    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     ______

       SHORT-CIRCUITING PROGRESS: HOW THE CLEAN AIR ACT IMPACTS BUILDING
           NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND ONSHORING AMERICAN INNOVATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 11, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-26

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov
                            ___________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                              WASHINGTON : 2026
         60-976

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                PAUL TONKO, New York
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       RAUL RUIZ, California
        Chairman                         SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
    GABE EVANS, Colorado
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                         MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                    SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
                          Subcommittee on Environment

                          H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
                                     Chairman
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas, Vice Chairman   PAUL TONKO, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    GABE EVANS, Colorado                 GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota        FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex              officio)
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      New York, opening statement....................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    18

                                   Witnesses

    Chad S. Whiteman, Vice President, Environment and Regulatory
      Affairs, Global Energy Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.....    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   246
    James W. Boylan, Ph.D., Chief, Air Protection Branch, Georgia
      Environmental Protection Division..............................    37
        Prepared statement...........................................    39
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   257
    John D. Walke, Federal Clean Air Director, Natural Resources
      Defense Council................................................    55
        Prepared statement...........................................    57
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   262
    Paul Noe, Vice President of Public Policy, American Forest &
      Paper Association..............................................    75
        Prepared statement...........................................    77
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   282

                                  Legislation

    Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Clean Air and Economic
      Advancement Reform (CLEAR) Act.................................   138
    Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Clean Air and Building
      Infrastructure Improvement Act.................................   151

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................   158
    Report of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies,
      ``State Air Trends & Successes,'' 2025\1\

    ----------

    \1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in
    the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF18/20250611/118385/HHRG-119-IF18-20250611-SD201.pdf.
    Letter of January 31, 2025, from Morgan Dicke, Executive
      Director, Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, to Lee
      Zeldin, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.........   160
    Letter of December 20, 2024, from Morgan Dicke, Executive
      Director, Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, to
      Edwin Roks, Chief Executive Officer, Teledyne Technologies
      Inc., and Michael S. Regan, Administrator, Environmental
      Protection Agency..............................................   166
    Article of June 2024, ``Charting Recent NAAQS Developments and
      Implications for Air Agencies,'' by Jason Meyers and Laura
      Crowder, The Magazine for Environmental Managers...............   171
    Article of May 2023, ``Understanding the Impact of a Lower Fine
      Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' by
      Michael Abrazinskas,et al., The Magazine for Environmental
      Managers.......................................................   176
    Report by Alpine Geophysics, ``2022-2024 Annual PM 2.5 Design
      Value Maps,`` June 2025........................................   180
    Letter of June 11, 2025, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice
      President, Government Affairs, Portland Cement Association, to
      Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Pallone....................................   191
    Article, ``Trump EPA rollbacks would weaken rules projected to
      save billions of dollars and thousands of lives,`` Associated
      Press..........................................................   193
    Report of the American Lung Association, ``Clearing the Air: How
      the New Particle Pollution Standards Work,`` May 2024..........   205
    Letter of February 21, 2025, from Allergy & Asthma Network, et
      al., to Lee Zeldin, Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................   214
    Report of the American Lung Association, ``State of the Air
      2025``\1\
    Statement of the Allergy & Asthma Network, et al.................   216
    Report of the Environmental Protection Network, ``Breathing Easy:
      An Assessment of Public Health Benefits from EPA Air Pollution
      Standards (2021-24),`` September 2024..........................   218
    Article of March 29, 2025, ``How Lee Zeldin Went From
      Environmental Moderate to Dismantling the E.P.A.,`` by Lisa
      Friedman, New York Times.......................................   229
    Report of the Center for American Progress, ``The Trump
      Administration's Assault on Environmental Protections Will Give
      Polluters a Free Pass While Causing Millions of Asthma
      Attacks,`` June 2025\1\
    Article of November 20, 2018, ``Air Pollution Is Still Killing
      Thousands of People in the US,,`` by Megan Molteni, Wired......   240

    ----------

    \1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in
    the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF18/20250611/118385/HHRG-119-IF18-20250611-SD201.pdf.

       SHORT-CIRCUITING PROGRESS: HOW THE CLEAN AIR ACT IMPACTS BUILDING
           NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND ONSHORING AMERICAN INNOVATION

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                           Subcommittee on Environment,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
    room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. H. Morgan
    Griffith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Griffith, Crenshaw, Latta,
    Carter of Georgia, Palmer, Joyce, Weber, Pfluger, Miller-Meeks,
    Langworthy, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex officio), Tonko
    (subcommittee ranking member), Schakowsky, Ruiz, Peters,
    Barragan, Soto, Auchincloss, Carter of Louisiana, Menendez,
    Landsman, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Also present: Representative Dingell.
        Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Byron
    Brown, Chief Counsel; Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Sydney
    Greene, Director, Finance and Logistics; Emily Hale, Staff
    Assistant; Christen Harsha, Senior Counsel, Environment; Calvin
    Huggins, Clerk; Megan Jackson, Staff Director; Ben Mullaney,
    Press Secretary; Kaitlyn Peterson, Policy Analyst, Environment;
    Matt VanHyfte, Communications Director; Katharine Willey,
    Senior Counsel; Giancarlo Ceja, Minority Environment Fellow;
    Timia Crisp, Minority Professional Staff Member; Waverly
    Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel;
    Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Caitlin Haberman,
    Minority Staff Director, Environment; and Kylea Rogers,
    Minority Policy Analyst.
        Mr. Griffith. It looks like everybody has taken their
    seats. I appreciate that. And I will call the subcommittee on
    the environment to order.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE
             IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

        Today this subcommittee begins efforts to modernize the
    Clean Air Act. The Act was last amended in a consequential way
    in 1990 with Energy and Commerce Chair John Dingell being a
    driving force in that bicameral comprise.
        The Clean Air Act has been effective. According to EPA's
    2023 Air Quality Statistics Report, since the Clean Air Act
    amendments were past in 1990 there has been a 79 percent
    reduction in carbon monoxide, a 92 percent reduction in sulfur
    dioxide, or SOx, and a 55 percent reduction in nitrogendioxide,
    or NOx.
        Since 2000 we have seen a 42 percent reduction in
    particulate matter 2.5, which are inhalable particles measuring
    less than 2.5 micrometers. The Clean Air Act's National
    Attainment Air Quality Standard or--standards, or NAAQS
    standards, setting and permitting programs with each new
    review.
        EPA generally sets new lower--with each new review EPA
    generally sets new lower pollution allowances, and over time
    these newer standards have had the tendency to pass the point
    of diminishing returns.
        Accordingly, if you are an industrial plant wanting to
    build in this country, you may have to wait until another plant
    goes out of business and you can take over their permit. This
    is not a path for economic prosperity.
        Additionally, I don't believe that banning new industrial
    activity in the United States was what the authors of the Clean
    Air Act were aiming for.
        It was a tough compromised bill meant to have each State
    scrutinize major sources and think about air permit planning,
    industry concentration, and air quality in unfavorable
    geographic settings.
        The Act was written to get industry to reexamine its
    operations and control pollution by investing in and
    implementing innovative technologies. It worked. But now we
    have to examine the law in light of little additional public
    health gain at the expense of paralyzing nationally important
    industries. And that health gain, what I am talking about is
    the fact that we continue to lower the amount of pollutants
    allowed.
        We need to begin a modernization effort by examining draft
    legislative proposals to reform the out-of-date NAAQS process.
    As we heard in our recent full committee hearing, overly
    restrictive air regulations have curtailed some domestic
    investment in important semiconductor plants and data centers,
    which in turn could jeopardize America's ability to be able to
    compete in the global artificial intelligence race.
        One of the draft bills we are discussing today would
    improve the processes EPA uses to identify NAAQS pollutants and
    ceilings, and then for States to implement those new standards.
        Under the Clean Air Act's NAAQS program, the EPA sets
    standard for six criteria pollutants, like ground-level ozone
    and particulate matter.
        Historically the Clean Air Act required the EPA to review
    NAAQS standards and, if appropriate, issue new limits at 5-year
    intervals. The EPA has consistently missed statutory deadlines
    for both reviewing standards and for providing implementation
    guidance to the States, which has led to litigation in some
    cases.
        These proposals will enable more reasonable requirements
    that States can actually implement. That is why the Clean Air
    Act and Economic Advancement Reform Act that we are talking
    about today would lengthen that interval to 10 years and allow
    the EPA Administrator to consider whether it was likely the
    standard--whether it was likely the standard can actually be
    attained.
        Additionally, the bill would require the EPA to consider
    the economic feasibility of these new standards.
        The bill would also allow for naturally occurring air
    pollution events, such as wildfires, not to count against NAAQS
    emission averages for a particular State.
        The other bill, the Clean Air and Building Infrastructure
    Improvements Act, has to do more specifically with the most
    recent PM 2.5 rule that really would cripple a lot of industry
    by reducing the limit from 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air
    to 9 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
        Further, it allows for an easier preconstruction permitting
    process.
        Protecting our environment and our economy do not have to
    be mutually exclusive goals, but in order to achieve both we
    must rethink how our country classifies pollution levels
    outside of our control.
        The EPA is still in the process of updating various air
    quality standards. As that work continues, Congress must ensure
    States and employers aren't unfairly penalized by impractical
    or burdensome new rules which could hurt our national security
    and our economic competitiveness.
        I look forward to learning from our expert witnesses who
    have extensive experience in implementing and complying with
    NAAQS standards under the Clean Air Act.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Griffith. With that I yield back, and now recognize the
    gentleman from New York for his opening statement.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our
    witnesses.
        For almost as long as I have served on this committee,
    Republicans have tried and failed to enact the proposals before
    us today. These bills do not represent new and innovative
    solutions specifically tailored to meet our current policy
    changes--or challenges, including addressing growing
    electricity demand.
        They are the same tired ideas that suggest Americans should
    expect to live with unsafe air quality if the rules necessary
    to protect them would cut into polluters' profits.
        I am certain that Members from both sides of the aisle will
    celebrate the success of the Clean Air Act, which has resulted
    in significant reductions in air pollution while our economy
    has grown. But the majority tends to believe that this is
    evidence that the job is done and we should dramatically change
    the law.
        I on the other hand take the exact opposite lesson: The
    Clean Air Act is working, and there is still considerable work
    for the law to do.
        The American Lung Association's 2025 State of the Air
    Report found that even after 5 decades of the Clean Air Act, 46
    percent of Americans--more than 156 million people--are living
    in places with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution,
    two of the pollutants addressed by the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards, or NAAQS.
        Now, as I said, the proposals before us today are not new,
    but there is some new and important context for us to discuss.
        First, 3 weeks ago House Republicans passed their Big Ugly
    Bill, which according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
    Office would result in 16 million Americans losing their
    healthcare. Now, the proposals today add insult to injury
    pushing us toward a future where hospitals, already under
    financial pressure, will have to deal with more cases of
    asthma, of COPD, and other health consequences of increased air
    pollution affecting millions more as uninsured Americans.
        Second, the Trump administration intends to attempt to roll
    back the 2024 standard for fine particulate matter. EPA
    previously estimated that this standard will result in some $46
    billion worth of net benefits in 2032, including 4,500 avoided
    premature deaths, 800,000 avoided asthma attacks, and nearly
    300,000 avoided missed days of work each year.
        So the 2024 standard for fine particulate matter is
    expected to provide such significant benefits to the American
    people because NAAQS are required by law to be protective of
    our health without consideration of cost. But the proposals
    before us today would drastically weaken the process to set
    standards based on the latest science.They would double the
    amount of time between reviews of standards and inject cost
    considerations and attainability into the standard-setting
    process.
        I also find it unfortunate that the majority's hearing
    title would lead us to believe that the Clean Air Act is
    stifling American innovation, and yet House Republicans
    continue to sit on their hands while the Trump administration
    dismantles all of the conditions that have historically made
    the United States an engine for innovation.
        President Trump is proposing devastating funding cuts to
    the Federal research enterprise, NSF, NIH, NOAA, NOAA, and
    other critical research agencies. This will ensure that America
    fails to train the next generation of great scientists,
    engineers, and other innovators who do rely on Federal dollars
    to achieve their advanced degrees and conduct cutting-edge
    research.
        DOE's industrial programs, NIST manufacturing extension
    partnership, and other programs that American manufacturers
    rely upon are also under threat. The Trump administration has
    caused an uncertain and an unstable investment environment with
    its unstrategic and ever-changing tariff policies, and
    Republicans have demonstrated a willingness to jeopardize
    private-sector investments by seeking to abruptly end energy
    tax incentives.
        Even Federal contracts are no longer worth the paper they
    are printed on following the arbitrary and unlawful
    terminations of many finalized agreements. These actions are
    having a chilling effect on private-sector investment, the
    American research community, and other entities that are
    critical to the future competitiveness of our economy. These
    are not the actions of a government that is serious about
    fostering innovation.
        But rather than criticize the Trump administration, we are
    back to undermining environmental protections and trying to
    convince Americans that we simply cannot afford safe, healthy
    air. I am certain there is evidence going back decades of
    industries claiming each and every past NAAQS standard has been
    unachievable or would cause irrevocable economic harm. But the
    sky has never fallen. The Clean Air Act has worked and worked
    effectively as intended, and it continues to protect Americans'
    health while enabling economic growth.
        These goals are not at odds, but unfortunately the
    proposals we are examining today do not share that view.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Tonko. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from
    Kentucky, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Griffith, for
    this hearing, and welcome my Ranking--friend Ranking Member
    Tonko, and all the witnesses for being here today.
        And we are continuing our important work finding
    commonsense solutions to reduce unreasonable regulatory burdens
    while continuing to protect our environment. Unfortunately,
    over the last 4 years the onslaught of the Biden-Harris
    administration regulations under the Clean Air Act created
    significant regulatory burdens for the American electric,
    power, manufacturing, and transportation sectors. We were
    recently reminded of this when we held a full committee hearing
    on artificial intelligence and heard testimony about the
    critical need to support and accelerate AI technologies.
        In that hearing, industry experts repeated the same
    concerns many of us have heard from small businesses and
    manufacturers: The overall regulatory environment and
    permitting processes, in particular, are overburdensome and
    inefficient here in the United States.
        As we will hear today, the economic impact of harmful
    regulatory burdens promulgated during the Biden-Harris
    administration totaled nearly 1.8 trillion, a historical
    record. Amazingly, more than 70 percent of that cost was
    imposed by the EPA, much of it from the Clean Air Act rules.
        The last time Congress meaningfully amended the Clean Air
    Act was 1990, 35 years ago. We have learned a lot and seen a
    lot of environmental progress since then.
        In the decades since Congress first passed the Clean Air
    Act, air quality in the United States has dramatically
    improved. Criteria air pollutants are down 73 percent since
    1980, according to the World Health Organization, and U.S. has
    the some of the lowest particulate matter levels in the world.
        The progress that we have seen does not mean the Clean Air
    Act cannot be reviewed and modernized. Some of the Clean Air
    Act's provisions are unclear, outdated, and do not reflect the
    world we live in today.
        This trend is illustrated by the Biden-Harris National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, for particulate
    matter.
        A prime example of the need for reforming and updating the
    flawed system used for setting and reviewing Clean Air Act
    regulations, the Biden rule will force large portions of the
    country into nonattainment status, which will block new
    development, halt modernization and stunt job growth.
        In their testimony in April, witnesses in our AI hearing
    pointed to the particulate matter rule as a significant barrier
    when they look to onshore American innovation. They noted that
    as currently implemented the rule would limit opportunities for
    American manufacturing.
        These overly restrictive regulations oppress domestic
    investments in semiconductor plants, data centers, jeopardizing
    America's ability to compete in the global AI race.
        On top of unreasonable compliance costs and complexity,
    these regulations also fail to fulfill the promise of the Clean
    Air Act. A majority of emissions measured in NAAQS are from
    sources outside of a manufacturer's control.
        American industry propelled the innovation that made our
    air cleaner, and yet they are being penalized for factors
    unrelated to their operation.
        A few weeks ago, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin testified
    before this subcommittee about his efforts to address the
    significant regulatory burdens promulgated during the Biden-
    Harris administration and have oppressed economic development
    without spurring meaningful improvements to environmental
    protection. Now it is our turn to do the same.
        The discussion drafts before us today are based on
    legislation considered by this committee in previous Congresses
    and offered commonsense, practical solutions to remedy
    significant flaws in the current NAAQS process. The panel of
    witnesses are uniquely well qualified to discuss the compliance
    nature of the NAAQS program and its need of reform.
        And I thank Congressman Allen and Congressman Carter for
    their leadership on these bills, and I look forward to working
    with the rest of the members of the committee as we consider
    additional proposals on how to best modernize the Clean Air
    Act. And I look forward to today's discussion, and I yield
    back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the
    gentleman from New Jersey, for 5 minutes for his opening
    statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we are
    examining two Republican draft bills that, once again, put
    corporate polluters over people and will make the American
    people sicker. With these discussion drafts, Republicans are
    altering the fundamental premise of the Clean Air Act and
    threatening our ability to ensure Americans have clean and
    healthy air to breathe.
        For over 50 years the Environmental Protection Agency has
    had the authority and obligation to set National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards, or NAAQS, and these health-based standards
    essentially set the level of pollution that is safe to breathe,
    and they are based solely on the latest science and medical
    evidence.
        Since 1970, the standards have been the foundation of the
    Clean Air Act, resulting in healthier air, while our economy
    has grown. And we know air pollution poses serious and
    significant health risks to communities every day. Even short-
    term exposure can cause aggravated asthma attacks, acute
    bronchitis, and increased susceptibility to respiratory
    infections. Pollution is dangerous, plain and simple. And
    Americans have a right to clean, safe air.
        And that is why I was pleased that last year EPA
    strengthened the NAAQS for fine particulate matter, also known
    as PM 2.5. The new standard has tremendous health benefits. It
    will save Americans up to $46 billion in 2032 in healthcare
    costs alone. It will also prevent asthma attacks, lost
    workdays, and thousands of premature deaths.
        But Trump's EPA is abandoning that effort. My Republican
    colleagues now want to double down on the administration's
    actions by resurrecting bills that sell out the health of
    families and children to line the pockets of big corporate
    interests, and they work to steal healthcare from 16 million
    people, you know, in their big ugly bill, but at the same time
    they are pushing proposals that will make people sick.
        The discussion drafts before us today would allow industry
    profits to override science in setting air quality standards,
    provide amnesty to new polluting facilities at the expense of
    existing ones, and remove incentives to cut pollution.
        They would also weaken and delay the fundamental
    protections in the law, virtually guaranteeing that people
    living in areas with poor air quality will continue to breathe
    unhealthy air.
        And these pieces of legislation are not new. Over the last
    decade Republicans have pushed these proposals through the
    committee several times. They can try to claim these drafts
    will not increase air pollution, but any time you put
    polluters' bottom line over public health, the result is
    dirtier air and sicker people.
        Our experience with the Clean Air Act tells us that we do
    not need to choose between the health of our communities and a
    healthy economy. We can and must have both.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Pallone. So before I close, I did want to ask the
    chairman a question about our committee rules. As you know, our
    rules require that the, quote, ``date, time, place and subject
    matter of any hearing of the committee shall be announced at
    least one week in advance of the commencement of such
    hearing,'' unquote, unless there is a determination of a good
    cause exception.
        For at least the last decade the subject matter of a
    legislative hearing has been interpreted to include announcing
    of the title of any legislation to be discussed and circulating
    a copy of the legislative text. However, the notice for today's
    hearing did not include an announcement that legislation would
    be the topic of today's hearing and did not include a copy of
    any legislative text.
        My staff did receive communications from the chairman's
    staff just prior to the notice circulating that you intended it
    to be a legislative hearing, but they did not receive a copy of
    the two committee prints until last Thursday, one day after the
    hearing was noticed, and Republicans then circulated two new
    versions of committee prints with the memo on Monday.
        So this is not, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the way the
    committee works. When Republicans choose not to provide the
    legislative text with a notice, it hinders our ability to
    prepare for this hearing, including our ability to discuss the
    subject matter with potential witnesses. And that is why it is
    imperative that the notice include both the title of any
    legislation being discussed and the copies of the legislative
    text consistent with longstanding committee procedure.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I was going to confirm, I would like to
    confirm that moving forward the notice for legislative hearing
    will include the name of any legislation to be discussed and a
    copy of the legislative text, unless, of course, we go through
    the procedure to invoke a good cause exception. I was just
    going to ask the chairman to respond.
        Mr. Griffith. Does the gentleman from New Jersey yield time
    to the gentleman from Kentucky?
        Mr. Pallone. Absolutely.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman from Kentucky.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank the gentleman for yielding.
    And the committee rules do not require legislative text to be
    made available in advance of the hearing, including a
    legislative hearing. I understand that this is the precedent
    this committee typically follows, that text is released with
    the hearing notice. We intend to continue to follow this
    committee precedent when at all possible.
        However, like when you were chair, we reserved the right to
    deviate from that, and my understanding is that the issue that
    you described is we presented legislative text, we did submit
    another piece of update legislative text after the hearing was
    noticed, and that was because someone from Leg Counsel was
    absent. And so we will do--we couldn't help that, but we will
    do whatever is within our ability to follow the precedent.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman from New Jersey.
        Mr. Pallone. I just want to be sure I understand, Mr.
    Chairman, you are saying while it is not a requirement of the
    rules, what I articulated, that you are willing to follow it as
    a committee precedent.
        Mr. Guthrie. Everywhere where practicable, yes.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Mr. Griffith. Does the gentleman from New Jersey yield
    back?
        Mr. Pallone. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman from New Jersey yields back.
        Now I will conclude with Member opening statements. The
    Chair would like to remind the Members that, pursuant to the
    committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be made
    part of the record.
        We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and
    taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Although it
    is not the practice of this subcommittee to swear witnesses, I
    would remind our witnesses that knowingly and willingly making
    material false statements to the legislative branch is against
    the law under title 18, section 1001 of the United States Code.
    You have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed
    by questions.
        Our witnesses today are Mr. Chad Whiteman, vice president
    of environmental and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of
    Commerce. Thank you for being here.
        Mr. James W. Boylan, chief of Air Protection Branch of the
    Georgia Environment Protection Division. Thank you for being
    here, sir.
        Mr. John Walke, director of Federal clean air and senior
    attorney, environmental health, at the Natural Resources
    Defense Counsel. Thank you, sir.
        And Mr. Paul Noe, vice president of public policy at the
    American Forest and Paper Association. Thank you for being
    here, sir.
        We appreciate all of you being here today. And I now
    recognize Mr. Whiteman for his 5 minutes to give an opening
    statement.

