Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, which would undermine the Clean Air Act and the decades of progress that we have made to improve our Nation's public health and air quality.

This bill delays implementation of the 2015 ozone standards until 2025, extends the review cycle for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards from 5 to 10 years, and authorizes the EPA administrator to consider technological feasibility when establishing or revising a

Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that, when we move the timeframe for accomplishment of our progress by 8 years out into the future, we are stalling progress; and when we tamper with a review every 5 years and make it 10, we are denying progress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Chairman, we have just heard from two colleagues from Texas, and I want to remind all of my colleagues, our colleagues, that the State of Texas has over 1.5 million residents with asthma, including some 430,000 children. Weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act would put their health at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Chairman, having just heard from the gentleman from Arizona, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of Arizona has over 660,000 residents with asthma, including some 175,000 children. Weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act would put their health at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Chair, having heard from my friend and colleague from West Virginia, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of West Virginia has 100,000 residents with asthma, including over 18,000 children. So it is weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act that would put these populations at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I earlier stated, the State of Arizona has over 660,000 residents with asthma, including 175,000 children; and I just question putting their health at risk with this bill that moves us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a number of supporting documents. The first is a letter opposing the bill signed by the State Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and the Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

April 26, 2017.

Re Opposition to H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act

of 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman,

Hon. Frank Pallone, Ranking Member,

Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Walden and Representative Pallone: We

write in opposition to H.R. 806, Ozone Standards

Implementation Act of 2017. This bill would not only delay

implementation of more protective ozone air quality

standards, but, more broadly, would undermine the mandate in

the Clean Air Act (Act) that the national ambient air quality

standards for ozone and other criteria pollutants be based on

up-to-date scientific evidence and focus solely on protecting

public health and welfare. As explained below, these measures

would be a significant step backward in combatting the

dangers of ozone and other criteria pollutants.

Many of our states have struggled for decades with the

pervasive problem of ozone pollution. The scientific evidence

of harm to public health from ozone pollution is well

established, as are the economic consequences. At certain

concentration levels, ozone irritates the respiratory system,

causing coughing, wheezing, chest tightness and headaches.

People exposed to elevated levels of ozone suffer from lung

tissue damage, and aggravation of asthma, bronchitis, heart

disease, and emphysema. Children, older adults, people with

asthma or other lung diseases, and people who are active

outdoors are particularly susceptible to the harmful health

effects of ozone. Public health harms also exact an economic

toll. For example, increased hospital admissions on bad ozone

days increase health care costs borne by states and local

governments. Ozone pollution also harms public welfare by

damaging trees and reducing crop yields by interfering with

the ability of plants to produce and store food and making

them more susceptible to disease, insect pests, and other

stressors. Ozone can also inhibit the ability of plants and

trees to mitigate harms from climate change.

To protect against these and other adverse impacts and ``to

promote the public health and welfare and the productive

capacity of its population,'' the Act aims ``to protect and

enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources.'' 42

U.S.C. Sec. 7401(b)(1). To achieve this goal, the Act

requires EPA to adopt primary standards for certain criteria

pollutants, such as ozone, at a level that protects public

health with an ``adequate margin of safety.'' 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 7409(b)(1). The Act also requires EPA to adopt secondary

standards at a level that protects the public welfare from

``any known or anticipated adverse effects.'' 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 7409(b)(2). The Act mandates that EPA review the air

quality standards for each criteria pollutant every five

years and revise the standards as advances in science

warrant. As Justice Scalia explained for a unanimous Supreme

Court, EPA's review must set the primary and secondary

standards based on the scientific evidence, and may not

consider implementation costs or other economic consequences.

Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 465 (2001).

Rather, implementation decisions are a matter for states,

which are empowered to evaluate the costs and co-benefits of

potential implementation strategies and determine, in light

of those costs and co-benefits, which strategies are most

suitable for them. See Union Elec. Corp. v. EPA, 427 U.S.

246, 266 (1976).

To ensure that our residents and natural resources enjoy

the benefits of the clean air that the statute demands, our

offices have advocated in rulemakings and litigation that EPA

set standards that protect public health and welfare with an

adequate margin of safety, as the Act requires. E.g.,

Mississippi v. EPA, 744 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (State

petitioners, including New York, California, Connecticut,

Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico,

Oregon, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia,

successfully argued for remand of secondary ozone standards);

American Farm Bureau Fed. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir.

2009) (State petitioners and amici, including New York,

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, and the District of

Columbia, successfully argued for remand of primary fine

particulate matter standards); Murray Energy v. EPA (D.C.

Cir. 15-1385) (State amici., including California Air

Resources Board, Delaware Department of Natural Resources,

Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the

District of Columbia, filed a brief supporting the 2015

primary ozone standard against attempts to weaken it).

The ozone rule promulgated by EPA in 2015 strengthened the

primary standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. 80

Fed. Reg. 65,292 (Oct. 26, 2015). This level was at the high

end (i.e., less stringent) of the 65-70 ppb range that EPA

proposed in 2014. EPA's independent science advisors, the

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, cautioned that this

level may offer little margin of safety, particularly for

sensitive subpopulations. Therefore, in comments on the

proposal, several of our states urged EPA to adopt a primary

standard lower than 70 ppb to protect public health with an

adequate margin of safety. However, even tightening the

standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb will result in important

public health benefits. For example, EPA conservatively

estimated that meeting the 70 ppb standard nationally (not

including California) will result in net annual public health

benefits of up to $4.5 billion starting in 2025. These

national benefits include preventing approximately: 316 to

660 premature deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in children;

160,000 missed school days; 28,000 missed work days; 630

asthma-related emergency room visits; and 340 cases of

acute bronchitis in children.

Under current law, states will develop and submit their own

plans to attain the 2015 standard by 2020 or 2021. But H.R.

806 would delay this deadline until October 2026 and delay

other similarly related deadlines, postponing even further

the life-saving benefits of attaining clean air. The bill

should be rejected on these grounds alone.

In addition, H.R. 806 would undermine the protection of

health and welfare from the dangers of all criteria air

pollutants by weakening the national ambient air quality

standards process for updating standards based on the most

recent scientific evidence. Instead of requiring that

standards be reviewed--and as necessary, revised--every five

years based on the latest scientific evidence on the harms to

public health and welfare from exposure to criteria

pollutants, H.R. 806 would require updates only once a

decade.

The bill would also eliminate the Act's requirement that

air quality standards be set solely based on adequate

protection of public health and welfare. Specifically, the

bill would authorize the EPA Administrator to also consider

``likely technological feasibility'' in establishing primary

and secondary standards. This provision appears designed to

allow EPA to weaken standards nationwide if it thinks a

single area might be incapable of meeting them. But if that

were ever the case, the Act already provides relief

mechanisms for the affected area. In addition, the bill

undermines the Act's existing protections by creating a

loophole that allows EPA to treat hot or dry weather as an

``exceptional event'' excusing an area's nonattainment.

Finally, the bill appears to be based on a misunderstanding

of the Act's balance between federal and state authority. The

bill directs EPA to cherry-pick hypothetical state

implementation strategies and only evaluate their adverse

side-effects, and, potentially, use that evaluation to weaken

ambient air quality standards. But EPA cannot know at the

time it sets standards what strategies states will choose, or

how individual states will value their beneficial side-

effects. Those considerations should remain separate from the

standard-setting process.

In summary, ozone pollution remains a serious and

persistent problem for our nation, posing a particular risk

to the health of children, the elderly and the sick, as well

as individuals who spend time outdoors. Because H.R. 806

would represent a significant step backward in combatting

ozone and other dangerous criteria pollutants, we urge you to

oppose the bill. Thank you for your attention to this

critical matter.

Sincerely,

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York, Lemuel

Srolovic, Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau, Michael J.

Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Protection

Bureau.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, David A.

Zonana, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Wiener,

Deputy Attorney General.

George Jepsen, Attorney General of Connecticut, Matthew I.

Levine, Kirsten S.P. Rigney, Scott N. Koschwitz, Assistant

Attorneys General, Office of the Attorney General.

Matthew P. Denn, Attorney General of Delaware, Ralph K.

Durstein, III, Valerie S. Edge, Deputy Attorneys General,

Delaware Department of Justice.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Matthew J.

Dunn, Gerald T. Karr, James P. Gignac, Assistant Attorneys

General, Environmental Enforcement Division.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, Jacob Larson,

Assistant Attorney General.

Brian Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Roberta R.

James, Assistant Attorney General.

Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Christophe

Courchesne, Chief, Carol Iancu, Assistant Attorneys General,

Environmental Protection Division, Office of the Attorney

General.

Hector Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, Bill

Grantham, Assistant Attorney General.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, Paul

Garrahan, Attorney-in-Charge, Natural Resources Section,

Oregon Department of Justice.

Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Office of

the Attorney General.

Patrick McDonnell, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection.

Peter Kilmartin, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Gregory

S. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General.

Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General of Vermont,

Nicholas F. Persampieri, Assistant Attorney General.

Mark Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, John W. Daniel,

II, Deputy Attorney General, Matthew L. Gooch, Assistant

Attorney General, Environmental Section.

Bob Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington, Katharine G.

Shirey, Assistant Attorney General.

Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the second document I include in the Record is a letter from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, again, opposing the bill.

Office of the Commissioner, New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation,

Albany, NY.

Re H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.

Hon. John Shimkus, Chairman,

Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on Energy and

Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul D. Tonko, Ranking Member,

Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on Energy and

Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Honorable Chair Shimkus and Representative Tonko: The

State of New York strongly opposes the ``Ozone Standards

Implementation Act of 2017,'' which will substantially harm

public health to the detriment of New Yorkers and residents

of many other states. The proposed bill would restrict the

efficacy of the Clean Air Act in a way that would delay

implementation of critical health-based standards for

protecting the public from harmful ground-level ozone and

other dangerous air pollutants. The result of this proposed

bill would be the significant postponement of health and

environmental benefits for nearly a decade, inevitably

resulting in increased illness and deaths from air pollution.

Introduction

The Clean Air Act (``Act'') addresses the critically

important issue of protecting the health and welfare of all

Americans from excessive levels of air pollution. It

establishes a federal-state partnership under which EPA,

informed by established science, sets National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) at a level necessary to protect

public health, and states develop and implement plans for

achieving those standards. This collaborative process has

significantly reduced pollutant concentrations to the great

benefit of the public. Importantly, the process provided by

the sections 109 and 110 of the Act recognizes that air

pollution knows no boundaries and that air quality in many

states, including New York, is impacted by emissions from

sources located upwind.

Section 109 of the Act ensures that implementation of the

Act is guided by established science; it charges the Clean

Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) with reviewing the

latest ``state of the science'' relating to public and

environmental health, and conveying its findings to the

Administrator. Based on that information, the Administrator

establishes the NAAQS at a level necessary to protect public

health within a reasonable margin of safety. Under Section

110 of the Act, States then develop plans to achieve air

quality that meets the standard in those areas that do not

meet the standard, known as ``nonattainment'' areas.

In its latest review, CASAC determined that the existing

2008 ozone NAAQS was insufficiently protective of public

health, particularly for at-risk groups including children,

older adults, people of all ages who have lung diseases such

as asthma, and people who are active outdoors. Based on

CASAC's scientific findings, EPA determined that implementing

the 2015 ozone NAAQS would help prevent a range of harmful

health effects each year, including 320 to 660 premature

deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in children; 160,000 days when

kids miss school; 28,000 missed work days; 630 asthma-related

emergency room visits; and 340 cases of acute bronchitis in

children. EPA has identified additional serious health

threats from ozone including cardiovascular disease (e.g.,

heart attacks, strokes, heart disease, congestive heart

failure); potential harm to the central nervous system; and

potential reproductive and developmental harm. The health

benefits from meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS exceed the costs

of controls by 2 to 4 times.

