    [Senate Hearing 114-47]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 114-47

                     CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATIONS OF EPA'S
     PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR GROUND-LEVEL OZONE
             AND LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 638, S. 751, AND S. 640

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 3, 2015

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
                                  __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    95-001 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                      JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              BARBARA BOXER, California
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska

                     Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
                   Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  JUNE 3, 2015
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     1
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...     4
    Flake, Hon. Jeff L., U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona......     7
    Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota....     9
    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of
      Maryland, prepared statement...................................   133

                                   WITNESSES

    Olson, Hon. Pete G., U.S. Representative from the State of Texas.     6
    McKee, Michael, Chairman, Uinta County Commission................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Srikanth, Kanathur ``Kanti,'' Director, Transportation Planning
      Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, on
      behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning
      Organizations..................................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Moore, Hon. Gary, Judge/Executive, Boone County, Kentucky, and
      President, National Association of Regional Councils...........    42
        Prepared statement...........................................    44
    Diette, Gregory B., M.D., MHS, Professor of Medicine,
      Epidemiology and Environmental Health Science, Johns Hopkins
      University.....................................................    53
        Prepared statement...........................................    55
    Greene, Larry, Executive Director, Sacramento Metropolitan Air
      Quality Management District....................................    59
        Prepared statement...........................................    61

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Study on reforestation published in the Proceedings of the
      National Academy of Sciences...................................   135
    Statement from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research--``Voters
      Overwhelmingly Support Stricter Smog Standards''...............   145
    Letter from the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to EPA
      Administrator McCarthy.........................................   148
    Letter from the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee
      to H. Christopher Frey, Chair of the EPA Clean Air Scientific
      Advisory Committee.............................................   149
    Letter from the Portland Cement Association to Senator Inhofe....   151
    Statement from the American Chemistry Council....................   152
    Article titled From rural Utah to Dallas and L.A.: Smog besets
      communities across U.S.........................................   156
    Statement of Utah statistics from Public Opinion Strategies, the
      Colorado College State of the Rockies Project, and Fairbank,
      Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates.............................   170
    Statement from Utah State University.............................   172

      CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATIONS OF EPA'S PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
     QUALITY STANDARD FOR GROUND-LEVEL OZONE AND LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S.
                            638, S. 751, AND S. 640

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2015

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of
    the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Inhofe, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, Boozman,
    Sessions, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Boxer, Carper, Whitehouse,
    Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, and Markey.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Our meeting will come to order.
        We are going to have myself and the Ranking Member, Senator
    Boxer, give our opening statements and then refer to members by
    the order they come. That will mean you will be going first,
    Mr. Olson, in explaining what your legislation is and the same
    for the rest of the members as they come in.
        The first hearing I ever held as Chairman of the Clean Air
    Subcommittee was in February 1997 on the ozone standard. It was
    the first of seven hearings held on what was then referred to
    as ``the single largest environmental regulation ever
    proposed.''
        Today, we are again conducting oversight of the EPA and the
    proposed ozone standard, which is set between 65 and 70 parts
    per billion. We will hear directly from officials responsible
    for implementing and administering EPA's new standard.
        We like to hear from people in the field who are going to
    be responsible for upholding all these brilliant things we do
    here. We want to welcome Judge/Executive Gary Moore, from Boone
    County, Kentucky; County Commissioner Mike McKee, from Uinta
    County, Utah; and Kanti Srikanth, Director of Transportation
    Planning for the National Capital Region Transportation
    Planning Board.
        We are also here to examine three pieces of legislation.
    The first bill, sponsored by Senator Thune and Senator Manchin,
    requires 85 percent of the counties that have not met the 2008
    standard to achieve it before EPA can lower the standard
    further. Congressman Pete Olson, who has introduced the House
    version of this bill, is also with us today.
        Additionally, Senator Flake is introducing two bills. The
    first extends EPA's existing timeline to review NAAQS to every
    10 years. The second amends the Exceptional Events rule, which
    States rely on when events out of human control contribute to
    ozone readings exceeding the allowed level. All three of these
    are commonsense, good government bills that strengthen the
    NAAQS setting process while advancing the trend of improved air
    quality.
        EPA's ozone proposal is the most expensive regulation in
    history with projected costs of $1.7 trillion and 1.4 million
    lost jobs. Up to 67 percent of counties fail to meet the
    proposed lower standards, which means if this rule goes
    forward, they will face a legacy of EPA regulatory oversight,
    stiff Federal penalties, lost highway dollars, restrictions on
    infrastructure investment, and increased costs to businesses.
        The costs and burdens associated with expanding roads and
    bridges will be exponential. Further concerning is that EPA's
    proposal does not even account for high levels of naturally
    occurring ozone present or transported in many parts of the
    Country, which is why pristine national parks like the Grand
    Canyon and Yellowstone would be placed in nonattainment status.
        Looking at my home State of Oklahoma, significantly, not a
    single county violates the current standard, but under this new
    standard, all 77 of my counties in Oklahoma would be out of
    attainment as you can see on this map. Currently, we are in
    attainment in every county. That is what would happen in my
    State of Oklahoma.
        We have spent a significant amount of time and valuable
    State resources to comply with the 2008 standard, but will have
    to spend an additional $35 billion to meet EPA's new standard
    should this become reality. Each household will lose an average
    of $900 a year, and the State will lose 35,503 jobs with $18
    billion in lost GDP. Every State is facing similar losses.
        In 2011, EPA proposed a standard remarkably similar to the
    one we are discussing today. The President rejected it then
    because, as he said, our economy could not handle the burden of
    its substantial price tag. Has our economy really improved so
    much in the last few years that we can easily absorb a $1.7
    trillion price tag? I would say no.
        Even Steve Beshear, the Democratic Governor of Kentucky,
    agrees. He has pledged to reduce carbon emissions in his State
    by 80 percent by 2050. Yet, he wrote President Obama and asked
    him to keep the ozone standard where it is because of the
    detrimental impact it would have on Kentucky job creators and
    manufacturers.
        That is kind of interesting, isn't it, because you have the
    Governor, who is 70 years old, who said we will comply by 2050
    with the standard in terms of emissions. He would be 105 years
    old, so it is easy to say you will comply with that. Everyone
    keep that in mind.
        I have always stood in favor of clean air. I was an
    original co-sponsor of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
    Clear Skies, but this proposal, like many of the EPA's recent
    proposals, will have negligible environmental benefits.
        It is based on questionable health benefits and comes with
    unequivocal economic costs. Instead of creating a new regime of
    costly, job-killing mandates, the EPA should focus its efforts
    on helping counties that have not yet met the 1997 and the 2008
    standards. A new standard at this time is not only
    irresponsible, but also impractical and economically
    destructive.
        Senator Boxer.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

                Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
                           from the State of Oklahoma

        The first hearing I ever held as Chairman of the Clean Air
    Subcommittee was in 1997 on the ozone standard. It was the
    first of seven hearings held on what was then referred to as
    ``the single largest environmental regulation ever proposed.''
    Today we are again conducting oversight of the EPA and the
    proposed ozone standard, which is set between 65 and 70 parts
    per billion. We will hear directly from officials responsible
    for implementing and administering EPA's new standard. I want
    to welcome Judge-Executive Gary Moore, from Boone County,
    Kentucky; County Commissioner Mike McKee, from Uintah County,
    Utah; and Kanti Srikanth who is the Director of Transportation
    Planning for the National Capital Region Transportation
    Planning Board.
        We are also here to examine three pieces of legislation.
    The first bill, sponsored by Senator Thune and Senator Manchin,
    requires 85 percent of the counties that haven't met the 2008
    standard to achieve it before EPA can lower the standard.
    Congressman Pete Olson, who has introduced the House version of
    this bill, is also with us today. Additionally, Senator Flake
    is introducing two bills. The first extends EPA's existing
    timeline to review NAAQS to every 10 years. The second amends
    the Exceptional Events rule, which States rely on when events
    out of human control contribute to ozone readings exceeding the
    allowed level. All three of these are commonsense, good
    government bills that strengthen the NAAQS setting process
    while advancing the trend of improved air quality.
        EPA's ozone proposal is the most expensive regulation in
    history with projected costs of $1.7 trillion and 1.4 million
    lost jobs. Up to 67 percent of counties fail to meet the
    proposed lower standards, which means if this rule goes
    forward, they will face a legacy of EPA regulatory oversight,
    stiff Federal penalties, lost highway dollars, restrictions on
    infrastructure investment, and increased costs to businesses.
    The costs and burdens associated with expanding roads and
    bridges will be exponential. Further concerning is that EPA's
    proposal does not even account for high levels of naturally
    occurring ozone present or transported in many parts of the
    country, which is why pristine national parks like the Grand
    Canyon and Yellowstone would be placed in nonattainment status.
        Looking at my home State of Oklahoma, not a single county
    violates the current standard, but under this new standard, the
    whole State will be in violation. We have spent a significant
    amount of time and valuable State resources to comply with the
    2008 standard, but will have to spend an additional $35 billion
    to meet EPA's new standard. Each household will lose an average
    of $900 a year, and the State will lose 35,503 jobs with $18
    billion in lost GDP. Every State is facing similar losses.
        In 2011, EPA proposed a standard remarkably similar to the
    one we're discussing today; fortunately, the President rejected
    it then because, as he said, our economy couldn't handle the
    burden of its substantial price tag. Has our economy really
    improved so much in the last few years that we can easily
    absorb a $1.7 trillion price tag? I would say no and even Steve
    Beshear, the Democrat Governor of Kentucky, agrees. He has
    pledged to reduce carbon emissions in his State by 80 percent
    by 2050, yet he wrote President Obama and asked him to keep the
    ozone standard where it is because of the detrimental impact it
    would have on Kentucky job creators and manufacturers. I'd like
    to submit that letter for the record.
        I have always stood in favor of clean air--I was an
    original cosponsor of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
    Clear Skies--but this proposal, like many of the EPA's recent
    proposals, will have negligible environmental benefits, is
    based on questionable health benefits and comes with
    unequivocal economic costs. Instead of creating a new regime of
    costly, job-killing mandates, the EPA should focus its efforts
    on helping counties that have not yet met the 1997 or the 2008
    standards. A new standard at this time is not only
    irresponsible, but also impractical and economically
    destructive.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank my
    colleagues for their leadership on this issue.
        Thank you.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Boxer. OK. Here we go. The debate in this committee
    continues. It is a healthy one, by the way.
        Today we examine the critically important steps that the
    Obama administration is taking to strengthen the ozone
    standard, which will save lives and protect the health of our
    children and families. You never heard that from my chairman.
    He does not talk about the impact of smog on our families and I
    will.
        We know that ground-level ozone, often referred to as smog,
    is extremely harmful to human health. It is not a debatable
    point. Everyone agrees.
        It is hard for me to believe that in this Environment
    Committee, we would be looking at not making further steps that
    are required under the law to protect our families from smog.
    We know too much exposure to smog leads to cardiovascular
    disease, respiratory ailments like asthma, emphysema, and
    premature death. That is all known.
        It is our youngest and oldest generations, as well as those
    who spend the most time outdoors, who are the most vulnerable
    to the impacts of smog pollution. According to the
    Environmental Protection Agency, there are nearly 26 million
    people in the U.S. who have asthma.
        I always say to my colleagues, when you visit a school to
    talk to the kids, ask them how many have asthma or know someone
    with asthma. I guarantee you 60 percent will raise their hands
    because we know there are 7.1 million children in our Nation
    who have asthma.
        The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are the backbone
    of the Clean Air Act. They set the maximum level of an air
    pollutant, such as ozone, that is safe for us to breathe.
    Everyone has a right to know that the air they breathe is safe,
    because if they cannot breathe, they cannot go to school, they
    cannot work, they get sick, they go to the emergency room, and
    they do not have the quality of life they have a right to have.
        The Clean Air Act requires, by the way, brought to you by a
    Republican President a long time ago and updated by a
    Republican President, requires that these standards be set
    solely on the best available health science.
        To ensure the health impacts of air pollution continue to
    be addressed, EPA is required to review the standards every 5
    years. No matter what my Republican colleagues may try to claim
    today, scientists overwhelmingly agree that EPA needs to adopt
    a stricter standard to protect the health of the American
    people, especially our children and the elderly. We have known
    since 2008 that the current ozone standard is too weak to
    protect the health of our families.
        Last year, EPA proposed updating and strengthening the
    ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to a more protective
    range, between 65 and 70 parts per billion. It is also
    considering an even more protective standard of 60 parts per
    billion.
        The EPA is doing what it must do. Otherwise, they will be
    hauled to court. They have to make sure our families are
    protected.
        I have great news for those of you who want to see EPA
    continue to do their job. Just yesterday, the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the EPA
    has complied with the Constitution in enforcing the ozone
    standards. Say what you might say, they are on the side of the
    Constitution. They are on the side of the public health.
        Here is where we stand. We have a number of bills before us
    that will decimate this rule. That is their purpose. I do not
    question my colleagues who have written these bills, but I
    would urge them to check out the number of kids in their States
    and the number of senior citizens who will have problems if we
    do not clean up the ozone.
        The American people strongly support a tighter ozone
    standard. Last November, the American Lung Association found
    that 68 percent of voters nationwide support strengthening the
    ozone standards, including 54 percent of Republicans.
        How out of step can you be than to move forward with a bill
    that is going to stop us from protecting the health of our
    families? You are out of step. You are out of touch. Get real
    about it. These bills will have a negative effect.
        I am going to stop there, I am sure you are happy to know,
    and welcome all of our witnesses, regardless of their point of
    view.
        I want to extend a very special welcome to one of our
    witnesses, Larry Greene, the Executive Director of the
    Sacramento Air Quality Management District. Larry, thank you so
    much.
        California is on the front lines in the battle against air
    pollution. He will testify about the tremendous successes our
    State is having in implementing new air pollution standards.
        With that, I would ask to put the rest of my statement in
    the record. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
    kindness and allowing me to be your counterpoint.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