     STATEMENTS OF CHAD S. WHITEMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL
     AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE, U.S. CHAMBER
      OF COMMERCE; JAMES W. BOYLAN, Ph.D., CHIEF, AIR PROTECTION
    BRANCH, GEORGIA ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION DIVISION; JOHN D. WALKE,
    FEDERAL CLEAN AIR DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL;
    AND PAUL NOE, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY, AMERICAN FOREST
                          & PAPER ASSOCIATION

                     STATEMENT OF CHAD S. WHITEMAN

        Mr. Whiteman. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie,
    Ranking Member Pallone, and Subcommittee Chairman Griffith and
    Ranking Member Tonko, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee for the opportunity testify today on behalf of the
    business community regarding recent air quality regulations.
        I am Chad Whiteman, vice president of environment and
    regulatory affairs for the Global Energy Institute at the U.S.
    Chamber of Commerce.
        As we discuss the Clean Air Act's impact to building
    infrastructure and onshoring American innovation, I would like
    to focus on how the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the
    NAAQS, program impacts our ability to meet growing energy
    needs, reshoring manufacturing and securing our supply chains.
    Specifically, there are five points that I would like to make
    today.
        First, we must right size regulations to support economic
    growth and innovation. While balanced regulations can provide
    clarity that help implement the laws passed by Congress in a
    manner that maximizes innovation and choice, when not properly
    constructed regulations become a form of government
    micromanagement that eliminates the ability to do what people
    in the free markets do best: innovate.
        The lack of innovation stifles economic growth. And echoing
    what Representative Guthrie stated in his opening statement,
    the wave of regulations issued over the prior 4 years has
    raised concerns about the economic impact due to their
    cumulative $1.8 trillion price tag, a historic record that may
    be underestimated.
        More than 70 percent of those costs on the public were
    imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the vast
    majority of those came from the air regulations like the NAAQS.
        Second, over the past several decades the United States has
    made remarkable progress in improving air quality. Since 1970,
    emissions of key pollutants has significantly decreased thanks
    to a collaborative efforts of businesses, States, and Federal
    Government. The Clean Air Act has been instrumental in driving
    these improvements.
        Since 2000, emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide,
    nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter have decreased by 87,
    54, and 37 percent, respectively.
        These emission reductions have all occurred while gross
    domestic product, vehicle miles traveled, and population have
    all increased.
        The United States has some of the best air quality in the
    world, with particulate matter levels up to 431 percent lower
    than other major economies, thanks to steady reductions in
    pollutants over the last several decades.
        Third, most fine particulate matter now comes from
    nonindustrial sources. As EPA's data shows, 84 percent of
    particulate matter emissions now come from sources like
    wildfires and road dust that are costly and hard to control.
    While EPA technically offers exemptions for wildfires under the
    Clean Air Act's exceptional events program, the process is time
    consuming and difficult for States to navigate, involving
    extensive documentation and analysis. For one State, 70 percent
    of their past exemption requests were denied.
        On top of the challenges, the regulatory program may
    currently restrict these types of exemptions. Amendments like
    those included in the CLEAR Act would help address this.
        Fourth, the 2024 particulate matter standards will cause
    permitting gridlock across our economy. Unless the 2024 rule is
    rescinded, it will block the permitting of new manufacturing
    facilities and associated good-paying jobs, pushing investment
    overseas just at the time when we are trying to bring back
    manufacturing and stronger supply chains.
        The rule will also prevent the delay and construction of
    roads, bridges, and other infrastructure funded by legislation
    recently passed by Congress.
        Fifth, and finally, small businesses, homeowners, and
    families could bear disproportionate burden ofthese
    regulations. Increased compliance costs and administrative
    complexity can particularly be challenging for small
    businesses, limiting their ability to grow and compete.
        Furthermore, EPA--for instance, in EPA's cost analysis, the
    Agency identified various compliance pathways for tighter
    particulate matter standards, including the possibility of
    States requiring small businesses such as restaurants to
    install costly equipment and requiring homeowners to replace
    wood fireplaces with natural gas logs.
        Furthermore, EPA failed to identify cost-effective and
    technologically achievable pathways for complying with tighter
    standards as the Agency only analyzed costs of partial
    compliance.
        I would like to close by reaffirming the business
    community's support for efforts to improve air quality. The
    Chamber looks forward to working with policymakers on a
    reasonable regulatory approach that would achieve our shared
    goals of improving air quality and unleashing economic
    prosperity.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and
    I am looking forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whiteman follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, gentleman. I now recognize Dr.
    Boylan for your 5 minutes of opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF JAMES W. BOYLAN, Ph.D.

        Dr. Boylan. Good morning, Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member
    Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jim Boylan,
    and I am honored to testify before you as the chief of the Air
    Protection Branch at the Georgia Environmental Protection
    Division. Today I am here to discuss the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards and the impact on State regulatory agencies
    and the regulated community.
        My remarks will focus on two components of the NAAQS: the
    setting of the NAAQS and the implementation of the NAAQS.
        The NAAQS setting process involves the development and
    review of multiple documents. The time to develop and review
    each document can be substantial, since some of these documents
    can be over a thousand pages long.
        Currently, the NAAQS review process is required to be
    repeated for ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,
    nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead every 5 years.
    There simply is not enough time to squeeze in all this work
    within a 5-year cycle.
        As far as I am aware, EPA has only completed a NAAQS review
    within the statutory 5-year cycle one time since the
    establishment of the program and the Clean Air Act in 1970.
    Extending the time lines for NAAQS reviews from 5 to 10 years
    would give EPA the time needed to develop new standards without
    being rushed.
        In addition, this change would bring about more stability
    and certainty for State air pollution control agencies and
    industry.
        Protecting public health is the core responsibility of
    Georgia EPD, and we will always prioritize that. However, there
    is likely room for some balance in the NAAQS review process.
        The proximity of new standards to background levels puts
    many States in a situation where the new standard is not
    achievable for reasons that are beyond a State's control.
    Therefore, the EPA Administrator should be allowed to consider
    likely attainability of the standard as proposed NAAQS levels
    approach background concentrations.
        The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, or CASAC, serves
    a critical role in the NAAQS setting process by providing
    independent expert feedback on various aspects of the NAAQS.
        I had the pleasure to serve on the CASAC from 2017 to 2023
    and was one of only two people selected to serve on the CASAC
    under both the Trump and Biden administrations. I have seen
    firsthand the imbalance that is caused by stacking the CASAC
    with mostly academic researchers.
        While academic researchers have a good understanding of the
    underlying science, they do not always have a practical
    understanding of how science is translated into the NAAQS.
    State regulatory agencies possess specialized expertise and
    practical knowledge and skills needed for environmental
    management. For this reason, the CASAC should include at least
    three representatives from air pollution control agencies who
    are well versed in NAAQS implementation to balance the CASAC.
        I would now like to turn to the implementation of the
    NAAQS. Implementation guidance needs to be--guidance needs to
    be issued concurrently with the issuance of any new NAAQS so
    that States have the immediate understanding of the
    requirements and are able to come into attainment quickly. Once
    a new NAAQS is promulgated, States are required to submit
    attainment/nonattainment designation recommendations to EPA.
        As part of the designation processes, States can submit
    exceptional event demonstrations to EPA for approval. The State
    of Georgia issues prescribed burn permits for approximately 1.5
    million acres per year. The application of prescribed fires in
    Georgia has been extremely successful, as shown by the
    historically low number of wildfires across the straight.
    However, the current provisions for exceptional events do not
    explicitly recognize prescribed fires as exceptional events.
    While the EPA has tried to address this through guidance, it
    really needs to be addressed through legislation.
        There are multiple permitting challenges associated with
    implementing extremely low NAAQS in both attainment and
    nonattainment areas. For projects that want to build in areas
    meeting the NAAQS, the lack of headroom, or the difference
    between the standard and the background levels, makes it very
    difficult to approve permits.
        For areas found in violation of the NAAQS, they will be
    required to implement the most restrictive new source review
    permitting process, not only for new but also for existing
    sources.
        In 2024, the annual PM standard was dropped from 12
    micrograms per cubic meter to 9. Many locations in Georgia are
    currently over the standard or lack enough headroom for new
    projects. This is especially a concern with the large number of
    economic development projects looking to locate in Georgia.
    Specifically, data centers are one of the fastest-growing
    industries in the State. These data centers need large amounts
    of energy to operate.
        In May, a data center developer announced plans to build a
    20-building data center campus costing $16 billion that would
    require more power than one of Plant Vogtle's nuclear reactors.
        Power generation to support all the new data centers will
    pose multiple permitting challenges under the current NAAQS
    process.
        In closing, I would like to emphasize that there may be
    ways to modernize the NAAQS process that could help States
    implement the new standards in a way that continue to protect
    air quality without restricting economic opportunities.
        Again, I would like to thank the Chairman Griffith for the
    invitation to appear today, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Boylan follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields. I
    now recognize Mr. Walke for his 5-minute opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF JOHN D. WALKE

        Mr. Walke. Thank you, Chairman Griffith and Ranking Member
    Tonko, for the opportunity to testify today. My name is John
    Walke with NRDC.
        All Americans want safe, clean air. All Members of Congress
    want the same. That consensus should unite us, not divide us.
        Today's draft bills unfortunately are divisive because they
    end Americans' legal right to safe, clean air that the Clean
    Air Act has guaranteed for 55 years.
        Today's law ensures safe air quality based on medical
    science, how much air pollution is unsafe for people to
    breathe, not based on company profits or economics.
        The draft CLEAR Act before you first would eliminate the
    obligation to establish health standards for air pollution like
    smog and soot based solely on medical science and what is
    required to protect public health with an adequate margin of
    safety for vulnerable groups like children and the elderly,
    without any consideration of profits for regulated companies or
    economic impacts. Then the bill for the first time would
    authorize EPA to consider company profits and costs to set
    unprotective standards, sanction continuing health hazards, and
    even premature death from PM 2.5.
        Both steps would overturn a unanimous Supreme Court
    decision by the late Justice Scalia upholding Americans' right
    to safe air based on science, not unsafe air tainted by
    economics.
        After that 2001 Supreme Court decision, a lawyer for the
    Chamber of Commerce said, ``Now we will see if we can get the
    magic word `cost' put into the statute.'' That is what this
    legislation is about, that long-time corporate campaign. Mr.
    Tonko is right, the sky has never fallen.
        Americans are not asking Congress to take away their 55-
    year-old legal right to safe, clean air. Americans are not
    asking the Government to lie to us about whether the air is
    safe to breathe. I suspect the Make America Healthy Again
    movement would be shocked to learn that is being considered for
    the third time in 8 years before this subcommittee.
        Take the example of the health standard for ozone
    pollution, last updated in 2015 to 70--seven zero--parts per
    billion. A strong majority of EPA science advisors found in
    2023 that 70 was badly unsafe and needed strengthening to
    guarantee safe air for Americans.
        Suppose EPA, in the future, then considers a range of
    standards as high as 70, the draft Clear Air Act--the draft
    CLEAR Act would let EPA for the first time refuse to strengthen
    the ozone health standard to a safe level by invoking economic
    impacts, or attainability, of the standard and keep the unsafe
    level of 70, denying Americans safe, clean air and allowing
    preventable asthma attacks, forcing parents to take their
    children to the ER and causing hospital admissions for
    respiratory distress.
        The implementation issues addressed in both bills, and in
    much of the other testimony, are complex, but the proposed
    solutions are the wrong ones. They would let air pollution
    increase by legal definition, roll back safeguards under
    current law, increase the burden on existing businesses and
    facilities to reduce their pollution to accommodate the new
    pollution increases, force Americans to breathe unsafe air
    longer, then change the law to declare unsafe air pollution
    levels acceptable.
        Over 156 Americans live in areas that suffer unsafe levels
    of smog pollution or fine particle pollution. More than 88,000
    Americans die prematurely every year due to just fine particle
    pollution--over twice as many deaths as auto accidents cause.
        Over 100 leading public health and environmental
    organizations have urged Congress not to pass nearly identical
    earlier versions of these harmful bills, including the American
    Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the National
    Medical Association, and the National Public Health
    Association. Like me, they object to authorizing more air
    pollution, weakening the Clean Air Act in numerous ways, taking
    away Americans' 55-year-old right to safe, clean air, worsening
    Americans' health, and overturning multiple court decisions,
    all without doing one thing, unfortunately, to improve air
    quality, reduce air pollution, or make Americans healthier.
        Similar to these health experts, I urge Members to decline
    to advance both bills. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walke follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Griffith. Thank the gentleman. I now recognize Mr. Noe
    for his 5-minute opening.