Like many other states, New York strongly supported EPA's

strengthening of the ozone NAAQS in 2015. This support comes

even though New York faces a substantial burden of achieving

ozone attainment in the New York City metropolitan area.

This-burden, however, is outweighed by the need to address

the serious public health impacts. In New York City,

approximately 1 in 10 emergency room visits for asthma are

attributable to ozone pollution. Rather than seek to delay

its ozone attainment efforts, New York strives to bring the

New York City metropolitan area into attainment as

expeditiously as possible, in order to provide its residents

with cleaner and more healthful air to breathe.

Delaying public health benefits of the 2015 ozone NAAQS

The proposed legislation would harm public health by

delaying the implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (and its

corresponding health benefits) for eight years and further

postponing any future standard for several years beyond when

they are necessary. Current law requires EPA to designate

states under the 2015 ozone NAAQS according to their

monitored air quality by October 2017, and states not meeting

the standards would have a number of years to reach

compliance proportional to the severity of their ozone

problems. However, this legislation would defer action so

that designations would not be made until October 2025, thus

postponing even the beginning of planning efforts until after

attainment would otherwise have been achieved under the

current structure of the Act. For New Yorkers and other

Americans, this would result in a substantial delay in their

ability to breathe clean and healthful air.

Even worse, this proposed bill compounds this public health

harm by allowing the construction of new power plants and

factories without considering their impact on a region's

ability to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Under current

law, such new and modified facilities located in areas

designated nonattainment are subject to a control technology

review under the Clean Air Act's nonattainment new source

review program, which requires a demonstration of control

technology that would consider the ``lowest achievable

emission rate,'' resulting in the most stringent emission

limit for a certain source class. This bill would eliminate

these new source reviews, which are critical for advancing a

nonattainment area toward NAAQS compliance.

Together, these aspects of the legislation will have even

worse additional adverse impacts on states like New York that

are victimized by upwind air pollution. First, this

legislation will impair New York's relief from ozone

transport from upwind locations. EPA modeling indicates that

between 75% and 94% of the ozone in the New York City

metropolitan area comes from sources outside of New York.

Although New York will continue actions to reduce emission of

ozone precursors, it cannot achieve healthful ozone levels

without a substantial reduction in emissions from states

located upwind, which are responsible for most of New York's

ozone levels. Many of these states encompass areas that are

currently monitoring as nonattainment, and these areas would

have to achieve emission reductions under current law if

designated nonattainment. Postponing a nonattainment

designation for the New York City metropolitan area will have

the unacceptable effect of postponing the ``good neighbor''

obligation of upwind areas to reduce their significant

contribution to New York's nonattainment until sometime after

the nonattainment designation.

Moreover, postponing compliance with nonattainment New

Source Review in areas that would otherwise be designated as

nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS establishes an inequitable

outcome for New York and other states that have already been

designated nonattainment. Under this proposed bill, new

industrial facilities in areas currently designated

nonattainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS or in the Ozone

Transport Region--including all of New York--will have to

comply with nonattainment NSR requirements, yet facilities

located in regions with comparable or worse air quality and

much higher emissions will not have to do so for a decade or

more. As such, states that would otherwise be designated

nonattainment would gain an unfair advantage in attracting

business development under this bill.

Delaying public health benefits from reducing other criteria pollutants

Aside from ozone, provisions of this proposed bill would

affect future NAAQS reviews for all criteria pollutants, thus

compounding negative public health impacts. For example, the

bill would irresponsibly extend the NAAQS review time from

five years to ten for all criteria pollutants. Retaining the

five-year review schedule ensures that the Administrator

reviews the relevant state of the science while it is timely

and germane. Health science moves quickly; by the time one

NAAQS revision is reaching completion, other pertinent

clinical studies are being published.

This proposed bill weakens public health protection by

making cost and technological feasibility larger factors in

the establishment and implementation of NAAQS. The Supreme

Court has already upheld the notion that the consideration of

costs has no place in the setting of a NAAQS (Whitman v.

American Trucking Associations, Inc., 2001). Instead,

questions of technological and economic feasibility are

considered at the stage of implementing the NAAQS. For

example, the Act's nonattainment area classifications

recognize that areas with more difficult ozone pollution

problems require more time to comply. Unfortunately, Section

3(b) of the proposed bill would change the long-standing

practice of how an Administrator determines the NAAQS by

allowing him or her to analyze, as a secondary consideration,

the likely technological feasibility of a revised NAAQS.

Section 3(c) would expand CASAC's role to providing advice to

the Administrator on adverse economic effects (among others)

prior to the setting of the NAAQS. Taken together, these

proposed revisions would have the effect that NAAQS would no

longer be set at levels that are protective of public health

and welfare.

Finally, the proposed bill unnecessarily redefines ordinary

expected conditions as ``exceptional events'' that need not

be considered by a state in demonstrating attainment. The

intent of the ``extraordinary event'' exception is to allow a

state to discount NAAQS exceedances that result from one-

time, unpredictable, and uncontrollable events such as

wildfires. The proposal, however, would allow commonplace

conditions such as stagnant air masses and ``meteorological

event[s] involving high temperatures or lack of

precipitation'' to be considered exceptional. In their ozone

planning, states should anticipate these conditions, which

are expected to occur each year and promote the formation of

ozone when public health is at the greatest risk.

We also disagree with the proposal to allow sources to

avoid nonattainment new source review until release of the

implementation guidance. EPA's delay in issuing guidance

should not be an excuse to allow new sources in nonattainment

areas to contribute to further air quality degradation. In

addition, the bill's reduction of the time allotted for

states to formulate and submit attainment plans from the

current three years to one year reflects a misunderstanding

of the laborious process for developing these plans.

Conclusion

The Clean Air Act is a bipartisan success story. Citizens

across the country have benefited from the Act's clean air

requirements over the last few decades. People can breathe

easier due to the clean air standards that have resulted from

rigorous reviews that are guided by the latest scientific

evidence. Passage of this proposed bill would deprive the

American people of those benefits, worsen air quality and

harm public health substantially.

Sincerely,

Basil Seggos.

Mr. Chairman, the third document I include in the Record is a letter signed by 15 medical and public health organizations, again, opposing the bill.

July 17, 2017.

Dear Representative: Clean air is fundamental for good

health, and the Clean Air Act promises all Americans air that

is safe to breathe. The undersigned public health and medical

organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 806, the so-called

``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.'' A more

fitting name for this legislation would be the ``Smoggy Skies

Act,'' as it delays lifesaving standards to reduce ozone

pollution, or smog, and permanently weakens the Clean Air

Act.

Clear, up-to-date, scientific evidence documented the need

for greater protection from ozone pollution, and drove the

stronger limit on ozone that the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) finalized in 2015. To meet the

updated standard, the states have clear authority and plenty

of time to plan and then work to reduce pollution under the

Clean Air Act's long-established, balanced implementation

timeline. Despite those facts, the Smoggy Skies Act imposes

additional delays and sweeping changes that will threaten

health, particularly the health of children, seniors and

people with chronic disease.

The Smoggy Skies Act also reaches far beyond implementation

of the current ozone standards. It permanently weakens the

Clean Air Act and future air pollution health standards for

all criteria pollutants. Specifically, the Smoggy Skies Act

weakens implementation and enforcement of all lifesaving air

pollution health standards, including those for carbon

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter,

and sulfur dioxide. It would also permanently undermine the

Clean Air Act as a public health law.

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the science on

the health impacts of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen

dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide air

pollutants every five years and update these national ambient

air quality standards according to the current science. The

Smoggy Skies Act would lengthen the review period of the air

pollution health standards from once every five years to once

every ten years for all criteria pollutants. As the science

continues to evolve, the public deserves that their

protections be based on the most up-to-date science,

certainly not a schedule that is twice as long as they

currently have under the law. The work that EPA and states do

to clean up air pollution should be based on the best and

most current science.

Emerging research adds crucial information to our

understanding of the impacts that air pollution has on human

health, and EPA should not have to wait a decade to

incorporate it. For example, on March 29, 2016, a newly

published study, Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm

Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and Economic

Costs showed new information linking particulate air

pollution to nearly 16,000 preterm births per year. Under the

Smoggy Skies Act, EPA would have to wait as much as a decade

to consider such new evidence when setting standards. Ten

years is far too long to wait to protect public health from

levels of pollution that the science shows are dangerous or

for EPA to consider new information.

In the 2015 review of the ozone standard, EPA examined an

extensive body of scientific evidence demonstrating that

ozone inflames the lungs, causing asthma attacks and

resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and

premature deaths. A growing body of research indicates that

ozone may also lead to central nervous system harm and may

harm developing fetuses. In response to the evidence, EPA

updated the ozone standards. While many of our organizations

called for a more protective level, there is no doubt that

the updated, 70 parts per billion standard provides greater

health protections compared to the previous standard.

The Smoggy Skies Act would delay implementation of these

more protective air pollution standards for at least eight

years. This means eight years of illnesses and premature

deaths that could have been avoided. Parents will not be told

the truth about pollution in their community and states and

EPA will not work to curb pollution to meet the new

standards. The public has a fundamental right to know when

pollution in the air they breathe or the water they drink

threatens health, and Congress must not add eight years of

delay to health protections and cleanup.

Furthermore, the American public overwhelmingly supports

upholding these more protective limits on ozone. A 2017 poll

found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe Congress

should leave EPA's updated standards in place, showing clear

public opposition to the Smoggy Skies Act.

The Smoggy Skies Act would also permanently weaken

implementation of the 2015 and future ozone standards. The

Act would delay implementation to a date when the evidence

shows that most states would meet the standard with cleanup

measures already in place. It would also reduce requirements

for areas with the most dangerous levels of ozone. Areas

classified as being in ``extreme nonattainment'' of the

standard would no longer need to write plans that include

additional contingency measures if their initial plans fail

to provide the expected pollution reductions. The Clean Air

Act prioritizes reducing air pollution to protect the

public's health, but the Smoggy Skies Act opens a new

opportunity for communities to avoid cleaning up,

irrespective of the health impacts.

Further, the bill would greatly expand the definition of an

exceptional event. Under the Clean Air Act, communities can

demonstrate to EPA that an exceptional event, such as a

wildfire, should not ``count'' in determining whether their

air quality meets the national standards. This bill would

recklessly expand the definition of exceptional events to

include high pollution days when the air is simply stagnant--

the precise air pollution episodes the Clean Air Act was

designed to combat--and declare those bad air days as

``exceptional.'' Changing the accounting rules will undermine

health protection and avoid pollution cleanup.

Additionally, the bill would permanently weaken the Clean

Air Act. The Clean Air Act is one of our nation's premier

public health laws because it puts health first. The Act has

a two-step process: first, EPA considers scientific evidence

to decide how much air pollution is safe to breathe and sets

the standard that is requisite to protect public health with

an adequate margin of safety. Then, states work with EPA to

develop a plan to clean up air pollution to meet the

standard. Cost and feasibility are fully considered in the

second phase during implementation of the standard.

This bill states that if EPA finds that ``a range of

levels'' of an air pollutant protect public health with an

adequate margin of safety, then EPA may consider

technological feasibility in choosing a limit within that

range. Further, the bill would interject implementation

considerations, including projections of adverse economic and

energy effects, into the standard setting process. These

changes will permanently weaken the core health-based premise

of the Clean Air Act--protecting the public from known health

effects of air pollution with a margin of safety.

