« PrécédentContinuer »
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman W.J. "BILLY” TAUZIN, Louisiana
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOE BARTON, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
THOMAS J. MANTON, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey BILL PAXON, New York
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
BART GORDON, Tennessee Vice Chairman
ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
PETER DEUTSCH, Florida JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
ANNA G. ESHOO, California CHRISTOPHER COX, California
RON KLINK, Pennsylvania NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART STUPAK, Michigan STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
GENE GREEN, Texas GREG GANSKE, Iowa
KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
JAMES E. DERDERIAN, Chief of Staff
CHARLES L. INGEBRETSON, General Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois,
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio Vice Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
PETER DEUTSCH, Florida JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ANNA G. ESHOO, California NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART STUPAK, Michigan RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
GENE GREEN, Texas BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado GREG GANSKE, Iowa
RALPH M. HALL, Texas CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, RICK LAZIO, New York
(Ex Officio) BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman CHRISTOPHER COX, California
RON KLINK, Pennsylvania Vice Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania PETER DEUTSCH, Florida MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
BART STUPAK, Michigan RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio GREG GANSKE, Iowa
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
(Ex Officio) TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
Wolff, George T., Chairman, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(1993–1996), Principle Scientist, General Motors Environmental and
REVIEW OF EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER NAAQS REVISIONS
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1997
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, JOINT WITH SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS,
Washington, DC. The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Michael Bilirakis (Chairman) presiding.
Members present Subcommittee on Health and Environment: Representatives Bilirakis, Barton, Upton, Greenwood, Deal, Burr, Bilbray, Whitfield, Ganske, Norwood, Coburn, Lazio, Cubin, Bliley (ex officio), Brown, Waxman, Pallone, Stupak, Green, Strickland, DeGette, Furse, and Eshoo.
Members present Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Representatives Barton, Greenwood, Crapo, Bilbray, Ganske, Coburn, Bliley (ex officio), Klink, Waxman, Stupak, and Sawyer.
Also present: Representative Gillmor.
Staff present: Bob Meyers, majority counsel, Steven Sayle, majority counsel, Charles Ingrebretson, general counsel, Joe Stanko, majority counsel, Mark Paoletta, majority counsel, Tom Dilenge, majority counsel, and Bill Tyndall, minority counsel.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. The hearing will come to order. Good morning.
I first want to thank our panel of very distinguished witnesses for being with us this morning. These are tough subjects, and you good people certainly are being very, very helpful in terms of our deliberations.
Each member of our witness panel has been or is, in the case of Dr. Mauderly, Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Board.
In addition, all members of our witness panel took part in the most recent reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter.
Thus, I believe that it is fair to say that, collectively, our witnesses represent a blue ribbon panel of experts in ozone and particulate matter.
Although our witnesses have different academic and professional backgrounds, they have spent many hours reviewing the science behind the ozone and particulate matter standards and, perhaps more importantly, the subsequent analysis of the relative strength of the science and the conclusions which can be drawn.
The scientific evidence behind the proposed ozone and particulate matter standards is crucial to our understanding of the policy choices that will be made regarding any new standards.
This science is represented in summary form in the documents which are stacked to my right. These documents are the criteria documents for both standards, the EPA staff papers, and the Federal Register notices for the proposals.
I am sure you all would agree that it is an impressive stack of paper. It represents the work of many highly educated and trained professionals. It required years to complete.
However, the essential question remains: what do all the studies, all the statistics, all the charts and tables, and all the interpretative analyses actually prove? In my mind, that is what we are here for today.
We need to begin our committees' review, and I might add, when I say committees', I mean joint committees—both the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, led by Congressman Barton, and the Health and Environment Subcommittee are involved-hear from the experts, and attempt to understand what the science behind the proposals does and does not show.
I believe this is the same critical examination of law and policy which this committee has engaged in during previous reviews of the Clean Air Act and regulations established under the authority of the Act.
In fact, the first oversight hearing concerning the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments was held less than 4 months after the law was enacted. The ink was barely dry before the Health and Environment Subcommittee was critically reviewing implementation activities of EPA and the executive branch.
I also believe that, over the years, the Commerce Committee has a history of bridging substantial differences with respect to environmental legislation.
I remember quite well the clean air negotiating sessions of late 1989 and 1990.
Although our political philosophies varied substantially and regional differences were significant, we were able, in the end, to craft responsible legislative language. While we did not craft perfect legislative language, the final legislation fairly reflected the compromises that were necessary to deliver a comprehensive reauthorization measure.
Thus, at the heart of all endeavors regarding the Clean Air Act is a deliberative process. This process is born of the fact that the law itself is long and complex. This process also reflects the fact that environmental law cannot be effectively established and implemented in a vacuum, that we must necessarily consider the impact of a law or regulation on everyday life.
In this regard, I do find it disconcerting, I must say, that the present process has been driven by a Federal lawsuit filed in Arizona.
I do not question the legal interpretation in this case that the Act requires a periodic review of each standard nor that the review for particulate matter is past due.
However, I find it troubling that an EPA official indicated under oath and threat of perjury in this case that it would take 51