With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

The ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Mr. Klink.

Mr. KLINK. I thank you, Chairman Bilirakis, and let me just speak off the top of my head for a few moments because of some of the comments that have been made here in the opening state

ment.

I think I want to let the witnesses, in all fairness, know where I am coming from on this side of the aisle.

My district is around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

In the last two decades, we have lost 155,000 manufacturing jobs, not due in small part to the fact that companies do not want to have to make the kind of investment in cleaning the air that they have to make in southwestern Pennsylvania because of us being in the ozone transport region, and if they locate in other parts of the country, they do not have to make that same investment. That has played a large role.

You go back to the history of Pittsburgh. It was once described a generation or two ago as hell with the lid off. You could see the air.

It was like midnight at midday because of the kinds of pollution that were being emitted from the steel industry and the zinc industry and all of the other industries in our region before we had air pollution controls, and the health problems also were very prevalent at that time.

The air has been cleaned up significantly, and from the 1980's to now, even since the steel mills began to close down, our industries are operating cleaner, but we still continue to have problems.

I come here today knowing the difficulties that we have seen caused in people's health by having that kind of pollution but also understanding the physical and emotional difficulties, the social difficulties of displacement when you lose that many industries.

I have to be-it must be proven to me, I will say, that these new standards have some cost benefit to them. There has to be good science.

I want to say that I am very pleased that we are having this hearing, and I was pleased that we began this process in the last Congress, but I am very disappointed that the Commerce Committee has waited until mid-April to hold its first hearing on this extremely important issue.

We have known about the EPA's efforts to modify both the ozone and the particulate matter standards since November of last year, and unfortunately, this very powerful committee has sat idly by while the Senate and the House Science Committee each have held hearings on this identical issue.

We are finally getting off of our hands in this Congress and moving forward, and I am happy that that is beginning to occur, and I hope that this is the beginning of a series of hearings.

I hope that we have some field hearings and we can get back into the parts of this Nation that are going to be adversely affected, I think adversely affected by these standards. Let us hear from industry. Let us hear from the scientists. Let us hear from the people n those areas.

I certainly would welcome you to come to-welcome this committee to come to southwestern Pennsylvania.

With only 3 months left before these new regs are going to be published, we are sitting down here to have this hearing.

I, likewise, am sorry that Dr. Shy could not be here, and I understand from the majority the reason why that was. I hope that Dr. Shy or other epidemiologists of a similar reputation will be able to speak to us. I want to hear everybody.

I want to have an open discussion on this matter. I am a supporter of clean air.

I am proud of the strides that we have made in southwestern Pennsylvania and across this country in cleaning the air, but I am worried about the effects that these new proposed standards are going to have on our jobs and on our economy.

I will tell you, this proposal alone has already had a very chilling effect in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Let me tell you the story of one town, and I know that Chairman Bilirakis, if he was here, is familiar with-he comes from Clareton, Pennsylvania, the huge Clareton Coke Works.

We had a 72 mile long steel mill in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. In the 1980's, it was torn down. Only two small portions of that steel mill sit there today. One is a tin mill and one is a structural steel mill, employs about 150 people. It is called J&L Structural.

Now, 15,000 people worked in this long 7-mile steel mill. It shut down. It is like a small town going out of business. So, there is no more pollution coming out of that large steel mill.

Two little small mills. One employs about 150 people.

They want to begin making steel ingots at this mill, and we have battled with other States to try to keep this expansion-it is about a $45 million expansion, probably going to mean about 50, 60, 75 jobs, but already they are having second thoughts about building this, because they would have to go out, they fear, and buy pollution credits to be able to employ 50 or 60 more people where 15,000 worked just over a decade ago.

You are going to have to prove to me that these new standards are meaningful, and thus far, in all the hearings that we held in the last Congress and everything that I have read during this Congress, I am very skeptical.

So, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I hope that this is the beginning of several hearings that we can have between these two subcommittees, and I hope that we can get to the bottom of this and that we can come to an agreement as to what is good science, what makes sense, how can we have reasonably clean air but not prohibit commerce and jobs and our economy from growing and providing a basis for people to make a decent living in this Nation.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ron Klink follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RON KLINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am disappointed that the Commerce Committee has waited until mid-April to hold its first hearing on this extremely important issue. We have known about the EPA's efforts to modify both the ozone and particulate matter standards since November of last year. Unfortunately, we have sat idly by

while the Senate and the House Science Committee have each held hearings on this identical issue. Now, with only three months left to investigate this issue, our Committee has finally decided to give this issue the attention it deserves.

I am a supporter of clean air and very proud of the great strides Southwestern PA has made in cleaning its air. However, I remain worried about the effect these newly proposed standards will have on jobs and our economy. The proposal alone has had a cooling effect on at least one scheduled expansion project in that it has placed the construction of a new steel mill on shaky ground.

J&L Structural Steel, has announced plans to build a $45 million steelmaking plant next to its mill in Aliquippa, PA on an old site which has not been fully utilized since the early 1980s when 15,000 jobs were lost. J&L chose Aliquippa in spite of strong economic incentives to locate the plant in Ohio. Staying in PA would save J&L $1.5 million annually in production and shipping costs because of the proximity to their Aliquippa mill. But if the EPA tightens the ozone and particulate matter standards, Southwestern PA would face greater difficulty in reaching attainment and J&L would be forced to find pollution credits to offset the emissions of the new plant. Therefore, they would have to consider sites upwind in Ohio and West Virginia where this would not be necessary.

I would like to reiterate my support for keeping our air clean and protecting the health of American citizens and the environment, but there must be a way to promote these goals without paralyzing economic growth. I thank the witnesses for being here, and I hope that their testimony today will help us to accomplish having both clean air and a healthy economy.

