    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

            H.R. 1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2011

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                OCTOBER 25, 2011

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. 112-99

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

           H.R. 1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2011

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 25, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-99

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    76-176                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman

    JOE BARTON, Texas                    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky                 Chairman Emeritus
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    MARY BONO MACK, California           FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina   GENE GREEN, Texas
      Vice Chairman                      DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              LOIS CAPPS, California
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         JAY INSLEE, Washington
    CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire       TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             JIM MATHESON, Utah
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              Islands
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    PETE OLSON, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia

                                     7_____

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               JAY INSLEE, Washington
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             GENE GREEN, Texas
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   LOIS CAPPS, California
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                      officio)
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Mike Pompeo, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Kansas, opening statement......................................     9
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     9
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, opening statement.......................................    13
    Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, opening statement.......................................    13
    Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    13

                                   Witnesses

    Hon. Kristi L. Noem, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of South Dakota, opening statement.............................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
    Hon. Robert Hurt, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Virginia.......................................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
    Regina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
      Environmental Protection Agency................................    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   354
    Steve Foglesong, Ranch Owner, Black Gold Cattle Company, on
      behalf of National Cattlemen's Beef Association................   149
        Prepared statement...........................................   152
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   357
    Kevin Rogers, President, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, on
      behalf of American Farm Bureau Federation......................   218
        Prepared statement...........................................   220
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   363
    Pete Lien, President, Peter Lien & Sons, Inc., on behalf of
      National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association......................   234
        Prepared statement...........................................   236
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   366
    Kurt E. Blase, Partner, Holland & Knight, on behalf of Coarse
      Particulate Matter Coalition...................................   250
        Prepared statement...........................................   252
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   367
    Till von Wachter, Associate Professor of Economics, Columbia
      University.....................................................   259
        Prepared statement...........................................   261
    John Walke, Senior Attorney and Clean Air Director, National
      Resources Defense Council......................................   265
        Prepared statement...........................................   267
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   369
    Gregory Wellenius, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, Brown
      University.....................................................   327
        Prepared statement...........................................   329

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 1633, A Bill to establish a temporary prohibition against
      revising any natinoal ambient air quality standard applicable
      to coarse particulate matter, to limit Federal regulation of
      nuisance dust in areas in which such dust is regualted under
      State, tribal, or local law, and for other purposes, submitted
      by Mr Whitfield................................................     6
    Letters, dated October 3, 2011, October 12, 2011, October 14,
      2011, and October 17, 2011, to committee and subcommittee
      leadership and Mrs. Noem in support of H.R. 1633, submitted by
      Mr. Gardner....................................................    37
    ``Guide to Agricultural PM10 Best Management Practices:
      Agriculture Improving Air Quality,'' Second Edition, 2008,
      Governor's Agricultural Best Management Practices Committee,
      State of Arizona, submitted by Mr. Gardner.....................    70
    Report, ``Livestock Best Management Practices to Reduce
      PM10,'' undated, State of Arizona, submitted by Mr.
      Gardner........................................................   101
    Letter, dated October 24, 2011, from Arvin Ganesan, Associate
      Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Mr. Rush,
      submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................   143

           H.R. 1633, THE FARM DUST REGULATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2011

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
    room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed
    Whitfield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Sullivan,
    Shimkus, Walden, Terry, Burgess, Bilbray, Scalise, McMorris
    Rodgers, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Barton,
    Upton (ex officio), Rush, Markey, and Waxman (ex officio).
        Staff present: Allison Busbee, Legislative Clerk; Cory
    Hicks, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Heidi King, Chief
    Economist; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and Power; Mary
    Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Alison Cassady, Democratic
    Senior Professional Staff Member; Kelley Greenman, Democrat
    Legislative Associate; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy
    Analyst; and Alexandra Teitz, Democrat Senior Counsel, Energy
    and Environment.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Whitfield. This hearing will come to order.
        Today we will discuss H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation
    Prevention Act of 2011. In most respects, this hearing will be
    similar to many of the others our subcommittee has held this
    year. As you know, we have jurisdiction over EPA's Clean Air
    Act regulations, and we have an obligation to the American
    people to ensure that new regulations do not impose burdensome
    costs or obstruct job creation, particularly at a time when our
    unemployment is high, our economy is struggling and uncertainty
    is widespread.
        EPA's unprecedented wave of stringent and inflexible
    regulations pose a serious threat to the economy, on job
    creation, in our opinion, which is why we have held an
    unprecedented number of hearings on the plethora of regulations
    issued by EPA. The only difference between today's hearing and
    most of the others is the target of the EPA regulation at
    issue. Many of the previous hearings dealt with rules most
    directly impacting manufacturing and energy production. Today,
    we discuss EPA's particulate matter standards and their
    potential impact on family farms and small businesses in rural
    America.
        EPA is in the process of revising its National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards for particulate matter. This includes
    PM10, which is coarse particulate matter, also known
    as dust. Although EPA has said it will not propose changes to
    its existing dust standard, there are several reasons for
    uncertainty about the outcome of EPA's ongoing review. EPA has
    discussed further regulation of farm dust since 1996. Most of
    us believe that the current PM10 standard of 150
    micrograms per cubic meter is sufficient and should not be
    changed, especially given the absence of evidence that farm
    dust poses a health threat.
        In April 2011, EPA issued a policy assessment that
    recommends this standard either be unchanged or lowered to 65
    to 85 micrograms per cubic meter. The assessment also
    recommends a change in the way compliance is measured. Any
    changes to the current standard would almost certainly force
    States and localities to impose additional restraints on
    farming and other operations in rural America in order to
    comply.
        It is possible that EPA will ultimately retain the current
    PM10 standard in its pending review, but it should
    be noted that the last time EPA considered revising its
    standard for PM10 in 2006, the final version did not
    adopt an exemption for agricultural dust that had been on the
    table at an earlier stage.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.002

        [H.R. 1633 follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.005

        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I would like to recognize the
    gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, who is a sponsor, I believe,
    of this legislation, for 1 minute.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE POMPEO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

        Mr. Pompeo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
    this hearing on H.R. 1633.
        You know, I represent an agricultural State and my district
    has lots of production agriculture. It is part of who we are.
    The issues that these folks face are like a lot of other small
    businesses--crushing regulations and tax burdens, but some have
    a very different flavor like this one.
        The issue we are talking about today, the effort to
    regulate farm dust as a particulate pollutant, is one of the
    most concerning and potentially most burdensome regulations
    coming from Washington, D.C., in my 10 months here so far. Now,
    the EPA's recent announcement that it currently has no
    intention of imposing new regulations on dust sounds to me like
    a purely political and likely temporary decision and frankly
    doesn't give our farmers in Kansas or across the country the
    certainty they need. The fact remains that EPA staff has
    suggested tightening this regulation, and that tightening of
    the regulation would include farm dust.
        Like many other sectors in our economy, we need long-term
    planning. We need the ability for farmers to know what they can
    and can't do. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the
    Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, and I am pleased to have
    Congresswoman Noem and Congressman Hurt here this morning to
    testify about it. Thank you both for being here.
        With that, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, and I will yield back
    the balance of my time as well, and I recognize Mr. Rush for 5
    minutes for his opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also
    want to thank all the distinguished witnesses who will be here
    at today's hearing and testifying.
        Mr. Chairman, we are here to discuss the Farm Dust
    Regulation Prevention Act of 2011, even though last week EPA
    made the decision that it would not propose any changes to the
    current standard of 10 PM or 10 micrometers for coarse
    particulate matter. The basis of today's hearing is H.R. 1633,
    the bill introduced by Representative Kristi Noem of South
    Dakota, who we are pleased to welcome to the subcommittee for
    her testimony today.
        H.R. 1633 would bar EPA from revising its rules for coarse
    particulates for 1 year. It would also create a permanent
    exemption for ``nuisance'' dust from farms and country roads. I
    look forward to hearing from Assistant Administrator of the
    Office of Air and Radiation, Gina McCarthy, as well as other
    stakeholders testifying to better understand the impact that
    this proposed legislation will have on the Clean Air Act as
    well as on public health.
        In particular, I have concerns over section 3 of H.R. 1633,
    which states that the Clean Air Act does not apply to, again, I
    will quote, ``nuisance'' dust and would eliminate EPA's
    authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate anything that
    constitutes nuisance dust except narrowly defined
    circumstances. As currently drafted, nuisance dust is defined
    as particulate matter that is, one, generated from natural
    sources, unpaved roads, agricultural activities, earth-moving
    or other activities typically conducted in rural areas, or,
    two, consisting primarily of soil, other natural or biological
    materials or wind-blown dust. However, the phrase ``other
    activities typically conducted in rural areas'' is much too
    broad and could potentially include industrial activities that
    are commonly located outside of urban areas that will be exempt
    from the Clean Air Act regulation including power plants,
    ethanol refineries, mines and smelters, and pulp and paper
    mills. Section 3 raises serious concerns over whether EPA could
    continue to implement fine and coarse particle pollution
    programs or whether the EPA could ever adopt or implement
    revised fine or coarse particle standards.
        However, H.R. 1633 takes certain types of particulate
    matter out of the entire Clean Air Act altogether. This bill
    could potentially forever prohibit EPA from regulating mercury
    from coal-fired power plants based on the argument that mercury
    is emitted as particulate matter from coal-fired power plants
    and burning coal to generate electricity is an activity
    typically occurring in rural areas. Additionally, as written,
    section 3 is not limited to stationary sources so H.R. 1633
    calls into question EPA's ability to set tailpipe emission
    standards for new vehicles or engines to limit their fine
    particulate pollution as well as the ability to enforce
    existing particulate standards for new vehicles or engines.
        So I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, to clarify the
    bill's language to avoid unintended consequences to the overall
    Clean Air Act.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from all of the
    panelists on the merits and necessity of H.R. 1633, and with
    that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
        At this time I would recognize the full committee chairman,
    Mr. Upton of Michigan, for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today's hearing looks at a source of major concern to the
    ag sector and rural America, which is EPA's regulation of
    coarse particulate matter, otherwise known as dust.
        H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011,
    provides relief from this regulatory threat, and I welcome two
    of the cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation, Kristi Noem
    of South Dakota and Robert Hurt of Virginia, who are here
    today.
        The very last thing that our struggling economy needs is
    new costs and regulatory burdens on farmers and small
    businesses across rural America. They already face indirect
    consequences from EPA's costly regulatory agenda, and now they
    are rightfully concerned about the threat of direct regulation
    of their operations.
        The EPA recently announced that it plans to propose
    retaining the existing standard for coarse particulate matter,
    and I appreciate those assurances. But like the stakeholders
    that we will hear from today, I am not at all satisfied with
    this step for the simple reason that regulatory uncertainty
    will remain.
        EPA's proposal could change throughout the review process.
    The ag community's concerns may not be fully addressed. And
    even if the final standard contains no changes, it is always
    subject to court challenge. For these reasons, EPA's insistence
    that it does not plan to change the rule is far from a
    guarantee that such a change would never come to pass.
        In the face of this ongoing regulatory uncertainty, this
    legislation makes good sense. The bill is targeted. It prevents
    EPA from setting a new coarse particulate matter standard for 1
    year, and it also makes clear that State, tribal, and local
    governments have authority to regulate so-called nuisance dust
    common across rural America. The State and local emphasis is
    appropriate for dust, which is a local issue.
        The bill gives EPA authority to regulate nuisance dust in
    the absence of State or local action, and after both costs and
    benefits are taken into account. That is common sense and it
    protects the interests of our vital rural economy.
        I commend our colleagues for putting together their
    legislation on the table. If EPA is serious that it does not
    intend to regulate farm dust, it should embrace this
    legislation.
        I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.006

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Barton. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Noem and
    Congressman Hurt for introducing this and being here. We are
    beginning to have some dust storms like we had back in the
    1930s. We had a very bad one in Lubbock, Texas, last week.
    There are differences of opinion as to the cause of the storms
    but it appears that we are in a cycle where the weather
    conditions are such that we are going to have dryer weather and
    a little bit warmer temperatures and so we are going to have
    dust storms.
        EPA back in 2006 suggested that we shouldn't regulate farm
    dust. I wish the EPA would dust that proposal off and institute
    it instead of even thinking about regulating farm dust. As the
    chairman just said, this legislation is preemptive in nature
    and I would hope that we can move it very expeditiously. We
    don't want to have a re-creation of the 1930s, and because of
    farm practices and some of the dam projects that have been
    constructed, we shouldn't, but we also don't want to overreact
    and regulate something that God himself or herself can't
    regulate.
        So with that, I would yield the balance of the time to Mr.
    Olson of Texas.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Olson. I thank my colleague from Texas.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing on H.R.
    1633, the Farm Dust Regulation and Prevention Act, of which I
    am a proud cosponsor.
        This hearing is critically important to my home State of
    Texas. Texas has been battling and unprecedented drought. In my
    hometown of Sugar Land, we are almost 2 feet behind our annual
    rainfall. In addition, wildfires have burned 3.6 million Texas
    acres. Texas farmers and ranchers have been hit particularly
    hard by the drought and the fires. And to think that the EPA is
    attempting to regulate farm dust now or in the future is simply
    out of touch with reality. This move would impose devastating,
    unjustified and burdensome regulations on farmers and ranchers
    already struggling in this economy to provide food for an ever-
    growing population.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, farmers and ranchers are the
    backbone of America. We must give them the tools and certainty
    to plan for the future so they can succeed.
        I welcome all of our witnesses here today, particularly my
    colleagues from South Dakota and Virginia. I look forward to
    your testimony. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much.
        At this time I recognize the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Waxman of California, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Today's hearing considers yet another bill to allow more
    air pollution, more asthma and more heart attacks, and once
    again, it is a bait and switch. The bill's sponsors say the
    legislation is narrowly targeted to help farmers. In fact, the
    bill is drafted broadly and has sweeping anti-environment
    effects.
        We are going to hear today that we must pass H.R. 1633 to
    stop EPA from regulating farming. This isn't just nonsense. It
    is pure fantasy. EPA does not regulate farming practices to
    reduce dust and has expressed no intention of doing so in the
    future. EPA has set standards for the levels of coarse
    particulate matter in the ambient air because there is
    scientific evidence that this pollution causes serious health
    effects. Coarse particulate matter, or PM10, is
    produced by uncontrolled burning of coal and oil, construction
    and demolition activities, mining, and unpaved roads, as well
    as farm activities. Once EPA sets the standards for ambient
    levels of air pollution, it is up to the States and localities
    to determine how to meet them. It is the States and localities,
    not EPA, that decide which sources must reduce pollution and by
    how much.
        EPA set the current PM10 standards in 1987,
    during the Reagan administration. As required by the Clean Air
    Act, EPA has recently reviewed the science supporting those
    standards. Based on that review, the Administrator recently
    announced that she intends to propose making no change to the
    Reagan-era PM10 standards. Now we are being told
    that we need to pass this bill because EPA could change its
    mind and do something the agency has said it has no intention
    of doing.
        If we adopt this standard for legislation, there is no end
    to the bad ideas we could legislate. Should we pass a law
    saying the United States cannot invade Canada? Or one
    preventing the government from outlawing apple pie?
        We are facing real and serious problems that are happening
    right now. Millions of Americans are out of work; our economy
    is stalling; fires, floods and droughts are afflicting our
    Nation. We need to spend our time addressing these real
    challenges, not squandering it on imaginary problems.
        But even though this bill stops something that won't happen
    anyway, that doesn't mean the bill has no effect. H.R. 1633 is
    so broadly worded, it could invalidate EPA's existing standards
    for both fine and coarse particulates. This would have a
    devastating effect on clean air requirements and public health.
        The biggest problem is in section 3, which is not limited
    to farm activities, rural areas, ambient air quality standards
    or coarse particulate matter. It says the Clean Air Act does
    not apply to anything that meets the bill's definition of
    ``nuisance dust,'' unless a narrow exception applies, and the
    definition of nuisance dust is sweeping. It includes
    ``windblown dust,'' which is undefined and not limited to rural
    areas, and it includes any particulate matter ``generated from
    activities typically conducted in rural areas.''
        Well, mining is typically conducted in rural areas, and
    mining operations have huge equipment that can generate large
    quantities of particulate air pollution. Seventy percent of the
    Nation's power plants are located in rural areas. The
    particulate matter generated by power plants includes not only
    fine and coarse particulate matter, but also particles of
    mercury and lead and acid particles that form from nitrogen
    oxides and sulfur dioxides. Children in rural areas typically
    take the bus to school, and diesel buses generate particulate
    pollution. Under this bill, EPA could have no authority to
    regulate any of this pollution.
        Now, the bill's sponsors will argue that they don't intend
    to exempt mines, power plants or school buses from regulation
    under the Clean Air Act. But as we have seen with so many other
    bills this Congress, the bill language doesn't match the stated
    intent. It is the legislative language that matters, and the
    language could result in a massive increase in dangerous air
    pollution.
        This year, the subcommittee has reported bills to allow
    more carbon pollution, more air pollution from offshore
    drilling, more air pollution from power plants, more air
    pollution from industrial boilers and incinerators, and more
    air pollution from cement kilns. Today's bill is more of the
    same. Americans want their kids to breathe clean and healthy
    air, not another bill to let polluters off the hook.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, and at this time I would like to
    recognize our members on the first panel, Congresswoman Kristi
    Noem from South Dakota and Congressman Robert Hurt of Virginia,
    primary sponsors of this legislation, and we genuinely
    appreciate your being here with us today, and I will recognize
    each of you for 5 minutes for your opening statement, and
    Congresswoman Noem, we will begin with you.

    STATEMENTS OF HON. KRISTI L. NOEM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
        FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; AND HON. ROBERT HURT, A
      REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

                    STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTI L. NOEM

        Mrs. Noem. Sounds great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
    ranking member, who is not with us right now, but the rest of
    the committee members, I appreciate you for having this hearing
    today and for letting us bring forward H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust
    Regulation Prevention Act of 2011.
        I introduced this commonsense bill on April 15th of this
    year with my colleagues, Representative Robert Hurt, Larry
    Kissell and Leonard Boswell, because of the regulatory
    uncertainty that is facing rural America.
        We certainly have challenges in front of us. My bill is a
    bipartisan approach to ending the EPA's regulation of farm dust
    in rural America while still maintaining the protections of the
    Clean Air Act to the public health and welfare. It is not a
    Republican and it is not a Democrat issue. There is broad
    bipartisan support with over 100 colleagues on both sides of
    the aisle sponsoring this bill. And the committee will see in
    the record that there is also over 100 agriculture- and
    research-based organizations who have written in support of the
    bill as well.
        As this committee knows, there is growing concern that
    excess regulations are hampering economic growth and job
    creation across the country. In my home state of South Dakota,
    this is a huge concern for farmers and for ranchers and small
    business owners who are struggling to stay afloat in an already
    stressed economy. One of the most overwhelming concerns that I
    hear about from farmers every day and ranchers back home is the
    overbearing regulations coming out of the EPA, including the
    regulation of farm dust. Their concern is certainly not
    unwarranted.
        Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is responsible for setting
    the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain
    pollutants. This includes particulate matter, which is broken
    down into both fine and coarse particulate matter, commonly
    known as dust. The Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, must
    set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards that States must
    meet or be designated as nonattainment areas. The goal of these
    standards is to protect the public from harmful pollutants like
    industrial soot and car emissions common in urban areas, which
    I certainly support. The EPA measures the amount of particulate
    matter, or dust, in the air through monitoring devices that are
    placed throughout the country. At least every 5 years, the
    Administrator must review those standards and decide if they
    want to keep the current standard, or potentially adopt a more
    stringent standard. As this committee is aware, the EPA is
    currently in the process and in the midst of another review.
        Under current law, the EPA's standards include all kinds of
    dust, including dust generated from ag activities and the dust
    that is typical in rural America. This type of dust is
    naturally occurring and includes soil, windblown dust or dust
    that comes off of dirt roads. I call it farm dust. This is
    completely different than the type of dust typical in urban
    areas which has been shown to have adverse health effects.
        My legislation specifically focuses on rural dust. It
    allows the standard to apply unchanged in urban areas. Farm
    dust is a fact of life in rural America and, unlike urban dust,
    has not been shown to have a significant health concern.
    Including farm dust in the National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards regulations causes great concern and uncertainty for
    farmers and other resource-based industries in rural America.
        I would like to clear up the myth that EPA currently does
    not regulate farm dust. Farmers and ranchers are already
    subject to the standard for dust in nonattainment areas like
    Arizona. There are people in Arizona that certainly know the
    impact that this has on businesses. It can cost some producers
    in that State over $1,000 a day to comply with dust standards.
        On September 17, 2011, a Des Moines Register story tells
    the story of Kevin Rogers, who is going to testify here later
    today and tell his personal story. He is a farmer from outside
    of Phoenix, Arizona. If the wind is blowing too much, he has to
    park his tractors, he has to park his combines so that he
    doesn't kick up too much dust. As a lifelong farmer and rancher
    myself, I certainly understand the impact this can have when
    you have a job to get done and you have a business to run. And
    as Kevin puts it, ``It is a difficult thing when the government
    is in the middle of every single thing that we are doing.'' We
    need to put an end to regulation of farm dust and prevent its
    expansion into the future.
        Regulation of farm dust is a problem today and will be more
    of an issue if the EPA continues to have opportunities to make
    more stringent standards into the future. The inclusion of farm
    dust in the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards will
    continue to be a problem until legislation is enacted to ensure
    that farm dust is treated differently. EPA is well aware that
    it cannot under current law differentiate between dust coming
    from rural areas or urban areas, and while officials in the EPA
    continue to say that they have no intention of regulating farm
    dust, the EPA does regulate farm dust and has no plan to exempt
    naturally occurring farm dust from their regulations.
        This bill certainly provides a solution. It gives us the
    ability to differentiate between naturally occurring rural dust
    and that that is typically occurring in urban areas, and also,
    what it does is, it provides immediate relief for farmers in
    rural areas by preventing any changes to the current standards
    for 1 year. Secondly, it provides flexibility for States,
    localities and tribes to regulate farm dust and nuisance dust
    themselves.
        I certainly appreciate the opportunity to testify before
    you today, and I will certainly stick around and answer any
    questions that the committee may have for me.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Noem follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.011

