Mr. BLILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join in welcoming our witnesses and guests to this morning's hearing, especially Administrator Browner and the distinguished individuals who are serving or have served as Surgeon General of the United States. I also want to thank the chairman for inviting former Congressman Whitley from North Carolina to testify so we can have some balance in the debate in this important issue.

I understand the subcommittee will be having at least one other hearing on this issue, and I think that is appropriate because there are a number of other individuals and organizations, including building owners, managers, employers and employees who we should hear from concerning the chairman's legislative proposal.

I am pleased to have another opportunity to discuss this issue with Administrator Browner. I know she is aware of my concerns with EPA's activities on this issue. Unfortunately, nothing has happened since our last hearing to allay my concerns. In fact, just the opposite has happened. We now have legislation, the chairman's bill, that is based on the findings of the EPA's assessment.

I am concerned that EPA deliberately misused scientific data in order to reach a politically motivated result. Through its risk assessment on ETS, EPA tells the American public that exposure to ETS is responsible for 3,000 deaths each year. To reach that conclusion, EPA had to ignore or discount significant studies, or deviate from generally accepted scientific standards.

Mr. Chairman, at the very same time that we were having our hearing on this issue last July, the House Agriculture Committee was holding a similar hearing. That committee heard. testimony from Dr. Alvin Feinstein, a noted epidemiologist at Yale University. In his testimony, Dr. Feinstein raised a number of questions with EPA's risk assessment. He said these questions convinced him that a final independent review of the data may be warranted. He also said such a review could take into consideration data that EPA did not consider when it did its own risk assessment.

I would just remind my colleagues that Dr. Feinstein was not testifying on behalf of the tobacco industry. He is a highly respected scientist who looked at EPA's risk assessment for environmental tobacco smoke and saw some serious problems.

We are fortunate to have with us this morning impressive individuals who have served or are serving as Surgeon General of the United States. I will be interested to learn how many of them have looked at EPA's risk assessment on ETS and understood its shortcomings. I will also be interested in hearing how many of them are willing to urge EPA to make sure that its science is as accurate and objective as it can possibly be.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bliley.

Mr. Wyden?

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you for all your efforts and also our colleague, Mike Synar, on this issue, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of your legislation.

All across this country the fact is that millions of our kids spend huge chunks of their time in buildings that are literally incubators for disease. So this legislation is ultimately legislation for our children.

When a Member votes on this legislation, they have a choice: They can either support the bill and come out for the health of our kids, or they can be opposed to the legislation and come down on the side of the tobacco companies. That is essentially what this legislation is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is any accident that the business community is showing significant support for this legislation. I would like to note that the Building Owners and Managers Association has now come out for the bill, and the reason that they have is that the no-smoking policy is good for business. This is legislation that is pro-business. And I would also like to note that Carol Browner, who will be testifying very shortly, has indicated that the health benefits exceed the cost of complying with this legislation.

So I think it is a very significant step forward. I look forward to working with our Members, and I hope we will pass this bill expeditiously.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Synar?

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very briefly, the environmental tobacco smoke bill is a very fair bill. It is fair because it protects the rights of not only nonsmokers but smokers. It is essential in guaranteeing, I think, that a healthier population of smokers and nonsmokers evolve. It is not going to deprive any person who wants to smoke from smoking cigarettes, but it makes them do it in a responsible manner.

The cost benefit of this is very simple: $1,000 a year in decreased productivity and health care costs can literally be snuffed out if we take responsible actions through this legislation. As Mr. Wyden says, at a minimum this is a moral children's health issue that we cannot walk away from.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Without objection, all Members will be granted the right to enter an opening statement in the record at this point.

I would like to call the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner.

Thank you very much for being here today, Administrator Browner. I understand you had to work hard to appear here because you have a conflict in your schedule with the President releasing his budget. Your appearance today is a real indication of your strong support for this legislation, and we appreciate it.

Your prepared statement will be in the record in full. We would like to recognize you to deliver your oral presentation to us.

STATEMENT OF HON. CAROL M. BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Ms. BROWNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank all of the members of the subcommittee here today. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you again today to discuss the serious public health issue of secondhand smoke. This is an issue about which I care deeply.

