Mike Doyle: “I see nothing in the standards that would address it. This is a prime example of why more research is necessary. What we…”

“I see nothing in the standards that would address it. This is a prime example of why more research is necessary. What we see in today's standards is not going to do anything. Administrator Browner when we had her before the committee, too, never wanted to discuss economic impacts, because she said, ``I've got to make this decision based solely on a health decision and not on economic benefits.'' I am sorry, but I have to look at the economic impacts to this legislation because we have got real people out there living in western Pennsylvania and all across this country that are going to suffer severe impacts as a result of these standards. I want to just read a study that has come out. There is some ongoing research by environmental economists such as Dr. Vernon Henderson, Brown University; Fred Reuter from Consat Research Corporation and the EPA's own draft regulatory impact analysis for PM. And the following economic impacts could well result from the proposed NAAQs which have just been okayed today by President Clinton. What are some of these consequences? Increased business operating costs, job losses, reductions in worker compensation, decreases in industrial output, and increased expenditures on road cleaning and air quality monitoring by local governments. They go on to say the areas experiencing these effects will be those that do not and in many cases literally cannot comply with the proposed PM-2.5 standard.”