Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and in fact, there may be more questions about the science now than before that hearing. So today instead of discussing policy I hope Ms. Browner is prepared to help us with the science that led her to believe these regulations were necessary.
In particular she should be able to tell us why the CASAC panel was so divided on the PM issue. To some it would appear that instead of taking sound science EPA is merely taking sides. For example, last week the Clean Air Subcommittee was treated to an exchange between two prominent scientists who serve on the CASAC panel. This exchange basically devolved into a YES-THIS-IS-TRUE-NO-THAT-IS-NOT-TRUE debate. Unfortunately, this type of exchange could lead to a perception that science has less to do with these regulations than ideological viewpoints. While I don't believe that is true, I do believe we need to move very cautiously to ensure that cynicism doesn't become widespread; because if that becomes the case more people will take the view of one individual who commented that, "It's apparent from this regulation that the EPA doesn't want us driving our cars across the bridge to the 21st century." Thank you, Mr. Chairman.