The Chair would recognize the distinguished lady from the great State of Oregon, Mrs. Furse, for an opening statement.

MS. FURSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am very glad you are holding this meeting, this hearing. The issue of clean air and how to achieve it is critical to all of our districts.

In my State of Oregon, I am happy to report that the Portland metropolitan area is in the last month of the approval process for being re-designated as an attainment area under the Clean Air Act for ozone.

This success, I believe, is due to the development of a comprehensive plan that will allow Portland to meet both the current and the newly proposed ozone standard even with the incredible growth which we are experiencing in our region.

I hold Oregon up as an example of how it is possible to achieve clean and promote economic growth simultaneously.

I would like to read a paragraph from the comments submitted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to the EPA, and I quote.

"The department believes EPA is on the right track in proposing to strength ozone and particulate standards to provide greater public health protection. The medical evidence EPA has relied upon is substantial and supports the conclusion that these pollutants represent a major health risk to the general public and especially children, the elderly, and people with heart and lung disease." Although Oregon has some concerns with the specific form of the new standards, particular with the particulate standard, the State in general supports stronger air quality measures to protect public health.

Mr. Chairman, I am eager to hear what these scientific experts have to say about the EPA proposed standards and whether they are an appropriate route to take to attain healthier air, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.

Mr. BARTON. We thank the distinguished lady.

The Chair just wants to note for the record that we are not even through the opening statements, and there is only one nambypamby from the health subcommittee still in the room.

The oversight tigers, though, are still here in force on both sides. of the aisle. There is one health tiger.

Mr. GANSKE. If the chairman would yield, there are three members.

Mr. BARTON. The Chair would yield briefly for a comment from Mr. Ganske.

Mr. GANSKE. Since we are dealing with scientific accuracy, I think it should be noted that there are three members of the health subcommittee that are currently here.

Mr. BARTON. Well, the Chair would stand corrected. It may require a new PM standard, though.

Our next opening statement is going to be from Mr. Ganske.
Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, we talk a lot about science. In the 15th century, Sir Francis Bacon argued that we should move from specifics to-i.e., discrete bits of information, sometimes called facts or findings—and then move to generalizations or theories.

In other words, do not prejudge your facts. See where your date lies and interpret.

This was a big advance for science. It changed alchemy into chemistry.

Getting unbiased data is important, and scientific data should be available to everyone. Cross off the names of patients, whatever, for personal privacy, and let the data stand the test of scrutiny.

Then you have the problem of correlation versus causation. Every medical student should learn in their first year that there is a big difference, and we need to look at this as an issue, also, as we look at the data today on these hearings.

Finally, to pick up Mr. Klink's argument, since we are also in the realm of public policy, it is not just causation that is important. It is how much of a benefit can be obtained and at what cost.

You know, I am firmly in favor of society spending an appropriate amount on public health, but many times there is competition for that public health dollar.

If a billion dollars for public health policy X will statistically save a hundred lives but a billion dollars for public policy Y will save a thousand dollars, is it not reasonable to choose public policy Y first?

So, Mr. Chairman, I firmly appreciate the hearing that we are having today. It will be very interesting to hear from the testimony of our panel. Thank you.

Mr. BARTON. Thank you.

The Chair would recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

With your indulgence, I would just take a moment to say thank you for having this hearing. I hope there will be further hearings that follow.

I have prepared an opening statement which I would submit for inclusion in the record and will forego it at this time in the interest of getting that much closer to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS C. SAWYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I understand that this is only one in a series of hearings to explore the scientific background, health effects, and practical implications of the EPA's proposed rules for particulate matter and ozone. I applaud your efforts to provide this Committee with significant information in order to judge better the standards as scientifically sound. As some of you know, I have a strong interest in large data sets and their use in policy making. So, I am particularly interested in how the studies were conducted and how the data were analyzed leading to the recommendations that were made by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to the EPA.

I voted for the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, and I continue to support the law. However, I come from a state where the implementation of these proposed standards for both ozone and particulate matter could have profound implications for industry and individual citizens. So, I hope to understand better two aspects of the issue after these hearings. The first is the scientific basis for the decisions that were made by the EPA in proposing these rules, and the real health effects that would arise from not implementing these rules. The second is the potential impacts during the implementation phase and the various alternatives. It is not the standards themselves that would necessarily cause a problem. It is how they might be

implemented and enforced in terms of technology, timeframe, and who bears the burden of achieving them that is causing much of the turmoil.

As I said before, I look forward to several more hearings of this type so that we can examine this issue from many angles. I commend the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the EPA for their work on these standards. While it will be difficult to make all sides happy, I hope that by bringing to light the steps in the decision making process, we can at least come to a mutual understanding.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will listen with interest to the testimony presented today.

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Sawyer.

The Chair would now recognize Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and Chairman Bilirakis for holding this hearing, and I just appreciate it, because I think that so often those of us in the political realm may take positions before we get all the scientific facts, and this hearing gives us a chance to at least review the proposals by the EPA and take a look at it based on the existing science.

I will be brief today. I know we want to get to the testimony, but Mr. Chairman, I think there is one point I want to strongly make. It has become clear to me that many people are confused by some of the technicalities of the Clean Air Act. This confusion seems to reflect some of the rhetoric which has been emitting from different ends of the opinion spectrum.

