administration failed to heed the unanimous recommendations of the committee the clean air scientific advisory committee, allowing this ozone air quality air standards to between 60 and 70 points per million, instead the epa and president bush set the standard of 75 ppbs, and then the 60 to 70 standard would be more protective of the public health. 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 environmental and department of health. that leaves us to ask the question, mr. chairman 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. 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 people in the u.s. with asthma, including 7.1 million children, and mr. chairman my seat in chicago has been disproportionately impacted by asthma and the affect the ozone has on asthma. the recent study shows cooke county, illinois it's home to over 13,000 children with as ma, and mr. chairman i don't know what value can be placed on preventing all of these dire circumstances, and all the illnesses and premature deaths and emergency room visits but the people that sent me here to represent them are some of the

once that would be impacted by this procedure, and so i look forward to engaging mrs. mccabe on the rational behind the proposal, and mr. chairman, i think i many a out of time. i yield back the balance of my time. at this time, mrs. mccabe i want to thank you for coming here early this morning at 9:30 and we apologize for the delay, but we are delighted that janet mccabe is with us and the acting administrator of the epa and you are recognized for five minutes for your statement on the ozone rule. >> thank you, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on epa's proposed updates to the ozone national ambient air quality standards. i will try to be brief. the clean air act requires epa to review the standards every

five years to make sure they continue to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. for at risk groups, including as ranking member rush has noted, the estimated 29.5 million people that 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 provides the standards in 2008, and a thorough review of all of the science, the recommendation of the agency's independent scientific advisers and the assessment of epa scientists and technical experts the administrator's judgment was the current standard at 75 parts per billion is not adequate to protect the hub health so she wanted to strengthen that to

better protect americans' health and welfare. it was also acknowledged in offering comment in retaeupbg the existing standard. we also proposed to update the air quality index for ozone to reflect a resized standard if one is finalized and that is a 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 so epa proposed to lengthen the monitor monitoring season. to protect the environment, the epa has also proposed to resize the secondary standard, based upon new studies that add to the evidence that repeated exposure

reduces growth the administrator judged a secondary standard within the range of 65-75 parts per billion, the same as the standard proposal, would protect the public health care particularly to ecosystems. we have updates to smooth the transition to any resized standards, and maximize effectiveness in the state, local and tribal and federal monitoring programs and give areas new flex bill tease to meet local needs for monitoring owe ozone precursers. the administrators proposals to strengthen the standards is better designed to protect children and families from the health atpebgtszffects of ozone pollution. we estimate it would prevented

an estimated 330,000 to 1 million missed school days, and 329,000 to 600,000 asthma attacks in children. implementing an act has been and will continue to be a federal state and tribal partnership. epa wants to do our part and to streamline implementation. local communities, states and tribes and epa have already shown we can reduce ground level ozone while our economy continues to thrive. we have reduced air pollution in the country by 70% and our economy has tripled since 1970. we fully expect this progress to continue. existing and proposed federal measures like vehicle standards and power plant rules are leading to stand reductions in ozone nationwide which will help improve air quality and help many areas meet any resized

standards. we received over 430,000 comments during the 90-day public comment period and we are reviewing those comments as we work towards completing the final standards by october 1st of this year. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mrs. mccabe very much, and i recognize myself for five minutes of questions. many of us believe the clean air act needs to be changed, and i say that because just as mr. rush mentioned and you mentioned, epa looks at impact on health care by making it more stringent, these ozone rules, for example, and you eliminate so many cases of asthma and premature deaths and whatever and whatever, which is important, but under the act, you do not have any responsibility to look at those pockets of the country that are in noncompliance and the impact that these stringent controls

have on jobs and when -- we have had economists after economists come in here and talk about loss of jobs and the impact that that has on health care for children, for infants, and yet epa, every time they come up here, it's all about the benefits, the benefits, the benefits and there are detriments to these actions, because as you know when an area is in noncompliance, they can't build a new plant unless they can get a new permit and they can't build infrastructure projects and it does have an affect of jobs. now, fortunately, areas like los angeles that have never been in compliance, you know 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 but 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 ever be in compliance under even the 2008 rule is they have to use unknown controls. controls that we don't know what it is. and you do understand, i mean, your own testimony your own documentation shows that many parts of the country are going to be in noncompliance whether it's 70 or 65, and even president obama tried to prevent the implementation and he delayed implementation of the most recent review, and now, of course environmentalist groups who do a good job they have a role to play, but they are driving epa because they are always going into court and under the strict construction of

