Skip to main content

tv   Politics Public Policy Today  CSPAN  July 7, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm EDT

11:00 am
and thechoir, and the tens of calls that we shared during the day, obviously is very comforting to her. just to -- in uncluesonconclusion, this state loved senator pinckney and this state loves you and your girls and they love the entire pinckney family, and we will keep our arms wrapped around you and this family forever and it's the least that we can do for our brother, clemente, and we hope to have you back here soon when we hang his portrait so he will be sharing this spot with us forever. lastly i say this, jennifer is a believer. the first time that we saw him
11:01 am
in his physical eternal rest, jennifer said then, do you see that smile on his face? my husband is going to heaven -- he's already gone, and with that she had peace. so i hope that we have peace and we continue this, and make sure that we keep these doors open and keep this family wrapped around with us. thank you. i hope that we welcome jennifer to the senate and give us a moment and we can be at ease and we can all go and greet her. >> the senate will stand at ease.
11:02 am
11:03 am
11:04 am
11:05 am
11:06 am
so the south carolina senate has voted to remove the confederate flag, and it was 36 yeas to 3. they are greeting the widow of
11:07 am
senator pinckney gunned down a few weeks ago in a shooting that took place in south carolina. the associated press is reporting that the bill that was just voted on faces a less certain future in the south carolina house. republicans met behind closed doors on monday and struggled to reach a consensus on what to do next. the senate bill would remove the confederate flag in front of the state house on the flagpole as soon as the governor removes it. the suspect was photographed several times with the confederate flag.
11:08 am
11:09 am
11:10 am
11:11 am
11:12 am
11:13 am
11:14 am
11:15 am
senate please come to order. senator scott recognized. >> mr. president and members of the senate, we are saddened by the loss of one of our senate members, senator clemente opinion pinckney but at the same time one of our lobbyist friends lost her sister patty pierce lost her sister, and if the clerk would please read. >> please read the resolution. >> expressioned the profound sorry of the south carolina senate for the death of leslie an pierce of columbia and extend
11:16 am
the deepest sympathy and many of her friends and the senate was saddened to learn of the untimely death of leslie pierce that passed away on june 28th 2015, as the age of 49 and born on december 24th 1965, leslie was the daughter of the late george amos jr., and we are asked despite having suffered a car crash, she led a productive life. she was an accomplished artist and helped make columbia and its arts museum a welcoming place for so many to enjoy art and music. her courageous attitude and positive outlook were an inspiration to all who knew her, and she had a gift to make each person around her feel special, and she welcomed them with a
11:17 am
smile and generous attitude and never met a stranger and was bound and determined to find a connection with each person she met. she looked for ways to create opportunities for others to share their talents and love kau co-lab rating, and she was a lady that loved life and lived it to the fullest and she paw possessed a can-do at taod and she will be greatly missed by all who had the privilege of working with her. and extend the deepest sympathy to her family and many friends. >> mr. scott? >> mr. president, members of the senate, and to the pierce family especially to you, patty, we are going to miss her,
11:18 am
and even during the budget cycle this year, leslie was right there fighting for the columbia museum of art. she loved art. she loved columbia. we are going to truly miss her, and tell your family, we will keep you in prayers as you get through the very difficult times. i move we add the roll of the senate. >> it's unanimously adopted. senator from spartanburg. >> i would like to ask consents one that the words of the senators, the last three speakers would be printed in the journal. >> i have a special guests that will be here today, and this one
11:19 am
is my oldest grand daughter and it's ironic that she is here today, and because of the discussion we have had since the remarks yesterday, you will understand that she starts middle school next week, but she asked me all last week on vacation papa, can i come and watch the debate on the flag so she is here today and she is a straight a student, but her name is ainsly grace allen. i ask you to welcome haar to the south carolina senate. thank you. >> welcome, and we hope you will come back and see us. >> senator from florence. while he is coming forward the senator from pickins.
11:20 am
>> while the senator from tphraur florence is coming forward, i want to pass out an article and make a brief comment about it. a lot was said yesterday about race relations, and of course as you know i am married to a teacher, and my youngest daughter, a senator from lexington is going to be a first-year teacher this fall, and this article was in the state newspaper yesterday on the opinion page and it caught my attention because this lady is a retired teacher from ac high school, and i would commend it to you, and she talks sincerely about race relations as she found it at acflora high school and when you have a minute look at her remarks, a brief article but telling in support of the improvement we have seen and how
11:21 am
she saw it much to her surprise in a positive way here in south carolina. >> yes, sir. senator from richland, proceed. >> thank you. thank you for allowing me to do this. i will try to be brief on this. i talk about the article and i think it's appropriate to make a few comments about thurman. many of you asked me what did i think about paul thurman, and i guess it's because of my relationship with his late father, and i didn't know thurman, and i got a ronald reagan wall, and i got a thurman wall and i got a picture of him when he was 5 years old, walking around the capitol lawn in
11:22 am
washington x i was honored to do this and i got involved with him in 1964 when i was sitting at the fraternity house at usc, and he was going to support barry goldwater for president, and he was going to switch political parties and become a republican, and in 1964 there was not a single political party, and he had no infrastructure at all, and i said, this guy has got guts, and guts mean something. so i got involved with him and started climbing telephone poles and putting stickers up, and in 1984 he was a state chairman and then he asked me to be chairman of his campaign, and he was a tight individual, and he could
11:23 am
get eight pennies out of a nickel. but i didn't really know paul at all and my relationship was with his father, and i never was paid anything for my campaign work, and i just had tremendous admiration for what he did, not just being a conservative but the guys had guts, and he had 82% casual ratio a moving experience, and paul thurman ran for the senate and was elected and i didn't know him, and his brother was a page for me for a couple years and knew his mother, and paul was elected by the senate, and people kept calling and saying, who is paul thurman? do you know him? i don't.