These changes would reverse the intention of the Clean Air

Act explicitly included by its bipartisan authors in

Congress: that basing the standard on the protection of

public health would push technology to develop new tools and

techniques to reduce emissions. They understood that pushing

the cleanup technology to meet the urgent need to protect

health would help to expand job development and growth. They

were correct, as the emission control industry today has

helped the nation meet stronger standards in creative, cost-

effective ways.

The text also explicitly states that the Smoggy Skies Act

does not authorize any additional funds to be appropriated to

EPA for its work carrying out the bill's provisions. Forcing

EPA to perform the additional work of implementing this bill

with no additional resources could put the agency's current,

lifesaving work at further risk.

Finally, an amendment adopted in committee would eliminate

key enforcement provisions under the Clean Air Act. As

amended, the bill could perpetuate poor air quality in

communities with the highest pollution levels indefinitely.

The provision waives the obligation for states with areas

heavily polluted by ozone or particulate matter to write

effective plans to attain the health standards. Currently, if

an area with unhealthy air fails to write an adequate plan to

meet air pollution standards, EPA can impose sanctions.

Because that enforcement provision exists, EPA has almost

never needed to use it--states wrote effective plans. As

amended, the Smoggy Skies Act would bar EPA from using this

key enforcement tool for especially polluted areas,

essentially eliminating the obligation for states to write a

meaningful pollution cleanup plan that can demonstrate

meeting the health standards.

The Smoggy Skies Act is a sweeping attack on lifesaving

standards that protect public health from air pollution. This

bill is an extreme attempt to undermine our nation's proven

clean air health protections. Not only does it delay the

long-overdue updated ozone standards and weaken their

implementation and enforcement, it also permanently weakens

the health protections against many dangerous air pollutants

and the scientific basis of Clean Air Act standards.

Please prioritize the health of your constituents and vote

NO on the Smoggy Skies Act.

Sincerely,

Allergy & Asthma Network

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Lung Association

American Public Health Association

American Thoracic Society

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America

Center for Climate Change and Health

Children's Environmental Health Network

Health Care Without Harm

National Association of County & City Health Officials

National Environmental Health Association

National Medical Association

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Trust for America's Health.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I include a letter signed by 121 environmental and other groups opposing the bill.

March 21, 2017.

Dear Senator/Representative, on behalf of our millions of

members, the undersigned 121 organizations urge you to oppose

the ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act'' (H.R. 806, S.

263). The innocuous-sounding name is misleading: this

legislation would actually systematically weaken the Clean

Air Act without a single improvement, undermine Americans'

46-year right to healthy air based on medical science, and

delay life-saving health standards already years overdue.

This bill's vision of ``Ozone Standards Implementation''

eliminates health benefits and the right to truly safe air

that Americans enjoy under today's law. First, the

legislation would delay for ten years the right to safer air

quality, and even the simple right to know if the air is safe

to breathe. Corporations applying for air pollution permits

would be free to ignore new ground-level ozone (aka smog)

health standards during these additional ten years. For the

first time the largest sources of air pollution would be

allowed to exceed health standards. The bill would also

outright excuse the parts of the country suffering the worst

smog pollution from having backup plans if they do not reduce

pollution. The most polluted parts of the country should not

stop doing everything they can to protect their citizens'

health and environment by cleaning up smog pollution.

This bill is not content to merely weaken and delay

reductions in smog pollution. It also strikes at our core

right to clean air based on health and medical science. The

medically-based health standards that the law has been

founded on for 46 years instead could become a political

football weakened by polluter compliance costs. This could

well result in communities being exposed to unhealthy levels

of smog and soot and sulfur dioxide and even toxic lead

pollution. The bill would also double the law's five-year

review periods for recognizing the latest science and

updating health standards, which are already frequently years

late; this means in practice that unhealthy air would persist

for longer than ten years.

The legislation also weakens implementation of current

clean air health standards. The bill expands exemptions for

``exceptional events'' that are not counted towards

compliance with health standards for air quality, even when

air pollution levels are unsafe. This will mean more unsafe

air more often, with no responsibility to clean it up.

Requirements meant to ensure progress toward reducing smog

and soot pollution would shift from focusing on public health

and achievability to economic costs. Despite the bland name

``Ozone Standards Implementation Act,'' this bill represents

an extreme attack on the most fundamental safeguards and

rights in the Clean Air Act.

Since 1970, the Federal Clean Air Act has been organized

around one governing principle--that the EPA must set health

standards based on medical science for dangerous air

pollution, including smog, soot and lead, that protect all

Americans, with ``an adequate margin of safety'' for

vulnerable populations like children, the elderly and

asthmatics. This legislation eviscerates that principle and

protection. We urge you to oppose H.R. 806 and S. 263, to

protect our families and Americans' rights to clean air.

Sincerely,

350KC; 350 Loudoun; Alaska Community Action on Toxics;

Alton Area Cluster UCM (United Congregations of Metro-East);

Brentwood House; California Latino Business Institute; Center

for Biological Diversity; Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ)

Coalition; Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility;

Chicago Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Citizens for Clean Air; Clean Air Watch; Clean Water

Action; Cleveland Environmental Action Network; Climate

Action Alliance of the Valley; Connecticut League of

Conservation Voters; Conservation Voters for Idaho;

Conservation Voters of South Carolina; Dakota Resource

Council; Earth Day Network; Earthjustice; Earthworks;

Environment Iowa; Environment America.

Environment Arizona; Environment California; Environment

Colorado; Environment Connecticut; Environment Florida;

Environment Georgia; Environment Illinois; Environment Maine;

Environment Maryland; Environment Massachusetts; Environment

Michigan; Environment Minnesota; Environment Missouri;

Environment Montana; Environment Nevada; Environment New

Hampshire; Environment New Jersey; Environment New Mexico;

Environment North Carolina.

Environment Ohio; Environment Oregon; Environment Rhode

Island; Environment Texas; Environment Virginia; Environment

Washington; Environmental Defense Action Fund; Environmental

Entrepreneurs (E2); Environmental Law & Policy Center;

Ethical Society of St. Louis; Faith Alliance for Climate

Solutions; Florida Conservation Voters; Fort Collins

Sustainability Group; Gasp; GreenLatinos.

Health Care Without Harm; Iowa Interfaith Power & Light;

Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society; KyotoUSA;

Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO); Latino Donor

Collaborative; League of Conservation Voters; League of Women

Voters; Maine Conservation Voters; Maryland League of

Conservation Voters; Michigan League of Conservation Voters;

Moms Clean Air Force; Montana Conservation Voters Education

Fund.

Montana Environmental Information Center; National Parks

Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council;

NC League of Conservation Voters; Nevada Conservation League;

New Mexico Environmental Law Center; New York League of

Conservation Voters; Northern Plains Resource Council; OEC

Action Fund; Ohio Organizing Collaborative, Communities

United for Responsible Energy; Oregon League of Conservation

Voters; Partnership for Policy Integrity; PennEnvironment.

People Demanding Action, Tucson Chapter; Physicians for

Social Responsibility; Physicians for Social Responsibility,

Maine Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los

Angeles Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility,

Arizona Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, SF Bay

Area Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Tennessee

Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Wisconsin

Chapter; Powder River Basin Resource Council; Public Citizen;

Public Citizen's Texas Office; RVA Interfaith Climate Justice

Team; Safe Climate Campaign; San Juan Citizens Alliance;

Sierra Club.

Southern Environmental Law Center; Texas Campaign for the

Environment; Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services;

Texas League of Conservation Voters; The Environmental

Justice Center at Chestnut Hills United Church; Trust for

America's Health; Union of Concerned Scientists; Utah

Physicians for a Healthy Environment; Valley Watch; Virginia

Organizing; Virginia Interfaith Power & Light; Voces Verdes;

Voices for Progress; Washington Conservation Voters; WE ACT

for Environmental Justice; Western Colorado Congress; Western

Organization of Resource Councils; Wisconsin Environmental

Health Network; Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters;

Wisconsin Environment; Wyoming Outdoor Council.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Chair, two points on the review and the standards. Certainly not every review would require a change in standards, and I think that needs to be made clear here. When we talk about the difficulty of having to respond or achieve the standards that have been established and then they go stronger, well, on your way to 70 parts per billion, you are going to be moving through 75 parts per billion as you reduce those particulates that get emitted into our air. It is only logical that you could move along and continue to improve those standards.

This is about maintaining a quality of life, enhancing a quality of life, cutting into, for public health policy purposes, the devastating impacts of air pollutants and their relation to our public health.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I want to remind my colleagues, having just heard from a Californian, that California has nearly 3 million residents with asthma, including 650,000 children. Why on Earth would we want to put them at further risk by going backward? I suggest that we keep that in mind as we vote on this measure.

I heard the comment made about unachievable or unrealistic standards. Well, how is it that we have been making progress through the years? We have been growing jobs, and we have been cleaning the air. How is it that that was deemed unrealistic and unachievable?

Mr. Chairman, I believe in the pioneer spirit of this great country. I believe in her intellect. I believe in the passion to do the right thing. And I think that will continue to motivate us as we listen to scientists who tell us about the standards that we ought to achieve.

On our way to 75 parts per billion, we know that it is continued progress if we achieve 70; and if we listen to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, they will tell us that the air, for safety, with the safety factor, we should be closer to 60. So we have much more room for progress, and we have the technological wizardry to make that happen. Our children and generations unborn are counting on us.

As has been stated many times over today, this is a move in a backward direction. We are concerned on this side of the aisle about H.R. 806. We need to know that the standards that are out there are achievable, that those standards drive technological improvement.

We can grow the economy and clean the air. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we have proven that they are inclusive.

Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this effort of opposition to H.R. 806. It is, as many have called it, an effort that will continue to hold back progress.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, my amendment strikes subsection (b) of section 3, which would allow the EPA to consider technological feasibility when determining what level of pollution is safe.

Health-based standards are the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act-- health-based. The EPA sets NAAQS at levels sufficient to protect the public health, essentially, the level of ambient air pollution that is safe to breathe.

While costs are not considered in establishing these standards, costs can be--and are considered--in developing plans to achieve the necessary pollution reductions to meet the standards.

Unfortunately, H.R. 806, as currently drafted, would change the longstanding criteria for establishing an air quality standard from one that is based solely on protecting public health to one that includes a consideration of the technological feasibility. This issue has been long debated and settled by Congress.

Since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, including the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress has excluded technological feasibility considerations from standard setting to ensure that public health--and public health alone--would determine the standards for air quality.

In 1970, on the passage of the Clean Air Act, Senator Ed Muskie from Maine said: ``The first responsibility of Congress is not the making of technological or economic judgments--or even to be limited by what is or appears to be technologically or economically infeasible. Our responsibility is to establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of persons. This may mean that people and industries will be asked to do what seems to be impossible at present time. But if health is to be protected, these challenges must be met.''

For approaching five decades, that has been the guiding tenet of the Clean Air Act: what is in the betterment of public health.

Guided by this principle, our Nation has experienced a 70 percent reduction in key air pollutants while tripling the size of the economy.

I believe that a great deal of this success can be credited to American innovation. Despite assertions that achieving clean air was not feasible, American ingenuity has consistently risen

to the challenge and made our country the leader in both clean air and clean air technology.

Unquestionably, these standards have driven innovation, creating a thriving domestic pollution control industry.

So I ask my colleagues who are in favor of this measure: What is it about a can-do attitude that you don't get? Why is it that you have a lack of trust in the power of American ingenuity?

Had these standards not been ambitious and focused solely on public health, we may still be relying upon the technology from the 1970s and breathing the poor air quality from that era along with it.

Available technologies cannot and should not determine what we can have in terms of clean air. Let's have the scientific and medical experts guide us, and I have confidence that our engineers and innovators will find that way. The history of those protections that we enjoy has been to set ambitious, but achievable, goals. We have achieved those goals, and we have much cleaner air to show for it. Let's not roll back this process.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the insertion of discretion of the Administrator at the EPA as to the technological and economical availability, achievable qualities being inserted into this bill tells me--my interpretation is that the Administrator may not--the Administrator may not, may not--side with the residents--with the people of this country and their right to breathe clean air.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 806.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, is about ensuring effective implementation of our air quality standards.

We have learned that timelines and procedures established almost 30 years ago can be counterproductive today, resulting in unnecessary costs, regulatory delay, and economic uncertainty.

H.R. 806 ensures we will continue to deliver effective environmental protections, with reforms that will also help expand economic opportunity in communities around the Nation.

H.R. 806 removes barriers to the planning and permitting of new or expanded manufacturing facilities and to related economic activity essential for building out America's infrastructure.

The bill's reforms reflect practical improvements to the law suggested by State and local regulators, who have confronted the growing challenges of implementing multiple air quality standards under multiple implementation plans and under tight statutory deadlines. As a result, these challenges have increased, and it has become more difficult for many areas to enable the economic expansion needed for their communities. This bill takes several sensible steps to fix this situation.

First, it extends the date for final designations for the 2015 ozone standards to 2025. This allows States time to implement the 2008 ozone standards and other measures to improve air quality. The provisions align requirements for new source construction permitting with this phased ozone schedule, which will reduce permitting delays and still ensure the use of the best available emissions control technologies. The provisions would require timely issuance of implementation guidelines by EPA so States can plan effectively.

Second, the bill aligns the air quality standard setting with how the process works in practice, and it ensures fuller information about regulatory impacts. For example, it updates the mandatory review of air quality standards to reflect past experience by extending the requirement to 10 years, and preserves the EPA administrator's discretion to issue revised standards earlier, if necessary. The bill ensures the administrator, prior to revising an air quality standard, obtains advice from the EPA's Independent Science Advisory Committee about any adverse effects on jobs, welfare, and other economic impacts related to implementing the standards.

Finally, the bill takes several steps to address some of the problems communities face when working to meet the standards. For example, it ensures that, for certain ozone and particulate matter nonattainment areas, States are not required to include economically infeasible measures in their plans; it ensures that States may seek relief with respect to certain exceptional events, including droughts; and it directs EPA to examine the impacts of foreign emissions on standards compliance, ozone formation, and identify effective control strategies, including ways to facilitate EPA review to avoid unnecessary penalties for foreign emissions.

The bill also helps communities with most severe air quality challenges that are doing the most to clean up their air by providing a reasonable way to avoid burdensome and unnecessary sanctions, which harm their ability to grow their economies and create jobs.

The provisions of H.R. 806 represent important steps to update the Clean Air Act to reflect what we have learned over the past 25 years since its last major revisions.

There is more work to be done to modernize environmental laws, but ensuring orderly implementation of air quality standards is an important place to start and essential in our environment and our economy.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this important bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), the author of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight a few specific things.

One is the standards established by the EPA remains unchanged. The real premise of this bill is the fact that, when the 2008 standards came out, it took the EPA 7 years to get to the guidelines for how local communities and businesses could comply. While that was occurring, they ratcheted down a new set of standards.

So when we talk, this is really more about having our citizens and our communities be able to comply with the rules and regs before a new rule and reg gets in place.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Chairman, let me just remind my colleagues that--why 10 years? I mean, that is a good question.

When the 2008 standards came out, it took the administration 7 years, to 2015, to tell people how to even implement the 2008 standards. Then, 3 months later, they say: Oh, no, we are going to have a new standard set at 2015.

So this debate doesn't reduce or roll back. It says, let's let the EPA establish standards and then give communities time to comply. That is all this bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chairman, let me just remind folks that what is going on here is that we have a 2008 standard that we were told 7 years afterwards: Here is how you comply.

That same year, we get new standards saying: Oh, no, no, no. You have got new standards lower than what it took us 7 years to define.

That is really the debate. We are not eliminating standards, we are not rolling back standards, we are just saying: Give us a break. Give us time to comply with the 2008 standards before you even force down the 2015 standards. Nothing in this bill rolls back either of those standards.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would first of all like to thank my colleague from New York who serves as the ranking member of the committee. We have done some good work together that we look forward to bringing to the floor in a more amicable setting. Obviously, this one is not. I wish it could have been, but so the public policy world goes.

Let me, in my remaining time, highlight some of the organizations that are supporting our action. Through the committee process, we had the Farm Bureau, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Portland Cement Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce express the need to reform and modernize the Clean air Act in order to encourage economic growth and job creation, because we understand that what has, also, a major impact on health and welfare is our citizens having good-paying jobs.

There is a focus on what we are trying to do as Republicans through the legislative process, and we want to reduce the tax burdens, to ease the regulatory burdens, and to create jobs so that all of our citizens are able to achieve their economic goals and aspirations.

We also received a letter today that I include in the Record from over 145 organizations and over close to 20 State chambers of commerce.

July 18, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, and Minority

Leaders

Schumer and Pelosi: The undersigned, which represent a

diverse group of industries from across the country, write to

express our strong support for H.R. 806 and S. 263, the

``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.'' This

legislation provides a common-sense approach for implementing

national ambient air quality standards, recognizes ongoing

state efforts to improve air quality through a reasonable

implementation schedule for the 2015 ozone standards,

streamlines the air permitting process for businesses to

expand operations and create jobs, and includes other reforms

that bring more regulatory certainty to federal air quality

standards. Additionally, the undersigned support language

including certain elements of H.R. 806 and S. 263 included in

the Fiscal Year 2018 Interior, Environment and Related

Agencies Appropriations bill.

We have significant concerns that the 2015 ozone standards

overlap with existing state plans to implement the 2008 ozone

standards, leading to duplicative and wasteful implementation

schedules, and unnecessary and severe economic impacts. The

new ozone standards were promulgated in October 2015, only

months after states received their final guidance from the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on how to implement the

2008 ozone standards. This delay was the result of the Obama

administration's decision to halt work on the 2008 ozone

standards during a 2010-2011 reconsideration period. The EPA,

however, did not account for this self-imposed delay when

issuing the 2015 ozone standards, thereby imposing

duplicative costs and burdens of implementing multiple

standards simultaneously. This is particularly wasteful as

the EPA itself projects that nearly the entire country would

attain the 2015 ozone standards simply by being provided an

opportunity to fully implement already-planned measures like

their state implementation plans for the 2008 ozone

standards. Local economies also face severe impacts, as

analysis of data indicates that the 2015 ozone standards

could expand nonattainment to more than 950 counties if

planned reductions are not allowed time to take effect,

subjecting large parts of the country to costly nonattainment

control requirements.

Notwithstanding concerns expressed by thousands of elected

officials, state agencies, businesses, community groups, and

other stakeholders, the EPA issued the 2015 ozone standards

without addressing the overlap with the 2008 ozone standards

and the enormous impacts that dual implementation would have

on limited state resources, permitting, and the economy. It

is now up to Congress to address these issues, and that is

why we support H.R. 806 and S. 263. By better aligning the

2015 ozone standards with the 2008 ozone standards and their

associated emissions reductions, H.R. 806 and S. 263 will

help prevent unnecessary nonattainment designations and cost

burdens, without sacrificing environmental protection. The

legislation's permitting relief and other reforms are also an

important step towards national ambient air quality standards

that balance environmental protection and economic

development.

In sum, H.R. 806 and S. 263 and the related appropriations

language provide a common-sense plan that maintains continued

air quality improvement without unnecessarily straining state

and local economic resources.

We strongly encourage Congress to act quickly on this

critical legislation.

Alabama Petroleum Council; Alaska Chamber; Alliance of

Automobile Manufacturers; Alliance of Wyoming Manufacturers;

Aluminum Association; American Chemistry Council; American

Coatings Association; American Coke and Coal Chemicals

Institute; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Forest &

Paper Association; American Fuel & Petrochemical

Manufacturers; American Iron and Steel Institute; American

Petroleum Institute; American Road & Transportation Builders

Association (ARTBA); American Wood Council; Anderson Area

Chamber of Commerce; Apache Junction Chamber of Commerce; API

New York; API Ohio; API South Carolina.

Ardagh Group, Glass North America; Arizona Chamber of

Commerce and Industry; Arizona Mining Association; Arkansas

Petroleum Council; Ascension Chamber of Commerce; Associated

Petroleum Industries of Michigan; Associated Petroleum

Industries of Pennsylvania; Association of American

Railroads; Baton Rouge Area Chamber; Buckeye Valley Chamber

of Commerce; Carefree Cave Creek Chamber of Commerce; Cedar

City Area Chamber of Commerce; Chandler Chamber of Commerce;

Chemical Industry Council of California; Chemical Industry

Council of Illinois; Chemistry Council of New Jersey;

Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry; Colorado Oil &

Gas Association; Colorado Petroleum Association; Colorado

Petroleum Council.

Colorado Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association;

Connecticut Petroleum Council; Consumer Energy Alliance;

Consumer Specialty Products Association; Council of

Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO); CVR Energy, Inc.; Delaware

Petroleum Council; East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance;

Fashion Jewelry & Accessories Trade Association; Flexible

Packaging Association; Florida Petroleum Council; Fountain

Hills Chamber of Commerce; Georgia Chemistry Council;

Georgia Petroleum Council; Gilbert Chamber of Commerce;

Glass Packaging Institute (GPI); Global Cold Chain

Alliance; GPA Midstream Association; Grand Rapids Area

Chamber of Commerce; Greater Bakersfield Chamber of

Commerce.

Greater Baton Rouge Industry Alliance, Inc.; Greater

Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce; Greater Coachella Valley

Chamber of Commerce; Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce;

Greater North Dakota Chamber of Commerce; Greater Phoenix

Chamber of Commerce; Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce;

Illinois Petroleum Council; Independent Petroleum Association

of America; Indiana Petroleum Council; Industrial Energy

Consumers of America (IECA); Industrial Environmental

Association; Industrial Minerals Association--North America;

Institute of Makers of Explosives; Institute of Shortening

and Edible Oils; Iowa Association of Business and Industry;

Kansas Petroleum Council; Kentucky Association of

Manufacturers; Kentucky Chamber of Commerce; Kentucky

Chemical Industry Council.

Lodi District Chamber of Commerce; Louisiana Association of

Business and Industry; Louisiana Chemical Association;

Manufacture Alabama; Maryland Petroleum Council;

Massachusetts Petroleum Council; Mesa Chamber of Commerce;

Michigan Chemistry Council; Minnesota Petroleum Council;

Missouri Petroleum Council; National Asphalt Pavement

Association; National Association of Chemical Distributors;

National Association of Manufacturers; National Cotton

Council; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National

Lime Association; National Mining Association; National

Oilseed Processors Association; National Tooling and

Machining Association; Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and

Industry.

New Jersey Petroleum Council; New Mexico Association of

Commerce & Industry; New York State Chemistry Council; North

American Die Casting Association; North Carolina Petroleum

Council; North Orange County Chamber; Ohio Chamber of

Commerce; Ohio Chemistry Technology Council; Oklahoma State

Chamber; Oregon Women In Timber; Owens Illinois, Inc.; Oxnard

Chamber of Commerce; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and

Industry; Petroleum Marketers Association of America;

Portland Cement Association; Precision Machined Products

Association; Precision Metalforming Association; Queen Creek

Chamber of Commerce; Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce; Roof

Coatings Manufacturers Association (RCMA).

Salt Lake Chamber; San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership;

Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce; South Carolina Chamber

of Commerce; South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance; Tempe

Chamber of Commerce; Tennessee Chamber of Commerce &

Industry; Tennessee Petroleum Council; Texas Association of

Manufacturers; Texas Oil and Gas Association; The Fertilizer

Institute; Treated Wood Council; Truck and Engine

Manufacturers Association; Tucson Metro Chamber; Tulsa

Regional Chamber; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Utah Petroleum

Association; Virginia Chamber of Commerce; Virginia Petroleum

Council; West Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce.

West Virginia Chamber of Commerce; West Virginia

Manufacturers Association; West Virginia Petroleum Council;

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce; Wisconsin Petroleum

Council; Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association; Yuma County

Chamber of Commerce.

If I may, in the middle paragraph it says: ``We have significant concerns that the 2015 ozone standards overlap with existing State plans to implement the 2008 ozone standards, leading to duplicative and wasteful implementation schedules, and unnecessary and severe economic impacts. The new ozone standards were promulgated in October of 2015, only months after States received their final guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency on how to implement the 2008 ozone standards.''

Mr. Chairman, I couldn't say it any better than that. This is not, as I have said a couple of times, a rolling back of our regulations. This is identifying the fact that 2008 standards were implemented. It took 7 years to do the implementation guidelines, and when those guidelines came out 3 months after that, the Federal Government, through the EPA said, oh, we are going to now ratchet it down 5 more parts per billion, which leads you to believe that people are trying to comply.

Other benefits of this bill address the fact that you could be in the remotest parts of the country and fall against the EPA and ozone standards based upon nothing that you can do. We have communities that are trying to comply, are doing great work, but they are receiving emissions outside of their control. Plus, they will be penalized for that.

So we look forward to continued debates. I know that there have been amendments offered that we will consider.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague, and I don't question her passion and her evaluation of her perception about what we are doing.

But again, as I have said in general debate, nothing in this bill rolls back the 2008 standards; nothing rolls back the 2015 standards. The attempt is to say: Why is it so difficult to believe that we should meet the 2008 standards and give our communities time to do that before we throw on them a new 2015 standard? So that is the basic premise.

This amendment would allow the advisory panel to nullify one of the central provisions of the bill, section 2(a), which allows States to fully implement the 2008 ozone standards for which EPA only issued the implementing regulations in 2015 before turning to 2015.

So EPA says meet the 2008 standards. Delay, delay, delay; don't know how to do it; no guidelines. 2015 comes, they say meet the 2008 standards; 3 months later, oh, but now we have got 2015 standards we want you to comply with. That is the basic premise of this bill.

Ozone air quality will continue to improve under H.R. 806. Regarding the 2015 standards, the EPA projects the vast majority of U.S. counties will meet the 2015 ozone standards by 2025 just with the rules and programs now in place or underway.

The bill ensures hundreds of counties are on track to meeting the 2015 standards, and that can come into compliance without being subjected to additional regulatory burdens, paper requirements, or restrictions, which will not do anything to improve public health.

The bill also does not limit States from imposing more stringent emission requirements if a State finds that such a condition exists in section 2. Nowhere does the bill authorize States to increase their emissions. This is not about continuing to improve air quality in a manner that doesn't require the States to duplicate paperwork requirements.

Since 1980, ozone levels have declined 32 percent, and as we talk about in the environmental process, the low-hanging fruit has been picked. It gets more and more difficult as you start reducing the standards time, effort, energy, and technology.

So with the reduction of 32 percent by 1980, the EPA projects air quality ``will continue to improve over the next decade as additional reductions in ozone precursors from power plants, motor vehicles, and other sources are realized.''

Nothing in the pending bill prevents these improvements to air quality from being realized.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, under the Clean Air Act, section 319 provides relief to areas that violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards due to unusual or naturally occurring events as that they cannot control.

Section 3(h) would add--and I would argue strengthens the definition--droughts and extraordinary stagnation to the act's definition of an exceptional event.

Let me give you an example. In 2012, there was a major drought in the Midwest. Now, I am from corn country, and

we don't irrigate our corn because we have got great soil, and we have got weather conditions for most of the years that provide plentiful rain for that to happen. But that didn't happen in 2012. It was an extraordinary event. It was a drought.

Now the question is posed: Should we punish the communities for an extraordinary event; i.e., a drought that is out of the control of any human being?

It is an ``extraordinary event.'' This language would provide reasonable relief for States in this condition, particularly those in the Western United States for, as I said, events beyond their control.

Nothing in H.R. 806 does away with the detailed statutory requirements under section 319(h) of the Clean Air Act for demonstrating ``an exceptional event.'' Nor does anything in the bill do away with the detailed regulatory procedures and guidelines that the EPA has laid out for demonstrating exceptional events or the requirements to measure air quality or to make that air quality data available to the public.

This provision simply ensures citizens in areas experiencing unusual or natural occurring events beyond their control do not become subject to penalties or sanctions under the Clean Air Act as a result of those events.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague. Again, he was on the floor when I talked about the great work I do with subcommittee members. Obviously, this is part of the debate where we are agreeing to disagree.

I will just say that air quality standards are put in place so that there are things that we can effect and we can deal with through mobile emissions, as you would probably know about, as stationary sources.

Exceptional events, such as droughts, are out of our control. That is why we think it should be placed into the language. We do believe it strengthens the provision of the law, doesn't weaken it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the subject of H.R. 806 is criteria pollutants and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, not the hazardous air pollutants programs, which my colleague is referring to.

These two programs are addressed under different sections of the Clean Air Act. The whole title is Clean Air Act, but you have one section here dealing with national ambient air quality, and then you have another section on hazardous air aspects, which is what my colleague is trying to address. Criteria pollutants are addressed under section 107 and 110 and part C and D of title 1 of the Clean Air Act, while hazardous air pollutants fall under section 12.

This amendment, moreover, is wholly unrelated to the purpose of H.R. 806, which is to provide State regulators with additional time and flexibility, as we have heard throughout this debate, to implement ozone and other standards for criteria pollutants.

H.R. 806 makes process-related reforms to address practical implementation challenges identified by State regulators. This amendment would make substantive changes relating specifically to regulation of the oil and gas sector.

This amendment would make significant changes to the Clean Air Act that did not receive any Energy and Commerce Committee consideration during the markup of this bill.

The amendment would also circumvent the established regulatory process for listing new hazardous air pollutants set forth under the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Colorado, sitting in with the Rules Committee yesterday, the question was asked: Would you accept this amendment or would you not? I said: I appreciate my colleagues on the Rules Committee. They will do the due diligence in agreeing which amendment comes to the floor or not.

So it is good to see the Rules Committee has so much comradery and comity that they would allow someone from the committee to offer an amendment on the bill, but I still have to object because it splits this bill and tries to bring in air issues that are in the hazardous air program and jam it into this one where, basically, what we are trying to do is send a signal and allow communities to meet the 2008 standards before a new 2015 standard gets placed upon them 3 months after they do the implementing guidelines.

It is really a process, a bill that makes it easier for people to comply. It really helps EPA more easily be able to evaluate the data and move us forward to a cleaner environment.

Mr. Chair, I reluctantly hold my position that we should vote against the Polis amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for his impassioned discussion, especially of his area. We all have a lot of friends here. It is hard for the public to believe I am on both sides of the aisle, so it

saddens me to have to speak in opposition to this amendment.

This is doing, similarly, what I had to address with Congressman Polis in that it is taking a bill in which we are trying to streamline the processes and then somehow creating a grant program out of the money. I don't know where this money is coming from, whether it is coming from the supposed savings from nonimplementation.

But as my colleague from Texas mentioned, the process, as you followed through the committee, is to say: How do you force people who are just told how to comply with 2008 standards, how do you then turn around and give them 2015 standards when they were just told how to comply 3 months prior?

And so what we have tried to do in this piece of legislation is to say let's allow people to move forward on 2008 while making sure that the 2015 standards occur with a deadline of 2025. That is the basic premise.

And it also addresses the issue of, and I know, there are parts of the country where they can do all that they can do and they are not going to meet the standards because of what is being imported from other regions, maybe, in your case, from Asia or from San Francisco or those areas. So how do you end up punishing an area when they are doing everything that they humanly can do?

There is some great, obviously, statistics that you have shared of the success in that region, although they are still stressed under the current standards.

So your amendment would eliminate the widely supported reforms in this bill. And I read, and we will have submitted for the Record, the 145-plus organizations that support it, plus the five or ten that we addressed earlier from the markup, and then really kind of apply only to a few parts of the country versus the entire country as a whole.

Across the Nation, States and communities struggle to implement these standards, and we are trying to streamline that process. This amendment would deprive communities across the Nation of the benefits of H.R. 806. It would reduce red tape, relief from the sanctions and penalties for emissions that are outside their control, as I said earlier, and streamline the implementation of the standards.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend and colleague. I know it is a tough environment we are trying to address, especially some of those concerns.

Mr. Chair, I still urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague that this doesn't rise to the standard of the other bills that we will be bringing in a bipartisan manner, and we kind of raised that initially at the beginning. And it is, I think, to both of our losses.

But having said that, my colleague, Congressman Olson, the author of the bill, did get a couple Democrats to sponsor the primary piece of legislation, and there is a Senate companion bill, S. 263, which we hope will be passed by the Senate. So we are a little more optimistic that this can get over the finish line than Mr. McNerney might be, but, again, we will continue to work together where we can work together, and respectfully disagree when we have disagreements.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues and friends, I appreciate the debate. Those who followed it here, just a couple of points.

The question is: Why are we here today?

In 2008, the EPA established ozone standards, and then it took the EPA 7 years to tell communities how to comply with those 2008 standards. It is the truth. I am just telling you the truth.

Three months later, after they told the communities how to comply, they said: Now we are going to give you 2015 standards.

That is why we are here. We are just here trying to say that if the EPA is going to establish standards, then they ought to say: We are going to give you the guidelines on how to comply now, not 7 years later.

So what this bill does is allow communities to meet the 2008 standards. It doesn't roll back any standards. It says meet the 2008 standards. In fact, we don't even say roll back the 2015 standards. We just say, give the communities time to comply with the 2015 standards.

This motion is a distraction. Let's reject it, and move to pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 451 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 451 provides for a structured rule to consider a bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee pertaining to the Environmental Protection Agency's ozone standards. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the majority and the minority on the Energy and Commerce Committee. The rule further makes in order six Democratic amendments for consideration. Finally, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit.

Under the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, the EPA is tasked with setting standards and regulations for certain defined pollutants, including ground-level ozone, commonly referred to as smog. The Environmental Protection Agency has set these standards and adjusted when necessary in 1971, 1979, 1997, and 2008.

Since 1980, ozone levels have declined by 33 percent, according to the EPA, thanks in large part to diligent State oversight of industries and planning, along with weather patterns and outside temperatures, which all contribute to ozone levels.

Ozone has been a particular issue in the north Texas area that I represent, where hot summer days and prevailing southerly breezes cause air quality issues that affect outdoor activities and may create health concerns.

In 2015, the EPA proposed changing the 2008 ozone standards that had not yet been fully implemented, despite nearly 700 national, State, and local organizations and stakeholders requesting that the EPA allow the 2008 standards to be adopted before moving the goalposts on these regulated parties. In fact, the EPA did not publish its implementation regulations for the 2008 standards until March of 2015, nearly 7 years after the standards had been issued, and then promptly that same year decided to change the rules entirely.