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hurt, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT HURT

        Mr. Hurt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
    with you, and I thank you for the invitation to be here to talk
    about H.R. 1633. It is an honor to be here with Representative
    Noem, and I appreciate her leadership on this as well.
        I represent Virginia's 5th District, a primarily rural area
    which includes most of central and Southside Virginia, and is
    larger than the State of New Jersey. In the 5th District, we
    have a proud heritage in agriculture, manufacturing and other
    resource-based industries that provide good-paying jobs for
    thousands of Virginians.
        Dust is a necessary byproduct of the hard work the farmers
    and businesses in my rural district perform every day. These
    are the people who are struggling to survive, to grow, and to
    create jobs during this stalled economic recovery. That is why
    the EPA's national standard for fugitive dust, which falls
    under the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards for coarse particulate matter is so troubling to the
    people that I represent. It is yet another example of the
    expansion of Federal Government and the uncertainty that
    Washington continues to impose upon our family farms, our small
    businesses and our rural communities.
        That is why H.R. 1633 is necessary. The bipartisan
    legislation will help create a better economic environment for
    job creation by replacing the current Federal standard for dust
    that comes from driving on unpaved roads, working in
    agricultural fields and similar activities in rural America.
        H.R. 1633 provides relief from the more stringent Federal
    standard for coarse particulate matter recommended in the April
    2011 policy assessment prepared by the EPA staff. It also gives
    States and localities the flexibility to set a standard for
    dust if they choose. More important, it keeps the Federal
    Government out of the business of over-regulating naturally
    occurring dust unless the EPA can prove substantial adverse
    public health effects caused by dust and can provide a rigorous
    cost-benefit analysis on the need for such regulation.
        While I applaud EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's recent
    promise that she will not propose a more stringent standard for
    coarse particulate matter, I remain concerned about the
    uncertainty of the rulemaking process where these rules can be
    modified. I am also troubled by the comments of some officials
    in the administration to discredit the issue of Federal dust
    regulation, including Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack who
    wrote that the ``regulation of farm dust is another frequently
    repeated myth.'' After reviewing the EPA's 2006 Federal
    standards for coarse particulate matter, which by definition
    includes dust, I respectfully disagree with the statement that
    this is a myth.
        I know that farmers and business owners in the 5th District
    disagree with this assessment of dust regulation as well. When
    traveling the 5th District last year, I spoke with a small
    business owner who was warned by a State regulator about the
    amount of dust that was coming off of his property. When this
    business owner questioned further about the regulator's concern
    over fugitive dust, the regulator replied that the business
    needed to take active measures to decrease the dust coming from
    the dirt driveway leading in and out of his facility.
        It also appears that the Sierra Club would take issue with
    the administration's statements that Federal dust regulations
    are a myth as well. When discussing a petition it filed with
    the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board in my home State,
    which was ultimately dismissed, by the way, the Sierra Club
    alleged that the levels of dust it measured on a road in
    southwest Virginia were above the national health-based
    standard promulgated by the EPA. It is difficult to understand
    why the Sierra Club would take such action if the Federal
    Government mandates for fugitive dust are a myth.
        While it is true that the EPA and State regulatory agencies
    have not set up monitors at every family farm and every unpaved
    road, the Sierra Club has shown one way in which these national
    standards for dust regulation continue to provide uncertainty
    for rural America.
        Because of these dust regulations, rural farming and
    business operations can face the threat of unnecessary
    harassment, regulation and litigation by private actors or
    State and Federal regulators. Additionally, companies
    throughout the 5th District and the country are required to
    comply with the Federal standard for dust in order to obtain
    permits, such as those issued by the Virginia Department of
    Environmental Quality as required in its State Implementation
    Plan with the EPA.
        This is why Congress must act in a bipartisan fashion to
    pass H.R. 1633 and assure our farmers and our rural industries
    that naturally occurring dust will not be subject to expanded
    Federal regulation. When it comes to dust, the EPA and the
    Federal Government should not mandate a one-size-fits-all
    standard that could eventually lead to lost production. With
    unemployment rates nearing 20 percent in some areas of
    Virginia's 5th District, we simply cannot afford to continue to
    perpetuate unnecessary regulations and uncertainty for the
    farmers and businesses in our rural communities.
        I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member again
    for inviting us to appear. I thank the subcommittee for
    considering our bill. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
    this morning and look forward to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hurt follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.016

        Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank both of you for your testimony.
    We appreciate your taking time to talk about your legislation,
    and I was delighted to hear Ms. Noem indicate that you do have
    bipartisan support. How many cosponsors of this bill do you
    have?
        Mrs. Noem. Well, there are 100 cosponsors that are signed
    on to the bill. There also has been a lot of support shown over
    in the Senate side as well. I mean, it is a commonsense bill
    that we certainly recognize could be addressed--the concerns
    could be addressed through this legislation.
        Mr. Whitfield. And has a similar bill been introduced on
    the Senate side?
        Mrs. Noem. You know, there has been a bill that has been
    talked about. I am not certain if the sponsor is continuing to
    pursue it.
        Mr. Whitfield. But when we say that EPA is not regulating
    coarse particulate matter, of course, in any nonattainment
    area, if the State does not have a State implementation plan,
    the Federal Government certainly has the authority to step in.
    Is that correct, Mr. Hurt?
        Mr. Hurt. Absolutely, and I would like to maybe address
    some of the concerns raised by Mr. Rush and Mr. Waxman, that
    section 3, it does allow for the Federal Government to come in
    but under circumstances that I think any American would find
    very reasonable, and that is, when it is proven that there are
    substantial health risks and after a cost-benefit analysis that
    this makes sense, and I think that from what I have heard
    across my district, that is exactly the kind of view that
    Americans and 5th District Virginians would like to see going
    on here in Washington. And it is also important to note that
    this does nothing to change the particulate matter 10 and PM2.5
    standards, the emissions that the ranking member and Mr. Waxman
    discussed, would still be regulated under or viewed through
    those different standards.
        Mr. Whitfield. You know, it is interesting we find
    ourselves here discussing the regulation of dust. I know that
    there are some studies that say well, there's some correlation
    between particulate matter, coarse particulate matter, and
    health, and then there are other studies that indicate there is
    no causal relationship whatsoever, and yet--and I know we have
    a gentleman from Arizona, I believe, in the next panel, but it
    is my understanding that under the State implementation plan of
    Arizona, in some instances on windy days the farmers are
    literally prevented from farming. Is that your understanding?
        Mrs. Noem. Mr. Chairman, yes, it is my understanding, and
    that would be the facts that they face every single day, and I
    think there is a clear definition and difference between urban
    dust, which is the kind of dust that has been proven
    scientifically to create the adverse health effects that a lot
    of the questioning has come from. There hasn't been that kind
    of scientific research and data that has shown the detrimental
    effects of this nuisance dust, which we are addressing in this
    piece of legislation. We are talking about dirt, soil, matter
    that occurs naturally through the course. Some of the concerns
    that were brought up in previous statements did happen to come
    from coal-fired plants, from mining, other situations such as
    that, scientific research has proven that that is very
    different than the type of rural dust that we are talking about
    with this piece of legislation.
        Mr. Hurt. If I could just comment on that, I think also one
    of the things that I have discovered in working on this
    legislation is that at some--we have standards, but at some
    level at the end of the day, if you can't abate the dust, the
    only way to stop it is to stop production or stop driving on
    the roads, and what does that translate to? That translates to
    lost jobs.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, one thing that I think also is
    beneficial in your legislation, my understanding under the
    Clean Air Act, there really is no definition of nuisance air so
    it could be whatever it could be. At least in this legislation
    make an attempt to define it, which may not suit everyone but
    that would be an area that we would have an opportunity to work
    with others to at least have a definition of that, which I
    think it is important.
        Mrs. Noem. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would agree. I think this
    piece of legislation the EPA should have no problem with. I
    really do. I think they should be very supportive of this
    because it simply says that they are not going to change their
    standards for a year, which they have already said that they
    are not going to do, and then it provides that definition.
    Rural dust and urban dust are not the same thing, and I think
    it would be very helpful to them and their processes and how
    they evaluate the ways that they approach enforcing the Clean
    Air Act to have that definition in place because they are very
    different, and the research behind them shows that.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, some people make the argument well,
    EPA is not going to regulate it anyway so we don't need this
    legislation, but we know for a fact that entities file a lot of
    lawsuits over at EPA, and whether EPA intends to do something
    or not, they frequently find themselves in lawsuits and
    frequently they enter into consent decrees in many instances
    agreeing with the plaintiff and then it becomes a court order
    and that is another frustrating thing. We find the court in
    many of our environmental regulations, their decisions as we do
    regulations coming out and initiated by EPA.
        Mrs. Noem. Yes, Mr. Chairman, this bill provides certainty
    and it provides certainty to a risky business that a lot of
    farmers and ranchers engage in and the people in rural areas
    are trying to keep their doors open and provide for their
    families, and this shows them that we are going to give them
    the certainty they need to be protected from those types of
    sudden regulations that may come up because of lawsuits and
    environmental issues.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you all very much.
        At this time I recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    also thank my colleagues, Representative Noem and
    Representative Hurt, for being here today, and I want you to
    know that my grandfather was a farmer. I was raised in my early
    years on a farm, and I am pro-farmer, and I see you are the
    sponsor of this bill, and I want to focus my questions on the
    bill.
        Representative Noem, many on the minority side are
    concerned with some of the language that is not clearly defined
    in section 3. Specifically, the ``nuisance dust'' as defined by
    ``other activities typically conducted in rural areas'' is
    causing concern for me and others because it may exempt many
    other industrial activities from Clean Air Act regulations. You
    are the sponsor of H.R. 1633, and is it your intention to
    provide exemptions for other activities not associated with
    standard agricultural practices in section 3, and if not, would
    you be amenable to modifying this language in order to make
    clear the bill's intention?
        Mrs. Noem. Well, thank you for the question, Representative
    Rush, and I certainly believe that the title of the bill and
    the language of the bill is very clear that it means to address
    farm dust and nuisance dust throughout the piece of
    legislation. I think that some of the interpretation that it
    goes too far and might include things such as coal ash and
    other harmful pollutants is that my bill simply does not exempt
    anything from regulations. It simply gives States and
    localities the flexibility to regulate dust in rural areas on
    their own. Now, if there are no local regulations that address
    in this place Federal regulations will certainly apply if the
    EPA--if the dust proves that it has negative health benefits
    and if it does rigorous cost-benefit analysis. So I believe the
    legislation as it stands today with the title that it has and
    with the language it has within it clearly defines nuisance
    dust and what is to be regulated and that the States and local
    governments certainly have the opportunity to address the
    concerns that may be particular in one area.
        Mr. Rush. Well, you feel quite strongly that your bill is
    necessary in light of the fact that EPA has already come out
    and publicly stated that it would not propose any changes to
    the current standard of 10 PM or 10 micrometers for coarse
    particulate matter. Can you explain why you feel so strongly?
        Mrs. Noem. I feel so strongly because I think the fact that
    if there is a piece of legislation out there that guarantees
    that EPA will not take any action for the next year, that that
    is a benefit to our small farmers and producers across this
    country. It is not that they wouldn't trust the EPA, but I
    certainly think that they would appreciate knowing that there
    is a guarantee on no changes for the next year.
        The second part of this bill is that it actually does
    define the difference between rural dust, nuisance dust and
    urban dust simply because of some of the testimony that I gave
    earlier, that there is a big difference between the nuisance
    dust and that it has proven to not have the negative side
    effects and health benefits, or detrimental effects that some
    of the urban dust does that you referenced when you gave your
    opening statement. There is a big difference between those two
    different types of dust that occur in this country, and that
    definition and clarity between the two will certainly help the
    industry as well.
        Mr. Rush. Is there any, besides industrial dust and
    particulate matter, is there any other dust classification that
    are exempted or included in your legislation?
        Mrs. Noem. Well, I don't believe so. As far as what this
    simply does is to put that definition into place in statute
    that there is a nuisance dust definition and what is included
    in that is the naturally occurring dust particles that would
    happen and the difference between urban dust, and this gives
    clarity to the EPA. This makes their job easier. They can look
    at each of these two different types of dust and know
    specifically how to define them and what the adverse health
    effects are on those, and then it also allows them the
    opportunity to come into area if the State and local
    governments do not.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
        It is the custom of this committee that the chairman and
    ranking member will ask other Members questions, so we have
    completed that, and I want to thank you all once again for
    introducing the legislation and for----
        Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, you are not going to allow other
    members to ask questions of this panel?
        Mr. Whitfield. Would you like to ask some questions?
        Mr. Waxman. I would like to ask some questions.
        Mr. Whitfield. Without objection, then I recognize the
    gentleman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Waxman. I just want to take issue with some of the
    things that have been said because I think you oversimplified
    it to the point where I think your conclusions are incorrect.
    First of all, the title of the bill has no legislative effect.
    What has legislative effect is the wording of the bill. And you
    made a couple statements, Representative Noem, that I take
    issue with. You said there is no proven difference between--
    there is a proven difference between urban and rural dust.
        Mrs. Noem. I said--thank you, Representative Waxman. I
    appreciate that. What my statement was or should have been was
    that the scientific research is very different showing the
    detrimental effects of urban dust versus rural dust, that there
    is much different research data that is available on the
    detrimental health effects of urban dust as where----
        Mr. Waxman. The Clean Air Act doesn't regulate dust. The
    Clean Air Act regulates harmful pollutants, and in this case,
    we are talking about two kinds of pollutants. We are talking
    about fine particulates and coarse particulates. The standard
    was originally set when President Reagan was President, and it
    has been reviewed but the basic standard has been in place.
        Now, you said that there is no proven adverse health effect
    from rural dust. If that rural dust is produced by farm
    machinery, that could have harmful impact, couldn't it?
        Mrs. Noem. It could, but we could speculate all day. What I
    prefer to operate with is the facts that we have in front of
    us.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, the facts we have in front of us is your
    bill defines this nuisance dust which is a new term in law that
    you would propose to put in law, and it says particulate matter
    generated from natural sources, OK, unpaved roads, agricultural
    activities, earth moving or activities typically conducted in
    rural areas, and I mentioned in my opening statement that a lot
    of things are conducted in rural areas, which could add to the
    particulate matter which particularly in the area of fine
    particulates, there is a genuine threat to human health.
        The point that I am raising is that your intentions seem to
    be, both of you, pretty reasonable. You don't want the dust in
    rural areas regulated, as Congressman Hurt said. If you are
    going to try to stop the dust coming from farms, you would have
    close down the farms and lose the jobs. That doesn't make any
    sense at all. But the problem is, nobody is proposing to do the
    things that you fear might happen. If you had a 1-year period
    of time in which there could be no regulation on coarse
    particulates coming from dust in the rural areas, well, that
    could give somebody certainty for a year. Nobody is planning to
    do it anyway. But I fear that your bill is drafted in a way
    that goes much further, and it doesn't sound like that that is
    your intention.
        Representative Noem, I mentioned in my opening statement
    that it is a nonexistent problem and we have so many real ones
    that should be addressed. There was an editorial my staff
    brought to my attention from a newspaper. It is the largest
    newspaper in South Dakota, and it said, ``There are important
    issues at the Federal level right now that will have direct
    impact on our States so it is disappointing to see
    Representative Kristi Noem continue her fight against a made-up
    problem like the potential for farm dust regulations by the
    Environmental Protection Agency. Dust has become a lightning
    rod for some Republicans, drumming up fear in farming
    communities that more Federal Government intrusion and over-
    regulations coming to take money out of their pockets. Noem
    proposed legislation that would ban the EPA from regulating
    farm dust for a year, and similar legislation was advanced by
    Senator Mike Johanns. The problem is that the EPA has
    repeatedly and at every turn said it has no intention of
    regulating farm dust. On Monday it went as far as to write a
    letter to Congress stating it would not be regulating dust
    kicked up by combines. That should put the issue to rest.''
        With those multitude of assurances that this is a phantom
    issue, what is your response to this editorial?
        Mrs. Noem. Well, Representative Waxman, that editor of that
    newspaper certainly doesn't represent my farmers and ranchers
    across South Dakota, and it is clear that he doesn't understand
    the bill, because in that editorial he didn't address the fact
    that it is going to provide a clear definition between nuisance
    dust, rural dust and urban dust. He simply----
        Mr. Waxman. Let me take exception to----
        Mrs. Noem. One of the----
        Mr. Waxman. Excuse me. Let me take exception. You state
    that as a fact but there is nothing in the law that says this
    dust is from rural areas, this dust from urban areas, it is
    different. The difference is only the amount of particulate
    matter in the region and particularly if it's nonattainment,
    which is not attaining what is the health standard.
        When I was a young member of the State assembly in
    California, I heard that there might be a freeway coming
    through--I ask for 30 seconds more--and I went out of my way to
    make sure that we fought that freeway and it was stopped. It
    turned out they never intended it but the people in my district
    thought I stopped it anyway. That is a good thing to do
    politically, but when you change something like the Clean Air
    Act, a lot of unintended consequences, I fear for that. If
    there is a chance to go through this legislation, maybe we can
    change it in some way, but I fear that your bill goes too far.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Waxman, your question--oh, yes, Ms.
    Noem.
        Mrs. Noem. Well, I just wanted to make a statement that
    certainly the people in South Dakota recognize, widespread they
    recognize the need for this piece of legislation or else I
    wouldn't be bringing it, but they have been talking to me about
    it every single meeting that I have that people deal with rural
    industries in South Dakota. And I think when you hear the
    personal story of Kevin Rogers a little bit later you will
    really----
        Mr. Waxman. But that is another State where there is a
    nonattainment.
        Mrs. Noem. But certainly right now----
        Mr. Waxman. When people are fearful, you ease the fears.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Mr. Waxman. Whether it is realistic or not.
        Mr. Whitfield. We all get excited about dust, but let us
    calm down here a minute.
        Mr. Waxman. Settle the dust.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, let us settle the dust here.
        But Mr. Waxman raised some dust, and now I would recognize
    Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        A couple things. Kristi, how far is your home from a paved
    road?
        Mrs. Noem. Well, my home particularly is not too far. It is
    about a quarter of a mile from a paved road. But our farm is
    about 8 miles from a paved road.
        Mr. Shimkus. And is that chaff, as I would call it, or is
    it dust? Is it a dirt road or is it limestone rock road?
        Mrs. Noem. Oh, it is a dirt road. It is a gravel road.
        Mr. Shimkus. So it is gravel, and if there is an air
    monitor placed on that gravel road, which is 8 miles from a
    paved road, the gravel road probably would not be in attainment
    on the PM10 standard when the big four-wheel-drive
    hemi pickup truck with the horse-drawn trailer goes down that
    road. Isn't that correct?
        Mrs. Noem. I would agree. I would say virtually every
    single field during harvest time would be in nonattainment.
        Mr. Shimkus. And I have a photo that I showed Administrator
    Jackson when she first testified, and I will probably pull it
    up later on, and it is this time of the year when we are
    finishing cutting of beans, and it shows a plume. Now, some
    people would say--oh, there it is, right there. That is right
    outside my hometown just north of Collinsville. Now, if you had
    an air monitor right behind that, it would probably set off.
    But that is not diesel, that is just chaff. That is organic.
    That is leaves, that is stalk, and that is what we call cutting
    of beans.
        Mr. Whitfield. Is that natural dust?
        Mrs. Noem. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. So my point is, in rural America where the air
    monitor is could determine it, and the difference between urban
    America and rural America is that dust cloud will disperse way
    before it is in any concentration that would kick off. So a
    concern, and so the additional regulation imposed is a severe
    threat to rural America. You have how many agriculture groups
    in support of this bill?
        Mrs. Noem. Over 100.
        Mr. Shimkus. Are they just crazy? I mean, are they just
    meddling? They have nothing else to do than be worried about
    the EPA?
        Mrs. Noem. Well, Representative Shimkus, if I could say one
    thing that Representative Waxman continued to say over and over
    is that dust is not currently regulated, and it is. The EPA
    does regulate dust, and the staff did recommend tightening
    those standards. So when he believes there is no concern, there
    is valid concern in rural America.
        Mr. Shimkus. Robert, do you want to add anything?
        Mr. Hurt. Well, I would say a couple of things. You know,
    when we were asked whether or not we need this bill, to me, the
    question ought to be, why don't we use our legislative
    prerogative to guide policy in this country. I think if you
    talk to the people I represent, they say for far too long the
    Congress has wholesale given its legislative prerogative over
    to agencies like the EPA who are not elected, who are not
    accountable to the people. So why on earth would not we take
    our responsibility as being a voice for the people seriously
    and what objection could one have to exercising that
    legislative authority that has been given to us by the people
    we represent?
        Going back again to some of the questions that have been
    asked about the actual standard, there is nothing unreasonable
    about section 3 and the standard that is proposed. It just says
    there must be shown substantial health risk and that there is a
    cost-benefit analysis that goes through and proves that the
    benefits outweigh the costs. So I don't think anybody is
    suggesting that you have--and I in my district, my rural
    district, we have power plants. No one is suggesting that
    emissions from power plants be exempted in any way, and this
    bill would not do that.
        And then finally, as it relates to the fear mongering, and
    I take issue and I wish Mr. Waxman was here, I take issue with
    his suggestion that this is somehow politically motivated. I
    talk to farmers in my district all the time whose fears of
    government regulation are real and they translate to lower
    productivity and fewer jobs, and all they are trying to do--you
    know, I have a farmer in Nelson County, he is a fruit grower.
    He says, you know, I get regulated by the Department of Labor,
    Department of Transportation, the IRS, the USDA, the EPA. He
    said all I am trying to do is grow peaches, I have been doing
    that for five generations, how hard can it be.
        Mr. Shimkus. Let me reclaim my time and just recognize Cory
    for a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Gardner. Thank you. And I just would like to ask
    permission for the record to submit letters of support from
    well over 100 different organizations that support H.R. 1633:
    NFIB, chambers of commerce, ag groups, farm organizations,
    business groups. Yield back my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Without objection. Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.025

