this act alone.

The states share responsibility for environmental enforcement and issued more than 12,000 administrative actions to violators in 1989 and referred over 700 civil cases to states attorneys general. There is a tendency to conjure up mental images which make the present time appear in a worse light. We should be careful, however, not to fall into this public relations trap. Historical data shows that lead emissions have been reduced from nearly 204,000 tons per year in 1976 to 8,000 tons per year in 1987. Carbon monoxide emissions have been reduced by nearly 40 percent in the past 20 years.

In terms of public health, we find that the death rate for malignant tumors for children ages 1 to 4 has declined from 11.7 per 100,000 in 1950, to 4.5 per 100,000 in 1980, to 3.8 per 100,000 in 1987. For children between the ages of 5 and 14, the death rates have been cut in half since 1950, including a 23 percent reduction since 1980.

The cases of occupation-related skin disease or disorders has declined from 65,900 in 1978 to 54,200 in 1987. Although the cancer incidence rates continue to rise, there are some hopeful trends. The rate of increase has been slowed for white males and black females, and the cancer rate for black males has actually declined since 1983.

None of this is to say that we cannot make further improvements. However, changes in public policy require solid evidence that there is a clear risk which can be reduced in proportion to the cost of further regulation. Does such evidence exist? Does the risk require additional federal regulation and oversight, or are there less costly alternatives which will remedy the problem? Does the proposed remedy actually increase other health risks? These are some of the questions which should be fully explored.

Science should not be exploited for political gain by dividing people into an "us versus them" issue. Assuring the safety of our food, workplace, and schools demands cooperation, not a needless sense of hopelessness. Everyone concerned, employer, worker, manufacturer, government, and consumer, has a vital stake in properly identifying a problem and working together to find the solution.

The employer has a responsibility to ensure that the worker is appropriately trained to handle chemicals safely. The worker is responsible for adhering to safety procedures. The manufacturer is obligated to meet government regulations strictly. The consumer must become educated about those simple, daily tasks which also reduce risks. All of these members are parts of the same body. To purposely create fear and panic will ultimately prove to cause more damage than good.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I apologize for the length of the statement.

[Opening statement of Congressman Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA AND RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER

Today we confront the fearful symmetry of science. While the modern world beckons science to eradicate disease, feed five billion people, and build the infrastructures necessary to sustain a high qualify of living, scientific advances have also brought new threats to our health and safety. There are many examples of our bittersweet relationship with science. Powerful drugs which should be used to heal are abused for self-gratification and cause further damage. Energy sources which free us to engage in fruitful commerce also trap us into dangerous dependency. Developing nations which need to industralize to lift their people our of poverty may not discover until it is too late they may be mortgaging their future by failing to protect the environment.

Science nearly always has both immediate and long-term effects. It is more than obvious that there are both benefits and risks in the application of science. It would be absurb to hold a referendum to ban any substance that is a toxin in a zeal to protect children. Such an extreme would eliminate all modern medicines and close every hospital as well as make food so expensive that only the most well-to-do could afford the most nutritious fresh commodities. Reformers should not fail to recognize

that children from low-income families would suffer disproportionately from the effects of banning the use of synthetics for crop production.

It is difficult not to over-react when it comes to the protection of our children. But as policymakers we must avoid perverse and unintended outcomes. Science has provided government with powerful tools such as risk assessment and we should use this information to improve public confidence in decision-making. We must not undermine public confidence by pretending that government regulation is non-existent. Federal regulations impose direct costs on the economy of roughly $175 billion per year, or more than $1,700 for every taxpayer in the United States. It is estimated that $100 billion of this amount is due to regulations on environmental hazards. Congress must assure that the Executive branch has the tools it needs to set appropriate standards. While all of us in Congress take the bureaucracy to task at one time or another for lax enforcement, we must also acknowledge that the overall level of enforcement activities is substantial. EPA administrative actions under the Toxic Substance Control Act, for example, have increased from less than 100 in Fiscal Year 1980 to more than 500 in Fiscal Year 1989. Over $28 million have been assessed in administrative penalties under this Act alone. The states share responsibility for environmental enforcement and issued more than 12,000 administrative actions to violators in 1989 and referred over 700 civil cases to state attorneys general.