the language, sometimes which is quite nebulous, the courts say you cannot delay, so many of us are really frustrated these environmental groups are driving the decisions because of the strict language in the original clean air act. so 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, and 23 more at 65 and every major city in kentucky will be in noncompliance at some of these levels. are you concerned that after all this time that areas like los angeles and san joaquin still can't even meet the old standards? >> chairman whitfield, there is a lot in your question there, and i will try to address as

much of it as i can. there are certainly parts of the country where meeting the standard has been challenging to a variety of factors including particular challenges in southern california, and what 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 or extreme but how many years do they have to comply? >> los angeles is in the extreme category, and under -- football the standard is resized 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 administrator mccain, in your written testimony you know that natalieionally 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? >> 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 peary view allreview, 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 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 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 ill lust rawtive

costs. it's duncan cystone 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? >> 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 meatology 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 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 know it's 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. 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? >> 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 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 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 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 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. >> you say you looked at thousands of reports and a thousand more recent reports that concluded to protect 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. >> 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 the foul lines changed or the outfield walls got moved in, that would be make for a very first rating and impossible game don't you -- would 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. >> i have been a public health nurse for a long time, but when it comes to air quality i believe our air 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. it translates into economic benefits, and i would say to my colleague who made a case in the other direction, good jobs with 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? >> 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 think it would increase the number of non-attainment 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 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 prau side 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 noel,know well, this is increasingly impacting our daily lives, and storms are getting 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, 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. >> 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 my newt levels and i am concerned if we look the a this, how is that going to affect the -- if you could 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 is taken into account and that transportation planning takes air quality into account, so that areas won't undermined 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 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 tran transportation conformity so we would look at the regulation. >> if epa were to allow the measures to work existing now -- >> ria looks at what we are expecting to happen in the future looking at the ones in place and under development now 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 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. >> 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 precursers. ozone knocks at 75 parts per billion, and mercury and air toxic standards, and new source

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 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 ae valuation, the epa estimates it

would take two years to incorporate the new deadlines. the administrator concluded the best action -- course of action would be to complete the current review based on the existing air standard and proceed as rapidly as possible to 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 passed 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 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 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 bring air quality down so areas will be a nanonattainment 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 the lack of infrastruct are improvements. we can be hindering those infrastructure improvements if we make it more difficult. anyway, i'm out of time but i appreciate you being here. >> we'll recognize the gentleman from west virginia. >> what's the time frame in get something written -- because i don't think in five minutes we'll be able to get through our questions. is there a time frame to submit written questions? >> ten days. >> you have ten days.

okay. 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. >> 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 and the supreme court has said that that is our job to do and that the issues related to implementation are a separate -- matter of separate consideration not to be considered in determining what the -- >> so the courts ruled on that. it goes back, and you've heard it several times mentioned here, the president did step in and say there were -- this was going to cause regulatory burden.

therefore, he asks the rule be held back for a period of time. that's an active statement 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 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 yy 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 countyies i represent, 75% are going to be in 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 countys, 15 of those

are going to be -- what are they supposed to do? >> there are counties all across the cannot 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 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. 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 -- >> we have some counties like tyler. 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 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 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 1970s and especially in 1990. i think back to -- we've all kind of lived through this raerks. 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. 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. mckabe 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? >> 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 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 70s more protective of public health than the current 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 ilderly respiratory diseases we all know someone in our family or someone with asthma. 26 million people in the u.s. 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. >> i represent a fairly rural district. it 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. 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 ed concern eded 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 room for impact. would they 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. we'd 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 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 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 but you can leave the others that are low producers of volatile componds? >> 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 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 revoouing the state implemtsation 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? 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. if an area is considered -- most