                         STATEMENT OF PAUL NOE

        Mr. Noe. Thank you. Chairs Griffith and Guthrie, Ranking
    Members Tonko and Pallone, and distinguished members of the
    committee, I am here today on behalf of the American Forest &
    Paper Association and the American Wood Council. AF&PA
    represents manufacturers of sustainable paper products, and AWC
    represents manufacturers of structural wood products.
        Our forest products industry directly employs over 925,000
    people, and we are a top-10 manufacturing sector employer in 44
    States. The industry supports over 1.6 million more jobs across
    its suppliers and in local communities, many in rural America.
        These hard-working people are sourcing from sustainably
    managed forests and making products right here in America
    representing nearly 5 percent of U.S. manufacturing GDP.
        In February of last year, I testified before this committee
    that our air permit program is broken. While it remains true, I
    am heartened to sit before you today knowing critical steps are
    being taken to modernize the underlying permit program to be
    achievable, and I want to express our gratitude.
        We strongly support Congressman Rick Allen and Buddy Carter
    in their efforts to address the impacts of air permitting
    issues on U.S. manufacturing. The proposed legislation you are
    considering today would greatly improve the NAAQS program.
        We would especially like to applaud that the legislation
    requires a workable implementation plan when the standards are
    issued so they can be successfully achieved, establishes a 10-
    year review cycle to increase certainty and reduce wasteful
    litigation, and reforms the exceptional events program to
    facilitate prescribed burns to prevent wildfires, by far the
    largest source of particulate matter in our country.
        We look forward to continuing to work with you on this
    legislation, and we have included some additional suggestions
    in our written testimony.
        Only through commonsense solutions will we truly enable the
    onshoring of American innovators, and we thank Congressmen
    Allen and Carter for their leadership, and all the Members
    helping us.
        We are also grateful that in March EPA Administrator Zeldin
    recognized the specific problems manufacturers are facing when
    he announced the Agency will quickly revisit the unworkable
    2024 PM NAAQS standard.
        Under previous PM standards, our industry could make
    substantial capital investments to modernize, but the new PM
    standard is a perfect storm for permit gridlock, making it much
    harder to modernize our facilities and continue reducing
    emissions.
        The previous EPA rushed to tighten the PM NAAQS close to
    background levels using dubious legal authority, ahead of
    schedule, and without a workable implementation plan. Notably,
    the 2024 rule doesn't address at all 84 percent of particulate
    matter emissions, which come from nonindustrial sources such as
    wildfires and road dust. Pulp, paper, and wood products mills
    account for less than 1 percent of particulate matter, to put
    that in perspective.
        Blindly ratcheting down on already controlled sources has
    diminishing returns, and collapsing the permit program by
    making it unachievable blocks progress towards more efficient
    and cleaner facilities.
        The previous administration unfortunately ignored each of
    these concerns--concerns raised not only by industry, but our
    partners in labor and many elected officials. If we don't
    change this trajectory now, American manufacturing
    competitiveness and jobs in many of your districts are at
    stake.
        We stand ready to work with you, with Administrator Zeldin,
    and the Trump administration to strengthen and support this
    effort.
        Thank you, again, for the opportunity to be heard and for
    your tireless leadership to support U.S. manufacturing jobs.I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Noe follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman. I thank all of you for
    your testimony. I now move into the question-and-answer portion
    of the hearing, and I will begin the questioning and recognize
    myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Noe, we are talking about NAAQS today, but I can't help
    myself: Attainment also impacts new course review permitting.
    It concerns me that industries are trying to reduce--industries
    trying to reduce emissions at their plant can potentially be
    punished in some cases under the Clean Air Act, which is why I
    have been working on H.R. 161, the New Source Review Permitting
    Improvement Act. Doesn't the current new source review
    permitting process make manufacturers think twice about
    building new projects, or even improving current facilities?
        Mr. Noe. Mr. Chairman, 100 percent. And thank you so much
    for your tireless work there. I am going to paraphrase a friend
    of mine and former EPA general counsel, Don Elliott, who said
    the kindest things you can say about NSR is it is ineffective,
    slow, and it doesn't work. And those really are about the
    kindest things you can say about it because it makes no sense
    that a program that is supposed to improve air quality blocks
    efforts to become more efficient and thereby lower emissions
    per ton of production. It is that simple.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes. is it economically efficient or
    environmentally friendly to require pollution control projects
    to go through the full NSR permitting process, and doesn't the
    current NSR regime actually discourage major sources from
    installing emission control equipment for fear of losing their
    current air permit?
        Mr. Noe. One hundred percent. And, Mr. Chairman, I just
    want to add, when you were kind enough to have a hearing back
    in February 2018 and I had the opportunity to testify, we had a
    whole bunch of examples from our industry alone about how NSR
    has had very damaging unintended effects. The intent was good:
    Let's make our air cleaner. We all support that. I think you
    have heard that already from not only all of you on this panel,
    but we have got to be smart about how we do this. There is so
    much at stake if we are not smart in how we do it.
        Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. And I had my examples too,
    but I won't go through them today.
        Mr. Whiteman, could you briefly explain the colored map,
    which has--we have got our fake Vanna here. Could you explain
    the colored map in your written testimony and that is enlarged
    behind me?
        [Map displayed.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Whiteman. Will do. Thank you for the question. Yes,
    this map is a map of the counties in the U.S., and we modeled
    the air quality nonattainment, and areas that would be in
    attainment.
        So if you look at the map, the green areas would be those
    that are in attainment. The red areas are those that are out of
    attainment, 428 counties that we project. EPA projected just
    one-fourth of that.
        And then the light red areas are those where there is not
    much headroom--there is not a lot of headroom to build new
    facilities, or you bump into the standards.
        This is the first time that we have seen the Clean Air Act,
    the NAAQS program, reduce emissions so low that the impacts are
    getting around background levels. So that is why we see such an
    extensive potential permitting gridlock across the country, and
    that is why we raised so many concerns about the NAAQS
    standard.
        We all want to reshore manufacturing, we all want to
    provide the good-paying jobs, and unfortunately this looks like
    it is going to block a lot of those projects for coming back.
        Mr. Griffith. What are the real-world effects of a
    nonattainment designation for a county trying hard to land a
    big factory, or a family manufacturer looking to expand their
    plant?
        Mr. Whiteman. I am sorry, sir, I missed----
        Mr. Griffith. That is all right. What are the real-world
    effects of a nonattainment designation for a county trying to
    land a big factory, or even a family manufacturer looking to
    expand their existing facility?
        Mr. Whiteman. It puts them through a lot of permitting and
    can be quite difficult. In fact, I was talking to somebody in
    the foundry industry yesterday from Wisconsin. They had a new
    green field facility that they wanted to build. They looked at
    400 sites, after they--they could meet their labor
    requirements. When they went on and considered the
    environmental requirements from the NAAQS, from ozone and PM,
    it narrowed it down to eight. And then when they looked at
    supply chain, energy access, and other things, they decided
    they just couldn't do the project because the NAAQS program and
    what is coming up is just going to be too stringent to them.
        Mr. Griffith. Couldn't do the project in the United States.
        Mr. Whiteman. They shelved--no. They shelved it.
        Mr. Griffith. And so when we are talking about those
    nonattainment areas, those are the ones that are currently red,
    correct? Dark red?
        Mr. Whiteman. These are the ones that are projected to be
    out of attainment in the future.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. And then a lot of the pinkish red
    ones are close, so if you were trying to land a really big
    factory, that might tip you over the line as well.
        Mr. Whiteman. That is right. We have an example in one of
    the reports that we wrote, even a wind facility in Colorado, CS
    Wind--the air permit they had to put together to follow EPA's
    requirements would increase the emission in their area by 1.9
    micrograms. They may not have been able to build their facility
    because even projects like that could be blocked.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. My time is up. I yield back, and
    now recognize the ranking member from the State of New York for
    his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I expressed earlier, it
    is critically important that the National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards are based on the latest science to ensure they are
    health protective. However, I am concerned that several
    provisions of these proposals will undermine those efforts.
        First, the CLEAR Act would change the current 5-year review
    cycle to a 10-year cycle. So, Mr. Walke, what would be the
    consequences of making that sort of change?
        Mr. Walke. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. The consequences,
    unfortunately, would be to ensure that updates to health
    standards occur closer to 12 to 15 years.
        Now, why do I say that? Because under today's law where the
    statutory deadline is 5 years, as Dr. Boylan said, the reality
    is it is closer to 8 to 10 years, and the Agency has to be sued
    in order to try to issue them faster. If the statutory deadline
    were 5 years, they would miss that statutory deadline, too.
        Now, why do I say that? Well, because Congress adopted a
    program in 1990 that set a 10-year statutory deadline for a lot
    of standards, and EPA missed that deadline probably 60 to 70
    percent of the time. Sometimes they missed it by 10 or even 15
    years.
        So it is entirely predictable what would happen. Americans
    would be denied safer, clean air based upon what the medical
    science says for as long as 12 to 15 years, or more.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And is it safe to say that our
    scientific understanding of the health impacts of air pollution
    is continuously improving?
        Mr. Walke. That is absolutely the case. In the most recent
    updates to the health standards for ozone that unfortunately
    did not occur but were the subject of scientific analysis in
    2023, shows that we have learned much more and the standards
    should be strengthened.
        The strengthening the PM 2.5 standard in 2024--which, by
    the way, is the most deadly pollutant regulated by the Clean
    Air Act and recognized globally as either the second- or third-
    largest source of premature mortality globally--we have learned
    much more and we need to do more to protect Americans.
        Mr. Tonko. Right. And let me add to your assessment. There
    can be a lot of science produced in a short period of time, and
    as an example, the 2020 ozone standard review included more
    than 1,700 new studies that were published since EPA's 2015
    review of that standard.
        So even within the current 5-year cycle there could be
    hundreds if not thousands of relevant scientific studies that
    further our understanding of what levels of air pollution may
    be considered safe.
        So Mr. Walke, if we are committed to having our
    environmental protections based on the latest best available
    science, would shifting to a 10-year review cycle undermine
    that goal?
        Mr. Walke. Absolutely it would undermine that goal, and so
    would eliminating the Office of Research and Development, a lot
    of other things that are being done by this administration,
    unfortunately. We are eliminating scientific capacities, and
    lengthening the period to 12 to 15 years would just be even
    more irresponsible.
        Mr. Tonko. And, Mr. Walke, I would also further ask about
    the CLEAR Act's proposed changes to the Clean Air Scientific
    Advisory Committee. Currently the CASAC is statutorily required
    to have seven members, with at least one from a State agency.
        Mr. Walke, what is the role of the CASAC today, and would
    you say it is to inform EPA in consideration of the latest
    science when reviewing standards, or is it more focused on the
    implementation and feasibility of the standards?
        Mr. Walke. It is focused on the protectiveness of the
    health standards and whether they provide an adequate margin of
    safety for vulnerable populations like children. And so it
    requires medical expertise. It does not require implementation
    expertise. And I differ with my fellow witness, Dr. Boylan, on
    that respect.
        Geographic diversity doesn't speak to medical expertise. So
    kind of pulling people from region 4 States to be on the panel
    doesn't speak to whether the standards will be better and more
    protective of Americans.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. While I certainly support States
    playing an important role in scientific reviews of standards. I
    also believe States are just one of several important
    contributors.
        Mr. Walke, are you concerned that this proposed change to
    the CASAC membership might tip balance of the--tip the balance
    of the committee?
        Mr. Walke. I think it is intended to, Mr. Tonko. We had
    testimony before this committee today that criticized past
    panels for being imbalanced, and this was the approach to
    supposedly address that. Administrator Pruitt did it during the
    Trump administration and blocked people who had EPA grants for
    serving on the committee, and that was found to be unlawful by
    a court. So I think there have been attacks on the integrity of
    CASAC for as long as I have been practicing law.
        Mr. Tonko. Is there any evidence that the current structure
    of the CASAC is causing it to fail to adequately fulfill its
    responsibilities?
        Mr. Walke. To the contrary. I mean, Dr. Boylan was
    reappointed by a Democratic administration and provided his
    views, and they were fully captured for the public record, and
    I think that was to the credit of both Dr. Boylan and to Mr.
    Biden and his EPA.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, and, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Crenshaw [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The
    Chair recognizes Mr. Latta.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our
    witnesses for being here.
        This is a pretty important discussion that we are having
    today on these bills that we--the discussion drafts. And, you
    know, if you look at this map, again, looking where the State
    of Ohio was, it pretty much puts the entire State of Ohio in
    jeopardy.
        And what I would like to start, Mr. Whiteman, if I can just
    ask you some real quick questions. One of the things you said
    in your testimony, that EPA acts based on faulty scientific
    analysis. How often does thought happen, and how can this
    affect this map right here?
        Mr. Whiteman. Let me first qualify, I am not a scientist,
    but there is a lot of science that goes into this, into the
    NAAQS, and there are concerns--you know, let me just speak from
    the business community perspective on cost, because ultimately
    if we are not considering costs and we are just considering one
    side of the equation and not the other, it leaves with
    unbalanced and overly burdensome regulatory provisions that we
    are finding ourselves now in this situation of having potential
    permitting gridlock.
        Mr. Latta. Let's go back just a couple years back because,
    you know, when we were talking about maybe a county being out
    of compliance, and the county that would be adjacent to it--and
    all of a sudden the county adjacent to it who might not have
    any issues, but because of it being next to that county,
    depending when that test is being run, then all of a sudden
    then that could be putting the county adjacent that didn't have
    any issues out of compliance. But would you say when you are
    looking at this map today, it is putting everything out of
    compliance, is that correct?
        Mr. Whiteman. Yes, you know, the red areas, we completely
    expect them to be in violation of the standards. And those next
    to it, we expect permitting gridlock to be there because you
    need some headroom to be able to site these facilities. And
    because they are so low, the standards, so close to background
    levels, there is just not a lot there.
        Mr. Latta. Let me ask a few more questions real quick. You
    know, when these tests are out there and the monitoring goes
    on, you know, when they take into effect certain things--like,
    I have got one in particular: You have an interstate highway
    that runs through a county. Would, you know, would that be a
    factor out there that would be a concern?
        Mr. Whiteman. Yes, certainly the funding that Congress
    passed in the infrastructure bill, building new roads and
    bridges, you know, State DOTs have to look at potential air
    emission increases and factor that and look at the NAAQS
    standards, and so that may block some of those roads and
    bridges that would increase efficiency and supply chain
    efficiency.
        Mr. Latta. Well, and, again, this is like several years
    back in Ohio on Interstate 75 from the Michigan border down to
    the City of Findlay, it was determined that we had to--the road
    was at about 115 percent capacity, and what did they have to
    do? They needed to put a third lane in. So what you are seeing
    right then is it could put that kind of a project in jeopardy
    to have something like that done then.
        Mr. Whiteman. They would likely have to deal with the NAAQS
    program and finding offsets and other things, which may not be
    available.
        Mr. Latta. What would the impact be on agricultural areas?
    Do you have any idea on that?
        Mr. Whiteman. Certainly they are one of the nonpoint
    sources that are becoming--you know, as industrial emissions
    have gone down, or around 16 percent, other nonpoint sources
    like, again, road dust and fires are becoming a bigger portion
    of it, so it is likely that, you know, farming and other things
    will be in the crosshairs for this type of NAAQS, which is
    bringing pollution levels down so low.
        Mr. Latta. And just to follow up on that real quick, just a
    comment on my part because, again, you have to think about when
    harvest is done. So if you are shelling corn, or if it is going
    to--you are harvesting beans, you are harvesting wheat, that is
    the time of the year that you are going to have a little more
    dust in the air. But thank you.
        Mr. Noe, if I could ask you, could you tell the committee
    about the cumulative regulatory challenge facing American
    industrial, what it means to this country?
        Mr. Noe. Thank you, Congressman. The challenge is enormous,
    and there is so much at stake because, if our regulatory system
    isn't working well, and the permit system is gridlocked, that
    grinds progress to a halt. We need to play to our strengths. We
    are the most innovative country on the planet. We have great
    entrepreneurs. We have a great, productive workforce. And our
    workers just want the right to compete. That is all they are
    asking for.
        And so we can't have a picture like that where the permit
    program is basically collapsing because what those colors show
    you, it is not just there are lots more of these nonattainment
    areas in red. That pink is a special problem for my industry.
    And those are attainment areas, OK. So don't get me wrong. We
    are in rural America, by and large, those are cleaner areas
    that tend to be in attainment, but by putting the standards so
    close to background level--average in this country is 8, they
    put it at 9, we--that blocks major projects in our industry.
    They typically need an increment of 3.
        So the simple math is, you start at background, let's say
    it is 8, you add 3 to that, where are you? Eleven. That is way
    above the standard at 9. You can't do it. You have now blocked
    a project that is both going to create more jobs in this
    country, help onshore manufacturing, put wealth in communities
    that really need more economic development and job opportunity.
    You are blocking all of that, and you are also preventing more
    efficient technology that is also cleaner technology.
        So that is what I mean when I say we have got to be smarter
    than that. We need a permit system that works and allows all of
    the benefits of our economy where we can have both jobs and
    environmental progress to happen together.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thanks for
    the indulgence. My time has expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Crenshaw. The gentleman yields back. The Chair yields 5
    minutes to Ms. Schakowsky.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walke, I want
    to just tell you that you and I are on the same panel right now
    and on the same view. You know, when I was in the State
    legislature in 1995, I found the report and I stood on the--in
    the State legislature and said, ``Please, let's pay attention
    to this issue, time is running out.''
        Well, how many times have we heard that, that time is
    running out? We know that the international panel on climate
    change said that very clearly. We have heard them all the time.
        But even more important to me is the children in my
    district, especially in low-income districts, have more asthma
    than others in the country, and we don't want to see that
    happen.
        We have to understand that time really is running out. And
    while we want to make sure that we have a good economy, are we
    going to trade that in? And that definition about all the
    businesses that are made--I am not against them, but I say we
    have to do something. And I wanted you to talk about the things
    that were--that have been introduced.
        What is going to happen if those bills go into fruition,
    and are we going to do better?
        Mr. Walke. Thank you, Ms. Schakowsky. No, we are going to
    do worse, and I think across the board that is clear in my
    testimony. A bipartisan Congress in 1970 and again in 1977 and
    again in 1990 ensured that health standards for Americans
    protected us all with an adequate margin of safety. And the
    courts and EPA have found that means children, it means the
