[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4637-H4644]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    NEW EPA STANDARDS WILL HALT PROGRESS IN AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pappas). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor tonight with a heavy 
heart because we were hoping that as Democrats and as Republicans, we 
would be able to talk to the administration and have them reach a 
commonsense conclusion as it pertained to the progress that we have 
made in this country in abating air pollution; in the way we have 
accommodated the growth of industry in this Nation. While making the 
air cleaner, we have been making progress.
  The Clean Air Act itself is a tremendous success. We continue to 
clean the air, and no one predicts during the coming years that under 
the current standards for particulate matter and for ozone that we 
would continue to clean the air. But today, the President of the United 
States has recommended a tightening of those standards.

[[Page H4638]]

  In essence, it is changing the finish line as we are about to 
complete the race. It is saying to the Governors across this Nation and 
saying to mayors of cities and villages across this Nation and other 
political local leaders that we in the Federal Government think that we 
want to change the rules. It is a bad decision, it is a bad decision 
for the health of this Nation, because what will happen is State 
implementation plans aimed at cleaning the air are going to come to a 
grinding halt. They will have to be changed.
  Things that are being done by industry, things that are being done 
across this country that are working, that are cleaning the air, will 
have to be changed. We know that an additional 400 counties across this 
Nation will be thrown into noncompliance, and when that happens, there 
will not be an industrial development in those areas.
  Now, the White House has said that well, you will have to work with 
us. With a wink and a nod, they are saying we are not really going to 
enforce these new standards right away.
  Well, to the administration I would say you cannot have it both ways. 
You cannot say that we have to live by the letter of the law and we 
have to tighten these standards, we have to move forward, and that is 
the excuse they are giving us, and then say, but we are really not 
going to enforce these regulations.
  In an area like my region in southwestern Pennsylvania where we have 
lost a tremendous number of jobs over several decades, we are beginning 
to come back. But that progress that we have made and the progress that 
we think we are going to make over the coming decade will be stymied if 
the decision that the President has made today is carried forward and 
the EPA changes these regulations.
  We have had hearings in this Congress; we have had hearings in the 
House of Representatives; we have had hearings in the Senate, various 
committees, and the science is not there. They want to go to a new 
standard, Mr. Speaker, which is called PM2.5.
  Now, that is a scientific term, and I apologize this late at night 
for using such a term, but what it amounts to is going from one size of 
particulate matter, whether that is soot coming out of a smokestack or 
whether it is dust blowing off of a field somewhere in agricultural 
country, or whether it is coming off of an automobile. This is 
particulate matter, something that is thrown off by industry, or it is 
thrown off by nature. They are going to change the size of the particle 
that they measure. They are going to go from what they call 10 microns 
to 2.5 microns, about one-fourth the size.
  The only problem is, in this Nation we only have about 50 monitors 
that measure this, not enough to have accurate data. Until we build 
those monitors, until we analyze the data from those monitors, another 
5 years will pass, and at the end of that time, by law, by the Clean 
Air Act itself, we would have to change these standards again.
  There is a simpler way to do this: Allow the progress that the States 
have made to move forward, Mr. President. To you and to Carol Browner I 
would say, allow us to continue to clean the air. Mr. President, your 
actions now in fact take State and local officials who have been making 
progress off the hook, areas like Washington, DC, that have to be in 
compliance for ozone by the year 1999, so that we save those children 
that are on the playground that may be asthmatic.

                              {time}  2300

  By 1999 we will hit the new standard. Not anymore. If the President 
gets his way with the new standards, if Carol Browner at EPA carries 
out these new standards, if we in Congress do not stop them, then we 
will give that 9- or 10-year-old on the playground in Washington, DC 
not until 1999 to have cleaner air but until the year 2009, so that 
child will be away in college somewhere. We are postponing the tough 
decisions. We are allowing the air to remain dirtier in the shorter 
term, and we do not know if the science we are pushing forward is 
accurate science.
  I have spoken about this several times over the last 2 weeks because 
this is important. It reflects whether or not we are going to continue 
an industrial expansion in the Northeast and in the Midwest, and 
whether or not we are going to be able to carry out our defense flights 
in certain areas where in fact the airplanes, whether the commercial 
and military airplanes, are able to fly or not at certain times of day, 
depending on what the pollution readings are for particulate matter or 
for ozone.
  It does not deal with the idea of transport, that pollution travels 
from one State to the other carried by the wind. Indeed, our State of 
Pennsylvania is impacted tremendously by the pollution that is carried 
in from the States to our immediate west. And we, Mr. Speaker, in 
addition to that, have that air passing through Pennsylvania, it comes 
to the State of New Jersey, it comes to the State of Delaware, and 
others.
  Nothing that the President has proposed today, nothing that Carol 
Browner has proposed prior to this, really deals with the transport 
issue. This is not something that is based on good common sense, it is 
not based on good science, because we do not have the monitors to know 
the truth.
  I will take time now to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
southwestern Pennsylvania Mr. Mike Doyle, my colleague who has labored 
on this issue long and hard, who brings a tremendous amount of 
knowledge in his role on the Committee on Science, who has analyzed 
this issue, who sticks up for working men and women, sticks up for 
businesses, so they are able to expand and create jobs.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania Ron Klink, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I share with the gentleman great disappointment today 
about learning of the President's decision to endorse the new national 
ambient air quality standards. Unfortunately, this is a victory for 
politics over science.
  Earlier today the Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment, of which I am a member, released a detailed report of our 
findings based upon three hearings we have held on the NAQS. Under the 
leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from California, Mr. Ken 
Calvert, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Tim 
Roemer, we conducted an exhaustive examination of the scientific bases 
for the new standards. I believe that the recommendation of the 
subcommittee's reports are a more responsible and balanced approach 
than that of the administration.
  The plan outlined by EPA and now backed by the President commits us 
to standards that will be of great economic cost before we know enough 
to be sure that they will yield any public health benefit. The existing 
body of scientific knowledge is clearly lacking, especially for 
particulate matter. Even the EPA agrees with that assessment.
  In its 1997 update to its Office of Research and Development's 
strategic plan, EPA identified PM as one of its six high priority 
research topics because of, and I quote, ``A high degree of uncertainty 
about the size and the composition of the particles that may be 
responsible for adverse health effects.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that there is a great need for more 
research. In fact, in all the testimony I heard from all the experts in 
front of the Committee on Science, the only thing they all agreed upon 
was that we need more research. The Committee on Science has already 
addressed this issue by authorizing $50 million more for PM research. 
This would lead Members to wonder, why should we move forward with a 
regulatory approach before we know if there is a problem that needs to 
be regulated?
  In the Committee on Science's first hearing on the standards, Dr. 
Joseph Motterley, the new head of the Clean Air Science Advisory 
Committee, spoke for many when he stated that going ahead with the new 
standards was necessary in order to ensure that monitoring and 
additional research is funded.
  Is this any way to operate? A new standard should be science-based, 
not a tool to promote the installation of PM monitors or to fund more 
research. This is putting the cart before the horse. First you do 
adequate monitoring and research, then you draw conclusions, not the 
other way around.