areas, the last time around, were designated as marginal nonattainment. 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. >> 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 approval. >> what if it's not? what do you do? do you come up with a federal plan? >> if a state really didn't want to make a plan that was approvable, which most states do, the clean air act does provide that epa would step into a federal plan. i have to say that is very, very rare in this situation. states want to do their plans because they are possible to do them and because we work hard with the state -- >> 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 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 clean air act tell us? >> it shows us the two things go hand in hand. we reduced air pollution dramatically. the economy has grown. we've also shown this cannot hashas country and businesses have come up with pollution control technologies that's 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 area but the cost to polluters of cleaning their air. 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's cost by 3-1. >> along those lines, the national association of manufacturers estimates the cost of this rule would be $140 billion annualleyy, making it the most expensive rule making it 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 ilstrative, but our estimates are that at a level of 65 parts per billion, it would be in the range of $19 billion to $38 billion in the first standard of 70 -- sorry i said that completely wrong. range from $3.9 billion to $15 billion depending on where the standard is. >> based on your experience that $140 billion price tag doesn't seem reasonable? >> it does not match our evaluation. >> this concentration of costs, i think has been misguided over the history of the clean air act, industry has exaggerated the cost of controlling pollution. how have these doomsday predictions measured up to reality? >> they haven't, given the information that folks have in front of them. in 1997, there were similar claims made that 1997 standards

were going to kill the economy and that absolutely hasn't come true. >> i just wanted to ask you something based on some of my republican colleagues. i'm not trying to be critical of them. 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 to review the science behind the 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 breathed 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 with 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 strength be the 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 70. is the proposed ozone level an 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. >> 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 plant, which would require states to prepare plants to submit to the epa. how can we expect epa to manage several new rounds of state plan revisions that will be needed with new ozone standard at the same time that they are reviewing plans for the -- that's going to take a lot of people and 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 realistic alally 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. i just question how you can possibly have the resources, the time. you're behind on several things already. the time, the money and employees to accomplish. >> some of this work is overlapping, as well. some of the technical work that we do in terms of air quality modeling. and it is efficient to do some of these things together. >> 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 joplin, missouri. and they are one of the most forward thinking systems and have done work on an integrated plan than any anyone. they were invited out to i believe, alexandria and 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 and what they do. anyway, they discussed this intergreat integrated plan for mandates. after analyzing the cost of the

mandates over the next 20 years. i've heard some speculate here today that things are never as bad as they seem. 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. you can cut that in half if you'd like and say 23 but, anyway, cut it in half again if you'd like. but that's not feasible. it's not doable. missouri alone is looking at billions of dollars in compliance costs with proposed ozone regulation and financial imt pact 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 look at the comprehensive, financial economic impact to these

regulations at all that they'll have on the states and our constituents? >> i'm not familiar with the study you're talking about. >> 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 -- do you all look at the economic impact? >> 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 associated -- >> but there is a weight, there is a consideration given to the cost? >> whenever we do regoolgss there's an evaluation of costs and of benefits. >> okay.

i guess that that's -- i'm about out of time anyway. morgan stole some of my notes and asked some of my questions. with that, i yield back. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. >> if you -- how does the market price risk? if you know something and you know what the cost is of something it has a price. you know that price. if you don't know something, then the price is higher because you have risk, right? >> >> yes okay. in 2010, the epa when they propose going to 60 parts per billion said it would cost $90 billion. in 2014, you reduced it to $40 billion. what happened over that four-year period to make the cost go down? >> what you are comparing is the

proposal put out under the ozone reconsideration compared -- >> what made it go down? >> in that first one, we were looking at a change of the standard from the previous standard of 85 parts per billion to that level in the range of 60 -- >> so this is not a 75 to 60. >> no. that was a reconsideration of the prior standard. >> okay. thank you. and then in your proposal to go to either 70 or 65, a significant amount of the control technology doesn't exist today. that's where the risk comes in. do you know what it costs to offset ozone in the houston area? it's about $170,000 a ton. where did the epa price its unknown risk analogy on a per ton -- >> we looked across -- >> just give me a number. >> the number? >> i believe it was -- >> about $15,000.