                 Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator
                          from the State of California

        Today's hearing will examine the critically important steps
    that the Obama administration is taking to strengthen the ozone
    standard, which will save lives and protect the health of our
    children and families.
        We know that ground-level ozone, often referred to as smog,
    results in dangerous air pollution that is extremely harmful to
    human health. It can lead to cardiovascular disease,
    respiratory ailments like asthma and emphysema, and premature
    death. And it is our youngest and oldest generations--as well
    as those who spend the most time outdoors--who are the most
    vulnerable to the impacts of smog pollution. According to the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are nearly 26
    million people in the U.S. who have asthma, including 7.1
    million children.
        The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are the backbone
    of the Clean Air Act, and they set the maximum level of an air
    pollutant, such as ozone, that is safe for us to breathe.
    Setting an appropriate standard is crucial to protecting the
    health of millions of Americans. Everyone has a right to know
    that the air they breathe is safe--and right now, the science
    says it is not.
        The Clean Air Act requires that these standards be set
    solely on the basis of the latest available health science. To
    ensure the health impacts of air pollution continue to be
    addressed, EPA is required to review the standards every 5
    years to make sure they are up to date. Despite what some of my
    Republican colleagues may try to claim today, scientists
    overwhelmingly agree that EPA needs to adopt a stricter
    standard to protect the health of the American people,
    especially our children and the elderly. We have known since
    2008 that the current ozone standard does not provide the
    necessary health safeguards.
        Last year, EPA proposed updating and strengthening the
    ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to a more protective
    range, between 65 and 70 parts per billion. It is also
    considering an even more protective standard of 60 parts per
    billion.
        And the EPA is doing its job to protect public health. Just
    yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
    Columbia Circuit upheld EPA's determinations concerning which
    regions in the U.S. have met its existing ozone standard. The
    Court found that EPA had complied with the Constitution, had
    reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act, and in many cases
    exceeded its obligation to engage in reasoned decisionmaking.
        I often say, if people can't breathe, they can't go to work
    or school. Ozone pollution has been proven to cause thousands
    of lost school days and work days each year, as well as an
    increased number of asthma attacks and bronchitis cases, and
    more emergency room visits and hospital admissions.
        The American people strongly support a tighter ozone
    standard. Last November, the American Lung Association found
    that 68 percent of voters nationwide support strengthening the
    ozone standards, including 54 percent of Republicans.
        We will also discuss three bills today that would have
    negative impacts on our air quality and public health. These
    bills would delay the health protections of the ozone
    standards, block implementation of an ozone standard
    altogether, or create new loopholes for how air pollution data
    is assessed.
        I will continue to work with my colleagues to fight any
    efforts to undermine our environmental laws that protect the
    most vulnerable populations. No one's health should be
    threatened by the air they breathe, especially our children's.
        I would like to extend a special welcome to one of today's
    witnesses, Larry Greene, the Executive Director of the
    Sacramento Air Quality Management District. California is on
    the front lines in the battle against air pollution, and he
    will testify about the tremendous successes our State has had
    in implementing new air pollution standards.
        For example, in 1976, there were 166 days when health
    advisories were issued in Southern California to urge people
    with asthma and other people with lung sensitivities to stay
    indoors. In 37 years, the number of smog-related health
    advisories issued in Southern California dropped from 166 days
    in 1976 to 1 day in 2013. And in March of this year, a peer-
    reviewed study by researchers at the University of Southern
    California found that reducing air pollution leads to improved
    lung development and respiratory function in school-aged
    children.
        Environmental safeguards have improved our quality of life
    and made our children safer and healthier, and we need to
    continue down this path. I look forward to hearing the
    testimony of today's witnesses.

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
        As we stated earlier, as they come in, the sponsors of the
    legislation will be heard to explain. Maybe they disagree with
    Senator Boxer as to the purpose of your legislation and if so,
    feel free to say so.
        I will recognize you, Mr. Olson. Thank you for coming
    across the campus.

     STATEMENT OF HON. PETE G. OLSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
                             STATE OF TEXAS

        Representative Olson. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking
    Member Boxer and committee members for allowing me to speak to
    you this morning.
        I have worked on Capitol Hill, this side, for 10 years, two
    on active duty in the Navy, four for Senator Phil Gramm, and
    four as John Cornyn's first Chief of Staff. I know your time is
    precious. I will be very brief.
        I will describe the bills I have introduced about ozone
    with support from your fellow colleagues here in the Senate.
        My hometown of Houston, Texas has a great story to tell
    about ozone. When I moved there in 1972, we had the highest
    ozone levels in America. Hard work and lots of money have put
    us on track to be in full attainment for ozone in the next few
    years. We have driven down the field and are about to kick the
    field goal to win, but EPA is moving the goal posts.
        Nature produces ozone, so levels can only go so low. Much
    of the factors adding to our ozone are out of our control. We
    have ozone coming from China or annual crop burnings in Mexico.
        EPA calls ozone we cannot control ``background ozone.''
    They admit that half of the ozone in America is beyond our
    control. Yet, EPA's new proposed standard for ozone is
    approaching background levels.
        Many parts of our Country, farms and ranches, have very
    little ozone they can control. EPA tells them the tools needed
    to comply are, again, ``unknown.'' Healthy air and healthy
    water are priority one.
        Impossible rules help no one and they can hurt. The Texas
    manufacturing sector employed 875,000 and generated over $200
    billion in GDP a few years ago. The proposed new ozone
    standards will stop growth and jobs will be lost. This will not
    be limited to Houston. The whole Nation will feel the pain.
        That is why I teamed up with Republican conference
    chairman, John Thune, to introduce the CASE Act, the Clean Air,
    Strong Economies Act. The CASE Act simply requires EPA to
    determine the impact of new clean air standards on the economy
    and jobs. It also allows States to achieve current standards
    before changes are made.
        The other bill I want to discuss is the CLEER Act, the
    Commonsense Legislative Exceptional Events Reform Act.
        Jeff Flake has introduced the same bill here in the Senate.
    As ozone standards are lowered, spikes and emissions beyond our
    control can push an area out of attainment. My home State has
    been waiting for 4 years for EPA to respond to a request for
    the massive fires near Bastrop in 2011.
        EPA has admitted the Exceptional Events Rule needs reform.
    The CLEER Act is a step in that direction.
        Thank you for your time and your consideration.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
        I know that Senator Thune will be here to talk about the
    same legislation. Are you handling both legislations from
    Senator Thune and Senator Flake on the House side?
        Representative Olson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Inhofe. It is very nice to have you here.
        Senator Flake.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF L. FLAKE,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority
    Member and all the members. Thank you for allowing me to come
    here and talk about the CLEER Act and the ORDEAL Act.
        As Pete mentioned, with the CLEER Act, we are looking to
    simply bring some commonsense to the EPA's approach.
        My family has been in Arizona since 1878 when it was a
    territory. The dust storms we are talking about rolled through
    the territory at that time, they do today and will long after
    my family is gone.
        Senator Inhofe. And go straight from there to Oklahoma.
        Senator Flake. That is right. It is much like tornadoes in
    the Midwest or elsewhere or hurricanes. It is simply a natural
    event. The problem is the EPA simply will not treat it as such.
        The CLEER Act will simply ease the regulatory burden of
    States, including arid States like Arizona, from these
    exceptional events.
        When these dust storms occur, they cause a spike in the
    particulate level and this blip will have a dramatic regulatory
    impact on the States. They will be found in noncompliance, even
    though, as I mentioned, it is no fault of their own. Due to
    Federal air quality standard regulations, it leads to penalties
    like loss of Federal transportation dollars.
        Faced with repercussions they did nothing to cause, States
    dedicate vast amounts of manpower, countless work hours, and
    considerable financial resources to reviewing these events
    that, as I mentioned, they do not control.
        For example, the Arizona Department of Environmental
    Quality, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department, and the
    Maricopa Association of Governments in 2011 and 2012, spent
    about $675,000 and 790 staff hours to prove that the spike in
    PM 10 levels was caused by a dust storm and not by pollution.
    Again, they spent $675,000 and 790 staff hours just to say it
    was a dust storm.
        Historically, EPA's reviews under this exceptional event
    rule have been arbitrary, cumbersome and costly. They have
    lacked an appeals process. We are simply saying let us
    introduce a little common sense. The CLEER Act would simply
    require a rulemaking and that decisions on such events be based
    on the preponderance of evidence. It would accord deference to
    the State's own findings of such when such an event happened.
        It would also require the EPA to review States' exceptional
    events documentation within a reasonable time period. As Pete
    mentioned, you wait and wait and wait for the EPA to actually
    review this. They drag it out and as I mentioned, there is no
    appeals process.
        As if being wrapped around this regulatory axle is not
    enough, Arizona will soon face the already stringent air
    quality standard for ozone. That is why I have introduced the
    ORDEAL Act.
        When the EPA reduced ozone standards in 2008, as we know,
    counties across the Country that were in nonattainment were
    forced to enact further expensive and complicated compliance
    plans. Now relying on what I think we all can accept are some
    dubious scientific bases, the EPA has proposed lowering the
    ozone emissions standards even more to 65 ppb while accepting
    comments, as mentioned, to lower it even further to 60 ppb.
        By some estimates, as I am certain the committee is aware,
    the proposal of the lower ozone level may be the most expensive
    regulation in history, as the Chairman mentioned, costing as
    much as $1.7 trillion. Lowering ozone standards from 75 ppb to
    65 ppb would cost a whopping $140 billion annually.
        EPA's own science advisors disagree on the very basis of
    this regulation. Simply put, the lowering of the ozone standard
    is unnecessary. U.S. air quality has been improving for the
    past three decades. Since 2000, air quality has improved by 18
    percent due to lower ozone levels.
        We all recognize, as Pete said, we would love to have lower
    ozone levels. A lot of that is natural and occurs naturally. We
    all accept that you could not lower it to 45 ppb. That would be
    just unreasonable. There are some standards that are reasonable
    and some standards that are not.
        It is not that we all do not want the same goal of cleaner
    air. We just have to figure out what that standard is.
        As mentioned, there is a 5-year review process. The ORDEAL
    Act would give States flexibility and time to implement their
    own innovative and proactive measures. The bill, most
    importantly, would extend all air quality standards review,
    including ozone, to a 10-year timetable instead of the current
    5-year period. That would give a little leeway and allow States
    and all of us to breathe a little easier.
        Thank you for your time.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Flake.
        Senator Thune, before you came in, we commented that
    Congressman Olson is introducing similar legislation to all
    three pieces we are hearing today. You are recognized to
    explain yours.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

