[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       EPA AIR REGULATIONS: BAD SCIENCE COMBINED WITH BAD TIMING

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 29, 1997

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the new EPA particulate 
matter standards issued this summer, and I call on my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1984, which will delay these standards until data can be 
collected to support a balanced and rationale decision.
  Particulate matter or PM is very fine particles of dust or smoke 
which are created from various sources such as engines, crop burnings, 
dirt, or simple household dust. Farming can generate PM simply when 
tractors cross dry soil or by burning crops after harvest. One business 
in my district must routinely sweep the roads in its plant at the 
demand of regulators in order to minimize PM from being thrown up when 
vehicles pass, despite the fact that the plant is situated in the 
middle or arid, dusty land where the wind blows dirt around everyday. I 
often hear from my constituents that they would not mind the effort and 
cost if government requirements made sense and solve a problem. Often, 
as here, they do not.
  EPA frequently relies upon inadequate research to support its 
decisions as is the case of its new PM standards. In this instance EPA 
bases its decision on a very limited number of studies disregarding the 
ones that disagree with its decision. EPA makes sweeping statements 
that PM causes premature deaths, but none of the studies actually 
monitored the affected people for a link to PM. Factors like smoking 
history, physical fitness, and alternative causes of death were not 
taken into account by any study relied upon by EPA. Many current 
scientific studies say poverty and cockroach allergens, not manmade 
pollutants, have been the major cause of asthma. EPA's data is simply 
inadequate.
  Moreover, EPA poorly estimates the cost of these new standards. The 
EPA originally said $3 billion per year. Now that the regulations are 
promulgated, it claims $37 billion is more accurate--$37 billion every 
year. A George Mason University study says $80 billion is more likely 
for full compliance with PM. The EPA freely admits that no technology 
today exists to accomplish the mandate of the new standards, but it 
blithely believes that setting unrealistic goals is the way to force 
businesses to come up with new antipollution technology. On behalf of 
farmers in my district, however, I want to ask EPA what technology it 
expects farmers to use to stop the wind from blowing dirt around. We 
already limit agricultural burns and plowing/harvesting practices.
  Imposing onerous and flawed EPA standards on an already burdened 
public is wrong. I support clean air and the need for air regulations, 
even when it raises the price of goods and services in our economy. 
Clean air is a good that Americans want and are ready to pay for, but 
they want value for their dollar. I urge this Congress to reject these 
new EPA PM 2.5 regulations until more scientific data is available, 
data that is not rushed along by lawsuits, but is collected and 
analyzed in a careful, professional manner.

                          ____________________