>> that's what i was going to say. >> $15,000. so if we know in texas what the cost to offset a ton of ozone and it's $170,000 where did we come up with $15,000 for imaginary technology that doesn't exist? where in the world did that come from? >> by looking at the history of the costs of pollution control technology over the years. and this is a conservative estimate based on the actual cost to control pollution -- >> is that a publicly available document? >> all of our assumptions are publicly available. >> let me say that it doesn't pass the smell test when we know today what the cost is for an offset. and you have imaginary technology that does not exist and we are pricing it at a fire sale and give it a walmart price. that's crazy. let's talk about background

ozone. texas has about 70 parts per billion on average. 72 parts per billion of background ozone. if you take the level to 65 what is texas supposed to do? get a big vacuum and send it down the ozone hole? >> i'm not familiar with that map, but that -- >> it's right. let's use something more discreet. rocky mountain national park. 77. there's no industry in rocky mountain national park. >> as i mentioned particularly in that part of the country there are a few areas we're seeing high background. >> you had to have a national standard. how are you going to clean up rocky mountain national park? >> it is not responsible for cleaning up air pollution that it doesn't create and the clean air act provides mechanisms -- >> what's a mechanism? >> to the extent that pollution is coming from places we can control --

>> well, in this case, it's not. and 77 parts per billion background means by definition it's not being produced there. it's coming from somewhere else. naturally occurring causes or china. >> if it's coming from motor vehicle, around the country, that where that air pollution is coming into that area our rules will help reduce that. >> let's talk about rfs for a minute. >> under your regulatory impact analysis, the epa concluded it would contribute to ozone as a consequence of increasedth edd ethanol use. epa proposed its latest target through 2016 will lead to higher use of ethanol. according to the studies of the journal of geophysical research that measured ozone emissions vocs, it's five times higher than the epa's original

estimate. so the epa on one hand is saying you have to reduce the 65 to 70 parts per billion. on the other hand you're trying to cram more ethanol into the system which has a five times worse ozone impact on the economy than does the production of regular gasoline. i'll i'll submit the rest of my questions in writing. >> at this time we recognize the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> i represent rural north carolina. i grew up with a love for the outdoors and understand the importance of protecting the environment. i do have concerned about this proposed rule. i thought it was fascinating my colleague from florida said that the air in tampa, florida is clean. it used to be polluted but now it's clean. i looks up hillsboro and the ozone levels of 71.

by her definition it's clean. even tamptampa, florida would be out of attainment. i want to talk about montgomery income. it's north carolina. it's very rural. they've been descimated with job loss. there's no major suggignificant industry in the county. yet this county has 66 parts per million. this is a beautiful county two rivers, a lake the air quality is wonderful. but what would the epa do with a county in a situation like that? >> we need to be careful about making assumptions which and will not be nonattainment. we dont know what a final standard will be, if a decision is made to revise it. >> those decisions will be made based on future air quality data. they'll be -- the numbers i

believe you are citing are based on data through 2013. we'll use current most recent air quality data when we make those decisions. and air quality is trending in a good direction. i think we need to not assume an area will be -- will or won't be nonattainment based on information from prior years. >> do you think the level would stay above 70? >> which level? >> that epa sets for air quality? >> i'm not speaking to what decision may be made but information that people are citing about whether areas based on air quality now will be in attainment if there is a revision to the standard. we just don't know that. that being said, we've talked and i understand the comments about being concerned about rural areas. and we have the ability to work with those areas. the clean air act does recognize there are areas that don't

control their air quality and the clean air act doesn't hold those those areas for reducing pollution if it's not being produced there. >> a county like montgomery county desperately need jobs. if we can't hire new people or attract new industry, it's deaf stating. what would mont gahm ryeomahm -- montgomery do if we're in nonattainment? >> programs like the motor vehicle standards will improve air quality everywhere in the country where motor vehicles are used. this is an example of how the federal state partnership works where federal programs bring cleaner air across the country and will take care of the air pollution in many areas where there's not a lot of local industry that is contributing. >> we'd have to give up our pickup trucks and sub urbans? >> as the fleet turns over as

