Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of our subcommittee for his kind remarks.

Once again, the House is considering a bill to undermine one of our most successful public health and environmental laws, the Clean Air Act. And clean air isn't a luxury, it is a necessity.

Before the Clean Air Act became law 43 years ago, thousands of Americans experienced the consequences of unhealthy air, respiratory disease, severe asthma attacks, and premature deaths. This landmark legislation, for the first time, ensured that hazardous air pollution would be controlled.

But in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the success of this law and its many vital public health benefits, the Clean Air Act continues to be a favorite target for my Republican colleagues. This bill, H.R. 4775, is, unfortunately, the latest in an ongoing attempt to undermine the progress we have made on cleaning the air and protecting public health.

The bill's sponsors claim their goal is to help States to implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the EPA, yet this bill fails to provide the one thing that would be most helpful to States in their efforts to implement air quality standards, and that is additional resources.

In fact, Chairman Whitfield will be offering an amendment to the bill to ensure that EPA receives no additional funding to implement the provisions of this legislation, or any of the requirements under existing law.

H.R. 4775 is not a package of minor changes to minor provisions of the Clean Air Act. These changes are radical revisions intended to roll back the progress we have made in public health. This bill alters the fundamental premise of the act, that standards should be set to ensure the air is safe and healthy to breathe.

H.R. 4775 would bring economic costs, technological feasibility, and other non-risk factors into the standard-setting process.

These things are important, to be sure, and that is why they are already considered when the States develop their plans to achieve the health-based standards set by EPA, and that is appropriate. They should, however, never come into play in setting these standards.

Let's just use technology as an example. Technology is always evolving. What is technologically feasible today does not define what is possible tomorrow. For example, air pollution from automobile emissions was recognized as a serious problem in southern California as early as 1959. At that time, there were no pollution-control devices for cars. Auto manufacturers said that it couldn't be done, the technology was impossible, and that even if it were possible, it would be far too expensive. But California passed laws requiring pollution control anyway.

We all know the rest of the story: it was not impossible or prohibitively expensive. People still bought cars. And we have cleaner, more efficient cars today because regulation pushed technology forward. The only reason to make technological feasibility a factor in setting the standard is to avoid setting the standard, and that is the goal of the supporters of this legislation.

The history of the Clean Air Act is one of great success: the economy has continued to grow; the air has gotten cleaner; and most importantly, public health has improved.

So, Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues refuse to accept the fact that we can continue to improve the air, have a vibrant economy, and give everyone the opportunity for a long and healthy life. So I urge my colleagues to reject the false choice between jobs and clean air. The fact is that we can have both.

H.R. 4775 is a dangerous bill, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on increased ozone pollution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward, and it fixes one of the most egregious provisions in the bill: the consideration of technological feasibility in the NAAQS-setting process. The bill's approach would make feasibility a factor in the scientific decision about how much pollution is safe for a child to breathe without experiencing an asthma attack.

Requiring the EPA to consider technological feasibility when setting an air quality standard is a dangerous precedent that ignores the history of the Clean Air Act. Frankly, it is not even necessary. Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has had several key features that have helped make it one of the most successful environmental laws in our country. The law's science-based, health-protective standards keep our eye on the prize, which is healthy air for everyone. Cooperative federalism allows the EPA to set the clean air goals and States to then decide how best to achieve them.

The Clean Air Act uses regulatory standards, like the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, to drive technological innovation in pollution controls. The act recognizes that it is usually less costly to simply dump pollution rather than to clean it up, so businesses generally don't control pollution absent regulatory requirements.

We know from decades of experience that the Clean Air Act drives innovations in pollution controls that then become the industry standard. Once an air pollution standard is in place, industry gets to work to meet it, and, along the way, we develop more effective and less expensive pollution control technologies. Not only is our air cleaner, but we also export tens of millions of dollars of pollution control equipment all over the world. We have seen that happen over and over again.

Mr. Chair, section 3(b) ignores this fact and rejects an approach that has been successful for over four decades; so my amendment would restore current law, preserving the NAAQS as purely health-based standards and leaving the consideration of costs and feasibility to the States. If you truly believe that this bill is not an attack on the Clean Air Act and its critical public health protection, then supporting my amendment should not be a problem.

In closing, almost every time the EPA proposes a significant new requirement, opponents tell us it can't be done, that it is going to cost too much, or that it will destroy our economy. The Republicans are once again raising the false specter of job losses and high economic costs to try to block the implementation of stronger ozone standards. These doomsday claims about the costs of clean air are nothing new. The history of the Clean Air Act is a history of exaggerated claims by industry that have never come true.

Section 3(b) is just the latest in a string of reckless legislative attacks on these purely health-based air quality standards, which could unravel the entire framework of the Clean Air Act. It ignores decades of experience in cleaning up air pollution, and it is an extreme and, in my opinion, irresponsible proposal that would put the health of all Americans at risk. I urge the adoption of my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I have listened to what the gentleman has said. It seems to me that he is essentially making an argument as to why we don't need this change. If he is saying that the underlying bill--the current law, the current statute--allows for the consideration of technological feasibility and if we know that the Clean Air Act has essentially worked in protecting the environment and in putting health as a priority with these other issues as simply being something that can be considered and, as I said, is considered when the States actually decide how to carry out the law, then I do not understand why he finds it necessary to change the law, say, with regard to this issue.

It seems to me that the argument you are making, which is that this is already something that can be considered but is not a priority-- health being the priority--would negate the very need for the legislation and support the amendment that I am putting forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, on its face, Mr. Gosar's amendment seems innocuous enough, having EPA also consider the contribution of wildfires in the bill's required study on ozone formation, wintertime ozone formation, and control strategies. But in reality, this study is a wolf in sheep's clothing. So adding further criteria, as this amendment would do, only makes it worse.

First, many of the aspects of this proposed study are already covered by EPA's integrated science assessment. Integrated science assessments are reports that represent concise evaluations and synthesis of the most policy-relevant science for reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Essentially, these assessments form the scientific foundation for the review of the NAAQ Standards. All integrated science assessments are vetted through a rigorous peer-review process, including review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and public comment periods.

Furthermore, the EPA is already doing a comprehensive review of wildfires and ozone, so additional study of this issue is not necessary, in my opinion.

But this study is more than a duplication of work already being done, Mr. Chairman. The bill would inject costs into this scientific review process by requiring the assessment of cost-effective control strategies to reduce ozone. While this is certainly worthy as an issue to review, EPA's scientific assessments are the wrong venue for such a discussion.

Requiring EPA to do additional assessments of cost-effective control strategies would, of course, pull the Agency's limited staff and resources away from the public health priorities of implementing and reviewing the NAAQ Standards in a timely manner outlined in the Clean Air Act. When viewed in connection with the other provisions of this bill, like the requirement that implementing regulations and guidance must be issued concurrently with an air quality standard for preconstruction permits, expanding this study would only serve to further delay implementation of the 2015 ozone standard.

The 2015 ozone NAAQS update is long overdue, and the bill before us doesn't need any further procedural hoops for EPA to jump through before a more protective ozone standard can be put into effect.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Polis amendment. It is common sense, and it certainly improves the bill in the way that Mr. Polis set forth.

I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source