[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8312-S8314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER RESEARCH ACT OF 1997

  Mr. INHOFE. Let me make a couple comments. Since we are down to a few 
minutes, there will not be the time for detail which I will go into 
later.
  Yesterday, Senator Breaux and I introduced S. 1084 entitled the 
``Ozone and Particulate Matter Research Act of 1997.'' This bill offers 
a simple solution to a very serious problem. I think there is a large 
segment of the population out there that will consider this bill to be 
singly the most significant of this legislative session.
  In essence, this legislation provides the authority and resources to 
conduct the necessary scientific research and monitoring for the 
national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate 
matter. It reinstates the preexisting standards for both pollutants and 
requires the agency to wait until the research is complete before they 
revise the standards.
  The bill creates an independent panel which will be convened by the 
National Academy of Sciences to prioritize the needed particulate 
matter research. This would take the politics out of setting research 
priorities. Next, a panel will be created to oversee the Federal 
research program in order to ensure that the priorities set out will be 
followed.
  Mr. President, just to bring us up to date here in this short period 
of time, last November the Administrator of the EPA came out with a 
message on behalf of the administration stating that we should change 
our ambient air standards so far as ozone and particulate matter are 
concerned. In particulate matter, it would mean that we

[[Page S8313]]

would drop it down from 10 microns to 2.5 microns. In ozone, which is 
measured by parts per million, it would drop it down from .12 to .08.
  While that sounds technical and a little confusing to some people, 
the bottom line is that many counties throughout the United States 
would find themselves out of attainment with these new standards. I can 
tell you, when I was mayor of the city of Tulsa and we were out of 
attainment, how difficult it was. There was not any possibility of 
recruiting any new industry. A lot of industries had been shut down or 
had to reduce the number of shifts they had. We had to impose various 
requirements for car pooling and impose things that really changed the 
lifestyle of our citizens.
  The problem is that when the Administrator came out with the proposed 
new standards in November, we did some research only to find out that 
there is no scientific justification for lowering the standards. In 
fact, as the chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, I held my first hearing, a scientific 
hearing, where we had members of CASAC--that is the Clean Air 
Scientific Advisory Committee--to come in and advise us as to what the 
science is behind these recommended changes, only to find that there is 
no scientific consensus behind these recommended changes. In fact, 
these experts said there is no bright line, as they call it, for ozone 
levels beyond which it can be said to be detrimental to human health. 
As far as particulate matter is concerned, they say there is no science 
that concludes that there is any causal relationship between any level 
or type of 2.5-micron particulate matter and respiratory diseases. When 
asked how long it would take to establish such conclusions, they said 
it would be approximately 5 years before we should know.
  Consequently, we feel that legislation is warranted to postpone any 
decision to set an arbitrary new standard for these pollutants. Instead 
we need more study and this bill provides for it. Clearly, as you can 
see from the original sponsor and cosponsor as well as from those 
behind a corresponding bill in the other body, this is a bipartisan 
effort. It is a bipartisan effort that wants clean air, that wants us 
to make sure that we do not impose any hardships on the American people 
which are going to be costly and make us noncompetitive on a global 
basis, inconvenience the American people, and cost us billions of 
dollars unless there is some scientific justification for it.
  I have been critical of EPA. When their proposed rules first came 
out, the Agency claimed the new standards were needed to prevent 40,000 
premature deaths per year due to respiratory problems. Then some months 
later they changed that to 20,000 deaths, and then recently they 
knocked that down again to a much smaller amount. At the same time, a 
research group called the Reason Foundation out in California concluded 
that a more accurate figure would be no more than 1,000 premature 
deaths, if that. So there has been a lot of scare talk around. And a 
lot of misinformation.
  We hear many say that those of us who differ with the EPA don't want 
dirty air. Let me assure you, Mr. President, I have four kids and six 
grandkids. I do not want dirty air either. I care about their health 
and well-being as much, I dare say, as any public servant shuffling 
paper in some Federal agency. What I am concerned about is that we 
approach this issue in a rational and orderly manner. We should do the 
science first, we should know what's causing the problem, we should be 
clear about what is needed to address the problem and then take action 
with a proper consideration of all the consequences--both wanted and 
unwanted. What we don't want to do is put ourselves in a position where 
our philosophy is ``ready, fire and aim'' instead of the more 
reasonable ``ready, aim and fire.'' Unfortunately, the EPA wants to 
shoot first and ask questions later. This is not right.
  In the House of Representatives, on a bipartisan basis, H.R. 1984 was 
introduced, and this bill is very similar to the bill we are 
introducing.
  So I would like to suggest to you, Mr. President, that there is going 
to be a lot of activity during the August recess, a lot of education 
going on to make sure that people understand what is about to happen 
and to make sure we don't go ahead and adopt standards that are 
artificially reduced with inadequate science to justify those reduced 
standards.
  Mr. President, 12 o'clock being near, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have plenty of time. I wonder if the Senator from 
Oklahoma desires additional time.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would like to have 5 additional minutes if I may.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  To give you an idea of how this issue has been distorted, it was 
stated by the administration that, in the event that we do adopt the 
lower standards for ozone and particulate matter, they said it would 
only cost $9 billion. Yet, last week, when we had Mary Nichols, the 
EPA's Assistant Secretary for Air, she stated that the cost would be 
$9.1 billion, a very uneven number, making us believe there is some 
scientific reason for that, when, in fact, the Reason Foundation, out 
in California, concluded, in its study, that the cost is not going to 
be $9.1 billion if we adopt these standards. Instead, they say it is 
going to be somewhere between $90 and $150 billion. In fact, the 
President's own Council of Economic Advisers put the cost at $60 
billion for the ozone standard alone.
  If we split the difference between the $90 and the $150 billion, that 
means that for a family of four on average income, it would cost them 
approximately $1,600 a year--$1,600 a year--to do something for which 
there is not adequate science to justify it. Second, the 
administration, in their scare tactics, back in November, said in the 
event we do not do this, it is going to result in 40,000 premature 
deaths a year. In December, they dropped that down to 20,000 premature 
deaths a year. In April, it came down to 15,000 premature deaths a 
year. Again, many groups now say it is less than 1,000.
  It was kind of interesting, because when we had the people who are 
trying to claim the number of premature deaths that would be there if 
we did not lower these ozone and particulate matter standards, I 
described the death of my beloved mother-in-law, which took place on 
New Year's Day. She was 94 years old. It was one of those deaths that 
was a real blessing; the time was here. Yet, the circumstances under 
which she died would have qualified her, according to these so-called 
experts, to be counted as a premature death.
  I think we have also been told things that are not true by the 
administration, when they say how many people are going to be affected. 
I have a chart here that we found by some accident, of the Southeastern 
part of the United States. This came out of the EPA. This is not my 
chart. What they are trying to say is only the counties, if we lower 
these standards, in the dark green would be affected in terms of having 
to come into compliance. Now we see these concentric circles around 
here covering more than half of this whole region, admitting at one 
point there would have to be some controls. They call this level 1 
control region; level 2 control region--this would be level 2. In other 
words, the areas actually subject to some form of regulation under 
these new standards are much larger than people are sometimes being led 
to believe. So we are getting information that is certainly not 
consistent with the facts.
  Another criticism I have with the administration is how they have 
tried to sell this idea by singling out certain people. Certainly the 
Presiding Officer, being from Kansas, and the former chairman of the 
House Agriculture Committee, understands that this would have a 
tremendous effect on the agricultural community throughout the United 
States. You would have Government saying when you can disk, when you 
can till, when you can burn off a field, when you can use fertilizers, 
when you can harvest a crop. I can tell you right now, if you ask the 
average farmer in America what his biggest problem is, it's not the 
taxes; it's the overregulation that takes away his