There is a tendency to conjure up images which make the present time appear in the worst light. We should be careful, however, not to fall into this public relations trap. Historical data shows that lead emissions have been reduced from nearly 204 thousand tons per year in 1970 to 8 thousand tons per year in 1987. Carbon monoxide emissions have been reduced by nearly 40 percent in the past twenty years.

In terms of the public health, we find that the death rate for malignant tumors for children ages 1 to 4 has declined from 11.7 per 100,000 in 1950 to 4.5 per 100,000 in 1980 to 3.8 per 100,000 in 1987. For children between the ages of 5 and 14, the death rates have been cut in half since 1950, including a 23 percent reduction since 1980. The cases of occupation-related skin disease or disorders has declined from 65,900 in 1978 to 54,200 in 1987. Although the cancer incidence rates continue to rise, there are some hopeful trends. The rate of increase has been slowed for white males and black females and the cancer rate for black males has actually declined since 1983.

None of this is to say that we cannot make further improvements. However, changes in public policy require solid evidence that there is a clear risk which can be reduced in proportion to the cost of further regulation. Does such evidence exist? Does the risk require additional federal regulation and oversight, or are there less costly alternatives which will remedy the problem? Does the proposed remedy actually increase other health risks? These are some of the questions which should be fully explored.

Science should not be exploited for political gain by dividing people into an "us versus them" issue. Assuring the safety of our food, workplace, and schools demands cooperation, not a needless sense of hopelessness. Everyone concerned, employer, worker, manufacturer, government, and consumer has a vital stake in properly identifying a problem and working together to find the solution. The employer has a responsibility to ensure that the worker is appropriately trained to handle chemicals safely. The worker is responsible for adhering to safety procedures. The manufacturer is obligated to meet government regulations strictly. And the consumer must become educated about those simple daily tasks which also reduce risk. All of these members are parts of the same body. To purposely create fear and panic will ultimately prove to cause more damage than good.

PESTICIDES

Little is known about the extent or magnitude of chronic health problems related to occupational exposure to pesticides because appropriate studies have not been done. Farmworkers," Marion Moses, AAOHN Journal, March 1989, p. 119.3

["Pesticide-Related Health Problems and

Results observed in treated and untreated plots...suggest that, without insecticide treatment, insect losses alone would average about 45 percent.... ["Pesticides: Assessing the Risks and Benefits," Chris F. Wilkinson, May 1990, p. 5.1

...no more than 30-40 pesticide-related deaths occur annually in the U.S. and the majority of these involve suicide and accidents associated with incompetence or gross safety violations. Unfortunately, few if any, epidemiological or other data exist to support any relationship between occupational exposure and adverse chronic effects on human health. ["Pesticides: Assessing the Risks and Benefits," Chris F. Wilkinson, May 1990, p. 9.1

Only the state of California requires mandatory reporting of pesticide-related illness, with 1,211 cases in 1986. (CA Dept. Ag., 1987.) However, the California system is based on doctor reporting through the workers' compensation system. Many affected workers never see a doctor, are not properly diagnosed or are unaware of their rights under the law. The most frequently mistaken diagnoses in workers with pesticide poisoning are flu and gastroenteritis. ["Pesticide-Related Health Problems and Farmworkers," Marion Moses, AAOHN Journal,

March 1989, p. 117.]

PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN FOOD

The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that the risks for pesticides in the diet are remote, long-term, and theoretical and there is no cause for immediate concern by parents. ["Pesticide Residue in the Diet of Children," AAP News, April 1989, p. 10.1

One major group of natural chemicals in the human diet are the chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves, the natural pesticides. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in our diet are natural. ["Too Many Rodent Carcinogens," Bruce N. Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold, Science, Aug. 31, 1990.)

My own estimate for the number of cases of cancer or birth defects caused by man-made pesticide residues in food or water pollutionusually at levels of thousands or millions of times below that given to rats or mice- is close to zero. ["Be Wary of Nature's Own Pesticides," Bruce Ames, L.A. Times, Feb. 27, 1989, p. 5.]

In order to minimize cancer & the other degenerative diseases of aging, we need the knowledge that will come from further basic scientific research. Yet we are spending $70 billion per year on pollution because of widely exaggerated fears & only $9 billion