        Mr. Whitfield. Once again, thank you all for taking time to
    be with us. We appreciate it and look forward to working with
    you on this issue. Thank you.
        At this time I will call up the Honorable Gina McCarthy,
    the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency. Ms. McCarthy, we welcome you
    back to Capitol Hill, which I am sure you enjoy coming up here
    a great deal.
        Ms. McCarthy. It is always my pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Stearns. Sorry we don't have some refreshments for you
    this morning.
        We do appreciate your being here very much to testify on
    H.R. 1633, and at this point I would recognize you for 5
    minutes for your opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF REGINA MCCARTHY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR
             AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member
    Rush, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
    to testify on the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011.
    This sweeping bill could roll back Clean Air Act protections
    and adversely affect public health in urban, suburban and rural
    areas.
        This bill has been sold as a narrow one. If all this bill
    is intended to do is prevent the EPA from tightening the coarse
    particle standard, the bill is simply unnecessary.
    Administrator Jackson committed in an October 14, 2011, letter
    that she is prepared to propose to keep the PM10
    standard, or coarse particle. The National Ambient Air Quality
    Standard will remain unchanged if the Administrator's proposal
    as intended is moved forward. I am hopeful that this
    announcement ends the myth that the agency plans to tighten the
    regulation of farm dust.
        Whether intended or not, we are concerned that this bill
    does far more than its sponsors have indicated. It could
    prevent EPA from regulating power plants or other major
    industrial sources of pollution in urban and suburban areas as
    well as in rural areas. This is because section 3A takes away
    Clean Air Act authority to regulate nuisance dust and then
    defines nuisance dust very broadly, and it includes particulate
    matter generated from activities typically conducted in rural
    areas. This exemption would cover both coarse and fine
    particles emitted from anywhere in the country. It might
    include pollutants like NOx and SOx that form fine particles.
    This would appear to preclude EPA from regulating particle
    pollution from activities such as power plants, mining
    operations, industrial operations and construction anywhere in
    the country because those activities are not atypical to occur
    in rural areas. It could even call into question EPA's ability
    to enforce tailpipe emission standards that would limit
    particle pollution from cars, trucks and buses because those
    same cars, trucks and buses typically drive in rural areas. In
    other words, the farm dust bill might forever bar the EPA from
    limiting emissions of coarse particles, fine particles, sulfur
    dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury from power plants,
    industrial sources and maybe even motor vehicles.
        We are also concerned that H.R. 1633 could block revision
    of fine particle standards and implementation of existing fine
    and coarse particle standards. Since the existing particle
    programs did not distinguish between nuisance dust and other
    particles, the bill raises the issue of whether the EPA could
    enforce or maintain existing fine or coarse particle pollution
    standards. The term ``nuisance dust'' is not a scientific term,
    which would make it very difficulty to incorporate an exclusion
    of nuisance dust into a scientifically based program. This
    could raise practical concerns. It is unclear how one would
    design a monitor that measured fine particles except for
    nuisance dust and it is unclear how the agency could implement
    particle pollution programs without a scientifically sound
    monitoring network, and it is certainly unclear what the costs
    would be to States or local communities to put in that type of
    a monitoring system could one be designed and developed.
        The existing fine and coarse particle pollution reduction
    programs are important for public health. While nuisance dust
    sounds like it is merely inconvenient, it includes particle
    pollution that is harmful to public health. When we breathe,
    both coarse and fine particle pollution can reach the deepest
    region of our lungs and move past our bodies' filtering
    systems. We have a health-based standard for particles smaller
    than 10 micrometers since 1987. That is 24 years. Coarse
    particles have been linked to a variety of adverse health
    effects including hospital visits related to cardiovascular and
    respiratory diseases and premature death. This is the standard
    that the Administrator has announced she is prepared to propose
    to retain, not propose to change.
        In 1997, EPA added a health-based standard for fine
    particles, which cause serious health effects. Nationally, EPA
    estimates that exposure to fine particles results in, among
    other effects, 130,000 to 320,000 excess deaths in adults,
    110,000 emergency room visits by children, 2.5 million cases of
    exacerbation of asthma, and 18 million lost workdays each year.
        I have briefly discussed some of the potential consequences
    of H.R. 1633. As written, this bill would significantly weaken
    EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act and significantly cause
    and preclude us from preventing public health protections that
    are necessary for the American people. If these consequences
    aren't intended, it would be best to revise the bill to avoid
    the confusion, litigation and the concerns that I have raised.
    I hope this information that I presented as well as the
    Administrator's October 14, 2011, letter clarifies EPA's
    intentions and obviates the need for this legislation. It is
    simply not necessary at this time to block the tightening of
    the PM10 standard which the Administrator has very
    clearly indicated that she has no intention at this time of
    proposing.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.033