11:24 am
and i got a call, and his sister had passed away and asked if i would go to the funeral with him, and it was over the holidays and many of the family members were out of town, and i started a relationship. long story short. two weeks ago, on monday two weeks ago, the governor asked several of us the senator from cherokee and some of us to come and meet with her on monday afternoon, to talk about the battle flag, which i did, and i walked in my office and paul thurman was there and when we left to come back to my office, he had been working on a speech all weekend, and that's probably what we call the speech of the senate this year and he asked if he could read it to me and review it, and i said absolutely. i listened to the speech and made suggestions, and i thought it may improve it and he incorporated some of them and like his dad, he did not
11:25 am
incorporate some of them, and it was truly a great speech. i -- we left that office that afternoon, and the governor asked some of us to stand with her at a press conference, and initially he had to go back to charleston and i sat there and i said, we need to go and stand with the governor, we cannot leave the governor if this is going to be the opposition of the battle flag we need to stand with her and can't leave her out there alone and i think the optics of paul thurman, and i know lindsay graham and scott when other officials but nobody was more important from the optics of this than paul thurman because of what this family has meant to the state, and when he gave the speech he was going to give the speech last week and i went to him the day before and the senator from cherokee asked we need to wait before we get into the flag debate and maybe if you can ask him to delay it, and i said would you delay it
11:26 am
until next week and he looked at me and said, no not going to do it, i am going to give it today. so i just want to let everybody know after this past three years, when i walk into the chamber every day, i look at that portrait because i was chair of the portrait commission in 1987, and built the monument for it on the state house grounds, and senator from charleston, paul thurman, your dad is looking at you and saying, that's my boy. >> thank you. >> we have voteiosetoes, approximately 37 veto ppz. >> the south carolina senate moved on to other agenda items and at the top of the list was the debate over the confederate flag. senate lawmakers approved a bill that would remove the confederate battle flag from the state house, and that measure is now moving over to the south carolina house where it's unclear what will happen to the
11:27 am
measure. so this issue is not quite settled. many of you offered facebook comments about the ongoing debate. joshua says this is still a debate? they lost. flag down. end of story. and this from shirley leave the history alone. the only hate i see comes from those wanting to remove it. we look forward to getting your comments and your twitter remarks at facebook.com/cspan. in today's debate and yesterday's from the south carolina senate from the confederate flag is available on our website c-span.org. the u.s. congress returns today from its fourth of july week, and this week the house comes in at 2:00 p.m. and plans to continue and finish work on a bill to fund the interior department and epa and other agencies. among the changes to no child left behind, allowing states to
11:28 am
set their own accountability standards. the senate is back today working on a senate proposal dealing with no child left behind and that particular bill would give states more authority to give weight to standardized desk scores. and see the house today at 2:00 p.m. eastern and the senate when they come in at 2:30. last month the house panel heard from the epa's acting assistant on the rule to revise national standard for ozone, and she talked about the new impact on states and local communities as well as the technology and resources to help meet the new standard. and the epa is expected to finalize that rule by october. i would like to bring the
11:29 am
hearing to order. this morning's hearing is going to be focused on eappa's proposed rule. i would like to recognize myself for the opening statement. the proposed rule would lower the standard from 75 parts per billion down to 65 or 70 and the agency is also taking comments on 60 parts per billion, and these proposed levels are so low that in some parts of the country they are at or near the background levels. the proposed levels are so low that even epa admits that it's not fully known in some areas how to achieve full compliance in in other words, they would have to use unknown controls to do it to meet those standards. the marginal cost of ratcheting down the existing standard go through the roof and epa estimates that a 65 to 70 parts
11:30 am
per billion standard would cost 3.9 to 15 billion annually and 60 parts would cost $39 billion annually. independent estimates are higher and that puts the cost of a 65 parts per billion standard the most expenseive regulation ever. this study also estimates 1.4 million fewer jobs and household costs averaging $830 per year. these costs come on top of all of the other rules we have seen from this administration, many of which also impact the energy and manufacturing sectors, moreover, this rule is yet another chapter in the administration's effort to force more extreme climate policies on
11:31 am
the american people. i might also -- i would like to name a few of them. we have done the utility mack, the border mack the cement mack the cross state air pollution rule and the pm, and the 111 b and d and tier 3 and on top of the proposed ozone rule. i would also like to point out that in today in america there are 230 counties not in compliance with the 2008 standard and i might also add that epa is just now getting around to providing implementing guidance for the states for the 2008 rule. now these counties not meeting the new standard would be designated as nonattainment, and as i said, there are 230 counties today in nonattainment around the country, and epa estimates that fully 358
11:32 am
counties that currently have monitors would be a nonattainment if they go to 70 parts per billion and 558 counties would be in noncompliance at 65 parts per billion based on recent data, and this does not include counties nearby or without ozone monitors that may also be designated by epa to be in nonattainment. now, a nonattainment designation is like a self imposed recession for some areas. in such counties it becomes extremely difficult to obtain a new permit to build a factory or power plant and even permits for existing facilities would be impacted, and just last week in a survey of manufacturers, over half of them, 53%, said they
11:33 am
were not likely to continue with a new plant or expansion if it's located in a nonatoeupbtainment area and the same challenges are for roads and large structure projects and in effect almost all new major job-re-createing economic activity in jeopardized until the nonattainment area meets the standard, which could take years, if not decades. and if a location could be designated as nonattainment is enough to scare off perspective employers so the proposed rule is already doing damage. there is something wrong with our system when you have major parts of california they have the most stringent environmental standards in the country and on top of that epa, and those areas, san joaquin valley los angeles, may never be in
11:34 am
compliance, and they are certainly not in compliance today and have been out of compliance since the beginning of the clean air act, so we have a system that is not working very well. at this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from new jersey for his five-minute opening statement. >> thank you, chairman for holding this hearing on the ozone. and i want to thank janet mccabe for testifying before the sub committee again. since 1970, standards helped to insure all americans can breathe healthy air. essentially the standard sets the level of pollution that is safe to breathe structure has been effective in cleaning the air and protecting public health
11:35 am
including the health of children and seniors, but the current 75 parts per billion standard has fallen short and it has been weaker than the facts would allow, and the advisory committee made crystal clear in order to adequately protect the public health epa must adequately uphold the standard and it was not upheld by the bush administration. and now they want to resize the standard to fall within the range of 65 to 75 parts per billion as recommended by the scientific advisory committee, and epa's provision is consistent with the law and the scientific evidence and there are a litany of impacts that would be avoided with the standards, and millions of
11:36 am
missed school days and thousands of premature deaths. these are meaningful real-world benefits but i have little doubt that today we will hear much about cause, yet a unanimous supreme court opinion made it clear that epa's approach for determining the safe level is correct and costs may not be considered. the standard is set based on the health science and economic costs are only considered later when determining the best way to implement the standard, and the epa sets the goal and the state sets up the way to meet it, and epa has nevertheless worked with the office of management and budget to prepare a careful analysis of the projected costs and benefits associated with reducing ozone. epa estimates that the benefits associated with the new ozone standards would range from 13 to
11:37 am
$38 billion annually outweighing the cost of approximately 3 to 1. industry has prepared tkaoub russ and grossly inflated estimates of the costs, but fail to consider any of the benefits. that paints a one-sided picture of the cost of cleaning our air, and children's lungs are developing and breathe greater volumes of air for their size. these doomsday claims about the costs of clean air are nothing new, and the history of the clean act have claims that never come true and the clean air act produced tremendous public benefits while supporting america's economic growth. the standard is long overdo. we need to let epa do its job to reach the goal of the clean air act, and i look forward to ms.
