Subcommittee Democrats Stress Environmental Protection and Economic Vitality
(Washington, DC) - Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Environment held its first hearing of the 113th Congress. The purpose of the hearing was to assess broad environmental trends and indicators, including an examination of factors such as air and water quality, chemical exposure, environmental and human health, and climate change. Much of the discussion centered around the impact of environmental regulations. Democratic Members presented a broad range of questions but also took this opportunity to highlight the inconsistent rhetoric that has become all too familiar from the past Congress.
In her opening remarks, Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) stated, “As we look ahead to future EPA action, including the issuance of new and updated regulations, it is worth reminding ourselves of the source of such regulation and the benefit to society. In the four decades since it was signed into law, the Clean Air Act has prevented hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, not to mention saving trillions of dollars in health care costs. These benefits to the public will continue to grow. For instance, with fewer cases of chronic asthma attacks or bronchitis, fewer children and adults have to visit hospitals and doctors’ offices, and this means less missed school and work days. With the cost of health care widely agreed to be one of the central drivers of our nation’s fiscal challenges, we as policymakers would consider this a good result.”
Minority witness Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, responded to questions relating to climate change, opportunity costs of regulation, and hydraulic fracturing.
In response to a question from Ms. Bonamici on the costs and consequences of the delay in addressing climate change, “There is no question that it is occurring and there is no question that we need to look at it. Primary prevention is always the best…We need to be able to prevent, and we need to be able to prevent by cutting down greenhouse gas emissions in a way that’s cost effective. We can do it. We should be doing it, but we need to really push hard to make it happen, and Congress needs to be involved.”
Addressing frequently-touted concerns about the prohibitive costs of meeting new pollution standards, Dr. Goldstein replied, “From the 1960’s, since I have been involved [in this field] I have heard over and over again these same arguments, and then industry retreats from them. As it turns out, in fact they can [meet regulations] at far less cost."
Responding to an assertion that EPA stifles natural gas and oil production, Dr. Goldstein stated, “From where I sit in Southwestern Pennsylvania, I don’t see any slowdown whatsoever based on anything the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done. So in terms of getting things right, I do not see the slightest bit of impact of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on how people have gone about fracking, except their concern that if they do it wrong they’re going to cause regulation to occur…What I see are people who believe there is a problem because of what industry and state government is telling them, not because of what the federal government is saying.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article