        Senator Thune. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Inhofe
    and Ranking Member Boxer for giving me the opportunity to speak
    in front of the committee this morning.
        I want to thank all the members for the chance to talk
    about a bill I have introduced called the CASE Act. It is a
    bipartisan bill introduced with Senator Manchin that would
    prevent the staggering blow that a lower ozone standard would
    deliver to the economy at a time when many of our industries
    are seeking to turn the corner.
        After an area is deemed in nonattainment with the smog
    standard, communities face stiff Federal penalties, increased
    business costs, restrictions on infrastructure investment and
    lost highway dollars.
        When businesses are restrained by regulatory overreach,
    they cannot expand, jobs are put at risk and innovation is
    stifled. Areas in nonattainment or even those in marginal
    attainment will face steep challenges in promoting economic
    development or attracting new businesses.
        In fact, it was for these exact reasons, regulatory burdens
    and regulatory uncertainty, that the Obama administration
    withdrew a similar proposal in 2011. The cost of a lower smog
    standard has hardly lessened and the hit this could have on
    manufacturing and other economic sectors nationwide would be
    unprecedented.
        The bipartisan CASE Act strikes a balance between economic
    growth and environmental progress by requiring the EPA to first
    focus on the most polluted areas that are in nonattainment with
    the current standard before it can implement a lower one.
        We have made great progress in cleaning up our air and
    pollution levels are at an all time low. However, 40 percent of
    Americans live in the 227 counties that have not yet met the 75
    ppb standard set in 2008. The CASE Act would require 85 percent
    of these counties to achieve compliance with the existing 75
    ppb standard before the EPA can impose a stricter regulation
    like the one proposed in November.
        The EPA needs to focus its efforts on areas already
    struggling with attainment where smog remains a consistent
    problem. We should first tackle smog where it is the worst, in
    places like Los Angeles and not go after regions like the Great
    Plains where there clearly is not a smog problem.
        The EPA contends that a lower standard will benefit public
    health, yet most of these benefits will come from reductions of
    other criteria pollutants like particulate matter which are
    already subject to their own regulations.
        Moreover, the EPA would be well served to acknowledge that
    it has not yet sufficiently implemented the existing 2008
    standard and prioritized its efforts to combat smog in the most
    polluted areas.
        The CASE Act would also require the EPA to consider the
    cost and feasibility of a lower standard which it currently
    does not consider. At a standard of 65 ppb, approximately 75
    percent of the projected costs are attributed to unknown
    controls or technologies and emission reduction strategies that
    have yet to be developed. Hinging a regulation of this
    magnitude on unknown controls could hamper economic growth with
    staggering costs for years to come.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before this
    committee and introduce the CASE Act today. I hope you will
    agree that this bipartisan bill is a reasonable way forward to
    prioritize smog in the most polluted areas while not imposing
    undue costs on the American economy and work force.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this
    legislation and encourage its consideration.
        Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Thune. I thank all three
    of you.
        You are certainly welcome to stay but we will excuse you
    now. We will now be hearing from witnesses.
        In my opening statement before you came in, Senator Thune,
    I pointed out that Oklahoma is in a situation where we are in
    total compliance today but with the passage of this, all 77
    counties would be out of attainment.
        Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, if I could just thank the
    colleagues before you leave. I just wanted to make a point.
        You were very eloquent about you do not want to pay the
    price for pollution that comes from elsewhere. There is a whole
    set of exceptional event rules that the EPA has which they are
    updating. I hope you will take a look at it because that might
    satisfy you. You make a very important point.
        They say ``They have ways to exclude the impacts of other
    pollution.'' I just wanted you to know that.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. We would ask all the witnesses to come to
    the table.
        Mr. Kanathur ``Kanti'' Srikanth is Director, National
    Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan
    Washington Council of Governments. Michael McKee is Chairman of
    the Uinta County Commission. The Honorable Gary Moore is Judge/
    Executive, Boone County, Kentucky and President, National
    Association of Regional Councils. Gregory B. Diette, MD, MHS,
    is Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Environmental Health
    Science, Johns Hopkins University. Larry Greene is Executive
    Director, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
    District. It is nice to have all five of you here.
        We will go ahead and start. We do have a request from one
    of our members who happens to be the leader of the Senate who
    wants to participate in the introduction of one of you. We will
    stop when he comes in.
        We will recognize you now, Mr. McKee.

     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL McKEE, CHAIRMAN, UINTA COUNTY COMMISSION

        Mr. McKee. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am
    Michael McKee and I serve as the Chairman of the Uinta County
    Commission located within the Uinta Basin in eastern Utah.
        I am honored to testify before the Committee today to
    discuss the issues we face in controlling ozone levels in the
    Uinta Basin, especially the unique occurrence of high winter
    ozone levels.
        Only two places in the Nation experience high levels of
    winter ozone: the upper Green River Basin in Wyoming and the
    Uinta Basin in Utah. High winter ozone levels are a result of a
    complex mix of geographic, meteorological, and emission
    conditions.
        Primarily, winter ozone levels rise when snow cover and
    multi-day temperature inversions occur. An inversion is what
    occurs when high level warmer air traps low level cold air
    inside the Basin. Snow reflects the sunlight back up to the
    cloud cover and this becomes the perfect mix to allow
    pollutants close to the surface to build and react to produce
    ozone. In the absence of these conditions, exceedances of EPA's
    ozone standard have not been observed.
        Although it is clear that our oil and gas industry
    contributes to ozone precursors through the release of
    NOx, VOC and formaldehyde, those same releases do
    not create high levels of ozone absent precise weather
    conditions.
        The county, the State of Utah, the Ute Tribe and industry
    have spent several years and millions of dollars to study,
    monitor, and model winter ozone. After all of this work, what
    we know for sure is that we need several more years of
    scientific research and monitoring to ensure that investments
    we make are effective and that we have a precise model in order
    to formulate an appropriate regulatory structure.
        We are currently under the threat of nonattainment under
    current EPA ozone standards. However, not the State, the EPA,
    nor the county understand what measures would be effective to
    reduce elevated winter ozone episodes.
        Even if EPA were to force the Uinta Basin into
    nonattainment, absent several additional years of scientific
    studies, monitoring, and modeling, a State implementation plan
    would unlikely be effective, yet would devastate our economy by
    implementing a regulatory scheme at great cost to industry and
    perhaps with few results.
        The proposed lowering of the ground level ozone standard
    would of course make our situation nearly impossible to avoid
    nonattainment status, yet would do nothing to improve our air
    quality.
        The Clean Air Act simply does not contemplate the
    multifaceted nature of winter ozone nor does it provide the
    necessary tools to deal with the issue.
        Uinta County wants to improve our air quality. That is not
    a debate. Our oil and gas industry is willing to make major
    investments to reduce emissions controls but will only do so if
    these investments are recognized and credited by EPA.
        In the case of the Uinta Basin, we need more scientific
    resources dedicated toward the problem and we need flexibility
    to implement regulatory actions to determine the most effective
    controls to improve our air quality.
        The oil and gas industry is responsible for 60 percent of
    our economy and 50 percent of our jobs. We need this industry
    to stay in the Uinta Basin to feed our economy and provide the
    resources necessary to tackle our ozone problems. Under non-
    attainment, the industry and their investment will simply
    relocate to other areas if not to other countries.
        Mitigating winter ozone requires new authorities and
    opportunities for collaboration between State, tribal and local
    governments.
        A lower ozone standard does not improve our air quality. It
    simply ties our hands and prevents Uinta County and areas from
    the west where we have high elevations opportunities to find
    creative solutions.
        I would ask the committee to explore new authorities and
    look to successful efforts that have actually improved air
    quality. I would draw the committee's attention to the Early
    Action Compact process that the EPA implemented in early 2000
    and was very successful but litigation forced the agency to
    withdraw the program.
        The Early Action Compact program allowed several
    communities to comply with ozone standards in a very short
    time. The program allowed communities and States to enter into
    agreements with the EPA to implement actions in a creative
    fashion that proved to be very effective and the majority of
    communities that participated in the program were able to lower
    ozone levels to within the Federal standard.
        The program required the achievement of milestones,
    reporting to the EPA, completion of emissions inventories,
    modeling, and control strategies. Flexibility is a key
    component to allow communities to implement solutions to air
    quality issues that are unique to their area.
        We believe that an authority similar to the Early Action
    Compact program with provisions that contemplate the
    complexities of winter ozone is an appropriate mechanism for
    communities to improve its air quality without destroying its
    economy.
        We all want to improve our air quality. A lower ozone
    standard does not achieve that goal. It actually makes it more
    difficult to achieve. We oppose increasing ozone restrictions
    and standards and request the committee to explore new tools in
    our efforts to improve our air quality. We look forward to
    working with the Committee toward that end.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and thank
    you for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any
    questions or provide additional information.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McKee follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. McKee.
        I think I failed to say we are going to try to stay within
    our 5-minute limit. Your entire statement will be made a part
    of the record.
        Mr. Srikanth.

          STATEMENT OF KANATHUR ``KANTI'' SRIKANTH, DIRECTOR,
    TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARD, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL
     OF GOVERNMENTS, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN
                         PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS

        Mr. Srikanth. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer
    for this opportunity to provide testimony.
        I am testifying today on behalf of the Association of
    Metropolitan Planning Organizations. I would like to submit my
    entire testimony for the record.
        I am here to present a practitioner's perspective on the
    implications of changes to the existing ozone standards and the
    potential issues for transportation planning and programming in
    metropolitan areas.
        I have no position on where the standards should be set.
    Wherever it is set, the MPOs in the Country will have to comply
    with it and my MPO, I am sure, will comply with it.
        I am the staff director of the National Capital
    Transportation Planning Board which is the metropolitan
    planning organization, called MPOs, for the Washington, DC
    region.
        As you know, MPOs are required to develop transportation
    plans and programs for metropolitan areas as a condition of
    receiving Federal transportation funds. If an MPO is located in
    an area that has been designated as nonattainment of EPA's air
    quality standards, the MPOs are also required to do something
    called transportation conformity analysis in order to receive
    transportation funds from the feds.
        I would like to note that my MPO has not taken an official
    position on the range of the proposed ozone standards.
        Senator Inhofe. I am going to ask, if you do not mind, as I
    mentioned earlier, if you would hesitate for a moment and allow
    Senator McConnell to introduce our guest from Kentucky. Would
    that be all right?
        Mr. Srikanth. I would be pleased to.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
        Senator McConnell.
        Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am sorry to interrupt your comments. I appreciate
    Chairman Inhofe giving me a chance to come by and introduce a
    friend of many years, a very important public servant in our
    State, Judge Gary Moore. Gary, I do not know if you have
    already testified or not.
        Judge Moore is the current Judge/Executive of Boone County.
    In our State, that is like the CEO of the county, like the
    County Executive they have in Maryland. He was first elected in
    1998. In his time as a public servant, he has achieved much
    success on behalf of the people of Boone County through the
    application of consistent, conservative policies.
        Judge Moore was raised in Pendleton County where his father
    served as sheriff. Years of watching his father enforce the law
    and serve the people of his county instilled in Gary a
    commitment to public service and community involvement.
        In addition to serving as the Boone County Judge, he is the
    current President of the National Association of Regional
    Councils and serves in the leadership of the National
    Association of Counties.
        Judge Moore is here today to discuss the possibility that
    EPA may lower the national ambient air quality standards for
    ground level ozone.
        The National Association of Manufacturers issued a report
    stating this regulation could be the costliest in U.S. history.
    This regulation would have a serious, detrimental effect on
    jobs, electricity prices and could have the most devastating
    impact yet on Kentucky coal jobs.
        For these reasons, I am proud to support my colleague,
    Senator Thune, in his efforts to stop this regulation by co-
    sponsoring the Clean Air Strong Economies Act.
        Judge Moore is uniquely qualified to speak on these matters
    given his leadership roles in both the National Association of
    Regional Councils and the National Association of Counties. He
    has a broad perspective on how this proposed rule would affect
    not just Boone County but counties across the Nation, rural,
    suburban and urban.
        He will be able to give a real world perspective on what
    this proposed rule will mean to folks across the Country who
    have to deal with the consequences.
        I am pleased that my friend, Judge Moore, is here today to
    share his timely thoughts on this rule.
        Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the opportunity to come
    by and say a few words about my friend of longstanding. I am
    sure he will make a positive contribution to your session
    today.
        Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. I am sure he will.
        Thank you very much, Senator McConnell.
        Mr. Srikanth, you may continue and take a little extra
    time. I apologize for the interruption but I told you that was
    going to happen.
        Mr. Srikanth. My pleasure. No problem. Thank you.
        As I was saying, my MPO has not taken a position on the
    proposed range of standards for ozone. The Metropolitan
    Washington Air Quality Committee, the regional air quality
    planning committee for this area set up under the Clean Air
    Act, has taken a position.
        Its position is that the committee supports the range of
    proposed ozone standards between the 65 ppb and 70 ppb as being
    more protective of human health and the environment. The
    committee also notes that the standard will pose a fresh
    challenge to the metropolitan Washington region and believes
    that it is imperative that the EPA help States and local
    governments meet the new standards by providing assistance and
    adopting national rules as part of a national strategy to
    address air pollution.
        A new ozone standard lower than the current level for this
    region will mean this region will not be in attainment of the
    new standard. According to the most recent 3-year average
    measurements in the region, most of the region's monitors will
    be exceeding the standards proposed by the EPA.
        These readings also indicate that the metropolitan
    Washington area would need to reduce significant amounts of
    ozone precursors to comply with the new standards. The
    transportation sector will certainly have to do its part in
    achieving these reductions.
        My MPO has been conducting transportation air quality
    conformity analyses since the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.
    It is currently classified as marginal, nonattainment of the
    EPA's 2008 ozone standards which is set at 75 ppb.
        The MPO also annually spends something in the range of $6
    million to implement a host of programs explicitly designed to
    reduce emissions in this region. As a planning exercise, the
    MPO sets aside 15 percent of its annual budget to conduct the
    air quality conformity analysis.
        The National Capital Region has significantly reduced
    emissions over the years. It has attained all of the previous
    ozone standards and it is on track to attain the 2008 ozone
    standards within a year or so.
        This has really been made possible due to a number of
    Federal control programs supplemented by local land use and
    transportation investments. These are outlined in my testimony.
        The critical thing here is without Federal control
    programs, the region would have had a difficult time attaining
    those standards. We are very thankful for that.
        With all of the actions this region has taken, current
    analyses show that while the emissions will continue to reduce
    into the future, beyond 2025, transportation emissions are
    going to remain steady.
        The Federal assistance will be very critical, especially in
    this region which does experience significant amounts of
    transport ozone coming into this region. The Federal assistance
    should encompass control programs that address the transport in
    a timely manner.
        I would also note the Federal assistance should provide
    some certainty that the timely realization of emission
    reductions from other EPA programs is made available to regions
    such as ours.
        Additionally, the effects of Federal involvement can help
    by harmonizing and simplifying some of the conformity
    regulations within the existing law. As always, increased
    transportation funding to help projects that help reduce
    emissions is always welcome and needed.
        In conclusion, I believe the examination of current ozone
    standards is needed from the public health perspective. Federal
    assistance to States, localities and metropolitan areas to help
    attain the standards is also needed.
        I thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak
    before this committee. I will be happy to answer questions at
    the appropriate time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Srikanth follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Srikanth.
        Mr. Moore.