11:38 am
mccabe's testimony. >> i recognize the gentleman from texas mr. olson, for five minutes. >> i thank the chair and i will be very brief. i spent long hours going over comments that epa received about this new ozone rule. there was a common theme, will i lose my job? questions came from big cities and members of the atlanta chamber or the greater houston partnership, and they came from family farms and ranches, and members of the iowa farm bureau or nebraska home builders, and a mom and pop store in pennsylvania wrote epa, and this is a quote parents tell our
11:39 am
children eat your peas, then you can have dessert. epa says eat your peas then you can have more peas. end quote. the worse came from epa's workhorses workhorses, the state agencies that make this rule work. they have no clue about the science used for the health impacts. they worry if they can build new roads. these voices come from all of america, and i hope epa starts listening. and one of my colleagues on my side want some time, i will yield, and if not, i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields back,
11:40 am
and at this time we recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> i want to welcome back ms. mccabe the acting assistant administrator for air and radiation and epa, and she's always giving us her best and always a pleasure to hear her insightment and forthright testimony before this sub committee. mr. chairman, today has been duly noted we are here to discuss the proposed national ambien the air quality standards for the ozone which the epa is legally mandated to put forth the new clean air act. the clean air act requires the
11:41 am
epa to set primary national ambient air qualities and concentration levels sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety for certain pollutants that endanger public health and the environment. we know that the epa establishes these standards based on medical and scientific evidence, as well as the recommendations provided by the clean air as advisory committee, which, mr. chairman you know is an independent scientific review committee. the epa is required to base these standards, which it must be reviewed every five years solely on consideration of public health and they must
11:42 am
accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge, mr. chairman. we know that in 2008 the bush administration failed to heed to the unanimous recommendations of the committee, of the clean air scientific advisory committee of low wurg the air quality standards, and instead the epa and that president bush set the standard at 75 and 60 to 70 pbp
11:43 am
standards. the obama administration also initially failed to reconsider the ozone standard in 2009 until being ordered to do so by the courts in april of last year due to a lawsuit brought forth by in environmental and department of public health groups. that leads us to ask why is this rule so very important and why did the court force the epa to act? well, we know that there are serious health affects caused by the ozone and the epa's proposal will improve air quality and result in significant public health benefits.
11:44 am
children, the elderly and people with respiratory diseases such as asthma will be impacted directly by this rule. the epa estimates that there are currently 25.9 million people in the u.s. with asthma including 7.1 million children. mr. chairman my seat in chicago has been inproportionately impacted by asthma and the affect that the ozone has on asthma. the most recent study shows cooke county, illinois, is home to over 113,000 children and over 340,000 adults with asthma and mr. chairman i don't know what value can be placed on
11:45 am
preventing all of these dire circumstances, all of these illnesses, all of these premature deaths and emergency room visits but i know the people that sent me here to represent them are some of the ones that would be impacted by this procedure and by this action most of all, so i look forward to engaging ms. mccabe on the rational behind this proposal, and so mr. chairman i think i am out of town and i yield back the balance of my time. >> at this time, ms. mccabe i want to thank you for coming here at 9:30 and we apologize for the delay, but we are delighted that janet mccabe is with us, the acting assistant administrator at the epa and you are recognized for five minutes for your statement on the owezone
11:46 am
rule. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today on epa's proposed updates to the ozone national ambient national air quality standards and i will try to be brief so we can get to your questions. the clean act requires the epa to review every five years to make sure they continue to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. for at risk groups including at ranking member rush noted the estimated 25.9 million people who have asthma in the united states of whom 7.1 million are children this is critical work. for this review epa examined the thousands of scientific studies including more than 1,000 new studies published since epa last resized the standards in 2008. based on the law, a thorough review of all of the science the recommendation of the agency's independence scientific advisers and the assessment of epa's scientists and technical
11:47 am
experts the administrator's judgment was the current standard of 75 parts per billion is not adequate to protect the public health so he proposed to strengthen standards within a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion to better protect american's health and welfare. she also acknowledged interests by some. the aqi is the tool that gives americans real-time information about air quality each day so they can make informed choices to protect themselves and their families. ozone seasons are lasting longer than they used to, and so they are proposing to match the season when ozone levels can be elevated.
11:48 am
to protect the environment of damaging levels as required by the clean air act the epa also proposed to other numbers. the administrator judged a secondary standard the same as the primary standard proposal would protect the public welfare particularly against harm to trees and echo systems. we have continued to make updates to smooth the transition to any resized standards and maximize effectiveness in the state, local tribal and federal monitoring programs and give areas new flex bill tease to meet needs for prekerr surz.
11:49 am
the administrator's proposal to strengthen the standards is designed to better protect children and families from the health affects of ozone pollution, for example we estimate meeting a level in a certain range would prevent an estimated 33000 missed school days, and as mathma attacks in children and premature deaths per year. implementing an act has always been and will continue to be a federal, state and tribal partnership. epa stands ready to do our part to assist states and tribes and to streamline implementation. local communities states, strikes and epa have already shown we can produce ground level ozone while our economy continues to thrive. we have reduced air pollution by 70% and our economy has tripled
11:50 am
since 1970 and we fully expect this progress to continue. existing and proposed federal measures like power plant rules are leading to stand nationwide which will help improve air quality and help many areas meet revised standards. we worked towards revising standards by october 1 this year. >> thank you very much. i recognize myself for five minutes for questions. many of us believe the clean air act needs to be changed. you mentioned epa looks at impact on health care by making it more stringent these ozone rules and you eliminate so many
11:51 am
cases of asthma and premature deaths which is important. but under the act you do not have responsibility to look at those pockets of the country that are in noncompliance and the impact that these stringent controls have on jobs. and we have had economist after economist talk about loss of jobs and the impact that that has on health care for children for infants. and yet epa it is all about the benefits, the benefits and there are detriments to these actions because when you -- as you know when an area is in noncompliance they can't build a new plant unless they get a permit. they can't build infrastructure projects. it does have an effect on jobs.
11:52 am
fortunately areas like los angeles, they rely on the entertainment industry and high tech and so forth so they don't have to worry about manufacturing jobs or basic industry jobs. how do you account for the fact for example, that los angeles is still in noncompliance and your own rule states that some of these areas, the only way they will be in compliance is they have to use unknown controls. controls that we don't know what it is. so and you do understand your own testimony and documentation shows that many parts of the country are going to be in noncompliance whether 70 or 65. even president obama tried to prevent implementation delaying
11:53 am
the most recent review and now, of course environmentalist groups who do a good job, they have a role to play, but they're driving epa because they are always going into court and under the strict construction of the language courts say you can't delay. many are frustrated that these groups are driving decisions because of strict language in the original clean air act. i hope you get a sense of the frustration of many parts of the country in kentucky we are going to have 11 more counties in noncompliance at 70. we have 23 more at 65. and every major city in kentucky will be a noncompliance.
11:54 am
>> there is a lot in your question there and i will try to address as much as i can. there are certainly parts of country where meeting the health standard has been extremely challenging due to a variety of factors including particular challenges in southern california. that means is millions of people that live in those areas are exposed to unhealthy air. the good news is that air quality has improved in southern california as well as all across the country. >> but they are still in noncompliance. >> they do not meet the standard but there are way fewer days, and the levels are lower and the area is making progress in a way that still supports a vital local economy. >> how much time does los angeles have to comply? i don't know if they are severe
11:55 am
or extreme, but how many years do they have to comply? >> los angeles is in the extreme category, and under -- football -- if the standard is revised this fall, they would have until 2037 to meet that standard. what that means is, the area has a lot of time to bring reductions into place. >> they have been working on it for 15 or 18 years and not even in compliance for today. >> that's right. the air is still not healthy for the citizens there to breathe. >> i see my time has expired, but many of us feel strongly. you should just continue to implement the existing rule for a while and give the country time to catch up. since you are implementing guidance has not been issued until just recently, i recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and assistant
11:56 am
administrator mccain, in your written testimony you know that nationally, since 1980, average ozone levels have fallen by one-third, and some some are meeting the standards, 37%. what will you say to the argument that we have already reduced our average ozone levels enough and further lowering the standards from 75 to 70 or even 65 will give us -- would not give us the additional health benefits worth the -- as opposed to the costs of trying to reach those higher standards?
11:57 am
>> well, congress in the clean air act directed epa every five years to look at the science, and make a determination about whether the current level is adequate to protect the public health, and based on all of that review and a very open process with external peer review, all along the way, it's based on all of the science that shows that people suffer the affects of ozone air pollution, and that's her job to do under the clean air act and that's what our proposal is all about. >> well, you also point out since 1980 we have reduced our air pollution by nearly 70% and our economy has tripled. we know that by law, the epa
11:58 am
cannot consider the cost of implementing in the primary or secondary air quality standards but only can consider the health benefits, and have there been any cost benefit analysis by the epa or any other agency either before, during or after the proposal? >> you are correct to point out there is a separation that congress laid out in the clean air act in deciding what the science is is important for safe and healthy air and deciding how to meet that standard, which is the states are in charge of because it's their air quality and their sources with considerable help from the federal government. we don't know exactly how the states will go about meeting the standard because we know that they will, as they have over the years, they will find cost-effective ways to do that
11:59 am
with the help of rules provided by the federal government. but we do provide as part of the rule-making process, a regulatory impact analysis, an ria, to show illustrative costs. it's done consistently to help us with those economic reviews. >> the chairman talked about los angeles and other places. what is your viewpoint on why do they stand out and what direction is the epa going to try to bring them more into compliance?
12:00 pm
>> there are a lot of pretty unique features that make southern california very challenging for air quality. it's obviously a very populous area so there is a lot of activity there that creates emissions and there is the unique geography and topography with the oceans and mountains and meteorology there, that makes it challenging. epa has been progressive and smart and innovative, the businesses in california have led the way in figuring out how to reduce emissions and protect the citizens and air quality there, and epa has provided significant support and assistance through grant programs and technology assistance over the years, and certainly we will continue to do that in order to bring the kinds of programs that need to be in place there. one of the advantages of that is that california, the innovations in california have helped the
12:01 pm
rest of the country in terms of bringing new ideas and new approaches into use in ways that can benefit the rest of the country and benefit the economy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> at this time we recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> welcome back, ms. mccabe. we all know that much of the ozone america is beyond our control. and epa calls it background zone. some of the ozone is natural, and it blows from other countries, and i have a slide here. this was houston. some of that is not our ozone. some belongs to mexico. we get it because of annual crop burnings. i have another poster.
12:02 pm
last time i showed this map of ozone pouring into america from china and asia. in your proposal, you admit that natural ozone and ozone from mexico and china can be a huge problem. your rule says, and i quote, there are times when ozone levels approach or exceed the concentration levels being proposed in large part due to background sources, end quote. in small kneeville, texas, you are saying the ozone we can't control makes us violate your new rules. that seems very unfair, ma'am. my first question is, is it true that nearly one-half of the ozone america is here naturally or comes from overseas?
12:03 pm
>> i don't know that i would agree with that formulation exactly. we do address the background issue, and they vary across the country and vary different times of the year, and they come from a variety of sources. i will note the clean air act does not hold states responsible for pollution they do not control and there are provisions and mechanisms in the clean air act to help states -- >> ma'am, i am sorry, but i have only five minutes and thousands of questions back home and i have to cut you off and i apologize. in response to your answer, it goes against your own data. you admit, i will give you the copies of the epa's data that says more ozone is all over this country. we know the natural ozones are not going away and are likely to get much, much bigger, and that
12:04 pm
means we must squeeze more and squeeze more from smaller and smaller sources of ozone. epa says -- can't say how this can be achieved. you don't know. is it true the epa says that much of the technology needed to meet these new rules are unknown today? is that true, yes or no? >> i wouldn't characterize it as much of the technologies. we do recognize in some parts of the country that there may need to be controls identified that are not in existence today, but there are many controls that are in existence today that could be implemented that could reduce air pollution that causes ozone. >> epa admits 43% of the controls needed in the northeast are now unknown. a stark contrast to your answer. one other question, is it true
12:05 pm
that epa won't even consider whether an ozone rule is achievable? is that true? is this -- can we do this with technology? >> our job under the clean air act is to identify the standard that is necessary to protect the public health. that's what this rule is about, is letting the american people know what is safe and healthy air for them to breathe. >> you can't take in account of achievability, can't do that, by law, is that what you are saying, ma'am? >> the supreme court has spoken to this, and this is about the science and about what is healthy for the american people. >> sounds like we need to change that law. one final question, ma'am, the law does not require as you know, the epa to change the ozone rule every five years you just have to review it as you said in your opening comments, and you say you have to change the current rule because the 2008 rule doesn't protect human
12:06 pm
health. yet back home the commission on environmental quality points out that your own modeling in your appendix 7, it says it would result in more deaths in houston, texas, with a lower standard. tceu concludes, the epa can't read their own data or you are accepting a lower ozone standard that makes health worse. any comments about that fact, ma'am? >> i would very much disagree with the way tcq characterized the data, and if you look at the entire body of data you will see the health benefits of the proposed ozone standard are substantial. we welcome everybody's comment on the rule and tcq has provided a lot of analysis which we are
12:07 pm
looking closely at. >> we will get a copy of the assessment and have it to you today. thank you. >> your time has expired. we recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> earlier in your testimony you said that you looked at thousands of reports, a thousand more recent reports that concluded to protect the health and safety of the communities, 75 was a little too high. are we splitting hairs or talking about large scale affects? >> we are talking about millions of people that suffer from the pollution and at a lower level would not suffer. >> one of the missions is to protect health in our community.