        Mr. Whitfield. Ms. McCarthy, thank you for your testimony.
        You heard me say earlier that one of our concerns is that
    it doesn't make any difference what EPA decides or doesn't
    decide. Outside groups file lawsuits on a regular basis against
    EPA, and I think even you would admit and agree that frequently
    the courts' decisions determine what the interpretation of the
    EPA act is and what becomes law. So what our concern is, even
    though Lisa Jackson says no, are you convinced that a third-
    party environmental group or some other entity would not file a
    lawsuit?
        Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administrator
    has made her intention clear but certainly she can't preclude
    the rights and responsibilities she has under the
    Administrative Procedures Act and the right to listen to
    comment that is received. I would, however, say that the
    Administrator is basing her decision on a wealth of scientific
    information. I have the Integrated Science Assessment right
    here. She has taken the advice of the Clean Air Act Science
    Advisory Committee. She has listened to the staff
    recommendations and she believes that the law gives her
    deference in making these determinations in terms of what the
    science said and what----
        Mr. Whitfield. But you do still understand our concern
    about--how many lawsuits are pending against the EPA right now?
        Ms. McCarthy. There are a number of lawsuits pending but in
    the----
        Mr. Whitfield. There is over 400, I believe, aren't there?
        Ms. McCarthy. In the case of PM10, the
    administration has acted a number of times, first under
    President Reagan, second under President Bush and this
    administration. We believe the science is clear and we believe
    that the Administrator's recommendation will hold true.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, see, we agree with you. We think the
    science is clear also and that is why we think that moving
    forward with legislation would remove any ambiguity whatsoever.
    So that is where we stand on that issue.
        Now, as far as coarse particulate matter, does EPA have the
    authority to regulate coarse particulate matter now?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. And if the State implementation plan of a
    noncompliant area does not do so, EPA can step in. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the EPA would have an obligation to
    step in if a State implementation plan didn't effectively
    address attainment in the way the Clean Air Act requires.
        Mr. Whitfield. And how many States today are regulating
    coarse particulate matter because they are in nonattainment?
        Ms. McCarthy. There are only a very few number of States
    that are regulating PM10. It amounts to about 41
    counties. It is a very small area of the country at this point
    in time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Do you believe yourself from the evidence
    that you have read that coarse particulate matter does have an
    impact on a person's health?
        Ms. McCarthy. I do. I do believe that, and I think the
    scientific evidence is quite clear, and we have evidence not
    only that coarse particles that are emitted in urban areas
    cause problems but there is clear scientific evidence that
    distinguishes what we call--what people have called rural dust,
    that that also causes significant public health concerns.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, if you do believe that even rural
    coarse particulate matter does impact health, why did you all
    decide not to strengthen the coarse particulate matter
    regulation?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the Administrator has to establish a
    standard that is requisite to protect public health with an
    adequate margin of safety. The Reagan administration NAAQS
    standards set in 1987, 24 years ago, that was also revisited by
    the Bush administration and that is now being reconsidered by
    this administration, is actually a very sound standard. It is a
    standard that we believe is sufficient to protect public
    health. We believe that there is scientific uncertainty, which
    the Administrator has been looking at and considering that
    would lead her to retain the standard as it is proposed but
    certainly that information is rigorous enough to indicate that
    we should retain the current standard.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now, the current PM10 standard is
    150 micrograms per cubic meter. Is that correct? Is that the
    current standard?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. And then there is a threshold of 99
    percentile. What does that actually mean?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, that means--and that is one of the
    issues that has been most confusing because the Clean Air Act
    Science Advisory Committee actually proposed to change the
    standard and the form or actually ask the Administrator to
    consider a change in the standard and the form. The 99th
    percentile just really means that the area could be in
    nonattainment if they exceeded or had events that brought up
    the level of pollution to a certain amount just a few times a
    year and it would trigger National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards. If you lower that percentile, it means it needs to
    be more often and more frequent in order to trigger
    nonattainment.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. So the standard is 150 micrograms per
    cubic meter and the form is 99 percentile, so if you exceed
    that 1 percent of the time, you are OK, but if you exceed 2
    percent of the time----
        Ms. McCarthy. That is right.
        Mr. Whitfield [continuing]. You violate?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is right.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, my time is expired.
        I recognize the gentleman, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms.
    McCarthy, I want to welcome you again to this subcommittee.
        I got a little bit confused during the questioning from the
    chairman here. It seemed that we were discussing the Farm Dust
    Regulation Prevention Act but it seemed to me like he was
    talking about the EPA litigation prevention act, trying to keep
    EPA from being in court, being litigated in court, and I just
    don't know, do you think that is what our legislative powers to
    keep the EPA out of court?
        Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Rush, I think that we actually are
    authorized to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    We certainly do that to the best of our ability based on the
    science and the law. Without question, it is often challenged,
    but without question, we win a considerable amount of time
    because we do our jobs well.
        Mr. Rush. And I agree with you, you do do your jobs quite
    well.
        We heard earlier from Representative Noem that the
    scientific research shows a clear distinction between ``urban
    dust'' and ``rural dust'', and H.R. 1633 will make it simpler
    and easier for EPA by defining what nuisance dust is. Does the
    scientific research show a clear distinction between urban dust
    and rural dust? Also, does H.R. 1633 make it easier for EPA by
    defining nuisance dust as it is defined in this bill?
        Ms. McCarthy. The definition of nuisance dust in this bill
    is very broad, and we are very concerned that it could have
    significant spillover impact in terms of our ability to
    regulate pollution from sources well beyond rural areas and
    well beyond agricultural sources, and we are concerned about
    that impact. I would also say that there are significant
    amounts of health studies, and they become more every time we
    look at the data and every time we visit that NAAQS that show
    that coarse particles, whether they are generated in the rural
    areas or they are generated in the urban areas have significant
    health consequences. They deserve to be regulated. The science
    demands it. The law requires it. EPA does that.
        Mr. Rush. Well, so let me just ask you, is the matter that
    is established in 1987 under the administration of President
    Reagan, has that standard been a threat to the farming
    communities in this Nation or has it been helpful?
        Ms. McCarthy. We do not believe that there is any evidence
    that farming has been in any way significantly disrupted by any
    of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As you know,
    when we establish a NAAQS, it is a national standard. It is not
    targeted to a specific sector or a specific geographic area. I
    do know since 1987 when this was first proposed, there have
    been identified by States and local air quality districts when
    they implement in nonattainment areas, they implement their
    requirements to look at sources and identify what sources
    contribute to local health consequences. There have been times
    when they have worked with the USDA, they have worked with
    local farmers. They have identified best management practices,
    conservation measures that those farms can put into place that
    would reduce the amount of dust that they admit and still allow
    farming to continue unabated, and there have been instances
    where we have worked in a collaborative way to help that effort
    and that outcome, and it has been an enormously successful
    opportunity for all of us and to make sure that farming can
    continue, that it can continue unabated and we can work with
    them to reduce the amount of dust that is emitted and maintain
    the health standards that are required to protect public
    health.
        Mr. Rush. I only have a few more seconds. There seems to
    be--the 800-pound gorilla in the room seems to be the fear
    factor that is prevalent or that some have alluded to in
    previous testimony at today's hearing. Can you comment on what
    your understanding of the fear factor is and how great is it,
    how significant is it?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we heard quite a while ago, Mr. Rush,
    that there was concern in the farming community on the basis of
    the recommendations by the Clean Air Act Science Advisory
    Committee that the Administrator consider a change in the
    standard. What was misunderstood was they were asking for both
    a change in the standard as well as the form. It actually would
    have resulted in fewer counties. It would have been a little
    bit more flexible, not so much sensitive to the high levels as
    much as averaging a little bit in a way that would have
    provided more flexibility. We did six listening sessions with
    the agriculture community immediately to explain to them what
    the process was, that it wasn't the recommendation of the
    staff, that the Administrator didn't make a decision yet, and
    we also talked about all of the work that we have done together
    on farm dust since 1987 and the collaborative nature of that
    process and the impacts that hasn't happened as a result. And
    we will continue that effort, and now that the Administrator
    has made it clear that she is not intending to propose a change
    in that standard, we are certainly hoping that it puts those
    fears to rest.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, and it is great to be with you,
    Assistant Administrator McCarthy.
        Ms. McCarthy. Good to see you too.
        Mr. Shimkus. We have a lot of fun here, and hopefully I
    will be kind and courteous, and again, I appreciate all the
    help that you have given in the past.
        A couple issues. It is true that tier 4 engine regs, which
    has created additional costs for the agricultural community in
    diesel engines. Is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. The tier 4 engine rules have been tightened
    and it does require that they look at particulate matter and
    other emissions----
        Mr. Shimkus. So when you have diesel engines operating in
    rural America, you cannot say there is no effect on cost and
    production and operations when you have ratcheted down diesel
    engine emissions on the clean air applications.
        Ms. McCarthy. The engines that we regulate are very large
    engines.
        Mr. Shimkus. I mean, large engines are used in agricultural
    America.
        Ms. McCarthy. I believe that I was referring to dust
    issues, so----
        Mr. Shimkus. Well, I am just trying to----
        Ms. McCarthy. There are definitely requirements in the
    farming community when you have large farms that are
    significant individual sources of pollution and they have to
    achieve the same kind of engine standards that----
        Mr. Shimkus. Right. Production agriculture is large
    operations and large engines, so I just want to put that on the
    record. There is an effect. To say there is no effect, that
    really can't be stated.
        You mentioned 41 counties that you know are in this, and I
    have one of the maps. There are other counties that continue to
    regulate particulate matter on their own. Is that correct?
    Virginia has fugitive dust regulations in Virginia?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, Congressman. I am not familiar
    with that, but these are the requirements that are attributable
    to the Clean Air Act.
        Mr. Shimkus. Just placing that into the record that there
    are States that are monitoring for dust in States on their own
    outside of the SIP and the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
        The fear factor that my friend mentioned, one of your
    statements in your opening statement said ``at this time.''
    Using that terminology ``at this time'' creates a fear factor
    in rural America because tomorrow you may. The importance of
    legislation is to codify that to say not at this time, no more
    PM10. In fact, the letter that the Administrator
    sent to Lisa Jackson says--I mean Lisa Jackson sent to Debbie
    Stabenow, ``I am prepared to propose retention with no revision
    of the current PM standard and form when it is sent to OMB for
    interagency review.'' Now, the question is, so the
    Administrator must believe that PM standard as it is currently
    operated under the EPA, that it protects public health. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, adequate with an adequate margin of
    safety.
        Mr. Shimkus. And you would agree with that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Good. I want to have that on the record
    because that is part of this whole debate of the concern of
    ratcheting it down. You heard during the opening questioning,
    and just the difference of concentration. A lot of our
    experience here on the committee is focusing on concentrated
    amounts that affect human health. Do you agree that
    concentrated particulate matter can be harmful to human health?
        Ms. McCarthy. I believe that exposure to particulate matter
    can be----
        Mr. Shimkus. In any concentration or in certain
    concentrations?
        Ms. McCarthy. It depends on both. It depends on the
    concentration as well as the size of the particle.
        Mr. Shimkus. But you just said PM10 is safe.
        Ms. McCarthy. No, no, I said that the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standard was appropriate as a safeguard for public
    health protection. That does not mean that I think that it is
    safe for exposures at all levels. Certainly our goal is to
    achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard that is
    required under the Clean Air Act. I am making no statement
    about my independent knowledge of health consequences
    associated with exposures beyond that.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, sir. At this time I will recognize the
    gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. McCarthy, we heard from some people that the
    Republicans want to make commonsense changes to the Clean Air
    Act but in reality, I fear they may be making some radical
    changes and you said in your opening statement the bill does
    far more than prevent a change in the coarse particulate
    standard. We believe it could result in far-reaching damage to
    the bedrock public health protections in the Clean Air Act.
        Now, this includes a broad definition of so-called nuisance
    dust that would be exempt from EPA regulation. The bill lists
    several examples of what falls under the category of nuisance
    dust including ``earth moving.'' The bill doesn't limit these
    farms. Ms. McCarthy, could the operations of a large, open pit
    mine fall under the category of earth moving?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Waxman. In fact, during the next panel, we are going to
    hear from the Coarse Particulate Matter Coalition, an industry
    association that supports this bill. One of the coalition's
    members is Kennecott Copper, which operates one of the world's
    largest copper mines. That company would like to expand its
    mine with fewer air pollution controls. So that is one way this
    bill goes beyond farms.
        The bill also includes ``windblown dust'' in the definition
    of what constitutes nuisance dust. Ms. McCarthy, could all
    particulate air pollution be viewed as windblown dust and does
    the bill distinguish because particulate matter from a farm or
    from a factory?
        Ms. McCarthy. It could, and there is no such distinction in
    the bill that you have asked me to comment on.
        Mr. Waxman. So the dust is undefined in the bill and
    commonly applies to small particles, so all particulate air
    pollution might fall under this phrase?
        Ms. McCarthy. It might.
        Mr. Waxman. The bill further includes as nuisance dust
    particulate matter that is generated from ``activities
    typically conducted in rural areas.'' This is extremely broad
    and could capture a range of industrial activity that often
    occurs in less populated areas. Ms. McCarthy, what activities
    could be covered by this definition?
        Ms. McCarthy. The generation of power at a power plant,
    large industrial sources like steel plants, gravel operations,
    mining operations, driving diesel buses to school, diesel
    engines. A variety of the same kind of sources that you would
    find in rural areas can be found in urban areas as well.
        Mr. Waxman. The bill is so broadly written that it could
    prevent EPA from ensuring that school buses don't spew
    dangerous air pollution in rural communities across the
    country. I think that is not common sense, I think that is
    ridiculous.
        Ms. McCarthy, given these broad definitions, how could this
    bill affect EPA's ability to limit emissions of particle
    pollution from all sources, not just farms, and what are the
    public health implications?
        Ms. McCarthy. This bill, if passed as written, could have
    serious implications on the major tenets of the Clean Air Act.
    It could preclude us from regulating PM fines as well as
    coarse. It could preclude us from regulating NOx and SO2
    emissions from power plants, from mining operations, from large
    industries, from mobile sources. It could have serious
    unintended consequences.
        Mr. Waxman. If the Republicans want to reduce or eliminate
    existing controls on particulate pollution from industrial
    activities, they probably have the votes to do that, but if so,
    let us debate that on the merits. Let us not pretend that this
    bill is about stopping EPA from imposing new regulations on
    farms.
        I hear this all the time, and I have heard it all my
    career. I have got a simple bill, totally common sense. It only
    deals with a problem that is on people's minds. And then you
    look at the language and you find out that it is much broader
    and has a lot of consequences that we presume are unintended
    but they might even be intended. So I think we have to look at
    legislation as it is written, not as how people would say it is
    intended because their intentions are not part of the law that
    EPA enforces. Isn't that correct, Ms. McCarthy? Does EPA
    enforce intentions of the authors or the language of the bill?
        Ms. McCarthy. We have to enforce the language of the bill,
    Mr. Waxman.
        Mr. Waxman. Even if Congress intended something else?
        Ms. McCarthy. Often times, yes.
        Mr. Waxman. I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I will recognize Mr. Terry of
    Nebraska for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you.
        Ms. McCarthy, while listening here and some of the
    discussion about whether or not we should even be having this
    discussion and EPA has already said they won't enforce the
    PM10 on agriculture was the statement I think Lisa
    Jackson made when I asked her about that and after she
    answered, ``dust happens'' as the answer, I thought that was
    rather flippant and insulting to our farmers. But the reality
    is, the fear exists and I do think it is real, not only because
    there was a recommendation to regulate dust on the farm and the
    roads but there has been a history with this EPA. For example,
    in the State Nebraska, under a proposed rule for CSAPR,
    Nebraska was not even given reasonable notice or opportunity to
    revise its implementation plan to react to requirements of the
    2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and it wasn't until August 2011 that Nebraska
    became aware that a level of emission control necessary to
    mitigate interstate transport.
        So the point is, those of us in Nebraska have already gone
    through a situation where the EPA said basically you weren't
    going to be covered and then to our surprise we were covered,
    which resulted in a lawsuit. So there is a history with the EPA
    of making promises and then breaking them.
        Now, in regard to the specific of nuisance dust and
    PM10, the chairperson, Chairman Whitfield, hit on
    this and it has always been my saying that we are only one
    lawsuit away from you being forced to regulate dust
    particulates from farming activities or the roads, and in fact,
    there is a history with the EPA of their partners, Sierra Club
    and Natural Resources Defense Council, filing lawsuits and then
    you entering into a settlement agreement.
        So with that fear that I have that that is the ultimate
    plan here is to have one of your partners file suit, therefore
    it is not Lisa Jackson's or this Administrator's decision but
    the court's decision. I used the fictional because that is what
    happens. You enter into a settlement agreement. So my question
    to you is, to your knowledge, has Lisa Jackson, you or anyone
    with the EPA had any discussions with Sierra Club, the NRDC or
    any other environmental group about filing lawsuits on nuisance
    dust from farming activities and dirt roads?
        Ms. McCarthy. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Terry. No discussions?
        Ms. McCarthy. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Terry. No emails?
        Ms. McCarthy. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Terry. OK.
        Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Terry, we can talk about the cross-state
    rule another time. I would really like that opportunity. But
    what I will say is that this whole issue arose because people
    were concerning about the Administrator going out and making a
    change in a standard that had never been brought to her. The
    rule has not been proposed. She has indicated what she intends
    to propose. It would go through a public process and then it
    would be finalized, and without doubt, it will be challenged.
    There is ample opportunity for this body to see whether the
    Administrator is actually going to live up to the letter that
    she wrote and whether or not the science and what the final
    rule looks like.
        Mr. Terry. Listening to the discussions that have occurred
    so far, you would agree that basic combining harvest or plant
    would create dust that would then in that instance violate the
    PM10?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, that is not how it works. We
    actually rely on monitoring technologies, not modeling from
    individual sources, to establish nonattainment areas, and we
    don't have farm dust standards.
        Mr. Terry. But we already have an example in Virginia where
    the monitoring said that at that particular time of the truck
    driving over the road violated the standard, and so the reality
    here is that we are only one lawsuit away from you being forced
    to enforce the rule on farming activities, and my time is up.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. At this time I will recognize the
    gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Markey. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        In 1999, the public was outraged to learn that Congressman
    Tony Schnell had introduced bill 602P to allow the United
    States Postal Service to impose a 5-cent tax on every single
    email that was sent. Email action alerts were sent out with
    alarming instructions to read this if you intend to stay online
    and continue using email. Congressional offices were flooded by
    frustrated constituents. The issue even got raised at campaign
    debates where candidates predictably came out in opposition to
    this misguided scheme. There was just one problem. None of it
    was real. There was no bill 602P. There wasn't even a
    Congressman Schnell in the House of Representatives. The whole
    thing was an Internet hoax, and everyone should have just moved
    on.
        But Republicans forged ahead. They introduced the Internet
    Access Charge Prohibition Act of 1999, apparently because only
    by passing actual legislation to prohibit the goals of the
    imaginary legislation authored by a fictitious Congressman
    could we prevent these horrible surcharges from being imposed
    in the real world, but it didn't just do that, that piece of
    legislation. Then it went on further to actually include
    provisions which would have hurt poor and rural Americans to
    get phone service.
        So I am reminded of that legislation as we consider this
    bill to prevent the regulation of farm dust. Just like the
    email tax hoax, there is no plan to regulate farm dust any more
    than there is to regulate fairy dust. There is no attempt to
    accomplish that goal. Let me say that again: EPA has made it
    very clear that the so-called plan to regulate farm dust is a
    myth, but that hasn't stopped the Republicans from moving
    forward with this legislation, and just like the email tax
    bill, this bill goes well beyond its stated intent because it
    also blocks EPA from settings standards for the dirty soot that
    gets spewed out of coal-fired power plants, incinerators,
    refineries and chemical plants. That is the real agenda, not to
    stop something that isn't going to happen but to then switch in
    the middle of their legislation to move over to something that
    really would protect the public from public health hazards.
    This bill should be relegated to the dust bin of similar urban
    legends along with Congressman Schnell's imaginary email tax
    bill.
        Ms. McCarthy, can you tell me whether EPA has any new plan
    to specifically regulate farm dust?
        Ms. McCarthy. We do not.
        Mr. Markey. Isn't it true that this legislation goes beyond
    a simple prohibition on farm dust regulations by also
    preventing EPA from regulating any dust that is generated by
    activities that are typically conducted in rural areas and any
    dust that can be blown in the wind?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is true, Congressman.
        Mr. Markey. Even if that dust is actually coming from coal-
    fired power plants or other industrial sources?
        Ms. McCarthy. There is a grave concern that that is part of
    what the bill might do.
        Mr. Markey. And finally, since I am sure that many little
    girls all over America care about this deeply, can you commit
    to me that EPA will never try to regulate fairy dust or pixie
    dust? Because if not, we may just want to amend the legislation
    in order to protect us against that threat which could be posed
    by the EPA or other regulatory agencies seeking to move into
    other fictional areas such as the legislation which is being
    considered here by this committee.
        Ms. McCarthy. After we look at the complete scientific
    review, yes.
        Mr. Markey. You will make sure that you do not under any
    circumstances? OK. Thank you.
        So I thank the chair very much and I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
    Texas, Dr. Burgess, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
    gentlelady for being here with us today and answering our
    questions. You brought a lot of material with you there at your
    left hand. What is that compendium of documents?
        Ms. McCarthy. This is the Integrated Science Assessment for
    Particulate Matter that has recently been prepared that would
    underpin the decision of the Administrator in terms of moving
    forward with updating both the PM10 and the PM2.5
    standards.
        Mr. Burgess. And there are health studies included in that?
        Ms. McCarthy. This is actually a peer-reviewed summary of
    peer-reviewed scientific literature that would have an impact
    and concern relative to particulate matter.
        Mr. Burgess. So are there available then health studies
    that have found that rural dust is a health concern?
        Ms. McCarthy. There are many, yes.
        Mr. Burgess. And will you leave those behind with us?
        Ms. McCarthy. Absolutely.
        Mr. Burgess. Has the EPA conducted a quantitative health
    risk assessment of coarse particulate matter?
        Ms. McCarthy. The EPA has not used that tool on coarse
    particulate matter, no.
        Mr. Burgess. Is the reason for that because you don't have
    enough scientific evidence?
        Ms. McCarthy. The reason for that is because coarse
    particulate matter, we don't have the kind of monitoring data
    that we have available relative to other pollution so it
    doesn't seem like it would be an appropriate tool to use, but
    we certainly have enough studies that look at coarse particles
    so that a linkage has been made in terms of the emissions of
    those particles and health impacts that would result.
        Mr. Burgess. Let me ask you this. There was another
    subcommittee of Energy and Commerce that asked Administrator to
    share with that subcommittee any studies that show a causal or
    associative relationship between fine particulate matter and
    deaths at levels below what the EPA calls the lowest measured
    level. Now, apparently that request has yet to be honored so
    can I ask you today that you will endeavor to help us receive
    those materials that Administrator Jackson promised another
    subcommittee and this full committee?
        Ms. McCarthy. I will assure you that we will provide all of
    the health studies that are the basis of these decisions.
        Mr. Burgess. We will get you the details on that, but I
    think it is important, and I appreciate your willingness to
    help us gather the information.
        Let me just ask you a question that is a little bit off
    topic for a moment. Now, it seems like Administrator Jackson
    and the EPA are very concerned about asthma and asthma deaths.
    Is that a fair statement?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Burgess. It seems like almost every hearing we have on
    almost anything, asthma deaths are brought up as one of the
    metrics.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, air pollution generally the health
    impacts of most concern are usually respiratory or
    cardiovascular, yes.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, one of the things that is just really
    perplexing to me, I am an asthma patient. I am on a long-term
    medication, and I also use a rescue inhaler. Now, occasionally,
    like anybody else, I will forget my medication. I travel a lot.
    And it is reassuring to know that I can go into any pharmacy in
    the country and buy Primatene Mist over the counter. I don't
    have to go to the emergency room. I don't have to get a
    doctor's prescription for it. I can just simply get the
    medication when needed and self-administer and avert a problem.
    But Primatene Mist is not going to be available after January
    1st, is it?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is correct. If the FDA ban continues,
    yes, that is true.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, it is not just the FDA. I mean, EPA is
    playing a role in this as well because of the propellant, the
    vehicle, the CFC that actually propels the medication.
        Ms. McCarthy. Certainly we have been working closely with
    FDA for many years on this issue, yes.
        Mr. Burgess. But the fact remains that because of the EPA,
    this medication is no longer going to be available to me after
    January 1st.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the fact remains, I think that just to
    clarify, this is an issue where there are CFCs that actually
    are used in these inhalers, both in the ones you get by
    prescription and there is one remaining that is over the
    counter that has an impact on ozone layer, and as part of our
    obligation with the Montreal Protocol----
        Mr. Burgess. I would submit that the volume of CFC that is
    released into the atmosphere from the contingent of asthma
    patients that uses an occasional rescue inhaler that they buy
    at 2:00 in the morning is vanishingly small and not responsible
    for the hole in the ozone layer. And I will tell you, my own
    comfort at 2:00 in the morning takes vastly more precedent than
    any potential theoretical enlargement of the hole in the ozone
    layer. I just have to say, here is an example of, we come in
    here and we talk about in lofty terms that we want to prevent
    asthma deaths, and yet at the same time the EPA and the FDA in
    concert are acting to keep the medication out of the hands of
    the patients who so desperately need them. It is irony to the
    nth degree, and I thank the chairman for allowing me the
    indulgence.
        Ms. McCarthy. I am happy to have the discussion and bring
    back the dialog relative to FDA's determination as to whether
    or not this inhaler is an essential use.
        Mr. Burgess. Look, you are not going to get me defending
    the FDA. I promise you that. But both Federal agencies are
    playing a role in this, and the fact remains, January 1st,
    patients all over the country are not going to be able to get
    access to their medication. If we are concerned about asthma,
    we would fix that.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Dr. Burgess, and appreciate
    your raising that issue of sometimes unintended consequences.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
    Scalise, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    having this hearing, and I want to thank my two colleagues that
    were presenting the legislation that we are discussing today. I
    strongly support the legislation and what we are trying to do
    is I think bring some certainty to an area where is tremendous
    uncertainty, and unfortunately, the uncertainty has cost jobs.
    It has cost a lot of businesses, what we are seeing over and
    over from businesses in my district and other districts. When
    you talk to colleagues all around the country, you hear the
    same thing over and over. It is not only the uncertainty but
    the actual threats from real regulations or potential
    regulations coming down from agencies like the EPA that are
    impeding their ability to create jobs, that are impeding their
    ability to invest in their business, and I am looking forward
    to the next panel because we are going to hear from some people
    who are actually on the ground dealing with this, and while
    unfortunately some of my colleagues on the other side want to
    make fun of this and, you know, want to tell jokes about fairy
    dust, this is about real American jobs that are being lost
    because of these regulations, you know, and yet some people
    just want to make fun of that. They think it is funny that
    people in middle America, people in rural America are looking
    at these regulations that are coming down and looking at the
    threats.
        I want to read you to some--this is off of EPA's Web site.
    You know, you are talking about some potential diseases coming,
    respiratory irritation, lung function reduction, asthma,
    inflamed damage to lungs, aggravated lung disease, permanent
    lung damage, and I know you rattled off some other things in
    your opening testimony. I am not talking about dust particles.
    I am talking about the ozone ruling. These were all the same
    things that EPA said were threats that you need to have this
    ozone ruling, and even President Obama said you are out of
    control. He pulled it back. And so when you come before our
    committee and no matter what bill it is, if it is Cement MACT
    or Boiler MACT or dust or ozone, you rattle off the same things
    over and over about, you know, if we don't allow you to go
    forward with this or we bring a bill to prevent some radical
    regulation from EPA, it is going to send more people to the
    hospital and kids are going to get asthma and, you know. Lung
    disease, you know, you have been beating that drum for
    everything, and even the President said that you are out of
    line. And so I hope, you know, when you all come and oppose
    these commonsense bills to just put certainty in place, to
    prevent some regulations from coming in that aren't there now
    that would put people out of business, when you keep saying the
    same things over and over about threats to health, I mean, are
    you saying that the President doesn't support public health
    because the President said you went too far.
        Ms. McCarthy. I guess I am a little confused because I
    think this bill was initiated because the Administrator
    actually made it clear that she doesn't intend to propose a
    change in the PM10 standard at this time.
        Mr. Scalise. But then you should be OK with the bill
    because the bill just says that you won't go forward with it.
    You are saying you are not going to do it. The thing is, you
    have said you are not going to do it on other areas, not you
    personally but EPA has done this in the past, and the chairman
    brought this up. The chairman of the committee talked about
    these consent decrees, these consent agreements that some of
    these outside groups will come and sue the EPA, and we have
    seen it with energy production, we have seen it with other
    things, and then you all go into an agreement with them. It is
    not a law, it is not even a rule, and yet you can go into these
    consent agreements and all of a sudden there is a new standard
    on the books that nobody agreed to. It wasn't Members of
    Congress that agreed to it, the elected representatives of the
    people, it was some backroom deal cut either by a judge or,
    even worse, some outside group who is a specialist interest
    that got together with you all and you all came up with some
    kind of new agreement that everybody has got to comply with,
    and it puts people out of business. It kills jobs in this
    country. And we are just trying to say we are going to issue a
    preemptive strike before you all are forced in that position.
    You might not even want to do it, but if they bring you to
    court and all of a sudden some judge gives some ruling,
    everybody in America, rural Americans, all these farmers have
    to comply with this stuff. And I am trying to say, before you
    cost any more jobs, because you have already cost jobs, whether
    you agree with it or not. We can bring in business owner after
    business owner and job creators that can tell you thousands of
    jobs in each industry that have been lost because of EPA
    regulations. We are just trying to say enough is enough before
    this new one comes out. Let us stop it. What is so wrong about
    that when you look at all the outside groups who--you are
    looking at over 100 farmer groups, U.S. Chamber, National
    Association of Manufacturers, all these farm groups. I mean, I
    saw a story from the Illinois Farm Bureau. I mean, do you think
    they are just making up stuff? Do you think they are having
    imaginations about fairy dust, as it was suggested? I mean,
    these are people that on the ground trying to just create jobs
    and they are scared to death of what is coming down the pike
    from EPA.
        Ms. McCarthy. Congressman, the language in this bill goes
    far beyond the interest that you have expressed in making sure
    that the Administrator's decision to not propose to change
    the----
        Mr. Scalise. All right. So if you don't like the language,
    then what you are saying is, you are OK with some kind of
    prohibition, you don't like this----
        Ms. McCarthy. All I am suggesting is that this law is not
    necessary.
        Mr. Scalise. I think a lot of hard-working farmers out
    there would----
        Ms. McCarthy. And the only other----
        Mr. Scalise [continuing]. Disagree, but I yield back. I am
    out of time.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired.
        I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms.
    McCarthy for your time here today. I truly appreciate it.
        We have talked a lot today, EPA currently has a
    PM10 standard, dust standard. Is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Gardner. And that basically means 150 microns per cubic
    meter of air at the 99th percentile. Is that what it means?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
        Mr. Gardner. Which means you get about 3 days over the
    standard average over a 3-year period and you are still in
    compliance. Is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Gardner. OK. Does that standard apply across the
    country?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Gardner. Are there areas of the country that are in
    nonattainment for PM10?
        Ms. McCarthy. There are.
        Mr. Gardner. And where are these areas?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I can certainly point them out to you.
    For the most part, they are in the western part of the United
    States. I would certainly be happy to share this with you.
    These----
        Mr. Gardner. Southern California, Arizona?
        Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. Are the 45 areas. That is right.
        Mr. Gardner. Thank you. Do any of these nonattainment areas
    have any agriculture production?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, many of them do. I think there is--it is
    primarily around urban areas where we monitor we most closely.
        Mr. Gardner. What requirements are placed on those
    producers if they farm in a nonattainment area?
        Ms. McCarthy. It all depends. They may not be seen as
    contributing significantly to the nonattainment, in which case
    there is no obligation. In areas where they have been
    identified, which represent a couple of counties that I know
    about, there are a number of best management practices that
    have been developed with USDA and the farming community. They
    tend to choose what is most appropriate off that list and
    implement those measures.
        Mr. Gardner. Well, I am glad you mentioned that, because in
    fact, since there is nobody on this committee from Arizona, I
    do have where some of the nonattainment areas are. I would like
    to ask that these documents be submitted to the record,
    Arizona's mandatory BMPs, best management practices, for rural
    crop agriculture and mandatory BMPs for livestock producers.
        Mr. Whitfield. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.099