     STATEMENT OF HON. GARY MOORE, JUDGE/EXECUTIVE, BOONE COUNTY,
       KENTUCKY, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL
                                COUNCILS

        Judge Moore. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member
    Boxer, and all the members of this committee, for the
    opportunity to testify on the impacts of more stringent ozone
    standards.
        I would also like to thank Leader McConnell. What a
    pleasant surprise. I was not expecting that.
        I am Gary Moore, the elected Judge/Executive of Boone
    County, Kentucky and here today representing the National
    Association of Regional Councils and the National Association
    of Counties.
        Boone County is a suburban county in the Cincinnati
    metropolitan region. Throughout my region, I hear concerns
    about the impact of tighter ozone standards and the effect they
    would have on local governments' ambient economy. Similar
    concerns have been echoed nationally by regions and counties of
    all sizes.
        My region is currently classified in marginal nonattainment
    but we would be in full nonattainment and face additional
    requirements under the proposed rule. Nonattainment
    designations impact the economic vitality of local governments,
    regions and the Nation.
        Areas across the Nation face significant challenges under
    the current ozone standard. NARC and NACo, along with the U.S.
    Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, have
    requested that EPA fully implement the current ozone standard
    before issuing a new, more stringent standard.
        Today, I will discuss several on-the-ground impacts of more
    stringent ozone standards on regions and counties nationwide.
        First, local and regional governments play a significant
    role in protecting local air resources, ensuring a strong
    transportation system and strengthening the local economic
    development efforts.
        Counties and local governments own a large portion of the
    Nation's public road system. My county alone owns more than 400
    public road miles. Many transportation projects would have to
    be reconsidered if the ozone standard was tightened.
        Additionally, areas designated as nonattainment can have a
    more difficult time in attracting and keeping industries due to
    the concerns that their permits and other approvals will be too
    expensive and even impossible to obtain.
        Second, a more stringent ozone standard would create
    unfunded mandates for State and local governments. EPA
    estimates that hundreds of counties would be impacted by the
    new ozone standard.
        A more stringent standard would be especially difficult for
    rural countries and small metropolitan areas, many of which
    have not previously been subject to nonattainment designations.
    Very limited Federal funding is available to help these regions
    and counties comply with air quality standards.
        Additionally, the Federal Government can withhold Federal
    highway funds for projects and plans in nonattainment areas
    which would negatively impact job creation and economic
    development for these impacted regions.
        In 2008, EPA issued the existing 75 ppb ozone standard. In
    2010, a more stringent standard was proposed but EPA later
    withdrew it over concerns about resulting regulatory burdens
    and uncertainty.
        During this period, however, implementation of the 2008
    standard was effectively halted. That process was recently
    restarted. In February of this year, a few months ago, my
    county received the implementation guidelines for the 2008
    standard. Now here we are again discussing a new standard
    before we know whether the current standard is working.
        This process has created confusion in regions and counties
    and about where they stand under the current standard which is
    crucial to gauging the effects of an even more stringent
    standard.
        Due to 2014 court decisions, two separate ozone standards
    must be met as part of the transportation conformity process. A
    stricter ozone standard will only complicate matters further.
        In conclusion, the health and well being of our residents
    is a top priority for regions and counties. We urge that EPA
    fully implement the current ozone standard before issuing a
    new, more stringent standard.
        We look forward to working with members of this committee
    and the EPA to craft policies and protect public health without
    inhibiting the economic vitality of our communities.
        Thank you again for the opportunity. I am pleased to
    address any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Judge Moore follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Moore, for that excellent
    statement.
        Dr. Diette.

    STATEMENT OF GREGORY B. DIETTE, MD, MHS, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE,
     EPIDEMIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCE, JOHNS HOPKINS
                               UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Diette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and
    members of the committee for inviting me here. I appreciate the
    time to talk to you.
        My name is Dr. Gregory Diette. I am a practicing pulmonary
    or lung doctor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,
    Maryland. To put it simply, my job is to take care of very sick
    people with lung diseases including things like asthma, COPD
    and other lung diseases.
        You have my written testimony before you and I just wanted
    to make a few more points with the time that I have.
        First of all, ozone pollution is very bad for the lungs. I
    think it is pretty obvious to most people but I think it is
    worth repeating. It is a very potent oxidant and when you
    inhale it, it irritates the lungs and causes people to have
    symptoms.
        There are multiple research studies throughout the United
    States and the globe that have shown this. They provide a
    coherent story about what happens when people inhale ozone.
        When you get sick from inhaling ozone, there is a range of
    things that can happen. One can be as simple as having to take
    more of the medication you are already taking.
        In some cases, it means going to the doctor to have an
    adjustment and in some cases, to the emergency department of
    the hospital or the ICU. Worse than that, you can die from it.
    These are very serious issues in terms of the problems people
    have.
        Second, something I think gets lost sometimes, because we
    are talking about vulnerable people, is ozone is bad for normal
    people too. Normal, healthy people are affected by ozone. If a
    healthy adult inhales ozone, it affects their lung function and
    causes inflammation in the lungs. If we have time, I will
    elaborate on why that is so important.
        Another issue is that ozone is ozone, so the person who
    inhales it does not care whether it came from their city, the
    nearby county or another State. It is still ozone and it is
    still irritating.
        Another point I wanted to make was about public health. I
    think public health is a concept that sometimes seems like a
    high level concept and things get lost in translation. Public
    health is really a collection of stories about individuals who
    live in America and what their individual story is and how it
    contributes to the health issue.
        If you think about what happens to someone as an
    individual, a mother of a child in an emergency room wonders if
    her child is going to survive that asthma attack, wonders if
    they are going to be discharged from the hospital and wonders
    whether or not she can afford to take off one more day from
    work in order to take care of her child, when and if he is
    discharged to go home.
        The issue about the symptoms, somebody talks about
    something like an asthma attack, can seem very abstract, here
    is what it sounds like when somebody describes it. They say, it
    feels like there is an elephant on my chest, I cannot breathe,
    I am panicked, I feel like I am going to die. That is the
    experience people have. It is not subtle; it is very scary.
        The last thing I want to address is the state of the
    science. I think it is very strong and very compelling. It was
    compelling in the Bush administration when the EPA looked at
    the ozone standard and proposed a standard of 60 ppb. The
    evidence was supportive of that standard. It has only gotten
    stronger since 2006 to now.
        We have additional information about the adverse effects of
    ozone on human health. These come from a variety of types of
    studies, not just one type of study. The EPA has available to
    it not one study, not ten studies but literally hundreds of
    studies performed around the United States and the globe to
    support this idea.
        In particular, these studies include necronistic studies,
    animal studies, toxicology studies, epidemiology studies,
    natural experiment studies, met-analyses and others.
        I think the evidence is sufficient to say the EPA can and
    must strengthen the standard for the sake of human health.
        Thank you very much. I look forward to answering any
    questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Diette follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Diette.
        Mr. Greene.

       STATEMENT OF LARRY GREENE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO
              METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

