We know that the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray-and in clean air they have. There seems to be a belief in this country that we all lack the wisdom or the will to do a SIP, run a model and clean the air. Indeed, we often lack the wisdom; never the will.

I can't help but wonder, and I am sorry I didn't think of this several days ago, if there aren't more specific suggestions, how do we build in some kind of legislative flexibility to allow for intellectual inadequacies. How can we build on trying a new idea and seeing if it works; admitting if it does not; seizing on the opportunity if it does; and admitting to ourselves that we have to go after new sources, new techniques, and new definitions? We need all. But at least we must exercise our minds and try new ideas and new approaches.

Earlier today, in the discussion concerning technology forcing, it was amazing that we require ourselves as a society to put so much stress on technological experimentation, but we do not allow ourselves that same kind of flexibility or expansion of our thinking, our method of planning, and our methods of execution to achieve clean air. Rather, typically, we have forced ourselves into narrow legislative and regulatory vents.

Sir, I think after all these years we have to admit that as planners, scientists, as businessmen, perhaps even as legislators, and certainly as regulators, we are woefully ignorant. Maybe that is why we are all sitting here struggling with the clean air problem.

Senator BAUCUs. You make a very good point. I think you would also agree that this world is run by deadlines. You have to set deadlines or things tend just not to happen. That is something that I have learned by hard experience.

Mr. ALTER. But we don't know what we are doing, and that is how we ran headlong into the deadlines we set for 1987. If we do set deadlines, why not set the deadline but say, OK, here, add another category to the bill. Add a category for those that may want to experiment a little, who may want to superimpose some new information on say ozone formation. Let there be the exception for innovation, and that exception is not an exception to delay, but could very well be an exception to accelerate.

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Feldcamp.

Mr. FELDCAMP. You should have penalties or sanctions for failure to try or failure to develop or implement a plan, but failure to attain or to meet these percent reduction requirements on an annual basis, when the technology may not be there, or the needs

Senator BAUCUS. How are we going to measure trying? How are you going to quantify trying, is there some objective basis on which to decide whether the trying is met?

Mr. FELDCAMP. Each area will try various kinds of control measures based on a plan to meet the requirements of the Act. But if an area doesn't attain the standard, and has made the emission reductions, it should not be sanctioned. I would challenge anybody to say that we have not implemented controls. But we have not reduced the ozone. That's the question. That's the issue, the bottom line.

Senator BAUCUs. Well, we have two choices. We try or do nothing. I think we should try based on the evidence and the informa

tion that we have, go forward. If it works, great, if it doesn't work, we modify, adjust, make some changes, as we have done in the past.

Mr. FELDCAMP. I would agree with you, Senator, on that, but we shouldn't get sanctions if we don't attain the standard. Some of those requirements in there▬▬

Senator BAUCUs. Let's go ahead and see what happens. This Congress, I think, gentlemen, is more reasonable than it is unreasonable. At least everybody here tries to do what the people back home want them to do. And Congress will meet another day, to make adjustments. So I think-this is democracy, folks. That's the way it operates.

It reminds me, Winston Churchill said of all its fits, and starts and delays-this is a gross paraphrase-inefficiencies, and so forth, it is absolutely the world's worst form of government, except there is none better. That's what we have.

OK, did anybody say anything so outrageous this morning or this afternoon that any of you want to follow up?

Ok, thank you. Hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene the following day, Thursday, September 28, 1989, at 9:00 a.m.]

[Statements submitted for the record and the bill S. 1630 follow:]

f

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you this morning to discuss the critical importance of amending and strengthening the Clean Air Act. As the Governor of Utah, I have had to directly face the issues of environmental protection you have been discussing, and I will say this plainly: we need a stronger, more effective, more I say this even though Utah boasts some of the

workable Clean Air statute.

cleanest air in the country.