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        Mr. Gardner. And it seems that based on these documents,
    the results of the PM10 standard that are set by the
    EPA that you currently regulate farm dust. That is what these
    documents are here for because of the regulations on dust that
    occurs in agriculture, farm dust. Now, I understand, I live in
    Colorado, it is very dry. I would love to ban dust. It seems
    like that is all we do is dust. We have worn the coffee table
    out with it. But I was just curious, your statement, and I have
    heard others say it is a myth that EPA is trying to regulate
    dust but you already do. Is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, we establish health-based
    standards. It is up to the States and the local communities to
    determine what is most appropriate to regulate.
        Mr. Gardner. But that is on dust, right? You do regulate
    dust?
        Ms. McCarthy. We establish National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards----
        Mr. Gardner. The answer is yes, you regulate dust? I mean,
    that is why you have these best management practices here that
    are about farm dust.
        Ms. McCarthy. I believe that that is a regulation in
    Arizona and it being----
        Mr. Gardner. So Arizona just has this regulation, not
    because of the EPA?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, it is very directly a linkage because of
    the health consequences associated with coarse particles, some
    of which may be from farms if they determine that there is
    significant----
        Mr. Gardner. Which is farm dust and so you are causing them
    to regulate farm dust?
        Ms. McCarthy. We could probably continue this for a while
    but I do not--we do not directly regulate farm dust. We have no
    farm dust regulations. What we have is National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards that regulate coarse and fine particles,
    which many businesses, industries as well as some
    agricultural----
        Mr. Gardner. So let me rephrase my question. Do you
    regulate dust from farms? Maybe that is a different question.
    You know, farm dust, maybe there is no specific category for
    defining farm dust but do you regulate dust from farms?
        Ms. McCarthy. I really am not trying to be evasive. Let me
    tell you how----
        Mr. Gardner. But, see, the problem here is that what my
    district sees. This district is the 11th largest ag-producing
    district in this Congress out of 435. It is not fairy dust to
    them. This is a very real issue.
        Ms. McCarthy. I am not suggesting this is not a serious
    issue.
        Mr. Gardner. EPA also suggested that they weren't going to
    regulate milk from dairies but they had to actually put
    something in there--milk spills at dairies but they had to put
    something in the Federal regulations saying they weren't going
    to regulate milk spills. You can see the problem that we face
    when it comes to the EPA and how our farmers and ranchers are
    trying to deal with it. We have best management practices from
    States that are dealing with the regulation of dust from farms.
    Now, whether that is farm dust or not, maybe that is a point of
    distinction.
        Ms. McCarthy. In areas where farm dust contributes to
    nonattainment and imposes health concerns in those communities,
    there is certainly both a right and an obligation to take a
    look at those issues and to see if there are cost-effective
    practices that can be put in place that would reduce the health
    consequences associated with those emissions. But so I don't
    see anything wrong with that. In fact, I see that as a good
    practice to continue.
        Mr. Gardner. So do you think there should be regulations on
    dust from farms?
        Ms. McCarthy. I believe that there should be regulations on
    coarse particles, and coarse particles, no matter where they
    are emitted from, can be reduced in areas where they are
    causing a health burden that they should be reduced if they can
    be done cost-effectively----
        Mr. Gardner. So the answer is yes----
        Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. And practically.
        Mr. Gardner [continuing]. Dust from farms ought to be
    regulated?
        Ms. McCarthy. I did not say that, no.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is up.
        At this time I recognize Mr. Pompeo of Kansas for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Pompeo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms.
    McCarthy, for being here today.
        I want to spend time on the statute but first I do want to
    clarify. Mr. Markey didn't take this very seriously. He talked
    about fairy dust. He talked about myths and fake Congressmen
    and fictitious things. Do you agree with him? Is this a myth?
    Are the 100 folks who signed that letter in support and
    everybody who talks to me back in Kansas, are they irrational,
    ignorant or just sadly mislead?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think there are many misunderstandings
    here, and there are complexities here that people don't
    understand. I certainly understand----
        Mr. Pompeo. So they are ignorant?
        Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. That the agricultural community
    is concerned. I do recognize the importance of the agricultural
    community, and we certainly don't want EPA to look like it is
    adding burden on the farming community when in essence the
    Administrator has clearly said she has no intention of
    proposing a change in this PM standard. All of that is very
    real.
        Mr. Pompeo. I appreciate that. So you disagree with Mr.
    Markey? You take this seriously?
        Ms. McCarthy. I take my job very seriously.
        Mr. Pompeo. I appreciate that.
        I want to talk about what the proposed legislation does and
    what it does not do. Mr. Waxman talked about this eviscerating,
    gutting the Clean Air Act. I think that is the 57th time I have
    heard that in 10 months. Everything we do guts the Clean Air
    Act. He talked about taking away, eliminating regulations. This
    doesn't eliminate any regulation. This just gives the States
    the ability to do it, and if they don't do it adequately, you
    can come in and clean up their mess. Isn't that right? As I
    read this language, isn't that exactly what it says? This
    doesn't deny anybody's ability to regulate this coarse
    particulate matter. It just says we are going to give that to
    the States, and if you don't get it right, we will come in and
    make an adverse health finding, we will do a cost-benefit
    analysis and Ms. McCarthy will come in and clean up the mess,
    right?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think that if what you are saying is right,
    what you are saying is rolling back national standards, health
    standards that are necessary for public health protection. You
    are talking about giving those to local communities or States
    that certainly don't have the scientific or the resource
    wherewithal to be able to make this happen. So I would say in
    essence you are actually gutting the Clean Air Act.
        Mr. Pompeo. Wow. So you think the States are completely
    incapable of making sure they can take care of the health of
    Kansas. My Governor, Governor Brownback and his Kansas
    Department of Health and Environment, are incapable of
    protecting the health of their citizens?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I would----
        Mr. Pompeo. They don't have the resources. You said they
    don't have the resources or the scientific knowledge out in
    flyover country?
        Ms. McCarthy. I would say that the way in which nuisance
    dust is defined here in what you would need to do to regulate
    it is potentially beyond the wherewithal of EPA and our
    scientists at this point in time, and I certainly wouldn't want
    that burden imposed on States and local communities.
        Mr. Pompeo. Last point. So I think it was Mr. Waxman and
    you had a little colloquy about all the horrors that could
    follow. We could have school buses killing children, large open
    pit mining exemptions, and you said that this language might
    prevent the EPA from regulating those. This really isn't a
    question. This is a statement and my observation. You have
    never let statutory language get in the way of your efforts to
    regulate things. We have made things clear. We make them
    explicit and you run through stop signs. And so here we have
    got language which doesn't talk about school buses and yet you
    and Mr. Waxman say that this is going to allow school buses to
    do great harm. Do you really believe that this language would
    preclude you from doing those kinds of regulation for power
    sources and for school buses? My question is, do you believe
    that this language would preclude you?
        Ms. McCarthy. I believe that it very well could.
        Mr. Pompeo. It very well could?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Pompeo. So you would sit with your team and you would
    say I don't think we can do that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, one of the issues is, I am trying to
    understand what it was intended to do. Was it intended to do
    that?
        Mr. Pompeo. Well, you said before, it doesn't matter,
    right? You said what does the language do. I think it is very
    clear what the language does. This language grants the rights
    to the States to regulate this and keep their folks safe, and
    then if there are health adverse health effects and if a cost-
    benefit analysis is completed, you all can go fix it. So I
    think it is very clear. We are trying to prevent EPA from doing
    not what an imaginary Congressman said they would do and not
    what some silly email chain that was fraudulent centered on but
    what your EPA staff said they were considering.
        Ms. McCarthy. So this bill is actually intended not just to
    prevent the Administrator from ever being able to advance or
    enhance regulation of farm dust or coarse particles, it is
    actually intended to roll back 24 years of history in
    regulating coarse particles that started with the Reagan
    administration, that continued to the Bush administration, that
    protects public health today. That is the intent of this bill.
        Mr. Pompeo. My time is up. It is intended to do precisely
    what it says it will do. It is intended to stop the EPA from
    regulating farm dust, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
    Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        All right. Let us get back into this and we will pick up
    right where we left off with Mr. Pompeo, because I am trying to
    figure it out, and I don't think that the intent of this bill
    is to do any of the things that you think it is intended or
    that you were trying to imply that Mr. Pompeo was saying it is
    going to do. I think it is regulating farm dust. That being
    said, would you all support this bill if you changed on line
    15, page 3--do you have the bill in front of you, ma'am?
        Ms. McCarthy. I do have it in front of me somewhere. Yes, I
    have it.
        Mr. Griffith. If you changed on line 15--and I am not
    speaking for the patrons, I am just asking. On line 15, if you
    change the ``or'' to an ``and'', wouldn't that resolve all of
    your semantic problems or all of your language problems?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am really not prepared at this time to
    negotiate the bill. What I will say is that I think that in----
        Mr. Griffith. Just look at the plain language of the bill.
    If you put an ``and'' there, there is no way anybody on earth
    could interpret that that would allow mining. Isn't that
    correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. I do not know the answer. I can certainly go
    back and take a look at it.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. Let us talk about this----
        Ms. McCarthy. Could I just point out, one of the confusing
    things in the definition, it is----
        Mr. Griffith. I will take back my time, ma'am.
        Ms. McCarthy. OK. I am sorry.
        Mr. Griffith. You know, I think most of us over here were
    offended by the fairy dust comment, and I was concerned about
    it enough that I got Representative Hurt to bring me his
    language, and apparently in his district, there was a farmer
    who has already been warned by a State regulator. Now, you
    indicated you weren't aware of State regulations in Virginia,
    and I am happy to share those with you, if you would like, and
    these are the regs, not the underlying law but the regs in
    Virginia which talk about fugitive dust, and I guess what I
    want to know is, is that based on your earlier testimony, my
    impression is, is that you have all indicated to the States
    that this is the direction that they should go in. Is that not
    correct? You have indicated to the States that they should be
    regulating fugitive dust from agricultural sites? Is that not
    correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Not that I am aware of. In fact, even in the
    coarse particulate standard, our monitoring that we base our
    nonattainment decisions on is focused on urban areas. It is
    both focused on where there is the highest levels of pollution
    as well as where there is most population exposed. So we do not
    focus on rural areas as we implement that standard. So----
        Mr. Griffith. But as you have indicated, as time goes by,
    if there a coarse particulate matter issue, you all are going
    to go in and regulate that. And I guess one of my concerns is,
    is that in regard to another set of regulations, not this one,
    back when I served in the Virginia legislature on the Virginia
    Joint Commission on Administrative Rules and Regulations, we
    had an issue that came up and it looked like it was Virginia
    enacting something that we just thought was foolish, and when
    we pushed on it, they said well, we have been told by the EPA
    we have to do this. This was stormwater management. And we said
    well, bring them in, and the EPA came in and basically said
    that, you know, Virginia didn't have any rights even outside of
    the Chesapeake Bay area and that they were going to force us to
    do it one way or another. And so I want to know, are we dealing
    with the same kind of situation with dust? Are you all going to
    tell the States that they have to do this or you're going to
    come in and tell them how to do it?
        Ms. McCarthy. This is a National Ambient Air Quality
    Standard. That means that when States are implementing the
    program, they make their own judgments about what is cost-
    effective in terms of an implementation strategy for their
    States, and to the extent that it is lawful, EPA respects that
    judgment.
        Mr. Griffith. Since this bill at this time only has a 1-
    year time limit or time period in it and you all have indicated
    that you are not planning to go forward with any new
    regulations on agricultural dust, why the opposition? Why don't
    you join in and support the bill?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, it has two sections. The first one
    is the one that talks about a 1-year limit, but it is really
    not limited to coarse particles. It really spills into our
    ability to regulate fine particles. And section 3 really
    attempts to exempt nuisance dust from regulation altogether,
    and because of how broadly that is defined, it can certainly
    leak into all areas of the Clean Air Act and prevent us from
    being able to maintain the kind of health standards we have had
    for decades and the protections that the American people
    expect.
        Mr. Griffith. But you do understand why people, as Mr.
    Gardner pointed out and others, why people are a little gun-shy
    when it comes to the EPA because we have seen things that don't
    make sense and we had had, in fairness, the States have been
    run roughshod at times by the EPA, and so when we hear some of
    these things, we don't always necessarily feel comfortable with
    it and we may at some point reach a level of trust but we are
    always going to have to verify.
        Thank you. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time the chair recognizes the
    gentlelady Ms. McMorris Rodgers for 5 minutes from Washington
    State.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate the time and I appreciate Ms. McCarthy for being
    here. You know, I too am struggling with the long list of
    regulations that have been proposed by the EPA administration
    this year, and at a time when unemployment in this country is
    at a record high, we continue to face one regulation after
    another that is making it, if not difficult, impossible for
    people to comply. I had someone in my office just the other day
    who said Cathy, the only way we can comply with the long list
    of regulations coming out of EPA is to simply not operate, and
    that is the fear that our farmers and ranchers face right now,
    and it seems that the administration is moving forward without
    the scientific, proven health benefits of many of these
    regulations.
        Now, 5 years ago, EPA concluded that the current PMT
    standard was appropriate, and yet today in many regions, they
    are still striving to comply with that standard. And that is
    why it makes us a little perplexed as to why earlier in the
    year EPA was recommending a stricter standard, and so in
    eastern Washington, whether we are working in the fields or
    herding our cattle or driving down a dirt road, dust is going
    to be kicked up, and that farm dust is a byproduct of American
    labor, not an air pollutant. So I understand that the
    Administrator has stated that the current standard, which has
    been in effect since 1987, will be continued. However, I too
    believe that farmers and ranchers in eastern Washington need
    more certainty. So I wanted to ask you, what made EPA go from
    earlier in the year proposing to exempt agriculture and mining
    to finalizing a standard that does not exempt them?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, that was an action that the Bush
    administration proposed in 2005 when it was doing its NAAQS
    review of the PM standard. They did propose to exempt
    agriculture from regulation. On the basis of all the comments
    that the Bush administration heard, they believed that the
    science was strongly indicating that it needed to be included
    within the definition of coarse particles and they didn't
    exempt it. That was not this administration, that was the Bush
    administration. And EPA has yet to propose anything. And if and
    when we do, the Administrator has made it clear what she
    intends to propose. When that is finalized if that is
    challenged and it goes to court, if we lose that challenge we
    re-look at the NAAQS, but you are in no immediate danger of
    actually happening.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. But earlier in the year, you were
    proposing different standards, so what made you change----
        Ms. McCarthy. We actually had never proposed anything. What
    we were proposing on PM10 was to wait for the
    Integrated Science Assessment. The Clean Air Science Advisory
    Committee did propose that the Administrator consider changing
    both the standard and form, which really wouldn't have made the
    standard more stringent but it would have changed levels of
    protection in the country, and when the staff looked at that,
    they believed that the data wasn't certain enough to warrant a
    recommendation solely to revise so the staff actually proposed
    two recommendations, one to keep it and one to revise it. When
    the Administrator looked at that, as she indicated in her
    letter, her assessment was that the science wasn't certain
    enough to warrant a change in the form and standard and that
    she was going to propose retaining that standard. That is how
    it has worked out. And there has been a lot of
    misunderstanding. So I apologize, but we did not--we have not
    put out a proposal in this administration relative to
    PM10 or 2.5.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. It feels like the administration
    continues to flip-flop, though, on where they are going to be
    on possibly proposing and when they might come, and so I guess
    I just want to also--it just begs the question, why are you
    opposing what is a very simple bill to clarify and send a clear
    signal to our farmers and ranchers that farm dust that is
    stirred up while they are working in the fields will not be
    regulated?
        Ms. McCarthy. I tried to make it clear that that is not
    what this bill says or does.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Would you be willing to--would you
    give us your recommendations on how we could write that bill?
        Ms. McCarthy. We would certainly provide any assistance we
    can to the committee and that the chairman asks us to provide.
    I will tell you that it is a little baffling to me, because
    generally I am here because we are proposing to do something
    that you disagree with. Now we are proposing to do something
    that you agree with, and I am still here. There is got to be
    something we can do that----
        Mr. Whitfield. We like you, Ms. McCarthy.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. It is the fear of what you might do
    in this example.
        Ms. McCarthy. But in one case, the fear is that the
    Administrator will be proposing something and it is sure to
    happen. In this case, the Administrator may be proposing
    something and you don't think it is going to happen. The
    Administrator has been really clear. She is given this
    discretion under the law, and she will use that discretion
    wisely and she has made it clear the direction that we are
    heading.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. We have heard you say many times
    today ``at this point in time'' and we don't know when that
    might change.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, on that note, I would, if I could,
    ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the EPA
    technical assistance letter requested by myself and Ranking
    Member Waxman.
        Mr. Whitfield. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.103

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you so much.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Bilbray, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I was sort of taken back by comments made by the gentleman
    from Santa Monica that somehow there is no regulation on
    farming and nobody is proposing regulations on farming and that
    the whole concept of regulating farming is a myth, and I would
    like you to kind of, you know, bring me back up to speed. It
    has been a while since I have been in the clean air, you know,
    game. Wasn't there or isn't there an ongoing program to reduce
    silicone emissions in the western San Joaquin Valley?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, there is.
        Mr. Bilbray. And that is PM10, ma'am, and 2.5?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, that is true.
        Mr. Bilbray. OK. So isn't there also an ongoing program to
    reduce or eliminate the use of gravel or the use of gravel
    roads in the Sierra Nevada because of the dust potential with
    serpentine being used as the gravel?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am not aware of that. I apologize.
        Mr. Bilbray. OK. If you could ask your staff to take a look
    at that.
        And then the Owens Valley is a very rural, very isolated
    area. Have they abandoned their concept of particulate
    management in the Owens Valley?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, there are many areas in California that
    are out of attainment of those standards and that work with the
    agricultural and other communities to try to reduce dust.
        Mr. Bilbray. So for the record, there has been historically
    intervention in a rural area by regulatory agencies to control
    and regulate both PM10 and 2.5?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Bilbray. OK. I just want to make that clear because the
    reference was like nobody has ever done this, we are not
    talking about this, and the fact is, when somebody out in the
    West starts talking about this, you know, let me tell you, the
    gentleman from Santa Monica is saying in our own State we have
    had extensive impact on ag and rural area impacts in our clean
    air management, and I think it is disingenuous to tell the rest
    of the country that these things haven't happened and won't
    happen and don't be worried about it. I think there is a very
    real situation that we ought to be open and frank about and not
    try to deny the fact that there is a real potential, either now
    or in the future, that farming operations, that rural
    activities will be severely impacted in their traditional
    historical manner of operation because we are looking at
    addressing both of these particulate issues. Is that fair to
    say?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry. I think I sort of----
        Mr. Bilbray. Is it fair to say that from the history of
    what we have done in other parts of this country to manage the
    particulate issue that it is unfair to tell the people in the
    rest of rural America that there is no way they are going to be
    impacted, no way that their operations may be modified?
        Ms. McCarthy. Ever? I certainly would never make that claim
    one way or the other.
        Mr. Bilbray. I just--farming has been curtailed in
    California in certain areas during certain times of the year.
    Farming has been impacted. The use of water and the way the
    water was distributed in a State that is dying for water has
    been impacted through this management practices on this, and I
    just think we need to clarify that, you know, there is this
    issue of once you justify taking action on the item, you do not
    say rural, urban has a different game. You do not say farming
    will be protected in our implementation. Everybody is thrown
    into the pile. There is no guarantee that traditional
    agricultural activities will not be severely impacted once you
    start implementing the programs, right?
        Ms. McCarthy. You look at all sources of pollution. I will
    say in terms of agriculture that how the States and local air
    districts have worked with USDA and the agriculture community
    has actually be very collaborative, and in the San Joaquin
    Valley, as far as I know, it has been enormously successful.
        Mr. Bilbray. Well, I think that if we see the impact and a
    lot of the concerns over there, and the Owens Valley is the
    other one that still is a real issue of do we use our water to
    feed our cities and our crops or do we use the water to spray
    over the Owens Valley to reduce the particulate matter. That is
    the kind of catch-22 that we get into.
        Ms. McCarthy. One of the reasons why we work with USDA is
    there are a number of strategies that the farming community can
    employ. Many of them are supported by----
        Mr. Bilbray. To interrupt, I want to make it clear. You
    made a statement that this impacts urban areas, and I think you
    want to correct that. It does not only urban areas. Rural areas
    are impacted severely with the PM10 and 2.5 and the
    potential. A nonattainment area does not know if it is an urban
    area or rural area. Nonattainment areas are managed as one
    proposal.
        Ms. McCarthy. May I clarify the point I was trying to make?
        Mr. Bilbray. Yes.
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry.
        Mr. Whitfield. Go ahead.
        Ms. McCarthy. Very quickly. What I was talking about is how
    you identify nonattainment areas. We monitor nonattainment
    areas. We don't model them. Our monitoring is focused on areas
    where you have both high levels as well as high population
    density. So even in the areas that you are talking about, they
    are surrounding high population density areas, although the
    rural areas may come in as part of the nonattainment area.
        Mr. Bilbray. Excuse me, ma'am. The Central Valley is not an
    urban area, and the great majority is nonattainment. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Whitfield. Ms. McCarthy, you raised an interesting
    issue on the monitors. Would you provide the committee with a
    list of where monitors are located by State and how that is
    determined?
        Ms. McCarthy. Of course.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        It looks like there are no more questions, so Ms. McCarthy,
    thanks very much for being with us today. We appreciate your
    time and look forward to working with you as we move forward.
        At this time I would like to call up the third panel. On
    the third panel, we have seven witnesses. First, Mr. Steve
    Foglesong, who is a ranch owner of the Black Gold Cattle
    Company and immediate past President of the National
    Cattlemen's Beef Association. We have Mr. Kevin Rogers, who is
    the President of the Arizona Farm Bureau, who is testifying on
    behalf of the American Farm Bureau. We have Mr. Pete Lien, who
    is the President of Pete Lien and Sons, Inc., who is testifying
    on behalf of National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association. We
    have Mr. Till von Wachter, PhD, Associate Professor of
    Economics at Columbia University. We have Mr. John Walke, who
    is Senior Attorney and Director of the Clean Air Program at the
    Natural Resources Defense Council. And we have Gregory
    Wellenius, who is Assistant Professor of Community Health at
    Brown University.
        So I want to thank all of you for joining us this afternoon
    to discuss H.R. 1633 and the regulation of particulate matter.
    We look forward to your testimony. Each one of you will be
    recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement, and so Mr.
    Foglesong, we will start with you and you will be recognized
    for 5 minutes, and be sure and turn your microphone on.