people buy newer cars, the air is getting cleaner. >> what percentage do you think percent vehicles contribute to that? >> motor vehicles generally contribute about one-third of the air pollution in the country. it's not just cars driven in montgomery county but in the region contributing to regional air pollution. >> appreciate that. mr. chairman i have three resolutions i'd like to insert. one from the chamber of commerce, the board of commissioners and the metropolitan planning organization. they oppose this new standard and i seek unanimous consent to have them inserted in the record at this time. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you for your testimony. i just have concerns that we are setting standards so low that they're not attainable and when

rural areas can't reach the attainment significant portion of the count tooyies in my district, we may be using the wrong metric. i yield back. >> at this time, recognize the gentle lady from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ms. mccabe for being with us. i want to start out as my colleague from north carolina was pointing out. we have just in this home state it will kill over 13,000 jobs a year and reduce the state's gdp drastically. this proposal raises serious concerns. i look forward to this discussion. i definitely have some questions with you starting off with, in september of 2011, president obama requested your agency withdraw its ozone standard based on his concerns about the

importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty as our economy continues to recover. your agency agreed to withdraw the proposed standard and now you're issuing the revised standard. can you tell us what changes you made to decrease the regulatory burd chen now allows you to move forward? >> at that time the agency was engaged in's reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard which was not mandatory duty. we're rnd mandatory duty to relook at it every five years. it was last reviewed in 2008. >> so there are less regulations now? >> this is about science. this particular decision is about science and public health and what the science says about what is healthy in the air to breathe. >> but, ma'am, just to -- not to interrupt you, but to point out the president said that he was

asking for you to decrease the amount of regulations. what regulations have you decrease chd can move us forward. i understand you're looking at the science. what is it you've done to make this process move forward so we can all come together and work on it? >> we've put ot regulations like the tier 3 regulation which will bring improved air quality all across the cannotountry. >> is that less cumbersome than what existed in 2008? >> it is a provision that will help states and municipalities meet the ozone standard. >> moving on the first question that any economic developer asks when locating new plants or considering expansion of an existing plant is the attainment status. my colleague from north carolina, we were having this conversation just a moment ago. areas as nonattainment are

immediately considered. they tor advise the administrator of any social welfare or energy effects. giving the adverse economic impact of a revised standard, why are you not requiring ksac to take all of these things into consideration in regard to economic development? >> in setting the health standard, we've been specifically directed by the supreme court that looking at the implementation implications is not part of setting the health standard. >> so the supreme court told you that economic development is not significant and should not be considered? >> is not relevant to the setting of the public health standard. >> okay. moving on. nonattainment designation indiscriminately redoosuces development, including that with

military bases. this is important with north carolina as we have many strong military presence there. the standard of the level at the near natural background as is currently being considered will potentially limit military expansion and place at risk our military readiness. how is your agency planning on ensuring your revised ozone standard will not jeopardize national security? >> i'm not aware of any instance in which the ozone standard has interfered with our military readiness. >> i would love to work with your office because my understanding is there are some situations especially affect something of our north carolina bases now that this will dramatically affect. so i would like to continue that conversation. >> we'll be glad to follow up. >> lastly, and i've got 31 seconds, part of this continued problem is how are manufacturers going to be able to deal with this technology? if a manufacturer simply cannot

meet these standards, what are their options? are they to buy expensive offsets, close their doors? what do we do? how do we help our manufacturers? >> we work with the states and business industry. we look at the -- where the pollution is coming from and we develop programs that are targeted towards addressing the most cost effective redctions. that's what we've done through the whole history of the clean air act, where manufacturing has moved forward implemented new technologies, has been able to grow. >> do existing controls exist right now to achieve the 60 parts per billion standard or 65 parts per billion standard? >> the administrator has not prosed a 60 parts per billion standard. when we looked at the range which she proposed, we identified a number of already existing controls -- >> what are those existing

controls? >> cleaner engines, scrubbers, nox controls, lower voc paint and coatings. a variety of technologies that have been developed over the years that many areas are not yet employing that could be employed. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. at this time, the gentleman from ohio. >> thanks for joining us again today. increased access to low-cost susstanable domestic natural gas production has helped tremendously in fueling the manufacturing renaissance in this country. this expannion has resulted not only in cleaner gas and electricity for manufacturers but provides a new source of natural gas liquids which are essential feed stocks and many manufacturing applications such as chemicalical icals and plastics.