12:08 pm
was there a rule recently that insured that the epa must look at health and safety of the community first before looking at economic impacts? >> that's exactly what courts have said with regard to setting these air quality standards, yes. >> thank you. i -- the chairman mentioned san joaquin valley, which is my home, so i appreciate your attention, mr. chairman, but i have seen over the last several years, improvement in the air quality and i think it's due to the air quality standards epa initiated, and one of the things we do is incentivize diesel equipment to be replaced, and that takes time, and so i appreciate that we are going to continue to look at those and keep those standards in place, and i just want to say, the bay area contributes a lot of the ozone to the san joaquin valley, sort of like what mr. olson was
12:09 pm
saying, we get a lot of it from outside of our region, so we ask you to take special consideration to that in helping us make those attainments and the sort of penalties assessed when you don't make those attainments, and i appreciate mr. olson's comments on that. how is the eba going to assess drought impacts on air pollution and ozone? >> we know that the drought situation is incredibly severe and challenging and troubling in california and elsewhere. that can contribute to poor air quality because of increased dust. but we also have tools in the clean air act that can allow states to evaluate their air quality as it is being influenced by natural conditions, such as that, and we're working closely with the states to make sure that our guidance and expectations are
12:10 pm
current with situations like drought and wildfires, which are also a challenge to make sure that states aren't responsible for natural conditions and that sort of thing that can create ozone situations. >> would you confirm my observation that the air quality is improving in the san joaquin valley? >> yes, i certainly would. >> do you have something you could say here about that? >> well, i don't have figures with me, congressman, although i would be happy to get those to you, and the air quality has been improving and it's due to the kinds of programs that you mentioned, replacing older and dirtier engines with cleaner and newer ones, and working close with the agriculture community to find sensible things to do. >> so non-attainment doesn't penalize us in the sense of
12:11 pm
backtracking the actual air quality in the region? >> no, no, not at all. it's all moving in the right direction. >> thank you. could you explain the difference between secondary standards and primary standards? >> yes, primary standards are focussed on public protecting human health and secondary standards are focused in protecting public welfare, so those are other things that we care about as people who live in the country, ecosystems and affects on buildings, and the other things that make our economy and our quality of life what it is. >> so then you said you are going to set the primary and secondary standards the same with regard to ozone? >> it turns out, we do an
12:12 pm
independent analysis of the information that exists on human health and the secondary impacts, and there's an extensive discussion in the preamble and proposal and the advisory committee spoke to that directly, and our review of the science shows that a standard set in the range of 65 to 70 will provide the protection that the welfare impact, that the science tells us the welfare impacts require. >> at this time we recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you, and good to have you back. personally, just you as an individual, don't you believe that having a good paying job with health benefits is also protective of human health? >> i think it's important for everybody to have a job and -- >> and health care benefits of some sort? >> of course i do. >> and that's part, when you
12:13 pm
hear the questions and responses back and forth, that's part of our challenge is, especially as i follow-up on this question, is that you all as in epa don't really have the authority to evaluate that with respect to your primary mission, which is protecting human health via the air regulations, right? you can't weigh in, and you are not making those cost benefit analyses, and they are so far down the decision tree that many of us believe that doesn't happen. let me go to another question based on a comment you made, because a lot of this is, 75 parts per billion in 2008, many states have not met those yet, but now we are ratcheting down even more and there is a lot of uncertainty. that will move on to my third question once i get there. in your response you talked about background is different in different areas, so are you
12:14 pm
considering a different regulation standard based upon the variance of background? could one area of the country have a 70 parts per billion and another have 75? >> well, the standard is supposed to reflect what is safe for people to breathe. so a child living in florida and a child living in oregon should be entitled to the -- >> but background is background. background is there without, in essence, human contact. >> that's right, and that comes into play when states are putting their plans to go and epa is working with states to figure out how much time and what needs to be done in order to reach those standards so that areas that have more challenges -- >> but if an area has 70 parts per billion background, you
12:15 pm
can't get them to 65 through the power of government. >> but there are two very important elements to the standard. one is for the people that live in that area to know whether the air they are breathing is healthy or not. >> so they should move, is that the answer? get out of that 70 parts per billion area because it's not healthy. >> they should know when the air quality is bad, they might want to -- >> what should they do? it's naturally occurring and that's the background. >> right, and understand, too, ozone changes from day-to-day. >> so they should take a vacation during those days? you see our problem. in rolling this out, i would hope that -- background is important, and background should be a standard. we should not try to have government force something that is not naturally occurring based
12:16 pm
upon nature without man's intervention. >> if i could clarify a point on the background because i think it may be -- people may be thinking that there -- this is pervasive. in fact, across the country, most of the ozone contributing to high values is locally or regionally created. there are very few areas and very few parts of the country where background can get as high as approaching the levels -- >> but you understand our concern even if it's a low possibility, and anyway, i will move on to the last question. we just finished our congressional baseball game last night and we lost again, but it makes me think about what chairman whitfield was addressing. had we started the game and then halfway through the game the strike zone changed, or in the second inning the number of outs changed, or the fourth inning
12:17 pm
the foul lines changed or the outfield walls got moved in, that would be make for a very frustrating, impossible game, don't you agree? >> ozone is not about rules but about science. >> this is about utility mack, and cross air pollution, and 111d, and 111 b, ozone, different standards, particulate matter, tier 3. we are changing the rules on the fly and the people creating jobs in the country cannot manage it, and that's our problem with the epa, and i yield back my time. >> and we recognize the representative from california for five minutes. >> maybe it's a bias because i have been a public health nurse
12:18 pm
for a long time, but when it comes to air quality i believe our focus must be primarily on protecting public health. this is a standard set by the congress in the standard clean air act. clean air has real and significant impacts on the health and well-being of all americans, and this was underscored by our ranking member bobby rush from chicago where they know a thing or two about pollution, too. health benefits which he is arguing for are even better in the context of clean air and even polluters benefit from healthier employees taking sick days, so i want you to elaborate on this fact. what is the economy value?
12:19 pm
>> it's absolutely true, and i think many agree that a clean and healthy environment is very positive for the economy as well as for public health. we are analysis shows at 60 million parts per billion, and 65, 19 to $38 billion, and that comes from the things you cited, fewer missed school days and less visits to the emergency room and that sort of thing. >> some oppose strengthening ozone standards because it would increase the number of nonattainment areas, and does the clean air act require epa to set ozone standards based on how many areas currently meet that standard or based on protecting public health. >> it's based on protecting public health. >> for those areas that need to make improvements, and many are in my home state of california,
12:20 pm
what resources are available to help lower the ozone layers? i think the word smog was invented in the los angeles area, and i live a tiny bit to the north of it but we still struggle every day. are these areas on their own or does the federal government provide assistance? >> this was a partnership between the federal government and the state governments, and the federal government assists in a number of ways, and one is by bringing tremendous benefits, and other rules that make sense to do it at a national level. we also help the states by providing financial assistance and aport, and technical assistance and grants, and your area has certainly benefits from those sorts of programs that can be targeted to the specific needs of a particular area. >> thank you. as you know well, this is increasingly impacting our daily lives, and storms are getting
12:21 pm
stronger and floods are worse and droughts, as i noel in california now, and wildfires are getting more severe, and climate change also increases the levels of ozone in the air we breathe. would you explain just very simply how climate change is expected to impact ozone levels and how will this affect our human health? >> as the climate gets warmer, warm conditions are what is conducive to ozone formation. it can lead to increased ozone formation and circulary, it helps contribute to the effects we are seeing. >> briefly, and finally, i hear so often the industry as well as some here in congress cite high costs estimates as a reason to oppose strengthening public health standards and it's the same argument being used against the proposed ozone standards,
12:22 pm
and i believe the costs should be considered and there's a way you are talking about doing that, and these costs must be weighed against the benefits and it's important to recognize estimates help people and the lives saved. how do the standards compare to the costs? what is the balance, the tradeoff? >> as we laid out, the benefits outweigh the costs to $3 to every $1 spent. >> this is based on studies that do this? >> it's based on all the information available to us, the things people are likely to do and the costs associated with the cost benefits associated with the health benefits. >> thank you very much, and i yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for five minutes. >> thank you for being here today, and it seems like you hangout here quite a bit. good to have you back. >> i do.