     STATEMENTS OF STEVE FOGLESONG, RANCH OWNER, BLACK GOLD CATTLE
     COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION;
      KEVIN ROGERS, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, ON
         BEHALF OF AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; PETE LIEN,
       PRESIDENT, PETER LIEN & SONS, INC., ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL
      STONE, SAND AND GRAVEL ASSOCIATION; KURT E. BLASE, PARTNER,
       HOLLAND & KNIGHT, ON BEHALF OF COARSE PARTICULATE MATTER
    COALITION; TILL VON WACHTER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS,
    COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; JOHN WALKE, SENIOR ATTORNEY AND CLEAN AIR
       DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND GREGORY
         WELLENIUS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, BROWN
                               UNIVERSITY

                      STATEMENT OF STEVE FOGLESONG

        Mr. Foglesong. There we go. Thank you for the technological
    advice. Us ranchers sometimes struggle with that.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, everyone forgets.
        Mr. Foglesong. Oh, OK. I am feeling more comfortable all
    the time.
        Good morning, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush
    and members of the subcommittee. Anybody that knows anything
    about cattle ranching and feeding knows that many operations
    are located where wind blows, and that makes dust a part of
    everyday life. The idea that the EPA may decide to require me
    and other cattle producers in every part of the country to
    somehow control that dust gives me cause to lose a lot of sleep
    at night. The fact is, farmers and ranchers want and need
    certainty about this issue.
        While I and ranchers across the United States are pleased
    the EPA has decided not to propose to lower the standard this
    year, we can't be 100 percent sure of that outcome of the
    rulemaking until it is final. In fact, in 1996 the EPA proposed
    to remove the PM10 24-hour standard altogether only
    to bring it back in the final rule, and then again in 2006 the
    EPA proposed to exempt ag dust. That exemption also disappeared
    in the final rule. In addition, even if the EPA retains the
    current dust standard, the opportunity remains for that agency
    to tighten it in the future. Unless Congress passes the Farm
    Dust Regulation Prevention Act, that threat remains.
        Now, I know that the EPA currently regulates dust. Cattle
    operations have found it very difficult and expensive to
    comply. One operation that I know of in Arizona spent $400,000
    to comply with that current standard. That is $1,000 a day just
    to control dust. Most of that is to sprinkle water in those
    pens, and that is just the current standard. Just think about
    how much it would cost if the EPA were to actually lower that
    standard in the future. If that happens, the simple fact is
    that many farms and ranches may be forced out of business.
        Ranchers have been concerned about that possibility for
    many years but most recently the fear surfaced when EPA
    revealed it is considering making the dust standard essentially
    twice as stringent as the current standard. NCBA and the Coarse
    Particulate Matter Coalition commissioned a study on the impact
    of the possible new dust regulation on rural America. The study
    determined that vast areas of the Midwest, Southwest and
    western parts of the United States would be thrown into the
    brink of nonattainment if not completely into that
    nonattainment altogether.
        It would be one thing if there were a good reason to
    regulate farm dust, but there is not. The regulation of dust
    under the Clean Air Act is supposed to be based on scientific
    evidence of adverse health effects. Historically, there has
    been no such evidence of adverse health effects from dust at
    ambient levels but EPA has decided to regulate it anyway. Why?
    In 2006, EPA based its decision on the precautionary principle.
    That is right. EPA's dust regulation is not based on science
    but on supposition. Let me explain. Particulate matter is
    separated into two distinct sizes and kinds of matter. Fine PM
    is combustion-driven material and the size range of 2.5 microns
    and smaller, known as PM2.5. That is cigarette smoke. Coarse
    particulate matter, or dust, on the other hand, is bigger
    particles in the range of 10 microns and smaller down to 2.5
    microns. PM10 includes both sizes and kinds of
    particles. The reason I mention particle size and composition
    is because, incredibly, the EPA is regulating dust using
    scientific studies that show adverse health effects that may
    all be caused by combustion-type fine PM, not dust. The studies
    EPA reviewed are studies looking at the health effects of
    PM10 from urban areas that are contaminated with
    combustion-type fine PM. Any adverse health effects the studies
    reveal may well be caused by the fine PM, not the coarse PM.
        Use of these studies to identify health effects for
    purposes of establishing a coarse PM dust standard is
    inappropriate, especially for rural areas, where urban
    contaminants are not a concern. Nevertheless, EPA uses a single
    standard to regulate dust in urban and rural areas. The
    contaminant issue I mentioned is just one of many problems with
    the EPA's PM10 studies.
        I am not a scientist or a medical doctor but I want a
    confirmation, so we asked Dr. Jonathan Borak, Clinical
    Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at Yale University
    School of Medicine, to review EPA's health studies. Dr. Borak
    is a highly respected scientist and in fact was one of the
    founding members of EPA's own Scientific Advisory Committee. He
    found many problems with the studies on which EPA relies and
    determined that those studies do not establish risk from a
    health basis for dust regulation. I have attached his comments
    to my testimony for the record.
        In an effort to bring a little common sense back into this
    process, cattlemen believe that the best solution is for
    Congress to pass the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of
    2011. Regulatory uncertainty is unnecessary and unproductive.
    If EPA follows though and does not revise the dust standard,
    this action would to some degree provide us with certainty but
    for no more than 5 years. It provides no relief to producers
    who are spending over $1,000 a day on dust control measures
    right now. We need immediate, permanent relief from Federal
    dust regulations on farms and cattlemen believe the best way to
    achieve that is by passing the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention
    Act.
        Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Foglesong follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.157

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.158

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.159

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.160

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.161

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.162

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.163

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.164

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.165

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.166

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.167

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.168

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.169

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Foglesong.
        Mr. Rogers, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF KEVIN ROGERS

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Kevin Rogers. I am a fourth-generation
    farmer. I farm with my family over 7,000 acres of land in
    Arizona. We produce cotton, alfalfa, wheat, barley and corn
    silage. I am currently the President of the Arizona Farm Bureau
    and I also serve on the USDA Air Quality Task Force, which
    advises the Secretary of Agriculture on Federal clean air
    policies that affect farmers.
        I am pleased today to testify on behalf of the American
    Farm Bureau Federation in support of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust
    Regulation Prevention Act. My farm in Arizona lies in one of
    the worst areas for dust PM 10 in the Nation. Within the past
    couple of months, four huge naturally occurring dust clouds
    rose from the desert floor and swept over Phoenix. Also, some
    of that happened in Texas as well. It covered Tucson in
    southern Arizona as well. This is the dust that EPA regulates
    under the coarse particulate matter with the National Ambient
    Air Quality Standard. H.R. 1633 provides a reasonable and
    commonsense approach to controlling ambient PM in a way that
    recognizes the natural occurrence of farm dust while also
    recognizing the public health mandate the Clean Air Act
    requires. By excluding nuisance farm dust from regulation, the
    bill allows EPA to continue regulating manmade emissions of
    particulate matter while at the same time not trying to
    regulate natural occurrences. The exclusion focuses EPA's
    attention on things that EPA can control rather than trying to
    regulate nature.
        The bill does not roll back any EPA protections afforded
    under the Clean Air Act. Rather, it reinforces the idea that
    regulatory decisions should be based on sound science.
        The record here is clear that scientific data on possible
    health effects of PM10, or dust, is highly
    uncertain. The bill provides the necessary flexibility for EPA
    to step in and regulate if the science more conclusively shows
    the naturally occurring farm dust causes adverse health
    effects. The bill recognizes the great disparity in the coarse
    PM10 ambient air quality levels from one part of the
    country to another, from rural to urban areas, by providing for
    State and local regulation of rural nuisance dust from farming
    areas. The bill allows management flexibility to deal with
    unique local circumstances.
        We do applaud the recent announcement by Administrator
    Jackson that EPA will not propose changes to the current
    PM10 standard. That does not mean that farm dust is
    not or will not be regulated under the Clean Air Act. For those
    of us in a coarse PM10 nonattainment area, our
    activities have already been regulated and will continue to be
    regulated. The Phoenix area has not been in compliance with the
    coarse PM10 NAAQS standard for many years.
        Arizona Farm Bureau participated with the State to develop
    a coarse PM10 permit to control agricultural
    PM10 emissions and reduce our agricultural practices
    that produce PM. The program developed best management
    practices in three different categories. The farmers are
    required to adopt one BMP in each category. The program was
    recently amended to require two BMPs from each category. Now
    the EPA and the State, because we continue to be in a
    nonattainment area, are pushing for more restrictions and
    mandating restrictions against working the fields when winds
    reach a certain speed.
        All farms and ranches activities in a nonattainment area
    are regulated under the Clean Air Act. The program we have is a
    mandatory program, and all producers must participate. Those
    who do not participate in our BMP program must obtain an
    individual air permit, similar to those required by utilities
    and factories. BMPs include practices such as tillage based on
    soil moisture, not working the fields in windy conditions,
    modifying equipment to prevent PM generation, speed limits on
    unpaved roads, planting wind breaks and permanent cover crops,
    just to name a few. All these activities place restrictions on
    farming operations and have economic consequences.
        I can tell you that if I am required to park my tractor on
    windy days or when soil moisture is insufficient, it continues
    to cost me time and money in lost labor and productivity, or if
    I am required to have my employees drive 15 miles an hour on my
    farm dirt roads, it will greatly increase the time we must
    spend on these roads, taking time away from engaging in other
    more productive activities. Others with similar restrictions
    suffer similar economic hardships.
        The fact that Administrator Jackson has determined to
    retain the current coarse PM10 standard for the next
    5 years is very good news, but it only addresses one part of
    the dust problem facing rural America. H.R. 1633, by excluding
    naturally occurring nuisance farm dust from the Clean Air Act,
    unless the science is more conclusive, warrants it, addresses
    the other.
        I thank the committee for your time and look forward to
    answering questions when it is appropriate.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.170

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.171

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.172

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.173

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.174

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.175

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.176

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.177

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.178

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.179

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.180

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.181

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.182

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.183

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
        Mr. Lien, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF PETE LIEN

        Mr. Lien. Chairman Whitfield and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of
    the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association at this hearing
    on the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, which would prevent
    the harmful effects of EPA's regulations of nuisance dust.
        My name is Pete Lien. I am President of Pete Lien and Sons
    of South Dakota, which was started in 1944 by my grandfather.
    Representative Noem is my Congresswoman, and I am pleased to
    express NSSGA's support of her legislation.
        My association's members produce more than 90 percent of
    the crushed stone and 70 percent of the sand and gravel
    consumed annually in the United States. There are more than
    10,000 construction aggregate operations nationwide. Aggregates
    are the chief ingredients in asphalt, concrete and used in
    nearly all residential, commercial and industrial building
    construction and in most public works projects including roads,
    highways, bridges, dams, airports, water and sewage treatment
    plants, and tunnels
        The aggregates industry has experienced the most severe
    recession in its history. Production of aggregates has gone
    from 3 billion metric tons valued at $21 billion in 2006 to 2
    billion metric tons valued at $17 billion in 2010, a drop of $4
    billion. Of particular importance to this hearing is 70 percent
    of NSSGA members are considered small businesses and many are
    located in rural area.
        NSSGA members are committed to full compliance with all
    pertinent environmental laws and regulations and emphasize
    sustainable practices. I am proud to say my own family business
    has reserves and plans for 200 years of operation into the
    future. We have also won numerous awards including a letter of
    commendation from the Bureau of Land Management for reclamation
    before reclamation was even required by law. We are the winner
    of the NSSGA's Environmental Steward Award, and the only quarry
    ever to win EPA's Earth Care Award, which was presented by
    Robert Redford.
        Like agriculture, resource-based industries such as
    aggregate producers have limited opportunities to reduce dust.
    To meet the current standard for dust, or PM10,
    aggregate facilities are required to have permits with State
    environmental agencies which seem to control dust by limiting
    production and requiring control technologies to limit dust on
    crushers and other equipment and road maintenance. Some dust is
    generated at an aggregates operation by crushing stone and
    truck traffic. However, most of it is from uncontrollable
    sources such as from roads and windblown dust, particularly in
    our rural areas.
        There is no practical way to control natural dust sources
    in the West and Southwest and reduce the PM10
    ambient air concentration. Nevertheless, EPA continues to
    promulgate unworkable standards that hurt job growth without
    any health benefits. For example, in Utah, if EPA would have
    reduced the standard by as much as a half, 23 of the 29
    counties would go into nonattainment, which would result in
    extreme limits on production and/or facility closures and
    further threaten much-needed highway funding.
        One NSSGA member has calculated that in order to meet a
    lowered standard as contemplated by EPA, a typical facility
    would have to reduce production by more than two-thirds. This
    would substantially change the business model and lead to plant
    closure and the loss of 50 jobs or dramatic increase in the
    price of the product. Given the over 10,000 operations in the
    United States and virtually every Congressional district is
    home to an aggregates operation, this could result in
    significant job losses.
        Taken further, a cut in aggregates production would lead to
    a shortage of stone, concrete and asphalt for State and Federal
    road building and repair, commercial and residential
    construction, which in turn would cause an increase in the
    price of materials for those projects ranging from 80 percent
    to 180 percent and further suppress employment in the
    construction industry. Given that infrastructure investment is
    essential to economic recovery and growth, any change in the
    PM10 standard would impose an additional burden on
    the aggregates industry that is unwarranted and would adversely
    impact aggregate supply and vitally important American jobs.
        NSSGA appreciates this opportunity to speak on the
    devastating effects of over-regulating nuisance dust on the
    aggregates industry.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to respond to
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lien follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.184

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.185

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.186

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.187

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.188

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.189

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.190

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.191

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.192

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.193

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.194

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.195

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.196

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.197

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        And Mr. Blase, we appreciate your being with us. I failed
    to state that you are representing the Coarse Particulate
    Matter Coalition. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF KURT E. BLASE

        Mr. Blase. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield,
    Ranking Member Rush and members of the subcommittee. Thanks for
    inviting me to testify this morning. My name is Kurt Blase, and
    I am Counsel to the Coarse Particulate Matter Coalition.
        The coalition is an organization of industry groups with an
    interest in scientifically sound regulation of coarse PM and
    air. The current members of the coalition are listed in my
    written testimony.
        The past two reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality
    Standard for PM10 have focused increasingly on road
    dust as a potential public health threat. The theory has been
    that dust by urban roadsides can become contaminated by other
    materials that render them more toxic. In contrast, dust
    composed primarily of crustal material has been reported to be
    harmful only at ambient levels much higher than the current
    Federal standard.
        Our coalition consistently has supported retention of the
    current PM10 standard while exploring avenues of
    relief for natural dust emissions. The current standard limits
    production and therefore employment by imposing stringent dust
    emission limits in permits and State plans. Compliance with the
    current standard is very difficult to maintain at our
    operations. We have been surprised by recent contentions that
    the regulation of dust is inconsequential.
        There is one extra point I would like to make here with
    respect to permits. We have talked a lot this morning about the
    effect of nonattainment areas where the monitors are placed. A
    couple of things there. I mean, even if you are in an
    unmonitored area now, if the feds change their monitoring
    criteria, their siting criteria, you can be monitored. If a
    private party such as the Sierra Club story that Mr. Hurt told
    wants to come and monitor you, they can do that. And more
    importantly, for our group, really nonattainment and monitoring
    is almost not an issue because we have to have permits and our
    permits have to show attainment of the standard at the fence
    line regardless of the attainment status of the area in
    concern. I mean, it is these permits even more than the
    nonattainment or attainment designation that are limiting our
    ability to produce right now on the basis of this standard.
        It is widely recognized that coarse PM concentrations vary
    widely on a local and regional basis. A recent study
    commissioned by our coalition, which was mentioned earlier,
    sheds further light on this issue. A copy of the report is
    attached to my testimony. I would like to emphasize several of
    the conclusions here.
        There are great differences in both the quantity and
    quality of coarse PM emissions throughout the United States.
    For example, PM10 in the West, Southwest and Midwest
    is composed primarily of coarse particulate matter while
    PM10 in the East is composed primarily of fine
    particulate matter. In the West, Southwest and Midwest, the
    variations among PM10 within single counties are
    very high. By contrast, the within-county differences in the
    East are much smaller.
        The localized nature of dust impacts leads to a great
    disparity in the effects of a single Federal standard on the
    different areas of the country. Our study focuses on the
    impacts of a potential new standard recommended for
    consideration in EPA's PM policy assessment. The potential new
    standard would be set somewhere within the range of 65 to 85
    micrograms per cubic meter with a change to the 98 percent
    statistical form. The policy assessment concludes that a
    standard of 85 with a change in the form would be roughly
    equivalent to the current standard, and I heard the Assistant
    Administrator repeat that several times this morning. However,
    our study concludes that such a standard would be much more
    stringent than the current standard, particularly in the West,
    Southwest and Midwest as a result of the nature of the
    PM10 emissions in those areas.
        Under the potential new standard, localized areas in
    virtually all of the West, Southwest and Midwest would be
    vulnerable to exceeedances. This is depicted in a map taken
    from our report, which is attached to my testimony, and I don't
    have it handy but it covers--oh, there it is. OK. You can see
    the extent of the country that it covers these. In these
    vulnerable areas, farmers, owners of dirt roads and operators
    of material storage and handling equipment will have few, if
    any, reasonable options to reduce emissions. Employment and
    businesses generating fugitive crustal dust will be impacted
    negatively. This impact would occur despite the conclusion in
    the policy assessment that the current Federal standard can
    reasonably be judged to provide sufficient public health
    protection.
        Given the choice between the current and the potential new
    Federal standards, we have consistently supported retention of
    the current standard. In that respect, we are encouraged by the
    Administrator's recent letter indicating that EPA will propose
    to retain the current standard. However, the reasons I have
    discussed, we believe that State and local regulation is a much
    more efficient and effective means of protecting public health
    against dust emissions that have a very localized impact.
    Accordingly, we strongly support H.R. 1633 and we urge the
    subcommittee to adopt it.
        I would be glad to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Blase follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.198

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.199

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.200

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.201

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.202

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.203

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.204

        [Additional information for the record is available at
    http://www.beefusa.org/CMDocs/BeefUSA/Issues/
    PM%20Final%20PM10%20Report%200711.pdf]
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Blase.
        Dr. von Wachter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF TILL VON WACHTER

