Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. letter to C. S., June 30, 1997

ROBERT L. EHRLICH. JR. 315 Cannon House Office Builoing (202) 225-3061 COMMITTEES BUDGET ANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSISTANT MAJORITY WHIP Congress of tfje Uniteb States House of HepreSentatitieS (EHaStjington, SC 20515-2002 June 30, 1997 Essex. MO 21221 (410)780-3911 Thank you for expressing to me your views about the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to tighten National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As you know, EPA Administrator Carol Browner has proposed tougher standards for ground level ozone and particulate matter under the federal Clean Air Act. Under Administrator Browner’s proposal, the number of “non-attainment areas” will jump from 75 to approximately 326, a fourfold increase. President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors has determined that the full cost of attainment is $60 billion. The Small Business Administration has characterized EPA’s proposed action as, “certainly one of the most expensive regulations, if not the most expensive regulation, faced by small businesses in ten or more years.” Congress has an obligation to ensure that all proposed regulations satisfy several important criteria. First, they must provide clear and significant benefits to public health and safety — benefits worth the tremendous cost which new regulations bring to businesses and individuals. Second, they must be based on sound science. Third, there must be maximum opportunity for public input and comment. I am not convinced that any of these criteria have been satisfactorily met. First, it is unclear whether raising such standards would yield significant benefits from the standpoints of public health and safety. According to the EPA’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, tightening air quality standards in the manner proposed by EPA will yield “no specific public health benefits.” Since 1990, the number of areas falling into the non-attainment category has fallen from 90 to 75. During this period, population and the number of automobiles on the road experienced a sizable increase. This tells me existing regulations are doing the job. Second, the fact that EPA refuses to release the data upon which the enhanced regulations are based only undermines their scientific validity. As you know, Harvard University - the entity which performed these federally-funded studies — has declined to subject the data upon which these studies are based to an open and impartial peer review by the scientific community. Moreover, EPA, which has the power to obtain and release this data, has not done so despite repeated requests from Congress. Third, I oppose the kind of government by bureaucratic fiat the EPA proposal represents. We need an honest debate on these matters and not another stealth federal mandate. The EPA’s unilateral approach will, in my opinion, only undermine public support for existing environmental laws and regulations. Given the sweeping impact which new NAAQS standards will have on our nation, Congress should have an opportunity to review and approve them as well. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER