    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           EPA'S 2015 OZONE STANDARD:
                    CONCERNS OVER SCIENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                October 22, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-44

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                  ____________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    97-763PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         ZOE LOFGREN, California
        Wisconsin                        DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          PAUL TONKO, New York
    STEVE KNIGHT, California             MARK TAKANO, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois

                                C O N T E N T S

                                October 22, 2015

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     9
        Written Statement............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................    17
        Written Statement............................................    18

    Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    20
        Written Statement............................................    22

    Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
      Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    23
        Written Statement............................................    25

                                   Witnesses:

    The Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani
      LLP
        Oral Statement...............................................    28
        Written Statement............................................    30

    Mr. Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director and Air Pollution Control
      Officer, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
        Oral Statement...............................................    38
        Written Statement............................................    40

    Dr. Elena Craft, Senior Health Scientist, Environmental Defense
      Fund
        Oral Statement...............................................    56
        Written Statement............................................    58

    Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director, Texas Commission on
      Environmental Quality, Toxicology Division
        Oral Statement...............................................    71
        Written Statement............................................    74
    Discussion.......................................................    82

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    The Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani
      LLP............................................................   108

    Dr. Elena Craft, Senior Health Scientist, Environmental Defense
      Fund...........................................................   111

    Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director, Texas Commission on
      Environmental Quality, Toxicology Division.....................   120

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   204

    Report submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................   231

    Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................   256

    Document submitted by Representative Don Beyer, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   260

    Documents submitted by Representative Bill Johnson, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   262

    Documents submitted by Representative Katherine Clark, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   265

    Documents submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   273

    Documents submitted by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   281

    Documents submitted by Representative Ed Perlmutter, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   284

    Documents submitted by Representative Darin LaHood, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   322

    Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   328

    Statement submitted by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   347

                           EPA'S 2015 OZONE STANDARD:.
                    CONCERNS OVER SCIENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
    authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``EPA's 2015 Ozone
    Standard: Concerns Over Science and Implementation.''
        I'll recognize myself for an opening statement and then the
    Ranking Member.
        Today's hearing is on the Environmental Protection Agency's
    2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.
        The EPA is required to review the ozone standard every five
    years, but the agency is not required to set new standards. The
    2008 standard of 75 parts per billion is just now being
    implemented, and many states have not had the opportunity to
    meet the 2008 standard since guidance from the EPA for this
    standard was not made public until February. However, earlier
    this month, the EPA further reduced the standard to 70 parts
    per billion.
        At our previous Committee hearings on the EPA's ozone rule,
    witnesses testified that further reduction of the standard is
    premature and unnecessary due to the lack of any sound science,
    and the negative impact it will have on our economy.
    Unfortunately, the EPA did not address the serious concerns
    raised by these witnesses. Our hearing today will review the
    impact of this final rule.
        According to EPA's own website--and I think we have a chart
    to show.
        [Slide.]
        Chairman Smith. There it is. Since 1980, ozone levels have
    decreased by 33 percent. The air we breathe is significantly
    cleaner and will continue to improve thanks to new
    technologies. However, many of the technologies that the EPA
    forces states to use either do not currently exist or will be
    overly expensive.
        At the reduced ozone standard, over 60 percent of the costs
    of the program are based on technology that does not currently
    exist. The EPA assumes this technology will somehow be
    developed to implement their stringent regulations. And these
    proposed standards are impossible to meet in some places where
    the ozone level that occurs naturally would be above the
    standard set by the EPA. Many of these communities would be
    responsible for ozone that they do not have the ability to
    control. Wind-blown ozone from countries like China and Mexico
    further complicate the ability of the U.S. to meet the existing
    ozone standards.
        Ozone scientists Dr. Allen Lefohn and Dr. Owen Cooper
    raised concerns that ``the air transport of urban pollution to
    rural areas is important for nonattainment considerations.''
        The EPA has failed to adequately consider these issues.
    This new ozone rule could cause many areas throughout the
    United States to be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act
    through no fault of their own.
        A nonattainment designation under the Clean Air Act has
    serious consequences. It could cause new employers to not move
    into the state. Businesses would be forced to deal with
    additional burdensome permitting and compliance obligations,
    which slow expansion and economic development. Ultimately, good
    jobs will be lost in these areas.
        I am also concerned that the EPA's justification for this
    rule is not based on good science. In August, I sent both the
    EPA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) letters in
    which I raised concerns about the proposed rule's overreliance
    on one study, parts of which contradict previous peer-reviewed
    studies. My letter also questioned if EPA and OMB properly
    addressed the issue of background ozone that witnesses raised
    in previous Science Committee testimony when EPA determined the
    final standard. I am concerned that neither agency adequately
    considered background ozone or the overreliance on one study.
        Unfortunately, neither agency has provided the information
    I requested. While EPA claims to base its regulations on the
    best available science, unless the EPA can prove otherwise, it
    appears that their claims are nothing more than political
    rhetoric.
        Good science should dictate policy. However, it appears
    that the EPA conveniently cherry-picks the science that
    supports its extreme agenda. This is not sound science; it is
    science fiction. Furthermore, the EPA has regularly chosen to
    disregard inconvenient scientific conclusions and muzzle
    dissenting voices.
        Today's witnesses will testify on how this proposed rule
    will impact American small businesses and job creation.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith

        Today's hearing is on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
    2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.
        The EPA is required to review the ozone standard every five years,
    but the agency is not required to set new standards.
        The 2008 standard of 75 parts per billion is just now being
    implemented. And many states have not had the opportunity to meet the
    2008 standard since guidance from the EPA for this standard was not
    made public until February. However, earlier this month, the EPA
    further reduced the standard to70 parts per billion.
        At our previous Committee hearings on the EPA's ozone rule,
    witnesses testified that further reduction of the standard is premature
    and unnecessary due to the lack of any sound science and the negative
    impact it will have on our economy. Unfortunately, the EPA did not
    address the serious concerns raised by these witnesses.
        Our hearing today will review the impact of this final rule.
    According to EPA's own website, since 1980 ozone levels have decreased
    by 33 percent. The air we breathe is significantly cleaner and will
    continue to improve thanks to new technologies. However, many of the
    technologies that the EPA forces states to use either do not currently
    exist or will be overly expensive.
        At the reduced ozone standard, over 60 percent of the costs of the
    program are based on technology that does not currently exist. The EPA
    assumes this technology will somehow be developed to implement their
    stringent regulations.
        And these proposed standards are impossible to meet in some places
    where the ozone level that occurs naturally would be above the standard
    set by the EPA. Many of these communities would be responsible for
    ozone that they do not have the ability to control.
        Wind-blown ozone from countries like China and Mexico further
    complicate the ability of the U.S. to meet the existing ozone
    standards.
        Ozone Scientists Dr. Allen Lefohn and Dr. Owen Cooper raised
    concerns that, ``[T]he [air] transport of urban pollution to rural
    areas is important for nonattainment considerations.''
        The EPA has failed to adequately consider these issues. This new
    ozone rule could cause many areas throughout the United States to be
    out of compliance with the Clean Air Act through no fault of their own.
        A non-attainment designation under the Clean Air Act has serious
    consequences. It could cause new employers to not move into the state.
    Businesses would be forced to deal with additional burdensome
    permitting and compliance obligations, which slow expansion and
    economic development. Ultimately, good jobs will be lost in these
    areas. I am also concerned that the EPA's justification for this rule
    is not based on good science.
        In August, I sent both the EPA and the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) letters in which I raised concerns about the proposed
    rule's over-reliance on one study, parts of which contradict previous
    peer-reviewed studies.
        My letter also questioned if EPA and OMB properly addressed the
    issue of background ozone that witnesses raised in previous Science
    Committee testimony when EPA determined the final standard. I am
    concerned that neither agency adequately considered background ozone or
    the over-reliance on one study. Unfortunately, neither agency has
    provided the information I requested.
        While EPA claims to base its regulations on the best available
    science, unless the EPA can prove otherwise it appears that their
    claims are nothing more than political rhetoric.
        Good science should dictate policy. However, it appears that the
    EPA conveniently cherry-picks the science that supports its extreme
    agenda. This is not sound science; it is science fiction. Furthermore,
    the EPA has regularly chosen to disregard inconvenient scientific
    conclusions and muzzle dissenting voices.
        Today's witnesses will testify on how this proposed rule will
    impact American small businesses and job creation.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
    the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, is
    recognized for hers.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I must say that at the end of my statement, I have to
    depart to go to another committee where we are marking up for
    the first time in some years a Transportation Committee bill--a
    transportation bill.
        But I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and say
    good morning and welcome to all of our witnesses. I know that
    the Chairman was very cooperative in postponing this hearing to
    try to accommodate our witness, who suffered a medical
    emergency. And while he's still recovering and unable to
    travel, I'm very pleased to welcome Dr. Elena Craft, who will
    be providing testimony this morning.
        There really is no question that reducing ozone levels from
    75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion will have positive
    human health and economic benefits throughout the country.
    While the new rule is not as ambiguous as health professionals
    had hoped for, it will still have--ambitious, I mean, as the
    health professionals hoped, it will still have real and
    meaningful positive impact on the health of all Americans.
        Some will likely argue that implementing a lower ozone
    standard would kill jobs and the economy. We hear it all the
    time. Some of my colleagues may also suggest that we wait and
    not, as they say, shift the goalposts with new rules because
    ozone levels have dropped by 33 percent--you just saw that
    chart--since 1980. In short, they will use our current success
    as an excuse to stop trying to do better. They will also
    attempt to raise doubts about the scientific evidence
    justifying the new standard and will exaggerate the costs of
    its implementation.
        These kinds of tactics have been used before. Back in the
    1960s, the tobacco industry devised a strategy to counter a
    growing body of scientific and medical evidence that tobacco
    products unquestionably caused harm. Publicly available tobacco
    industry documents lay out a detailed strategy that reads in
    part ``doubt is our product since it is the best means of
    competing with the body of fact that exist in the minds of the
    general public. It is also the means of establishing a
    controversy.''
        Thus, in any form they could, tobacco industry scientists
    attempted to raise doubts about the science, doubts about the
    scientific models used by government scientists that
    highlighted the negative health effects of tobacco and
    secondhand smoke. Tobacco executives also emphasized concerns
    about the economic impact of proposed regulations on the
    industry and the economy at large.
        This strategy served the tobacco industry well, postponing
    effective action for years, but the American public paid the
    price in a lower quality of life, increased medical costs, and
    lost earnings and shortened lives. This same strategy has been
    mimicked by the oil and gas industry and its attempt to
    question the scientific evidence pointing to the climate
    change.
        Unfortunately, the Committee has become a favorite forum
    for rolling out these tactics. We will hear today for the
    fourth time in five years from you Dr. Michael Honeycutt from
    my home State about--from the office of environmental
    regulations, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
    (TCEQ) which appears to be employing tactics that I've just
    described.
        Instead of following the science supporting a reduction in
    the levels of ozone pollution, TCEQ, along with the industry,
    has waged a public media campaign that is not fooling Dallas, a
    conservative city--but people in Dallas don't believe you--
    geared toward raising doubts about the science and alleging
    dire economic consequences of implementing these new health-
    based standards.
        Recent news stories have questioned why the agency spent $2
    million hiring a scientific organization that previously did
    substantive work for the tobacco industry to help TCEQ raise
    doubts about the EPA's ozone rule. Americans are not fooled by
    these tactics anymore.
        Time and time again, the evidence shows that, on balance,
    jobs are created and the economy expands following the passage
    of major environmental reforms. Stricter pollution limits force
    us to innovate and create new technologies. With a fair
    national regulatory system that protects the public, companies
    do well by doing good.
        As it relates to this new ozone rule, EPA estimates the
    benefits to be more than double the cost, that is, benefits of
    2.9 to $5.9 billion annually compared to the cost of 1.4
    billion. Such a return on investment should prove the obvious:
    that when the environment is healthy, the economy is healthy,
    too.
        For millions of Americans who are suffering from
    respiratory illnesses such as asthma, ozone pollution has a
    real and destructive effect on them and their families.
    Hospital records show it and prove it.
        As someone who worked in the public health field before I
    entered politics, I'm very sensitive to the impacts poor air
    quality can have on the health of individuals, especially the
    young, the infirm, and the poor. Unfortunately, those of us
    from the Dallas-Fort Worth region are very familiar with the
    negative effects of ozone causing smog and are accustomed to
    seeing health alerts warning us that the air outside is too
    polluted for us to breathe safely.
        I am attaching to my statement a report compiled by the
    minority staff that includes excerpts from some 430,000 written
    comments on the ozone rule by health professionals and others
    supportive of EPA's actions to reduce ozone pollution.
        Mr. Chairman, a strong economy and a healthy environment
    are not mutually exclusive. We can have both, and we should
    strive to continue to improve the environment and the air we
    breathe. I believe EPA's new ozone regulations will help take
    us to the right direction.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Committee Ranking Member
                             Eddie Bernice Johnson

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and welcome to our witnesses.
    First, I'd like to thank the Chairman for agreeing to postpone this
    hearing to try and accommodate our witness who suffered a medical
    emergency. Unfortunately, Dr. Mark Mitchell is still not well enough to
    travel, but I appreciate the consideration showed by the Chairman.
        Now, as someone who worked in the public health field before I
    entered politics, I am very sensitive to the impact poor air quality
    can have on the health of individuals, especially the young, the
    infirm, and the poor. Unfortunately, those of us from the Dallas-Fort
    Worth region are very familiar with the negative effects of smog and
    are accustomed to seeing health alerts warning us that the air outside
    is too polluted for us to breathe safely. This year, Dallas has already
    experienced 32 days where ozone levels exceeded 75 parts-per-billion
    for more than 8 hours.
        For the millions suffering from respiratory diseases, including the
    26 million Americans with asthma, which impacts 10-percent of all
    children, ozone pollution has a real and destructive effect on them and
    their families. It also negatively impacts the entire economy,
    resulting in both high healthcare costs and significant lost economic
    productivity. Reducing ozone levels from 75 parts per billion to 70
    parts per billion will have positive human health and economic impacts
    throughout the country.
        And while those of my colleagues and the industries who are opposed
    to virtually all environmental regulations often forget this point, the
    Clean Air Act requires that the ozone standard be based on science
    alone. It explicitly prohibits the EPA from considering economic costs
    when setting the standard, and rightfully puts the health and well-
    being of Americans first. The new rule is not as ambitious as health
    professionals had hoped for, but it will still have a real and
    meaningful positive impact on the health of all Americans. The
    scientific evidence supporting the benefits of reduced levels of ozone
    is clear, consistent, and growing.
        Some will likely argue that implementing a lower ozone standard
    will kill jobs and the economy. Some of my colleagues may also suggest
    that we wait, and not, as they say, ``shift the goal posts'' with this
    new rule because ozone levels have dropped by 33 percent since 1980. In
    short, they will use our current success as an excuse to stop trying to
    do better. They will also attempt to raise doubts about the scientific
    evidence justifying the new standard and will exaggerate the costs of
    its implementation.
        These kinds of tactics have been used before. Back in the 1960's,
    the tobacco industry devised a strategy to counter a growing body of
    scientific and medical evidence that tobacco products unquestionably
    caused harm. Publically available tobacco industry documents lay out a
    detailed strategy that reads in part:
          ``Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing
    with the ``body of fact'' that exists in the mind of the general
    public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.''
        Thus, in any forum they could, tobacco industry scientists
    attempted to raise doubts about the science, doubts about the medical
    harm from cigarettes, and doubts about the scientific models used by
    government scientists that highlighted the negative health effects of
    tobacco and second-hand smoke. In addition, tobacco industry executives
    emphasized concerns about the economic impact of proposed tobacco
    regulations on their industry and the economy at large.
        This strategy served the tobacco industry well, postponing
    effective action for years. The profits enabled by these public
    relations-based attacks on science went to the companies, but the
    American public paid the price in a lower quality of life, increased
    medical costs, lost earnings, and shortened lives. This same strategy
    has been mimicked by the oil and gas industry in its attempt to
    question the scientific evidence pointing to climate change.
    Unfortunately, this Committee has become a favorite forum for rolling
    out these tactics during consideration of federal regulation of harmful
    chemicals that harm the environment and endanger the public's health.
        We will hear today, for the fourth time in five years, from Dr.
    Michael Honeycutt, from my home state's office of environmental
    regulation, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or T-C-E-Q;
    which appears to be employing the tactics that I've just described.
    Instead of following the science supporting a reduction in the levels
    of ozone pollution, TCEQ along with industry has waged a public media
    campaign geared to raising doubts about the science and alleging dire
    economic consequences of implementing these new health based standards.
    Recent news stories have questioned why the agency spent nearly $2
    million hiring a scientific organization that previously did
    substantive work for the tobacco industry to help TCEQ raise doubts
    about the EPA's ozone rule. As a Texas resident, I have questions about
    why my tax dollars would be used that way too. I hope that in her
    testimony Dr. Elena Craft from the Austin office of the Environmental
    Defense Fund can help describe the body of scientific data on which the
    new ozone rule is based and also explain the criticisms of both TCEQ
    and the tactics used by industry to oppose the new ozone rule.
        Americans are not fooled by these tactics any more. Time and again,
    the evidence shows that on balance, jobs are created and the economy
    expands following the passage of major environmental reforms. Stricter
    pollutions limits force innovation and create new technologies. With a
    fair national regulatory system that protects the public, companies can
    do well by doing good. As it relates to this new ozone rule, EPA
    estimates its benefits to be more than double the costs--that is,
    benefits of $2.9 to $5.9 billion annually compared to costs of $1.4
    billion. Such a return on investment should prove the obvious: that
    when the environment is healthy, the economy is healthy too.
        The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American
    Medical Association, and many other public health organizations have
    all supported lowering the ozone standard to 60 parts-per-billion,
    which they argue would prevent up to 7,900 premature deaths annually,
    1.8 million asthma attacks in children and 1.9 million missed school
    days nationwide. But they believe any lowering of the ozone standard is
    a good first step. The community of medical and public health
    professionals does not believe there is any doubt that reducing ozone
    levels is a necessary step to help better protect the public's health
    from the real effects of ozone pollution.
        I am attaching to my statement a short compilation that includes a
    small segment of the 430,000 written comments on the ozone rule by
    health professionals and others supportive of the EPA's efforts to do
    their job and protect the environment and the public's health.
        Mr. Chairman, a strong economy and a healthy environment are not
    mutually exclusive. We can have both, and we should strive to continue
    to improve the environment and the air we breathe. I believe EPA's new
    ozone regulations will help take us in the right direction.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        And the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, the
    Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, is recognized for an
    opening statement.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        To remind folks, today's hearing focuses on the EPA's final
    rule announced earlier this month to lower the National Ambient
    Air Quality Standards for ozone to 70 parts per billion down
    from the current standard of 75 parts per billion. Nothing in
    today's hearing is regarding tobacco necessarily, as far as I
    know.
        This hearing comes at a critical time as we must carefully
    review the science, impact, and achievability of this final
    regulation, a regulation with heavy compliance costs but
    questionable environmental benefits.
        Across the country, ozone levels and emissions for volatile
    organic compounds have been reduced significantly over the past
    few decades. My home State of Oklahoma is among those
    constantly working to improve air quality. Despite this, it is
    concerning that the EPA is proposing to tighten the standard,
    and I will remind my colleagues that the existing standard set
    in 2008 has yet to be fully implemented, and the guidance for
    State Implementation Plans was only released this past February
    by the EPA. States must be given a chance to comply with the
    existing standard before being imposed another onerous set of
    standards that are not achievable.
        This year, this committee has had several hearings to
    examine this complicated and massive regulation. Here are some
    of the important facts that we have learned from these
    hearings: Number one, just one study consisting of 31
    participants is being used as the main scientific justification
    of the costliest regulation in the history of the country
    according to Dr. Allen Lefohn, a leader in ozone research.
        Number two, witnesses testified that natural background
    ozone contributes a significant amount to the observed total
    ozone concentrations, and with this proposed standard,
    background or natural ozone may become the main reason areas
    across the United States exceed the standard. Further, there
    are even many national parks in the West which regularly will
    exceed the new standard based on natural ozone.
        Contributions from wildfires to the ozone level are
    considered a part of background. Tightening the existing ozone
    standards may cause even more unintentional fires of greater
    intensity as the use of prescribed controlled fires may be
    limited. This has serious implications, especially to rural and
    remote areas.
        While EPA claims that there are mechanisms to deal with
    background ozone, EPA has yet to provide details. This is
    especially true regarding implementation of its Exceptional
    Event Rule demonstrations. According to testimony of Ms. Cara
    Keslar from Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality,
    ``Wyoming has submitted five stratospheric intrusion
    demonstrations.'' They submitted five. ``One demonstration has
    been concurred with, and four have yet to be even acted on by
    the EPA.'' This is an unacceptable track record, and it is
    imposing costs on people that can't do anything about the
    background ozone level.
        Number five, rural areas will be hit especially hard by the
    Clean Air Act's transportation conformity requirements, which
    could mean withholding of federal highway funds if an area is
    in nonattainment. Again, this is bureaucratic bullying by the
    federal government against the states, and it needs to stop.
        According to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation,
    ``rural areas do not have the resources to achieve sufficient
    reductions of pollutants. The proposed action would be
    detrimental to social and economic development for rural areas
    across the State of Oklahoma.''
        Beyond these concerns, it remains troubling to me that
    those who will bear this regulation's compliance costs may also
    suffer a decline in their health status. Not surprisingly, the
    EPA did not include the premature deaths caused by the loss of
    disposable income when considering the true impact of this
    standard.
        Furthermore, millions of senior citizens living on fixed
    incomes and low-income Americans may be forced to choose
    between medications, paying for heat, or paying for their food.
    Moreover, other existing and proposed EPA regulations such as
    the proposed Clean Power Plan will further exacerbate the
    negative economic impact.
        This hearing is critical because Congress has the
    obligation to ensure the EPA adheres to the intent of the Clean
    Air Act, that the science behind any rule is sound, and that
    the totality of the impact of any rule is taken into account.
    We need to understand the totality of the impact.
        Before I yield back, I would like to submit a few documents
    for the record. The first is a group of letters from state and
    local officials opposing the rule.
        The next is a map showing that nearly the entire State of
    Oklahoma, even some of the more rural areas, will be in
    nonattainment.
        This would be devastating to my state, which is already
    working very hard on its own, and has been successful, as a
    matter of fact, to reduce ozone.
        I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this
    morning, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
        I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bridenstine follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Environment Subcommittee Chairman Jim Bridenstine

        Today's hearing focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency's
    final rule, announced earlier this month, to lower National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards for ozone to 70 parts per billion, down from the
    current standard of 75 ppb.
        This hearing comes at a critical time as we must carefully review
    the science, impact and achievability of this final regulation, a
    regulation with heavy compliance costs but questionable environmental
    benefits.
        Across the country, ozone levels and emissions for volatile organic
    compounds have been reduced significantly over the past few decades. My
    home state of Oklahoma is among those constantly working to improve air
    quality.
        Despite this, it is concerning that the EPA is proposing to tighten
    the standard, especially since the existing standard, set in 2008, has
    yet to be fully implemented--and I will remind my colleagues that this
    is due to the fact that the guidance for state implementation plans was
    only released this past February by the EPA. States must be given a
    chance to comply with the existing standard before being imposed
    another onerous set of standards that are not achievable.
        This year, this Committee has held several hearings to examine this
    complicated and massive regulation. Here are some important facts that
    we have learned from these hearings:

        1.  Just one study consisting of 31 participants is being used as
    the scientific justification of the costliest regulation in the history
    of this country, according to Dr. Allen Lefohn, a leader in
    environmental research.

        2.  Witnesses testified that background ozone contributes a
    significant amount to the observed total ozone concentrations, and with
    this proposed standard, background or natural ozone may become the main
    reason certain areas across the U.S. exceed the standard. Further,
    there are many national parks in the west which regularly exceed the
    new standard.
        3.  Contributions from wildfires to the ozone level are considered
    a part of background. Tightening the existing ozone standards may cause
    more unintentional fires of greater intensity as the use of prescribed,
    controlled fires may be limited. This has serious implications,
    especially to rural and remote areas.
        4.  While EPA claims that there are mechanisms to deal with
    background ozone, EPA has yet to provide details. This is especially
    true regarding implementation of its Exceptional Event Rule
    Demonstrations. According to the testimony of Ms. Kara Keslar from
    Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality:

          ``Wyoming has submitted five stratospheric intrusion
    demonstrations. One demonstration has been concurred with and four have
    not yet been acted on by EPA.'' This is an unacceptable track record.

        5.  Rural areas will be hit especially hard by the Clean Air Act's
    transportation conformity requirements, which could mean the
    withholding of federal highway funds if an area is in non-attainment.
    According to the Oklahoma's Department of Transportation, ``Rural areas
    do not have the resources to achieve sufficient reductions of
    pollutants. The proposed action would be detrimental to social and
    economic development for rural areas across the state of Oklahoma.''

        Beyond these concerns, it remains troubling to me that those who
    will bear this regulation's compliance costs may also suffer a decline
    in their health status. Not surprisingly, the EPA did not include the
    premature deaths caused by the loss of disposable income when
    considering the true impact of this standard.
        Furthermore, millions of senior citizens living on fixed incomes
    and low-income Americans may be forced to choose between medications,
    paying for heat, or for their food. Moreover, other existing and
    proposed EPA regulations such as the proposed Clean Power Plan will
    further exacerbate the negative economic impact.
        This hearing is critical because Congress has the obligation to
    ensure the EPA adheres to the intent of the Clean Air Act, that the
    science behind any rule is sound, and that the totality of the impact
    of any rule is taken into account.
        I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this afternoon and
    I look forward to hearing their testimony. I yield back the balance of
    my time.

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
        And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, the Ranking
    Member of the Environment Subcommittee, is recognized for an
    opening statement.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
    you to our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
    Environmental Protection Agency's final National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards for ozone.
        Last week, the EPA took a step in the right direction to
    maintain clean air and healthy environment for our country. The
    new standard of 70 parts per billion is not as ambitious as
    some might have hoped for, but it will have a real and
    meaningful effect on the health of all Americans.
        At a hearing earlier this year on the topic of ozone, one
    of the witnesses before the Committee, Dr. Mary Rice, stated
    that there is clear, consistent, and conclusive scientific
    evidence in support of a standard lower than the current level
    of 75 parts per billion. She also indicated that the scientific
    evidence available seven years ago has been supplemented by an
    even greater understanding of the health effects of ozone
    exposure.
        We must not overlook this point. The Clean Air Act, as
    passed by Congress, requires that the ozone standard be based
    on science and health. It prohibits the EPA from considering
    costs when setting the standard, and it rightfully puts the
    health and well-being of Americans first.
        Despite this fact, we will hear today that implementing a
    lower ozone standard will have devastating consequences to the
    economy, but has been shown time and time again, the evidence
    shows that, on balance, jobs are created and the economy
    expands following the passage of major environmental reforms.
        Regarding this rule, the EPA estimates the benefits to be
    more than double the costs, that is, benefits of 2.9 to 5.9
    billion annually compared to costs of 1.4 billion. Such a
    return on investment should prove the obvious: that when the
    environment is healthy, the economy is healthy.
        We are already seeing positive results from strong action
    to protect the air. Since 1980, ozone levels have dropped by 33
    percent. Now is not the time to rest on our accomplishments.
    The only way to ensure we maintain our progress is to keep
    moving forward.
        It's important to point out that the Bush Administration
    ignored the experts on EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
    Committee in 2008 and implemented a standard they viewed as not
    sufficiently protective of public health. Thankfully, the Obama
    Administration is basing its decision on the science, not
    industry interests.
        Now, let me be clear. In my home State of Oregon, we
    recognize the challenges associated with implementing a more
    stringent standard. And I'm glad Mr. Bridenstine raised this
    point. Wildfires and long-range shifting of ozone from Asia
    will need to be addressed if we're to achieve a lower standard.
    That being said, comments the State of Oregon submitted support
    the EPA's proposal. Specifically, a letter from David Collier,
    the Air Quality Manager at the Oregon Department of
    Environmental Quality, on EPA's proposed rule states that
    ``Oregon welcomes the EPA's proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS
    based on advice provided by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
    Committee in order to provide the adequate protection to human
    health and welfare.''
        In its comments to the EPA, Oregon also recommended the
    development of guidance and tools to address exceptional events
    like wildfires and the long-range transport of ozone.
    Thankfully, the EPA is listening to the needs of states and has
    expressed in the final rule its commitment to addressing the
    implementation challenges faced by Western States.
        I want to point out that the EPA has concluded that most
    U.S. counties will be able to reach the new standard without
    imposing emission controls beyond those already in place or
    proposed. Specifically, the EPA has estimated that federal
    regulations like the Fuel Economy Standards, the Interstate
    Transport Rule, and the Clean Power Plan will reduce emissions
    to such a degree that only 14 of the 213 counties expected to
    exceed the 70 parts per billion are likely to find themselves
    in nonattainment by 2025.
        Mr. Chairman, although significant progress has been made
    in the past 40 years, it is our job and responsibility to build
    on this legacy and e sure that we continue to improve the
    quality of our air. A strong economy and a healthy environment
    are not mutually exclusive. We can have both, and EPA's rule
    will continue to take us in the right direction.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again to our
    witnesses for being here today, and I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
        And let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today
    is Mr. Jeff Holmstead, a Partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP.
    Mr. Holmstead is one of the country's leading air quality
    lawyers and heads the Environmental Strategies Group at
    Bracewell & Giuliani. He previously served as the Assistant
    Administrator at the EPA for the Office of Air and Radiation.
    He also served on the White House staff as Associate Counsel to
    former President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Holmstead received his
    bachelor's degrees in economics and English from Brigham Young
    University and his law degree from Yale.
        Our next witness is Mr. Seyed Sadredin, the Executive
    Director and Air Pollution Control Officer of the San Joaquin
    Valley Air Pollution Control District. Under his leadership,
    the district developed a clear mission to improve the valley's
    health and quality of life through effective and innovative
    strategies and provide quality customer service to the general
    public and the regulated community. Mr. Sadredin initiated the
    implementation of the Technology Advancement Program, which
    promotes new clean air technology development in the valley. He
    received his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from
    California State University at Sacramento.
        Our third witness today is Dr. Elena Craft, Health
    Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. Dr. Craft has
    worked on air toxic issues specifically to reduce criteria and
    greenhouse gas emissions from the energy and transportation
    sectors. Her efforts have led to the creation of Clean Truck
    Programs in Houston and other ports around the Southeast. Dr.
    Craft has been appointed to serve a two-year term on the
    Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board
    Environmental Justice Technical Review Panel. That's the
    longest name of any panel I've heard of. Dr. Craft received her
    bachelor's degree in biology from the University of North
    Carolina, Chapel Hill, her master's degree in toxicology from
    the North Carolina State University, and her Ph.D. in molecular
    technology from Duke University.
        Our final witness is Dr. Michael Honeycutt, the Director of
    the Toxicology Division of the Texas Commission on
    Environmental Quality. Dr. Honeycutt has been employed by the
    TCEQ since 1996 and has managed the division of 14
    toxicologists since 2003. His responsibilities include
    overseeing health effects reviews of air permit applications,
    the review of the results of ambient air monitoring projects,
    and the reviews of human health risk assessments for hazardous
    waste sites. Dr. Honeycutt is an Adjunct Professor at Texas A&M
    University, has published numerous articles, and serves as--or
    served as--or served on numerous external scientific
    committees. Dr. Honeycutt received his bachelor's degree and
    Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of
    Louisiana at Monroe.
        We recognize and appreciate all of you being here today and
    look forward to hearing what you have to say.
        And, Dr. Holmstead, we'll begin with you.

             TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD,

                   PARTNER, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP

        The Hon. Holmstead. Thank you very much for giving me the
    chance to testify here this morning.
        While I know other people will talk a fair bit about the
    controversies regarding the health science and the effects of
    ozone, what I'd like to do is just put that to one side and say
    this: Regardless of what you think about that, the way that we
    deal with ozone today just no longer makes any sense. Ozone is
    not a new issue. EPA and state agencies have been focused on
    reducing ozone levels for more than 40 years. As a country, we
    have spent much more money on ozone than on any other type of
    pollution, even though all experts believe that other types of
    pollution pose a greater risk to public health.
        Now, because of EPA's new ozone standard, we will be forced
    to spend much more money--tens of millions of dollars--for very
    small incremental reductions in ozone. This is easy to
    understand. This is because for almost 40 years, most of the
    cost-effective, reasonable things that can be done to reduce
    ozone have already been done. Additional reductions will be
    much more expensive.
        Some people think this is okay because the cost is paid by
    big business, but this is not true. The cost is paid entirely
    by real people. We all pay the cost in the form of higher
    prices, smaller retirement accounts, and lower levels of
    economic growth. This is why we should all care about the cost
    of regulations, as well as the benefits.
        I would like to highlight just two issues. First, the new
    ozone standard will effectively ban new industrial development
    in many parts of the country. In many areas, it will be
    impossible to build or expand an industrial facility even
    though it would be built with state-of-the-art emission
    controls and even though the local community might desperately
    want the jobs it would bring.
        Here is why: Anyone who wants to build or expand an
    industrial facility must first obtain a Clean Air Act permit.
    In some areas, you can't get such a permit unless you can first
    show that emissions from the new facility will not ``cause or
    contribute to a violation'' of the new ozone standard. But this
    will not be possible in areas that met the old standard but do
    not meet the new one. You can't show that a new facility will
    not contribute to a violation of the new standard because the
    area, according to EPA, is now in violation. And if you can't
    make this showing, you can't build a new plant, no matter how
    clean it is.
        EPA says that you might be able to get around this problem
    by paying another facility in the area to reduce its emissions
    enough to offset emissions from the new plant. This is called
    ``getting offsets.'' But in many cases, this will not be
    possible either. Any areas that exceed the new standard are
    rural areas where there is little or no industry. They exceed
    the standard not because of local emissions but because of
    background ozone and emissions in other areas. In these cases,
    there are no offsets to be purchased so no plants--no new
    plants can be built.
        A related problem will occur in areas that don't meet the
    previous standard. To build a plant in these areas, a company
    has no choice but to purchase offsets. In fact, it must obtain
    offset that are between 10 and 50 percent greater than the
    emissions from the new facility. Now, please note that offsets
    cannot be created by emission reductions that are required by
    EPA or state regulations, only by reductions that go beyond
    what is required.
        But remember, for more than 40 years, EPA and States have
    been looking for every conceivable way to reduce ozone. Where
    there are any additional reductions to be had, they are very
    expensive. For example, in the Houston area where there is so
    much industry, it is possible to purchase offsets, but they are
    enormously expensive, as much as $300,000 a ton. Even a
    relatively small facility with state-of-the-art pollution
    controls would need to spend tens of millions of dollars just
    to purchase enough offsets to get a permit.
        I will summarize the second issue very briefly. The Clean
    Air Act program for dealing with ozone was established in 1970
    when Congress believed that air pollution was primarily a local
    problem and that States could solve it by regulating local
    industry. We now know differently. Ozone is a global issue.
    When there are high ozone levels, they are largely caused by
    things outside of a State's control: by cars and trucks, which
    are regulated by EPA; by natural background; and by emissions
    from other States and other countries.
        The State only has control over emissions from its own
    industrial facilities, but under the Clean Air Act, it has the
    sole legal obligation to meet the new standard. In a number of
    States, however, a State could shut down all the industrial
    facilities in the whole State and still not meet the standard.
    Because 70 parts per billion is so close to background ozone
    levels in some areas, there is simply nothing a State can do to
    meet the new standard.
        As a result, the Clean Air Act now appears to give a rather
    remarkable authority to EPA, the authority to impose a legal
    obligation that is impossible to meet. To me, this seems
    contrary to our long-standing notion about the rule of law and
    the way the federal government should operate.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of the Hon. Holmstead follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
        Mr. Sadredin.
        Chairman Smith. Make sure your microphone is on. Push----

                    TESTIMONY OF MR. SEYED SADREDIN,

                         EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND

                     AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER,

           SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

        Mr. Sadredin. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
    Bonamici, Members of the Committee. Good morning. It's a great
    honor and a pleasure to be here before you today. Thank you for
    the invitation.
        I come from the beautiful and bountiful Central Valley of
    California, San Joaquin Valley. Over the last three decades,
    we've done quite a bit of work to improve quality of life and
    reduce air pollution in San Joaquin Valley.
        I'm not here today to urge your committee to curb EPA's
    authority to set new standards or to--or ask you to--ignore
    them----
        Chairman Smith. Yes, ignore those bells. Yes.
        Mr. Sadredin. --or ask you to roll back any of the health-
    protected safeguards in the Clean Air Act that have really
    brought us to where we are today.
        At the outset, I want to say that the Clean Air Act over
    the last 40 years has resulted in a great deal of reduction in
    air pollution, improved public health and quality of life in
    many regions, including our region. What I'm hoping to do,
    though, is to give you a preview of what might seem to be
    coming to your neighborhood with the new standard that EPA just
    published because we have been at the forefront of what we have
    to do even with old standards that EPA published because of our
    geography, topography. The problems that we have faced over the
    last two, three decades are going to be exactly the problems
    that you might face in your neighborhood soon with the new
    standard.
        And I'm here really today to ask the Congress to provide
    guidance to EPA. We believe the world is a different world
    today compared to 25 years ago when the Congress last amended
    the act, or 40 years ago when the Congress passed the act
    unanimously--virtually unanimously. There was only a handful of
    ``no'' votes.
        I think if the Congress understood at the time that you
    would face a circumstance like we do today, that after having
    reduced air pollution by over 80 percent in our region and
    having imposed the toughest regulations on every sector of your
    economy from the small ma-and-pa operations, drycleaners, paint
    shops, all the way to your largest power plants and refineries,
    that you would still face a major gap that would dictate a
    tremendous penalty on the residents of your region, the
    businesses that operate in your area. I don't think the bill
    would have passed unanimously, let alone--even if it would pass
    at all.
        So I just wanted to share with you some of our experiences
    and really what we're asking the Congress to do in the form of
    a fine-tuning of the act as we call it. It's our 2015 Clean Air
    Act modernization that has five specific proposals in it. The
    first proposal that we have in our legislative initiative that
    we are taking is to eliminate duplication--duplicative
    requirements, confusion, and costly bureaucratic red tape that
    are--that is--currently happens with our chaotic establishment
    of the new standards by synchronizing the new standards. When
    EPA publishes the new standards, let's synchronize the old
    standards without any rollback. Let's have a unique set of
    requirements that we have to follow instead of having multiple
    plans in place.
        In our region, for instance, right now, we have six
    attainment plans in place with four more attainment plans being
    due in the next four years, all with redundant, duplicative
    requirements that we have to deal with.
        The other requirement--the other change that we're asking--
    and I agree with what the Ranking Member said--that a good
    economy and good environment, good public health are not
    mutually exclusive. In fact, we believe you do need a vibrant
    economy to have the wherewithal to do all the difficult things
    that we need to do to improve our air quality.
        So in our proposal we are asking that, instead of the
    formula-based deadlines that the Congress set 25 years ago, to
    take into account the economic feasibility and technological
    achievability in setting deadlines. Give us time to get to
    these tough standards. Don't set impossible deadlines that
    we're not able to meet. Banning fossil fuel combustion, which
    is really what it takes for us to meet the new standard, is not
    doable in--simply in 20 years. We need more time to be able to
    develop the technology and the infrastructure to do that.
        We also ask that the act be amended to really treat
    different pollutants differently. Not all pollutants are
    created equally. When the Congress passed the act some 25 years
    ago with the latest amendments, they thought it was all about
    VOCs, volatile organic compounds. We are finding today that
    science dictates that different pollutants have different
    impacts on air quality, and we need to be able to take--have a
    system that allows us to have a weighing--appropriate weighing
    of those pollutants and deal with them.
        With respect to extreme nonattainment areas such as we are
    in--and I'm almost finished--we ask that you remove the
    requirement for having contingency measures. It is one of those
    well-intended provisions in the act that are leading to
    unintended consequences, and I'd be happy to give you more
    details on that.
        And we also ask that, for regions such as California where
    we have done many things to reduce pollution from mobile
    sources early on, give us the ability to take credit for those,
    as opposed to taking those credits away in a way that some of
    the court rulings are being interpreted by EPA.
        And I have details about all of these in my presentation
    and would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sadredin follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sadredin.
        And, Dr. Craft.

                       TESTIMONY DR. ELENA CRAFT,

                        SENIOR HEALTH SCIENTIST,

                       ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND

        Dr. Craft. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ms. Bonamici, Members
    of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify here today
    about EPA's revision to the Nation's health-based ambient air
    quality standard for ground-level ozone.
        My name is Elena Craft. I serve as Senior Scientist at
    Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonpartisan science-
    based environmental organization where I manage a team working
    to identify strategies and opportunities to reduce harmful air
    pollution such as ozone from pollution hotspots.
        EDF has over 1 million members. Our organization links
    science, economics, law, and private sector partnerships to
    solve our most serious environmental challenges. In addition, I
    have an adjunct appointment at the University of Texas Health
    Sciences Center in Houston. And as I was seven months pregnant
    the last time I testified in front of this committee, I am also
    the mom of a very busy toddler.
        The Clean Air Act is a bedrock public health statute
    representing the best of a bipartisan America encompassing the
    values of environmental protection and healthy air that we
    espouse as a nation. The unanimous vision forged into law by
    the U.S. Senate has secured healthier air for millions of
    Americans netting benefits valued at over $21 trillion between
    1970 and 1990.
        Indeed, by 2020, EPA estimates the 1990 Clean Air Act
    amendments will prevent a projected 230,000 deaths, 2.4 million
    asthma attacks, 200,000 heart attacks, and 5.4 million lost
    school days. EPA also found that these vital health protections
    would provide 2 trillion in monetized benefits. Additionally,
    EPA projects a net overall improvement in economic growth due
    to the benefits of cleaner air.
        The Clean Air Act is sharply focused on ensuring the
    Nation's health standards that are established solely on the
    basis of public health. On October 1, EPA established a revised
    ozone standard of 70 parts per billion, improving America's
    national air quality standard for ground-level ozone. Why?
    Because scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that
    the previous 75-part-per-billion standard is not requisite to
    protect human health with an adequate margin of safety as
    required by the Clean Air Act.
        The recommendations of the statutorily established and
    independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee underscored
    the need, as determined by the latest scientific evidence, to
    strengthen the ground-level ozone standard. CASAC found clear
    scientific support for the need to revise the standard. While
    recommending a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion, the
    committee went on to emphasize the inadequacy of a standard at
    the upper end of the range. At 70 parts per billion, there is
    substantial scientific evidence of adverse effects, including
    decrease in lung function, increase in respiratory symptoms,
    and increase in airway inflammation.
        And CASAC is not alone in concluding that the 2008 ozone
    standard was inadequate. The American Thoracic Society, the
    American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical
    Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung
    Association, American Public Health Association, Children's
    Environmental Health Network are just a few of the medical and
    public health organizations that have supported strengthening
    the standards.
        Some claim that adopting strong ozone standards will cause
    economic harm. Unfortunately, these sky-is-falling
    prognostications are not new. The fact is that we can do it and
    we have done it. Since 1970, our nation has reduced the six
    pollutants regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards program by almost 70 percent, while GDP has grown by
    nearly 240 percent. And currently, 90 percent of areas
    designated for the 1997 ozone health standards now meet those
    standards.
        Regions are not alone in meeting the new health-based
    standards. America has already taken steps over the past few
    years that will help reduce ozone smog pollution and help
    restore healthy air in a cost-effective manner. Some of these
    protections include the Tier 3 tailpipe standards, recently
    finalized greenhouse gas and fuel standards for medium and
    heavy-duty trucks, and EPA's Clean Power Plan.
        The Clean Air Act is a vibrant, bipartisan, made-in-America
    law that has stood the test of time, delivering a stronger,
    healthier, and more prosperous nation. Let's build on this
    legacy of bipartisan collaboration and follow the time-tested
    commonsense path forward in protecting the health of our
    children and our communities. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Craft follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Craft.
        And Dr. Honeycutt.

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL HONEYCUTT,

                       DIRECTOR, TEXAS COMMISSION

                       ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

                          TOXICOLOGY DIVISION

        Mr. Honeycutt. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
    the Committee. I'm Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director of the
    Toxicology Division at the TCEQ. I lead a division of 14
    toxicologists, who are responsible for evaluating a broad
    spectrum of environmental quality issues, including deriving
    acceptable levels of air contaminants.
        The TCEQ has derived acceptable air contaminant levels for
    many thousands of air contaminants over the last 30-plus years,
    and our current team of toxicology risk assessors has over 280
    combined years of experience in these fields. We derive these
    levels using a scientific, peer-reviewed method, and many of
    these levels and their derivation process have been published
    in independent scientific journals. Other state governments,
    federal agencies including the EPA, and other countries use the
    TCEQ's acceptable air contaminant values.
        On October 1 of this year, the EPA decreased the level of
    the ozone standard from an annual fourth-highest daily maximum
    8-hour concentration of 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per
    billion. Today, I will address considerations of overall health
    risk, but first, I would like to set the record straight on the
    ozone science.
        Based on our extensive background in deriving acceptable
    air contaminant levels, we independently reviewed thousands of
    studies on ozone, including the studies the EPA reviewed as a
    part of setting the final standard. Ozone is a simple oxidizing
    chemical that, at high enough concentrations, can cause
    inflammation in the lungs, and it can reversibly limit the
    body's ability to inhale and exhale a normal volume of air.
    However, there remains large uncertainty and variability in the
    scientific literature.
        With regard to changes in lung function and asthma
    exacerbations, eight out of nine studies investigating lung
    function changes caused by ozone showed no difference between
    asthmatics and healthy individuals. As we stated in our
    comments to EPA, the dose that a person would be expected to
    receive at 75 parts per billion is almost no different than 70
    parts per billion or even 65 parts per billion. And you can see
    figure 1 in my comments to see that.
        Consistent with this finding, the EPA does not predict--let
    me state it again. The EPA does not predict that a decrease in
    the ozone standard will cause a statistically significant
    decrease in asthma attacks. You can see figure 2 for that
    information.
        The basis for setting the standard at 70 parts per billion
    was to make it lower than the lowest exposure concentration
    where adverse effects were observed in human controlled
    exposure studies, which was 72 parts per billion. However, in
    order to observe any effects at this low ozone concentration,
    the authors had to expose the human subjects to ozone while
    they were exercising at moderate to heavy exertion for 50
    minutes out of every hour for 6.6 hours. This is an unrealistic
    exposure scenario for the general public, much less for
    sensitive groups. Therefore, it would take higher exposure
    concentrations to have the same effect noted in that study.
        Although asthma exacerbations and changes in lung function
    are the most important and biologically relevant effects, most
    of the monetary benefits that EPA ascribes to reductions in
    ozone are from reductions in premature mortality. They do this
    despite the fact that, from a toxicology standpoint, there is
    no explanation for how eight hours of ozone exposure at
    ambient, present-day concentrations on one day can cause
    premature mortality the next day. In addition, the EPA
    Administrator has expressed a lack of confidence in the studies
    associating ozone with premature mortality due to the inherent
    study uncertainties.
        The results from these studies are also contradictory and
    inconsistent. For example, in the main mortality study that the
    EPA uses, Smith 2009 showed that only seven out of 98 U.S.
    cities have a significant association between eight hour ozone
    concentrations and mortality. Also, astonishingly, the EPA's
    analysis shows mortality increasing in certain cities,
    including Detroit and Houston when decreasing the ozone
    standard from 75 to 70 parts per billion. And no, I did not
    misread that.
        Some inconsistency between study findings is not uncommon.
    Scientists who are experienced in risk assessment can
    incorporate these disparate pieces of information into a
    cohesive characterization of health risk. The EPA would be
    better advised and critiqued on their risk assessment if a risk
    assessor was included on the CASAC. A chemical risk assessor is
    essential to put the potential risk highlighted by the other
    CASAC experts into content--into context with the inherent
    background risk present in our daily lives. The Clean Air Act
    does not require that risks are reduced to zero, and risk
    assessment with uncertainty analysis can demonstrate the
    reduction in risk, or lack thereof, from a reduction in a
    regulatory standard.
        The lack of consideration of overall risk is perhaps more
    apparent--most apparent when reviewing the revisions to the
    EPA's Air Quality Index in the final rule. According to the new
    category breakpoints, sensitive members of the public will now
    be cautioned to consider reducing prolonged or heavy outdoor
    exertion at 55 parts per billion ozone, a number that has no
    experimental basis. Beginning at 71 parts per billion, the EPA
    advises the public to keep their asthma inhalers handy.
    Anecdotally, we are told that some schools in Texas will cancel
    recess when they receive this alert.
        The problem is that this is based on a single study that
    showed a mild lung function effect after exposure to 72 parts
    per billion ozone for 6.6 hours with vigorous exercise. And it
    is being used to cancel a 20-minute recess. In the Dallas-Fort
    Worth area of Texas in 2014, there would have been 23 such days
    that children might not have been able to play outdoors.
        These health messages and the new frequency with which they
    will be released can lead to growing public concern over air
    quality that is actually getting better and can lead to keeping
    our children and ourselves from the well-documented physical
    and psychological benefits of outdoor exercise.
        Let me be clear. Under certain circumstances at high
    concentrations, ground-level ozone can have negative
    implications for respiratory health, but our investigations
    conclude that low concentrations that we see today, the risks
    to respiratory health are small and are not significantly
    diminished by the decreased ozone standard.
        I have a tremendous amount of respect for the intent of the
    Clean Air Act, the EPA, and the role that science plays in
    setting meaningful policy.
        I thank you for the opportunity to be here and I'm happy to
    answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Honeycutt follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Honeycutt.
        I recognize myself for questions.
        And, Mr. Holmstead, I would like to direct the first one to
    you, and that is you've mentioned several examples, but would
    you just summarize the adverse consequences of this new ozone
    regulation?
        The Hon. Holmstead. Well, the most immediate one is really
    that it will ban industrial growth in many parts of the
    country. That's not universally true, but there will be many
    parts of the country where, no matter how hard a local
    community wants to attract new industry, it won't be able to do
    so because they can't get the permits they need to build or
    expand a new industrial facility.
        The longer-term consequence is that it really does drive up
    the cost of virtually everything we consume, not only energy,
    but other products as well.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
        Mr. Sadredin, you mentioned the San Joaquin Valley. Does
    the technology exist today to actually enable that region to
    attain the standards that it needs to attain under the proposed
    rule?
        Mr. Sadredin. The simple answer is no, but that is not
    limited to the newest standard alone. As we speak, EPA has
    already classified the San Joaquin Valley as extreme
    nonattainment even for the 75 parts-per-billion standard and
    the previous standard of 84 parts per billion. And extreme by
    definition means that technology today does not exist.
        Chairman Smith. Any idea when the technology might exist or
    is it just totally unknown?
        Mr. Sadredin. At this point it's unknown. EPA in their
    own--you know, latest regulatory impact analysis, they talk
    about technology that does not exist and they don't know when
    it would be available. And that is why we are urging the
    Congress to take that into account, make some fine-tuning of
    the Clean Air Act to allow that to be considered in setting up
    the deadlines and what it takes, how long it takes to come into
    attainment.
        Chairman Smith. I know you're considering this but I think
    you'll find the courts on your side and if you can't comply
    because the technology is not available, you can't be held
    accountable. So I hope you succeed in that regard.
        Mr. Sadredin. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. Dr. Honeycutt, would you spend a little
    time explaining to us the single study that the entire ozone
    regulation relies upon and why there are limitations to the
    science that were relied upon in that study? First of all, I
    can't believe we're just relying upon one study. That clearly
    smacks of cherry-picking. But if you'll go into some detail
    about the flaws in the one study and why only one study was
    used.
        Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. It is based on--or the level of the
    standard is based on one study, the Schelegle 2009 study where
    31 people were exposed to ozone at various levels for 6.6
    hours, exercising moderately to vigorously for 50 minutes out
    of every hour during the 6.6 hours. And at the 72 part-per-
    billion exposure concentration, six of the 31 people had lung
    decrements--lung function decrements greater than ten percent,
    which EPA considers adverse.
        The problem is the group mean was only 5-1/2 percent, a
    little over 5 percent. And the group mean wasn't adverse, but
    what EPA did was pick out the six that were, so they cherry-
    picked those six people out of the group, and you're not
    supposed to do that. That's not scientific. That's why the
    study authors didn't publish the journal article that way
    because it wouldn't have been published because nobody would
    accept that. So that's what it's based on.
        Chairman Smith. If any other organization relied upon a
    single study involving six out of 31 people, it would be
    laughable, and the fact that the EPA is going to subject
    millions of people to an unworkable standard at great cost
    because of that one flawed study is just amazing. And so I
    agree with your conclusion.
        That also concludes my comments, and we'll go now to the
    gentleman from Virginia. Do you want to recognize somebody else
    first?
        Okay. Mr. Beyer is recognized for his questions.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
    very much for being here. And I'm actually pleased to be part
    of this this morning just thinking how far we've come, that we
    have four witnesses representing both people for and against
    the ozone rule who are here testifying that clean air is a good
    thing and that we've come a long way, and all committed to
    making it better.
        And the debate is about the level that was set and the
    costs and benefits, and that for me the factor of this debate
    is progress, so thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, we have a witness from California here today,
    and California really has some unique--okay. I don't need to do
    this for the record so never mind. I'm going to go on. Thank
    you.
        Also for the record, you know, I'm a businessman, family
    business. We have our 42nd anniversary tomorrow in retail
    automobile sales and service, and so for 42 years I've been
    hearing about the devastating consequences of new regulations.
    I just want to say that that's nuts. I remember 1982 Ronald
    Reagan's Federal Trade Commission was coming out with the used-
    car disclaimer on the windows, and everywhere in America, all
    the things were this is going to be the end of the free market,
    the end of automobile sales. We adapted to it in about a week.
        2009 CAFE standards have been set at 22 miles per gallon
    from '92 through 2008. President Obama raised it to 35 by 2016,
    again, devastating consequences. We were told the technology
    does not exist. Well, it's almost 2016. We'll be at 35 miles
    per gallon. We're about to sell 17 million new cars in America
    this year, and manufacturers and dealers are having all-time
    profit years. If anything has pulled down profits, it's been
    the internet and the quantitization of our product.
        Dr. Craft, we just heard Dr. Honeycutt say that all this is
    based on this one study, six out of 35 people. It's my
    understanding, though, that before the Schelegle study was
    done, in the George W. Bush Administration, his EPA Clean Air
    Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel wanted it to
    be set between 60 and 70 parts and unanimously recommended that
    and were disappointed when the President, you know, recognizing
    business pressure, put it at 75. How do you respond to that?
    And is this really based on one study and six people?
        Dr. Craft. Thank you. No, it's not. We have sound evidence
    of the health effects of ozone from three branches of science,
    controlled human exposures, community health studies, and
    toxicology studies. EPA reviewed thousands and thousands of
    papers. They have summarized their scientific findings in the
    Integrated Scientific Assessment, which was under review by
    three different Science Advisory Committees. They have
    published those findings. The public was able to participate in
    looking at the review that EPA scientists had done.
        And just a couple of examples of the--from the summary--
    from EPA's summary, they looked at respiratory effects, causal
    relationship between short-term ozone exposure and respiratory
    health effects. They have looked at cardiovascular effects
    likely to be causal relationship for short-term exposures to
    ozone and cardiovascular effects, central nervous system
    effects suggestive of a causal relationship between ozone
    exposure and CNS effects, total mortality likely to be a causal
    relationship between short-term exposures to ozone and total
    mortality. These are not summaries that were derived from a
    study that picked out six people.
        I guess I wanted to also mention that while the
    Administrator noted the study in her announcement of the
    standard, there are other studies that have shown that there is
    a significant effect below 72. It's the Kim study from 2011.
    So, you know, the idea that we're relying on just one study is
    not accurate, and it has been a process where EPA has included
    the public and has been very transparent in this process.
        Mr. Beyer. Great. I'd also like to point out quickly that
    in the pharmaceuticals, they'll spend hundreds of millions of
    dollars testing new drugs, and if they get one or two or three
    adverse effects out of 100,000, they'll take the drug off the
    market. So six out of 35 actually seems like an awful lot to
    me.
        Dr. Keet at Johns Hopkins had a paper that has been
    misinterpreted to say that poverty makes asthma worse rather
    than ozone. Can you respond to this mischaracterization of Dr.
    Keet's letter?
        And I'd like to enter her response for the record, please,
    without objection.
        Chairman Smith. Without objection.
        [The appears in Appendix II]
        Dr. Craft. Sure. That paper, I think, was misunderstood.
    The study did not actually look at air pollution at all, so any
    characterization that air pollution is caused by poverty was
    not the subject of the study itself. And I think that's what
    Dr. Keet has sent and submitted as part of her letter.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So we had one person telling us that this
    is all based on one study, and we have another witness telling
    us that there are thousands of studies that indicate this.
    Could you name a few studies, Ms. Craft, that have actually
    been accepted by the EPA Administrator as being legitimate
    studies that went into this decision?
        Dr. Craft. In the Integrated Science Assessment, the EPA
    derived--they include all of the studies that they looked at in
    referencing----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Could you name me a couple of the studies
    that they--that the--is my understanding that the EPA
    Administrator has said that there are thousands of studies that
    have happened on this but none that can be trusted. Maybe you
    could name us two or three other studies that have been trusted
    that would be accepted by the EPA Administrator on this.
        Dr. Craft. Yes, I guess I'm not sure what you mean by
    trusted. I mean the EPA looked at all of the available studies.
    So, for example, Jarrett et al. 2009----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, so you're saying--say this again
    now. You're giving us a specific now because I'm going to want
    Dr. Honeycutt's response to this. So there was a--what study
    you're talking about now specifically?
        Dr. Craft. Well, I guess it--is the question what are some
    of the studies the EPA examined as part of their Integrated
    Science Assessment?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No. Which ones were accepted by the EPA
    Administrator as being specific to this decision? We are being
    told by Mr. Honeycutt that you--that there's only one study and
    that we're naming it now that specifically justified these EPA
    rules. You're telling us that--and that the EPA used as an
    example of this is why we are putting this new rule out. And
    you're saying that there are thousands of other studies. Could
    you name us several that the EPA has cited as reasons for their
    decision?
        Dr. Craft. I guess the question is about EPA relying on
    only one study, and I guess my opinion is that that is a
    mischaracterization, and I'm not sure where that is
    characterized in the----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, maybe you could tell us the name of
    three or four studies that--you're saying there are thousands
    of them--that the EPA has used to justify this change.
        Dr. Craft. Well, they've looked at----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I'm not saying----
        Dr. Craft. --a lot of studies.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No, no, what have they said this is what
    justifies our change, not that there is an amorphous over here.
    We've looked at thousands of things for and against. As far as
    we know, the thousands--for all we know, maybe half of them,
    they believe, were against what they have decided on. What two
    or three studies--this guy is saying we've--there's only one.
    You're saying there are thousands. Give us two or three studies
    that the EPA has used to back up this change in regulation.
        Dr. Craft. The Jarrett et al. 2009 study, the Kim et al.
    2011 study. There is----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Dr. Craft. --the Stevens study. I mean I can name----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Now, we have----
        Dr. Craft. --a lot of ozone studies.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. You've just named three, is that
    correct?
        Dr. Craft. Right.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Now, go for it, Mr. Honeycutt.
    What--why--you've said there's only one.
        Mr. Honeycutt. Actually, the Kim study did not find
    effects. Well, it found significant decrease in FEV1, a 1.8
    percent decrease at 60 parts per billion, but by nobody's
    definition is that an adverse effect, not the American Thoracic
    Association--Society's, not by EPA's, by nobody's.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So you're just saying that there has
    only been one study that shows----
        Mr. Honeycutt. The Schelegle study.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --an actual detrimental impact, but----
        Mr. Honeycutt. Well, it depends on your definition, okay?
    By EPA's definition it's not unless you pick out the six
    people. So----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Honeycutt. --the previous----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So is this----
        Mr. Honeycutt. The previous a standard was set based on
    epidemiology data. This one they switched it and based it on
    the clinical data.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Honeycutt. And CASAC spent a whole day talking about
    this one study and where they should--how--the phraseology they
    should use----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Honeycutt. --in----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I want to get to the one that was just
    given as an example, and you say that one did not----
        Mr. Honeycutt. Jarrett 2009.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And that is not--and that did not
    justify----
        Mr. Honeycutt. That is the only long-term study out of 12
    that found effects--associations with ozone.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, but we just had--what was the--I'm
    sorry. I'm new to this. I'm a novice on these specific studies
    now.
        Mr. Honeycutt. I actually have the studies right here. I
    can share them with you.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, so you have--Dr. Craft, you have--the
    specific study, you just mentioned three studies, is that
    correct, to us?
        Dr. Craft. Yes, I mentioned three. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And you're saying those three do not
    indicate that--and have not been--meet the EPA's justification
    for the standard change----
        Mr. Honeycutt. Well, there's different things, okay?
    There's the--the single study was used to say 72 is the
    number----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
        Mr. Honeycutt. --okay? And then they said, well, all these
    other thousands of studies support that.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Honeycutt. Okay? But there was one study that the EPA
    says, okay, this is the reason we're going to set it at 72. And
    CASAC spent a whole day talking about that one study. I watched
    it.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. But the other studies do indicate that
    with the----
        Mr. Honeycutt. The Kim study doesn't.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Does not. You're saying that this study
    does or you're saying----
        Mr. Honeycutt. And actually, the Jarrett study does not
    either.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Please go right ahead.
        Dr. Craft. Well----
        Chairman Smith. The----
        Dr. Craft. --I guess I just wanted to mention that these
    studies were done in perfectly healthy individuals. So the fact
    is is that the Clean Air Act requires that you set a standard
    that's requisite with an adequate margin of safety. And so that
    is one of the issues. So maybe a 1.8 percent decremented lung
    function in a perfectly healthy person is not considered an
    adverse health effect, but if someone has asthma or COPD, then
    in fact it is so----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. But that's your opinion and not the EPA's?
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
    you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms.
    Bonamici, is recognized.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to start by aligning myself with Mr. Beyer's
    comments. I think we can all agree that our constituents, our
    children, our families expect and deserve to live in an
    environment where the air they breathe and the water they drink
    is healthy. So start with that premise.
        Also, I want to talk a little bit about how there's been a
    conversation about the cost and technological challenges
    associated with implementing the new ozone standard. And we've
    had this conversation many times in the Committee, that
    oftentimes the regulation drives innovation and technology.
    We're a very innovative country and certainly when there's a
    requirement, our companies step up and develop new
    technologies. I have confidence in that.
        I want to talk, Dr. Craft--we had this conversation in your
    testimony and my statement about how the Clean Air Act does not
    permit the EPA to consider the costs or the attainability of
    technological feasibility. They determine the standard based on
    public health concerns. So I want you to comment on why that's
    important, but then I also want you to expand a bit, please, on
    your comments in your testimony about the prevention of
    premature death, asthma attacks, and more. Can you talk about
    the costs saved under the lower standard, costs like healthcare
    costs and lost productivity?
        Dr. Craft. Thank you. You know, Congress intentionally set
    the Clean Air Act to specifically not consider cost, and I
    think the reason that they did that is because they wanted the
    integrity of the science to be maintained. The science is a
    separate and distinct issue from costs or implementation. The
    primary goal of the standard is that it will protect the health
    of the population with an adequate margin of safety. I think in
    past history cost estimates have been overblown and
    overestimated. If you were to let costs be considered as you
    evaluate the science, you may come to different conclusions,
    conclusions that would be unduly influenced by cost estimates.
    I think that's why Congress is so explicit on this point.
        And just as a note on the devastation to the economy, I'd
    like to read a section from a report from the Texas Commission
    on Environmental Quality. In 2009, the Houston region reached
    attainment with a 1997 ozone NAAQS. According to an economic
    analysis completed by the TCEQ, the Houston area exhibited the
    highest economic activity of any three-year period on record
    during the 2007 through 2009 time period. The analysis further
    describes that over the last two decades, ozone concentrations
    and economic growth have rarely been correlated in the Houston
    area and that many of the years that saw a robust economic
    growth coincided with declines in the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone
    design values.
        According to TCEQ's analysis, ``reducing ozone
    concentrations in the presence of continuing economic growth
    through the development of State Implementation Plans and
    implementing control strategies for emission reduction is
    possible. Expansion of emitting activities during phases of
    economic growth certainly makes the task of attaining clean air
    standards more challenging, but it should not prevent and has
    not prevented the HGB area, among many others, from making
    substantial progress in improving air quality.''
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Doctor. I want to get one more
    question in. My time is about to expire.
        I would like you to comment, please, on the issue that I
    mentioned about--like in my home State of Oregon, they have a
    concern about the background and the long-range transport of
    ozone or precursors. So I know that the act allows for these
    exceptional event exceptions when there's something like a
    wildfire or transport of air pollution from overseas, so can
    you please talk about what recommendations you might have for
    the EPA as they begin revising the Exceptional Events Rule?
        Dr. Craft. Sure. First of all, instances of elevated
    background ozone in Western States are actually infrequent and
    have been shown to rarely contribute to exceedances in the
    NAAQS. Even where background ozone levels can reach a
    considerable fraction of seasonal mean ozone levels,
    anthropogenic emission sources are the dominant contributor to
    the most modeled ozone exceedances of the proposed NAAQS. And
    the days when ozone levels are elevated do not have higher
    levels of background ozone.
        And then just recently, Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant
    Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, issued some
    guidance. ``Under the Clean Air Act, States are not responsible
    for reducing emissions from background sources. We intend to
    work directly with responsible air management agencies in these
    areas to ensure that all Clean Air Act provisions that would
    provide regulatory relief associated with background ozone are
    recognized.'' And they are currently developing those revisions
    to the Exceptional Events Rule, and I think the process there
    is that they want to streamline the procedures that the state
    environmental agencies have to go through to have approval of
    the exceptional events.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Craft.
        My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. [Presiding] I thank the gentlewoman
    for yielding back.
        The Chairman has stepped out and I'm pleased to sit in, and
    I've got a few questions now if I might. And I'm going to start
    by submitting two items for the record. The first is a map that
    shows the nonattainment areas in Ohio, areas that would violate
    the 70 parts-per-billion standard.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. And the second item is a letter by
    Ohio's Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor to EPA Administrator
    McCarthy, and this letter is from March 2015 in which the
    Lieutenant Governor expresses serious concerns with the
    proposed rule to change the National Ambient Air Quality
    Standard for ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to a
    standard in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, and asks
    that the EPA Administrator reconsider these burdensome
    regulations. And as we all know, the EPA has moved forward with
    their proposal to lower the standard to 70 parts per billion.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So, Mr. Holmstead and Mr. Sadredin,
    how do these stringent ozone standards and regulations
    discourage economic development? Mr. Holmstead, you can go
    first.
        The Hon. Holmstead. Well, as I've tried to say, I think the
    biggest issue in the near term is that it just stops people
    from building new industrial facilities. And I think what's
    especially pernicious about this standard is that it will bring
    all these rural areas into nonattainment. And the way the act
    works--and this is one of the things I just don't think makes
    any sense--is if you want to build a plant in this rural area
    where there's no other pollution sources, you can't do it
    because the only way you can build that plant is if you pay
    someone else in that area to reduce their emissions. And so you
    have these communities that would like to have state-of-the-
    art, best-controlled plants in their communities to provide
    jobs and economic opportunity, but you can't do it because the
    Clean Air Act prevents it because of this new standard.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Mr. Sadredin?
        Mr. Sadredin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Every time you establish a
    standard, it essentially establishes a tolerance limit for your
    region for pollution above which you simply will be in
    violation of the standard and the Clean Air Act regulations,
    which then kicks in very expensive sanctions.
        In our region in San Joaquin Valley in California, the
    background ozone concentration is about 50 to 60 parts per
    billion, and that is not, you know, on days when--Dr. Elena
    mentioned that, you know, you should not be worried about
    attainment because those are not the days you violate the
    standard. We're talking about ground-level ozone concentrations
    on the days when our region exceeds the standard. Just simply
    the background ozone concentration is about 50 to 60. So when
    you have that and then you look at the standard of 70 parts per
    billion, you only have that 10 parts-per-billion margin that
    can be tolerated by manmade local air pollution, which means
    essentially in your area you have no tolerance for growth. You
    cannot let new businesses come in. In addition, you have to go
    after existing businesses to reduce air pollution.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. If that's the case where you've got
    that 10 parts-per-billion margin, if that's going to stymie
    growth, is it accurate to say then, is a safe to say that those
    areas that are in nonattainment, there is no growth? I mean
    they are squelched in terms of being able to grow economically?
        Mr. Sadredin. Right. As it's written right now, it requires
    that even if you're in attainment right now, let's say with the
    existing standard, before you can permit a new facility, you
    have to make a finding--scientific finding that the new permit,
    new facility will not cause a violation or contribute to
    violating a new standard. In this case, you know, with that 10
    parts-per-billion margin of error, that's a very tight standard
    that is quite difficult to meet, and then you need offsets. As
    Mr. Holmstead mentioned, you don't have credits to be able to
    bring in facilities, and so it makes it very costly.
        In California we are essentially in the position that
    businesses do not locate in California unless they have to.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. You know, One of the things that
    has really spurred America's economic energy boom here over the
    last few years has been the shale play in eastern and
    southeastern Ohio. Do you think these more stringent ozone
    standards undermine the benefits that we've seen in the energy
    revolution, the energy boom with oil and gas?
        Mr. Sadredin. Well, for our region and California in
    particular, even southern California, to be able to meet the
    new standard, we have to ban fossil fuel combustion emissions.
    That has to happen either through totally eliminating fossil
    fuel combustion--and I'm not only talking about mobile
    sources--cars and trucks--we're talking about industrial
    facilities no longer being able to use natural gas, any kind of
    fuel in their----
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. In an area like eastern and
    southeastern Ohio where we still get over 60 percent of our
    energy from coal, that's a heavy lift for us.
        My time has expired. I'd like to now go to our colleague,
    our gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
        Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    the panelists for being here today.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a letter supporting the lower ozone
    standard from locally elected officials from across the
    country, including Mayor Rob Dolan from my hometown of Melrose.
    And in that letter they state ``the current George W. Bush-era
    standard of 75 parts per billion has been widely acknowledged
    by the medical community as insufficient to protect public
    health. As mayors, we are on the front lines of protecting the
    safety and well-being of our constituents, and this long-
    overdue update will reap tremendous benefits for our
    communities.''
        I ask that this letter be submitted for the record.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Ms. Clark. And I would also like to refer to another letter
    that I will ask also be submitted for the record, and this is a
    letter I would like to ask Dr. Craft about. It's dated April 7,
    2008, and this is under the Bush Administration. This is from
    the members of CASAC, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
    Committee. And in this letter 18 members of that committee,
    those scientists, unanimously wrote that they recommend
    decreasing the primary standard within the range of 60 to 70
    parts per million--I'm sorry, per billion. ``It is the
    committee's consensus scientific opinion that the decision to
    set the primary ozone standard above this range fails to
    satisfy the explicit stipulations of the Clean Air Act that you
    ensure an adequate margin of safety for all individuals,
    including sensitive populations.''
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Ms. Clark. Dr. Craft, could you comment on the difference
    between what we're hearing today, that this is based on
    something new and perhaps one study in this letter of April
    7th, 2008, where we had 18 members unanimously recommending an
    even lower standard than the one we're looking at implementing?
        Dr. Craft. Yes, thank you. There is strong scientific
    consensus that the ozone standard must be significantly
    strengthened. Since the last review, scientific evidence has
    only grown on the many health risks associated with ozone. It's
    documented in EPA's Integrated Science Assessment. The
    assessment is a result of a rigorous multiyear expert review
    process with several public hearings and comment, and it
    concluded that ozone harms lung health, including causing
    asthma attacks and increasing the risk of hospital and
    emergency room visits.
        It also concluded that ozone likely caused premature deaths
    and identified new threats, providing strong evidence linking
    ozone to cardiovascular harm and low birth weight in newborns.
        There have been multiple doctors that have testified in
    some of these hearings. I'd like to just point out some that
    were given by Dr. Greg Wellenius. He presented to the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee in December. In his
    testimony he noted the physiologic mechanisms occurring with
    ozone exposure: activation of neural reflexes, initiation of
    inflammation, sensitization of bronchial smooth muscle, changes
    in immunity, and airway remodeling as some of the underlying
    physiological mechanisms associated with ozone concentrations
    below the current standard that contribute to those increased
    hospital visits, those increased asthma attacks, and those days
    of missed work and missed school.
        Ms. Clark. Dr. Craft, in the letter from the mayors from
    across the country, they estimate that taxpayers would save as
    much as 75.9 billion through lower healthcare costs. Is this in
    line with the numbers that you've seen?
        Dr. Craft. Yes, it is, and I'd like to point out that six
    of the top 10 fastest-growing cities in the country are in
    Texas and California, so the idea that, you know, we're
    trampling economic growth because of an onerous ozone standard
    is not held up in the economic development that's been
    reported.
        Ms. Clark. And going back for a second to the April 2008
    letter, it's my understanding that this was based--this
    unanimous recommendation of 60 to 70 parts per billion was
    based on almost 1,300 scientific studies at that time in 2008.
    Is that correct?
        Dr. Craft. Yes, that's correct.
        Ms. Clark. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
    back. I now go to--I recognize our colleague Mr. Bridenstine
    from Oklahoma.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So it's really difficult if not impossible to prove a
    counterfactual, which means if the economy in Texas is growing,
    there's a whole host of reasons that could be, and more
    regulations does not grow the economy in Texas, same in
    California.
        In fact, I'd like to address the issue specifically that
    we've been talking about. I grew up in Arlington, Texas. I
    represent the 1st District of Oklahoma now. I went to college
    at Rice University down in Houston, Texas. And I'd like to
    address my question to Dr. Honeycutt.
        In your testimony, you wrote ``astonishingly''--and every
    time I read testimony and the word astonishingly shows up, what
    comes next is critically important. ``Astonishingly, EPA's
    analysis''--that's the EPA's own analysis--``shows mortality
    increasing in certain cities, including Detroit and Houston,
    when decreasing the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to
    70 parts per billion.'' That is astonishing. Did that get taken
    into account? What they're suggesting is that it's worth maybe
    increasing mortality for these regulations? Can you address
    this for us?
        Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. That's called the NOx disbenefit. And
    if you look nationwide, there would be a net--according to EPA,
    a net decrease in mortality, but if you look at a couple--some
    specific cities, they looked at 12 in particular, those two
    cities, lowering the standard would actually increase
    mortality. And it's because NOx both creates and destroys
    ozone. So what you're going to be doing is increasing ozone
    concentrations in the inner cities while decreasing it in the
    suburbs.
        Mr. Bridenstine. That is good information that we on the
    Committee need to hear.
        Question for Mr. Sadredin. Maybe you could say that for us.
    Sorry.
        Mr. Sadredin. Sadredin.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Sadredin, thank you. How many different
    State Implementation Plans does the San Joaquin Valley have in
    effect today?
        Mr. Sadredin. As we speak today, we have six different
    State Implementation Plans for ozone and particulate matter,
    all with multiple milestones, redundant, duplicative timelines
    that we have to comply with. And as we speak today, we're in
    the process of writing another plan for the standard that was
    just replaced, and in the next three years we have to write
    four additional State Implementation Plans for a total of 10
    State Implementation Plans just for ozone and particulate
    matter.
        Mr. Bridenstine. And how difficult is it for your agency to
    keep up with these SIPs?
        Mr. Sadredin. Yes, you know, that's the least of the
    problems, you know, the government inefficiency that this
    brings about, the staff work. The bigger concern that we have
    with this is the confusion that this brings to the public, to
    the business community that is subject to these redundant,
    duplicative regulations, and a tremendous number of lawsuits
    that each of these same deadlines, same targets that are
    established in, you know, 10 different vehicles create
    opportunities for attorneys. Of course, that's good job
    security for them, but good government it is not. Good public
    education it is not.
        And it is something that could easily be fixed in our
    opinion. One of the suggestions that we are making in this 2015
    Clean Air Act modernization that we're proposing is that, when
    EPA establishes a new standard, for them to subsume the old
    standards into the new one, pick the most stringent
    requirements from the previous standards, give us a single set
    of timelines and deadlines to meet, to be able to educate the
    public, and also make sure we can enforce them effectively in a
    rapid fashion.
        Mr. Bridenstine. And I would just like to conclude by
    saying that we've heard folks suggest that, you know, certain
    local officials are in favor of more stringent National Ambient
    Air Quality Standards for ozone, certain local officials are
    opposed to it. I can tell you for my State of Oklahoma, local
    officials are very opposed to it.
        I hope everybody understands that if the State of Oregon or
    the State of California, if other states want to have more
    stringent plans, that's not going to bother my constituents in
    the State of Oklahoma. They can go ahead and do those things
    without having to do it in Oklahoma. And so I just want
    everybody to understand, when states become implementers of
    federal policy and then they end up getting bullied by the
    federal government, if you do this, then X, Y, or Z will
    happen, that's not the role of the federal government to say
    that we're going to cut off your highway transportation funding
    if you don't comply with this new standard. This is federal
    bullying. It needs to stop. And if Oregon or another state
    wants to implement more stringent standards, I'm okay with
    that.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding
    back.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
    Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'm pleased that we have a witness from California on
    today's panel, as our State has unique challenges when it comes
    to addressing air pollution.
        However, I think the changes to the Clean Air Act suggested
    by Mr. Sadredin's testimony would have the effect of delaying
    future efforts by EPA to protect health and the environment,
    and that's a position that's not supported by most
    Californians.
        In fact, I have a letter from the Coalition for Clean Air
    based in California that says, ``what will not help
    Californians to breathe easier is the proposal from the San
    Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to weaken the
    Clean Air Act.''
        And I also have a letter from the Central Valley Air
    Quality Coalition which says, ``we learn more every day of the
    impacts of air pollution on our health, and our valley has
    become numb to the information because Mr. Sadredin and the
    Valley Air Board disregarded, blame external factors, and have
    failed to find a balance between supporting business and
    protecting public health.''
        And lastly, I have an op-ed by two current members of the
    San Joaquin Valley Air District Board, Dr. Alexander Sherriffs
    and Dr. John Capitman, who write ``we cannot support a policy
    direction which threatens to extend the time valley residents
    are breathing unhealthful air. The district needs to focus on
    policy and advocacy to increase the tools and resources to meet
    more healthful air standards, not on how to delay attainment.''
        And I'd like a unanimous consent to put these three
    documents in the record, Mr. Chairman. May I have unanimous
    consent, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
        You know, the Central Valley is--I chair the California
    Democratic Delegation, and we have a diverse State, and the
    Central Valley is a key and important element of our State.
    It's much valued.
        It suffers from pollution that comes from the bay area
    where I live. It blows in on I-5 from--even from Asia but also
    created in the valley itself, including significant volatile
    organic compound emissions from dairies and also oil and gas
    operations. And those things have created a problem in the
    valley. We have the highest asthma rate among children of any
    place in the United States right in our Central Valley, and
    it's a huge problem.
        Now, we can change the impact by technology. I come from
    Silicon Valley, and we know that if you have a problem, you
    don't have to suffer. You can set standards and meet those
    standards. And you can--for example, farmers have switched from
    diesel pumps to electric pumps. They've purchased cleaner-
    burning tractors thanks to incentive programs. We have--along
    I-5 we're switching. We now have a very aggressive standard in
    the State for switching to alternative energy we're going to
    meet.
        You know, we have 1,000 premature deaths every year in the
    valley because of air pollution, and among all air pollutants
    contributing to cancer, diesel emissions is number one. So I
    think we have a great opportunity to promote even cleaner
    technologies and to create a cleaner environment for the people
    of the Central Valley and most especially for the children.
        So here is my question for you, Dr. Craft. The--with so
    many children with asthma out in the Central Valley, what is
    the adverse physiological effects on kids with asthma from
    ozone pollution, and how can increased exposure to ozone impact
    the health of children? It costs--the lost time because of
    health impacts out in the Central Valley is costing the valley
    $1 billion a year. I realize you're looking at just the health
    impacts, not the economy, but we are losing money in the valley
    because of these adverse health impacts. What can you talk to
    us about with these children and others with asthma?
        Dr. Craft. Well, I'd like to say that children are
    especially vulnerable to the harms of air pollution,
    particularly those kids with asthma, and so it leads to
    increases in emergency room visits, missed school days, missed
    workdays for parents. And it can also lead to permanent long-
    term damage. Actually, the Gauderman study didn't--looked and
    saw that air pollution in general showed that if air pollution
    is reduced, it leads to better lung health later in life.
    It's--I think there is a lot of evidence supporting the fact
    that cleaner air is good for lungs of all ages, but especially
    for our most vulnerable, our kids.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. I'd just like to note that I think
    some of the objections from these outside groups that are
    running ads reminds me of the tobacco companies fighting
    control of tobacco, which caused lung cancer. And, you know,
    there's a lot of comments made about how regulation and control
    harm the economy. I'd just like to point out that California,
    that is embracing the green, looking for health, beat Texas in
    job growth by 30 percent----
        Mr. Johnson. [Presiding] Well, very good.
        Ms. Lofgren. --with our approach and----
        Mr. Johnson. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Ms. Lofgren. --I would yield back.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Sadredin and Dr. Honeycutt,
    your names were mentioned there for the last few minutes. Would
    either one of you care to respond to that?
        Mr. Sadredin. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, just very
    quickly. I appreciate the good advice from the Congresswoman,
    and we always look to the bay area, our neighbor, to do their
    part to help us with the pollution that they sent our way.
        But make no mistake, although San Joaquin Valley is a
    conservative region in California, today, we have put in place
    the most stringent regulations that you can imagine to the
    point that Los Angeles now looks up to us in terms of what
    could be done. And by no means we're asking for delays in
    getting there, but I urge you to take a look at the chart that
    I gave the Committee in my testimony on page 5 that talks about
    how much reductions we have to make.
        If you look at that chart, it breaks down emissions by
    various source categories of air pollution. The top part where
    it says the stationary and area sources, that's all the valley
    businesses, oil production, farming operation. As you can see,
    even if we eliminated all of those sources, just simply said
    move out of the valley, we'll come nowhere to meeting the
    standard. The bottom--the two lines that you see on the bottom
    are where we need to go to meet those standards.
        So I know industry cries wolf many times, and as a
    regulator, I've seen that over the years. But once in a while
    that boy is right, that the wolf might be coming, and I think
    this is one of those cases. If you look at the numbers that I
    have here for you, we have to essentially eliminate all
    pollution sources in San Joaquin Valley to meet that.
        And just one final comment regarding the health impact and
    the cost, and a lot of times people misrepresent these numbers
    by saying there's a healthcare cost that you're going to avoid
    for ozone. It's very minimal and a big part--90 percent plus
    portion of this cost is the life insurance value that they put
    on a premature death, which is questionable but it's not a real
    contribution in a lot of the economy that we are referring to.
        Mr. Johnson. Sure. Dr. Honeycutt, would you like to
    respond?
        Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. The Gauderman study that Dr. Craft
    just mentioned specifically said that ozone does not affect
    lung development. And I have it here if you want to read it.
    And the follow-up that they just released found the same thing,
    that ozone does not affect lung development. And I have both of
    those. I'd be happy to read you the conclusions if you'd like.
        And also, as far as asthmatics, the data is very clear.
    Asthmatics are no more sensitive to ozone than non-asthmatics
    are. And again, I have those studies here. I'd be happy to
    share them with you.
        Mr. Weber. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Georgia. Barry, you're up.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I also noticed that every time Mr.--is it Sadredin--
    speaks, the alarm goes off like it's highlighting we better
    listen to what he's saying. It's some type of----
        Mr. Weber. Ozone levels must really be high when he speaks.
        Mr. Loudermilk. I appreciate the testimony here. This is a
    very important issue because of the impact that it's going to
    have. And I've always been one that it takes--in business and
    in everything else, you can only do so much and then you have
    diminishing returns because you've gone too far.
        Mr. Holmstead, does the Clean Air Act allow for special
    treatment for places where air quality may be affected by
    emissions from other countries such as Mexico or China or even
    in other areas of a state or region? My understanding from the
    testimony I've heard and what I've read is that we're not
    giving an account for pollution that may be created in another
    area and move into an area that would cause the receiving area
    to be in non-attainment. Is there an exemption? Is there
    allowance for those?
        The Hon. Holmstead. I'm sorry to have to say it's
    complicated.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        The Hon. Holmstead. In theory, some of those things can be
    excused. In practice, EPA has never really allowed that. And
    one of the things you're hearing about is this exceptional
    events policy. It's been almost impossible for anyone--I mean
    it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars and years to try to
    get EPA to excuse one exceptional event.
        The other thing I would point out, though, is the Clean Air
    Act itself--and that's why--you know, we're talking about these
    levels. What we really should be talking about is the
    implications of the standard. Everybody agrees that we ought to
    be improving air pollution, but the way the standard setting
    works with all the other regulations just doesn't make any
    sense anymore.
        And right now, the Clean Air Act specifically says that
    certain weather events, the things that cause high episodes of
    ozone, cannot be excused. It says meteorological inversions and
    stagnant air. Those are events that are completely outside the
    control of any State, and yet you're held accountable for those
    things. And under the Clean Air Act, that's just one other
    thing that just ought to be changed.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Well, it's interesting you bring that up
    because I'm looking at a map here which, Mr. Chairman, I'd like
    to submit for the record, which is the impact area on the State
    of Georgia that the new standards would have as far as the
    areas that would be out of attainment at this point.
        And I also have a letter from our governor of our state,
    Hon. Nathan Deal, who also served in this body at one time, who
    says that in these areas, it would be impossible for us to
    reach attainment because of the way the standards are written,
    and I also point out that the area that is highlighted here
    that would be in nonattainment is not only the economic center
    of the State of Georgia but the entire Southeast.
        So what is the cost that we could see in an area that is so
    important--you're talking about one of the largest airports in
    the nation. Atlanta Hartsfield Airport is in this area; one of
    the largest power plants in the Southeast is in this area. What
    type of economic impact or hidden cost would we expect to see
    with the implementation of this standard? Mr. Holmstead?
        The Hon. Holmstead. The only thing we know is--for sure is
    that the cost of everything will go up, right, because energy
    is embedded in everything we do. So you're going to be paying
    more for lots of different things.
        The thing that's really hard to judge--and people have said
    it's certainly true that we've had economic growth even with
    tighter standards, but that doesn't mean that this next
    increment isn't going to be enormously expensive. So maybe you
    can continue to have economic growth there, but it will be much
    less than it would otherwise be in part because you're making
    it very difficult for businesses to expand in that area. They
    just have nowhere to go.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Dr. Honeycutt, let me read a portion of
    this letter and maybe you can respond to the same question. Our
    Governor says, ``these rules are in addition to the fuel
    economy standards and the Tier 3 tailpipe emission standards
    for cars and trucks implemented by the federal level, which
    increases costs for businesses and consumers in my State and
    others.'' This is after he's gone through a litany of other EPA
    regulations that have affected our area. ``All of these
    regulations have required substantial investment on the part of
    Georgia companies and consumers and constitute a moving target
    for Georgia companies.'' The moving target is one of those
    areas that I hear a lot about with federal regulations, that
    they are unattainable. Could you and Mr. Sadredin comment on
    that?
        Mr. Honeycutt. Yes, sir. He's absolutely right. EPA needs
    to provide the States guidance as soon as they put a rule out,
    not years later as they have in the past, because their
    deadlines are flexible, ours are not.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Mr. Sadredin?
        Mr. Sadredin. You know, it was mentioned earlier that
    Congress was very clear about not including economic costs in
    certain standards. The fact of the matter is if you actually
    read the Supreme Court case, it said Congress failed to give
    any guidance on that. Therefore, absent guidance from Congress,
    judges, bureaucrats such as myself, and my colleagues at EPA
    have become policymakers and they have come up with a scenario
    where they say don't worry about the cost-effectiveness or
    economic feasibility when we set this standard. During the
    implementation, we'll take care of that. And unfortunately, the
    Clean Air Act, as written right now, does not give them the
    flexibility and the latitude that they need with those very
    fixed timelines, deadlines that you have to come into
    attainment to actually be able to do what they claim the Clean
    Air Act allows them to do to incorporate the economic
    feasibility during the implementation phase.
        Mr. Loudermilk. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I move to have both of these documents
    submitted to the official record.
        Mr. Weber. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Loudermilk. And I yield back.
        Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
        Now, the gentleman from Colorado has five minutes to see if
    he can make Mr. Sadredin make the alarms go off.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just a couple things I'd like to introduce into the record
    if I could. First is an article published in the Durango Herald
    supporting the decrease from 75 parts to 70 parts dated October
    5, 2015. If I could introduce that into the record, sir?
        Mr. Weber. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Perlmutter. The second thing is a little more
    cumbersome. That's just 1-1/2 pages. This is 1,251 pages, which
    is the compilation, Dr. Honeycutt, of all the studies, some
    2,300 undertaken to--and reviewed by the EPA in preparation for
    the reduction in the use of ozone numbers. And so I'd like to
    introduce the 1,251 pages, which compiles the 2,300 studies for
    the record.
        Mr. Weber. I will allow that if you'll start reading them.
    Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Perlmutter. Well, I will--okay. So Martin, R.V.; Fiore,
    A.M.; Van Donkelaar, space diagnosed--diagnosis of surface
    ozone sensitivity to anthropogenic emissions.
        Mr. Weber. They will be admitted, Mr. Perlmutter.
        Mr. Perlmutter. All right. I guess--and then I'm going to
    yield to Mr. Beyer.
        And I just say to the folks on the panel, you know, in the
    Denver area we've had ozone issues for years and years and
    years, and our State prides itself on being very outdoorsy, you
    know, wanting to get outside, take advantage of, you know, the
    beautiful climate that we have. But our air is always something
    that has been difficult and because we do have some of the
    things that you mentioned in your testimony. You know, we're in
    a pocket where the weather, you know, creates inversions and
    things like that.
        But each year and each time industry complains that this is
    going to be unattainable, we can't do it, but then over a
    course of time, they do. And it's improved the health of
    Coloradans. And we've got to continue to improve that. Our
    State has continued to grow, and we have a substantial oil and
    gas industry. And so as hard as these things are, the economy
    of Colorado has flourished because people want to come there
    for a great environment. And part of that is cleaning up our
    air as best we can from time to time.
        And so I appreciate the testimony of everybody. I
    understand this is hard and it can be expensive, but the
    rewards are substantial as well, and that's not been so clear
    today. But in Colorado we've experienced that success and we've
    experienced that growth, and the health of the population has
    been improved, I think, over the years, you know, from growing
    up as a kid and having the brown cloud. It's improved a lot.
        And I yield to my friend from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, my good friend, distinguished
    colleague from Colorado.
        I was confused by Dr. Honeycutt's comment on Houston and
    Detroit. The excellent Democratic staff at the Science
    Committee dug out a Texas Tribune article that says that
    ``paradoxically, lowering levels of nitrogen oxygen--nitrogen
    oxide (a pollutant that contributes to forming ozone) can
    temporarily increase ozone levels because NOx also helps
    dissipate fully formed ozone. That's why EPA predicts a slight
    increase in premature deaths if ozone standards are lowered.''
        But, Dr. Craft, can you please elaborate on this
    phenomenon? Is this a reason to not implement these new lower
    standards?
        Dr. Craft. No, it's not. It's actually a simulation that's
    done, and that simulation was done looking specifically at NOx
    reductions. It did not include reducing some of the other
    precursors that form ozone, including VOCs. And so when a
    region has to put together a plan to reduce ozone, what they do
    is they identify an optimized plan to reduce both NOx and VOCs.
    And so the idea of NOx scavenging can be addressed through the
    way that you implement the new standard.
        Mr. Beyer. That's great. And one more quick thought. There
    are 25 seconds. They talk about how, gosh, even the national
    parks can't get to these ozone standards because of background
    ozone levels. How high are background ozone levels? Is Dr.
    McCabe's comment that the EPA will work around that? And does
    the ozone in the parks come from the parks or as it blown in
    from somewhere else?
        Dr. Craft. Well, there aren't a lot of power plants or a
    ton of mobile sources in the national parks. Most of that is
    actually coming from sources that are downwind of those
    national parks. And so addressing those sources will help the
    areas where we have national parks that are having an
    occasional exceedance back into attainment.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Weber. Dr. Honeycutt, you've been mentioned a couple of
    times now. In the 1,200 page study that Congressman Perlmutter
    refused to read and here with the article in the Texas Tribune,
    would you like to take time to respond?
        Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. Thank you. Yes, I've actually read the
    human health portions of that document. I didn't read the
    atmospheric chemistry portions or the welfare portions, but I
    did read the human health portions.
        Yes, as far as the NOx disbenefit, it--if you believe that
    ozone causes premature mortality, which EPA does, then you have
    to accept the disbenefit along with the benefit, because if you
    believe ozone causes premature mortality, then you will see it
    if you lower NOx in--around highways. So there's no getting
    around it. There's no doubling down to hurry up and get the
    emissions because you'll just hasten the deaths then.
        So--and as far as asthma again, the question is not does
    ozone exacerbate asthma? The question is, will lowering the
    standard from 75 down to 70 or even 60 reduce the number of
    asthma exacerbations? And according to EPA, the answer is no.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Thank you.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois,
    Mr. LaHood.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
    panelists here today.
        I guess in looking at my home State of Illinois and looking
    at the impact that this proposed rule would have on jobs and
    economic growth, I have real concerns about that. And I want to
    cite a recent analysis and study done by NERA Economic
    Consulting that is titled ``What Could New Ozone Regulations
    Cost Illinois?'' And this is dated August of 2015. In looking
    at the proposed rule and the effect it would have on Illinois
    specifically, $47 billion in gross state product loss between
    2017 and 2040, 35,000 lost jobs or job equivalents per year,
    $12 billion in total compliance costs, $650 drop in average
    household consumption per year, $1 billion more for residents
    to own/operate their vehicles statewide in this period. And I
    will submit this for the record.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. LaHood. And I guess looking at that and a number of
    other studies that look at what this would do, what causes
    concern for me as I look at companies, particularly in my
    district in central and west central Illinois, Caterpillar is
    based in my district, a Fortune 40 company, very benevolent,
    generous company, but also has been very proactive in the
    environmental movement and what they've done at their
    companies, a company like John Deere, ADM that's in my
    district. And I look at how they are trying to compete
    worldwide in the marketplace, and they are trying to obviously
    create jobs and opportunities, and when I look at this proposed
    rule, what that would do locally to those companies.
        And I guess I couple that with when you look at the
    statistics, air quality in American cities is the best that
    it's been in a century. Ozone pollution has declined 33 percent
    since 1980, nine percent since 2008. And so when I look at
    those companies and what they're trying to do proactively and
    then they have to look at this coming down on top of them, I
    guess, Mr. Holmstead, in looking at that, competing in the
    world marketplace and whether you're going to create jobs in
    Illinois or you're going to go to India or China or someplace
    else, can you talk about that a little bit?
        The Hon. Holmstead. There's one observation I like to make.
    Certainly, you know, California has done very well economically
    over the last number of years. There was a time when we used to
    manufacture things in California. We don't do that anymore;
    it's just too expensive because heavy manufacturing requires
    energy. And so that's been to the benefit of other States.
        We're getting to the point now where if we turn the rest of
    the country into California, we will have no choice but to
    export those jobs. And it's not because companies are bad
    citizens, but if they compete economically with everybody else
    on the globe and all of a sudden you drive up their costs too
    much, the same thing that happened to southern California is
    going to happen to central Illinois.
        And I just think that we--we just need to be smart in how
    we continue to make environmental progress. That's my--we can
    continue to make progress but we can do it in a way that's much
    more reasonable, that is not going to disadvantage U.S.
    businesses and consumers.
        Mr. LaHood. And would it be fair to say, Mr. Holmstead,
    there's a direct correlation between what this rule is going to
    do and job loss or economic loss with companies like I
    mentioned and others?
        The Hon. Holmstead. There is no doubt that this will hurt
    the rate of economic growth. I think it's hard to know--and I
    have a great respect for NERA. I think that study looked at
    even a lower standard, and so that probably overstates the
    cost. But there's no doubt that it will impose additional costs
    on businesses. It will make it harder for them to grow and
    expand, and ultimately, you're going to drive people out of
    these areas and they're going to have no choice but to go
    somewhere else.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
        Dr. Honeycutt, I wanted to ask you, so in terms of the
    effect this will have on state and local resources, you know,
    when these EPA--if this rule is implemented, in terms of
    agencies catching up on implementing the current standard when
    they're already working on a standard now, can you talk a
    little bit about that?
        Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. It is substantial. It costs TCEQ--
    we've put money to the numbers--$1 million to do a SIP for a
    moderate area. And so that's just the SIP. That's not even
    looking at the exceptional events, the long-range transport and
    things. Those are hundreds of thousands of dollars. So--and
    that's tax money. So, yes, it's substantial.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'd like
    to submit this study I just referenced and also a letter from
    the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in Peoria,
    Illinois, asking for a delay in the attainment designation.
        Approved without objection, thank you.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Palmer. [Presiding] I will assume the Chair for the
    time being and begin my questions.
        And my first question is to Dr. Honeycutt. The EPA admits
    that much of the control technology to comply with these new
    standards does not yet exist. I think the latest estimate is
    only about 40 percent of the emission reductions can be
    attained with the current control technology. Can you give me
    some idea how Texas plans to comply with this if we're dealing
    with--basically with a black box?
        Mr. Honeycutt. I wish we knew. Most of these sources out
    there are vehicle emissions or non-road emissions, so we're
    going to do something with those and we're really not quite
    sure what yet. This is unchartered territory for not only Texas
    but for most of the country.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I think the answer is going to be that
    you will shut down whatever industry is producing these ozone
    emissions that prevent you from meeting these reduction
    standards. So if you don't have the control technology to
    install, and earlier in my career, I worked for Combustion
    Engineering in the Environmental Systems Division so I have a
    pretty good idea of what it costs to design, build, and install
    this equipment. You can't design, build, and install stuff that
    doesn't yet exist, so the only option is to shut down
    whatever's producing the emission. So would you concur with
    that?
        Mr. Honeycutt. I think at this point in time everything is
    on the table.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. In regard to these issues of air quality,
    and I pointed out in this hearing before that since 1980 our
    GDP has gone up 467 percent, vehicle miles have gone up 94
    percent, population has increased 38 percent, energy output has
    gone up 32 percent, yet emissions have gone down 50 percent.
    The air is demonstrably cleaner than it has ever been. Our
    economy is continuing to grow. I think when we talk about the
    balance between health and economic growth, one of the
    interesting things--and asthma has been mentioned several times
    here--is that there's peer-review studies out from the medical
    community, including UCLA, that indicate that even though air
    quality is dramatically improved, asthma rates have spiked. And
    particularly in California, the UCLA study, Mr. Sadredin, that
    the single biggest predictor is low income.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Sadredin. Mr. Chairman, people often mistake the impact
    of air pollution on asthma claiming that air pollution actually
    causes asthma. That is a scientifically--there's little
    evidence of that in science. We're talking about exacerbation,
    and if you look at cases of asthma in some of the more pristine
    areas on the coast in California, asthma rates are going up
    much--at a much higher rate compared to Los Angeles and Central
    Valley where our pollution is higher. So the relationship is
    not there but it's something that tugs at your heart when you
    talk about children with asthma, and that's a good bumper
    sticker sort of a justification for the enormity of the Clean
    Air Act that we're talking about.
        In San Joaquin Valley we have reduced pollution by over 80
    percent over the last 20 years. We've imposed the toughest
    regulations you can imagine on farming operations, agriculture,
    dairies. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues from, you know,
    urban areas, they think food just shows up on the grocery shelf
    somehow magically. They don't really understand all the work
    that has to go into producing it.
        We're at the point in our region with double-digit
    unemployment and low level of education with a large portion of
    our Hispanic population. It is very difficult to envision a
    scenario where we can meet those new standards without having
    to actually shut down businesses, as you mentioned. And that's
    the point I wanted to get into.
        Congressman Lofgren introduced a letter from Central Valley
    Air Quality Coalition earlier saying that everybody's okay in
    California with this. This same group had actually recommended
    to our agency that we have no-farm days, no-construction days,
    no-drive days. And we're not talking about a day or two here
    and there. We're talking about 100 days a year during summer
    having no commercial activity. They thought that's something
    that's reasonable.
        Mr. Palmer. Dr. Honeycutt, if you'd like to respond in the
    time that I have remaining, but I would like to--the NERA study
    was mentioned earlier. Those numbers have been adjusted to
    reflect the new standard that the EPA is requiring, and it is a
    devastating impact on the economy if you'd like to respond.
        Mr. Honeycutt. Sure, just real quickly. As far as asthma
    causation, Gina McCarthy testified in July of this year in
    front of this committee that ozone does not cause asthma, as
    did a minority witness earlier. However, EPA says that it is
    likely causal, that ozone likely does cause asthma, which is
    the same designation they give to premature mortality--total
    premature mortality and which the benefits are based on. So
    that's why there's some confusion in this because EPA says one
    thing and Gina McCarthy said another thing.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you. My time is expired.
        I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas,
    Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let's see. Dr. Craft, you work for an organization that's
    very concerned about protecting the environment, making sure we
    have clean air quality. And is--on the concept of diminishing
    returns, do you think we'll ever get to a point where we are
    trying to achieve something that the cost to achieve it is more
    than it's worth achieving, or should we just make improving air
    quality the ultimate goal at any cost?
        Dr. Craft. Well, Environmental Defense Fund uses market-
    based principles as a foundation for our work. So we've worked
    successfully with oil and gas industry, for example, to
    implement control technologies on equipment that saves money
    and also reduces the amount of pollution in the air.
        Getting to the question of diminishing returns, I don't
    think we're anywhere near where we need to be in terms of
    reducing the amount of pollution. The question of, you know,
    how could--how is Texas going to comply, well, you know, we
    have VOC emissions in Houston that, through studies funded by
    TCEQ, show that those emissions are underestimated by a factor
    of five to ten. So looking at reduction of upset events,
    looking at one million----
        Mr. Westerman. I need to--I'm from Arkansas. I'm not from
    Texas so I need to move on here.
        It says here in your testimony that to reduce harmful air
    pollution such as ozone from pollution hotspot areas--have you
    ever been to Arkansas?
        Dr. Craft. Yes, I have. We work closely with Walmart, and
    so we have an office in Bentonville. I've been there several
    times.
        Mr. Westerman. Okay. So I was there last week in my
    district, which happens to have about 18,000 square miles of
    forest. To put that in perspective, just the forests in my
    district are about 264 times larger than Washington DC. And I
    like to get out in my district in the forest and breathe the
    fresh air. Actually, I think the air quality is much better
    there than it is here, but if you look at the ozone monitors,
    it's really not that much different than the air quality here
    in Washington DC. And actually, if you look at some of the
    information from the EPA, it talks about trees creating a lot
    of ozone through their VOC emissions. So, you know, if--should
    we go cut down all the trees in my district so we can improve
    air quality?
        Dr. Craft. Well, actually, it's funny that you mention
    that. We are actually looking into trees as an intervention
    strategy for places like Houston. So there is evidence that
    some species of trees release VOCs, but not all species.
        Mr. Westerman. So maybe we should just plant plantations of
    monocrops in Houston to fix the air quality down there. I'm
    trained in forestry, so that would be kind of interesting if we
    started doing stuff like that.
        Moving along, Mr. Holmstead, are you familiar with EPA's
    claim that the proposed ozone standard will only impact nine
    counties?
        The Hon. Holmstead. Yes, that's just silly. They, first of
    all, assume all kinds of things and run their models and say,
    look, there's only going to be nine counties that don't attain
    the standard. The problem--that's not the way the Clean Air Act
    works. It's not only counties where there might be a monitor;
    it's everywhere elsewhere EPA predicts using models that you're
    going to have an area that violates the standard. So that
    actually really makes me angry. EPA should be at least honest
    about the implications of this because it's going to affect
    many, many more parts of the country.
        Mr. Westerman. So it's a very dishonest of them not to
    include non-monitored counties because we know the air mixes
    and you got these autogenic effects.
        What about using the year 2025? Is that dishonest as well?
        The Hon. Holmstead. Well, yes, because all of these
    regulatory consequences happen now. The permitting problems
    happen now. All the other regulations happen now. If the Clean
    Air Act said, great, if EPA says that everyone is going to come
    into attainment within ten years, if that's the way it worked,
    that would be great. But we don't wait around. You impose all
    these obligations now regardless of what EPA projects for 2025.
        Mr. Westerman. And so can you explain quickly the actual
    impact of the ozone rule for those of us not inclined to use
    EPA's fuzzy math or their fuzzy logic or whatever it is they
    use? Maybe we need to pump some of the clean air from Arkansas
    over into the EPA building.
        The Hon. Holmstead. Just very quickly, it will be very hard
    to expand new businesses in many rural parts of the country.
    That's the most kind of--the thing people don't understand.
    This is--what this affects is--rural parts of the country would
    like to attract new business. That is going to be difficult or
    impossible.
        And then in other areas you just drive up the costs even
    more, and you do so unnecessarily. There's just a better way to
    clean the air, but unfortunately, we've become so dug into this
    statute that was created 45 years ago that just doesn't really
    work anymore for the way that the world works today.
        Mr. Westerman. You can just cut down all the trees in my
    district and we could meet the air quality.
        The Hon. Holmstead. Well, at some point afterwards I'll
    tell you a story about VOC emissions and trees. It's actually
    kind of sad to see what EPA has done in the past about that
    issue. But we don't have time to talk about it here.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman's time has expired, but I do want
    to comment on the gentleman's line of questions and the
    responses that apparently the EPA has now gotten in the
    business of determining that there are some good trees and some
    bad trees and maybe the solution is just clear-cutting. I hope
    not.
        The Chair now recognizes Dr. Abraham, the gentleman from
    Louisiana.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I'm going to just hit this from a medical perspective.
    The tone and the verbiage from EPA has changed over the past
    several months to this theme of childhood asthma. Gina McCarthy
    touted, everybody in the EPA touted, and this is what they're
    trying to sell, that the ozone is causing this exacerbation.
    Again, I am limited in my practice as to--I have to do what we
    call standard of care, and we have to do things based on only
    evidence-based scientific data. And I usually go to the CDC for
    my talking points and when I'm trying to determine what's best
    for my clientele.
        I've practiced medicine all my life and I've practiced it
    in places all over the world, and I look at CDC charts and maps
    and I see where there are the lowest emissions standards
    there's the highest asthma. And, Gary, it goes back to your
    statement of socioeconomic factors being the major cause of
    exacerbation of asthma, and I can tell you from a
    practitioner's point, that's very true.
        I look at some of these other studies from these
    nonprofits, and the first thing that we as physicians and any
    scientist is taught is to look at who's funding the study
    because of the conflict-of-interest possibility. Where are you
    getting your money? And, Dr. Craft, when the Congresswoman
    asked you a question about ozone and the possible developmental
    lung function, I noticed that you didn't use the word ozone.
    You admittedly shifted to air pollutants to answer that
    question.
        So, Dr. Honeycutt, I will start with you. I am concerned
    that we are seeing a lot of bias and conflict of interest in
    this--in our Scientific Advisory Board, especially the Clean
    Act Scientific Board. What can we do to combat that? How can we
    tell our constituents and our patients that what we are being
    told by EPA, by everyone, are actually based on facts and just
    not theory and not being pushed by specific interest groups
    that want to sell a product?
        Mr. Honeycutt. By the way, I was born and raised in your
    district and you represent my parents so----
        Mr. Abraham. Hey, I didn't know that.
        Mr. Honeycutt. The CASAC is appointed by EPA. Whenever we
    do a board like that, we have an external party to vet people
    and pick them for us. And the panels need to be balanced and--
    as far as----
        Mr. Abraham. Are they now balanced in your opinion?
        Mr. Honeycutt. No, actually not.
        Mr. Abraham. Nor in mine. I will agree with your statement.
    Go ahead. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Honeycutt. Oh, they need to be balanced in terms of
    bias and who they represent, and right now they're not.
        Mr. Abraham. Okay. And I think you've answered the question
    but I'll ask you to answer it again. Will lowering the ozone
    standards from 70 to 60 do anything for asthma?
        Mr. Honeycutt. According to the EPA, no.
        Mr. Abraham. Yes, and I've seen those studies, too. And is
    there any evidence--and any panel member can answer this--that
    ozone--specifically ozone exacerbates asthma? Dr. Craft?
        Dr. Craft. Yes, I'd like to comment and I guess give the
    reason for why I didn't mention ozone specifically with the
    Gauderman study. Ozone actually didn't decline that much over
    the time period that the Gauderman study focused on, so that's
    why I discussed air pollution in general.
        Mr. Abraham. But----
        Dr. Craft. To get to your question about----
        Mr. Abraham. But you understand, Dr. Craft, that was not
    the question she asked. I was just referencing the question,
    the specific question, and I was just looking for a specific
    answer. And I just didn't see that, and that's the reason I
    brought that up.
        Dr. Craft. Right. So to give an example of a study that you
    requested, I'll refer to, again, the testimony of Dr.
    Wellenius, who mentioned a 2010 study by scientists at Emory
    and Georgia Tech looking at a 30 percent increase----
        Mr. Abraham. And may I ask who financed that study? Do you
    know who financed that study?
        Dr. Craft. I'm not sure who financed that study.
        Mr. Abraham. Okay. And see, that's I guess my point. We--
    like the gentleman from Colorado, he had a 2,200 page study,
    and there are millions of studies, but I want to know who's got
    skin in the game as to how the study is going to be presented.
    So that's all I'll say. I'm out of time and I appreciate the
    panel being here.
        Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Dr. Abraham.
        I thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members
    for their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks
    for additional written comments and written questions from
    Members. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]