        Mr. von Wachter. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking
    Member Rush and members of the subcommittee. It is a great
    honor to be with you today.
        Existing evidence suggests that air regulation provides
    important benefits in terms of improved air quality, improved
    health outcomes and improved housing values. However, it is
    also widely acknowledged that air regulation carries potential
    cost in terms of lower employment and lower productivity in
    regulated sectors. In my testimony, I will focus on current
    estimates of these costs and in particular on the costs for
    those workers most affected by the regulation, which are
    workers displaced when they are previously stable jobs.
        So current best estimates of the effect of the Clean Air
    Act suggest that the economic costs for workers present in
    regulated sectors at the time of regulation are non-negligible.
    Existing research has shown that employment and productivity in
    regulated sectors declines, at least in the short run. In
    addition, there are large and persistent wage reductions for
    workers induced to leave regulated firms, especially those who
    end up working in a different sector.
        Whether the costs of air regulation are of the same order
    of magnitude as the benefits in terms of improved health or
    housing values is likely to depend on the regulation and the
    environment which takes place. So for example, the most
    comprehensive study of the effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act
    Amendments suggests that there was a loss in wages over the
    next 10 years of workers who went through nonattainment of
    about $9 billion. Now, that is relative to the estimated
    benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. These losses
    appear to be temporary.
        However, it is important to keep in mind that the 1990
    Clean Air Act Amendments may have represented a best-case
    scenario. Why would that be? Well, this is because the
    amendments came into force not long before the high-pressure
    labor market in the mid to late 1990s, and this matters,
    because the cost of regulation in terms of lost wages and
    employment tends to mostly accrue to workers who are actually
    displaced due to the regulations, so it is job losers that lose
    their jobs as a consequence of regulation who bear most of the
    costs and job losses, especially for job losses for workers who
    had found a stable job at a good, stable firm can lead to very
    long-lasting large earnings losses. These earnings losses can
    least up to 10 to 15 to 20 years, and job loss is also followed
    by extended periods of job instability and earnings
    instability, and during these periods, job losers can
    experience decline in health. For example, in severe downturns,
    these health declines can lead to significant reduction in life
    expectancy over the next 20 or 30 years after a job loss.
        The consequences of job loss are also felt by workers'
    children, who can suffer from the consequences even as adults
    and by their families, and job losses have also been associated
    with a higher rate of entry into potentially costly public
    programs such as Social Security disability insurance or early
    claiming of retirement benefits.
        The earnings costs of job displacement, and this is
    important, has found to be substantially higher in recessions
    than in booms. While we know that even displacement in good
    economic periods can lead to lasting earnings losses, the one
    exception is the mid to late 1990s where even job losers tend
    to recover a big chunk of their earnings losses. So workers
    displaced from the firms as a consequences of the 1990 Clean
    Air Act Amendments were placed in an ideal case scenario
    because a few years down the road a very high-pressure economy
    pushed up their earnings.
        To conclude, while many workers affected by air regulations
    are likely to be sufficient mobile to find a new job without
    major losses in employment and warnings, a subset of workers
    induced to move from their job due to the regulation either
    voluntarily or by layoff are at risk of experiencing quite
    large and lasting losses of earnings. Existing research
    suggests that these earning losses may be substantially larger
    in difficult economic environments.
        Based on these findings, the economic costs of air
    regulations are likely to depend very much on the economic
    circumstances in which the regulation is enacted. Hence, a
    case-by-case assessment of these costs and their dependence on
    the economic environment, the type of regulation and the type
    of workers affected are important aspects when considering the
    net gain of air regulation.
        Now, since I have a few seconds left, let me say, the
    results I quoted from the scientific studies mainly pertain to
    any reason the county could go into nonattainment that includes
    the PM10 standard, but it is not focused on this
    like PM3 to PM10 thus it could be due to coarse
    particulate matter. It could be just due to fine particulate
    matter or any other of the other criteria.
        Now, the question you are asking, namely, has coarse
    particulate matter differential effect in rural areas that are
    engaging in agricultural production, or where there is a power
    plant or mining, as opposed to urban area is a very important
    question that academics potentially can answer, but it is a
    very difficult question that requires, as you can imagine, a
    very large amount of data. So this is sort of a call in my last
    seconds to provide this detailed amount of information so we
    can actually answer that important question you were asking.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. von Wachter follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.205

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.206

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.207

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.208

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Dr. von Wachter.
        Mr. Walke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF JOHN WALKE

        Mr. Walke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. My name is John Walke. and I am Clean Air
    Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
        As the hearing today has shown, H.R. 1633 is premised on a
    problem that does not exist, that is, nonexistent EPA limits on
    farm dust. However, the devilish details of this poorly drafted
    bill actually create more real problems that the imaginary
    problems the bill purports to solve.
        The bill is sweepingly overbroad and it creates numerous
    damaging consequences that appear to be unintended but that
    would in fact harm Americans. The result would be increases in
    harmful soot pollution, not just coarse particulate matter but
    deadly fine particulate matter, and across the country, not
    just in rural America but urban and metropolitan areas too. The
    legislation inexplicably weakens, eliminates or blocks Federal
    Clean Air Act authority over overwhelmingly industrial
    pollution from power plant, manufacturing facilities, mines and
    the like, again as a result of very overbroad and poor
    drafting.
        Before you consider voting for a bill under the
    misconception that you are just addressing so-called farm dust,
    I urge your staff to examine closely the testimony by Assistant
    Administrator McCarthy and my own testimony to see whether you
    find fault with any of this legal analysis or factual
    implications of the bill. I will note that none of the other
    witnesses here today have contradicted those legal
    interpretations in their written testimony.
        Finally, I urge your attention to a careful reading of the
    written testimony of most of the majority witnesses and
    Representative Noem's opening statement. Each time that
    testimony complains of existing regulations of farm dust, they
    are talking about State regulation, not EPA regulation, for
    example, in Arizona or Illinois. Isn't it paradoxical then that
    this bill does not eliminate State regulation of farm dust or
    its monitoring? By the same token, some have criticized the
    temporary relief provided by Administrator Jackson's pledge yet
    this bill provides a 1-year period of relief whereas
    Administrator Jackson's pledge provides a 5-year period of
    relief, equally paradoxical.
        H.R. 1633 has been presented under the legislation guise of
    blocking nonexistent and unplanned EPA regulations of farm
    dust. I invite any witness or member to identify an EPA
    regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations where EPA imposes
    limits on farm dust. There are none.
        Since Mr. Terry, who is not with us now, mentioned NRDC
    earlier, I invite him or any other member to identify any
    statutory authority to compel EPA to impose limits on farm
    dust. There is no such authority from me or any other
    environmental group to invoke.
        Finally, I invite any member to identify any job in America
    that has been eliminated due to EPA limits on farm dust. There
    is none.
        If Congress truly wants to address so-called farm dust with
    a simple bill, all it would take is a single sentence that says
    EPA shall not limit farm dust if States are doing so already
    yet this legislation does far more and far worse. As Mr. Pompeo
    correctly reads the bill, it removes Federal Clean Air Act over
    deadly soot pollution from power plants, mines and the like if
    States if doing so already. Mr. Griffith does not read the bill
    that way, and I think it creates some genuine confusion about
    what the bill does, but Mr. Griffith does helpfully start to
    put his finger on things by pointing us to page 3 in line 15 of
    the bill where you could at least begin to address some of
    these problems in overdrafting with the addition of the word
    ``and.'' However, I would like to note that this would still
    allow the exemption of pollution if an activity typically
    occurs in a rural area. As Mr. Waxman said, 70 percent of power
    plants do so. I don't think that is what the committee intends.
    By the same token, it would allow the exemption of pollution if
    it is windblown. I hope that we can agree that all pollution is
    windblown, and we don't want to eliminate Federal regulation by
    virtue of that fact.
        Section 3 really is the most problematic feature of the
    bill. I think my written testimony and Assistant Administrator
    McCarthy's testimony covers that, so I am not going to repeat
    that now. But I do have to say that this bill does produce what
    appear to be unintended consequences that I think could be
    corrected but not based upon the existing structure of the
    bill. I notice that elsewhere in the House this week the
    Judiciary Committee is considering the REINS Act, which
    purports to address and rein in excessive delegation of Federal
    authority to Federal agencies, and yet again, paradoxically,
    H.R. 1633 engages in excessive delegation of sweeping and vague
    authorities to deregulate industrial pollution across America.
    I don't think that is what the bill intends to do, and I would
    urge you not to pass H.R. 1633 in its present form. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walke follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.209

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.210

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.211

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.212

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.213

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.214

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.215

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.216

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.217

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.218

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.219

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.220

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.221

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.222

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.223

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.224

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.225

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.226

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.227

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.228

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.229

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.230

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.231

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.232

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.233

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.234

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.235

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.236

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.237

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.238

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.239

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.240

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.241

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.242

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.243

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.244

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.245

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.246

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.247

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.248

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.249

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.250

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.251

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.252

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.253

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.254

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.255

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.256

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.257

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.258

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.259

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.260

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.261

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.262

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.263

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.264

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.265

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.266

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.267

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.268

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        Dr. Wellenius, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF GREGORY WELLENIUS

        Mr. Wellenius. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
    name is Dr. Gregory Wellenius. I am Assistant Professor of
    Epidemiology at Brown University.
        I earned my doctorate in environmental health and
    epidemiology from the Harvard School of Public Health. I
    previously served on the faculty at Harvard Medical School. I
    have been conducting research on the health effects of air
    pollution for more than 10 years. I have authored or coauthored
    more than a dozen original studies in this area and contributed
    as an author for the EPA's 2009 Integrated Science Assessment
    for Particulate Matter. My research has focused on the effects
    of ambient air pollutants on cardiovascular disease, and it is
    my pleasure to provide testimony in this area today.
        There is a broad consensus in the scientific and medical
    communities that ambient particles are harmful to human health.
    For example, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the
    American Heart Association recently stated that exposure to
    fine particles, or PM2.5, is ``a modifiable factor that
    contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.''
        The external panel of independent scientists that make up
    the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC, and EPA
    scientists concluded that a causal relationship exists between
    ambient fine particles and both mortality and cardiovascular
    effects and a likely causal relationship between ambient fine
    particles and respiratory effects. This conclusion has been
    endorsed by a number of scientific organizations including the
    World Health Organization, the National Research Council, the
    American Medical Association, the American Lung Association,
    and the American Thoracic Society, to name a few.
        As has been pointed out, the coarse and fine fractions of
    particulate matter differ in their size, sources and
    composition. In my written testimony, I provide further details
    regarding the well-established health effects of ambient fine
    particles. While fewer studies have looked specifically at the
    health effects of coarse particles, the existing evidence
    suggests that these particles can also be harmful to people's
    health.
        In the 2009 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate
    Matter, CASAC and EPA scientists concluded that the available
    evidence is suggestive for a causal relationship between coarse
    particles and mortality, cardiovascular effects and respiratory
    effects. The available science indeed supports an association
    between coarse particles and cardiovascular hospital
    admissions. For example, a recent study in 112 U.S. cities
    found that coarse particles were linked with higher risk of
    premature death from all causes, stroke and respiratory causes,
    even after accounting for levels of fine particles. Taken
    together, the existing evidence suggests that exposure to
    higher levels of coarse particles may increase the risk of
    death, cardiovascular hospitalization and respiratory effects.
        Now, most epidemiologic studies on coarse particles have
    been conducted in urban settings. However, agricultural dust
    can also be harmful to people. Field workers exposed to minimal
    dust from agricultural sources experience more acute and
    chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive airway disease and
    interstitial lung disease. Agricultural workers exposed to
    organic dust have been found to have a higher risk of allergic
    reactions, asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis and organic
    dust toxic syndrome. A studying examining the lungs of
    California farm workers found that their bronchioles had
    accumulation of dust particles and thickening and inflammation
    in the respiratory tissues.
        Sandstorms and other dust events typically increase the
    concentration of coarse particles much more than fine
    particles. Studying these events provides information on the
    potential health effects of coarse particles of non-urban
    origin. For example, Asian dust storms in Taipei, Taiwan, have
    been associated with increased rates of hospital visits for
    ischemic heart disease such as heart attacks. Other studies
    have linked dust events in Spain and Cyprus with increased risk
    of hospitalization or death. These studies add to the evidence
    of health effects of coarse particles and highlight that even
    coarse particles from nonurban environments can have important
    health effects.
        In conclusion, Congress built into the Clean Air Act an
    orderly process for the regular review of the scientific
    evidence on health effects of air pollution. This process
    includes multiple rounds of scientific peer review including by
    CASAC and other scientists and the public. I strongly urge you
    to preserve the authority of the EPA to periodically review the
    available scientific evidence and when appropriate update the
    air quality standards including for PM10 and coarse
    particles. This process is essential if we are to adequately
    protect the public's health.
        I thank you for your time and would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wellenius follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.269