One fundamental misunderstanding which is continuing to reoccur as a result of some of this rhetoric is the confusion of rulemaking processes based on the Act, such as the EPA proposal before us today, and the statutory changes to the Act itself, which are not being considered at this time.

I am sure my colleagues would agree that, because of significant and complex issues at stake here, the general public should have no misconceptions out there about exactly what is being discussed when the EPA proposals are being addressed here today.

Congress is not talking about changing the Act. We are talking about the fact that there has been findings made, and the science behind those findings are what we are looking for and learning about.

These are two separate processes, and the fact is that both sides, some special interest groups and pressure groups seem to be wanting to portray this in an inaccurate and unfair manner.

An array of scientific studies have been reviewed as part of this process, and surprisingly enough, there exists an equally wide array of opinions on this scientific data.

Now, whether or not we establish a new standard, at what level, or if any new standard should be established and so forth, are items to be discussed before the witnesses today and something for us to consider. But I think that it is totally illegitimate for people to try to use scare tactics or intimidation processes to say that Congress is out to gut or destroy the Clean Air Act just because we want to see the good science behind the concepts of this rulemaking.

I find it offensive and insulting, as somebody who has worked over 10 years on Clean Air Act strategies in my own home State of California, which as you know has not exactly been way behind the curve, but I find that it is critical that we clarify the process,

because the process and the integrity of scientific data must absolutely be the base of good public health strategy as it applies to environmental law, especially the Clean Air Act.

Now, we need to focus on the fact that the standards that we are using today are clearly working.

They may need to be there may need to be more done, but I think that we need to recognize that, with all the problems we see out there with our environment, the one thing we can claim is that our air is cleaner than anybody else in the world, of the industrial world, based on population and meteorological situations.

We are spending considerable time now talking about the science of what is the next step, and I hope that we keep to the science, we keep the rhetoric down, and I hope that we are able to talk about the public health in the long run and the short run and keep the integrity of the process without going to the demagoguery that we have seen on other issues.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I think we have a great opportunity here to set an example.

The fact is that we all have to live with the problems of polluted air, we will all benefit from the benefits of clean air, but the fact is the problems no longer lie in somebody else's back yard.

Each one of us is the cause of pollution, is the cause of the problem, and just as much as we will share the opportunities and the successes of cleaning up the air, we also bear the responsibility to work together to solve it. I hope that cooperative effort starts here today.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman from California, and the Chair would recognize the third Democrat from the great State of Ohio to make an opening statement on this issue, Mr. Strickland. Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. I will be very, very brief.

I would like to associate myself with the opening remarks of my colleague, Mr. Klink from Pennsylvania, and from Mr. Ganske. They spoke what I was thinking.

I am always struck by the fact that what we do here in Washington has a direct effect upon the lives of the families who live in our districts, and I think what we need more than anything else in this debate is a commitment to common sense, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Mr. BARTON. We thank the gentleman, and the Chair would now recognize on the Republican side the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I have no opening statement. I just wanted you to know that this namby-pamby was going to stay throughout the entire hearing.

Mr. BARTON. You were on oversight last Congress, so you became a tiger then, and you will always be a tiger.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I would suggest that we switch the procedure so we just make closing statements and we have to stay here and listen.

Mr. BARTON. With that comment, I am going to recognize one of the newest tigers from the health subcommittee, Ms. DeGette from Colorado.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, but I do want to talk about a couple of things, because the Clean Air Act standards are so critically important to my district. I would like to thank both Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Barton for holding this hearing.

I agree, I think it is critically important that we base our Clean Air Act standards on accurate science, but we can never forget that what accurate science means is that the health of this country will be improved.

The Clean Air Act has undeniably improved the quality of this Nation's health for senior citizens and kids who are affected by asthma and other health problems.

So, I think that we need to be very careful in examining this science and in changing the air pollution standards.

I believe that the proposed standards to the ozone standard and the introduction of the new PM2.5 standard are based on the best available science and health studies.

The EPA has followed CASAC's recommendations and has sought to reduce the threat of air pollution and its adverse risk to our health.

I am extremely proud. This year, for the first time in 10 years, with a little help from the weather, as well, my district, which is mostly Denver, has come into attainment with no days of non-attainment.

I would like to applaud the business owners, residents, and governmental officials of the front range area of Colorado for making this a reality.

I am concerned, though-and I have expressed that a number of places that the proposed rule on the PM10 standard will actually lower the bar for certain regions of the country, and that is primarily in the west.

It is imperative that we achieve attainment through successful pollution reduction programs which cities such as Denver have instituted and not render those programs obsolete before they have had the chance to make a difference.

With that, I know this is a very complex and important issue. I am looking forward to hearing the testimony, and with that, I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Diana DeGette follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the chairmen of the Health and Environment and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittees, Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Barton for holding this hearing today on EPA's proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards Revisions (NAAQS) and specifically, on the role of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).

As you know, National Ambient Air Quality Standards are the fundamental building blocks of the Clean Air Act. These standards set a health-based maximum limit on the amount of any contaminant in the atmosphere. Today, we will hear about the scientific process which occurred in CASAC's recommendations on two contaminants: ozone and particulate matter.

The implementation and enforcement of these standards in the Clean Air Act has undeniably improved the quality of this nation's health. Those acutely affected by these contaminants, such as asthmatics, children and the elderly have seen a drastic change in the quality of their lives. We have shown that our government_can take an active and positive role in improving the quality of life for our citizens. This