    elderly, it means people suffering from asthma and emphysema,
    to make sure that we have health standards that protect all
    Americans, not just some.
        And this bill would eliminate that. It would allow economic
    impacts or attainability or, you know, cost feasibility to
    eliminate the protectiveness of standards for children, for the
    elderly, and then for the most vulnerable among us because it
    eliminates the health foundation for the standards and replaces
    it with whatever costs decide is good enough.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, thank you. So I wanted to ask you,
    what is the most immediate thing that you think that we want to
    do to start to catch up with this time line that is growing
    stronger?
        Mr. Walke. So the current process for setting the health
    standards takes too long. But it takes too long because EPA
    engages in a bunch of steps that the statute doesn't require.
    So I think that we could have a science- and health-based
    process that actually does update health standards according to
    the best medical science closer to 5 years than 10. Certainly
    closer than 15 that this bill would produce. And we would be
    better served by that process.
        We have recommendations to strengthen the current unsafe
    ozone standard now. And this administration, if it wanted to,
    could act on that. Instead, they have announced that they don't
    see any cause or reason to update the standard until 2030. That
    is 15 years after it was last updated, Ms. Schakowsky, in the
    year 2015. And we have been told that level is unsafe, and we
    are going to be stuck with that unsafe standard until at least
    2030 and beyond.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Are our--yours and mine, and I think a lot
    of people in this country, are we going to be really saying to
    manufacturers that you can't do a job?
        Mr. Walke. Of course not. Like you said, 1995 is an
    interesting year that you mentioned because that is when the
    Chamber of Commerce and some others filed lawsuits to require
    that health standards be set based on cost. That resulted in
    the Supreme Court decision in 2001 that unanimously said no,
    that is just wrong.
        K, so this fight has been going on for a long time, and as
    Mr. Tonko said, we have been told ever sense, the sky is
    falling, but it never has. And these complaints are ones that
    are designed to weaken the law. There is a lot of complexity in
    this testimony, and there are surely things that could be
    improved with implementation of the program. But eliminating
    Americans' legal right to safe air based on medical science is
    not the way to do it.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I agree. And my time is up, but I wanted to
    thank the--allowing me to talk a little over. Thank you. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Crenshaw [presiding]. Thank you. The gentlelady yields.
    The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee,
    Mr. Guthrie.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time, and I
    look forward to the discussion based on what we just heard. I
    see a good friend of mine, Johnny Walke is in the audience.
    Johnny Walke is from Tennessee, and he runs a business. He is
    trying to put people to work and run a manufacturing business
    and be successful. And he has no other intent than to run a
    clean, sound business and make sure that he puts people to
    work.
        And it is a high--what do you call it?--you are in a high-
    cost, low-margin business, and that is a fun one to be in,
    right, a high-cost, low-margin, and just trying to stay ahead.
    And regulations matter. But we do need a clean environment.
        So Mr. Whiteman, the Biden administration did a particulate
    mater rule, and they were reducing annual standard to 9 parts
    per microgram of cubic meter, which is getting close to some
    areas of the country, it may be in that lower-than-background
    levels. Could you describe what having a standard lower than
    background levels, what the impact could be on manufacturing,
    or ability to develop, ability to construct, ability to
    operate?
        Mr. Whiteman. It essentially puts those areas into
    gridlock. I mean, the way the permitting works is once you are
    out of attainment, you have to implement the most stringent
    emissions control technologies out there under the lowest
    achievable emissions reduction program. And on top of that, you
    are going to have to seek offsets because, once you establish
    the background so low and you are in this area of trying to
    implement layer controls, you are going to need some help
    somewhere else.
        The problem is, you set it so low everybody else is going
    to be in the same boat. So everyone else is going to be
    pointing to each other like the Spider-Man, and then I am like,
    can I get your offset credits from you? So ultimately it is
    going to lead to a lot of projects like the one I mentioned in
    Wisconsin that is going to get blocked.
        Mr. Guthrie. Well, it was mentioned earlier that people say
    the sky is falling. I hope we can fix this product before the
    sky falls. That is the idea, not have it fall on us.
        So Mr. Noe, the pulp and paper industry used a lot of
    energy data centers which are being built to support and
    develop artificial intelligence also needed an enormous amount
    of energy. What insights can your industry share with those in
    the AI sector about how these air quality standards will impact
    their ability to grow in the United States?
        Mr. Noe. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. And I
    think that shows the urgency. We have got to be able to build
    things. We have got to be able to expand things. We have got to
    be able to modernize things in this country. And what that map
    is showing you is permanent gridlock all around the country.
    And it is not just these bigger red areas of nonattainment that
    Mr. Whiteman was mentioning. All of that pink is areas that are
    in attainment. So you would think things would be fine, but
    they are not, because there is permit gridlock. And if you want
    to do a major project in those areas, you are going to be
    blocked.
        So, you know, there is a lot at stake here. It is not just
    U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. Our place in the world, our
    ability not only to compete, but national security issues are
    at stake, because the demand that is coming online for energy
    in this country, including electricity, are massive. And that
    is what keeps CEOs up at night, I can tell you.
        Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you. And that is a good point.
    Because, you know, from the mid-1990s until just recently, we
    have had a flat-level demand for power. Part of it is because--
    and thankfully so--we have become far more efficient at using
    the power that we use, which we absolutely should be.
        The second part of it is, we unfortunately had flat
    manufacturing growth, which is now beginning to increase, but
    not just bringing jobs back but also th excessive demand, the
    extensive demand that is coming from new areas which is data
    centers. I always quote, and I said that Bill Gates had a
    Microsoft data center--can, not everyone, but can--one of them
    can use as much power as the city of Seattle. So that what we
    have scale up for. If we don't do it, then we are going to lose
    this battle to China. And I would rather have the American
    values govern AI around the world than Chinese values any day.
    There is no comparison to that.
        So let me go to Mr. Boylan. The Clean Air Act requires EPA
    to review and revise air quality standards on 5-year intervals.
    But the Biden administration conducted a review of the
    particulate matter outside of the normal review cycle. That
    means States like yours may have significant burdens in
    implementing these changing standards. The draft legislation
    will move it to 10 years.
        As the head of Georgia's program, can you discuss the
    impact that would be for you?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, so the impact of changing it from 5 to 10
    years, is that what you are asking?
        Mr. Guthrie. Yes.
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, so what that would do is it would allow
    EPA to fully consider all the documents. The way it is now, the
    rush--and sometimes they try to shortcut reviews and things
    like that--giving the full 10 years would allow for a full
    consideration of all the science. These documents can be over a
    thousand pages long, and there's six different pollutants that
    are being reviewed.
        And so, one, it would allow for EPA to not be rushed. But
    it would also give more stability to the State to be able
    implement. Because what happens is sometimes States are right
    on the verge of coming into attainment and then EPA drops the
    standard, and then we kind of have to start the whole process
    again of getting back into nonattainment. So it would give more
    stability and allow for a better long-term planning for
    attainment.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Dr.--I said Mr.--thank you, Dr.
    Boylan. I appreciate it, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Crenshaw. The gentleman yields. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Peters.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Clean Air Act is
    one of our most, the Nation's most important substantive
    environmental and public health laws. At the center of the law
    are the National Ambient Air Quality, or NAAQS. They define
    what levels of common air pollutants are safe to breathe, and
    they are developed based solely on science and public health
    considerations. And I have often talked about in the context of
    permanent reform.
        When we talk about statutes like NEPA, we don't have to
    worry so much about NEPA because we have the Clean Air Act and
    the Clean Water Act guarding us against the emission of
    pollutants into the atmosphere, into the environment without
    permission by way of a permit.
        And as we consider ways to support infrastructure and
    energy development, I think there is room for bipartisan
    conversation. We should be looking at how to reduce permitting
    delays, provide clarity for important infrastructure projects.
    But I don't think that those projects and improvements should
    come at the expense of science-based processes that sets clean
    air standards.
        So the discussion drafts we are looking at today do raise a
    couple of questions. One thing I am struck by is the debate
    between 5 and 10 years. And it doesn't sound like 5 years is
    ever met.
        And, Mr. Walke, what were you saying was the timeline we
    are seeing for the actual review of this in comparison to the
    5-year mandate?
        Mr. Walke. Mr. Peters, it has been closer to 8 to 10 years.
        Mr. Peters. Right. You know--and that happened under
    Democratic and Republican administrations. I guess I am
    interested if you want to extend it. We could talk about that.
    But I also wonder what enforcement we are going to have. What I
    find among my colleagues is that they are reluctant to talk
    back to this administration. And if they were willing to give
    me some assurance about actually observing a limit, I think
    that is something that we could talk about.
        Mr. Walke, also, would you address this concern I think
    about the standards getting so low that they are close to
    background, and that makes things impractical to comply with?
        Mr. Walke. Sure. I would be happy to do so. That actually
    was addressed in the most recent court decision from the DC
    Circuit Court of Appeals about the ozone standard, where that
    very concern was raised. And what the court said rightly and
    what the law has said for, you know, 55 years is those are
    implementation concerns. Congress has three tools that they
    have included in the law: exceptional events, international
    transport, and rural transport. You know, maybe the regulations
    for those programs could be improved, but it is an
    implementation concern.
        Mr. Peters. That is implementations. I mean, how will you
    respond to the practical problem that that presents when, you
    know, you impose regulations on actors when the regulations
    themselves--see you have to get so close to background, it is
    impractical. How do you deal with that as a practical matter?
        Mr. Walke. Well, you know, we have heard a lot of talk
    about wildfires and prescribed fires and things that are real
    concerns in this country. And I was a little puzzled because I
    looked up the 2017 exceptional events rule last night. It
    defines exceptional events to include prescribed fires, and it
    mentions prescribed fires 182 times. So I am a little puzzled
    why we are talking about the need to change the law when the
    law already guarantees that.
        But, you know, it requires good, hard work by people of
    good faith to say, look, if you violated the standard of 9
    because the combination of background in wildfires pushes you
    over 9, you are not in nonattainment. You are not. And if the
    rules and the processes need to be expedited and made more
    efficient and effective, then we would stand ready to support
    that.
        Mr. Peters. OK. I guess I'd just like to pick up on the
    issue of particulates and wildfires. It is a huge problem. And
    I would just drive one's attention to the bill I did with Chair
    Westerman, the Fix Our Forests Act, which is the only attempt,
    I believe--certainly the only bipartisan attempt--to deal with
    pollution from wildfires by giving the Forest Service the
    ability it needs to actually go in and perform the forest
    management that would keep us from only having catastrophic
    fires and get us back to a normal fire cycle, which we
    suppressed particularly in the West for many decades.
        I would also ask particularly the National Resources
    Defense Council to participate in that process. They have
    basically not helped us in a way that I think would really
    meaningfully reduce air quality concerns and reduce the concern
    about particulates from wildfires, which is a bigger climate
    pollution source than the entire power sector of California
    right now. It is the biggest problem we have.
        We need the help of the environmental community. We have
    the Nature Conservancy that has helped us, the Environmental
    Defense Fund, the Audubon Society. But some people are so
    wedded to what the law is today that they have so far not
    helped us change the law to really help meet concerns about air
    quality. I know that is not what NRDC is about, and I ask their
    help. And with that I yield back.
        Mr. Crenshaw. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes
    Mr. Palmer for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a topic that I
    am particularly interested in. I have worked for two
    international engineering companies. I worked for Combustion
    Engineering in the Environmental Systems Division. I worked for
    Rust International. Everything from refuse energy to air space.
    And talking about particulate matter in general, we have the
    technology to produce that, but I think we are at a point now
    where we are asking industry to meet standards that we don't
    have the technology to meet, particularly when it comes to, as
    my friend from California mentioned, dealing with wildfires,
    agricultural dust, just things that occur in nature, a
    substantial part of the particulate matter that is in the
    atmosphere over California originated in China or other places.
        How do you respond to that? Obviously, we want to maintain
    as high an air quality as we possibly can, but at the same time
    we have got to take into account what we are capable of and
    what is economically sustainable. Any of you?
        Mr. Noe. Congressman, what I would say is, a hundred
    percent no one is saying you shouldn't use best technology.
    That is not the issue. The issue is we have got a permit
    program that is basically collapsed right now. You can't get a
    permit to do a highly beneficial project that anyone could tell
    you is not only going to create jobs and economic growth and
    inject that community with some prosperity but it is also going
    to be a more efficient--this is typical--so it is going to
    lower missions per ton of production.
        Those are the kind of projects we should be having all
    around our country, and that map's showing you we can't because
    you have got permanent gridlock all cross the country,
    including in attainment areas.
        Mr. Palmer. It is also a problem, though, I believe we are
    literally on our national security situation with regard to the
    processing and refining of rare earth elements. There is not a
    single major refinement for rare earth elements in the Western
    Hemisphere. If I said there wasn't one in the United States,
    that would be bad enough. There is not one in the Western
    Hemisphere. And there is only nine in the world. Eight are in
    China. The other one is in Malaysia.
        And there is a reason for that. We have regulated these
    industries out of existence to the point now that we are
    confronted with a national security emergency. Your economy
    depends on them, but your military depends on them.
        Mr. Noe. Absolutely.
        Mr. Palmer. So I think we have got to find that balance.
    The other interesting thing about this is, is when you look at
    asthma rates--and, admittedly, I wouldn't expect China to
    provide the most accurate data, or India for that matter--but
    when you look at efforts to improve emission quality, the
    United States has a prevalence of 8.7 percent, China has one of
    2.2 percent. And anyone who has ever been to China will tell
    you that the air quality there is substantially worse than
    here.
        So there is just a lot of information out there that I
    think requires a little different narrative. I think part of
    the problem is, from the narrative from my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle is that the EPA regulations only impact
    large businesses. And that is not true. So I think when you
    look at the overall impact, and whether it is homebuilders,
    whether it is small manufacturers, we are literally regulating
    our economy. And we have been regulating it into oblivion to
    get us to the point where we are no longer competitive.
        I was asked to be on a panel with members of the European
    Parliament, and we were talking about this, and I said, you
    know, China subsidizes companies, they cut up--they don't
    follow the rules that we follow, whether it is wages, in some
    cases it is slave labor. And how do we respond? We tax our
    companies. We regulate them to a point that they are not even
    competitive within our own markets.
        And I think part of what all of us have got to come to a
    realization of is that, you know, we have got to have sensible
    regulation. We are not in competition with Europe, we are not
    in competition with Canada. It is the West in competition with
    China. And I think it is time that we sat down and had a very
    serious discussion about the regulations that we need, the tax
    policy that we need. That is what we are trying to do with this
    bill that they are so adamantly opposed to, is we are trying to
    get to a position where we can bring back these industries that
    we are going to need for economic security and national
    security.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Crenshaw. The gentleman yields. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Ruiz.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the heart of today's
    hearing is the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, our
    Nation's baseline for breathable, safe air. The standards are
    designed to limit how much of certain harmful pollutants can be
    in the air. And yet, rather than strengthening these standards,
    my Republican colleagues are once again choosing a familiar
    path, chipping away at policies that protect the environment
    and the health of the American people.
        So let's be clear: Weakening these standards mean more
    pollution, more illness, and more deaths. And these NAAQS
    protect our health, environment, and also vulnerable
    communities.
        Fine particulate matter is microscopic pollution so small
    that they can enter our blood right straight through the lungs.
    They are tied to asthma, heart disease, lung damage, and early
    death. And in communities like mine, the consequences are dire.
        In California's 25th District, we have been classified as
    an EPA nonattainment area for years, meaning our air quality
    consistently fails to meet the national health base standards
    set by the Federal Government. Riverside County has been
    flunked by the American Lung Association, receiving an F for
    our annual particle pollution.
        Mr. Walke, is it correct that the new NAAQS standards have
    consistently provided significant health benefits for our
    communities, especially our most underserved?
        Mr. Walke. Absolutely, Mr. Ruiz. And they will continue do
    so if we let them. You know, the State of California has about
    10 percent of the manufacturing in this country. It is the
    fourth-largest economy in the world. It also happens to have
    the greatest air pollution challenges in the United States.
        And yet the California Air Resources Board strongly opposes
    these bills because they know that protecting health--and
    children's health, especially--is compatible with economic
    growth. And they know that deadly fine particle pollution kills
    far too many Americans that we can prevent by upholding the
    law.
        Mr. Ruiz. Well, that is why I am so concerned about these
    legislative proposals that will delay and weaken these
    standards. Last Congress, we examined changes to the PM 2.5
    standard, which is projected to save thousands of lives.
        Mr. Walke, can you share why it was critical for EPA to
    follow the science when the Agency revised the PM 2.5 NAAQS
    standard?
        Mr. Walke. It was critical because PM 2.5 is responsible
    for more premature deaths than any other air pollution in this
    country and around the globe. EPA found that strengthening the
    standards would avoid 4,500 premature deaths every year as a
    result of this.
        And, Congressman, I am a little puzzled by some of this
    conversation. These bills do not eliminate Clean Air Act
    permitting. So it sounds really like what is going on here to
    me is they just don't want the PM 2.5 standard to be
    strengthened, then don't want it to be in place at all so that
    permits would have to be obtained to meet those stronger
    limits.
        Mr. Ruiz. And so if EPA had considered industry costs
    during the standard-setting process, how might that have
    impacted the standard? And what would be the downstream effects
    for communities rural and impoverished like mine?
        Mr. Walke. I don't think EPA would have strengthened the
    standard. In fact, that is what the Trump administration did as
    it was walking out the door on December 23, 2000. They refused
    to strengthen the standard, and I think they were just secretly
    considering costs. And the Biden administration properly
    reconsidered those standards as the law has always allowed for
    four decades. And that is why we now have safer standards
    protecting more American lives.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. As an emergency physician, you know, I
    have seen the impact of this pollution up close: Kids wheezing
    through asthma attacks, seniors collapsing from respiratory
    distress. And these are not data points, they are people, and