12:23 pm
>> a quick question, if we were able to somehow eliminate all ground level ozone, there would still be people that would be respiratory illnesses, you would agree with that, wouldn't you? >> sure, there are lots of things that contribute to respiratory illness. >> as we learn how to measure more minute levels, and i am concerned as we look at this if we revise the current ozone standards how that is going to affect transportation conformity requirements. if you can briefly say what transportation conformity, what does that mean? >> transportation conformity is a provision in the act that wants to make sure that as states and municipalities are working to improve their air quality, transportation planning
12:24 pm
is taken into account and that transportation planning takes air quality into account, so that areas won't undermine their efforts to improve air quality inadvertently through transportation projects that could increase air pollution. >> so states and localities will have that responsibility. >> they do have that now, and working with the federal government. >> and in order to make that demonstration, what kind of modeling tools will these cities need to use? >> well, there are tools that are in existence now and tools that epa and federal highway provides that we work with the states on to analyze those impacts. we have been doing this for a long time. >> how reasonable or what type of situation is it for smaller cities? what about those that have that? are you expecting the smaller
12:25 pm
cities to do the same analysis, and is that reasonable and what are you anticipating? >> we would certainly provide any assistance that we needed to for any community. this is a focus in larger communities, more populous communities, but we would provide whatever assistance was needed? >> are you planning on extending that to every community? >> the clean act provides the areas that needs to look at transportation conformity, so we would look at the regulation. >> if epa were to allow the measures to work existing now -- wouldn't many cities avoid having to do these time consuming transportation conformity analysis? >> ria looks at what we are expecting to happen in the future, looking at the ones in place and under development now,
12:26 pm
and we show the vast majority of the areas that right now would have levels in exceeding these standards by 2025 will come in to attainment of those standards through these measures. >> you know we have lots of important issues, and one of those issues is what to do about our highway bridges, infrastructure, issues that we have in this country, and in many of those, they need to be repaired and we need new ones that need to be built, and stringent ozone standards will obviously make it harder for states to show that highway products conform with ozone standards. has epa considered the economic and safety impacts that would result if the standards block transportation standards? >> i don't think we have seen conformity blocks transportation projects, especially ones needed
12:27 pm
for safety reasons. >> you have not seen that under the current, but if we have more stringent requirements, and that causes additional costs, could you explain that? >> i don't expect the system would work differently in any areas. we don't expect a lot of new areas to be come into nonattainment with the new standards, but all of the provisions in there about making sure that important safety projects go forward and other important projects go forward, those will all continue to apply. >> thank you, and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. greene, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ms. mccabe. as epa delayed the knox standard? >> the knox standard? >> yeah.
12:28 pm
>> there is the n-02 standard, and the epa has not met its deadlines in the past. >> if epa had not delayed the standards when the law required them to review the standard, what would be the regular timeline, 2015? >> the last time the ozone standard was resized was in 2008, and clean air act says every five years, and 2013 would have been five years. >> in your testimony, you say the epa examined thousands of scientific studies, and the ozone, epa acknowledged there was new information they couldn't consider, and most importantly by 2017, the following standards would be in place and significantly affect ozone and precursors. ozone knocks at 75 parts per billion, and mercury and air toxic standards, and new source
12:29 pm
performance standards for volatile organic compounds, and articulate matter that is important because epa acknowledges reduction of particulate matter. the epa reviews all the new data in 2017. >> the clean air act gives us a timetable of every five years and we are late on that, and because this is about letting the american people know what is
12:30 pm
healthy air quality for them. >> well, in earlier, the epa stated in earlier decisions based on applicable the statutory requirements and the volume requiring the careful evaluation, the epa estimates it would take two years to incorporate the new deadlines. the epa has missed deadlines for completion the straighter concluded that the best course of action would be to complete the current review based on the existing air standard and proceed as rapidly as possible with the next review. why would epa not make a similar decision now since we are in 2015 now? >> because we are now in the regular review, and we are past our statutory deadline. and we are subject to a court schedule to finalize this rule. >> my earlier question, there have been times that epa has
12:31 pm
delayed it in the past, is that true? >> there are -- on our regularly required five-year review, there have been times when we have not met that deadline. i think you are referring to the ozone reconsideration which was not a mandatory requirement under the clean air act, but for our mandatory five-year review cycle, we have not deliberately delayed but have missed deadlines, and we are in that situation now. >> i guess the concern that i have and you have heard it from other members is that we have not met the current standard and yet we are getting ready to see some really things happen, and so to put a new standard on with all of this is maybe starting too early before we see what the benefits are of the other things that the industries and everybody else is complying with, and again, epa has delayed it in the past, but, you know, for a two-year delay, while all
12:32 pm
these other things come into play, it will have better data then to be able to look at it? >> i will say, congressman greene, the affect of the various measures will affect air quality, so if the standard is resized and folks need to look at which areas do and don't meet the standard, all of those programs, like mercury and air toxic standard and tier 3 will a bring air quality down so fewer areas will be in nonattainment and those programs will provide assistance in order to improve air quality in those areas. >> part of our particulate matter in my area is because of lack of infrastructure improvements. we could be hindering those if we make it more difficult. anyway, i'm out of time, but i appreciate you being here. >> recognize the gentleman from west virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
12:33 pm
what's the time frame in getting some written -- because i don't think we're going to be able to get through our questions. is there a time frame to submit written questions? >> yeah, ten days. >> thank you. welcome back. my question is, should a rule like this that helps public health be withheld because of a regulatory burden that we've been referring to here? >> i'm not sure i understand your question, congressman. >> if there's a regulatory burden that's going to be imposed with this, should the epa withhold the bill? or the rule. >> the clean air act directs epa to set the standards. the supreme court has said that that is our job to do and that the issues related to implementation are a separate
12:34 pm
matter of separate consideration, not to be considered in determining what the proper public health levels -- >> i'm just curious because it goes back that -- and you've heard us several times mention here the president did step in and say this was going to cause regulatory burden and therefore he asked that the rule be held back for a period of time. that's an accurate statement isn't it that the president did intercede? >> that was a -- >> that was in 2011. so i guess part of me -- part of the question is what's changed? if he felt this rule should not have proceeded because it had regulatory burdens with it, what's improved since 2011? is it going to be less burdensome to industry? >> the decision to -- >> those were his words, director, that he just said if it has a regulatory burden, i think we should hold it back. >> i respectfully disagree
12:35 pm
that's what he said. that decision was made in the context of knowing there would be the required five-year review and the decision there was to deter and stop with the reconsideration process in deference to the review -- >> i underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burden. i request administrator jackson to withdraw the ozone standards. i think that's interesting because i'm curious to see what's changed. how the economy has improved or the regulatory burden is less. i have just limited questions and time on this. i'm just curious about how a county is supposed to work in actual functioning through it. up to 20 counties i represent, 75% are going to be in
12:36 pm
noncompliance if you go to 65. 75%. so how are they supposed to, in a real world, not from academia, but how are they supposed to function when they are going to be in a nonattainment county? 75% of my counties, 15 of those are going to be -- what are they supposed to do? >> there are counties all across the country that have experienced poor air quality, designated nonattainment in the past and states work with those counties to get programs in place to improve air quality. >> can you give me an example. air 30,000 feet. how are they going to change the air quality in jefferson county west virginia that is at 81? >> i can talk more -- i can talk better about my own home state of indiana. >> these are just three counties in a row that average 73. they are already going to be so far over. are we telling them when they
12:37 pm
sit at a table and they can't get a job it's because their air quality was fine at 75 but if they get to 65 there's no jobs coming to west virginia? >> what states do in nonattainment situations is they look at the local sources of air pollution and put in place sensible measures to reduce those. it might be local industry. it might be -- >> okay. you're telling local industry to change how it -- >> industry has controlled air pollution remarkably over the years. i come from indiana. i was the air director there. we have an area in northwest indiana that -- >> we have some counties like tyler county -- we have some counties that have just one industry, yet they're not in attainment. >> there are many counties from where the air pollution is not generated from right within that county but regionally. that's why states work with metropolitan areas and why the
12:38 pm
clean air act has provisions to make sure if upwind states are contributing to down wind states those upwind states take responsibility. that's why epa moves forward with federal programs such as the tier three, which makes motor vehicle traffic much cleaner. >> i'll get back to that. i'd like to have more of a written answer on that. how are we going to make sure there are job opportunities. i want to close very quickly. why are the tribes excluded? >> they aren't excluded. the tribes have the opportunity to regulate themselves and, if not -- >> but the proposal says the tribes are not obligated to adopt any of the ambient air quality standards for ozone. and they are not required to -- that sounds like an exemption to me. >> the federal government
12:39 pm
implements the standards in indian country unless a tribe chooses to seek to do it themselves. so the standards apply in indian country. regulations get put in place to indian country. it's just the federal government has the initial responsibility to do that. >> i know i'm way over time. i'm interested how they're going to change their operation. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we recognize the gentle lady from florida, miss castro. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for calling this hearing and welcome. listening to my colleagues' comments today takes me back to a time when i was younger. the clean air act was originally adopted by the congress in the 1960s. is that right? >> yes. >> and there have been significant amendments in the
12:40 pm
1970s and especially in 1990. i think back to -- we've all kind of lived through this era. i don't think anyone can argue that america is better off because we breathe cleaner air. we've been able to balance environmental progress with economic progress. we have the strongest economy in the world today. why we have our challenges. we've had our setbacks, but we've been able to combine environmental progress, cleaner air, cleaner water, oversight of chemicals with economic progress and good jobs. i remember very well in the late '60s and 1970s walking outside. my home is tampa, florida. and the air was awful. it was -- we're a warm climate so we have very smoggy days. now it's much better.