[[Page H4639]]

  Mr. Speaker, as we continue with this special order, I will get into 
greater detail about what the Committee on Science found.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my neighbor in 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Mike Doyle, for coming forward with me tonight. I 
know that it takes a tremendous amount of dedication to stay this late 
in the day, when we really finished nearly 5 hours ago with our votes. 
I really appreciate the fact that the gentleman has dedicated so much 
effort to this issue.
  I want to say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that we are not standing 
idly by. We are not waiting and just reacting and hanging our heads, 
although the President now has agreed with Carol Browner, as though we 
are defeated. We are not defeated. We are going to move forward in a 
bipartisan fashion. We will develop a game plan.
  We have a bill, H.R. 1984, which says and would prohibit EPA from 
changing these standards for 5 years. The Republicans and the Democrats 
are standing together on this issue, saying what we will do is exactly 
what Mr. Doyle suggested. We are willing to spend $75 million a year to 
build the monitors, to do the monitoring, collect the data, make sure 
the science is good, make sure that what we are doing is not a rush to 
judgment, make sure that there is a health benefit.
  So in this era when Congress has been beat upon for being so 
partisan, on this issue it is common sense, so we can actually see good 
science used in an effective way to make sure that we are moving 
forward, keeping the air clean at the same time that we are promoting 
the growth of our industries and jobs for people in America.
  We have said, as Republicans and Democrats, let us make sure we are 
doing this right. Even Carol Browner, the administrator of EPA, and 
others in the administration agree with us when we say that, regardless 
of what you do, the air will be cleaner 5 years from now than it is 
today. So if we are making progress, why stop that progress?
  What the President has done today, Mr. Speaker, first of all is stick 
a finger in the eye of all of us on the Democratic side, in particular, 
who have written to him, who have called the administration over the 
many past months and said, Mr. President, sit down with us. You want to 
have a dialogue on race relations, you want to have a dialogue about 
this problem, you want to have a dialogue about that problem. We want 
to have a dialogue with you about clean air. It is important.

