[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H2616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  WILL COCKROACHES BECOME PROTECTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I think we should stop the presses. It 
appears that the EPA has their facts wrong again. After weeks of 
chatter about proposed new clean air standards and their urgent 
necessity, this week we find out that the EPA has been given some 
incorrect or bogus data, certainly very questionable.
  First, they cried that 20,000 people are killed every year by PM 2.5 
pollution. Then it was revised to 15,000. The EPA Administrator, Ms. 
Browner, paraded before the Committee on Appropriations and my 
subcommittee to tell us how important these tough standards are and why 
they were needed.
  Now we find out it is not 20,000, not even 15,000 lives that are at 
stake, that we are not even clear as to how many there are. In fact, 
scientist K. Jones, whose name appears along with some commentary in 
yesterday's Congress Daily, suggests that because of inadequate 
research, that EPA's first revision of their data now shows it could be 
below 1,000, less than 1,000 people are affected by the finer 
particulate matter pollution.
  What is the EPA going to do now that this information has emerged? I 
believe they are hell-bent on imposing tougher clean air standards on 
our communities, businesses, and residences, even though the air 
quality across the country, across America, has improved immensely 
since we began this quest. After Mr. Jones, a scientist, caught them in 
their first mistake, how can we really trust the EPA data now when 
billions of dollars in costs are at stake for our communities?
  I believe we have to get the facts straight before asking our local 
communities to pay up for costly regulatory reform. Also I might add, 
in addition, this week the New England Journal of Medicine, which is 
often quoted certainly by EPA as their source, has, it seems, driven 
another stake into the EPA drive to impose costly tougher air quality 
standards on us.
  After hearing about how many children, for example, are hurt by PM 
2.5, this Nation's most respected health journal reports that 
cockroaches are more of a problem than the air. That is right, 
cockroaches. The study, and it was not just a short-term study, it was 
for 10 years, focused on children and found that those exposed to 
cockroaches are more likely to suffer from asthma. They are over three 
times more likely to be hospitalized, and 80 percent more likely to 
have unscheduled doctor visits for asthma. Yet the EPA says it is not 
the bugs, it is the air. Our communities, businesses, and people are 
still going to be stuck with the EPA's bill.
  I just hope as we rid our communities of the roaches to fight asthma, 
they do not become protected under the Endangered Species Act.
  Let us get the facts straight before we impose new air standards on 
our communities. One scientist suggests there should be a 5-year 
moratorium, a 5-year study, before we present any facts, any 
conclusions.
  The EPA seems determined in spite of the conflicting data to move 
ahead. They seem to have a sense of urgency that is wrapped up in the 
willingness to accept anything, any information that will justify their 
personal proposal, their own idea, about what is the proper proposal. 
They ignore, along the way, common sense and cost as part of the 
equation.

                          ____________________