And so I am very pleased to be here to comment on H.R. 3434, the Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1993, and to relate to the subcommittee some of our preliminary conclusions concerning the economic costs and benefits of H.R. 3434, which you requested, Mr. Chairman.

I think as everyone is well aware, in January 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency published an assessment of the respiratory health risks of passive smoking. Based on the total weight of the available scientific evidence, EPA concluded that widespread exposure to secondhand smoke in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health risk.

EPA also concluded that secondhand smoke is a human lung carcinogen, classified as a group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment scheme.

The report concludes that environmental tobacco smoke is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults in the United States. Of these, the report indicates that 2,200 deaths are attributable to exposure outside the home, the very environments that H.R. 3434 addresses.

While the finding that secondhand smoke is capable of causing lung cancer in healthy adults has received much public attention, I am personally even more concerned about the very serious respiratory effects on young children. Children have been found to be particularly sensitive to the effects of secondhand smoke.

Infants and young children whose parents smoke are the most seriously affected by exposure, with increased risk of respiratory infection such as pneumonia and bronchitis.

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to have reduced lung function and symptoms of respiratory irritation. Secondhand smoking can lead to a buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospital operations in young children. Asthmatic children are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms for between 200,000 and 1 million asthmatic children each year. Secondhand smoking is a risk factor for the thousands of non-asthmatic children who develop the condition each year.

Mr. Chairman, EPA firmly believes that the scientific evidence warrants actions to protect nonsmokers from involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke. We outlined our recommended actions in the testimony we delivered before this subcommittee last July, and the principles of EPA's recommendations are embodied in H.R. 3434.

The bill, as I understand it, would provide comprehensive protection from involuntary exposure to ETS or secondhand smoke in indoor environments to all nonsmokers, children, workers, and the general public. It would also produce a number of important secondary benefits.

Studies indicate that smoke restrictions, particularly where employee-supported cessation programs are offered, help encourage smokers to quit. For smokers who live in homes with high levels

of another indoor air pollutant, radon, quitting smoking greatly reduces their chance of getting lung cancer.

The benefits of quitting smoking are significant. In addition, Federal legislation in this area would level the playing field for businesses that are concerned, correctly or incorrectly, about any potential competitive disadvantage that could result from variations in smoking restrictions across establishments or geographic jurisdictions.

As I understand H.R. 3434, it does not attempt to control individual behavior in the home, nor does it prohibit people who choose to smoke from doing so in most outdoor locations or in buildings which provide properly designed smoking rooms, and we think this is appropriate.

We support H.R. 3434 and we look forward to working with the subcommittee to address concerns with some of the specific provisions of the bill as it is debated.

Mr. Chairman, you formally requested that EPA analyze the compliance costs and the health and economic benefits of H.R. 3434. You asked that we consider eight specific issues. These are complicated issues worthy of comprehensive, in-depth analysis.

We are providing a brief summary of our preliminary analysis today in our written testimony. We intend to further refine the analysis, and will make it available to the subcommittee as well as to the public and for peer review.

The initial preliminary estimates included in our written testimony were prepared under significant resource and time constraints, and are based on a combination of available information, professional judgment, and simple analytic methods.

As is appropriate in such cases as this, upon conclusion of OMB review we will submit all of our analysis, findings and documentation for public comment and peer review before issuing a final document.

Mr. Chairman, based on our preliminary conservative estimates, we do believe that the benefits of H.R. 3434 outweigh the cost. Preliminary estimates of the benefits of H.R. 3434 include improvements in the health of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke and reduced costs for house keeping and maintenance.

These benefits alone appear to exceed the cost of compliance which are primarily associated with separately ventilated smoking lounges and enforcement.

Another category of benefits would include health benefits due to smokers who quit, cut back or don't start. These benefits are significant and could bring a large increase in the benefits of your proposal into the tens of billions or hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

On balance, there would appear to be a substantial economic justification in support of H.R. 3434 based on the specific cost and benefit issues addressed in this preliminary assessment.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to note that at the Environmental Protection Agency we deal with very difficult and very complicated issues to which solutions can be hard to find. In this particular situation, we do have the ability to avoid the consequences associated with secondhand smoking. And I believe we have an obligation to act where we have that ability.

I would be more than happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Browner follows:]