a study by the consulting ferm n firm nera shows dramatic cost increases in the price of natural gas under a 60 parts per billion standard. the study projects a 52% increase in the cost of natural gas for industrial use under a 60 part per billion standard. so quick question, can we expect our manufacturing renaissance to continue under this type of scenario? >> i can't speak to that study specifically, but i know there has been a significant increase in the development of natural gas. it's a very important -- >> we know that. what i'm asking you is, when we're essentially taxing it with these standards, and i might point out to you that in a recent trip we made to europe, rate payers businesses and residential rate payers in europe are taking a strong

second look at their energy profiles because of this capacity problem. making their businesses noncompetitive and their unwillingness to pay the high prices for energy that's going to result from a rule like this. how can we expect the manufacturing renaissance to continue when we're taxing essentially the very energy that's providing that renaissance? >> i don't think we are taxing -- >> sure you are. if you get a 52% tax in the increasing of gnarl gas, that's essentially a tax. you can call it whatever you want to but it's a tax on the industry. >> i'm not sure i agree -- >> we'll agree to disagree. let me move on. let me focus on how the epa has calculated the benefits of the proposed ozone standard. instead of calculating only the benefits from reducing nitrogen oxides and volatile organic

compounds, the kweentconstituents of ozone, epa also incorporated the co-benefits from reducing particulate matter or pm from those same sources. of cors this rule making has nothing to do with particulate matter. epa has a separate national ambent air rule. without the benefits from pm reductions, the ozone rule would have very little to show for it. in fact, dr. anne smith of nera has pointed out that these pm co-benefits are actual lie larger than the direct ozone related benefits from the rule. if you don't accept nera's assessment, then how about the former head of omb's office of information and regulatory

affairs? he reviewed the ozone consideration and helped prevent that from being finalized because it was too costly. here's what he said about this. on some of the agency's estimates of the 2011 ozone proposal, the net benefits would have been zero. a strong majority would have been not from ozone reductions but co-benefit reductions in particulate matter. so, ms. mccabe, this prompts a number of questions. can you explain to me and our committee the epa's legal justification for engaging in this kind of double counting? how is it that you can justify a lower ozone standard using ben if thes from an entirely different pollutant? >> it's not double -- >> that's not science. that's a shale game. that's not science. >> it's not double counting.

those benefits are real. >> but that's not what this rule -- this rule is supposed to be going after ozone, not particulate matter. >> it's having additional benefits -- >> but little in terms of the ozone in comparison with the benefits coming from particulate matter. further, talk to me about how trans transparent you've been with this to the american public. there are charts buried in the proposed rule where somebody with a ph.d. can go and infer this information about double konting. but have you or the administrator explained this innior speeches or public speeches. have you told them that they're coming from somewhere else, a pollutant already well regulated by the epa? >> we're very clear. i myself personally have talked about co-benefits achieved by programs we implement. >> i think it's a shell game and

economically destructive to the region -- my region of the country and to other industries that are providing the jobs and economic vitality of america today. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i've got a couple of questions i want to ask. i want to ask you a couple other questions. the science advisory committee is appointed by who? >> the science advisory committee is -- there's an office within epa that administers the science advisory board and has a very open process for -- >> but the people who serve on the science advisory committee, how are they selected? >> they are nominated -- >> by who? >> either by themselves or by others. and that's through a public process. >> who makes the decision who serves? >> that's a decision made within the agency by our office of the

science -- >> so epa decides who serves on the science committee? >> through a robust public process. >> and how long do they serve? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> how many people serve on that committee? >> i don't know the answer. >> could you get us a list of the names on the committee and how long their term of afsoffice is? >> yes. i believe it's on the order of four to six years. >> how long has that committee been in existence? >> how long has -- >> how long has it been in existence. >> the agency? >> no the committee the science committee. >> gosh, i don't know congressman rush, but we can find out. many many years. >> through both republican and democratic administration? >> oh, yes. and the committees and panels are very well balanced to make sure there's a range of views represented.