    they are depending on us to act. But instead of standing with
    their constituents, Republicans are standing with corporate
    polluters.
        Last Congress, committee Republicans voted for the bills
    being discussed today. These are disastrous bills, and now they
    are back once again moving these bills and trying to delay and
    derail these public health standards.
        Let's be honest: They are not defending public health, they
    are not defending Medicaid or working families, they are
    defending polluters and profit margins. And the cost is
    measured in ER visits, missed school days, missed work, and
    lives cut too short. So people will die. As we have seen,
    people who live in high-polluted areas live 10 years less than
    people who live in nonhigh-polluted areas. The evidence is
    there: High pollution kills people earlier than what was
    intended. And we must uphold and enforce the National Ambient
    Air Quality Standards, not weaken them. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith [presiding]. I now recognize the chairman of
    the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Carter.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
    all of you for being here. This is extremely important. You
    know, balancing America's air quality with economic development
    begins with implementing commonsense legislation. I think we
    would all agree on that. EPA reviews the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards on a 5-year interval.
        After establishing the National Ambient Air Quality
    Standard, States assume the primary responsibility for
    implementing and enforcing them, these rules. This is an
    extremely time-consuming process, one that takes years and
    years. I have got a bill, it is called the CLEAR Act, that
    would give States the time needed to implement standards
    without rushing the process. And I think that is very
    important. This bill also allows States the opportunity to
    correct deficiencies found by EPA in State implementation plans
    for NAAQS before EPA can issue a Federal implementation plan.
    The CLEAR Act offers commonsense solutions, commonsense
    solutions to make attaining clean air standards realistic while
    giving States the time necessary to comply.
        Dr. Boylan, I want to ask you. You are obviously very
    familiar with implementing clear air quality standards and
    policy. Can you tell me more about the implementation process
    for these kind of rules that we are talking about here?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, so for the implementation for the
    attainment and the nonattainment areas. For attainment areas,
    there is a lot of hurdles for getting new permits implemented.
    In fact, the last time the PM standard was dropped from 15
    micrograms to 12 micrograms, we had four nonattainment areas,
    and we had zero new, large projects go into those areas until
    the areas were designated back to attainment many years later.
    In addition, areas that were attainment, there was so little
    headroom that the number of new projects even in the attainment
    areas declined substantially in those areas. So that is kind of
    what we are looking at with the new standard of 9 micrograms
    here in Georgia.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK. Well, let me ask you this:
    Lowering the NAAQS standards, how does it impact you on a local
    and a State level?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, so when the NAAQS is lowered, there is a
    process to go through for designations. It is very resource-
    intensive. We have to make recommendations to EPA on areas that
    are attainment or not attainment. It also involves the
    evaluation of exceptional events, particularly in Georgia for
    prescribed fires. We had a team of 14 people recently working
    on--just on exceptional events to be able to get them submitted
    to EPA.
        So once we go through the designation process, then a new
    lower standard does make it much more difficult to issue
    permits, and then the resources become much tougher, or working
    with the companies to see if there's ways to find compromises
    and things like that. But in the end, sometimes projects just
    need to be denied because there is not enough headroom to issue
    the permit.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK. Well, you know, we have had a
    lot of discussion in this subcommittee about the PM 2.5
    standard and whether it is too close to background levels or
    not. You just mentioned wildfires. Is that something that can
    lead to noncompliance that you think?
        Dr. Boylan. Yeah, so wildfires--you know, we had the
    Canadian wildfires that impacted the Northeast and Midwest, but
    it also impacted the Southeast. So wildfires definitely could
    impact compliance as well as prescribed fires, which your bill
    would specifically call out prescribed fires as events that
    could be removed when making the comparison to the NAAQS.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Isn't that what we call common
    sense?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK. Thank you. Let me ask you this,
    Georgia, for 11 years in a row, the number-one State in which
    to do business. One of the primary reasons for that is our
    availability and affordability of energy.
        Now, the current PM 2.5 and other NAAQS standards, does it
    pose a threat to the development of energy projects in Georgia?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, it does. In fact, I spent 4 years as the
    Georgia EPA liaison to our Georgia Department of Economic
    Development. And when I met with new companies looking to
    locate in Georgia, the first question they ask is, is this a
    nonattainment area? And if the answer is yes, they are not
    looking at it. And then they are looking at how much headroom
    there is for new projects.
        But, yes, this is a serious concern with the lower PM
    standard, that the ability to permit new projects will be very
    challenging.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you for that. And I thank all
    of you for being here. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from
    New Jersey, for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we are back
    again considering harmful regulation to undermine the heart of
    the Clean Air Act. And these discussion drafts are more of the
    same, creating loopholes and providing giveaways to industry at
    the expense of the people's health, and proponents are
    rehashing old misleading arguments to justify these proposals.
        Every time EPA proposes a new policy, we hear arguments for
    why it can't be done. These arguments rely on exaggerated
    claims about implementation costs, job losses, and minimal
    health benefits. But we have heard all of these doomsday claims
    before. Over and over again, these claims have turned out to be
    simply wrong.
        So, Mr. Walke, can I ask, what does the history of the
    Clean Air Act tell us about the relationship between
    environmental health and safety regulations and the strong
    economy?
        Mr. Walke. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. It is one of the
    greatest success stories of any U.S. law, in my opinion. We
    have had, you know, 400 percent-plus growth in GDP over the
    period that the Clean Air Act has reduced emissions by, you
    know, 78 to 90 percent. And so all of these doomsday
    scenarios--I have been hearing them for 32 years as a Clean Air
    Act attorney.
        Mr. Pallone. Thirty-seven for me.
        Mr. Walke. The same ol' same ol'. Well, congratulations,
    sir.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Well one of the exaggerated
    Republican claims being circulated about the EPA's PM 2.5
    standards is that it is simply impossible and the majority of
    counties around the Nation will be in nonattainment. Of course,
    this is at odds with EPA's own analysis. We have this map
    here----
        [Map displayed.]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Mr. Pallone [continuing]. And if you look at it, it clearly
    shows that the overwhelming majority of the United States is in
    light green. And these are the counties that already meet EPA's
    more protective standard.
        Yet the National Association of Manufacturers released a
    report about the economic effects associated with a stronger PM
    2.5 standard. And that report which has been used to justify
    undermining clean air protections in today's draft bills
    unsurprisingly paints a much darker picture.
        So, Mr. Walke, again, based on your Clean Air Act
    expertise, what do you think of the manufacturers' report? Is
    it realistic to expect a potential economic impact that they
    are suggesting?
        Mr. Walke. Congressman, thank you. That red/pink map we
    have seen, unfortunately, today is just--it is fiction. It was
    created by consultants for NAM in a report. As the logo on your
    map shows, it was produced by EPA. They found that 3.8 percent
    of counties nationwide would be in nonattainment, and half of
    those were in California and already failing to meet the older
    standard.
        So this is a California-centric problem. They have got some
    challenges. But the rest of the country looks nothing like the
    red and pink bloodbath that we saw in that other map.
        Let me say one thing about headroom too. Headroom is a
    concept that says a new plant should be able to come in and
    become built and permitted very often at the expense of
    existing businesses and facilities that are already in that
    area. If you allow a new plant to come in that does not have
    modern air pollution controls, that shifts the burden to the
    existing plants and facilities that are being asked to do more.
        That is not the way the law works. This bill doesn't
    actually eliminate the permitting program, so I think something
    else is going on. I think they are actually targeting the PM
    2.5 standard, and like the Trump administration really aiming
    to make it go away.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, thank you. I agree with you. Again, you
    know, since the beginning of the Clean Air Act, polluters have
    been crying wolf every time EPA has issued a new rule to
    protect public health. And they claim time and again that a new
    clean air rule will lead to economic ruin. But those claims
    never come true. And we know we can have a strong economy while
    cutting pollution and cleaning the air. Everything points to
    that.
        So these exaggerated claims are being used to justify this
    legislation, which I think is dangerous and will leave
    communities exposed to the harmful impacts of air pollution.
    And these Republican draft bills once again put corporate
    polluters over people and will make Americans sicker.
        Everyone has the right to clean and healthy air to breathe.
    And I think these drafts undermine that right. And that is why
    I will continue to oppose them for more than the 37 years. And
    thank you again.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to come to y'all
    with simply a yes or no answer.
        Mr. Whiteman, you are hearing about from the other side
    that we want to put polluters over people. Does that sound
    absurd? Yes or no? We want a clean energy environment, don't
    we? Does that sound absurd?
        Mr. Whiteman. Eighty-four percent of the emissions come
    from nonpoint sources like wildfires.
        Mr. Weber. So that is a yes.
        Dr. Boylan, do you think that is absurd that people think
    that we want to put polluters over----
        Dr. Boylan. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. Mr. Noe, I am going to come to you next.
        Mr. Noe. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Weber. I am going to stay with you, Mr. Noe. We seem to
    be looking at two different maps.
        Mr. Noe. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. Why is that, do you think?
        Mr. Noe. Well, it is very misleading to look at the map
    that was just shown because those are EPA projections, and I
    won't get into the details, but the point is that is showing
    the projections of who is in attainment. That misses the point.
        What this map shows you is the whole country lights up on
    who is going to have permit gridlock, and that is the problem.
    Our industry, as I said, by and large, is in cleaner attainment
    areas. We are in rural America. But the problem is the way the
    math works under the program, you got to take what is
    background level. Average in this country is 8.
        [Chart shown.]
        Mr. Noe. You have a major project, you need an increment of
    3 more micrograms. That gets you to 11. The standard is 9. That
    is gridlock. That means you can't create jobs, you can't inject
    the local community with prosperity, and you also can't
    upgrade, which means you can't lower emissions per ton of
    production. That is why it is so frustrating. It is a lose/lose
    for jobs and the environment.
        Mr. Weber. And all the while, all our enemies are
    outstripping us big time, not just----
        Mr. Noe. Absolutely. We have got to compete. Our workers
    are asking you, just let us compete.
        Mr. Weber. Pretty simple.
        All right. Dr. Boylan, I am going to come to you, if I may.
    On March 12, 2025, the EPA announced the reconsideration of
    Biden's administrations of particulate matter PM 2.5 standard,
    which lowered the standard from 12 micrograms per cubic meter
    to 9.
        This committee going back to the previous Congress has
    expressed concerns that the 9 level simply is not attainable in
    many regions without bringing manufacturing and production and
    infrastructure development to a halt. Did I mention our enemies
    are outstripping us right now?
        So in your opinion, is the 12 standard a more appropriate
    balance between protecting public health and while preserving
    our Nation's ability to grow and innovate in spite of our
    enemies?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Weber. Well, you are easy. Can you share how the United
    States has successfully balanced high-air quality standards
    with the needs of industry and what the EPA needs to keep in
    mind as it considers revising the PM 2.5 standard.
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, so, you know, none of these bills are
    looking to remove the permitting process. The analysis that is
    done, the best available control technology, the lowest
    achievable emission rate--all those are in there. It is just
    ensuring that the standard is set at a value that is
    achievable. When you said it----
        Mr. Weber. A reasonable standard. Keeping in mind these
    kids that we love and the parents and the grandparents that we
    love. Keep going.
        Dr. Boylan. That is correct. When you set standards at or
    below background values, they are impossible to meet, and it
    basically causes permitting gridlock.
        Mr. Weber. And it handicaps, as Mr. Noe said, industry. All
    the while our enemies are loving every minute of this.
        Dr. Boylan, I am going to stick with you for a minute.
    Given the States that are responsible and implementing State
    implementation--which I was in the State legislature
    environmental reg committee when I was back in Texas in 2009,
    2012.
        In implementing State implication plans to ensure
    compliance with EPA's air quality standards, how important for
    it is for those States to have a meaningful role--which they
    love their kids, people in most legislatures want people to
    thrive, they don't want kids to get sick.
        How important is it for them to have something to say
    meaningful role in the standard-setting process to ensure they
    can actually implement these standards? How important is that?
        Dr. Boylan. That is very important. And specifically, you
    know, getting more State regulators on the case act is
    important because many of the academic researchers, they
    understand the science, but they don't understand how it
    translates into the NAAQS, which involves not just a number, it
    is the level, it is an averaging period, it is a form. You
    know, and there is--many of the academic researchers don't
    understand the importance of the risk and exposure assessment.
    In fact, the last ozone study, they didn't even want to see a
    risk and exposure assessment. They looked at some epi-studies
    and said the number should be 55, which just really didn't make
    sense.
        Mr. Weber. It is like you are trying to pull a rabbit out
    of the hat. It just a stymied growth. Anyway, Mr. Chairman,
    thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentlelady from California for her 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Mr. Walke, we just heard an
    exchange about fiction, absurdity, and pulling rabbits out of a
    hat. Is there anything that you want to correct from that
    conversation for the American people that are watching today?
        Mr. Walke. Sure. I would like to, you know, address this
    constant charge of permitting gridlock. That term has been used
    a lot today. What you won't find for it is the evidence in
    testimony presented today or in the prior two hearings that
    would remotely justify eliminating Americans' right to safe air
    over some problems that have been identified.
        This system is not perfect. They have given us some
    examples of things that should be improved. And the exchange
    that just happened, I think we had something really useful
    happen that I want to bring attention to. And one of the
    answers to Mr. Weber's question, it became clear that
    permitting gridlock is just a euphemism for eliminating the
    right to safe air by claiming that it is not attainable or that
    we should be considering feasible costs.
        Mr. Weber. That is funny.
        Mr. Griffith. It is Ms. Barragan's time.
        Ms. Barragan. Go ahead, sir. And I expect to have that
    extra time.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes, ma'am.
        Mr. Walke. And so I, you know, I do want to emphasize that
    the focus on implementation and permitting in particular where
    Dr. Boylan correctly said that this does not change the permit
    process, OK, in the implementation section of the bill. Rather
    it is the attack on the health foundation of setting standards
    that guarantees Americans' right to safe air. That is really
    the target of this bill.
        We will continue to have permitting, and we should for new
    facilities coming into an air shed using modern air pollution
    control technology. They would like the PM 2.5 standard to
    disappear.
        Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Walke. And I think the
    Member that was interrupting you is indicating of they don't
    like to be challenged. And the answers that are given, they
    don't like the fiction to be corrected. So thank you for doing
    that.
        The Trump EPA and House Republicans claim that weaker clean
    air regulations will spur economic growth. But according to a
    recent Associated Press investigation, these rollbacks could
    lead to up to 30,000 premature deaths annually and wipe out
    $275 billion in public health benefits each year.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record the
    Associated Press article entitled ``Trump EPA Rollbacks Would
    Weaken Rules Project to Save Billions of Dollars and Thousands
    of Lives.'' The article highlights Jessica Blazier whose 11-
    year-old son Julian has multiple health conditions that make
    him more sensitive to air quality, which can make breathing,
    quote, ``feel like a knife sometimes,'' end quote. Jessica said
    these rollbacks, quote, ``are almost adding insult to injury,''
    end vote.
        Mr. Griffith. And it is on the staff list. So we will make
    sure we get it put in the record.
        Ms. Barragan. Mr. Walke, I have a district that has heavy
    air pollution surrounded by freeways and ports. Kids play in
    parks with inhalers around their necks because of air
    pollution. Can you talk about how weaker air standards will
    affect school attendance and student performance?
        Mr. Walke. Yes, Ms. Barragan, there's been numerous studies
    that show that attention in school is dramatically worsened in
    districts like your own, unfortunately, due to air pollution.
    We know that mercury and lead, both neurotoxins, begin damaging
    the developing fetus all the way up through children that
    breastfeed due to the mother's milk being contaminated by those
    neurotoxins.
        And yet we have had a Congressional Review Act resolution
    in this Congress that rolled back air toxic safeguards under
    the Clean Air Act for the first time in the law's history. We
    have got the Administrator announcing that he wants to conduct
    the greatest rollback in U.S. history of nine hazardous air
    pollution standards. We are expecting at 2 o'clock this
    afternoon rollbacks of the mercury and air toxic standards for
    power plants that burn coal.
        And all of these rollbacks will have devastating impacts on
    the health of children, sending them to ERs, causing them to
    miss school, causing them to suffer learning deficiencies. And
    even, you know, saddling them from an early, early life with
    diminished IQ as a result of damage that was done to them
    before they were even born.
        Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for pointing that out.
    Because we apparently love our children too and our
    grandchildren too, except we don't want to go to the hospital
    and suffer those. And other people, I guess, feel differently,
    and they are OK with having kids suffer and not get the air
    quality that they deserve and the clean air they deserve.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
    Member Tonko, for holding today's important hearing. Thanks to
    the panel for testifying here today.
        Important context for this hearing is understanding that
    America's air quality is among the best in the world, and that
    the U.S. emissions have steadily decreased over the past
    several decades, even as economic input and output has changed.
    We observed this trend because of the fact that reasonable
    clean air standards lead to economic growth. And if this
    economic growth spurs innovation in investment and technology,
    that ultimately reduces emissions without sacrificing output.
        We need to balance public health and clean air goals with
    the reality that attainable standards will not only hurt the
    American economy but also disincentive development of the more
    efficient technologies necessary to continue to lower U.S.
    emissions.
        Mr. Whiteman, I would like a clarification of some previous
    discussion that we have had. Could you explain the data
    differences between the two NAAQSes that were recently
    discussed?
        Mr. Whiteman. Will do. Thank you for the question, Mr.
    Joyce. So I just wanted to talk a little bit about the
    differences between the two maps that we have seen here today.
    The map that was put together that we presented and talked
    about, actually it looks at more recent data--data that
    actually incorporates the fires from 2023, which is missing
    from the EPA map which we just saw previously. And that is one
    of the big reasons why we see such a massive increase in
    nonattainment areas. Everybody remembers here in Washington,
    DC, when we had 2 weeks of red haze in the sky because of the
    emissions coming down from Canada.
        The other thing is EPA only looks at the monitored areas to
    determine nonattainment areas, and they didn't look at adjacent
    areas. So therefore, we did. And when you have adjacent areas
    to nonattainment areas, you can expect them, too, to have
    issues.
        And, finally, I will just mention that EPA has a habit of
