What cost environmental health?

Senate agreed t by 2002 and Cut cal year 1996, the mishes over pieces including programs tal health. By late J Representatives approve measures that providedl d than the Clinton administr for the Environmental Prot the Occupational Safety an Administration, the National ii3ns Occupational Safety and Health,, Department of Energy's programs to up defense facilities. On July 28, Vice President Al Gore told reporters that the sharp cuts approved by the House "would not allow us to sustain the level of public health and environmental protection that the American people are accustomed to," adding that drinking water and air would become "dirtier, make more people sick, and kill people." The comments by Gore illustrated the ideological chasm separating the Clinton administration and the House, which aimed some of its largest cuts at the EPA and OSHA, agencies that have long vexed American business and which some in Congress regard as overreaching and ineffectual. But the debate last summer is not likely to be a one-time occurrence, according to observers, who expect the bruising battles to be a perennial feature of Amer-ican life as the country gropes toward a balanced budget. Accompanying the debate about how much to spend on the EPA and OSHA and the scope of their activities is growing congressional interest in how agencies use science to make regulatory decisions. These concerns have helped spawn numerous regulatory reform proposals that would require agencies to issue "decisional crite-ria" for all major rules that reflect the costs and benefits of the regulation and to conduct peer-reviewed risk assessments based on specifications contained in the legislation. Some proposals would allow existing ged under the new risk policy for anufacturers liance for tent of the otections, agree with he said, but-m v el y~~~~~~~~~l." m environmental dithe House cuts, said _n0 policy analyst for the oundation. Shanahan said the _-the cuts may have been designed to rcethe Clinton administration to work with the Republican majority in Congress on reform of environmental laws. The enforcement programs at the EPA were singled out for especially deep cuts because the agency is regarded as "an abuser of business and individuals and just regular folks who work for a living," and the "main tool that allows [EPA] to be an abuser is enforcement," Shanahan said. But with some exceptions, most notably the NIOSH, appropriators were somewhat more generous with funding for environmental health research. In the …