A major attraction of the five National Parks in Utah is that we can see spectacular vistas more than 150 miles away. Salt Lake City and other urbanized areas along the Wasatch Mountains frequently have visibilities of 50 miles ог more. However, because of population growth and industrialization together with long winter inversions, even Utah is experiencing significant problems with unhealthy air. To fight this problem, I created a Governor's Clean Air Commission of state and community leaders. The Commission will develop a long-term Clean Air Strategy for Utah involving all of our citizens. Utahns are firmly committed to taking all necessary actions to protect the health of our citizens, to achieve clean air, and guard our clean air resources. If we are to succeed, Congress must expedite passage of a comprehensive revision of the Clean Air Act. Without your quick action, momentum will be lost and our efforts to clean up the air will be set back.

The Need for Federal Legislation

One reason is the

The need for stronger clean air legislation is compelling. growing realization that air pollution problems are more complex, more widespread, and more dangerous than previously thought. Stricter controls are needed not only to safeguard health, but to deal with the mounting economic and environmental costs associated with ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, air toxics, acid rain and other hazardous air pollutants. The states need leadership and action from the federal government to put these controls in place.

While it is true that past efforts have reduced air pollution, it is also true we have not done enough:

Acid rain continues unabated even as the damage mounts;

Toxic air pollutants have not been identified and controlled; and

101 cities, counties, and other areas, home to 150 million Americans, exceed the ozone limits considered necessary to protect public health.

Medical evidence is building that the current federal standard for ozone does not protect the most sensitive among us, including children, asthmatics, the elderly, and others. Recent studies show that even brief exposure to ozone at levels at or near the federal standard diminishes the lung capacity of even healthy adults. In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association now recommend limiting children's outdoor play when the ozone concentration is one-third lower than the current federal standard.

This pollution also imposes hidden costs on our economy in ways we are just beginning to understand. Forest resources are under severe environmental ozone. Estimates of the combined value of ozone-related crop

stress due to

losses of wheat, corn, soybeans, and peanuts runs into billions of dollars nationwide. In Utah, pollution from urban areas hundreds of miles away is reaching our national parks diminishing the grandeur hence the "value" of the most majestic land in God's creation.

Time for debate has passed.
Cleaning Up the Nation's Air

Time for action has come.

The Governors recognize that cleaning up the nation's air will require a significant reduction in pollutants. Το achieve these reductions, the Governors have called for a stronger and more comprehensive Clean Air Act. As a general matter, we believe the critical issues for clean air reform include urban air quality, motor vehicle controls, particulate matter, air toxics, interstate transport of air pollution, and acid rain.

With regard to ozone and carbon monoxide, the subject of the present hearing, the Governors' recommendations include the following:

First: Tighter motor vehicle control requirements. This is a critical issue for states since there is a direct tradeoff between the control of motor vehicle emissions and the control of stationary sources and industrial growth. In Utah, 89 percent of hydrocarbon emissions are either directly or indirectly related to the use of motor vehicles. Further, motor vehicles account for as much as 52 percent of our ozone and 93 percent of our carbon monoxide problem. Maintenance of the standards in Utah will be impossible without the tightest vehicle emission limits. Moreover, we have learned that the cost per ton of pollution reduced through motor vehicle controls significantly less than many available control measures on other sources.

is

We must keep in mind that the next Clean Air bill will largely determine the quality of the air Americans breathe in the next century. While the National Governors' Association has not addressed specific numeric limits for motor vehicles, I believe that the United States ought to go at least as far as the state of California's proposed program for the control of emissions from automobiles, trucks, and buses.

I believe federal law should force the development of strong automotive control technology beyond the recently adopted California requirements, and support your efforts to do just that in the Second Phase of motor vehicle control.

In addition to tighter tailpipe standards, the Governors support an extension of useful life and warranties for emission control components to 10 years or 100,000 miles, a requirement for on-board vapor recovery controls, a stronger automobile test and certification procedure, including a cold-start test at twenty degrees Fahrenheit, and lower gasoline volatility standards. Although NGA has not addressed the issue of carbon dioxide standards for motor vehicles, I personally believe cost effective standards for CO2 are necessary in light of global warming concerns.

The plain fact is, Mr. Chairman, that mobile sources, account for at least half of the air pollutants that threaten public health in our cities. We