The EPA ignored the request from stakeholders and moved ahead with lowering the ozone standard, manipulating scientific findings in order to justify the move. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the so-called benefits that the EPA claimed would result from this new standard are not based on ozone reductions at all, but instead on reductions from an entirely different pollutant regulated under a different set of rules.

H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, is an important step toward focusing the EPA's efforts at science-based regulating of the environment and a rejection of the politically motivated actions of the previous 8 years.

The legislation phases in implementation of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards, extending the date for final designation for the 2015 standard to 2025, aligning the permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act with the implementation schedule set by the EPA. This allows for a thoughtful and methodical implementation process to proceed at the State level to address the varied needs and nuances that exist in the States based upon industry and based upon weather patterns.

The measured approach contained in H.R. 806 will allow States to pursue cost-effective and practical implementation plans to enforce the EPA's ozone standards. Further, it utilizes a process that will benefit from the States' practical experiences at implementing previous ozone standards.

Nothing in the legislation before the House today changes any existing air quality standards or regulations. Let me say that again. Nothing in the legislation before the House today changes any existing air quality standards or regulations.

This legislation is focused solely on providing States and businesses the proper tools, time, and flexibility to implement the EPA's regulations most effectively. This is a goal we should all support.

According to the EPA's own analysis in 2015, the vast majority of U.S. counties will meet the 2015 standards by 2025, the same timeframe that the bill before us contemplates implementation.

H.R. 806 is important, however, because it gives States the flexibility to focus on the most pressing environmental issues in each individual State, rather than having the EPA dictate where resources must be used regardless of need.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has been reviewing the issue of finding the correct balance for ozone implementation for years and has crafted legislation that reflects that measured approach.

In 2015, I wrote to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee expressing my concern over the EPA's expedited implementation of the 2015 standards despite concerns on how the ozone rules could affect other pollutants, namely nitrogen oxide, which has been found to actually increase inversely when ozone levels decrease. This increase of nitrogen oxide is especially present in urban environments where many at-risk populations live.

Given the many implementation questions surrounding EPA's political decision to move forward with the 2015 standards, H.R. 806 is a prudent and justified course that this government should be taking.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support today's rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reference a letter that I sent on May 23, 2014, to Dr. Christopher Frey, who was then the chairman of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

The letter reads:

``I understand that, due in part to recommendations by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, EPA's new draft Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone concludes that''--I am quoting from the EPA here-- `` `mortality from short- and long-term ozone exposures and respiratory hospitalization risk is not greatly affected by meeting lower standards.' ''

Again, that is from the EPA draft of the Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone, from May of 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

May 23, 2014.

Dr. H. Christopher Frey,

Chair, EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,

Distinguished University Professor, Department of Civil,

Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Dear Dr. Frey: In January 2015, pursuant to a court imposed

deadline, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is

expected to propose revisions to the current National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone set in 2008. The

agency's proposed revisions may well represent the most

costly standards the agency has ever sought to impose on the

U.S. economy. The Administrator's judgments about the

adequacy of the standard and any such proposed revisions

accordingly will be subject to close Congressional oversight

and scrutiny. A critical question will concern whether the

Administrator has fully and clearly evaluated the risk

reduction estimates associated with the standard and proposed

alternatives.

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC) by

statute serves to review the information supporting EPA's

assessment of the existing NAAQS for ozone and to help assure

that EPA conducts a full and objective evaluation of risks

and risk tradeoffs in its proposals. In the context of this

review, given the potential costs and impacts of any revision

to the current standard, I believe it is critically important

that such risks and risk tradeoffs are fully evaluated.

Presently, EPA appears to be moving forward without fully

addressing important risk tradeoff questions regarding the

impact of emissions reductions of nitrogen oxides

(NOX), which CASAC has also been reviewing, on

ozone concentrations. I write today to draw your attention to

concerns that have been raised that EPA has not fully

evaluated the risk reduction outcomes identified in the

agency's risk assessments used for the upcoming proposed

rule.

I understand that, due in part to recommendations by CASAC,

EPA's new draft Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone

(HREA) concludes that ``mortality from short- and long-term

[ozone] exposures and respiratory hospitalization risk is not

greatly affected by meeting lower standards.'' According to

the HREA, this is due in part to the fact that further

reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions will

actually increase ozone levels on low concentration days in

urban areas where at-risk populations live.

For instance, in modeling a 50 percent reduction in

NOX emissions from existing levels, the HREA found

that April-to-October ozone exposures actually increased for

large percentages of exposed populations in several major

urban areas where at-risk populations are likely to live,

including New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Chicago. In

other words, even though reducing NOX emissions

may yield direct benefits by reducing NOX related

health effects, they may also lead to increased ozone

levels--the issue under review by the CASAC Ozone Review

Panel.

If EPA is correct to assume that all ozone exposures should

be of concern, any increases in ozone exposure throughout the

year are important to assess. However, testimony submitted to

CASAC this past March notes that EPA's analysis likely

underestimates the potential for increases in ozone exposures

because the agency does not evaluate the effect of

NOX emission reductions on ozone levels throughout

the full year. Specifically, EPA's analysis of

epidemiologically-based short-term mortality and morbidity

risks fails to consider the likely increases in ozone levels

during the cooler months of the year when NOX

emissions are reduced. This March testimony reported that

such a full year-round analysis of the impact of

NOX emission reductions in urban Philadelphia

resulted in increases in total ozone exposures.

The EPA's analysis itself notes that wintertime increases

in ozone ``were significant in 11 out of the 15 areas''

evaluated when nationwide NOX emissions were cut

``almost in half,'' but fails to address how increases in

wintertime ozone levels from further NOX

reductions will affect the proposed health benefits of

meeting a lower ozone standard. Potential changes in

wintertime ozone levels also pose a problem for EPA's

assessment of mortality risks from long-term exposure to

ozone.

In light of these shortcomings in analysis, we ask that you

recommend that EPA conduct a full year-round analysis of the

effect of further NOX emission reductions on the

epidemiologically-based, short-term mortality and morbidity

health benefits front meeting a lower ozone standard. This

should be done in a manner that clearly distinguishes between

exposure changes projected for urban, suburban, and rural

portions of each of the Urban Study Areas. In addition, EPA

should provide a discussion of the limitations of projecting

future mortality risks from long-term exposure given that the

epidemiological study used did not account for potential

differences in wintertime ozone levels.

Finally, I understand that transcripts of your public

proceedings may not always be preserved for future public

access and review. If this is the case, I ask that you ensure

that CASAC preserve a full transcript or recording of the

telephone conference and related public deliberations for

future public access and review.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Burgess, M.D.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that was sent by Representative Joe Barton, who was then the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and myself, as the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, June 11, 2010, asking for the economic data that the EPA was supposed to provide regarding their proposed rule changes back in 2010.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2010.

Hon. Lisa Jackson,

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

Dear Administrator Jackson: While the President has

repeatedly stated that job creation and economic growth are

his top priorities, in the environmental arena it appears the

Administration is allowing ideology to trump objective

science and sound public policy, and is issuing new rules

that will significantly impede economic development and

growth throughout the United States, In particular, we are

concerned that the Administration, through the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), is promulgating a whole host of

unworkable, multi-billion dollar environmental regulations

without fully considering all available scientific

information, and without regard to, the realistic compliance

costs, job impacts, or the ability of states, municipalities

and/or businesses to implement the new regulations.

In the past we have expressed very serious concerns about

the Administration's global warming regulations and EPA's

process for developing its endangerment finding, the agency's

highly expedited issuance of that finding, and the agency's

reliance on the scientific assessments of outside groups,

including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), without a

careful and critical examination of their conclusions and

findings. Further, we have significant concerns about the

potentially hundreds of billions of dollars or more in

compliance costs that are triggered by the finding, the over

6 million entities that may ultimately be subject to complex

new permitting requirements, potential enforcement actions,

fines and penalties, and threats of citizen suits and other

third-party litigation. EPA itself has acknowledged that the

stationary source permitting requirements triggered by the

endangerment finding are totally unworkable, and that it

would be administratively impossible for EPA and states to

administer those new requirements, or for employers and

businesses to comply.

We write today regarding another set of multi-billion

dollar regulations proposed by the Obama Administration which

also appear to be extraordinarily expensive and unworkable.

Specifically, in January 2010, EPA proposed new National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone,

the main component of smog. NAAQS ozone standards have been

revised a number of times over the past several decades,

including in 1997 when EPA set an 8-hour ``primary'' ozone

standard, as well as an identical ``secondary'' standard, to

a level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), or effectively 0.084

ppm. While EPA significantly strengthened that standard in

2008 to a level of 0.075 ppm, in January 2010 this

Administration took the unprecedented step of setting aside

the 2008 standards, and proposing its own alternative

standards based on the prior administrative record and a

``provisional assessment,'' and without conducting a full

review of the currently available scientific and technical

information. EPA is now proposing a new primary ozone

standard within the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm, as well as a

distinct cumulative, seasonal secondary standard within the

range of 7-15 ppm-hours. EPA has also proposed an accelerated

implementation schedule.

We are very concerned about the proposed standards, not

only because there appear to be questions about the

development of the proposed standards, but also because EPA

estimates that the costs would range from $19 billion to $90

billion annually, or nearly a trillion dollars over ten

years. Moreover, it appears, based on EPA's own ozone maps

and estimates, that most counties in the country could

violate the standards, particularly if EPA chooses to set the

standard at the lower end of the proposed range. Further, it

also appears many areas of the country, including rural and

remote areas, could never be in attainment because the

standards are so low that they may exceed natural background

ozone levels, or ozone levels due to foreign emissions from

Asian or other sources.

We understand EPA plans to finalize the proposed ozone

standards by August 31, 2010. Before EPA finalizes such

standards, we believe your agency should provide the Congress

with fuller information about the EPA's process for

developing and proposing the new standards, the counties or

municipalities expected to be in violation, whether the new

standards can realistically be implemented by areas that have

higher ozone levels due to natural background ozone levels or

foreign emissions, and the potential restrictions that the

new standards will place on future economic growth and

development for non-attainment areas.

We request your responses to the following questions within

two weeks of the date of this letter:

1. Under Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

EPA is authorized to set NAAQS for certain criteria

pollutants, including ozone, and the Act sets out specific

procedures for revising those standards.

a. In proposing the new standards, why isn't EPA conducting

a full analysis of all available data, including more recent

data?

b. In proposing the standards, why isn't EPA following the

express procedures set forth in Section 109 of the CAA?

2. Under the Clinton Administration's 1997 ozone standards:

a. What types of measures have been required by state and

local governments to come into compliance with those

standards?

b. What were the estimated costs for compliance with the

1997 standards and how do those compare with estimated costs

for the proposed new standards?

c. What analysis, if any, did EPA conduct relating to the

potential impacts on employment of the 1997 standards?

d. What were EPA's projections with regard to attainment of

the 1997 standards, and approximately how many counties in

the United States have still not been able to come into

compliance?

e. What are the primary reasons for the inability of these

counties to come into compliance?

3. Under the Obama Administration's proposed ozone

standards, we understand that EPA projects, based on 2006-

2008 data, that of the 675 counties that currently monitor

ozone levels, 515 counties (76%) would violate a 0.070 ppm

standard, and 650 counties (96%) would violate a 0.060 ppm

standard.

a. Please identify the 515 counties that would violate a

0.070 ppm standard, and the expected time needed for

attainment.

b. Please identify the additional 135 counties that would

violate a 0.060 ppm standard, and the expected time needed

for attainment.

