July 8, 2003

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. There are few matters within the jurisdiction of this Committee as complex and wide-ranging as the Clean Air Act. The history of this Committee's work on clean air is filled with extremely difficult and hard-fought compromises.

Before we turn to the topic of the President's Clear Skies proposal, I would note that the last hearing held by this Subcommittee on a clean air matter was over one year ago. The topic was "Accomplishments of the Clean Air Act." At that time I stated that the hearing was appropriate but far from exhaustive in its examination of the progress made since the 1990 amendments. You said at that time that you envisioned that hearing as "the first in a series of hearings in what should be a bipartisan examination of the Clean Air Act."

Although that series of hearings has yet to materialize, I believe that your instincts were correct and I hope that your intention remains. Because the Clean Air legislation is so complex, we need to hear from a broad range of witnesses, commenting on the specifics of various bills, before we take any action.

Several Members of this Committee were present during the years and months that led to the 1990 amendments, but most were not. Regardless, we would all do well to remember the very hard work that ultimately led us to a successful bill. The prelude to the 1990 amendments literally took years. The legislative history of those amendments encompasses six volumes and well over ten thousand pages. Hard work indeed, but ultimately justified by the results.

Since 1990, emissions of sulfur dioxide have fallen by 24 percent; lead by 50 percent; volatile organic compounds by 16 percent and carbon monoxide by 16 percent. The bottom line: our air is cleaner, and was made so during a period of great economic growth.

I mention this history as a means of urging caution as we consider the President’s Clear Skies Initiative, a proposal that would fundamentally alter the structure of the Clean Air Act. Although our witness from the EPA will attempt to lull us into legislating with the siren song of enhanced environmental protection through so-called "streamlined" regulation, lower costs to industry, and less litigation, I maintain a healthy skepticism of that view, and I am less than impressed with the Administration’s efforts to date.

For example, last week the EPA released a revised and very detailed analysis of the Clear Skies initiative that, not surprisingly, painted a very rosy picture. According to The Energy Daily, in commenting on competing proposals, Mr. Jeffrey Holmstead, our witness today, said that "This sort of analysis that we’re showing you today is the result of months and months and months of staff work, and we have no intention of doing that kind of work on [other legislative] proposals." The implication here, that the President’s proposal is the only game in town, does not bode well for a thoughtful and thorough inquiry into what changes, if any, need to be made to the Clean Air Act. For example, how would the environment benefit from the vigorous enforcement of current standards compared to enforcement of those proposed by the Administration? EPA should tell us.

Amending the Clean Air Act requires balancing protection of human health and the environment, and protection of economic productivity and growth. Before legislating we must be certain that such action is warranted, that our air will be cleaner then when we began, and that we will not cause substantial harm to our economic well-being. We should be sure that such action will result in better, simpler policy than currently exists. To do otherwise is pure folly. I would note that, as of today, none of the necessary consensus is in place to achieve a major change in the law.