12:41 pm
it's noticeably better. and anyone that lived in the '60s and '70s, whether you were in an industrial area or not, you understand the progress we've made. i want to thank you for your attention to cleaner air that we breathe. what a privilege to live in a country that's been able to show such environmental stewardship and balance it against economic progress. and that's the history of this country. i'm confident we can continue to make that kind of progress. ms. mccabe, what is the ozone standard right now? >> 75 parts per billion. >> what does that mean? >> that means in a billion units of air, no more than 75 of those should be ozone in order to provide healthy air quality. >> and how long has it been the 75?
12:42 pm
>> that was adopted in 2008. >> and what was it before that time? >> it was 85. >> so -- and now the proposal, epa's proposal directed by the court, directed by the congress in statute is to go where now? >> what the administrator proposed was a level somewhere between 65 and 75 parts per billion. >> and that was after significant discussion by the clean air scientific advisory committee. what is that? >> that is an external expert advisory panel that epa convenes and has assisted us with all reviews of natural ambient air. it's a panel to review all of the science that epa develops. our office of research and development and the office of air and radiation. they go through a lengthy process of reviewing multiple documents, both science
12:43 pm
documents and policy documents and give us feedback on the science that we're looking at. >> so they considered all sorts of levels? >> oh, yes, right. and they looked at all the studies that we looked at. they considered all of that information and our evaluation much that. >> that committee indicated and concluded that there is adequate scientific evidence to recommend a range of levels for revised primary ozone standard from 70 parts per billion to 60 parts per billion. with regard to the upper bound of 70 parts per billion they said based on the scientific evidence a level of 70 parts per billion provides little margin of safety for protection of public health, particularly for its sensitive subpopulations like children, elderly, folks with respiratory problems. although a level of 70 parts per billion is more protective of public health than the current
12:44 pm
standard, it may not meet the statutory requirement to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. what are they saying there? >> well, they are acknowledging, first of all, that it's the administrator's job to make this judgment about what protects the public health with an adequate margin of safety. they looked at all of this information and that they see evidence in the science record from the level of 70 down to a level of 60 that shows adverse impacts on public health from ozone at these levels of exposure. what they are saying is at the top end of the range there's less cushion, less margin of safety. >> this was taking into account as the administrator developed the proposal? >> it was. >> and, i mean, when you consider that the public health benefits for children, the elderly respiratory diseases, we all know someone in our family or someone with asthma. 26 million people in the u.s.
12:45 pm
are estimated to have asthma. 7 million children. certainly we can continue the environmental progress to improve the public health and balance it against the economic needs of the country. i think this is the united states of america, and it can be done. thank you for staying true to the law. >> recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as you know, i represent a fairly rural district that includes the appalachian mountains, appalachian trails, blue ridge mountains, a stone's throw from the smokeys. my understanding is under epa requirements in order to construct a new source of emissions or expand an existing source there's a need to find offsets.
12:46 pm
is that accurate? >> it depends on how an area is designated. so areas that are the least polluted areas in terms of ozone, it changes as the area gets more and more severely polluted. >> okay. kentucky's air regulator raised concerns about the impacts on rural communities. it will restrict economic development in these rural communities since the areas have no offset emissions available for new sources. rural counties would be negatively impacted with little opportunity for economic development. for rural counties, would states be able to seek relief from some of those offset requirements? >> there's a provision that focused on rural counties that may be a nonattainment because of transported air pollution. so we would work with any state that wanted to come forward and talk about rural counties. >> you said transported ozone. the problem that i fear some of
12:47 pm
my areas may have with the newer requirements as well is that it's not transported but it's natural. as you know, trees produce volatile organic compounds which combined with sunlight produce ozone. thus the name smoky mountains, blue ridge mountains because the mountains themselves with the threes produce ozone. it's not necessarily transported. it's ozone because we are in fact, rural and have trees that produce some of this. it's not 80%, but it is a significant contributor, particularly in the rural areas like mine in the eastern
12:48 pm
appalachians. scientific american in the june 1st, 2014 story singled out or said according to their research black gum, popper, oak, and willow are significant producers of volatile organic compounds. is there anything that would give us that offset or do we have to go out into the forest, national or private, and say you have to cut the black gum, poplar, oak, and willow, but you can leave the others that are low producers of volatile compounds? >> what our science shows, the areas that have significant challenges with background ozone are in the rocky mountains. the higher elevation areas. we're not seeing that kind of a situation with that in other areas of the country. >> you think the central appalachians will be okay? >> i do. >> but what about this offset? if it's not transported, would that rule also cover naturally occurring ozone? >> as we look forward, i would be happy to get you this information on virginia particularly, but as we look at
12:49 pm
areas that are likely to be in nonattainment, we will look at air quality in future years to make those determinations. and i don't think we're seeing widespread nonattainment in rural areas. but in those areas where we do, there are opportunities there to work with those areas. >> i appreciate the area to work on it. i am concerned about it. i'm going to have to ask you some of these questions offline because time is precious and we don't get so much. but if you could get us some basic process on what the states have to do. what's the process for reviewing the state implementation plans? what is the range of time this can take to complete. if the epa doesn't approve, if the epa doesn't approve a state's implementation plan, what happens to the state? does it become subject to a federal plan?