  We do not want asthmatic kids to get sick and die. We do not want the 
elderly to be forced inside their houses different days of the year 
because of the weather and the air conditions. We come from Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania, where we know a little bit about dirty air.
  We know what happened in Donora, Pennsylvania, decades ago when 
people were dropping dead in the street. In my previous life as a news 
reporter I interviewed the doctor who was down there running around as 
people were actually falling dead in the streets of Donora, 
Pennsylvania.
  We have cleaned the air. We have moved forward. The Clean Air Act is 
working. As we said to the President, you called upon us when you 
wanted to pass your budget. You called upon us when you wanted to talk 
about other things that were important to your administration. This is 
life and death to the economy of our region. Before you make a 
decision, have your people or you sit down with us and let us have a 
dialogue.
  Not only did we not have that dialogue before the President made his 
announcement today, he did not even acknowledge our letter. What does 
that say to the 600,000 people that live in each one of the 40 
districts of the Members of Congress from his own party who said to the 
President, sit down with us. Parley with us, talk to us about the 
impact that this decision on changing the ambient air quality standards 
would have on our region, on our businesses, on the children and the 
elderly in our districts, on the health care facilities in our 
districts, which, unfortunately, more and more are becoming the largest 
industries, because we do not make anything anymore. Now you are going 
to chase away the economic expansion that is out there.
  Mr. Speaker, the Conference of Mayors said in an overwhelming fashion 
yesterday to the President, Mr. President, you are going the wrong way. 
If you pursue this line of changing the air quality standards now, it 
is the wrong thing to do. Do not do it. The President has ignored them.
  Governors across this Nation, and the President likes to remind us 
that he was a Governor, Governors across this Nation have said to the 
President, it is the wrong thing to do. He has ignored them. State 
legislators across this region, other elected officials, union 
officials, have said, Mr. President, it is the wrong thing to do. He 
has ignored them, deciding only to listen to one person and that is 
Carol Browner, the administrator at EPA.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake. It is an absolute mistake. The 
President has received bad advice. He has not sat down to talk to those 
of us, to even say later on to the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Klink and Mr. Doyle, to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], I 
think you are wrong.
  At least have the discussion. Do us the honor for the people that we 
represent, people who you asked to vote for you, Mr. President, to sit 
down and have this conversation with us, have a dialogue with us. But 
you cannot do that. In fact, we found out from the news media today 
that you made your announcement. Is this the way we work together? Is 
this the politics of inclusion? What will be the impact on the 
businesses that are growing in our region?
  Mr. Doyle commented a few moments ago about Jim Motterley, the 
current head of CASAC, who also said, I will paraphrase, I do not have 
his exact words in front of me, that perhaps the money we would be 
spending to set new standards would be better spent to bring areas that 
are currently not in attainment into attainment.
  We have counties across this Nation, regions across this Nation, that 
are out of the current attainment standards, but they are making 
progress. They are implementing standards to get there. This takes them 
off the hook. They no longer have to do that, because we have now said 
that the standard you have been striving to reach that you are still 
not in attainment with is not there anymore. We have created a new 
standard, so the air can be dirtier for a longer period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues understand that. We need Members of 
Congress to rally around, Democrats and Republicans in the House, in 
the Senate, to come onto our bill, H.R. 1984, so we can say to EPA that 
it is the will of Congress that we not change these standards while 
they are working, while we are cleaning up the air, while we are 
creating a healthier atmosphere in this Nation. Instead, let us do the 
right thing. Let us build those monitors for PM2.5. Let us deploy them. 
Let us collect the data, and 5 years down the road let us make a 
decision based on sound science.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to know all of us in the 
western Pennsylvania delegation have appreciated the gentleman's 
leadership on this issue. I was just thinking back when the gentleman 
was talking. I grew up in Swissvale, Pennsylvania. I have spent all 44 
years of my life in the community of Swissvale. My father was a steel 
worker and worked on an Edgar Thompson steel mill in Braddock. He spent 
all of his life in that same town, as did my mother.
  When our grandparents came over from Ireland and Italy, that is the 
town we settled in. That is not unlike many families in western 
Pennsylvania, who have spent a lifetime in this community. We remember 
what the air was like. We remember the days when there were orange 
specks on the car when we would come out in the morning, because the 
mills had let out, before there were stricter air controls. Nobody 
wants to return to those days. I know the gentleman has two children, I 
have been blessed with four. We care about our children. We want them 
to breathe clean air.
  I get a little bit disturbed when the people who have been trying to 
frame this debate and those of us who have been questioning the science 
of these new clean air standards somehow do not want clean air for the 
community. The fact of the matter is the air in Pittsburgh is as clean 
as it has ever been.

[[Page H4640]]

  In fact, in the past 5 years a study has shown that the air in 
Pittsburgh, just in the past 5 years, is 64 percent cleaner since when 
the old standards were implemented in 1990. We have already made 
tremendous progress. I think it is interesting to note, and a lot of 
people may not have realized, the American Lung Association of Western 
Pennsylvania has taken a position contrary to the national American 
Lung Association.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, and correct me if I 
am wrong, Mr. Doyle, but it is my understanding that in 1996 and thus 
far in 1997 our Pittsburgh region has not been out of attainment.
  Mr. DOYLE. Not a single exceedance in those 2 years, and only an 
average of four exceedances a year during the years 1991 to 1995, 
representing a 64 percent improvement in our air quality.
  I think it is interesting. This is a letter from the American Lung 
Association of Western Pennsylvania. In the letter they start by 
saying, ``We would like to thank you for the support of the work of our 
organization, and we want to share with you our grave concerns over the 
position on particulate matter taken by the American Lung Association.
  ``In its broad brush extremist overview of what it deems to be a 
widespread problem, the national American Lung Association is ignoring 
our stunning progress in cleaning up our local environment, and the 
overwhelmingly good to moderate air quality we enjoy, as well as the 
potentially devastating effect that this legislation could have on our 
region's economy.''
  This is from the American Lung Association of Western Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  2315

