Pete Sessions: “Numerous scientists, including several who have testified on this issue before the Environment and Public Works…”

“Numerous scientists, including several who have testified on this issue before the Environment and Public Works Committee, have stated that the size, shape, or chemical composition of the PM that is causing the alleged adverse health effects is unknown. There are various theories-- sulfates, acids, transmetals, ultrafines--regarding the potential bad actor. During testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, we learned that the EPA based its setting of the new particulate matter standard on inconclusive scientific data. In one EPA study, which attempted to show a relationship between levels of particulate matter and mortality and morbidity in Birmingham, AL, the author of the study admitted that if humidity was considered in the model, the effects of particulate matter on morbidity and mortality was statistically insignificant. Billions will need to be spent by individuals, industry, and State and local governments to meet compliance with the administration's PM2.5 standard. Unless the problem is clearly identified before control programs are implemented, there is no assurance that there will be any health benefits resulting from the new standards. In fact, the new standards themselves may bring adverse health effects as an unintended consequence caused by a lower standard of living. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that your bill addresses the lack of scientific evidence to justify the newly promulgated air quality standards.”