4. According to the attached map from EPA's Clean Air

Status Trends Network (CASTNET) 2008 Annual Report, it

appears many areas of the country that do not currently have

ozone monitors would also be likely to violate the new smog

standards, including in very rural and remote areas.

a. How many counties don't currently have ozone monitors?

b. Based on CASTNET data and any other data EPA may have

regarding ozone levels in non-monitored counties, how many

additional counties could be in violation of EPA's proposed

ozone standards if a monitor were present? Please identify

those counties using the CASTNET data and any other data

available, and the expected time needed for attainment.

c. Would there be areas with monitored air quality that

attain the proposed standards but that might nevertheless be

considered to be in ``nonattainment'' because they are in a

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) in which

one monitor or more exceeds the proposed standards?

5. According to the EPA Fact Sheet for the Obama

Administration's proposed ozone standards, the implementation

costs range from $19 to $90 billion annually while EPA

projects the value of the health benefits would range from

$13 to $100 billion per year.

a. What are the primary studies EPA is relying upon in the

development of its health benefits estimates? What are the

major uncertainties in those studies that could affect the

estimates?

b. How many of the health-based studies included in the

criteria document for the proposed ozone standards were based

on statistically significant evidence compared to those

studies that were not?

c. How many of the new health-based studies included in the

provisional assessment for the proposed ozone standards were

based on statistically significant evidence compared to those

studies that were not?

d. Can EPA provide any assurances that the value of the

health benefits will outweigh the implementation costs?

6. Under the Obama Administration's proposed ozone

standards, what control requirements, including offsets,

transportation planning measure or other measures, may apply

to nonattainment areas?

a. It appears the proposed standards would create a

significant number of new nonattainment areas in the Western

United States. How would nonattainment in rural or remote

Western states and tribal lands be addressed?

b. In the event that an area fails to attain any new

standards by the applicable date, what would be the potential

consequences, including any sanctions or penalties?

c. What will happen to states or localities that cannot

come into compliance with the proposed standards because of a

lack of economically or technically feasible technology

necessary to attain compliance?

d. What will happen to states or localities that have

natural background ozone levels, and/or ozone levels due to

transport from outside the United States, that are currently

close to or exceed the new standards?

i. Will such areas be designated as being in nonattainment?

ii. Will EPA require states or localities to attain

standards lower than concentrations below the non-

controllable background levels?

7. Given, as EPA recognizes, that there would be many new

nonattainment areas, does EPA believe it is realistic to

require states to provide recommendations to EPA by January

7, 2011? Is it reasonable to require State Implementation

Plans by December 2013?

a. If EPA believes these deadlines are realistic, please

explain the basis for that conclusion.

8. Does EPA anticipate requiring separate planning

requirements for a seasonable secondary standard if one is

adopted as proposed? How does EPA plan to implement this type

of secondary standard?

9. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential

employment impacts of the proposed standards on specific

sectors of the economy, including the manufacturing and

construction sectors? If yes, please provide copies of such

analyses.

10. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential

relocation of production facilities outside the United States

as a result of implementation of the proposed standards? If

yes, please provide copies of such analyses.

11. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential impacts

of the proposed standards on small businesses? If yes, please

provide copies of such analyses.

If the EPA withholds any documents or information in

response to this letter, please provide a Vaughn Index or log

of the withheld items. The index should list the applicable

question number, a description of the withheld item

(including date of the item), the nature of the privilege or

legal basis for the withholding, and a legal citation for the

withholding claim.

Should you have any questions, please contact Minority

Committee staff.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

Ranking Member.

Michael Burgess,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and

Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the gentleman would reference the cost of asthma inhalers. It was, after all, two Congresses ago where the Environmental Protection Agency actually outlawed the manufacture and sale of over-the-counter asthma inhalers and took them away from those of us who suffer from that disease. And, indeed, losing that over-the- counter option for an over-the-counter epinephrine inhaler for the treatment of asthma as a rescue inhaler, we have, indeed, seen the cost of prescription inhalers quadruple over that time frame.

So, in many ways, as an asthma patient, I hold the EPA directly responsible for my inability to get an inexpensive over-the-counter rescue inhaler. And for many asthma patients, who may find themselves caught short, that means a trip to the emergency room and, probably, a $1,200 or $1,500 event that otherwise could have been solved by a Primatene inhaler that sold two for $16.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The reason is because the manufacture of over-the- counter epinephrine inhalers has been prohibited by the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration.

Number one, it is not germane, and it is more complicated now because the Food and Drug Administration has gotten involved in the process. I wish it were straightforward. It is something I continue to work on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of an important piece of environmental legislation to protect the lives and health of all Americans while providing smart tools to the States to implement the EPA's standards.

I thank my fellow Texan, Pete Olson, for his work on this legislation, which I know affects his district in the Houston area as much as it does mine in the Dallas-Fort Worth region.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on today's rule and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2910.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, introduced by my colleague and friend from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I want to congratulate him for his work on this very important piece of legislation that, in fact, will streamline the permit process for the building of energy infrastructure, which will strengthen our economy, create the jobs that we want, and, in fact, increase our energy security. Very important.

This bill is going to address the critical need to expand and modernize the Nation's natural gas pipeline infrastructure by promoting a more timely and efficient review.

Mr. Chairman, by establishing FERC as the lead agency, this bill is going to bring greater certainty, accountability, and transparency to the siting process for interstate natural gas pipelines. Unfortunately, many important projects have been delayed unnecessarily while waiting for permits from participating agencies, and when siting a pipeline project, multiple permits are always required, permits under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act.

So FERC often coordinates with a variety of Federal, State, and local governments and Indian Tribes to balance a wide range of issues, including the potential impacts on environmental and wildlife resources, land use, and, of course, property rights.

This bill is going to improve the permitting process by strengthening the lead agency role of FERC in further defining the process for participating in Federal and State agencies, and the intent of these provisions is to involve stakeholders sooner so that they can be involved in the setting of the schedule and identify issues of concern earlier in the process.

Further, the legislation requires that agencies conduct their respective reviews concurrently and in conjunction with the project- related review conducted by FERC in compliance with NEPA--in compliance with NEPA.

To be clear, we are not skipping steps, we are just saying that one part of the process shouldn't hold up the entire project if progress can be made on other required permits.

So this bill is going to encourage more timely and efficient reviews, a more robust and reliable energy pipeline system, more affordable energy prices for every American.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas, who has brought this bill before us through the committee process.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why the parliamentarians ruled that the amendments on eminent domain are not applicable here: because they are not germane. Eminent domain is not part of this bill. In fact, the underlying natural gas act requires that eminent domain proceedings, ``shall conform as nearly as may be with the practice and procedure in similar action or proceedings in the courts of the State where the property is situated.''

This doesn't change that, and that is why those eminent domain amendments were not made in order.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I include in the Record three letters in support. The National Electrical

Contractors Association has a letter of support. The National Taxpayers Union has a letter of support, as well as the National Association of Manufacturers.

National Electrical

Contractors Association,

Bethesda, MD, July 18, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the National Electrical

Contractors Association (NECA), I am writing in strong

support of H.R. 2883, Promoting Cross-Border Energy

Infrastructure Act which would establish a more uniform and

transparent approval process for the construction,

connection, operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas

pipelines or electric transmission facilities for the import

or export of oil, natural gas, or electricity. NECA also

supports H.R. 2910, Promoting Interagency Coordination for

Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act, which would help address

the need to modernize the nation's natural gas pipeline

infrastructure by promoting more timely and efficient reviews

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). NECA

believes these critical pieces of legislation will facilitate

construction projects along the United States' borders and

encourage energy independence.

NECA is the nationally recognized voice of the $130 billion

electrical construction industry that brings power, light,

and communication technology to buildings and communities

across the U.S. NECA's national office and its 119 local

chapters are dedicated to enhancing the industry through

continuing education, labor relations, safety codes,

standards development, and government relations. NECA is

committed to advocating for a comprehensive energy policy

that addresses all available opportunities for energy

exploration and independence.

By establishing a more concrete process for the approval of

construction projects to import oil, natural gas, and

electricity, this legislation would create more jobs in the

construction industry while working towards America's energy

independence. Construction along the U.S. border to import

oil, natural gas, and electricity will greatly enhance our

nation's energy security and promote energy independence. It

is clear Congress plays a critical role in streamlining the

approval process and enacting policies that support approval

and construction of energy infrastructure projects. The

benefits of these projects are clear: job creation, energy

security, energy independence, and economic growth; such

construction is in the national interest. NECA strongly

endorses H.R. 2883 and H.R. 2910 and believes that these

bills will deliver many benefits to our nation.

Sincerely,

Marco A. Giamberardino, MPA,

Executive Director, Government Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire if the gentlewoman has any further speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers at this point, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, this streamlines the process. There are still no shortcuts that are here. We require that the agencies work concurrently with each other. At the end of the day, we know that pipelines are literally the safest way to transport whatever it is, oil, gas, to the consumers, and at a lower cost. It is safer and, obviously, helps the most vulnerable with lower costs.

We have literally millions of miles of pipelines. And I would note that we passed major, major bipartisan legislation in several Congresses--it was bipartisan, it was overwhelmingly bipartisan--that President Obama signed into law increasing the safety standards and fines for any new pipelines that are built. Those laws, obviously, stay on the books.

Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. I look forward to the debate on a couple of the amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that all current reviews that we do now for pipeline siting, they all remain in place. None of it goes away. Those same reviews take place.

The gentlewoman's amendment, in our view, is unnecessary because nothing in this legislation would limit environmental protections or affect laws that govern the multiple use of our public lands.

Pipelines, we know, as I said earlier, are the safest, most efficient way to transport energy supplies. The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly support modernizing our infrastructure, including pipelines, to ensure stable, affordable supplies. And I would note, we have millions of miles of pipelines across the country.

So what is the alternative if you don't have a pipeline?

Well, it is going to be more expensive and, frankly, the accident record is not perfect either. It includes rail or truck, often at a higher cost, which then is passed along to those consumers, impacting the most vulnerable the most.

Infrastructure modernization and job growth go hand in hand with environmental and natural resource protection. Investing in our infrastructure is a smart investment for energy security, job growth, manufacturing, and creating the jobs that we want.

Maintaining and expanding these economywide benefits is dependent on a transparent and a predictable regulatory approval of infrastructure projects. That is what the underlying bill does.

This amendment, however, we would view as a step backward. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I again remind my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by saying that we are prepared to accept the amendment. I know that all of us here take pipeline safety very seriously, and certainly since my chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee, we put safety at the forefront of our efforts to modernize our pipeline infrastructure. We passed two major bills that President Obama signed, and I think there may have been maybe a single Member that opposed that legislation over the years, but we care a lot about that.

In the last Congress, we passed the PIPES Act and the FAST Act. Again, major bipartisan initiatives that Mr. Pallone and I worked out that got to President Obama's desk. Each of these two bills took important steps to update our laws to protect against emerging physical attacks as well as cyber attacks, threats to the grid, in our energy delivery systems, including pipelines.

We know that multiple Federal and State agencies have a role to play and an opportunity to lead with that expertise. While the Department of Energy is the lead sector-specific agency for cybersecurity and for the energy sector, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, is responsible for administrating minimum pipeline safety standards, and the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, does monitor threats to our transportation sector. I think that is where the gentleman from Massachusetts is coming from with this amendment.

The amendment, I have got to say, appears to be consistent with current law, while a rigid consultation requirement could end up resulting in delays if the TSA is not able to consult in a timely manner, but, again, the language is ``consult.'' I would hope that that would happen.

