Table Of ContentSCIENTinC 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 con-
tinue 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 addi-
tional 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 epi-
sode and there may be a pun intended, I don't know turned out
to be another, basically "the-sky-is-falling" cry from an environ-
mental 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 mil-
lions 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, ex-
tending 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 proc-
ess?
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 govern-
ment 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 promi-
nent 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 deple-
tion 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 state-
ment 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 profit-
able 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 strato-
spheric 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 offi-
cials 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.
