[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14300-S14301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              EPA'S PROPOSED PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of myself and 
Senators Carper, Boxer, Clinton, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Obama.
  Last night, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed new 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter. The 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards are the cornerstone of the Clean 
Air Act. These standards must be set at a level ``requisite to public 
health'' with ``an adequate margin of safety.'' They are to be based on 
the ``latest scientific knowledge,'' and EPA is prohibited from 
considering costs in setting them. Their fundamental purpose is to 
ensure that our air is safe to breathe.
  We have known for years that fine particle pollution causes premature 
death, increased asthma attacks, and numerous other health effects. In 
1997, EPA revised the particulate matter standard on the basis of that 
evidence. The Clean Air Act directs that EPA, together with an 
independent scientific review panel, examine the available scientific 
evidence and determine whether the existing standard needs to be 
changed. The proposal by EPA last night, coming almost 5 years late, 
represents the end result of that effort. Unfortunately, EPA selected 
the weakest option available to it.
  In determining whether to revise the standard, EPA reviewed the more 
than

[[Page S14301]]

2000 scientific studies that have been published since 1996. These 
studies confirm the earlier research results that demonstrate the 
strong relationship between particle pollution and illness, 
hospitalization, and premature death. Some of the more recent studies 
show the strong relationship between particle pollution and 
cardiovascular illnesses that trigger heart attacks and strokes. These 
studies also indicate a stronger relationship between short term PM 
exposure and health effects than was evident in 1997.
  Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to consider the advice of an 
independent scientific review panel, the Clean Air Science Advisory 
Committee, CASAC, which must include at least one member of the 
National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person 
representing State air pollution control agencies. That body 
exhaustively reviewed the current body of scientific evidence and 
concluded that EPA must revise both its short term--24 hour or daily--
PM standard, and its annual PM standard. Unfortunately, EPA chose to 
disregard that advice and proposed to only revise the daily standard. 
And in making its proposal on the 24-hour standard, it choose the 
highest level recommended by CASAC--35 micrograms per cubic meter.
  It is apparent that the level proposed by EPA was not based entirely 
on the latest scientific knowledge. The level of the standard proposed 
by EPA will leave millions of Americans unprotected. It will also 
require few, if any, additional controls to be put in place. EPA chose 
the least protective approach that it could and disregarded the advice 
of the CASAC by failing to revise the annual standard. Had EPA followed 
the recommendations of CASAC, it could have proposed options that would 
have prevented more than twice as many deaths. That is not even 
considering the Clean Air Act requirement for an ``adequate margin of 
safety'' that considers ``sensitive subpopulations.''
  Playing politics with public health is unconscionable. When these 
standards were last revised in 1997, they were subject to multiyear 
litigation battle. Ultimately the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the 
1997 standards and the scientific process that was used to develop 
them. The science we have available to us today is even clearer than it 
was then. Fine particle pollution kills people at levels below the 
existing standards. We need to change these standards and heed the 
advice of our best and brightest scientific minds. We need to let them 
tell us when the air is safe to breathe. When EPA makes its final 
decision in September regarding a new national ambient air quality 
standard, it must do so based on scientific, rather than political 
considerations. The very lives of our citizens depend on it.

                          ____________________