        Mr. Greene. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member
    Boxer, and members of the committee.
        My name is Larry Greene, and I am the Executive Director of
    the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
        As a military officer for over 20 years, and now as an Air
    Quality Director for a similar period, I have always taken
    seriously my responsibilities to protect public interests,
    formerly through a national security lens, and currently from a
    public health perspective.
        It is with this background that I would like to provide the
    committee with comments related to our Sacramento experience
    with the Federal Clean Air Act.
        In California, meeting the requirements of the Federal
    Clean Air Act has clearly been difficult. California's
    geography and weather patterns provide optimal conditions for
    the formation of summer ozone and winter particulate pollution.
    Whatever the contributing factors, Federal designations are
    based on real public health threats from dangerous levels of
    air pollution.
        One of the pillars of the CAA is the establishment of the
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which must be supported
    by sound science and set at levels that protect public health
    with an adequate margin of safety and without consideration of
    cost or other implementation issues.
        The CAA provides for this by establishing the Clean Air
    Scientific Advisory Committee and mandating a review and
    revision, only if deemed necessary, of each NAAQS every 5 years
    to ensure the standards remain protective of health.
        Based on years of direct experience seeing the public
    health benefits of the Act, we support the Clean Air Act
    measures. These core principles ensure that public safety is
    the first filter through which air quality initiatives are
    measured.
        At the same time, we are certainly cognizant of the
    potential costs of regulatory compliance borne by our local
    business community. For that reason, we closely evaluate the
    provisions of EPA implementation rules and guidance documents,
    provide optimizing comments and have worked hard locally on a
    range of measures to mitigate and moderate the cost of
    regulation.
        A key measure in reducing monitored ozone and particulate
    pollution levels has been incentivizing early adoption of
    cleaner on and off-road equipment. Since 1998, we have provided
    over $230 million of State and local funds to businesses in the
    Sacramento region for purchasing clean equipment in advance of
    regulatory deadlines.
        We also collaborate with a range of regional partners,
    including our metropolitan transportation agency to enhance
    public transportation alternatives. Other programs help schools
    purchase cleaner vehicles.
        For Sacramento, the result tells the story, and it is a
    positive one. We have attained the original 1994 1-hour ozone
    standard. We are on track to attain the 1997, 85 ppb standard
    by the mandated 2017 attainment date.
        With continuing support from State and Federal programs, we
    anticipate we will submit a State Implementation Plan, or SIP,
    next year that will demonstrate attainment of the 2008, 75 ppb
    standard by the target year of 2027. If EPA takes final action
    to tighten the 75 ppb standard in October, we anticipate that,
    as with other standards, we will be successful in meeting this
    public health goal.
        The key message is that meeting NAAQS targets takes
    committed partnership between local, State and Federal
    agencies. Along those lines, I would like to make a few
    observations about a new ozone standard, at whatever level it
    is set.
        First, it is important that EPA follow the science and
    tighten the standards to within a range set by its independent
    science advisors. Second, the progress we are making to comply
    with the current 75 ppb standard will bring us that much closer
    to achieving any new and tighter standard.
        Third, the co-benefits from reducing greenhouse gases can
    help reduce smog forming emissions and other air pollutants. We
    already see this occurring in California.
        Fourth, there are a number of sources for which Federal
    controls are the most efficient, cost effect and at times, the
    only avenue available. It is essential that the Federal
    Government continue to support effective programs for reducing
    emissions from sources under Federal responsibility.
        Finally, if Congress wishes to contribute to our success in
    achieving clean air and public health goals, we urge you to
    increase Federal funding to State and local air agencies to
    support our work and a wide range of areas related to air
    quality regulations.
        With that, I thank you for inviting me to testify on this
    critically important issue. I am happy to answer your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Greene follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Greene. Thank all of you for
    your excellent statements.
        We will be having a round of 5 minutes in the order that
    our members have arrived, starting with myself and Senator
    Boxer.
        Judge Moore, you heard testimony from Mr. Greene talking
    about not just the ozone but also CO2 and other
    emissions. Your Governor is a fine person, I know him, and he
    is committed to CO2 reductions by 2050.
        My observation was that at that time he will be 110 years
    old, so it is pretty easy to make those commitments. However, I
    appreciate very much that he has made this commitment and
    concern and sent this letter to the President of which you are
    aware.
        Gina McCarthy wrote, in a CNN op-ed which I suspect you
    probably saw, ``The agency's air standards will help
    communities attract new business, new investment and new
    jobs.'' Is this your experience in the State of Kentucky?
        Judge Moore. We have seen amazing economic growth and job
    creation in our county. We believe that can best be done by
    letting the private sector do what it does best. That is to
    create jobs. We try to keep regulations and requirements off
    them that might get in the way.
        Our Governor has been a great partner with us. We were just
    recognized as the No. 1 State per capita in new job creation
    last year at a recent conference. Our Governor came back home
    and talked about that.
        We work in a bipartisan way to create jobs, build our
    transportation system, but do that in a responsible way. We
    were in nonattainment but now we are in moderate attainment. We
    have done that through good planning.
        We have doubled in population in our county since 1990. We
    have seen new homes, new residential, but also new commercial
    and industrial development. By planning wisely, protecting our
    environment and doing that in a way that incorporates
    multimodal opportunities, more mass transit, bike lanes,
    pedestrian capacities, we can do that.
        To answer your question, these regulations can get in the
    way of job creation and economic vitality. We feel we are doing
    quite well in making improvements.
        Senator Inhofe. I know you are doing a good job. That was
    not my question. My question was what these new standards are
    going to be doing.
        I was in the private sector for 20 years. I know what it is
    like to receive the edicts that come from Washington. That is
    why we are having hearings like this with people who at home
    are having to carry out these things.
        Your successes are admirable and I appreciate that. If you
    are looking down the road and having to come up with these new
    requirements, is that going to create new jobs?
        Judge Moore. No, that would get in the way of new jobs, to
    answer your question.
        Senator Inhofe. Mr. Srikanth, what about your situation? Do
    you think that would have the effect, as stated, of attracting
    new business, new investment and new jobs?
        Mr. Srikanth. My own experience and expertise falls short
    of economic development in this region. From a technician's
    perspective, I can say this region has seen significant growth
    and economic development. It is forecast to grow a lot more.
        Federal help and assistance will certainly be critical to
    complement and accommodate the future growth. The
    accomplishments of the past alone will not be sufficient to
    carry us into the future. The future-needed emission reductions
    will certainly have to have Federal assistance in achieving
    them.
        Senator Inhofe. Do you think with the new standards, there
    would be a disruption of Federal funds, significant cost
    increases, and new prohibitions on much needed capacity
    projects? In other words, you will continue to have good
    successes. Would this be because of or in spite of the new
    standards?
        Mr. Srikanth. My testimony alluded to one of the things
    with clean air standards of any pollutant, ozone, particulate
    matter or others, is transportation has to do its part and do
    the air quality conformity analysis. If it is not done, then
    Federal transportation funding could be impacted. For areas
    which will have problems demonstrating attainment, that could
    impact the timely availability of Federal funding.
        Senator Inhofe. Mr. McKee, there was talk in all five of
    the opening statements about the natural conditions in the
    States that cause elevated ozone levels. What can States do to
    control such natural events?
        Mr. McKee. Really very little, because if you look at the
    ozone problem, what causes ozone is the closer you get to the
    stratosphere, the higher those ozone levels are going to be.
        In my own area, we are a mile higher, and this is the case
    in much of the West. In these higher elevations, in particular
    for summer ozone, there is very little you can do. I do not
    know that we want to cut down all trees and all vegetation and
    bury it so that we do not have ozone.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
        Senator Boxer.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        I wish the whole Country could have seen this panel. You
    are all so good. There was one star witness, if I could say.
    You would normally think I would point to my Sacramento friend,
    who was pretty good, but I have to say Dr. Diette, thank you.
        You are not a politician and you are not a bureaucrat. You
    came here and you told us the impact of smog on the human body.
    You told us and did it very, very clearly, exactly what
    happens. You did not do it in some confusing manner.
        You said, ozone pollution is bad for the lungs. That is
    pretty straightforward. We all have lungs. It is bad for the
    lungs. You said it irritates the lungs, it causes symptoms.
    When you have ozone, sometimes in cases you can die from it.
    You said that. You further said that normal people also are
    impacted by ozone.
        What I loved about my second star, Larry Greene, was his
    point that he served in the military and he views his job as
    cleaning up the air and similar to that, protecting the lives
    of people.
        It just confuses me that we would argue over this in light
    of what you said, Doctor, which I do not think anyone at all
    would ever refute because they are facts.
        I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record, if I
    might, Mr. Chairman, By the Numbers, this shows us the cost of
    this regulation at the different standard, if it is 70 ppb or
    65 ppb. It shows you how many asthma attacks will be prevented,
    up to 960,000, Mr. Chairman, and 4,300 premature deaths.
        Close your eyes and think if it is someone you love whose
    lives will be saved. There would be a million days when kids
    would not miss school, 180,000 days when people would not miss
    work, and 4,300 asthma-related emergency room visits. Doctor,
    you expressed that well, of a mother or father panicking and
    leaving work to rush their child to get help. Also, 2,300 cases
    of acute bronchitis would be avoided among children.
        Everybody else, it is going to be hard. Yes, it is going to
    be hard. You know what? It is hard. When we passed the Clean
    Air Act, everybody said the same thing that my dear friend, the
    Chairman said, the same thing my friend the Majority Leader
    said, and Senator Thune, a staggering blow to the economy. They
    used the same words in 1970 and when we reauthorized the Act,
    the same words.
        Mr. Moore, Hon. Gary Moore, you are very good at expressing
    your view and you stand for a lot of people in your State. I
    agree with that, but honest to God, if you really want to look
    at what happens when there is no regulation on air, look at
    communist China, look at communist Eastern Europe. They have no
    regulations. The state did not want any. They did all the
    business and there were no regulations. People could not
    breathe. When that wall came down in Eastern Europe, they knew
    if they wanted economic growth, they had to clean up the air.
        I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record the
    number of jobs that have been created since we passed the Clean
    Air Act. Can I do that?
        Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
        It is very clear that while the aggregate emissions of
    common air pollutants dropped 72 percent, the U.S. Domestic
    Product grew 219 percent.
        Mr. McKee, earlier this year, a poll in Utah found that 67
    percent of voters there stated that air pollution and smog are
    extremely serious problems facing their State. Are you aware of
    that poll?
        Mr. McKee. I am aware of the information.
        Senator Boxer. You are aware of the poll. In 2013, ozone
    levels in one of your counties exceeded the Federal standard on
    54 days and concentrations spiked as high as 142 ppb, more than
    double the level of EPA's rule.
        Do you believe air with ground level ozone concentrations
    of 142 ppb is safe for people to breathe, especially for
    children?
        Mr. McKee. Senator----
        Senator Boxer. Can you just say if you think it is safe
    because my time is running out. I want to ask Dr. Diette if you
    do not answer it.
        Mr. McKee. If I could real quickly, we have spent millions
    of dollars. Our group did a study with admissions to our local
    hospital to see what effect respiratory illness had to do with
    ozone. They did not see any correlation with admissions.
        Senator Boxer. You do not think that 142 ppb is safe?
        Mr. McKee. We did not see it.
        Senator Boxer. What do you think, Doctor?
        Dr. Diette. One hundred forty-two ppb is an extraordinary
    value. It is lethal for people with heart disease, lung
    disease, diabetes and other conditions. It is a lethal dose of
    ozone.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you. That is enough. It says it all.
        We are here to make life better for people, not to fight
    for the polluters, period, end of quote.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Boxer.
        Judge Moore, in your testimony, you discussed the potential
    impacts of a lowered ozone standard and state the proposed
    standard will dramatically increase the number of counties
    classified in nonattainment.
        As you noted, under this proposal, 16 States that currently
    have no counties in nonattainment would be subject to a new
    conformity process. This includes my State of Nebraska where 57
    out of our 93 counties would be classified in nonattainment. I
    will note that these are rural, agricultural counties.
        Can you speak about the potential costs that State and
    local governments will face in order to come into compliance
    and reach that attainment?
        Judge Moore. Yes. Actually, that number, according to our
    statistics, is if the 70 ppb standard were passed, it would be
    358 more counties nationally. At 65 ppb, it would be 558 more
    counties would be impacted.
        We know the challenges that Congress is having with passing
    a long-term transportation reauthorization. One immediate
    impact would be in the area of CMAQ funding, congestion,
    mitigation and air quality funding for transportation, to help
    improve our transportation system and congestion.
        I suspect that those dollars are not going to increase at
    the same percentage as the number of counties that will be
    competing for those dollars. Immediately, the program that is
    supposed to help nonattainment counties become in attainment
    will be impacted. Right there is an immediate financial impact.
        Road projects, as we continue to try to move our
    communities forward, rural communities depend on highway
    improvements to get people to jobs and jobs to the people as
    well as other services.
        More regulation will do nothing but delay projects, if not
    prohibit them, and increase costs. The impact on economic
    development is dramatic as well because of these similar
    challenges.
        If we saw transportation spending enhancements along with
    some of these requirements, it could potentially lessen the
    impact but it will never meet the additional financial impact
    these standards would have on local governments.
        Senator Fischer. Do you know if the EPA has considered or
    accounted for these costs with their analyses of the rule?
        Judge Moore. I have seen their statistics of their
    estimates and they do not fully capture the total cost that
    local governments and communities would face.
        Senator Fischer. Like Kentucky, Nebraska's counties and our
    local governments, they own and maintain a very vast road and
    transportation system. As I pointed out, the counties that will
    be affected are very rural counties. In Nebraska, it is not
    unusual to have one person per square mile in many of these
    areas.
        We already see maintenance projects that undergo what I
    view as a very cumbersome environmental review process and the
    costs of time involved which means money as well. These
    counties and the State cannot afford that.
        Can you briefly describe the current review process and
    what you see as burdens placed on our local governments under
    the proposed ozone rule for counties in nonattainment?
        Again, I would just like to say we all want clean air, we
    all want clean water, but we also need to recognize costs that
    are involved in I believe the expansion of the rule where we
    see areas in nonattainment that have not even met the current
    rule.
        We are talking about an expansion instead of focusing on
    areas where we need to focus. Let us take care of business. If
    you could answer that, I would appreciate it.
        Judge Moore. We do care about the health of our citizens,
    obviously. It is a huge responsibility we have.
        By the way, in Boone County, Kentucky, we were recently
    selected as the healthiest county in the Commonwealth. We are
    very proud of that statistic. We have done that by developing
    our community in a responsible way. We are working toward the
    2008 standards.
        The 2008 standards are having an impact. They are
    improving. We would like to see it play out and see if that
    does continue to develop. We believe it will. Let's let the
    2008 standards play out.
        Specifically to your question as to cost, those rural
    communities that will be added to the list of nonattainment are
    the counties that can least afford it. They have smaller
    budgets. Many times they have little to no staff to deal with
    these added requirements. I think you could see a dramatic
    impact on progress in those counties.
        The modeling that is required to be done, in order to
    construct or improve a highway system, requires substantial
    modeling. My colleague has spoken to the modeling question. Who
    is going to pay for that additional cost? It is either going to
    be on the local taxpayers or added to the cost of the project.
        As I stated earlier, there already are not sufficient funds
    to deal with our transportation needs. If you add delays and
    costs, you are adding additional responsibility to a system
    that already is not paying for itself.
        I really feel for my colleagues in the rural counties that
    would be asked to try to meet these new requirements. Let's let
    2008 play out and continue to make progress and someday discuss
    where we go from there.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Judge.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
        I would ask unanimous consent that letters from two
    Democratic Governors, of Virginia and Kentucky, be made a part
    of the record. Both object to lowered standards.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for your testimony. I want to clarify a
    couple points I found interesting in the discussion.
        The first is related to the challenge of complying with
    potential new standards. It is my understanding that the areas
    of the Country that have the biggest challenge with ground
    level ozone would have until 2037, 22 years from now, to
    comply.
        I do not know who would like to respond to that. I just
    want to clarify that is the case, because I do not think that
    has really been highlighted in the conversation. Mr. Greene.
        Mr. Greene. The worst areas would probably be San Joaquin
    and South Coast. They would get substantial time and I believe
    that is correct, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Certainly that is a factor in the cost.
    Virtually all of my home State is in compliance with the new
    standards. Yet, the cost estimates done by the National
    Association of Manufacturers said it would take Oregon $8
    billion to comply. How would it take Oregon $8 billion to
    comply if Oregon is already in compliance with the standards?
    Can anyone explain how those costs would be incurred?
        I see no answer. If the estimates are so grossly off for my
    home State, how much are they off for the rest of the Country?
    The estimates from NAM are so different from the estimates from
    EPA that I think we need additional insight from third parties
    to get an understanding of this.
        My understanding is from the EPA side, the health care
    savings would far exceed the cost to our economy and health
    care costs are a cost to the economy. Certainly that is
    something that makes sense.
        I was interested in the question of the pollution from
    China. I have been over to China a couple of times. Anyone who
    has visited for any length of time, you are probably going to
    have days you can hardly see the length of a football field. It
    is not fog, it is pollution.
        They had a recent documentary called ``Under the Dome''
