[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10813-S10814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
PROTECTING THIS NATION'S AIR
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, late last month, the Subcommittee
on Manufacturing and Competitiveness held a hearing to examine the
impact of EPA's new air quality standards on American manufacturing,
especially small manufacturers.
On July 18 of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency
announced new air quality standards that call for more severe
restrictions on ground-level ozone and microscopic dust particles
called particulate matter. These new standards are the most far-
reaching--and potentially the most costly--regulatory mandates
implemented in U.S. history.
Despite the administration's having promulgated these regulations, I
believe a number of questions remain unanswered. To begin with, are
these standards necessary? It seems clear that the scientific community
is not of one mind on the EPA's new standards. Indeed, from the reading
I have done it seems clear that a substantial amount of scientific
evidence exists to the effect that the new rules will have negligible
positive impact whatsoever on the public health. Not even the EPA's own
Science Advisory Committee could conclude that public health would be
substantially improved by adopting new standards more stringent than
those already in effect. Moreover, Kay Jones, President Jimmy Carter's
top air quality adviser, says there are serious flaws in the studies
cited by the EPA to justify these new regulatory mandates.
Nevertheless, the EPA wants Americans to incur substantial costs in
implementing their new standards. By the EPA's own estimate,
implementing the new standards will cost Americans almost $50 billion.
And that estimate is very low if we are to believe some of the
estimates made by other organizations. The highly regarded Reason
Foundation, as an example, has determined that the costs of the new
clean air rules should be conservatively pegged at $122 billion. If
this figure is correct, then the economic cost of EPA's new regulations
will wipe out the entire economic benefit of the tax relief that we
just enacted for America. In my judgment, this would not bode well for
our Nation's financial health, or for the economic well-being of our
working families.
We must also keep in mind that there are alternative means by which
we can save lives. Taking the EPA's own estimates, the new standards
will save the equivalent of 1,100 lives, at a cost of $2,400,000 per
life year saved. Meanwhile, universal influenza vaccination would save
7,100,000 equivalent lives at a cost of only $140 per life year saved.
And mammography for women over 50, an issue which many Members of this
Senate have been personally involved with, would save 1,500,000
equivalent lives at a cost of $810 per life year saved. This is
according to an article in the journal ``Risk Analysis'' by a group of
researchers led by Dr. Tengs. These discrepancies in lives saved and
programs' bang for the buck if you will, should not be ignored.
Furthermore, if the Reason Foundation cost estimate is correct,
70,000 Michiganites could lose their jobs under these new regulations.
Many of those jobs--well-paying, blue-collar jobs--would be in my
State's crucial manufacturing sector. That is one reason the president
of Flint's United Auto Workers Local 599, Arthur McGee, testified in
opposition to the new standards. UAW Local 599 notes that workers at
the Buick complex in that city already are fighting for their jobs.
In a full page advertisement taken out in the Wall Street Journal,
Local 599 proclaims that by working carefully, quickly, and
efficiently, these workers have earned for themselves and their
families a ``healthy way of life for their families and their
community.'' Good pay, good health care benefits, and safe
neighborhoods, all of which promote healthy children, would be lost if
the new EPA standards forced plant closings in Flint. After evaluating
the new standards and their potential impact, UAW Local 599 has
concluded, ``Poverty is more dangerous to our children than the current
low levels of air pollution.''
However, perhaps most surprising, some of the latest studies actually
show that many more jobs would be lost in the service than in the
manufacturing sector. Dry cleaning establishments, hair salons, and
other small businesses will not be able to absorb the increased costs
imposed by these regulations. According to Decision Focus, leading
environmental policy consultants, compliance with the new ozone and
particulate levels will cost 200,000 jobs nationwide, with the bulk of
the loss occurring in small service and retail businesses. This kind of
job loss would cause a particular problem for this Nation's larger
urban areas.
[[Page S10814]]
I worry when I hear Harry Alford, president of the National Black
Chamber of Commerce, say that ``EPA's new rules will create such an air
of economic uncertainty that they might well be the last straw for
inner-city investments.'' In my view, Mr. Alford's warning should lead
us to proceed very cautiously. It seems to me that the burden of proof
is on the EPA to demonstrate conclusively that the costs to be borne,
in particular by our job creating enterprises, can be borne without
significant damage to those businesses and to our workers. It also
seems to me that this burden, in the case of these regulations, is
considerable.
The effects of the clean air standards, however, will not be limited
to America's cities. There are a number of reports that the new
regulations may bar farmers from plowing during the dry summer months
for fear of stirring up dust, that is, particulate matter. The EPA has
signaled farmers that they need not worry about complying with the
rules, but it is the States, not EPA, that will have the burden of
controlling emissions and targeting their sources. And this begs a
separate question: Who will bear the costs if the EPA, in order to
quell likely opposition, keeps telling various groups that they needn't
worry about complying with the new rules?
Many within the agriculture community fear that much of these likely
costs--increased energy and fuel expenses--will be borne by them. As
one witness, a member of the Kansas Farm Bureau, testified, many U.S.
commodity prices are tied to world markets, so farmers will not be able
to pass these costs on to consumers and could be forced to concede some
crop production to foreign competitors.
Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector fears that small businessowners
will lack the resources to pay the cost of expensive pollution
reduction equipment and will be unwilling or unable to comply with
still more regulations. Most experts acknowledge that heavy industries
will likely face significant additional regulatory controls to reduce
NOx and other particulates. Small business owners, however,
maintain they will shoulder a similarly heavy load because they
typically lack the technical expertise and the financial and human
resources to consistently engage with State officials to shape the
outcome of emissions control plans. During the hearing, two different
small businessowners testified that the new standards could result in a
dramatic reduction in business expansion--or stop it altogether--in
many U.S. cities. These owners admitted that they were unlikely to go
out of business as a result of the NAAQS, but they noted that their
increased costs could be reflected in reduced hiring and the reduction,
or elimination, of some employee benefits.
We are all concerned with making our country a more healthy place for
our children and grandchildren to live. The key is striking a
responsible balance. Not only should our children have clean air, clean
water, and safe food in their future, they must also have good jobs,
high wages, and good benefits, and a robust economy waiting for them
when they grow up, enter the work force, and start their own families.
The new air quality standards have been the subject of intense
scrutiny and often acrimonious debate over the course of this year. In
the face of such uncertainty, I believe it is incumbent upon the
administration to consider again its plans for enacting these
regulations. The current implementation process seeks to give the
Nation ample time to adjust to the new standards. I applaud the
President for this approach: It is a step in the right direction.
However, I believe EPA's implementation plan will last only as long as
the first lawsuit and result in the immediate enforcement of the new
standards.
If, as the President says, these new standards are not intended to
harm this Nation's economy then I urge the President to support the
legislation offered in both the House and the Senate to codify a 5-year
delay of the regulations. This postponement will allow for continued
research into the cause and effects of pollution and allow the 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act to continue to clean the air and make
the effects of any future new standards less drastic. I hope that other
Members will join in urging the administration to consider this
approach.
These are my concerns. I am worried about my children's health and
want to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect it. But I
am also concerned whether the new rules represent the best means by
which we can protect that health.
____________________