    underestimating nonattainment areas. In the 2015 NAAQS, they
    estimated 14 counties out of California to be out of attainment
    with the NAAQS. The last time I looked at EPA's Green Book,
    there are over 143 counties that are out of attainment with the
    ozone NAAQS.
        So the issues can be significant. It is a real issue. You
    have to look at the recent data. And, unfortunately, the prior
    estimates have been underestimated, and we think our maps are
    much more accurate.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you for that clarification.
        Dr. Boylan, in your testimony you discuss how the lack of
    headroom in some areas due to the stringent 2024 annual PM 2.5
    standards hurts economic development even in attainment areas
    that comply with the current NAAQS. Can you discuss how these
    overly burdensome standards can prevent the permitting and
    development of innovative projects such as data centers that we
    desperately need?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, so it goes back to the headroom issue with
    the map--if you looked at the map in Georgia, it had a lot of
    red areas and then a lot of pink areas, making it very
    difficult, the pink areas being the attainment areas. With so
    little headroom and the amount of energy that is going to be
    required for these data centers, it is going to be very
    challenging to be able to permit all the new power generation
    that is going to be needed to power this industry.
        Mr. Joyce. By creating an inhospitable environment for
    these projects, data centers, you mentioned, we will lose out
    on investment in American innovation to countries like China,
    which lacks truly any meaningful environmental regulations.
        Dr. Boylan, would you agree that ceding our investment
    opportunities to foreign adversaries who do not have clean air
    requirements not only harms the U.S. economy but is
    incompatible with the ultimate goal of protecting the
    environment?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, I would agree with that.
        Mr. Joyce. Mr. Whiteman, do overly aggressive and
    burdensome environmental regulations threaten our global
    competitiveness?
        Mr. Whiteman. They are really challenging. They are
    micromanaging businesses and aren't providing the opportunities
    for to us innovate, which we do best.
        Mr. Joyce. In the same vein, in order to encourage
    investment and project sponsors, they need to have the
    predictability when they choose to invest their resources that
    will not be burdened with unforeseen costs.
        Unfortunately, PSD projects that submitted previously but
    not finalized before the effective date of tighter standards
    are not grandfathered in will be forced to invest resources to
    update their permitting.
        Dr. Boylan, how will giving more flexibility to projects
    that are already engaged in the permitting process benefit both
    the State and the industry stakeholders?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, so you are correct that there is no
    grandfathering in. The grandfathering would allow projects that
    are already in the permitting process to continue through that
    process and finish them out. So it is a lot of resources for
    States and industry, and rather than having to go back to the
    drawing board and starting from scratch again.
        Mr. Joyce. So short answer: Grandfathering in will speed up
    the process?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. I now recognize the gentleman from Florida
    for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. You know, in Florida, we are
    a peninsula. We are blessed with a naturally clean air quality
    as the breeze just blows through, and no mountains to stop it.
    A lot of this--as you can tell from the maps that have been put
    up, geography has a big effect on it. And we are--every one of
    our counties, including in central Florida, are below the
    National Air Ambient Quality Standards.
        Although, we are still working on clean air in central
    Florida with the closing of the OUC coal plant, natural gas,
    solar, nuclear are the predominant power sources in central and
    south Florida. We also see IRA projects, including the largest
    solar plant in North America coming to our area.
        Although we did just recently--Orange County had an air
    pollutant ozone at elevated levels on May 23 primarily due to
    forest fires, which obviously we are discussing here today, and
    a big population with some vehicle pollution.
        And Florida has the second most EVs of any State in the
    Union. That may shock some folks. And then you look at with
    transportation being the biggest air polluter, 20 percent of
    new vehicles that are bought hybrid and electric. So we see the
    trends and where they are going.
        Another interest we have is hurricanes, which are getting
    more extreme and are making insurance rates go up. They are
    making it intolerable for many Floridians, and it is making it
    progressively worse.
        So why would we want to stop now the progress that we are
    making on it? That is not common sense. That makes no sense.
    When we are looking at data centers, AI, fabricators from
    microchips, you know, I feel like a lot of this conversation is
    like we are having it 10 years ago. Most of these places, they
    are going nuclear now.
        Microsoft, 20-year agreement with Three Mile Island.
    Amazon, a major agreement with Pennsylvania Susquehanna Nuclear
    Power Plant. Google, they are going with small modular
    reactors, and they are adding in wind and solar. And solar
    power is being used by Apple in Nevada. None of those have
    significant air pollution.
        We just passed the last term the Nuclear Advancement Act,
    which improved timetables, fee caps, streamlines approval for
    well-established reactor models.
        Mr. Boylan, we saw in Georgia you all just opened the new
    Vogtle Power Plant, and some of it has been reported in
    response for the increasing demand for power generation in
    Georgia from AI and data centers. What can you tell us about
    what the challenges you face with Vogtle and what we can do to
    continue to improve the ability to get more nuclear energy
    online?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes, so plant Vogtle, while it was the first
    nuclear reactors built in 30 years, they were severely delayed
    in timelines and well over in budget by billions and billions
    of dollars. I do think, you know, increase in nuclear energy is
    a good thing. However, not all of the data centers are being
    powered by nuclear and clean energy in Georgia. We have a
    number of new projects in house being evaluated currently for
    fossil. Because fossil is much quicker to get up and running
    than nuclear projects that could take 10 to 20 years to get
    online.
        Mr. Soto. So what could we do to help? What were some of
    the obstacles you faced with the new unit at the Vogtle plant?
        Dr. Boylan. Well, so as far as like you mentioned, plant
    Vogtle is a nuclear plant. It doesn't have lot of air
    emissions. We don't have to actually issue permits for plant
    Vogtle. It is regulated through the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission. What we do issue are very minor permits for our
    backup generators and things like that. And so that was not a
    major permitting project for Georgia.
        Mr. Soto. But those are things that we have to improve upon
    if we are going to continue to provide this power. We saw NOAA
    through the Climate Program Office state that wildfires are 25
    percent of all days with unhealthy ozone levels.
        Mr. Walke, what is the danger if we remove wildfire smoke
    and wildfire pollution from air quality standards?
        Mr. Walke. So Senator Inhofe amended the Clean Air Act 20
    years ago to ensure that wildfire smoke did not count towards
    violations of air quality standards. And since then we have
    issued regulations that add prescribed fires, I think smartly
    and responsibly, to that same practice, so that States and
    industries are not penalized for violations of monitors that
    occurred due to prescribed fires. So there is no need to amend
    the law. The law already guarantees that. And it is a real
    challenge, but it is the right treatment under the law, I
    think.
        Mr. Soto. So the key is we are promoting management of
    forests because this is now 25 percent of what is affecting our
    clean air standards across the Nation, isn't that true?
        Mr. Walke. Yes, sir, and it comes down from Canada, as we
    remember from last summer, two summers ago, in Washington, DC,
    when we were blanketed in smog. It is a real problem for all of
    us. And we believe it is driven and accelerated by climate
    change, but we can all agree that it causes dangerous air
    pollution.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentlelady of North Dakota for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you all for sharing your expertise with us today. I appreciate
    this really informative discussion.
        So North Dakota, where I am from, is one of only four
    States that has never violated a Federal ambient air standard.
    And we do that while being one of the largest energy producers
    in the country. Yet North Dakota opposed, our State opposed,
    the NAAQS rule change.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. In fact, we joined more than half the
    States that sued according--against this new standard. At the
    heart of this matter is the health assumptions and the
    modeling. We all agree that we want clean air for our kids, for
    our grandkids. It is offensive to suggest that some don't agree
    with that. And I take great offense at those suggestions. We
    all share that.
        But we also can all agree that you can get a model to say
    just about anything you want. And so what is at the core of
    this disagreement is the health assumptions. That is what my
    State focused on. Some of the opposition from our Department of
    Environmental Quality was opposition to some of the technical
    flaws in health modeling. Specifically, they failed to use
    actual models, actual air quality versus modeled air quality
    data.
        There was assumptions that there is no safe threshold. So
    regardless if it was something from smoke or whatever that the
    factories or the emitters could never affect was considered
    still not safe. And then the application of urban health
    impacts to rural States, like mine, that just doesn't work.
        So I am curious, to some of the experts here, what are
    the--specifically Mr.--I forget your name--from the Chamber,
    could you talk about further about some of the health
    assumptions and the health data modeling assumptions that were
    erroneous or could have been improved in this current rule
    proposal?
        Mr. Whiteman. I think our biggest--one of our biggest
    concerns with the proposal was EPA short-circuiting the
    standard full NAAQS review process. And instead of doing the
    full review and going back and looking at all the science, they
    short-circuited that and moved forward. So that is one of our
    big concerns. They didn't do the full review, which is really
    required. And, you know, I think they could have done a better
    job in looking at the science if they had done that.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Walke, you talked with my colleague from California,
    Mr. Peters, about an implementation concern regarding, you
    know--he asked some very good questions about how are companies
    supposed to deal with existing emissions that they can't
    affect. And you said that that is an implementation concern.
        But I don't really feel like you got to the heart of the
    matter in providing, like, an answer to how is an emitter, a
    factory or a generator, an electric power generator, supposed
    to achieve emissions standards when the emissions in the air
    are dominated by sources that they can't affect? How are they
    supposed to deal with that?
        Mr. Walke. Well, the way they are supposed to deal with it
    and the way the law has worked for over 50 years is that first
    States and industries are not responsible for controlling
    emissions that are uncontrollable. No one is asking them to do
    things that can't be done. And so the law has mechanisms to
    ensure that things like wildfire smoke doesn't count towards
    how they receive their permits or whether air quality standards
    are met. And that is what I was addressing in my, you know,
    comments.
        But the question of permitting gridlock, as I think we have
    seen here today, is really not about implementation, it is
    about an attack on the standards and whether they are too safe
    in one version or too low in another version.
        And that is why I think that the focus should be on what
    the bill really does, the CLEAR Act, especially. As Dr. Boylan
    said, facilities still have to get the required permits and
    meet the modern air pollution control technology and attainment
    and nonattainment under the Republican bills. And I am grateful
    for that. I think that is the responsible thing to do.
        But why doesn't that lead to permit gridlock just as much
    as requiring it for a safer standard? So the attack is really
    on the safer standards, because we are still requiring permits.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. The attack seems to be on--I agree with
    you, on the standard, and the fact that more than half of the
    States oppose this says an awful lot about that standard and
    whether it is accurate or not.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
    Mr. Landsman for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    of our witnesses for being here and engaging.
        The proposal that we are discussing today could
    fundamentally change the way air quality standards are pursued,
    implemented in this country, and that has enormous implications
    for our children, our families, our communities.
        As part of the proposals that worry, as we are hearing, is
    that the way in which we use science, it could be changed in
    prioritizing--or in setting these standards.
        So this is, unfortunately, not the only way in which
    science that informs these health-protective standards has been
    diminished.
        So Administrator Zeldin announced that they would shutter
    the Office of Research and Development, which affects my
    district in Southwest Ohio significantly, affects the entire
    country--just from an employment standpoint, it affects us--and
    would fire nearly 1,200 dedicated public servants that conduct
    the office's work. It is the scientific backbone, if you will,
    of the EPA.
        Not only will this plan have a negative impact on the
    research conducted by the Agency, but the actions have real
    impact on, again, my district, our constituents.
        Mr. Walke, how does EPA's work within ORD inform EPA's work
    to address air pollution?
        Mr. Walke. Thank you, Congressman. The Office of Research
    and Development scientists' work touches on every aspect of air
    pollution control at EPA in ways that you couldn't even
    describe in a full day's hearing, with the intricacy of the
    analysis and the world-class research. And it was just even to
    me breathtakingly reckless that they would shutter that office.
    Far more extreme than anything they did in the first term.
        Just 2 days ago, they announced quietly that they are
    canceling a world-class air quality research lab in North
    Carolina. It didn't get much attention. But this is a
    systematic attack on the science and the scientists that inform
    health safeguards and protections for the American people.
        Mr. Landsman. I had heard somewhere recently that
    government sometimes is in the business of providing
    investments and supporting folks and trying to improve their
    lives, but it is also about mitigating risks, the societal
    risks that if government doesn't stand in the way, or try to
    mitigate those risks, terrible things will happen.
        And I am curious. Based on your extensive experience, what
    are the implications of shuttering ORD. I mean, what are the
    risks that we will start to deal with because we are no longer
    using ORD?
        Mr. Walke. So ORD, among other things, provides invaluable
    research into the hazards and harms of classes and chemicals
    like PCBs and dioxins and other chemicals that make their way
    into products that go into consumer products and can get into
    the food supply and the water supply, and so they are, you
    know, the scientific canary in the coal mine that alerts us to
    those future risks while at the same time providing the, you
    know, the legwork for the scientific studies and analysis that
    goes into trying to protect us against deadly levels of PM 2.5
    pollution, alerting us to new chemical risks that we haven't
    even known about.
        It is hard to keep up with industry and industrious
    chemists in this country, and ORD is in part our bulwark
    against that, trying to provide the Government with a fair
    assessment of dangerous chemicals before they get into the
    marketplace and end up in our food and shampoo and water and
    places that we can't do anything about.
        Mr. Landsman. And who benefits? I mean, you know, obviously
    this is a committee that has--there is bipartisan support for
    permitting reforming and getting things done built faster. You
    also want to make sure that we are using science and research
    to inform how we protect people.
        Undermining that, obviously, has a negative impact on kids,
    families, all of us. Who benefits and who--why do this?
        Mr. Walke. Congressman, honestly, I don't think anyone
    benefits. Unless you adopt kind of a short-term, quarterly
    mentality that profits and, you know, stock values are
    important because really it is companies producing the
    chemicals and pushing them out into the marketplace that now we
    are facing shorter, abbreviated, inadequate reviews. It doesn't
    help their families or their workers to have that happen.
        Mr. Landsman. Or long term, their businesses.
        Mr. Walke. Yes.
        Mr. Landsman. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentlelady from Iowa for her 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Griffith and Ranking
    Member Tonko, for holding this important hearing today, and I
    also want to thank our witnesses for appearing before this
    subcommittee.
        Over the past two decades, the U.S. has proven that
    environmental progress and economic growth aren't mutually
    exclusive. We have dramatically improved air quality while
    expanding energy output.
        In Iowa, our farmers and manufacturers rely on stable,
    smart policy to keep innovating and growing and also to compete
    economically around the globe.
        As we look to the future, any new regulations must support,
    not stifle, the backbone industries of our heartland.
        Mr. Boylan, the discussion draft before the subcommittee
    today reforms several counterintuitive and outdated portions of
    the NAAQS program--N-A-A-Q-S, excuse me. For example, it
    extends the timelines to conduct the NAAQS process from 5 to 10
    years.
        How many times has the EPA completed a NAAQS review within
    the statutory-mandated 5 years.
        Dr. Boylan. As far as I know, the 2020--or the 2020 review
    was last reviewed in 2015, which would have been one time. But
    technically it was actually 5 years and 3 months, so even
    technically that one didn't make the 5 years.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. So--and as someone who has served on
    CASAC, can you explain to the committee why it is such an
    important role, and your thoughts on increasing State
    representation?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes. So typically the CASAC is more academic
    researchers who understand the underlying science, but they
    don't really understand how the underlying science is
    translated into the NAAQS. From that standpoint, the NAAQS
    includes an averaging period of form--a statistical form and a
    level and an indicator pollutant, and that is understood
    through a risk and exposure assessment, and many of the
    academic researchers don't understand the value of the risk and
    exposure assessment, which basically translates the basic
    science into an equivalent NAAQS.
        And a lot of State regulators deal with design values every
    single day and really understand that. That is why we should
    have more State regulators on there.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. As a physician who has been both in
    academic medicine as well as in the field, as you say, in the
    community, I certainly understand and would echo that
    sentiment.
        Can you tell me how the exceptional event process has
    unfolded in Georgia?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes. So in Georgia, as the map was showing, we
    have a lot of red areas, many of those areas for PM 2.5. Some
    of those were caused by Canadian wildfires, but a majority of
    them were caused by prescribed burns where we burn 1.5 million
    acres per year to prevent the wildfires, and it has been a very
    successful program.
        But I will say that the amount of exceptional events we
    have had to do--we actually recently turned in 129 exceptional
    events to EPA for approval, the majority of which were
    prescribed fire, some were Canadian wildfire, and it was a huge
    resource. We had 14 people on my staff working on this, on this
    project, over the last year and a half, and now we are actually
    turning to do exceptional events for the 2024 data. It is
    almost a never-ending process.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And would the process of extending
    timelines and/or the PM 2.5, would that hamper you from being
    able to do prescribed burns to prevent drastic wildfires?
        Dr. Boylan. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question? I am
    sorry.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. EPA's guidelines on PM 2.5.
        Dr. Boylan. So the standards--yes, so if EPA--EPA has not
    yet approved any of our exceptional events, and so I don't know
    if I can answer--you know, if they can approve the exceptional
    events, that would be great. Right now the exceptional events
    are not part of the Clean Air Act. In fact, the description of
    exceptional events is almost contrary to prescribed burning,
    and that is the reason why I feel it strongly that specifically
    prescribed burning should be added into the Act.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. You answered my question, so thank you
    for that.
        Mr. Noe, in your testimony you described the permitting
    gridlock crisis that occurs when a NAAQS is changed. How does
    the immediate application and the revised PM 2.5 NAAQS to PSD
    permitting in attainment areas contribute to permitting
    gridlock despite those areas still meeting the new standard?
        Mr. Noe. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think the map shows it
    best, because so much of the country lights up either in red
    nonattainment, or even these attainment areas where you have
    got permit gridlock now pink.
        But I will tell you, I put a chart in my written statement
    on page 15 that is complicated, but it makes a really important
    point. This really is the first time in the history of the
    Clean Air Act where the permit gridlock problem is unique,
    because this is the first time in the history of the Clean Air
    Act where the standard is so low it is literally one click
    above background levels, the average level in the U.S., and in
    some areas it is, you know, it is below background, but because
    we are in that situation, that is why that map lights up.