  Mr. KLINK. Reclaiming my time, they realize the progress that has 
been made in southwestern Pennsylvania, they understand the good things 
that have been done with the air. And the gentleman brings up a fine 
point. This whole issue came to light when the National American Lung 
Association brought suit against the EPA, saying that back in 1987 when 
they went from total suspended particles to PM10, 10-micron size 
particles, since then, every 5 years they are supposed to revisit the 
issue.
  They have not done that. So it is time to revisit. It does not say 
they have to delay. It does not say they have to make it more 
stringent. It simply says they have to deal with PM, or as we say, soot 
or dust in the air.
  So here comes CASAC and they give the recommendation that we go from 
a 10 micron down to 2.5, but there are a lot of other things that they 
do not make recommendations about. We do not know, again, because we do 
not have the monitors, how bad the situation is.
  So where did this ozone thing come from? Legally, and the gentleman I 
know would agree, we do not have to deal with ozone right now, 
particularly at a time when the transport issue of ozone from one State 
to another is just being dealt with by the transport group that has 
been studying it.
  Mr. DOYLE. I think it is important for the public to understand these 
issues like transport zones. When we think of Pennsylvania and what has 
been happening, particularly in our region, as we lost jobs and 
factories in western Pennsylvania to States like Ohio and States west 
of us, yet western Pennsylvania is literally the victim of pollution 
that is blowing from the west over to the east.
  If we cleaned up each source of pollution, every source of pollution 
in western Pennsylvania that was being caused in western Pennsylvania, 
we would still be out of attainment because of the pollution that blows 
across our borders from western States.
  Mr. KLINK. Reclaiming my time, under the new standards. Under the old 
standards, we are fine. But under the new standards, the gentleman is 
right.
  Mr. DOYLE. What is our State supposed to do? We said jokingly, maybe 
we need to set these giant fans up along the border and blow it back to 
Ohio. But the sad result of the situation is our young people are 
leaving western Pennsylvania because there is no opportunity there. And 
part of the reason there is no opportunity there is the factories are 
not locating in an area that is nonattainment because of the cost of 
compliance, and we are losing them to States like Ohio, who are sending 
their pollution over to western Pennsylvania.
  I just want to take a second to read the summary. We just had this 
report released this afternoon. This is the report from the House 
Committee on Science, of which I am a member, and I want to read the 
summary because I think it is important for people to understand this:
  ``We have had regulations on large particulate matter, which is known 
as total suspended particles, that have been in place since 1971. 
Particles of 10 microns or less, PM10, have been regulated since 
1987.''
  Now to give my colleagues an idea of what we are talking about here, 
a human hair is 75 microns. So we are talking about PM10, 10 microns, 
versus 75 microns, the size of a human hair.
  And this issue is a very narrow one, ``whether there is sufficient 
scientific evidence to impose an exact standard for particles below 2.5 
microns at this time. Although much of the research EPA has compiled is 
suggestive, there are too many uncertainties in the data and the 
interpretation of that data to form an adequate basis for moving ahead 
with a strict PM2.5 standard at this time. The weaknesses of the 
epidemiological evidence discussed above are of particular concern. Our 
subcommittee has received testimony that, except for PM, EPA has never 
set a standard for criteria air pollution without clinical, animal, 
toxicological, and other studies supporting the epidemiological 
results. Yet studies such as this that do exist are inconsistent, and 
do not resolve but rather add to the uncertainties about the effects of 
PM2.5. Moreover, this committee has received testimony on many of the 
basic questions that still need to be addressed before we have a clear 
understanding of the impacts of PM2.5.''
  Chairman Sensenbrenner I think said it right: ``The citizens of this 
country have a right to expect that the new air quality standards be 
science-based. However, in this case, EPA has put the regulatory cart 
before the scientific horse.''
  Mr. KLINK. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman again makes good sense. 
To boil all of that down, the gentleman is right, when we talk about 
the width of a human hair being 75 microns and we have been measuring 
PM10, or 10 microns, that is about one-seventh the width of a human 
hair.
  Now they are talking about going to one-fourth of one-seventh the 
size of a human hair. That tells us how crazy this is. They are talking 
about size alone. There are different kinds of particulate matter 
floating around. Some of it, as I said, is found in nature. We heard 
testimony in the Committee on Commerce, where they said if you live in 
an area like New Mexico where you have high alkaline soil that is 
blowing in the wind, you could have problems.
  What about if some of these particulate matters that are being 
ingested into the lungs are more toxic than others? This is not 
addressed at all in these new ambient air quality standards suggested 
by Ms. Browner at EPA and now endorsed by the President.
  What about a blend of different kinds of PM2.5? Does that cause more 
of a toxicological problem? We do not know because, as my distinguished 
colleague just pointed out, we do not have the studies. We do not have 
enough epidemiological studies, toxicological studies. All kinds of 
studies need to be done, and we do not have that data yet.
  We also find ourselves in another particularly bad position. I do not 
like the fact that we are here on the floor tonight, I say to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle], and Mr. Speaker, having this 
public disagreement with our own President.
  I stood up in 1993 and gave this President a very, very difficult 
vote when he had a budget that he said the future of his presidency 
depended on, and I still bear the scars politically of that very tough 
vote. It was the right thing to do, because since 1993 the stock market 
has more than doubled, unemployment has gone down, we created 
employment, the deficit has plunged; and we, the Democrats that took 
that hard vote, need to have that credit, and the President needs to 
have the credit for putting that plan together.
  So I have stood with this President when it was unpopular to stand 
with him. At other times when we disagreed,

[[Page H4641]]

we have just agreed to disagree. One of those issues was on trade, it 
was on NAFTA, with a starkly different opinion of what this country's 
trade policy should be.
  But I fear that what has been set up with a double whammy of the 
passage of NAFTA and now these proposed ambient air quality standards 
being tightened is the companies in our districts or that are looking 
at coming to our districts will say, ``Congressman Doyle, Congressman 
Klink,'' and in fact some them have already said this to us, this is 
not something we are pulling out of a hat, it has happened, ``we would 
be crazy to expand a plant or build a new plant in southwestern 
Pennsylvania when we could go to Mexico or to Canada, bring other 
products in because of NAFTA, with no tariff, and we do not have to 
play by the same environmental rules. We do not have to install the 
same scrubbers. We do not have to have the expensive pollution 
equipment.'' And so we find ourselves the victims of a double whammy.

