[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H9868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          DO THE SCIENCE FIRST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of nearly 200 
Members of the House of Representatives, nearly 200 Members who have 
decided that they want to take some action in a bipartisan fashion to 
ensure the health of the people of this Nation and, while ensuring the 
health of the people of this great Nation, also ensuring the prosperity 
of this Nation's economy and of the industries that lead to that great 
economy and participate in that great economy.
  What I am talking about is an action which was announced about a year 
ago about the EPA. Director Carol Browner said that she did not think 
that the air quality standards were strict enough, that there was some 
evidence resulting from a reexamination that was ordered by a court 
because the EPA lost in court to the American Lung Association. And so 
they had to take a look at something called particulate matter, which 
is measured right now at one standard and they now want to begin 
measuring it at a finer standard. They want to go from P.M.-10 microns 
to P.M.-2.5.
  My friends who run the Committee on Commerce and the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, under the leadership of the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Barton], have done I think a tremendous job and are to 
be lauded in taking a look at this issue and conducting oversight to 
see what are the ramifications of changing these regulations.
  First of all, we found out that there are only 50 monitors in this 
Nation that can measure P.M.-2.5. Then we find out, when Carol Browner 
speaks in front of the Committee on Agriculture on September 16 of this 
year, that these new rules that she wants to promulgate will not take 
effect, according to her, they are not going to enforce them, until 
2009.
  Now, the question comes up, why in the world do we want to promulgate 
new regulations that we are not going to enforce for over a decade? Why 
would we do that? Because we need to understand what industry has to do 
in planning to make capital investment. They have to plan today for 
what the rules will be in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 because they are 
making long-term investments, and we have not yet done the science. So 
nearly 200 Members of this House, 142 from the Republican side and 55 
from the Democratic side, have joined together and said to the EPA, 
wait a minute. Let us do the science first.

  We are willing, as Republicans and Democrats, to work together to 
give $300 million to build the monitors that can be installed across 
this great Nation to determine how much of a problem P.M.-2.5 is, and 
is there a difference in the health impact of different kinds of 
particulate matter, or is there a difference when that fine particulate 
matter is mixed with other kinds of pollutants? We do not know the 
answer to either of those questions, Mr. Speaker.
  So the Republicans and Democrats, working together, said we will 
spend the money, we will authorize the spending of that money so that 
this Nation's scientists and this Nation's industries and this Nation's 
health professionals will know what is the impact of P.M.-2.5.
  We want to make sure that if Carol Browner is correct, we are headed 
in the right direction, and that we do it before 2009. So we asked for 
a 5-year moratorium. We asked that these rules not be promulgated and 
that we continue to work on the current clean air standards during the 
time the study is occurring. Both Ms. Browner, the administration, and 
those of us in Congress agree that the Clean Air Act is working. As we 
clean the air, we have seen a higher incidence of asthma. Why is that, 
Mr. Speaker? We do not know. Perhaps something in this study can help 
us.
  So we have introduced a bill known as H.R. 1984, along with the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], my Republican colleague, and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher], my Democratic colleague; we have 
worked this bill. When many people wanted to attack the EPA for being 
shortsighted, for rushing to judgment, we said, let us do this 
correctly. Let us give this money to the EPA so that that agency can do 
the science.
  Then the EPA comes before the Committee on Commerce and says well, we 
are very concerned. Fifteen thousand people a year are dying 
prematurely because this new standard has not been impacted, and 
100,000 people have lung diseases each year because this is not the 
standard. Well, why wait until 2009? We think that our bill, H.R. 1984, 
with 200 sponsors or nearly 200 cosponsors, Mr. Speaker, should be 
moved immediately and I ask the Republican leadership to move that 
bill, to not embarrass 142 of their Republican colleagues who have 
signed on to the bill and the 55 Democrats who have done likewise.

                          ____________________