        And so much of your State is lit up in that, and these
    other Members'. And, you know, that is a shame, not just for
    jobs, again, and the economy, that is a shame for progress
    because the typical project is going to bring efficiency, which
    is lower emissions per ton of production. We all should want
    the modernization of our manufacturing sector.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Louisiana for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    our witnesses for being here today.
        You know, I have heard repeatedly said from my colleagues
    on the other side of the aisle that we have the best air
    quality in the world. According to IQ Air Global Ranking shows
    that major U.S. cities frequently fall outside the world's top
    cleanest, demonstrating that that statement is not correct.
        Meanwhile, some countries in territories like Bahamas,
    Bermuda, and New Zealand consistently outperform the U.S. in
    terms of cleaner air on average.
        We know that 1980-2006 emissions and carbon monoxide,
    sulfide dioxide, lead and particulates in the U.S. have fallen
    lower under the Clean Act and EPA measures, yet we still are
    losing lives. Despite progress, chronic exposure to fine
    particulate matters in the U.S. still causes an estimated
    100,000 to 200,000 premature deaths annually, which means we
    can do better.
        It is not a us-against-them, it is not a one or the other.
    We can do better. The notion that we have the cleanest air:
    compared to what? People are still dying. People are still
    getting chronic diseases as a result of pollutants in the air.
    So we have nothing to celebrate. There is nothing to pat
    ourselves on the back about.
        You know, I represent a community in Louisiana that,
    unfortunately, has the dubious distinction--and I hate even
    saying it because of the pain associated with it--nicknamed
    Cancer Alley. It is an industrialized stretch along the
    Mississippi River which suffers from high cancer rates among
    residents believed to be linked to industrial pollution. I have
    heard stories of people who lost their families. I have seen
    the pain and suffering of people who have talked about their
    loved ones who have died because of their close proximity.
        You know, we can't accept a false choice between public
    health and economic growth. We can have both. Congress can and
    must work with both communities and industries to set fair,
    science-based solutions to pollution standards to protect
    people without shutting down jobs. Many companies are already
    stepping up. Many have a long way to go because cleaner
    technologies and responsible practices aren't just good for
    health, they are good for business.
        Communities must be safe. Clean air, cean water. If we
    expect industry to survive, you have to have healthy employees.
        We know that, once a National Ambient Air Quality Standard
    is in place, States and industries get to work on how best to
    meet it. Along the way, we develop more effective and less
    expensive pollution control technologies. Not only is our air
    cleaner due to the Clean Air Act, but we know--now also export
    tens of billions of dollars of pollution-control equipment
    worldwide. We have seen this happen over and over again.
        But the discussion of the draft being considered today
    would undermine EPA's ability to set forth health-protective
    air quality standards and drive the development of pollution-
    control technology, rejecting an approach that has been
    successful for over five decades.
        Mr. Walke, why is it so important for EPA to have the
    ability to set strong, enforceable air quality standards?
        Mr. Walke. Thank you, Congressman. Because over 156 million
    Americans live in parts of the country where the air is not
    safe, and that is based on health standards that themselves are
    not protected. So the problem is bigger than the 156 million.
    It is actually much bigger because we are allowing unsafe air
    pollution levels to persist today and calling them healthy
    based on outdated science.
        President Trump doesn't believe in climate change, but he
    talks about air pollution and water pollution. They issued a
    Make America Healthy Again report recently----
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Dr. Walke, I don't want to cut you
    off. I appreciate it. I really want to get to Dr. Boylan in my
    final seconds.
        Dr. Boylan, the corporative federalism model allows EPA to
    set clean air goals and allows States to decide how to best
    achieve them.
        Before joining Congress, I served Louisianian State Senate,
    so I am very familiar with difficult budgetary decisions States
    are forced to make. That is why I am dismayed by the proposed
    cuts to State funding in EPA's budget request.
        Dr. Boylan, would a cut to EPA's resources and State grants
    hurt your State's ability to comply with clean air regulations?
        Dr. Boylan. Yes. A cut in our budget grants that we get
    from EPA would definitely hurt us, yes.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you. I agree. The Federal
    Government needs to be a strong partner with our States. If we
    are going to protect the environment and public health, that
    includes robust and reliable Federal resources. Unfortunately,
    my Republicans are ignoring the dangers of toxic pollution and
    putting polluters over people. We can, we must do better. This
    is not a partisan issue. This is about lives.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Crenshaw, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you to both the Chair and ranking
    member for holding this important hearing today. It has been a
    great conversation, especially regarding, I think, what are
    very commonsense and, frankly, quite mild changes to the
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act.
        Look, there is radical environmentalism and there is
    rational environmentalism, and I am certainly an
    environmentalist, but I am a rational one, and I would hope we
    all are. It is important to protect our air and water, of
    course, but as policymakers we deal with tradeoffs. That is
    what policymaking is. There is no perfect solutions to
    anything. There are only tradeoffs.
        And you can't hold two contradicting ideas in your head,
    one being that, you know, what, we need more energy, or at
    least 50 to a 100 percent more energy over the next 50 years.
    That is pretty commonly understood. We want to reshore
    manufacturing, especially on critical items like critical
    minerals processing or medical manufacturing. I am actually on
    the same committee, that exact hearing is going on downstairs.
        You can't say that but also say, look, we have to create
    limits to any of that manufacturing, basically making it
    impossible to build anything new. You can't hold both of those
    ideas in your head at the same time.
        And, also, let's stop with the catastrophizing. And I want
    to let the American people know that, luckily, this crisis mode
    that everybody says we are in is just not true. The facts are
    air quality in the U.S. has been improving, not deteriorating.
    According to the EPA's own data, the concentration of the six
    critical pollutants are down almost 80 percent in recent
    decades. Meanwhile, the population has gone up, economic
    activity has skyrocketed, and energy demand has also massively
    increased.
        So this crisis isn't true. That doesn't mean that the first
    regulation wasn't a good thing. But let's have a little thought
    experiment. One regulation being good doesn't meant 10 more are
    necessary. There has to be a logical limit, and I think the
    legislation that we have been proposing is just assessing those
    tradeoffs more properly.
        You know, more than 80 percent of PM 2.5 emissions, they
    come from sources other than the manufacturing that we are
    talking about. We are talking about our cities being so
    polluted. When I lived here in DC right next to a highway, yes,
    I got a lot more dust than my home in Houston. A lot more.
    Because it is from the highway. Are there manufacturing plants
    around me that I am not aware of? I don't think so.
        You know, so these are coming from sources other than
    manufacturing in the power sector. They are coming from
    wildfires and road dust. And we are getting to this point as
    assessed where you have the largest reduction--Mr. Boylan,
    maybe you can help me with this one. We had the--in 2024, NAAQS
    rule decreased limit for PM 2.5 by 25 percent. How does that
    drastic reduction compare to the past?
        Dr. Boylan. For PM 2.5? The previous reduction was from 15
    down to 12, and then from 12 down to 9, which is a huge
    reduction.
        Mr. Crenshaw. Twenty-five percent is a big reduction.
        Dr. Boylan. It is.
        Mr. Crenshaw. And where did it start? We have been trying
    to actually research that during this hearing. I have gotten
    numbers like 65, 75. It started pretty high, didn't it?
        Dr. Boylan. Just to be clear, there is the annual standard,
    which started at 15----
        Mr. Crenshaw. Annual standard.
        Dr. Boylan. And there is the 24-hour standard, which
    started at 65 and has now been brought down to 35. So the
    annual standard went from 65 to 35. The--I am sorry. The daily
    standard went from 65 to 35, and the annual standard went from
    15 down to 12, and now down to 9.
        Mr. Crenshaw. OK. And it obviously begs the question, what
    is the logical limit? And Mr. Walke, maybe you can help me.
    Thought experiment: What is your end goal here? I mean, should
    it go below 9? At what point is--have we gone too far on the
    logical limit of regulation?
        Mr. Walke. I guess that is just a misunderstanding,
    Congressman. That is not the way that the law or I view it. The
    goals are twofold. One, safe air for all Americans. Two----
        Mr. Crenshaw. Which we have accomplished. In your
    testimony----
        Mr. Walke. That is not true, Congressman.
        Mr. Crenshaw. We have accomplished it.
        Mr. Walke. That is not true.
        Mr. Crenshaw. How much better can you get?
        Mr. Walke. The second goal is safe air based upon medical
    science, which is why I can't and won't give you a limit
    because science tells us what the limit is, not a witness at a
    table.
        Mr. Crenshaw. OK. Say what the science tells us the limit
    is.
        Mr. Walke. Congressman, I am not a scientist. I don't have
    the science before me. That is why we need to have scientists
    doing their job.
        Mr. Crenshaw. When we talk about air, and you keep
    referring to the public health--and of course that has to be a
    consideration--but you know what else is a consideration when
    considering public health is economic activity and prosperity.
    And, in fact, that is probably the primary determinant of
    public health by far. And that is--and not taking that into
    account is a disservice to the American taxpayer.
        I am already out of time, but I have a lot more questions.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the junior member from New Jersey for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman. No one should worry
    about the air that they breathe. No one should worry that the
    air they breathe is unsafe. That is why Congress established
    the National Ambient Air Quality Standards to keep excess
    cancer-causing pollutants like lead and carbon monoxide out of
    the air. And since 1990, the NAAQS have reduced the
    concentration of criteria pollutants in New Jersey's air by 80
    percent and improved the health of our communities. That is a
    great thing.
        But here is the problem. Just weeks after voting to take
    healthcare aware from 16 million people, Republicans are
    bringing up draft bills that would weaken vital Clean Air Act
    protections and increase Americans' risk of developing serious
    health conditions. And these drafts don't just endanger the
    health of our communities. They are bad for the economy and bad
    for our workers.
        We are hearing a lot of talk today about permits issued for
    the highest-emitting projects, facilities like factories and
    refineries. The Clean Air Act requires large new or expanding
    industrial facilities to get air pollution permits before
    starting construction.
        Mr. Walke, those facilities must commit to installing
    pollution controls and demonstrate that emissions won't produce
    unhealthy levels of air pollution in the area, is that correct?
        Mr. Walke. That is correct under current law. It is not
    correct under the bills.
        Mr. Menendez. Right. And that is the problem that we are
    going to address in our 4 minutes together.
        And if a polluting industrial facility would cause the area
    in which it operates to violate an air pollution standard, then
    it must do more to reduce or offset its emissions, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Walke. That is correct. And under current law, that is
    before the plant is even built. So it has plenty of opportunity
    to get the right controls to get the right result.
        Mr. Menendez. To ensure clean air in the----
        Mr. Walke. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Menendez. Area it is to serve, depending on those
    particular circumstances.
        Mr. Walke. Correct.
        Mr. Menendez. Agreed. Thank you. These permits provide an
    effective, science-based way to protect our communities from
    dangerous health risks associated with dirty air while
    supporting businesses and economic growth. But the draft bill,
    as you alluded to, creates a loophole in the law. If the EPA
    fails to meet new procedural requirements, a proposal will
    allow a facility to get a permit by measuring its emissions
    against an outdated, less protective air quality standard.
    Previous witnesses have referred to this as, quote,
    ``amnesty.''
        Mr. Walke, what is the practical effect of allowing a new
    facility to be permitted under an outdated standard?
        Mr. Walke. The effect is it pushes the pollution burden
    from the plant that will not meet the health standards onto two
    groups.
        The first group is the community and the public that lives
    around that plant. The second group is other businesses that
    now will be required to reduce pollution more because we
    allowed a new plant to be built that is not doing its job.
        Mr. Menendez. Can you expand on part two, on how would
    existing facilities be impacted by such a change?
        Mr. Walke. Yes, sir. I mean, the Clean Air Act and
    attainment and nonattainment areas is a zero sum game. Someone
    has got to come up with the reductions in order to meet the
    health standards. So if you are not requiring it of the new
    plant because you are giving them a pass or amnesty or whatever
    you want to call it, you are putting the burden on existing
    plants and constituents and companies in that area to make up
    for the added pollution that you have failed to address
    properly.
        Mr. Menendez. Correct. I appreciate you explaining how this
    discussion draft would not only harm public health, right--the
    first group, the community that these facilities would serve
    in--but it would also hurt industry, the existing facilities.
    Correct.
        This provision shifts the burden of air quality
    improvements from new to existing industrial facilities, as you
    alluded to, which would make it more expensive and doesn't make
    business sense.
        And it is not just this one section that is bad for
    business. Environmental protections specifically, especially
    NAAQS, support a key driver of economic growth in our Nation's
    labor force. I consistently hear from Jersey businesses and
    manufacturers who want to protect and prepare our workforce,
    not make them sicker.
        I am concerned about what gutting bedrock air quality
    standards means for workers breathing unsafe air. Mr. Walke,
    these bills could allow industrial sites to emit more polluted
    air, is that correct?
        Mr. Walke. That is correct. And ground zero for the air
    pollution is the workers.
        Mr. Menendez. That is right. And Mr. Carter acknowledged
    that in a part of Louisiana that he represents in terms of
    these high industrial areas where workers are subjected to
    lower air quality, especially if we consider these draft
    proposals. And that would make situations better or worse for
    workers?
        Mr. Walke. Worse.
        Mr. Menendez. That is a problem. So yes or no, do you agree
    that those effects on workers could worsen if air pollution
    increases beyond safe limits as a result of these discussion
    drafts?
        Mr. Walke. Yes.
        Mr. Menendez. And we are here today because Republicans
    claim that gutting bedrock clean air protections is good for
    business, but would you agree that harming worker health and
    productivity would be bad for business too?
        Mr. Walke. I fully agree.
        Mr. Menendez. So the pro-business Republicans are actually
    doing a thing that would harm existing businesses and make it
    more expensive for them while simultaneously creating unsafe
    air conditions for both the workers inside those facilities and
    the communities surrounding them, is that correct?
        Mr. Walke. I will stick with your words.
        Mr. Menendez. I appreciate it. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no other
    Mmbers of the committee, I will now move to those who wish to
    waive on. It is policy in our committee, and I appreciate the
    witnesses--I appreciate the witnesses being here, but we always
    allow folks to waive on our committee.
        And Mrs. Dingell wants to waive on, and we are more than
    happy to have her. Mrs. Dingell, you are recognized--I should
    say the gentlelady from Illinois is----
        Mrs. Dingell. No. Michigan.
        Mr. Griffith. Michigan. Michigan. Michigan. I am sorry.
        Mrs. Dingell. Motor City.
        Mr. Griffith. I tried to put you in Chicago. I apologize.
    It has been a long day. Please forgive me. The gentlelady from
    Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Chairman knows how much I love him, so--
    look, all Americans deserve to breathe clean air. Clean air is
    a basic right, and it is the foundation of the Clean Air Act.
        And by the way, I lived through watching the Clean Air Act
    get passed, and it took a long time, and I watched a lot of the
    fights on all sides.
        But here is a reality: Over 100 million Americans live in
    areas with unhealthy air. Air pollution contributes to over
    100,000 premature deaths annually, and it hits children,
    seniors, underserved communities, workers, as it has been
    discussed, the hardest.
        In Michigan, we know the cost of environmental failure from
    contaminated sites. In my district, which is one of the--was
    one of the heaviest to the Flint Water Crisis. And I think we
    also can all agree that we want efficient permitting. But that
    can't come at the expense of health protections like the
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which save thousands of
    lives each year.
        So with respect to my colleagues, you are pushing two draft
    bills that would delay lifesaving clean air standards, but
    polluters override public health experts and exempt the most
    polluted communities from being cleaned up. This is a giveaway
    to polluters at the expense of everyday Americans.
        And to make matters worse, hundreds of EPA employees have
    been let go since the start of this year, weakening our ability
    to protect air, water, and public health.
        So pointblank, clean air save lives, and protecting it
    should be a top priority for all of us.
        And before I get to my questions, I also, having listened
    to--yes, economic security, economic success matters, but I
    listened to the autos. I worked for General Motors for 30
    years, and I can remember how the company said, ``We can't do
    anything, it is too expensive.'' Thirty years ago, a car
    sitting in a driveway not going anywhere was dirtier than a car
    going down a highway today. That is a fact.
        So since I have been in Congress I have fought hard to
    ensure strong science-based standards, but that they are also
    balanced with economic growth. We can do both. They are not a
    conflict.
        Mr. Walke, can you explain why the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards process is essential to protecting public
    health, particularly for vulnerable groups like children and
    the elderly and low-income communities?
        Mr. Walke. Yes, Mrs. Dingell. It is pretty basic. First,
    the law says you have to make sure health standards are safe to
    protect humans from dangerous air pollution. OK. But then
    Congress in its wisdom went on to say and especially provide a
    margin of safety for vulnerable groups like children and the
    elderly and people who suffer asthmatics. For 55 years that has
    worked to make the Clean Air Act one of the biggest success
    stories in the world.
        And so I just still am puzzled why we are attacking success
    when we are protecting our children and elderly and all
    Americans based on science and not based on cost or economics.
        Mrs. Dingell. So let me ask you this, Mr.Walke. To justify
    this bill, we have heard concerns that new standards would
    result in significant cost to States and industry. Do you agree
    with this assessment? What would be the cost if we delayed
    implementation or weakened standards?
        Mr. Walke. I do agree that they impose significant costs,
    and they impose or deliver vastly, vastly higher benefits. The
    Office of Management and Budget routinely identifies the Clean
    Air Act as the single most successful cost-effective law across
    all of Federal Government, producing benefits of 60-to-1 or 90-
    to-1 higher than their costs.
        So by definition, if you weaken those health protections
    you are increasing costs on the American people in the form of
    hospitalizations and premature death and lots of other things
    that the law is designed to avoid.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. And that is what we have also got
    to figure out, how you keep that--take that into account.
        Can you--one more question. Can you explain how these
    policy proposals would undermine the science-based framework
    that currently guides clean air protection?
        Mr. Walke. Well, it eliminates the science-based framework
    and replaces it with one that even the majority has described
    as based on cost feasibility. An earlier Member described this
    as quite modest, I think, but it would be cataclysmic, and it
    would be a radical, radical overhaul of the law, overturning
    Supreme Court decisions and multiple other decisions. There is
    nothing modest about that.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say
    we have cut air pollution by 78 percent since 1970 while
    growing our economy. We can and must keep leading.
        And with that, I thank you and yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady from Michigan yields back. I
    would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Members
    may have additional written questions for you.
        I will remind Members you have 10 business days to submit
    additional questions for the record. And I would ask the
    witnesses to do their best to submit responses within 10
    business days of receipt of the additional questions from the
    members of this subcommittee.
        I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the
    documents included on the staff hearing document list.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Griffith. The subcommittee is hereby adjourned. Thank
    you all.
        [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT