Table Of Content

SCIENTinC INTEGRITY AND PUBUC TRUST: THE SCIENCE B& HIND FEDERAL POUCIES AND MANDATES: CASE STUDY 1- STRATOSPHERIC OZONE: MYTHS AND REALITIES Y 4. SCI 2:104/31 Scientific Integrity and Public Tro...ANG BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES U.S. ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 [No. 31] Printed for the use of the Committee on Science SCIENTinC INTEGRTTY AND PUBUC TRUST: THE SCIENCE BEHIND FEDERAL POUCIES AND MANDATES: CASE STUDY 1-STRATOSPHERlC OZONE: MYTHS AND REALITIES HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OX ENERGY AND EMIROXMEXT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U.S. ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 [No. 31] Printed for the use of the Committee on Science U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 20-413 WASHINGTON : 1996 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-052519-5 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California RMMi Wisconsin RALPH M. HALL, Texas SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania PETE GEREN, Texas DANA ROHRABACHER, California TIM ROEMER, Indiana STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico ROBERT E. (Bud) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama JOE BARTON, Texas JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan KEN CALVERT, California PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania BILL BAKER, California JANE HARMAN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan2 DAVID MINGE, Minnesota ZACH WAMP, Tennessee JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts DAVE WELDON, Florida ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN McCarthy, Missouri THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia MIKE WARD, Kentucky STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas ANDREA H. SEASTRAND, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania TODD TIAHRT, Kansas SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma WILLIAM P. LUTHER, Minnesota VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming MARK FOLEY, Florida SUE MYRICK, North Carolina David D. Clement, ChiefofStaffand ChiefCounsel Barry Beringer, General Counsel TiSH Schwartz, ChiefClerk andAdministrator Robert E. Palmer, Democratic StaffDirector Subcommittee on Energy and Environment DANA ROHRABACHER, CaUfornia, Chairman HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania DAVID MINGE, Minnesota ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts ZACH WAMP, Tennessee MIKE WARD, Kentucky LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania MATT SALMON, Arizona TIM ROEMER, Indiana THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ROBERT E. (Bud) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma JAMES A. BARCU, Michigan BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania MARK FOLEY, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan BILL BAKER, California KAREN McCarthy, Missouri VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., (CA) (ex-officio) STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas ROBERT S. WALKER, (PA) (ex-officio) 1RankingMinorityMember 2ViceChairman (II) CONTENTS WITNESSES September20, 1995: Page Hon. John T. Doolittle, Representative in Congress ofthe United States from the 4th DistrictofCalifornia 13 Hon. Tom DeLay, Representative in Congress of the United States from the 22d DistrictofTexas 20 Panel 1: Robert T. Watson, Associate Director of Environment, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 30 Dr. S. Fred Singer, president, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Fairfax, VA 50 Dr. Daniel L. Albritton, Director, Aeronomy Laboratory, Environmental Research Laboratories, NOAA, Boulder, CO 65 Dr. Sallie Baliunas, senior scientist, the George C. Marshall Institute, Washington, DC 123 Dr. Richard Setlow, Associate Director, Life Sciences, Brookhaven Na- tional Laboratory, Upton, NY 133 Dr. Margaret L. Kripke, professor and chairman, departmentofimmunol- ogy. University ofTexas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX ... 145 Panel 2: Hon. Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Envi- ronmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC 189 Kevin Fay, Alliance forResponsible Atmospheric Policy, Arlington, VA .... 203 Ben Lieberman, environmental research associate. Competitive Enter- prise Institute, Washington, DC 226 Dr. Richard L. Stroup, senior associate. Policy Economy Research Center, Bozeman, MT 263 Dr. Dale K. Pollet, project leader, entomology, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, Baton Rouge, LA 271 APPENDIX — Appendix 1 Statements forthe record: Opening statement submitted by the Hon. James E. Hayes, Representa- tive in Congress of the United States from the 7th District of Louisi- ana, and ranking Democratic member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 293 Statement submitted by the Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Representative in Congress ofthe United States from the 29th DistrictofCalifornia .... 296 Statement submitted by Rafe Pomerance, Deputy Assistant Secretary ofState, U.S. DepartmentofState 298 — Appendix 2 Questions and answers for the record: Dr. S. F—red Singer 307 Appendix 3 Additional materials forthe record: Remarks by Dr. John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, "Sound Science, Sound Policy: The Ozone Story," Uni- versityofMaryland at College Park, September 19, 1995 311 Letterdated October 11, 1995, to the Hon. Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, by Dr. Robert T. Watson, Associate Director for Environment, Office of Science and Technology Policy 320 (III) IV Page — — Appendix 3 Additional materials for the record Continued Letterdated October 19, 1995, to the Hon. Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, seniorscientist, George C. Marshall Institute 324 Letter dated November 15, 1995, to Sir John Maddox, editor, Nature, by the Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., ranking Democratic member, Com- mittee on Science 336 Letter dated November 17, 1995, to the Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., ranking Democratic member. Committee on Science, by Sir John Mad- dox, editor.Nature 338 Letter dated December 18, 1995, to the Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., ranking Democratic member, Committee on Science, by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, senior scientist, George C. Marshall Institute 343 Associated Press article dated May 1, 1992, entitled '"Ozone hole' fails to materialize as feared, NASA says" 347 Enclosures to letter dated September 18, 1995, to the Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., ranking Democratic member. Committee on Science, by RexA. Amonette, M.D., president, AmericanAcademyofDermatology .. 348 SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AND PUBLIC TRUST: THE SCIENCE BEHIND FEDERAL POLICIES AND MANDATES CASE STUDY 1—STRATOSPHERIC OZONE: MYTHS AND REALITIES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met at 9:37 a.m., in room 2318 of the Ray- burn House Office Building, the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, pre- siding. Mr. Rohrabacher. The hearing of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee will come to order. And Mr. DeLay will be here momentarily. Mr. Doolittle is here already and they will have testimony for us in the beginning. But first, I will begin with an opening statement. I am Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman of the Commit- tee. On February 3, 1992, then-Senator Al Gore told the United States Senate that, and I quote, "If atmospheric conditions continue as they are for a few weeks, there could be an ozone hole above heavily-populated areas in the northern hemisphere. There could well be an ozone hole above Kennebunkport." And I remember that time period very well because I remember the Senator coming to one of the hearings that we had for the science hearings with many cameras in tow and newsmen in tow, in which he made the same prediction. But on the Senate floor, he went on to predict that there would be, and I remember, I believe he made the same pr—edictions here with —us, that there would be 300,000 additional that's additional skin cancer deaths in the United States. And he envisioned a future in which children would have to hide from the sun when out to play. We now know that the hole in the sky over Kennebunkport was bunk. I have a little headline here for you, which, a few months after Senator Gore was before our committee, predicting the hole, the newspaper headline reads: "Ozone Hole Fails to Materialize as Feared." (1) Well, we now know that the hole in the sky over Kennebunkport was—bunk. We can see it. We can analyze it. And th—is hole episode and there may be a pun intended, I don't know turned out to be another, basically "the-sky-is-falling" cry from an environmental Chicken Little, a cry we've heard before when the American people were scared into the immediate removal of asbestos from their schools, which turned out to be exactly the wrong method and the wrong way of going about to tackle the problem, and when the American people stopped eating apples, causing millions and millions of dollars' worth of loss to apple farmers because they were afraid ofAlar. This time, the scare-mongers managed to stampede the Congress and the President of the United States. President Bush sped up what had been a deliberate timetable to phase out CFCs around the world. But that wasn't good enough. The U.S. unilaterally imposed an onerous excise taix on CFCs which has, as it always does, led to a thriving black market, which is what we see in the United States today. In July of this year, a senior U.S. Customs agent called bootleg CFCs, "almost as profitable as dope." — As this funny circus goes on, we have to ask ourselves does the science justify the actions that have been taken and the billions that have been spent? Instead ofmaintaining a deliberate pace, our country rushed head-long to ban the substances people rely on to cool their homes, their cars, and their refrigerators to keep fruits and vegetables and other food fresh. Was thisjustified by science? Even if we accept the premise that these chemicals are harmful to the stratospheric ozone layer, what is the actual risk of, say, extending the phase-out period of CFCs in vehicles, as compared to the impact on the American consumer faced with replacing such expensive equipment? Are we getting objective science from our regulatory agencies, or are scientists with unconventional views being shut out ofthe process? These are some of the issues that will be aired at this, the first ofa series ofhearings on scientific integrity and the public process. Contrary to what you might have heard, this hearing is not going to be about whether we are for or against skin cancer. The Amer- ican people deserve better of their government than scare tactics that are designed to intimidate and repress rational discussion. During the course of these hearings, this Subcommittee will air We views that are politically correct and politically incorrect. will take a close look at the science behind regulations which government officials and the media have presented la—rgely in emotional term—s, and we will hear from both sides equally I want to repeat that we will hear from both sides equally, and I am hoping today to promote a dialogue between the various points of view, rather than just trying to have one view prevail over the other or trying to schedule one view early on in the hearing and not letting the other view be heard until the very end of the hearing, which far too often in the past was modus operandi for the congressional committees. For today's hearing, we are pleased that some ofthe most prominent scientific and economic experts on stratospheric ozone have agreed to testify. With this, I will now turn and ask my esteemed colleague, who I have great respect for, who chaired the overall Science Committee for a number of years, and now is with us, gracing us with his presence and his expertise, former Chairman Brown. Would you like to make an opening statement? Mr. Brown. I appreciate the Chairman's courtesy in allowing me the privilege of making an opening statement. I'm really substitut- ing here for the Ranking Minority Member, Congressman Hayes, who couldn't be present, but will, I hope, present a statement. Let me first say that I, as