12:50 pm
and would there then be litigation between the states and the epa over that? >> the clean air act lays out a lot of steps. depending on the severity of the area that dictates how much time the states have. area, that dictates how much time the states have. typically if an area is considered -- most areas the last time around, were designated as marginal nonattainment which means they were not obliged to do a plan because they were expected to come into attainment, and many do. for ones that are moderate or above, they typically have three years to put a plan together. epa works with those states. to try to make sure those plans are going to be -- >> what happens if the state plan is not approved? >> generally, we work back and forth with the state to get it to a place where it's approvable. >> what if it's not? what do you do? do you come up with a federal plan? >> well if a state really didn't want to make a plan that was approvable which most
12:51 pm
states do, the clean air act does provide that epa would step into a federal plan. but i have to say that is very very rare in this situation because -- both because states want to do their plans, because they are possible to do them and because we work hard with the state -- >> i've got to go. but in those places where they don't want to because you've made the standard so low, you may see more litigation. thank you. >> the gentleman from new jersey mr. pallone, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. some of my colleagues are quick to argue that epa's proposed ozone standard will hurt the economy. history tells us that cleaning up pollution can benefit the economy as well as human health and the environment. it provides a perfect example of how we can make steady progress in cleaning up the air while growing the economy. ms. mccabe, do we have to choose between clean air and economic growth? what does the history of the
12:52 pm
clean air act tell us about our ability to cut pollution while building our economy? >> it shows us the two things go hand in hand. we reduced air pollution dramatically in this country. the economy has grown. we've also shown that this country -- and businesses in this country have innovated and come up with pollution control technologies that employ american workers and make us leaders in the world on selling this kind of technology. >> when we talk about air pollution regulation my republican colleagues often focus on costs, but they aren't talking about the costs to exposure to unsafe air. they're talking about cost to polluters of cleaning up air act. how do the costs and benefits stack up? >> well, we look at both. we lay both of those out, and in our analysis that we put out with our proposed rule it showed the benefits of this rule would outweigh the cost by 3-1. >> along those lines, the national association of manufacturers estimates the cost
12:53 pm
of this rule would be $140 billion annually making the new ozone standard the most expensive rule-making in history. epa's cost estimate was much lower. so tell us how much does epa expect this standard to cost? >> yes. our estimates, and again these are illustrative because the states will make their own choices but our estimates are that at a level of 66 parts per billion it would be in the range of $19 to $38 billion in the first standard of 70 parts per billion -- i'm sorry. i said that completely wrong. range from $3.9 billion to $15 billion depending on where the standard is. >> so this based on your experience that $140 billion price tag doesn't seem reasonable to you? >> it does not match our evaluation. >>, yeah i mean, this concentration of costs i think, has been misguided over the history of the clean air act industry has consistently
12:54 pm
exaggerated the potential cost of controlling pollution. how have these doomsday predictions measured up to reality? >> well, they -- they haven't, given the information that folks have in front of them. in 1997 there were similarclaims made that 1997 standards were going to kill the economy and that absolutely hasn't come true. >> you know, i just wanted to ask you something based on some of my republican colleagues. and i'm not trying to be critical of them. but, can you confirm this -- can you confirm that under epa's projections for west virginia and virginia there will be zero counties in 2025 that will exceed 65 or 70 parts per billion? does that sound right to you? >> that does sound right to me. >> i have a minute -- a little over a minute. let me get to some other questions. the clean air act requires epa
12:55 pm
to review the science behind the national air quality standards every five years to ensure the best information is used. epa examined thousands of scientific studies when reviewing the ozone standard. given this body of evidence, what are some of the health impacts associated with breathing air that contains ozone. and which groups of people are most affected? >> ozone can have a range of impacts on the respiratory system, inflammation of the lungs, exacerbated asthma, and this is especially significant for people who have asthma, for children, elderly, people with compromised respiratory systems. the studies also show an association between premature mortality and exposure to ozone. >> i understand the clean air scientific advisory committee and epa scientists recommended the agency strengthen the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to a level within the range of 60 to 70. the administrator proposed to strengthen the standard to a level within the range of 65 to
12:56 pm
70. is the proposed ozone level an aggressive or overzealous action by epa as some may claim? >> we believe the range is very well supported by the scientific information and affirmed by our external peer review panel. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> this time i recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. long, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. mccabe at the same time the epa is moving forward with its proposed -- or excuse me, with its proposed ozone rule, it's also proposing its clean power plan, which would require states to prepare plans to submit to the epa. how can we realistically expect epa to manage several new rounds of state plan revisions that will be needed with the new ozone standard at the same time that they're reviewing plans for the clean power plan?
12:57 pm
that's going to take a lot of money and a lot of people isn't it? and do you have those people and that money? >> these are important programs the clean air act directs us to implement. we expect to use our resources to work with the states to get this work done. >> do you expect to, but is it practical? is it feasible? a lot of people want to do a lot of things have lofty goals, but when push comes to shove, they can't get it done. do you realistically think this is something the agency can handle? >> i do, congressman. this is our job to do, and we'll make sure we get it done. >> i know it's your job. but i just question how it can possibly -- how you can have the resources, the time. you're behind on several things already. the time, the money and the employees to accomplish the goal.
12:58 pm
>> some of this work is overlapping as well. some of the technical work that we do in terms of air quality modeling. and it's efficient to do some of these things together. so -- >> some of the state plan revisions overlap? >> the technical work that underlies the work that epa and the states need to do in order to implement these programs. >> okay. a few months ago i met with some city officials from springfield, missouri, which is my hometown. i represent springfield, branson, joplin, southwest part of missouri. and they are one of the most forward-thinking cities and have done more work on an integrated plan than just about anybody. in fact, they were invited out to i believe it was alexandria. just them and one other city. i think -- can't remember now the other city. only two cities in the united states were invited out to present how they did their plan
12:59 pm
and what they do. but anyway, they discussed this integrated plan for implementing mandates from the environmental protection agency. and after analyzing the cost of the mandates over the next 20 years, and i've heard some people speculate here today that things are never as bad as they seem, but if this was even 50% accurate, it's not doable. it's devastating. and they found that complying with the epa mandates would cost each individual in my district, each of my 751,000 constituents, $46,000. now, you can cut that in half if you'd like and say 23, but anyway, and cut it in half again if you'd like, but it's not feasible. it's not doable. missouri alone is looking at billions of dollars in compliance costs with proposed ozone regulation and financial
1:00 pm
impact that it will have on everything from manufacturing to transportation. and it's going to, like i say, affect -- have an impact on each one of my constituents. do you all look at the comprehensive, financial and economic impact to these regulations at all, that they're going to have on the states and our sfu yents? >> i'm not familiar with the study you're talking about, congressman, but -- >> i'll get it to you. integrated plan, city of springfield for the next 20 years. i'll be glad to provide that to you and your staff. but let's say that you were familiar with it. at what point -- my question is do you all look at the economic impact? >> so, each rule looks at its impacts in light of the rules that have come before it. and so there is a -- an understanding of the rules and the impacts. both benefits and costs that are

10 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on