>> is it -- would you say that it's bipartisan? >> yes i would. i have one more question. ms. mccabe, we keep hearing about the president's decision in 2010 on the ozone standard. let me read from that. with that in mind this is what i want to read. statement by the president. work is already under way to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. ultimately and this is directly from the president on the ozone

national ambient air quality standards issued on september 2nd 2011. ultimately, i did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing the new standard that will soon be reconsidered. do you have any comments? do you remember that statement by the president? >> the president was regcognizing the regular review of the five-year standard was already under way. he was directing the agency to focus its attention on. if i could just claarify something i said before. i agreed with the science advisory board as bipartisan. it's probably more accurate to call it nonpartisan. >> thank you so much. mr. chairman i don't have any additional questions but i have

a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a letter from the public health organization opposing legislation or amendments that would block or delay epa's work to update ozone standards. also a letter from the national association of clean air agencies supporting the epa's proposal to revise the current ozone air standards. i ask for unanimous consent that they be entered into the record. >> without objection so ordered. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> i would also like to ask unanimous consent the following documents be entered into the record. number one, a survey by the air pollution control agencies. on background ozone and regulatory relief. a june 25th article from the

jornl of "science" entitled "challenges of a lower u.s. ozone standard." and number three comments of a texas, one of the texas commission on environmental quality on epa's proposed ozone rule. texas commissioner's comments. without objection, that will be entered into the record as well. and that concludes today's hearing. once again, ms. mccabe thank you for being with us. we look forward to continuing engagement with you as we move forward. we'll keep the record open for ten days for any additional questions or comments or materials. and with that, the hearing is now adjourned.

finishing up our coverage of this hearing on the epa's proposed clean air standards. if you missed any of this discussion you can access it online at c-span.org. we have more live programming coming up. be with us later for a look at

the u.s. supreme court. its future and discussion of possible changes to the bench hosted by the american constitution society. you'll be able to see that live at 4:00 p.m. on c-span2. looking at the u.s. capitol this afternoon. very hot in the nation's capital. very typical summer weather. the u.s. house is in session. they are working on a bill granting president obama trade authority. a pacific rim trade bill in particular. we're expecting inging final vote shortly. the vote coming up shortly on c-span. some news today that a political tradition is coming to an end. iowa republican leaders have decided to end the state's quadrennial straw poll held for the first time in 1979. for years the poll has been considered an early but unreliable test of campaign strength. it's become a costly side show.

some 2016 gop hopefuls recently said they'd skip the event altogether. that story from the associated press. on c-span's road to the white house, more presidential hopefuls announce their candidacy for president. live saturday on c-span, former secretary of state hillary clinton will kick off her campaign. live from the fdr four freedoms park in new york city at 11:00 a.m. eastern. monday at 1:00 we're live at miami-dade college where former florida governor jeb bush will officially announce his candidacy. on tuesday on c-span.org, donald trump announces whether he'll mack a make a bid for the presidency at new york's trump tow worryertowers. c-span's road to the white house 2016. concerns over the heavy

reliance on medicaid and opioid therapy among veterans including the risk of suicide was a tuesday. veterans health officials testified before house veterans affairs subcommittee for about an hour, 45 miss. good morning. this hearing will come together. i want to welcome everyone to today's hearing entitled prescription mismanagement and the risk of veteran suicide. before we begin i would like to ask unanimous consent that statement from the american

legion be entered into the hearing record. hearing no objection so ordered. this hearing will examine the relationship between veterans prescribed medications as a result of their mental health and the increased suicide rate among veterans. in a report issued november 014 which included in part evidence uncovered by the o & i subcommittee gao examined's va's data with major depressive disorder, including the extent to which they were prescribed medications. the extent to which -- the extent to which they received proper care and whether va monitored that care and the information va requires vamcs to collect on veteran suicides.