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Klink.

We would recognize Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky for a brief opening statement.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I, too, also commend the chairmen of both subcommittees for having these hearings.

I can say that, in the first district of Kentucky, which I represent western Kentucky-there is not any issue that I have received more mail on this year than these proposed clean air standards, and I think the other members of the committee have already expressed some deep concerns that they have about these proposed standards.

We know that CASAC did not endorse EPA's recommended ranges.

We know that many members of the scientific community on the review board did not agree with the that there was any exactly what was the link between the particulate matter and mortality.

We know that the scientific community recognizes that there are many gaps in our knowledge on this issue, including the lack of adequate fine particulate monitoring data in many parts of the country, and it is frustrating that we seem to be moving so quick on this, and we also know that Mr. Schwartz, one of the researchers in the Harvard study, attended the Natural Resources Defense Council's press releases and seems in many ways to be particularly biased on this issue, which is understandable, but we look forward to these hearings and these experts, who all have served as former chairmen, because as other members have said, we are very much concerned about the cost-benefit relationship in these proposed standards, and we must protect our economy, our economic development.

All of us are committee to clean air, and I think that the Congress and the leadership in our political public policy decisions should all be commended for the improvements that we have made in clean air, and we want to continue to do that, but we want a balanced approach, a common sense approach that is based on real

evidence and not simply the thoughts and processes of various people.

So, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON. I thank the distinguished gentleman and would recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for a brief opening statement.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to start out by saying that I strongly support the Clean Air Act, and there is no doubt in my mind that the investments our society has made in pollution control prevention and reduction have been paid back many times over in terms of reduced health care costs and increased productivity, and I want to state clearly that I will oppose any effort to weaken the Act or its health-based standards of protection.

However, I know that many of my colleagues are concerned about complying with these new standards.

I do believe that we need to have confidence in the science behind these standards, so I think these hearings can be a worthwhile endeavor, but I do not think we should use these hearings to look for new ways to attach the Clean Air Act, and I hope we will refrain from doing that.

Frankly, I have to say that I, too, have concerns about my State's ability to comply with these new standards.

A few weeks ago, a group called the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, comprised of eight northeastern States, including New Jersey, issued a report on ozone pollution.

Among other things, the report found that not only does ozone and nitrogen oxide, or NOx pollution, get transported to the northeast but that NOx from the power plants and industrial sources from other parts of the country are key contributors to elevated levels of ozone pollution in the northeast.

That report has real significance, I believe, for this debate. If ozone pollution continues to travel into New Jersey and the northeast from other States, how can we hope to come into compliance, and more importantly, how can we protect our citizens' health?

So, Mr. Chairman, I believe my constituents are willing to pay their fair share for the benefits of clean air, but we must take steps to reduce pollution in a way that fully recognizes the fact that these pollutants are transported from one region to another.

We cannot continue to allow major sources of ozone pollution or particulate matter in one area to escape the cost of cleanup simply because that pollution is being blown into other States or other regions, but I do think this is a very important issue, and I share my colleague from Pennsylvania's concern that that we are in April now and we are first addressing it, but at least we are addressing it today.

Thank you.

Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair would recognize Mr. Burr, if he is here. Is Mr. Burr here? Mr. Burr was here but left. I do not see Mr. Deal. Looks like Mr. Crapo is next on the Republican side.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for agreeing to hold this joint committee meeting to review the

EPA's proposed ozone and particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard revisions.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on these proposals and the effect that they may have on the State of Idaho.

I was interested to listen to the comments of Mr. Klink about Pennsylvania. Idaho is maybe a contrast to that but faces a similar problem.

As many of you are aware, I live in one of the least urban areas in America. Idaho is the 13th largest State in the Nation with only the 9th smallest population. Statistically, there are only 11 people in every square mile in the State of Idaho.

The largest city in my State, Boise, has approximately 200,000 inhabitants, and the next largest urban area is barely a quarter that size.

Currently, there is only one county in the State of Idaho that is out of compliance with either the ozone or PM standards, and if these EPA proposals are implemented, projected violations could encompass 13 counties or more.

I have received several letters from county commissioners, mayors, and city administrators, all worried about the implications of these rigid standards.

The city of Caldwell sent me a copy of their January 21 letter to Carol Browner in which their city engineer, Gordon Law, states, "I have seen little hard evidence submitted either in the news or in anyplace else that has indicated for either item, ozone or particular matter, a compelling public interest in making this change.' Mr. Law goes on to state that even the most basic questions, such as who is benefited by these proposals, what is the value of the benefit, how is it going to be implemented, and what are the costs of the implementation, remain unanswered.

Idaho counties can ill afford to make the costly changes that are going to be necessary to reach attainment if the new unfounded standards are mandated.

A January 17 letter that I received from the mayor of Salmon, Idaho by the way, Salmon, Idaho, lives in the is a little community of 3,100 people nestled in the mountains in the Salmon National Forest, surrounded by thousands and thousands of acres of uninhabited public lands.

He expressed concern. The mayor of this city says, "Our city will go bankrupt trying to bring itself into compliance with these standards." Yet, on a normal day in Salmon, Idaho, the average person can see for 40 miles.

Such stringent regulations as the EPA is proposing cannot possibly be necessary in these kinds of circumstances.

I thank the chairman again and ask that we continue to examine this issue and force the EPA to reevaluate these proposals in a manner based on sound science and realistic health benefits.

The EPA needs to be held accountable before we can turn small cities in unpopulated counties in States like mine into ghost towns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Crapo. Is there anybody with the eyesight good enough to see 40 miles in that county?

Mr. CRAPO. You bet.

Mr. BARTON. I could not see 2 miles.