  How can the economy of this Nation continue to grow? That is the 
problem that the workers or potential workers, the kids that are in 
school, that are looking for jobs in our region, are going to have. We 
will not have the growth of jobs. They get caught in this double 
witching thing that is going on.
  The fact of the matter is that when these new regulations go into 
effect, and with the ozone issue, the day that this happens, 400 
counties across this Nation go out of attainment. In those counties, no 
one is going to come in if they are already out of attainment in the 
new standard and say, ``I am going to build a factory. I am going to 
expand a factory here. I am going to create employment.''
  They are not going to build there. It is that simple. First of all, 
they may not be able to build because that day the local government 
probably cannot issue them a building permit. That happens immediately.
  Now the EPA will say, ``Wait a minute, Congressman Klink, we do not 
say that you cannot have a building permit.'' Well, of course not. The 
EPA does not issue building permits. But they force the government 
leaders to make that kind of a decision. They force the kind of 
decision where the local government leaders might say, ``You have to go 
to reformulating gasoline. You have to go to no further building 
construction in this region. You have to go to certain days that you 
are carpooling,'' or whatever it is that they have to do to reach at 
that attainment figure. The local government leaders are the ones that 
are stuck at the bottom.
  It is this administration now and the EPA that is forcing the local 
leaders to make those decisions. That is why the Conference of Mayors 
says, ``No, Mr. President do not do this.'' That is why the governors 
and the State legislators are saying to the Federal Government, ``Do 
not force this upon us. The current system is working. You are going to 
put us into a situation where we cannot win, where we cannot expand the 
wealth of this Nation, where we cannot create new opportunities.''
  Mr. DOYLE. My colleague is so much on the point. It is not only new 
jobs, it is existing jobs too. I think right in the Monongahela Valley, 
the Clairton Coke Works. When we talk about the proud heritage that 
Pittsburgh had in the steel industry, as we all know, anyone that has 
lived in western Pennsylvania, we understand what has happened in the 
steel industry when the downsizing took place, when many hard-working 
western Pennsylvanians found themselves without work because of the 
collapse of the steel industry.
  But we still have some plants up and operating. Edgar Thompson Steel 
Mill in Braddock, the steel mill that dad worked at; and the Clairton 
Coke Works, supplying coke all over the country, it is in production 
and it is at peak capacity.
  Right now, if these new standards are implemented, a place like the 
Clairton Coke Works are going to be shut down. We have got five 
communities around Clairton, Glassport, Liberty, Lincoln borough, towns 
like that, where the major importer of those five communities is 
Clairton Coke Works.
  And that is a situation where U.S. Steel is going to have to make a 
financial decision that they can no longer operate that plant because 
the cost of complying with these new regulations would exceed the 
profit margin. It just would not become economically feasible to do 
that any longer.
  Mr. KLINK. The gentleman is on a very good point. I do not know how 
much USX has invested in Clairton. I have been by the Coke Works many 
times, dozens, hundreds of times probably. But I know that they have 
spent tens of millions of dollars modernizing and cleaning the air of 
that facility.
  I have got small specialty steel companies and small chemical 
manufacturers in my district that have spent anywhere from $40 million 
since 1990, since the Clean Air Act amendments, to 160, 170 million per 
plant to clean the air. So the gentleman is right, that is what the 
President and EPA are doing right now. They are saying, ``After you 
spent these tens of millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of 
dollars cleaning the air, it is working, forget about it. Now we are 
changing the rules. We are changing the standards.'' And do we have the 
science? No. Have we done the toxicological studies? No. Have we done 
all the other studies? Do we know what we are really doing? No.
  I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle], we in 
Pennsylvania, as I mentioned on the floor before, we went through it 
with EPA where they were forcing us to go to centralized emission 
testing for the cars. And the Federal Government EPA cost the State of 
Pennsylvania a $145 million court settlement that came out of the 
pockets of the taxpayers of Pennsylvania and did not clean up one speck 
of air.
  Mr. DOYLE. The gentleman is right. And when we talk about the 
President and EPA saying, ``Work with us, you have got 10 years to make 
this compliance,'' what type of investments do you think U.S. Steel is 
going to make in the Clairton Coke Works knowing that this clock is 
ticking right now?
  Let us talk about another subject that is very near and dear to both 
of us and to the very survival of the Monongahela Valley, and that is 
the Mon-Fayette Expressway. What is going to happen to projects like 
the Mon-Fayette Expressway when construction projects of that magnitude 
are going to have to be put on hold, too, because of these new 
standards?
  I think it is an insult to the intelligence of the people in western 
Pennsylvania to believe, and as my colleague said it before, that we 
will put these new standards in because we have to follow the letter of 
the law, but now we are supposed to believe all of a sudden EPA is 
going to throw the rule book out and they are just going to arbitrarily 
on the enforcement side of things say, ``Do not get nervous about this. 
You have got 10 years to do this. We are going to be very flexible with 
you. We are going to work with you on this.''
  I have not seen flexibility in the EPA in all the years that I have 
had to deal with them, and I do not believe for one second there is 
going to be flexibility once these new regs are implemented. And the 
losses that we are going to see will be not only to existing 
industries, but the fact that we are not going to see new industries 
make investments in this region and we are not going to see existing 
industries do any upgrading when we know what has happened.