    that highlighted the vast impact on the health of the citizens
    of the Country. It is equal to smoking something close to two
    packs a day of cigarettes. Our diplomats are reluctant to be
    there. It does make sense that some of that pollution is making
    it to the U.S.
        While looking that up, the best estimates I could find, the
    biggest impact in southern California is in lower elevations, 3
    ppb to 8 ppb and in higher elevations, 15 ppb. Most of that
    arrives in the spring, not in the summer when California has
    the greatest compliance challenge.
        Mr. Greene, is that correct?
        Mr. Greene. That is correct. It occurs in the spring and
    that conforms with the numbers I have seen on California.
        Senator Merkley. I tried to find some sense of the
    contribution from Mexico. I did see the charts that showed no
    correlation between the areas of the U.S. most adjacent to
    Mexico or weather patterns that brought that pollution into the
    U.S. Does anyone have any insight to the direct impact from
    Mexico? Mr. Greene.
        Mr. Greene. Senator, I do know that our southern districts
    in California do have some significant impacts from Mexico,
    particularly dust. You would imagine that counties or areas
    right next to each other would exchange some pollution across
    the border.
        Senator Merkley. Is there a particular time of year that
    really affects compliance? Is it storms that blow north or
    certain winds that bring that dust into the U.S.?
        Mr. Greene. I would not know that answer, sir.
        Senator Merkley. The thing I find interesting is the health
    testimony. Thank you very much, Doctor, for your testimony.
    Asthma is a significant concern among my citizens. The other
    health impacts are substantial.
        I like the idea of our planning being based on the science
    of health impacts. Doctor, could you clarify again, am I
    understanding from what you are saying that there is a
    significant difference on health between the current standard
    and the proposed standard, that there would be a substantial
    improvement, reduced health costs and improved quality of life?
        Dr. Diette. All of those things are true. One of the
    reference points that has come up from time to time is about
    being currently in attainment with the present standard, for
    example, 75 ppb. For example, the Chairman mentioned that his
    State, every county, was in compliance.
        If you look at another resource, the American Lung
    Association's website, they have a state of the air statement
    about different counties. You would see in Oklahoma, for
    example, every county would get a grade F but for one, which
    would get a grade D. That is because that is based on science,
    not regulation.
        The science has advanced. Our interpretation of the science
    has advanced at a much faster pace than the regulation has.
    People are being harmed by it. It is very clear. I think that
    is the standard about which we should be thinking, the one that
    is fully protective of human health as opposed to the legacy of
    another era.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
    Ranking Member and I want to thank the panelists.
        Mr. Srikanth, I wanted to ask you to explain to me the
    threat of conformity in terms of the threat of conformity
    lapses which could effectively shut off Federal highway funds
    due to the stringency of the standard.
        Both in D.C. and around the Country, smaller, more rural
    MPOs will have significant burden on these MPOs. Can you
    explain to me the conformity issue? You brought it up in your
    statement, but could you flesh it out a bit more for me,
    please?
        Mr. Srikanth. I would be happy to, Senator Capito.
        The transportation conformity is associated with the Clean
    Air Act. Metropolitan planning organizations have to follow the
    rules put out by the EPA on how to conduct this.
        One of the key drivers of the transportation conformity
    rule is when an area is designated as not being in attainment
    of a standard, they are required to submit what is called a
    State Implementation Plan, a plan on how that area will attain
    the standard.
        That document, the State Implementation Plan, will identify
    the amount of emissions from different sectors, from power
    plants, area sources and transportation. The amount of
    emissions for transportation listed in the State Implementation
    Plan is often referred to as the emissions budget.
        A metropolitan planning organization's long-term
    transportation plan is required to be developed in order to get
    Federal funds. The emissions from all of those projects, at a
    minimum of 20 years into the future, have to be below these
    levels in the State Implementation Plan. If it is not, then the
    plan will not be approved.
        The plan has a time limit. If the plan remains not
    approved, then the plan would lapse. If the plan lapses, the
    Federal transportation funding will not be provided until the
    plan is corrected.
        Senator Capito. To your knowledge, has that occurred under
    the standards we have now? Do you know of anyone across the
    United States who has not been in conformity and had their
    Federal highway dollars withheld?
        Mr. Srikanth. We have had instances. I will have to get
    back to you on specifics. I think my colleagues might be able
    to recall specific jurisdictions. Atlanta certainly comes to my
    mind.
        Senator Capito. Judge Moore, are you aware of any of that?
        Judge Moore. From a couple of my colleagues, I believe
    Atlanta would also be an example of where that has happened.
        If I may also comment, the recent court ruling is
    requiring, in many cases, that modeling of conformity not only
    be applied to the 2008 standards but also the 1997 standards.
    You would have to meet both.
        If new regulations were passed, there may be three
    different standards and models that some regions would have to
    run in order to make sure we were compliant and eligible for
    Federal funds. There is also that confusion and the overlap
    that MPOs and regions are facing.
        Senator Capito. I would have to add myself to that
    confusion. Certainly drawing up three implementation plans
    would be costly.
        I think one of you mentioned the amount of your budget
    dedicated strictly to this issue, a quarter of the budget you
    are using to measure and make sure you are measuring properly.
        I heard a comment that people are advocating for no
    regulation. I have not really heard that in this committee and
    I have not heard it from any of the testimony today. I
    certainly do not believe that to be true.
        When you look at what is going on in terms of ozone and put
    on top of that the Clean Power Plan and EPA possibly looking at
    redoing their emissions plan for methane, particularly in the
    western States, we have a lot of oil and gas in the State of
    West Virginia, it begins to become a burden.
        If we have to do three implementation plans and devote all
    the resources to that, it begins to lack the thing I think
    Senator Flake was calling for, basically common sense here. Let
    us move with common sense.
        Mr. McKee, could you comment on all of the different moving
    parts that EPA is going to be putting forward if they are
    successful with the regulatory environment we see right now?
        Mr. McKee. We certainly find it difficult in the area where
    we are, and as I stated, in the West, because particularly with
    the lowering of the ozone standard itself, much of the United
    States will not be able to meet attainment.
        If you go down to 70 or 65 ppb, as you realize, ozone
    itself does not just happen. It is a mixture with VOCs and
    NOx and that comes together. It just does not happen
    on its own. As I talked about the trees and vegetation, it is
    somewhat of a decaying of those products that in summertime
    elevates those standards.
        Then the higher elevation we have, the more difficult it is
    to be able to correct that. It is very possible, even absent
    all emissions, we would have significant areas in the United
    States that would still be in nonattainment.
        Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to make a few points that I do not think have
    been made yet.
        The first is that the present regulation is one that was
    conceived in scandal. To set the present standard, the Bush
    administration EPA, under Administrator Johnson, departed from
    the consistent recommendations of his agency scientists, public
    officials and the agency's own Scientific Advisory Committee.
        The standard then set was inadequate to protect the public,
    especially children and the elderly, from the harmful effects
    of ozone pollution from asthma and lung disease. Indeed, it was
    so inadequate that EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory
    Committee took the unique step of writing to the then-
    Administrator to state that they ``do not endorse the new
    primary ozone standard as being sufficiently protective of the
    public health.''
        They went on to say that EPA's decision ``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.'' That was the finding of the Clean Air
    Scientific Advisory Committee at the time.
        Since then, Dr. Diette, as the science on this gotten
    clearer or less clear?
        Dr. Diette. It has become increasingly strong. There are
    additional studies in multiple regions of the Country and
    throughout the world that have strengthened the evidence base.
    They have also been conducted in the era when the current
    standard has applied, so it is in an era where there are lower
    concentrations of ozone and people are still finding
    substantial signal for health issues.
        Senator Whitehouse. We also know overall that, at least at
    the 70 ppb standard, the estimated health care savings and
    benefits, the estimated environmental savings and benefits, the
    estimated economic savings and benefits from that rule could
    add as much as $13 million, whereas the costs would only be
    $3.9 billion. It creates a $10 billion immediate benefit
    according to those calculations.
        The third thing I would like to point out is on the path of
    Rhode Island. Rhode Island is a downstream State. We are often
    out of compliance on ozone. We have days in the summer when, as
    you are driving in to work, what you hear on the radio is the
    announcer saying today is a bad air day in Rhode Island.
    Children should stay indoors. Elderly should stay indoors.
    People with lung or breathing difficulties should stay indoors.
        It looks like a beautiful day but it is ozone. Where does
    the ozone come from? It comes from power plants in the Midwest.
        Judge, your State of Kentucky has 22 smoke stacks that are
    higher than 500 feet. When you build those high smoke stacks,
    you shoot the pollution, the SOx and the
    NOx, according to the GAO study, 56 percent of the
    boilers attached to tall stacks lack scrubbers to control
    sulfur dioxide and 63 percent do not have controls to trap
    emissions of nitrogen oxides. As Mr. McKee just pointed out,
    those are the precursors to ozone.
        You build high smoke stacks, you eject the stuff out of
    your State, and it goes up into the heat and into the
    atmosphere. It creates ozone and our kids in Rhode Island have
    to stay indoors on an otherwise good day.
        I do not see how that is fair. I do not see how there is
    any way in the world Kentucky is ever going to pay attention to
    that problem when the harm is taking place in Rhode Island.
        It is really important, Mr. Chairman, that this be a rule
    that protects States that are not just pollution-emitting
    States. We are a downstream State that pays the price of 22
    tall smoke stacks.
        Let me ask one last question about altitude. We have heard
    from Mr. McKee a couple of times about the problem of being a
    high altitude State. Dr. Diette, could you react to that? What
    is the reality of that?
        Dr. Diette. I think there is a lot to know about altitude
    and regional transport of some of the pollutants. In some
    cases, pollutants are generated near where they are found and
    in some cases, they are transported from a distance.
        If you think about places like some parts of Utah, for
    example, where there are thermal inversions, there are
    pollutants created there that cannot escape into the upper
    atmosphere. Sometimes that is what happens. Other times, there
    is transport from a distance and also ends up there.
        I wanted to remark about a point you made because we say it
    so often that I think it is really remarkable. As you talked
    about telling kids to stay indoors on a day when there is
    transport of ozone into their State, that is a remarkable
    statement.
        It is a remarkable thing to have to tell your entire
    population, today is not a safe enough day for you to go
    outside and play. If you go outside and play, you have to wait
    until the sun is down, you have to wait until it is dark when
    maybe it is safe or not. It is an unbelievable message.
        When my patients come to me and say, what can I do about my
    asthma, one of the things I can say is, I can keep giving you
    more medications. They say, what about pollution, what can I do
    and I say, there is nothing you can do. The free market does
    not change that. You cannot buy a different product and not be
    exposed to pollution.
        This process here, which is the only way to control it in
    the United States, is to do it at the Federal level and try to
    keep the pollution from reaching them.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Doctor, I appreciated your comments. I have a grandson who
    has a challenge with asthma. This is something I think all of
    us care about.
        Some of the information you laid out for us today indicates
    that 140 ppb would be fatal. Could you work a bit backward from
    there? I am assuming 100 ppb is still perhaps not fatal but
    absolutely critical in nature and one that should be attained,
    a fair statement?
        Dr. Diette. That is a great question. I thank you very much
    for it.
        It is not simply a threshold. The reason I reacted to 110
    or 120 ppb is that is an extraordinarily high value. It is a
    value that would set off alarm bells for a region. That is one
    of the days we would be talking about not having the kids go
    outside. There is a dose response effect, so we see it even at
    much lower concentrations than that.
        Arbitrarily, investigators choose things like 5 ppb or 10
    ppb as an increment but very small increments, even in the
    lower range, can affect health, even during low increments.
        Senator Rounds. What do we call the lower ranges? What are
    the numbers you have seen studied in terms of lower ranges of
    ozone?
        Dr. Diette. I think the best evidence I have seen comes in
    the 60 ppb and higher. There has been a lot of attention to
    that range between the current standard of 75 ppb and 60 ppb
    which is the proposed lower bound of the new standard.
        Senator Rounds. The reason I ask is that I have a study I
    would like entered in the record, Mr. Chairman.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Rounds. It is a reference out of Atmospheric
    Environment done by Mr. Emery back in 2011 in which he
    indicates that a significant amount of the geographic area in
    the western part of the United States actually has a background
    of about 70 ppb, apparently not caused by us but simply
    background.
        I am curious, in your studies looking at the sound science
    side of this, is it even attainable, is it even possible to get
    to something under a 70 ppb when in those States in which
    literally there seems to be some pretty sound evidence that is
    a natural background level?
        Dr. Diette. I think you have brought up an important issue
    which is, what is the background concentration? For one, it is
    not measurable. You cannot measure it directly, because we do
    not have the time and the space where there is not manmade
    contribution to the ozone concentration. The only thing you can
    do is estimate.
        There are different estimates and most of the estimates I
    have seen are between 20 and 40 ppb. In terms of background, we
    are talking about a couple of phenomena. Some definitions
    include transport into an area where it is being measured for
    another area and others are that being generated by things that
    have nothing to do with man.
        For example, a forest fire, if man had nothing to do with
    it, that is going to happen anyway, or lightning strikes,
    things of that sort.
        Seventy parts per billion sounds really high. That is not a
    value that I have seen reproduced otherwise. I would probably
    defer to my other colleagues here about what it takes in order
    to attain standards since that is their expertise and not mine.
        Senator Rounds. I am curious. We have used references in
    terms of the number of packs of cigarettes per day and so forth
    that an individual would utilize.
        If you were to take a reference, if 100 ppb of ozone was
    comparable to a pack a day, is there relevance to saying it is
    very important that we bring down ozone from very, very high
    levels in those areas where there is significant and direct and
    acute damage being caused?
        Are we putting our resources and attention into the right
    locations by saying we want to work to get everybody to 65 ppb
    or 60 ppb when in essence we could be saving a lot more lives
    if we were to focus on those areas such as those in California
    which have very, very high numbers? Where is our best bet for
    saving the most lives?
        Dr. Diette. You raise a bunch of very important and
    interesting points. One of the issues I have heard here is
    ideas such as we should get everyone into attainment first
    before lowering the other people who are already in attainment.
        As a health care provider, that strikes me as very unusual.
    To me, the analogy would if we had a new drug that could cure
    asthma, we would say, you are not going to get it yet because
    all the people who can benefit from the existing drugs do not
    have them yet. That is the way it sounds to me.
        It sounds as if we are going to keep people who could
    benefit from benefiting while we are waiting for other people
    who are not benefiting already to catch up. It seems very
    strange to me from a health care standpoint. I would not
    advocate it for my patients.
        Senator Rounds. Let me go to Judge Moore for a second. You
    did not get an opportunity to respond and I thought perhaps you
    would like to.
        When we start talking about NOx and the
    references with regard to the creation of ozone in your
    particular State where you have power plants, are you currently
    in compliance with those standards? What would be your thoughts
    in terms of the reference our friend from Rhode Island made?
        Judge Moore. Thank you for the opportunity. I did want to
    respond.
        Our county is a suburban county. We are not a smokestack
    county. We are in moderate nonattainment currently because of
    emissions that are flowing into our county from other parts of
    the Country.
        I think Senator Whitehouse helped make our case that you
    are putting regulations on counties that really cannot control
    the ozone level in their counties. Those rural counties that
    maybe are reaching levels under a new standard that would
    require additional costs and regulations, you are putting those
    requirements on them when it is not going to have an immediate
    impact or possibly a long term impact on the issue.
        I would also differ with him on smokestacks. I think he is
    referring to Kentucky Coal and Energy, coal-fired power plants.
    I do believe there are clean coal technologies that are working
    and moving forward. The 2008 standards put substantial
    requirements upon those power companies to make sure they meet
    the 2008 standards.
        Again, we would come back to let's let that play out.
    Improvements are being made. Let's continue to make those
    improvements before we put regulations on communities that are
    not going to have an immediate impact.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today. This is
    an important topic for my State. There are few, if any issues,
    more important than the health of our children and the air they
    breathe every day.
        Now that it is summer, more children will be spending more
    time outdoors. We know how active young people are when they
    are outdoors, playing sports, games, and activities. You also
    know children's lungs and immune systems are still developing,
    leaving them particularly susceptible to the negative health
    effects of increased ozone layers.
        In fact, a 2010 study conducted in New York City found that
    ozone associated with warmer weather aggravates children's
    asthma leading to severe asthma attacks that could have been
    avoided. Asthma rates are rising in our young people. They are
    missing school days and emergency room visits for respiratory
    distress are on the rise.
        I introduced legislation last month, the School Asthma
    Management Plan Act, to assist schools in helping young people
    when they have asthma attacks. I am committed to taking active
    measures to make the air that we breathe safer for the whole
    population.
        There is significant evidence that lowering the ozone
    standard will do that. I applaud the EPA for heeding the
    science and proposing to strengthen the ozone standard to be
    more protective of public health.
        The cost of inaction is immense, increased number of
    hospital visits, increased health care costs, even premature
    death. The current value of 75 ppb of ground level ozone is
    outdated and does not reflect the current science.
        I would like to ask Mr. Greene and Dr. Diette the
    following. The EPA has an air quality alert system that allows
    caregivers to easily determine if the air quality is safe for
    kids to play outside. We talked about that earlier.
        For children who have compromised immune systems or
    preexisting respiratory conditions like asthma, this alert
    system is very important. Air Quality Index values are reported
    daily and fall into the following levels: good, moderate,
    unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy and
    hazardous.
        I assume both of you are familiar with the alert system.
    Under this current system, an ozone level of 75 ppb or higher
    is considered unhealthy for sensitive groups. Based on the
    current standard, do you think families are being sufficiently
    informed and protected against the dangers of air quality on a
    given day?
        Dr. Diette. I think there is a bunch that is important in
    what you mentioned which is the alert system is based on acute
    spikes. That means today is a bad day or tomorrow is about to
    become a bad day and you should take care.
        That is also part of the story. There is chronic exposure
    and acute exposure. There is increasing evidence that chronic
    exposure, even at lower levels than would set off the alarm
    bells, are harmful to people with preexisting diseases like
    cardiac disease and respiratory diseases.
        The spikes you talked about are very important. It is a
    good alert system, but it does not mean you would want that
    system to have to be in place. The ideal is to not have those
    spikes coming so there would not be those dangers.
        Telling people to not go outside is not fully protective.
    Ozone comes inside from outside. All pollutants come inside
    from outside.
        Senator Gillibrand. The CDC reports 1 in 11 children and 1
    in 12 adults have asthma. This costs the United States economy
    about $56 billion a year. More specifically, for a family with
    a child suffering asthma, the cost is at least an additional
    $1,000 in health care charges a year.
        Over the last decade, the proportion of people with asthma
    in the U.S. grew by 15 percent. How does poor air quality
    further impact those who suffer from asthma?
        Dr. Diette. Someone who has already developed asthma is a
    vulnerable person. Since you have been talking about children,
    children born prematurely also, there is a strong signal that
    whether or not they go on to develop asthma, they also are a
    vulnerable subset. Children born early or prematurely are
    vulnerable.
        Ozone is a very provocative substance. It is an oxidizing
    substance that irritates and bothers the airways of someone
    with asthma so it can provoke an attack.
        Senator Gillibrand. I am also concerned about extended
    exposure. Can you describe why children, in particular, are
    among the most vulnerable to elevated ozone levels and are
    health impacts for children exposed to this type of pollution
    long lasting?
        Dr. Diette. Kids are different than adults in a lot of
    ways. One is that they tend to be outside playing, for example.
    When you are outside playing, you breathe more, so you breathe
    deeper and you breathe more frequently, so you inhale more of
    whatever it is that is around you. That is one of the reasons.
        Also, their lungs are developing. One of the goals in life,
    if you are thinking about your lungs, is to grow you lungs to
    the biggest they will ever be, which happens by about your
    twenties.
        Things that interfere with that are a problem because you
    do not get as good a lung function to start your adulthood. We
    all lose lung function after that.
        Part of it is an issue about what is aggravating at the
    moment. Another is trying to grow your lungs to the biggest
    they can be.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Diette, in the Journal of Pediatrics, 2004, you
    conducted a study with a host of other authors entitled,
    Emotional Quality of Life and Outcomes in Adolescents with
    Asthma. The study, in its conclusion, says, ``Adolescents
    reporting worse asthma specific emotional quality of life
    reported more frequent school absence, doctors' visits for
    asthma,'' also poor asthma-specific emotional quality of life
    was strongly related to worse asthma control. What causes
    specific emotional quality of life issues?
        Communities and businesses across the Country are telling
    us counties that are designated as in noncompliance with this
    new ozone standard will see construction jobs and economic
    activity grind to a halt. It has been mentioned according to a
    story from the National Association of Manufacturers, EPA ozone
    rules could cost up to 1.4 million jobs.
        Based on your research, what would be the impact to
    children with asthma in communities that have high
    unemployment, chronic high unemployment due to joblessness?
        Dr. Diette. That is quite a string of events you are
    connecting.
        Senator Barrasso. I am connecting parents that are more
    likely to be alcoholic, more likely to have problems of
    substance abuse, spousal abuse, all related to chronic
    unemployment based on positions of this Administration going
    after jobs for hardworking Americans.
        I think it is not a string of events. I practiced medicine
    for 25 years. I have taken care of lots of families under
    chronic, long-term unemployment and know the health of those
    families is documented as worse and the stresses on those
    children are worse and aggravated.
        Did you say I am right? Is that what you said? Did you say
    I am right?
        Dr. Diette. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Dr. Diette. Excuse me, though. You brought up a good point
    about the study because the report you talked about was one of
    several that came from that particular study.
        Another one in that same series was also looking at the
    impact of poorly controlled asthma on subsequent school
    attendance and parents attending work.
        If you are going to string all these things together, I
    think you need to be careful to look at the entire chain of
    events. When someone's asthma, particularly a child's asthma,
    is aggravated, just like any other illness that a child has, it
    impacts the family immensely. That means when you talk about
    jobs, if that is your target, mom or dad is not going to work
    the next day after there is an asthma attack.
        Senator Barrasso. Mom and dad are not going to work because
    they are one of those 1.4 million who have lost their job as a
    result of this policy.
        Dr. Diette. It does not matter what industry an asthmatic
    is in, if they are sick, they cannot go to work. That is true
    for adults and it is true for the parents of the children who
    are sick.
        I think that is the important point. You are right that we
    are not just talking about jobs in one sector. We are talking
    about jobs across the United States, if you are talking about
    the impact of the millions of days of work days lost.
        Senator Barrasso. We are talking about jobs that are lost
    as a result of a policy by an Administration and the impact on
    the families impacted by the loss of the job and the chronic
    unemployment that comes with this.
        Certainly I think it worsens quality of life across the
    board. Johns Hopkins has done studies to that effect. It
    affects peoples' income levels if they are not working.
        Dr. Diette. To be clear, my studies do not look at the
    issue you are bringing up. It does not look at the issue of
    that chain of events.
        Senator Barrasso. Emotional quality of life, you would
    agree, is impacted if families are out of work? If dad or mom
    do not have a job, take-home pay has gone away, then there are
    subsequent things that happen in those families and impacts the
    quality of life not just the person who lost the job but the
    whole family.
        Dr. Diette. That is true.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. McKee, activist groups, like the
    Sierra Club, are pursuing aggressive strategies to support
    extreme reductions in ozone. They are encouraging the EPA to go
    as far as they can with their ozone rule.
        Last week, Politico ran a story entitled, Inside the War on
    Coal: How Michael Bloomberg, Red State Businesses and Lots of
    Midwestern Lawyers are Changing American Energy Faster Than You
    Think.
        The author highlighted the Sierra Club has now launched
    their beyond natural gas campaign to begin to eliminate natural
    gas from our electric grid. On the website, the Sierra Club
    says, ``Increasing reliance on natural gas displaces the market
    for clean energy, harms human health,'' blah, blah, blah.
        My question is, under the EPA's ozone rule, if they listen
    to these outside groups and put forward a strict standard, is
    there a likelihood that natural gas development, which the
    Sierra Club is against, will be under threat?
        Mr. McKee. It definitely would be. We can see what has
    happened with coal. Natural gas is the next target. Natural gas
    is the clean carbon fuel that we are using today. Yes, we are
    very concerned about that.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thank you all for being here.
        When I was Governor of Delaware, we launched a mentoring
    initiative urging companies to adopt kids as mentors, high
    schools to adopt elementary schools and we recruited about
    10,000 mentors. I was one of them.
        I started mentoring a young man when he was in the fourth
    grade until he graduated from high school, ready for this, at
    the age of 20 and a half. He missed a lot of school growing up.
    So did his brothers.
        One of the reasons he missed a lot of school was because he
    had asthma. He had a hard enough time coping even when he was
    going to school regularly, sitting in class and had an even
    harder time when he was not there. It was hard on his mom
    having to support five kids, five boys, working and trying to
    do her job and be a nurse as well.
        I just wanted to share that with my friends. This is real.
    We do not just make up this stuff. It really does happen.
        Mr. Greene, a retired Navy Captain, thank you for your
    service.
        My understanding is EPA already has regulations in the
    works to help States reduce ozone. If these rules are not
    delayed, hopefully they will not be, we are likely to see, I am
    told, somewhere between 9 to maybe as many as 59 counties in
    nonattainment outside of California in 2025. Those are the
    numbers I have been given, 9 if the standard was set at 70 ppb
    and could be as high as 59 if the standard was set at 65 ppb.
    Can you confirm that for me? Does that sound right?
        Mr. Greene. I cannot confirm that, sir.
        Senator Carper. That is fine. I will. Thank you.
        Many of these counties would have to do more to find
    reductions, these 9 to as many as 59, depending on what the
    standard is but the majority of America will meet the standards
    that are proposed.
        If this is not your understanding, how important are
    Federal rules to help States reduce ozone? Whether it is 9 or
    59 counties outside of California in 2025, how important are
    Federal rules to help States reduce ozone?
        Mr. Greene. I think the point made earlier was really
    critical, that what we have here is clear evidence that public
    health is impacted by ozone at a level that is lower than the
    standard. That occurs across many parts of the U.S., many of
    which are in attainment and many have that problem.
        You have citizens across the U.S. with impacts that the
    EPA, doctors and much research has shown that their health is
    impacted. Yet, they are told they are in attainment areas and
    their air quality is fine. From our perspective in our
    district, we are a public health agency and are there to
    protect the public. We follow the science, work very closely
    with our business community and have been very successful.
        Our economy is doing well. We are building a new basketball
    stadium, so lots of good things are happening in Sacramento,
    but we are severe nonattainment area. We will be for quite a
    number of years.
        We expect to continue with the success we have had for our
    business community. We work with our NT on a regular basis. We
    do very well. We are using up our Federal money but we are
    doing it in slightly different ways than we used to because of
    the conformity issues, but they are in conformity and we are
    doing fine.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        I have one quick question for Mr. Srikanth. You mentioned
    in your written testimony that Federal efforts should include
    ``timely enactment of implementation rules and guidance for all
    new standards.''
        Does this mean you are not supportive of any delays in
    EPA's proposal for a new health standard or delays in EPA's
    efforts to help States address ozone pollution across State
    boundaries such as stronger vehicle standards on emissions?
        Mr. Srikanth. In my testimony, I am referring to a current
    set of emission controls that the EPA has promulgated. Within
    the transportation sector, there is one that addresses vehicle
    emissions called the Tier 3 standards. There is the fuel the
    vehicle uses, low sulfur fuel.
        Those have been enacted. They have just been enacted. The
    Tier 3 standards go into effect on a rolling cycle between
    model years 2017 and 2025.
        It is important that one, the implementation and benefits
    from those control programs realized so regions depending on
    those to demonstrate attainment can do so. There should not be
    any delay.
        Similarly, for transport pollution, EPA is currently
    working on another rule. That needs to be enacted in a timely
    manner so that the regions can realize those benefits and then
    attain the standards. At the end of the day, it is very
    important to attain those standards for public health reasons.
        Senator Carper. Thank you all for being here.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Clean Air Act mandates that we protect public health
    from known threats based on science and the science is clear
    that the current ozone level should be lowered. Whenever it
    becomes clear that new actions are needed to protect public
    health, opponents of the actions use the same old arguments.
        Before the 2008 ozone standard was finalized, we heard this
    standard would cripple the economy, but this was just not true.
    In Massachusetts, both air quality and our GDP increased even
    as the ozone standard tightened. Our GDP increased
    significantly.
        A new ozone standard will require changes in some
    industries. America is a Country of problem-solvers. Pollution
    is a problem that we can solve. As a State downwind of most of
    the rest of the Country, it is critical that we have national
    standards that create solutions to a national problem.
    Massachusetts cannot solve the problem alone.
        My first question is to Dr. Diette. There were 20 studies
    cited in your testimony on the health hazards of ozone, all
    published in an 8-year timeframe, all adding to the mounting
    justification that the current ozone standard must be lowered
    to protect public health.
        Given the pace of scientific research on the health impacts
    of pollutants, do you believe changing the assessment period of
    a new standard from every 5 years to every 10 years would have
    a negative impact on public health protections?
        Dr. Diette. I think it sure could. It depends upon which
    pollutant we are talking about or which substance in general,
    but you are right that the science does change. I think we
    should reevaluate what the science tells us periodically. If we
    allow a whole decade to go back, that may be too long.
        Senator Markey. Mr. Greene, you said with adequate
    compliance times and good partnerships among government
    agencies and the business community, Sacramento is on track to
    meet the ozone standards within your compliance timeframe.
    Under the pressures of our national ozone standards, your
    region has made significant progress cleaning up its smog
    problem even with the unusual population and geographic
    challenges that promote ozone buildup.
        Do you agree waiting until a past standard has been met to
    set a new standard would weaken the momentum of clean air
    innovation?
        Mr. Greene. I think the biggest place that is going to
    impact is in our area, 80 percent of the pollution comes from
    mobile sources. That occurs more and more as we get further
    into the ozone problem around the Nation.
        You are not only impacting the health of people around the
    Nation where they should be protected by the Clean Air Act, but
    you are also slowing down other regulations on vehicles,
    planes, trains and automobiles, for example, that would help
    those areas that are in nonattainment.
        Senator Markey. Dr. Diette, I will come back to you, if I
    can. The national ozone standard has real world impacts on the
    health of kids, workers across our Country, hospitalization,
    and even deaths caused by ozone pollution.
        If the ozone standard was set at 60 ppb, do you believe a
    significant number of deaths and life threatening respiratory
    events could be avoided?
        Dr. Diette. I do. I think there is really good evidence for
    it, both from the observation of the evidence that at very
    small increments of ozone, there are measurable increases in
    death rates from a variety of conditions.
        I could refer you to a very good article from Berman and
    colleagues in Environmental Health Perspectives in 2012 which
    provided an estimate of what would actually happen if everyone
    came into compliance with the 75 ppb which would improve
    mortality but showed successively greater benefits from
    dropping to 70 ppb and to 60 ppb.
        Senator Markey. In 1900, the average age of death in the
    United States was 48 years of age. We have gone from the Garden
    of Eden to 1900, when the average age of death in the United
    States was 48 years.
        Then we began to implement public health policies, clean
    air, clean water, safe meat, and safe drinking water. The meat
    industry did not like it. They said it was going to kill jobs
    and the industry.
        The truth is whether it be the automotive industry or the
    meat industry, you name it, these new standards wound up
    extending life expectancy in the United States to 79 years of
    age, 31 years of bonus life that has been added to the average
    American just in the last 100 years with these public health
    interventions.
        What value do you put on that, seeing your grandmother,
    seeing your grandfather live to an older age, knowing that
    young children do not die from the things that used to cause
    death in our Country? What value do you put on that?
        Yet, we do it simultaneous with having a robust economy in
    our Country with unemployment actually going down right now. It
    has been going down since we began the recovery from the
    economic collapse created completely unrelated to any clean
    air, clean water, or safe drinking laws in our Country. It was
    economic malfeasance on Wall Street that caused it.
        In each one of these instances, we see that innovation
    develops new catalytic converters, new ways of generating
    energy, and new ways of solving the problem are developed once
    Americans are told there is now a requirement that we must
    innovate. I would say this is just going to be one more
    instance where that occurs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey.
        That will conclude the number of individuals here. Senator
    Boxer would like to have an additional 2 minutes and I would
    also.
        Senator Boxer.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        No one has refuted Dr. Diette's simple eloquence on the
    dangers of smog, no one. You all respected that.
        The argument is, cleaner air means fewer jobs. As Senator
    Markey said, and as I have proven with my documents, that is so
    much baloney. It is disproven by the facts. The facts are, as
    we clean up the air, more jobs are created.
        Everyone knows California is a leader on environmental
    matters. We are. I am going to ask unanimous consent to place
    in the record, today's San Jose Mercury News, Jobs in the
    Region Nearing Record. It underscores what my friend from
    Sacramento said.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. To sit here and say there are going to be no
    jobs and no development as you meet the standards is totally
    false. It is ridiculous. That is why 64 percent of people in
    our State, Mr. McKee, say, protect us. We are not supposed to
    protect the polluters. We are supposed to protect the health of
    the people while ensuring that we have an economically robust
    society. We have done it over the years.
        I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter
    from ten public health groups including the American Lung
    Association, the Heart Association, the Stroke Association, the
    Allergy and Asthma Network and others, supporting the EPA rule.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. I also ask that a letter from Colorado
    supporting the rule, three letters from Maine, six letters from
    Illinois, a letter from Michigan, four letters from
    Pennsylvania and four letters from Virginia be placed in the
    record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for this.
    I know we are at odds on this, but to me, it is so clear what
    our job is. As a committee, we are the environment committee.
    We are not the pollution committee. We are supposed to protect
    people from harmful pollution and do it in a way that is smart.
        EPA has developed the numbers. The cost benefit ratio is
    there. When I listened to Senator Rounds talk about his family
    member with asthma, I think to myself how lucky he is to be in
    a position to protect that child and all of America's children.
        I thank you so much for this opportunity.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
        Since you were mentioned by name, Judge Moore, is there any
    final comment you would like to make?
        Judge Moore. I would just say that we do care about the
    health of our community. From early childhood development
    programs I have started in my community to elderly programming,
    it is important.
        I have three grandchildren that live in my county. I have
    two grandchildren who live in Senator Boxer's State. We do want
    them protected.
        We are making improvements with the 2008 standard. We are
    doing it while the economy is growing and the Nation is
    prospering. We want the opportunity to continue to do that
    under the 2008 standard because we are doing it right.
        Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
        As I said earlier, in Oklahoma, we are doing it right too,
    because all 77 of our counties, as I mentioned, are all in
    compliance now. However, with the standard lowered, all 77 of
    our counties would be out of attainment.
        We appreciate all five of you. It has been an excellent
    meeting. We appreciate the time and inconvenience you went
    through to be here. Thank you so much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]