The amendment also appears to address pipeline facilities, but it is not clear whether it includes LNG as an example. Given the overlapping nature of Federal and State jurisdiction over pipeline safety, we want to make sure that we are doing it right and that we have got all the tools in the toolbox to make sure that that happens and we don't wonder what would have happened without this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. We are ready to work with him, but certainly, at this point, ready to accept the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding, I believe, that a GAO report has been requested by some of our friends on both sides of the aisle, and we welcome the completion of that report and are anxious to see the result.

Mr. Chairman, again, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, FERC is the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines. We all know that. But there are a number of other Federal and State agencies that also have to issue associated permits for large-scale projects.

Through the FERC prefile process, sponsors engage with landowners, local communities, and government agencies to educate stakeholders and collect the information about the best location for siting that pipeline.

The underlying bill, H.R. 2910, brings much-needed certainty and transparency to the process by encouraging the stakeholders to participate in good faith early in the process. Unfortunately, this amendment, the way that we read it, would create more uncertainty and create more opportunities for delays.

The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly support expanding the infrastructure. Creating the jobs, the pipelines, ensures stable and affordable supplies. Flexibility, affordable, and reliable energy is important for American families and businesses to thrive.

I would note, at this point we still don't have a quorum with FERC, and we want that to change. That will be an issue that goes through the confirmation process in the Senate, but consumers really only benefit from domestic energy if we can get it to them.

Investing in infrastructure is a smart investment, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both this rule and the underlying bill. Instead of coming up with new thoughts or new ideas, here we have another recycled and careless bill that has been through this body before that takes away protections for our sick, for our children, for pregnant women, and for the elderly. It is the wrong way to go for our country.

This bill is called the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, but it is actually a political stunt for a special interest, in this case the oil and gas industry. It will hurt our air, our environment, and, frankly, have a negative impact on the health of Americans. It will increase healthcare costs at a time when healthcare costs are already too high.

We see that, the way the House Republicans are trying to jam through the Affordable Care Act repeal, which I remind my friends passed here in the House. It is only in the Senate where they are finally realizing the error of their ways.

In Colorado, 500,000 people have benefited from the Affordable Care Act, and the number of people without insurance has been cut in half from 6.7 percent to 2.5 percent. Of course, it is not perfect, and I hope that now is an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together, rather than Republicans seeking to go at it alone with a plan that provides less people with healthcare rather than more.

The Affordable Care Act made sure that no one can be denied coverage for a preexisting condition. That benefited over 750,000 people in Colorado, including people with cancer and asthma, the rates of which would both increase if this bill that we are discussing under this rule were to become law. Yes, that is right. More people would suffer from asthma and more people would suffer from cancer if this bill were to pass.

This reckless Republican healthcare bill even eliminated the Prevention and Public Health Fund at the end of fiscal year 2017, slashing funding for the Centers for Disease Control by 12 percent, singling out certain providers, like Planned Parenthood, from even participating in the Medicaid program; preventing patients from receiving preventative care services, like cancer screenings and STD testing and contraceptive care from their provider of choice, often, in many cases, the only provider in town.

So it is no surprise that we have yet another bill that would increase healthcare costs before us, lead to more people having to pay more for what they already have for healthcare.

And here we have a bill that is opposed by the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society. They are all very strongly opposed to this bill. It is why over 700 healthcare professionals signed a letter in opposition to H.R. 806 dated July 17, 2017, which I include in the Record.

July 17, 2017.

Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned physicians,

nurses, environmental health professionals and other health

professionals, urge you to protect our patients' and

communities' health from dangerous air pollution. Please

oppose any legislation or administrative actions that would

block, weaken or delay work to implement and enforce strong

safeguards for healthy air.

Our patients, families, and neighbors need healthy air to

breathe, particularly those who are at greater risk of

getting sick or dying prematurely due to air pollution,

including children, older adults, and people with asthma,

COPD, and heart disease.

Thanks to the Clean Air Act, the United States has made

enormous progress in cleaning up ozone and particle

pollution. The American Lung Association's 2017 ``State of

the Air'' report found that cities across the U.S. have made

continued improvement in reducing these pollutants, with many

reaching their lowest ozone levels yet. However, 125 million

people still live in areas where they are exposed to

unhealthy levels of air pollution.

Clean Air Act protections must continue to be implemented

and enforced to ensure that all Americans have healthy air to

breathe. In addition, evidence shows that climate change will

make it harder to clean up ozone and particle pollution. The

nation must reduce the carbon, methane, and other pollutants

that lead to warmer temperatures, and work to protect our

communities against the many health impacts of climate

change.

As health and medical professionals, we call upon you to

protect the health of our patients and our communities by

opposing measures that would block, weaken, or delay

protections under the Clean Air Act, or other protections

that reduce harmful air pollution and protect public health

from the impacts of climate change. Our communities are

counting on you.

Sincerely,

Alabama

Surya Bhatt, MD; Cindy Blackburn, RN; Ellen Buckner, PhD,

RN, CNE, AE-C; Mark Dransfield, MD; Linda Gibson-Young, PhD,

ARNP; Katherine Herndon, PharmD, BCPS; deNay Kirkpatrick,

DNP, Nurse Practitioner; Kathleen Lovlie, MD; Michael Lyerly,

MD; Marissa Natelson Love, MD; Jessica Nichols, RN, BSN;

Gabriela Oates, PhD; Ashley Thomas, MD; Paula Warren, MD.

Alaska

Owen Hanley, MD; Charles Holyfield, RRT, Director,

Cardiopulmonary Services; Sheila Hurst, Tobacco Treatment

Specialist; Elaine Phillips, FNP; Melinda Rathkopf, MD; Jill

Valerius, MD, ABIHM, IFMCP, ATC.

Arizona

Michelle Dorsey, MD; Mark Mabry, RN; Marsha Presley, PhD.

Arkansas

Marsha Scullark, MPS.

California

Jennifer Abraham, MD; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH; Ellen Aiken,

MD, MPH; Mark Andrade, RCP, RRT, AE-C; Devin Arias, MPH; Ed

Avol, Professor, Dept of Preventive Medicine; Ardel Ayala,

RRT; Julia Barnes, MPH, Community Engagement Manager; Laura

Barrera, RRT; John Basile, RRT; Bruce Bekkar, MD; Eugene

Belogorsky, MD; Simone Bennett, MD; Amir Berjis, MD; Robert

Bernstein, MD; Robert Blount, MD; Coletta Boone, RCP; Amy

Brendel, MD; Lisa Caine, RCP.

Donna Carr, MD; Cherise Charleswell, MPH; Jiu-Chivan Chen,

MD, MPH, ScD; Sharon Chinthrajah, MD; David T. Cooke, MD;

Pamela Dannenberg, RN, COHN-S, CAE; John Davis, RN, FNP-BC;

Sara DeLaney, RN, MSN, MPH; Athony DeRiggi, MD; Maria Diaz,

RN, BSN; Ralph DiLibero, MD; Jacquolyn Duerr, MPH; Marsha

Eptein, MD; Enza Esposito Nguyen, RN, MSN, ANP-BC; Shohreh

Farzan, PhD; Bennett Feinberg, MD; Amber Fitzsimmons, PT;

Catherine Forest, MD, MPH; Vanessa Garcia, RN, PHN; Frank

Gilliland, MD, PhD.

Robert M Gould, MD; Jim Grizzell, MBA, MA, MCHES(R), ACSM-

EP; Kevin Hamilton, RRT; Stephen Hansen, MD, FACP; Catherine

Harrison, RN, MPH; Marie Hoemke, RN, PHN, MPA, MA; Mark

Horton, MD; Mary

Hunsader, RN, MSN, CNS, AE-C; Harriet Ingram, RN, BS; Karen

Jakpor, MD, MPH; Martin Joye, MD; Magie Karla, RD; Lynn

Kersey, MA, MPH, CLE; Ellen Levine, PhD, MPH; Rita Lewis, RN,

PHN; Erica Lipanovich, PA-C; Shanna Livermore, MPH, MCHES;

Cynthia Mahoney, MD; Michael Maiman, MD; Atashi Mandal, MD;

Futernick Marc, MD.

Margie Matsui, RN, CRRN, COHN-S, FAAOHN; Rob McConnell, MD;

DeAnn McEwen, MSN, RN; Ellen McKnight, NP; Robert Meagher,

MD; Louis Menachof, MD; Deb Messina-Kleinman, MPH; Jennifer

Miller, PhD,; Anthony Molina, MD; Janice Murota, MD; Gretchen

Nelson, FNP; Wendy Oshima, Health professional; Frances

Owens, RRT; Sonal Patel, MD; David Pepper, MD; Tamanna

Rahman, MPH; Wendy Ring, MD, MPH; Brenda Rios, FNP; Linda

Rudolph, MD, MPH; Cindy Russell, MD.

Sunil Saini, MD; Hannah Shrieve-Lawler, MSN, RN, PHN, RYT;

Susan Smith, RRT, RCP; Rhonda Spencer-Hwang, DrPH, MPH; Sue

Stone, MD; Mary Anne Tablizo, MD; Neeta Thakur, MD; Duncan

Thomas, PhD, Professor; Laura Van Winkle, PhD; Jose Vempilly,

MD; Li-hsia Wang, MD, FAAP; Kinari Webb, MD; Ruggeri Wendy,

MD; Jan Wicklas, RCP; Shirley Windsor, RRT; Dan Woo, MPH,

Public Health Professional; Kuo Liang Yu, MD; Marcela Yu,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on the promise of job creation; however, his budget paints a starkly

different and darker picture. It cuts job training programs by 39 percent. It would lead to massive job losses with its cuts. In this body, we talk a little about jobs, but we are 7 months into the 115th Congress and have failed to pass any major jobs bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I have an amendment in my hand that will generate thousands of American jobs.

When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative DeFazio's bipartisan bill, H.R. 2510, the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act. The bill will create thousands of new American jobs through increased investment in our Nation's wastewater infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, I know my friend actually has a bill on the topic of the asthma inhalers, and I can tell you, if this bill becomes law, we will need all the asthma inhalers we can get, so I think your bill will have to go through.

I would like to inquire of the gentleman why your asthma inhaler bill isn't included in this package, since we will need to sell more asthma inhalers if the rest of the bill goes through?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Did the gentleman consider offering that as an amendment to this bill, your other bill, to allow the sale of those asthma inhalers?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, our Rules Committee can waive germaneness. But it would be an appropriate bill to include, as Mr. DeFazio pointed out, ironically, there are some jobs that this bill will create: people selling oxygen on the street, pulmonologists, and, yes, asthma inhalers because more people will suffer from asthma, and kids with asthma won't be able to spend as much quality time outside if this bill were to become law.

Instead of continuing this kind of work that raises healthcare costs, and increases asthma and cancer, we should be focusing on issues that create jobs we want. We don't want the air to be so bad that there is somebody selling oxygen canisters on the street.

We want jobs in renewable energy and making our air cleaner, in new forms of energy efficiency and bringing down people's utility bills because we use less energy. That is what excites people and that is what is good for our air.

Instead of focusing on those kinds of needs or, God forbid, shrinking the deficit or halting the handout of subsidies to special interests, they are talking about ideas here like this, that further diminish our standing as a world leader and further diminish what makes America special and our quality of life.

I hope all Members look in the mirror and think about our health, the health of our children, the health of our elderly relatives, and those most at risk. And we ask: How would this bill affect them?

The answer is obvious. It only serves to hurt them. It only serves to make people sicker. It only serves to increase costs, destroy economic value, and create additional risk for our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.