                              {time}  2330

  We have a 400-county blacklist that is going to take place when these 
new standards are implemented. There are literally going to be 400 
counties whose names are going to be ``don't do business here, don't 
put a new factory here, don't make any upgrades or investment in your 
existing plant here, because pretty soon the bar is going to go from 
here up to here and it is going to cost you a fortune to comply with 
that.''
  What are we asking the President and EPA to do? Are we asking them to 
stop all efforts to clean the air? That is not what we are asking at 
all. There are plans in place as we speak. There is a SIP in place, a 
State Implementation Plan as we speak in western Pennsylvania, in the 
State of Pennsylvania, making the air cleaner in western Pennsylvania 
every day that we are here.
  What were the recommendations which we made to the President? We 
said, postpone the standards. EPA should postpone the new standard 
until there is sufficient scientific data collected and analyzed. That 
is the first

[[Page H4642]]

thing we asked. Secondly, we said further research is necessary, and we 
will give you the money to do the research. On the Committee on Science 
we authorized an additional $50 million. In the bill of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink], we are going to authorize an additional 
$75 million a year for 5 years to do research so that we can start to 
collect 2.5 and analyze it. We are doing that in this bill. We said we 
need a monitoring system to fund it and deploy it. The gentleman 
addressed that in his bill. Then we say EPA should make these data sets 
available. There are data sets that were in the Pope study, the Harvard 
six-city study that have yet to be released for independent review and 
analysis.
  Here we are asking the EPA, asking President Clinton, the 
administration, not to stop cleaning the air, not to roll back any 
regulations that are in place. This is not going back to the old days. 
We are simply saying to them, let us continue to clean the air in 
western Pennsylvania and across the United States and while we are 
doing that, let us do some more research. Let us collect the data. Let 
us be certain that the hundreds of millions of dollars that are going 
to be spent on these new regulations are at least addressing a problem 
that is real and that when we get that new science and research, that 
once we have identified the cause of the problem, they do not know what 
it is about the particle.
  The studies on 2.5 and 10 in one study both showed the same health 
effect. A lot of people were suggesting maybe it is not the size of the 
particle that is the culprit. Maybe it is not 2.5 we should be 
regulating. It may be something else within the particulate matter. All 
we are asking for is some more research, more science, more common 
sense as we continue to make the air cleaner in western Pennsylvania 
and across the country. I do not think that is a radical position. I 
think that is the common sense position that we have taken with this 
administration.
  Mr. KLINK. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, the gentleman makes 
a good point. Let me just switch it back over to ozone, which of course 
as we said was not addressed in the lawsuit, is not something that 
needs to be addressed right now. And what the administration and what 
Ms. Browner in fact has said is we are going to go from .12 parts per 
million over a 1-hour period to .08 parts per million over an 8-hour 
period. The people at CASAC said that you go .07, .08, .09. These sound 
like very small differences in numbers, but it is in fact going from 
.09 down to .08 that throw those 400 additional counties out of 
attainment. All of the scientists who came to us, everyone, said there 
is no bright line where the public health greatly improves from one 
level to another. So why are we throwing 400 counties out of attainment 
and not having a bright line that benefits people?
  Mr. DOYLE. If the gentleman will yield on that, I think it is 
important for the public to understand, we use terms like CASAC and 
bright line, CASAC meaning the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, 
but let us talk a little bit about this bright line thing too because I 
think it is important for people to understand. What the scientists 
were telling us is whether you set that standard where it is now or 
whether you lower it, there is no measurable difference in the health 
effect on individuals. They could not see any clear level to say, 
``Look, if you set it below this particular level, then it will be a 
great increase in health. This will greatly decrease the adverse health 
effects.'' They could not find where the line was on ozone to set where 
it would make any difference in the health.
  The gentleman brings up a good point. Why would we want to shut down 
industry? Why would we want to displace jobs, put people out of work to 
set a line that we are not even certain that the line we are setting 
has any measurable health effect or any benefit?
  Mr. KLINK. Following up on what the gentleman said, he mentioned that 
all of us, and this by the way I will mention just because both of us 
are from southwestern Pennsylvania, this is not a Pennsylvania issue, 
this is a New Mexico issue, it is a California issue, it is a Michigan, 
Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New York, all the States across this 
Nation will be impacted. We just both happen to be here at this late 
hour, both of us coming from southwestern Pennsylvania. Our region is 
not the only one that is going to be impacted. Our whole Nation is 
going to be impacted. The health of our whole Nation is going to be 
impacted by this decision. Indeed, the adverse effect to the wealth and 
the growth of industry of our Nation is going to be adversely impacted. 
This is not just a Pennsylvania issue.
  But as the gentleman mentioned earlier, we grew up in southwestern 
Pennsylvania when people used to go out and brush the dust off their 
lawn, when there were certain days, and we kind of laugh about it now, 
but you would hang your laundry out, then you would kind of shake the 
dust off the laundry at the end of the day because of course the 
particulate matter would come floating down over your laundry as it 
hung outside. The air was dirty. People got sick. But as we have 
cleaned the air in southwestern Pennsylvania and other places across 
this Nation, in fact, they had the same experience in London back in 
the 1950s, the incidence of asthma has increased. Why is that? We do 
not know. There are many areas of speculation. But the point in fact is 
we do not know why in some instances when the air gets cleaner, asthma 
increases. Are there other factors?
  Many people believe that outside air quality has very little to do 
with asthma, that it is an inside air problem. Some people recently 
have suggested this could have to do, and particularly in areas where 
there is poverty, where people are living in squalor, that there could 
be a protein or enzyme thrown off the waste products of cockroaches and 
other insects that are in homes. Is that part of the problem? We do not 
know. But if my colleagues would support me with H.R. 1984, we would 
have 5 years to do the study, we would have 5 years to continue on the 
track that we are on now to continually clean up the air, to improve 
the health of this Nation, to know where industry is going, while we 
spent $375 million doing this thing right, building the monitors, 
collecting the data, making sure that we are headed in the right 
direction for the health benefits of everyone.