                     Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on the
    EPA's Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
    Ground-Level Ozone.
        I would like to thank Dr. Diette for joining us here today
    to discuss the EPA's proposed ozone standards. Dr. Diette is
    Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University and Professor
    of Epidemiology & Environmental Health Science at the Bloomberg
    School of Public Health. His research focuses on identifying
    factors that cause or provoke asthma. He has been especially
    interested in air pollutants and allergens that are problematic
    in inner city homes and has done a significant amount of
    research on the health effects of air pollution in Baltimore in
    particular.
        In 2009, 13.9 percent of Maryland adults and 17.1 percent
    of Maryland children had a history of asthma. From 2005-2009,
    an average of 66.6 people died per year due to asthma.
        Further, low income households (those with household
    incomes less than $15,000) had an asthma rate of nearly twice
    that of households with incomes more than $75,000. Finally,
    between 2007 and 2009, asthma prevalence for Black, non-
    Hispanic children (14.9 percent) was nearly double that of
    White, non-Hispanic children (7.5 percent).
        Dr. Diette is also a practicing physician specializing in
    pulmonology, caring for people with lung disease, asthma and
    other respiratory diseases. He was appointed by the Maryland
    Governor as a Commissioner for the Children's Environmental
    Health and Protection Advisory Council. Dr. Diette, welcome.

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]