you do, welcome these hearings. What we badly need for all of science in this country is a better public understanding of the basis on which science is conducted and the basis on which regulatory decisions are made based upon that science. And I will compliment the Chairman for the way in which he has phrased the question and on his fairness in terms of setting up a hearing in which we do have good representatives of both sides who are appearing and making their case. And I hope that we can publicize the results of this hearing in such a way that it will contribute to the understanding of the American people on how science policy and science regulatory mat- ters are conducted. And they have been flawed in the past. I would be the first to agree with that. I note with some interest the Chairman's opening statement about the Vice President and Senator Gore's statement and I will admit that that was an effort to focus attention, in a very highly visible way, on an issue which the Senator turned out to be slightly exaggerating the consequences. Now if he were the first politician that had ever done that, I would feel that we might have a case here. But that rather typi- cally represents the way that politicians go about getting interest focused on an issue which they are concerned with. The process today is how we really need to hold hearings and to prepare the basis for legislation in a sounder and longer-term way. And I say this without intending to criticize the Vice President. I watched with great admiration as he exploited every opportunity to focus public attention on science issues while he was a member of this Committee. He did it in a good way and I think that Mr. Rohrabacher is doing a very good job in trying to perhaps now bring about a broader-based view on how some of these things are done. So, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the hearing. This is a very impor- tant issue. The global warming issue is one that we will be in- volved in through both policy and appropriations. We're into the level of billions of dollars per year in the area of atmospheric science and it's only appropriate that we act with great prudence with regard to that, with regard to ozone, yes. It's my personal feeling that the scientific case for ozone depletion is by now extremely strong, if not overwhelming. Of course, this will be explored by the witnesses that we have before us. Ifthere ever was a way in which, an example ofhow good science was developed, I think the ozone issue illustrates that process. I might say that our history of concern for ozone depletion goes back at least a full generation when it was one of the issues that came up in connection with our discussion of whether to develop a fleet ofsupersonic aircraft, probably 20-odd years ago. And it was thought at that time that the aircraft would destroy the ozone layer and cause the problems that we now blame on chlorofluorocarbons. That proved to be a slight exaggeration. We never put up the fleet ofsupersonic transport. But it was not because oftheir impact on the ozone layer. It was the impact on our pocketbooks which we were worried about. Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent that my full statement be put into the record at this point. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Without objection. [The full statements of Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher and Ranking Minority Member Brown follow:] Opening Statement, Hearing on Ozone Depletion, September 20, 1995 On February 3, 1992, then Senator Al Gore told the U.S. Senate that "ifatmos- pheric conditions continue as they are for a few weeks, there could be an ozone hole above heavily populated areas ofthe northern hemisphere. There could well be . . . an ozone hole above Kennebunkport." Senator Gore then went on to predict 300,000 additional skin cancer deaths in the United States and envisioned a future in which children would have to hide from thesun in the when out at play. We now know that"the hole in the sky overKennebunkport" wasbunk. On May 1, theheadlines read, "OZONE HOLD FAILSTO MATERIALIZE." This whole episode (no pun intended) turned—out to be another cry that "the sky is falling" from an environmental chicken little a cry we've heard before when the American people were scared into immediate removal ofasbestos from schools and stopped eatingapples becauseofAlar. This time they managed to scare the President ofthe United States. President Bush sped up what had been a deliberate timetable to phase out CFCs around theworld. But that wasn'tgood enough. The U.S. unilaterally imposed an onerous excise tax on CFCswhich has, as it always does, led to a thriving black market. In July, a senior U.S. Customs Agent called bootlegged CFCs "almost as profitable as dope." Does the science justify the actions that have been taken and the billions that havebeen spent? Instead ofmaintaining a deliberate pace, our country rushed headlong to ban the substances people rely on to cool their homes, cars and refrigerators. Is thisjustified bythe science? Even if we accept the premise that these chemicals are harmful to the stratospheric ozone layer, whatis the actual risk of, say, extending the phase outofCFCs in vehicles, compared to the impact on the American consumer faced with replacing expensive equipment? Are we getting objective science from our regulatory agencies or are scientists with unconventional views shut outofthe process? These are some ofthe issues that will be aired at this first ofa series ofhearings on "Scientific Integrity and the Public Process." Contrary to what you might hear today, this hearing is not about being for or against skin cancer. The Ajnerican people deserve better from their government than scare tactics designed tointimidate and repress rational discussion. During the course of these hearings, this subcommittee will air views politically correct and incorrect. We will take a close look at the science behind regulations which government officials and the media have presented largely in emotional terms and hear from both sides equally. For today's hearing, we are pleased that some of the most prominent scientific andeconomic experts on the stratospheric ozone issuehave agreed totestify.