  I gave up a very good job to come to Congress. I am here because it 
is a wonderful honor to serve this Nation. I want to make the life of 
the people in my region and of this Nation better. That is why I am 
here. I also came here as I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Doyle] did because we want to improve the economy of southwestern 
Pennsylvania, an area where 155,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost 
over a two-decade period, because we are selfish in a way. We want our 
children, his 4 children and my 2, to be able to grow up in 
southwestern Pennsylvania. I will be darned if I want them breathing 
air that I think is going to kill them or eventually kill or injure my 
grandchildren. This is not some excuse for industry. This is about what 
we feel is good science, what we feel is a prudent way of going about 
making decisions that impact the health and the wealth and productivity 
of this Nation.
  Mr. DOYLE. That is really what it is all about. It is about the 
future and it is about our kids. The politically expedient thing to do 
would be to just go along with this. Both the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] and myself have been taken to task by the 
local Pittsburgh newspaper, by environmental groups that somehow we do 
not want the air to be as clean as they do. We know this is nonsense. 
This is not only about clean air for our kids, it is about a future for 
our kids in western Pennsylvania. That is what I think it is all about. 
The gentleman brought up a good point. I was reading an article just a 
couple of days ago that was suggesting that maybe one of the key 
contributing problems to these respiratory illnesses and asthma may not 
be so much the outside air but these hermetically-sealed office 
buildings that so many people are living in and as we have these new 
energy-efficient windows and people have got the air conditioning on 
and they have got all the windows shut and the air is not getting 
circulated through the house, that it may well be what we are breathing 
indoors can be much more damaging to us than what we are breathing 
outdoors, and people spend about 75 percent of their time indoors 
instead of outdoors. Particularly the

[[Page H4643]]

reason a bill like H.R. 1984 makes so much sense. What we are saying is 
we need to find out about these things, we need to learn what is it 
that is causing these problems.
  Mr. KLINK. Is there anything that the gentleman has read in the 
standards proposed by Administrator Browner and now endorsed by the 
President which would address this sick building syndrome that the 
gentleman has described?
  Mr. DOYLE. I see nothing in the standards that would address it. This 
is a prime example of why more research is necessary. What we see in 
today's standards is not going to do anything. Administrator Browner 
when we had her before the committee, too, never wanted to discuss 
economic impacts, because she said, ``I've got to make this decision 
based solely on a health decision and not on economic benefits.''
  I am sorry, but I have to look at the economic impacts to this 
legislation because we have got real people out there living in western 
Pennsylvania and all across this country that are going to suffer 
severe impacts as a result of these standards. I want to just read a 
study that has come out. There is some ongoing research by 
environmental economists such as Dr. Vernon Henderson, Brown 
University; Fred Reuter from Consat Research Corporation and the EPA's 
own draft regulatory impact analysis for PM. And the following economic 
impacts could well result from the proposed NAAQs which have just been 
okayed today by President Clinton. What are some of these consequences? 
Increased business operating costs, job losses, reductions in worker 
compensation, decreases in industrial output, and increased 
expenditures on road cleaning and air quality monitoring by local 
governments. They go on to say the areas experiencing these effects 
will be those that do not and in many cases literally cannot comply 
with the proposed PM-2.5 standard. Several hundred counties and as many 
as nearly 90 metropolitan areas will be in nonattainment when the full 
implementation period begins. As local, regional and controls yet to be 
developed are applied, these numbers will ultimately be substantially 
reduced, though 30 to 40 areas are likely to remain in nonattainment 
for many, many years and consequently much economic pain and damage 
will result lasting many, many years.
  They say initially 20 to 25 percent of the entire U.S. population and 
labor force will reside in these nonattainment areas. Approximately 4 
percent of the jobs in these areas will be lost if the proposed NAAQ's 
for PM-2.5 are adopted. These job losses will occur in nearly every 
sector of the economy and will be most substantial in the service 
industries. Workers who continue to be employed in these sectors in 
nonattainment areas will likely experience stress and uncertainty 
regarding their futures and their compensation. Small businesses will 
be disproportionately impacted and the capital cost in current dollars 
will exceed $100 billion. Those are real numbers affecting real people, 
not only in western Pennsylvania but across this whole United States.
  Mr. KLINK. The gentleman is right and I am glad the direction that he 
is going with that. Because as he mentioned, Administrator Browner kept 
saying she has to base this not on economics but strictly on what is 
best for the health of the people. There are a lot of different things 
that create good or bad health conditions. When industry was crashing 
down around our ears in the Northeast and in the Midwestern United 
States people suffered a loss of jobs, a loss of health care benefits, 
there was increased domestic violence, higher crime rates in our 
community, higher suicide rates as people's lives fell apart, the 
social fabric of our community fell apart. If you do not have money in 
your pocket because you did not have a job and you did not have health 
care benefits, then your wife if she were pregnant could not go see a 
doctor for prenatal examination, your young children could not go see a 
doctor. Many times other people who were dependent on you, you yourself 
did not get to see a doctor. What was the adverse health impact? That 
will be seen again if we have the kind of loss of job production that 
we think we are going to see from this and all evidence we are going to 
have from this. But beyond that, the administrator says the air will 
still get cleaner. The Clean Air Act is working. People's health will 
continue to improve. So you cannot have it both ways.