[[Page S8314]]

freedoms. I have often said, every time you increase regulation, you 
take away a degree of individual freedoms. That is exactly what they 
have done.
  So we have an administration which now says to the farmers, don't 
worry, we are going to exempt you; you are not going be affected by 
this. Then they went to the U.S. Conference of Mayors--and I have to 
say that I used to be the token conservative on the board of directors 
of the U.S. Conference of Mayors when I was mayor of Tulsa, OK. It's 
not really a conservative operation. Yet, they voted, in San Francisco, 
overwhelmingly, to reject these standards, and these are the mostly 
Democrats talking, not Republicans.
  Why are they concerned about it? They are concerned about it because 
they know if we bring these standards down, those mayors are going to 
be running cities that will be out of attainment. This will be another, 
probably the most severe, of what they call the unfunded mandates that 
has been out there.
  The administration also tried to single out small business, to say 
this is not going to affect small business. They even said that to one 
of the Congressmen from Louisiana: Well, you have seven parishes, but 
don't worry, we won't make you do anything, we'll get the people to the 
west so when the air flows over it is going to clean up your air. So it 
has been a very dishonest campaign by the administration. I really 
believe during the August recess we are going to be able to show the 
American people what this is really all about.
  Last year we passed two significant laws. One is called SBREFA, the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act--SBREFA. The thrust of this 
bill is you can't pass a new rule, a new regulation, unless you explain 
its effect on small business. So, during one of our committee meetings, 
we asked the Director of the EPA, ``Why is it that you have not 
explained what the effect of this will be on small business?'' The 
response was, ``There is no effect on small business.''
  I can assure you, Mr. President, all these farms that are small 
businesses--I can assure you, any small business that has an electric 
bill, when they say this is going to increase the electric bills by 
somewhere between 8 and 10 percent, that's an impact on small business. 
The response of the EPA is, ``Wait a minute, all we are saying to the 
States is you have to come into attainment. You have to figure out how 
to do it. And whatever you do to your citizens to make that happen is 
your responsibility. So we--the EPA--are not the ones saying we are 
imposing a hardship.''
  We passed another bill, the unfunded mandates bill, that says we 
cannot pass regulations here that result in an unfunded mandate to 
political subdivisions below the Federal Government. Consequently, I 
can assure you, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association 
of Governors, and the National Association of State Legislators, the 
National League of Cities and all these groups that are so concerned 
about this, they know exactly what an unfunded mandate is.
  I anticipate, when the time comes that these standards are put into 
effect, or set, that there are going to be some lawsuits. I think the 
American Truckers Association already stated they are going to be suing 
the EPA. So my concern is, with all these lawsuits that will take 
place, that we resolve this issue to some satisfaction now, before we 
get locked in endless litigation. the best way to avoid this happening, 
the best way to avoid these arbitrary, onerous, and unjustified 
regulations, would be to go ahead and pass this legislation, which is 
S. 1084.
  I believe S. 1084 and H.R. 1984 will be passed, and I think they will 
be passed with a large enough margin to sustain a veto.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________