it is now clear that va is not even aware of the population of veterans with major depressive disorder due to inappropriate coding by va physicians. as a result, va cannot determine if veterans are receiving care consistent with the clinical practice guidelines. these guidelines with crucial to the treatment of mental disorders as they are designs to provide the maximum relief from the debilitating symptoms associated with mental health. it is imperative that our veterans receive the proper care and follow-up when receiving mental health care, especially when they are being prescribed various medications. what is also become clear is that va is receiving and

reporting inaccurate and inconsistent data regarding veteran suicides. this severely impacts and limits the department's ability to accurately evaluate its suicide prevention efforts and identify trends in veteran suicides. not only did the committee conduct a hearing in 2010 on this same issue, but since then there have been countless media stories of veterans being overmedicated or experiencing adverse drug reactions and not receiving the proper care. the proper follow-up or the proper monitoring. and the all-too common result of suicide. one story told of a veteran who went into a hospital seeking care, but after being quote/unquote, lost in the system, ended up dying by suicide right in the facility.

we will also hear similarly other tragic stories today that highlight the tremendous problems occurring within va for years and continuing today with regard to treatment of veterans with mental health. with mental health concerns adequate oversight and more importantly the actions taken to ensure veteran who is are prescribed countless medications receive proper follow-up. va has approximately ten different programs dealing with prescription medication. and suicide prevention issues.

the proper advice if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. i think it is more appropriate to say based on the statistics from the gao report and the numerous media stories that va is just throwing out a bunch of different ideas and programs, hoping one of them will stick. and they can claim they have solved the problem. this is unacceptable. we need to know exactly what va is doing to change this pattern and what is it doing to improve protection of veterans? what is a real way forward? who will be held accountable for mistakes? that have already been made and have cost veterans their lives? who will stand up? and take responsibility for

making a change? it is time for answers. it is time for change. with that i now yield to ranking member kuster for any opening remarks she may have. >> thank you mr. chairman. good morning to our panel. thank you for being with us. this morning we are addressing a complex health care policy issue affecting veterans and over 0 million adults. the statistics on veterans experiencing chronic pain are staggering. over 50% of all veterans receiving care at va medical facilities experience chronic pain. with over 500,000 veterans managing pain with prescribed opioids. as a nation and certainly in my district and throughout the northeast, we face what can only be described as a opioid abuse

epidemic epidemic. they have termed opioid abuse the worst drug epidemic in the country's history, killing more people than heroine and crack cocaine. in addition to the issue of pain management and the problems of addiction, we must remember that many veterans who experience chronic pain also suffer from mental health disorders such as post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. therefore, it is vital that the va has in place the proper oversight mechanisms to monitor the safe use of opioids for managing veterans' pain. i am particularly concerned about veterans at risk of self-medication and addiction being prescribed opioids for pain management. we know from multiple inspector general and gao reports that the va has struggled to properly monitor prescribed opioids and the mental health of its patients. and i'm concerned that a potentially deadly mix of opioid use, mental health disorders and

lack of oversight is contributing to our high rate of veteran suicide. the newest drug enforcement agency regulations that require veterans to see a clinician monthly for refill of opioid pain medication creates an additional burden on veterans who have difficulty accessing care at va medical facilities. leaving some veterans to suffer from extreme pain and experience opioid withdrawal symptoms when they're unable to schedule an appointment to refill. they need to seriously examine whether the benefits of managing veterans' pain with opioids is outweighed by the risk experienced by veterans and the va improper monitored opioid use. during this hearing i would like to hear from our witnesses how we can better address -- i'd

like to discuss whether a higher level of informed consent is needed to ensure veterans and their families understand the risks and side effects before choosing to manage pain with opioids. and whether the va is properly coordinating mental health and suicide prevention programs with va medical facility clinicians and employees responsible for monitoring patient opioid use. i'm also interested in alternative pain management and whether, as i get to my comments later i'll talk about what's happening at the white river junction va in bringing down the rate of opioid prescriptions and how we can help get ourselves out of this problem, out of this cycle, and address the veterans to serve their needs without putting them and their families at risk. and finally i'd like to discuss what is being done to reduce

long-term opioid use and treat the underlying conditions causing chronic pain so that veterans are able to live a better quality of life. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, ranking member kuster. i will introduce our witnesses in just one moment. but i ask the witnesses stand and raise their right hand. do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony are you about to provide is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? please be seat. i would like to recognize the honorable jeff miller, chairman of the full veterans affairs committee who is joined us. thank you, chairman miller. you have the floor. >> thank you chairman. thank you, ranking member kuster thank you for the work the subcommittee has been doing