                              {time}  2345

  And that is exactly what they are attempting to do with this issue, 
and it is why, and I understand that our colleagues, many of them, have 
come up and thanked us for our leadership on this; many of them are 
signing on to H.R. 1984, particularly today. I got even calls today 
from Republicans and Democrats in the other body who are now interested 
in our efforts and want to coordinate their efforts with us.
  We have been busy on both sides of the aisle dealing with 
reconciliation, trying to make this balanced budget program work for 
our constituents, and so many Members of the House and the other body 
have been focusing in on other issues. We have flagged this issue 
because it is so important, so vitally important to our region.
  But I think that what the President did for us today, as he took what 
I think was not a very good step in a very poor direction by 
recommending these new ambient air quality standards, I think he has 
woken up. He has awakened the giant within this institution, and now I 
think that our Members on both sides of the aisle are going to focus on 
this, and we are going to move forward.
  We have a couple of different legislative directions that we can go. 
We are thinking about them, but we are going to sit down with friends 
on both sides of the aisle, and we are going to try to figure out to 
protect both the health and wealth of this Nation.
  Mr. DOYLE. I think it is so important that we get people on H.R. 
1984, and I think it is important, too. What I fear is that because it 
is going to be a number of years before we start to see some of these 
effects because there is going to be a period of installing monitors 
and collecting data and things like this that, we are not going to see 
this immediate impact. I mean I think we are going to see businesses 
saying, well, if they were thinking to come to western Pennsylvania, 
that is going to be out, and we are not going to see investments in 
existing plans.
  But I fear the public is going to be lulled into some complacency 
because they do not realize what we are talking about 10 years down the 
road. It is not going to immediately hit them, and when it does they 
are going to say what happened to us and where was everybody when this 
was taking place?
  This is not a partisan issue. Here we both stand, Democrats, talking 
about our own administration, our own President, our own EPA 
administrator, and at some political risk saying we have got to come 
together, Democrats and Republicans from all regions of the country, 
and we are seeing cosponsors now on this bill from all regions of the 
country and from both parties.
  This is not a partisan issue.
  Mr. KLINK. On that point I want to repeat again, and I do not think I 
can say it enough, there is no pride with which we come here and talk 
about the fact that our President, the party, the President of our 
party, has made what we think is the wrong decision because he was 
given bad advice and he heeded that bad advice. We do not like to do 
that.
  There is a political risk that is involved with that. This is not 
something-- we tried as Members; I called the White House, I talked to 
the legislative liaison people at the White House time and time again, 
firing shots across their bow, letting them know that from a western 
Pennsylvania perspective, from a Midwest perspective, from a 
northeastern United States perspective that we have no choice but to go 
to war on this issue and begging this administration to sit down with 
us and talk to us, have a dialogue with us; do not force us to come to 
this point.
  This is a battle which was thrust upon us, a battle which we must 
fight for our constituents, for the working blue collar men and women, 
for the small businesses, for the local elect officials, for the 
Governors, for the people who would have to implement these new 
standards at great risk and no certainty that we are headed down the 
right road. In fact the evidence is against it.
  We cannot tell you how much it is that we are distressed by having to 
come to the floor over the last couple

[[Page H4644]]

of weeks and being here again tonight to in fact have a family struggle 
within our own party in a very public way. This is not the fight that 
we desire. We hoped that we could sit down as statesmen, as men and 
women talking with the White House, talking with our friends on the 
other side of the aisle and coming to some kind of a conclusion as to 
what was best for this country.
  All of our requests, including written letters to the President, have 
gone unanswered, and so it is that we have been forced to come to the 
floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, to seek the redress here in this 
institution where the people of our districts have elected us to come 
here to protect their interests, and it is to protect that interest 
that we rise tonight to make a plea to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other 
Members of this great Chamber to join us to make sure that this country 
is acting based on good science, that we are acting based on what is 
indeed the best interests of the working people and the businesses of 
this Nation.
  I yield to the gentleman to close.
  Mr. DOYLE. I would just close by saying that in 1994, when I came to 
this Congress, I promised the people of western Pennsylvania, who I am 
so privileged to represent, that I would put their interests ahead of 
the interests of my party and my President, and I also say to my wife 
Susan and my 4 kids, if they are watching this tonight, Michael, David, 
Kevin, Alexandra, that I am here for you, too, and for other families 
in western Pennsylvania.
  This is important. This is about our future. This is why we stand 
here tonight opposing our President and our party on a decision that is 
going to be so wrong for the future of our country.
  I would urge Members in both parties, Republicans and Democrats, to 
join the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] and I myself in 
sponsoring H.R. 1984. Together let us turn these rules back, let us 
give our children a future in this country.
  Mr. KLINK. Let me also just say in reclaiming my time that I think we 
need to give credit to two of our friends who are original cosponsors 
of H.R. 1994, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Fred Upton, Republican, 
and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher. They could not be here 
with us tonight, but this is a bipartisan effort. I am pleased to be 
one of the leads on this, glad to have my colleague from southwestern 
Pennsylvania and so many on board.
  I think that we are very close to getting half of the Democrats in 
this House on our side on this issue. I think we have a tremendous 
number of Republicans.
  It has to be veto proof. The President has sent us a clear message, 
whatever we do, whatever the legislative answer is, we have got to make 
it veto proof.
  I think we have got some good numbers up, about 63 Members in the 
Senate that are hard numbers, so I think that we are headed in the 
right direction.
  Again, we did not want to have to battle it this way; it has been 
thrust upon us.

                          ____________________