Statement for Senator Craig Thomas
Committee on Environment and Public Works - CAA Reauthorization

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today to lay the groundwork for eventual reauthorization of the Clean Air Act. This issue is of great importance to the entire nation, but particularly to the West and my state of Wyoming where we have some of the nation's cleanest air and world class reserves of coal and natural gas, as well as wind resources. I am especially interested in the issue of cost/benefit analysis and look forward to the discussion in today's hearing. Far too often, environmental regulations adversely impact the economy while offering minimal environmental benefits. We must move carefully and thoughtfully as we think about reopening the Clean Air Act.

Since enactmentment of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the Clinton Administration has tried various ways to implement even stricter standards. I, along with many others including state and local governments, and many of the nation's governors - vocalized our opposition to the EPA's rule on Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone. One of the most troubling aspects of the process is EPA's rush to implement standards without sound scientific data. In May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held that EPA had overstepped its authority in proposing the revision of the ozone standard. Yet despite this action, EPA continues to move forward with a new NOX regulation.

It is paramount that principles of sound science be applied. I remember clearly the debate we had several years ago over EPA's rule for Particulate Matter and Ozone. Here in this committee, Dr. George Wolff, the Chairman of EPAs's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee at that time, stated that the court ordered deadline did not allow enough time for its members to adequately examine that complex issue. Ultimately, there was no scientific consensus. And despite the ambiguity and lack of scientific data which was documented by the experts who testified, EPA went on to set new standards for PM and ozone -- an action based on a judgement call rather than sound scientific evidence. We need to be careful about going down any regulatory road before we have good science to support any measure.

My point Mr. Chairman, is this: what we are seeing from this Administration is one extreme proposition after another. American businesses and industries have made great strides to improve air quality. America's air is much cleaner than it was 25 years ago. Nevertheless, the EPA continues to add layer upon layer of regulatory requirements on the backs of states and industry. It's critical that we keep the issues of cost benefit analysis and sound science in the forefront as we begin the discussions to reauthorize the Clean Air Act. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses.