Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 91 (Wednesday, June 25, 1997)

[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.

____________________