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.270

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.271

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.272

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.273

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.274

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.275

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.276

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.277

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.278

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.279

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.280

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. Mr.
    Walke, you heard me in the very beginning talk about this
    concern about the lawsuits being filed and so forth, and has
    the Natural Resources Defense Council ever sued EPA over the
    Clean Air Act?
        Mr. Walke. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, we have.
        Mr. Whitfield. Do you know how many times?
        Mr. Walke. You probably do if you have researched the
    question. I have not, though, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, I haven't either but----
        Mr. Walke. No, I don't know.
        Mr. Whitfield. And have you all been reimbursed for legal
    fees?
        Mr. Walke. When we win, yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. Would you provide us with the number of
    times that you all have filed suits against EPA and the number
    of dollar value of the reimbursement for the legal fees?
        Mr. Walke. I will do so the best of my ability. NRDC was
    formed in 1970 or 1971, so----
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, let us just say within the last 10
    years.
        Mr. Walke. OK.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, will you yield?
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. It would also be good to find out what was
    their compensation out of the judgment fund that paid their
    attorney fees.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, the amount of the legal fee reimbursed.
    It comes out of judgment fund, though, doesn't it, or the
    agency funds?
        Mr. Walke. Sure. I mean, Mr. Chairman, I would just say
    that the law only provides our ability to go to court and
    regain fees when the government is breaking the law.
        Mr. Whitfield. No, I understand.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, I just think we should have
    those. For whatever reason, we want those dollar amounts.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes. We won't get into a discussion.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes?
        Mr. Rush. I would also like, if I might, ask the gentleman
    if he would include what his win-loss ratio is, the number of
    times he sued, the number of times he lost and the number of
    times he won against the EPA.
        Mr. Whitfield. You want to know how many he won and how
    many he lost?
        Mr. Rush. Yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. He wants to know how many you have won and
    how many you have lost.
        OK. Anyway, so if you would--the number of lawsuits in the
    last 10 years, the amount of money that you have been
    reimbursed in legal fees when you have won, and how many cases
    you consider you won and how many you consider you lost.
        Mr. Walke. OK. It might take some time to do that, sir, so
    I will just ask your indulgence.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. Is it OK if we give him 5 years?
        Mr. Whitfield. You and I may not be here in 5 years. Thank
    you so much.
        Mr. Foglesong, now, you represent the National Cattlemen's
    Association. Is that correct?
        Mr. Foglesong. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
    yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. And are there cattle producers that are
    struggling with meeting the current coarse particulate matter
    standard?
        Mr. Foglesong. You know, in particular, there are some of
    those, you know, in the Southwest. Arizona is a good example of
    that, you know, where they have got feed yards, and the expense
    that they incur to try to complex is just enough to break them.
    They just can't keep it going. But I think--and that what
    sticks in your mind, but understand that it can happen anyplace
    in the country. We had a map up there earlier that shows those
    places that are at risk, but I am from Illinois and we get 40
    inches of rainfall but I will guarantee you that last week I
    was in that position because it hasn't rained there in 2 months
    and the wind was blowing and we are all doing work. So I think
    that is one of the things that is a challenge. Our outfit in
    Georgia, it was the same thing. We had the worst drought there
    in 100 years this spring. Driving up and down our country dirt
    roads, every one of them was out of compliance. So all across
    the country you run into that, yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. And there was great concern about the
    strengthening of this emission standard on coarse particulate
    matter because that would have changed the standard around the
    country and then there would have been areas in nonattainment
    and then there would be more enforcement mechanisms, and Mr.
    Rogers, you have experienced that personally, it sounds like.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir, that is correct. We farm in Maricopa
    County in a nonattainment area.
        Mr. Whitfield. So what enforcement mechanisms must you
    comply with as a result of being in a nonattainment area in
    this coarse particulate matter issue?
        Mr. Rogers. Agriculture in Maricopa County was deemed
    through modeling to be about 3 percent of the problem of the
    Maricopa County area, which is probably a 75-square-mile
    county. It is a very large county. We only have 15 counties in
    Arizona. And so we were deemed to be 3 percent. You know, you
    come to the table with EPA being the 500-pound gorilla because
    what they hold over the State's head is the Federal tax
    dollars, the highway dollars coming back to the State, so there
    is motivation through your local government to come to the
    table and participate and so that is what we have done. We have
    had to come to the table and design a program with EPA looking
    over our shoulder to make sure that every step of the way they
    agree with what you are doing to put together your SIP.
        Mr. Whitfield. And could you just quickly go through a
    couple of----
        Mr. Rogers. Sure. We developed a best management practice
    program that is mandatory. Farmers do get to choose between
    practices under three different categories, diligent
    harvesting, cropland, non-cropland, so every part of my
    operation I have to be doing something and so it could include
    watering roads, it could include parking your tractors during
    high wind events where the wind gets to 26 miles an hour, speed
    limits on your farm roads where you have to regulate your own
    roads that you are in control of, waiting until there is
    moisture in the soil before you do tillage, waiting for rain to
    bring that moisture, or if you choose to irrigate, that is your
    option as well, but there is probably 40 best management
    practices that we had to come up with to help agriculture come
    to the table, to keep EPA happy and to keep our State happy
    because at 3 percent of the problem, they determined that we
    need to participate.
        We do have a county just south of Phoenix, Pinal County,
    which has been recently designated as nonattainment. That is
    where the livestock operation is that we talked about before.
    That particular livestock operation has taken it upon
    themselves to figure out what they can do to get into
    attainment. It takes 4 gallons of water per day per cow to meet
    the standard, and it is going to be very costly for them to do
    that.
        Mr. Whitfield. Forty gallons per cow per day?
        Mr. Rogers. Four gallons.
        Mr. Whitfield. Four?
        Mr. Rogers. Four gallons, but it is a large operation so it
    is going to cost a lot of money, and with four gallons per day,
    they were able to bring that under control and so they are
    going to--as we move forward with bringing livestock into our
    program, they are actually working with EPA and the State and
    that will probably be a mandatory number.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Rush, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Walke, in your written testimony, you take
    issue with using the phrase ``farm dust'' as H.R. 1633 is named
    and say this bill is really an attempt to force EPA to ignore
    harmful soot pollution emitted overwhelmingly by industrial
    pollutants like coal-burning power plants, incinerators,
    chemical plants and diesel vehicles. Can you explain why you
    view this bill as a cover for abolishing the review of health
    standards for industrial pollution?
        Mr. Walke. Certainly, Mr. Rush. It is notable that the word
    ``farm dust'' doesn't actually appear in the bill other than
    its title. The operative legal term of the bill in its most
    harmful bill is in section 3 in the definition of nuisance
    dust, and it is simple so I will just tell you the highlights.
    Nuisance dust means particulate matter from activities
    typically conducted in rural areas or windblown dust. Now, I
    just selected out some of those from a string. You know, as I
    showed in my testimony, activities typically conducted in rural
    areas include power plants, incinerators and manufacturing
    facilities and diesel vehicles, and, you know, by this very
    short, crisp and overbroad definition, all of those activities
    will be defined as particulate matter that could not be
    regulated by the Federal Government if the States are doing so,
    and the States are doing so, so this bill would deregulate from
    Federal Clean Air Act authority those activities. That has
    sweeping, sweeping implications that certainly aren't suggested
    by the farm dust title and don't even appear to be intended by
    some of the members from their statements here this morning.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, earlier there was a line of questioning that
    I thought was quite interesting, and it covered areas of legal
    fees and the amount of money recouped through legal
    representation, and in fairness and in full disclosure, I want
    to ask the same question of all the members of the panel.
    Please, if you will, provide the lawsuits brought against the
    EPA by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Stone,
    Sand and Gravel Association and the National Cattlemen's Beef
    Association, and the fees that were obtained as a result of
    those legal actions. And also, I understand that Mr. Blase is
    being paid by the Coarse Particulate Matter Coalition, and
    would you provide to the committee the full amount that you are
    being paid to represent them?
        Mr. Chairman, I think that that is for full disclosure, and
    would you please provide those amounts for the record?
        Mr. Olson. [Presiding] Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Foglesong. Sir, point of clarification. Do you want to
    know also what we spent?
        Mr. Rush. No, I want to know the fees that you were
    provided, and I think that would cover the same territory that
    was requested of Mr. Walke. We just want to make sure that
    there is full disclosure and there is fair disclosure in terms
    of fees that organizations are able to--or remunerations from
    the EPA and the matter of lawsuits.
        Mr. Burgess. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rush. I don't know if I have any time.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, I would be interested in what they
    spent. If we are going to compile that information, let us be
    complete.
        Mr. Rush. Well----
        Mr. Burgess. I would be interested in what you spent. I
    will add that to Mr. Rush's request.
        Mr. Rush. And so we will also add that to Mr. Walke's
    request, what is the amount that your organization spent, the
    amount that you spent in terms of court action.
        Mr. Walke. On the litigation?
        Mr. Rush. Yes, on the litigation.
        Mr. Olson. Everybody follow that? Without objection, so
    ordered.
        Mr. Rush. I yield back.
        Mr. Olson. The gentleman's time is expired, and the chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. It is great to have the panel.
        Can anyone define for me what ``at this time'' means? Mr.
    Foglesong, do you know what ``at this time'' means?
        Mr. Foglesong. At this time.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. I am making my point. The point is, when
    the Assistant Administrator was here, in her testimony she
    said--I read the letter and of course Administrator Jackson
    said ``I am prepared to propose a retention with no revision of
    the current PM10 standard form when it is sent to
    OMB for interagency review,'' and her response was, we are
    going to abide by this at this time. ``At this time'' means
    today, right? And there could be tomorrow would not be at this
    time. Tomorrow would be tomorrow. Isn't that, for Mr. Foglesong
    and Mr. Rogers, Mr. Lien, isn't that part of the risk, the
    uncertainty that you are dealing with?
        Mr. Rogers. That is completely part of the risk, and as the
    monitoring network is developed across this country where there
    may not be that intense monitoring network today, as those
    monitors are enhanced, that is where ``at this time'' comes
    into play. There may be a speed limit across this country but
    if there is not an officer there to pull you over, he doesn't
    know if you went five over or not. It is a monitoring issue.
        Mr. Shimkus. And if you could pull up Mr. Blase's map on
    the proposal? Half of the country under a proposed--that is
    additional risk to agricultural America.
        Everybody knows in this country jobs are impacted, and one
    of the major impacts is risk, is uncertainty. That is why we
    are doing this today, to at least give the agriculture sector
    some certainty.
        Now, Mr. Lien, you are from the sand and gravel. Two weeks
    ago, I read, you know, the only sector in this country that
    created jobs over the last quarter? You should.
        Mr. Lien. I would say that----
        Mr. Shimkus. It was the mining industry.
        Mr. Lien. The mining industry.
        Mr. Shimkus. The mining industry was the only sector in
    this country that created jobs, and just yesterday, Caterpillar
    gave its quarterly report, and Caterpillar did well. You know
    what Caterpillar sells? Mining equipment. So there is a debate
    on rules and regs and the cost of doing business based upon
    uncertainty and job creation, and all this is about is
    providing certainty. I would agree with Mr. Hurt that we can--
    we are legislators. We sure can legislate when it has harm to
    job creation in parts of the country. If she would pull up my
    harvester cutting beans? Those are coarse particulates. They
    are probably bigger than the PM10. Does anyone know
    how far those coarse particulates travel?
        Mr. Rogers. It depends on if there is wind activity or not,
    but those coarse particulates that you can see normally will
    settle back down within several hundred feet.
        Mr. Shimkus. And that is all part of the rural debate
    because there are not people around. In rural America, it is
    not like a city. It is not a metropolitan area. In my new
    Congressional district, parts of 33 counties, I think my
    biggest community is going to have 33,000 people in it. It is
    one-third of the State of Illinois. So if we are farming in my
    district, which we do, and we are cutting beans, those coarse
    particulates are going to fall to the ground way before they
    reach any exposure, especially with the air conditioned cabs
    these guys have now, so even the person on the harvester is not
    going to be affected.
        Let me go to Mr. Walke real quick. Administrator Jackson in
    essence said that the PM10 standard really by this
    protects human health, the standard today. That is why she is
    not going to submit to OMB. Is that the NRDC's position?
        Mr. Walke. We are prepared to accept that when she proposes
    the rulemaking to not change the standard if----
        Mr. Shimkus. So your testimony is that you will not sue if
    this continues to be promulgated and the Administration keeps
    this as the standard?
        Mr. Walke. Mr. Shimkus, that is the first time that word
    has come out, and it was your mouth, not mine.
        Mr. Shimkus. At this time?
        Mr. Walke. At this time, today, now, I am not going to
    discuss litigation before I----
        Mr. Shimkus. So you might bring this.
        Mr. Walke. Mr. Shimkus, if you want--if this is going to be
    a----
        Mr. Shimkus. No, I am just asking----
        Mr. Walke. Let us talk about speculation----
        Mr. Shimkus. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Walke, you are very
    cavalier with the lives of rural America and agricultural
    America, saying in respect to the testimony received that the
    PM10 standard affects their jobs and their economy
    so I am just addressing the point that the NRDC is not on
    record as saying whether they will or will not----
        Mr. Walke. If I may, Mr. Shimkus, this bill removes Federal
    Clean Air Act authority----
        Mr. Shimkus. And I yield back my time.
        Mr. Walke [continuing]. Over 80 percent of America. Eighty
    percent of America has Federal----
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back his time.
        At this time I recognize the----
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. For what purpose does Mr. Rush----
        Mr. Rush. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. Regular order?
        Mr. Rush. Regular order. Mr. Shimkus asked the gentleman a
    question.
        Mr. Shimkus. I did not, Mr. Rush.
        Mr. Rush. Will the reporter please read the last question
    that Mr. Shimkus asked?
        Mr. Whitfield. Can we just stipulate that Mr. Shimkus did
    ask a question----
        Mr. Rush. But he----
        Mr. Whitfield [continuing]. His time expired and then he
    decided he didn't want to----
        Mr. Rush. No. He cut him off in the middle of----
        Mr. Shimkus. No, that is not true.
        Mr. Rush. He cut him off in the middle of the answer.
        Mr. Shimkus. That is not true.
        Mr. Rush. Will you please give the witness the courtesy of
    answering the question? We do that as a formality in this
    subcommittee.
        Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield to me, I will
    yield the witness 30 seconds to respond.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, Dr. Burgess, I am going to recognize
    you for 5 minutes for questions and you can do what you want to
    do with it.
        Mr. Burgess. The committee has a long history of treating
    its witnesses well. I want to recognize the gentleman for 30
    seconds to respond.
        Mr. Walke. Dr. Burgess, thank you for your professional
    courtesy. I will only take 30 seconds of your 5 minutes.
        The point I wanted to make in responding to Mr. Shimkus was
    that in contrast to imaginary problems or imaginary lawsuits
    that no one has any intention of bringing, this bill, if
    adopted into law, would remove Federal Clean Air Act authority
    over 80 percent of America, which is defined as rural by any
    number of government metrics. That has nothing to do with farm
    dust but it does have to do with deregulating industrial
    pollution from power plants that causes premature deaths and
    heart attacks, and that is the only thing I was trying to say.
        Mr. Burgess. OK. Reclaiming my time.
        Can we go back to that map that had half the country in
    blue? Can we recall that slide? You know, I listened to the
    testimony of Dr. Wellenius, and in your written testimony, you
    talked about most existing epidemiologic studies in coarse
    particles have been conducted in urban settings. Most of the
    urban settings actually, though are removed from that map that
    is covered by the footprint of the coloration. Is that correct?
        Mr. Wellenius. So we do the studies where we have monitor
    data existing primarily and the EPA sites those monitors. From
    the research side, we don't have a say as to where those
    monitors are sited. So there are parts of the country that----
        Mr. Burgess. The real hot spots for cardiovascular disease,
    lung disease, interstitial lung disease, industrial
    pneumoconiosis, if you were to color those in on the maps, they
    likely would be for the most part outside the blue footprint.
    Is that not correct?
        Mr. Wellenius. So there are several areas that are in blue
    there that do have high air pollution. There are parts of
    Texas, parts of Arizona, parts of southern California that do
    have high air pollution.
        Mr. Burgess. Texas is a huge State. Houston has a problem.
    It is miniscule. It can be ignored most of the time as we in
    the Dallas-Fort Worth area know well.
        But I just would make the point, is there a cost-benefit
    analysis you have done? I mean, you want to implement something
    on vast swaths of relatively low density population. Have you
    done a cost-benefit analysis on how this would affect people's
    livelihoods and the status of people overall, the overall
    health of people, and how can we be sure sitting here on this
    committee that you are not double counting some of these people
    that are saved in your studies? How can we be sure you are not
    double counting those individuals?
        Mr. Wellenius. Right. So----
        Mr. Burgess. So there are people that might have been saved
    anyway by the effects of the Clean Air Act where this
    additional regulation would have only miniscule positive or
    negative effect.
        Mr. Wellenius. Yes. Thank you. You asked me first the
    question of have I done a cost-benefit analysis, and the
    response is, I have not. The scientific committee is large and
    there are those of us that deal with the health effects of air
    pollution, doing the health side, and there are people in the
    cost-benefit business that certainly take those effects that we
    estimate and also incorporate the costs of regulation and the
    costs of lives averted or the hospitalizations averted. I am
    not specifically in that area, so no, I have not conducted that
    cost-benefit analysis.
        Mr. Burgess. OK, so we don't know is the answer to that
    question.
        Now, Administrator McCarthy had a rather large compendium
    of documents next to her as she testified, and this is
    described as the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate
    Matter. Are you familiar with this document?
        Mr. Wellenius. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Burgess. My read of at least a portion of this is that
    there is insufficient evidence to determine that coarse
    particulate matter causes health effects. That is written on
    page 219, third heading, maybe six lines from the end of the
    page: ``To date, a sufficient amount of evidence does not exist
    in order to draw conclusions regarding the health effects and
    outcomes associated with long-term exposure to
    PM10.'' Is that accurate?
        Mr. Wellenius. That is accurate. For long-term effects of
    coarse particles, there is next to no evidence in support of
    long-term health effects.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, and certainly we will stipulate your
    credentials and the credentials of everyone at the witness
    table today, but one of the tasks that we face is how do you
    approach regulation in a way that does not further cripple the
    economy, allows witnesses at the other end of the table to
    continue their livelihoods and to support their employees and
    their families. You know, forgive me, it looks like we are
    going on some pretty thin evidence here with some fairly
    sweeping regulations, and I guess that is overall what the
    concern here is of the committee today, and I think the reason
    that Representative Noem brought the legislation forward.
        I thank the gentleman for his indulgence and I will yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Dr. Burgess.
        Mr. Wellenius. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes?
        Mr. Wellenius. Thank you. So I agree, you do have an
    enviable task and one that I am happy you are doing rather than
    me in terms of balancing the public health benefit versus how
    to impose those regulations in a sensible manner. You focused
    on the long-term effects of long-term exposure to coarse
    particulate matter. There is evidence on the short-term
    exposure that that is associated with increased
    hospitalizations, increased premature death. We need more
    research for sure but the current evidence as the Integrated
    Science Assessment concludes is suggestive of causal
    association. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Olson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair. More importantly, I thank the
    witnesses for your time and expertise today. And I am from
    southeast Texas, Sugar Land, Texas. There is no equal. As you
    guys know, Texas, all of Texas has suffered an historic
    drought, excessive heat, over 100 degrees for almost the entire
    month of August in Houston, which is unprecedented, and
    wildfires all across our State, and ranchers and farmers have
    been disproportionately hit by these disasters. And the theme
    of this series of hearings that this subcommittee and the full
    committee has had is about the uncertainty created by the
    administration's regulatory agenda. I want to talk a little bit
    about that.
        I mean, there has been some testimony in the prior panel
    and even on this panel about uncertainty and the fact that, you
    know, EPA's promise not to revise the standards for 5 years
    provides more certainly than a law, H.R. 1633, would provide,
    and I am curious if some of the panelists honestly believe that
    the Executive Branch agency action provides more certainty than
    a law passed under our Constitution by Congress. I am just
    asking for a simple yes or no answer. Mr. Foglesong?
        Mr. Foglesong. I don't believe that is exactly how I would
    put that out. We look to you all because we vote you into
    Congress and we expect you to look out for us.
        Mr. Olson. It sounds like Congress over the Executive
    Branch agency.
        Mr. Foglesong. Absolutely.
        Mr. Olson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rogers. I would agree.
        Mr. Olson. Yes, sir. Mr. Lien?
        Mr. Lien. I would agree.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Blase. I would agree.
        Mr. von Wachter. Sir, if your question is whether
    regulation reduces uncertainty, that is true. Whether
    uncertainty has an impact on economic activity, that is from a
    scientific point of view an open question.
        Mr. Olson. My question is, what provides more uncertainty,
    Executive Branch agency regulations or regulations by laws
    passed by Congress? I mean, which one provides more certainty?
    What is the more difficult process, going through the
    Constitution or going through the Executive Branch? I think the
    answer is the Constitution. Wouldn't you agree? Yes or no.
        Mr. von Wachter. I think you are better qualified than me
    to answer that question.
        Mr. Olson. You are an American. You have an opinion.
        Mr. Walke?
        Mr. Walke. You know, as a matter of law, they are equally
    lawful. If the legislative period of relief is short like this
    one and the administrative period is longer, than it is the
    longer period.
        Mr. Olson. OK. And Dr. Wellenius?
        Mr. Wellenius. I have no comment.
        Mr. Olson. No comment whatsoever? OK.
        My final round of questions is for Mr. Blase. Mr. Blase,
    can you give a brief history of the last round of the PM
    revision and this one, and specifically, is it possible for us
    to be in the exact same position in 5 years with farmers,
    ranchers and other rural businesses if the EPA chooses to lower
    the standard on dust?
        Mr. Blase. Oh, yes, absolutely. That is what happened the
    last time. It is kind of a complicated thing and I won't go
    into all the details, but there has been a debate over--you
    know, the current standard for PM10 includes PM2.5.
    It includes fine and coarse. So there has been a debate over
    whether the fine should just be kicked out and the coarse PM
    standard should only be the top 2.5 to 10. I think my personal
    view is, that is probably what is going to happen in the next
    review. But in the last review, what happened was, EPA took a
    stab at doing just that and regulating true coarse PM. The
    problem with that was the concentration limit was way lower
    than most of us thought we could meet. Therefore, there was an
    exemption proposed for agriculture and mining activities. In
    the end, EPA threw up its hands and said we don't know what the
    numbers should be, we don't know what the exemptions should be
    so we are going to retain the current standard. But yes, the
    proposal--if the point is the final rule can look quite
    different from the proposal, the last reviews proves that.
        Mr. Olson. One final question about the rulemaking. I have
    introduced a bill, H.R. 1341, which is called the Establishing
    Public Accountability Act. It is very simple. It just requires
    the EPA to do some study of the impact of jobs on regulations
    and rulemaking, the proposed changes, and it requires them to
    do this before the public comment period so the public will
    have the opportunity to review what EPA is proposing. And so I
    just want to ask all six of you again, seven actually, just yes
    or no, do you think that bill will be something you support?
    Mr. Foglesong?
        Mr. Foglesong. Sure.
        Mr. Rogers. Yes.
        Mr. Lien. Yes.
        Mr. Blase. Yes.
        Mr. von Wachter. That was a bit quick for me, but it seems
    that if EPA is supposed to look at both the costs and benefits
    of their regulation, that that seems a good idea.
        Mr. Olson. I will put you down as yes.
        Mr. Walke?
        Mr. Walke. Is that the Regulatory Accountability Act,
    Congressman?
        Mr. Olson. Establishing Public Accountability, H.R. 1341. I
    can get you a copy of it. But it is very simple, just the
    public has the right to know, you know, whether or not this
    regulation, this new rulemaking, what the impact is going to be
    on American jobs. Either is going to create jobs or kill jobs,
    and that is what we need to address here. I think that is the
    biggest challenge our country is facing is the lack of jobs in
    this recession.
        Mr. Walke. Well, I would love to read the bill before
    answering that question, if I might.
        Mr. Olson. We will hook you up.
        And finally, Dr. Wellenius.
        Mr. Wellenius. Again, I am here to comment on the science
    and the health effects, not on the policy.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you, sir.
        And that is. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
        Mr. Pompeo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pompeo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Blase, Mr. Walke said that no one had contradicted sort
    of the legal statements that Ms. McCarthy set out, and you are
    counsel, so I thought maybe you could help me. He also made the
    statement that 80 percent of Federal regulatory would be
    stripped away by this bill. Would you care to comment on what
    you think this legislation would do with respect to the scope
    of the EPA's ability to regulate?
        Mr. Blase. Yes, I think it is a carve-out for crustal
    coarse particulate matter and nothing else is involved. I mean,
    power plants, tailpipe emissions, it is all fine PM. I don't
    believe these changes are necessary. People think changes are
    necessity to this legislation to exclude fine PM. My group
    would probably support that. But as I read it right now, I
    think it is confined to coarse crustal emissions, which is what
    is supported by the science and as it should be.
        Mr. Pompeo. So your legal analysis is very different from
    Mr. Markey's comments, Ms. McCarthy's statements and Mr.
    Walke's testimony.
        Mr. Blase. Very different, yes, sir.
        Mr. Pompeo. So I have power plants not excluded, school bus
    tailpipes, no impacts. This notion of because they are
    windblown they will all get caught up in this and we won't be
    able to regulate them so they will become law. Nonsense.
        Mr. Blase. No, I don't believe it covers those at all.
        Mr. Pompeo. OK. Great. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Pompeo.
        Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Dr. von Wachter, your testimony mentioned
    that those who lose their job can experience health problems
    that can lead to significant reductions in life expectancy. I
    have been concerned about a number of EPA regulations related
    to similar things like what happens when you raise the cost of
    electricity and the people my district can't afford to heat
    their homes. So I would just ask you in regard to the job loss
    and then significant reductions in life expectancy, can you
    explain that and tell me what you mean by that, and can it
    actually shorten a worker's life?
        Mr. von Wachter. Absolutely. I would be happy to clarify.
    So what we have done, we have looked at workers displaced in
    large downsizing Pennsylvania in the early 1980s, and these
    were workers at, you know, relatively large, stable firms and
    stable jobs and they had very long-lasting earnings losses, and
    over the next 20 years they also had increases in mortality
    rates, and those who had the larger earnings losses had the
    higher increases in mortality rates, and if you add those 20
    years up and assumes that the mortality effect lasts until the
    end of our lives, which seems to be a fine assumption because
    the effects are very stable, then you get to 1.5-year losses in
    life expectancy. So this one-time shock, what seems to be a
    shock to earnings but also lifestyle, can have these long-term
    effects. Now, Pennsylvania in the early 1980s is a very hard-
    hit State with the reduction in steel and mining at that time,
    so I would characterize that as worst-case scenario.
        Mr. Griffith. So what you are saying is, if we are going to
    study the health impacts of regulations, we ought to also look
    at the unintended consequences if it does have a downturn in
    jobs that that could actually negative impact the health of
    workers and of a particular community.
        Mr. von Wachter. Oh, absolutely. So regulations affecting
    certain businesses certainly could lead to job displacement
    that has been shown to lead to job displacement and this
    displacement takes place in a very depressed economic
    environment, that they could have large costs with the affected
    workers in terms of earnings but also other outcomes.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Blase, did you want to respond?
        Mr. Blase. Yes, I have a brief response to that. Our
    coalition has spent some time looking at what is a great
    developing body of scientific literature that suggests that
    unemployment itself causes adverse health effects, which I
    don't think takes an epidemiology study to show for most of us.
    However, we have pressed that point with the agency but have
    been told repeatedly that they have no legal authority to
    consider that aspect. So we will be making the point in our
    comments on the upcoming proposal and in other forums, but as
    of now, EPA is telling us, you know, the health effects of
    unemployment cannot be considered in this equation.
        Mr. Griffith. And I know you don't have any study on it but
    I think that plays into my fear that when we raise the cost of
    goods and services, particularly goods--again, I get back to
    heating but also we are talking about these things that could
    raise the cost of food products. That makes it particularly
    hard on the working poor or the unemployed, and that too would
    by common sense seem to have a health impact. Wouldn't you
    agree?
        Mr. Blase. Yes, I would.
        Mr. Griffith. I thank you very much for being here and all
    your testimony, and I appreciate, Mr. Walke, there may be a way
    to fix that concern of us although based on the definitions, I
    recognize that it may not need fixing. That being said, Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Rush, do you seek recognition?
        Mr. Rush. Mr. von Wachter and Mr. Blase kind of touched on
    something I am interested in. You said unemployment has health
    consequences for the unemployed. Is that correct?
        Mr. von Wachter. So what we can establish is that the job
    loss has an effect on health.
        Mr. Rush. On health.
        Mr. von Wachter. Establishing that unemployment has an
    effect is very difficult, because once you lose your job being
    unemployed is partly a choice of the worker, so it is not clear
    what is cause and effect at that point, but job losses have
    been shown to have an effect on health in the short and long
    run. It is possible----
        Mr. Rush. Did your study include the chronically unemployed
    and the underemployed?
        Mr. von Wachter. As I said, it is difficult to establish
    those effects for those who are chronically unemployed or
    currently underemployed just from a statistical point of view.
    We don't know what the right comparison group is. Now,
    presumably, from what we know, these people are unlikely to do
    better but one has to be very careful because unemployment is
    itself an outcome. For example, a sick worker might become
    unemployed and you don't want to conclude that unemployment
    makes you sick, but if you are displaced from a large
    downsizing, presumably you were a good worker and that being
    displaced from the downsizing doesn't make you sick, so that is
    a statement about causality that is easier to back up.
        Mr. Rush. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Rush, and thank all of you
    for your time and giving us your entire testimony as well as
    your oral testimony. We look forward to working with all of you
    as we move forward, and thank you very much for attending, and
    with that, the hearing is concluded and the record will remain
    open for 10 days for any additional materials. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.281

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.282

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.283

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.284

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.285

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.286

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.287

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.288

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.289

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.290

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.291

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.292

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.293

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.294

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.295

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.296

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.297

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.298

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.299

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.300

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6176.301