Hearing of the House Environment Subcommittee of the Science, Space and Technology Committee - Reality Check Part II: The Impact of EPA's Proposed Ozone Standards on Rural America

Hearing

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
EPA's proposal to lower the current ozone standard to somewhere in the range of 65 to 70 parts
per billion.

At a hearing last month on this very topic one of the witnesses before the Committee, Dr. Mary
Rice, stated that "the [scientific] evidence available seven years ago…has been supplemented by
an even greater understanding of the health effects of ozone exposure, including greater
exacerbation of respiratory disease in infants and children, worse lung function in healthy adults
and those with lung disease…and increased mortality in adults."

In addition to the adverse public health effects of ozone, we will also hear today about how high
levels of ozone negatively affect vegetation and ecosystems. For example, more than 40 years of
research shows that long-term ozone exposure results in decreased forest productivity and
diminished crop yields.

Representing a state where agriculture is a critical economic driver, I take very seriously the
negative effects of ozone on forests and crops. Specifically, an analysis by the EPA states that
high levels of ozone may "reduce the value of a whole tree such as Christmas trees." This is
important to my constituents because Oregon is the number one producer of Christmas trees in
the nation. All in all, agricultural production accounts for over $5 billion dollars toward Oregon's
economy.

Furthermore, the Clean Air Act, as passed by Congress, explicitly prohibits the EPA from
considering cost when setting an ozone standard. Congress purposefully put the health and wellbeing
of Americans first. Now, more than ever, the American people need a strong EPA to
protect their right to clean air and water.

Some will likely argue today that implementing a lower ozone standard is not worth it -- that it
will kill jobs and the economy. There is much more evidence showing that on balance, jobs are
created and the economy expands following the passage of major environmental reforms. For
example, in a report to Congress on the costs and benefits of federal regulations, OMB estimated
that major rules promulgated by the EPA between 2003 and 2013 had benefits between $165
billion and $850 billion, compared to costs of just $38 billion to $46 billion. Such a significant
return on investment should prove the obvious: that when the environment is healthy, the
economy is healthy.

Let me be clear, I am sensitive to the concerns we will likely hear today. In fact, in my home
state of Oregon we recognize the challenges associated with implementing a more stringent
standard. Wildfires and the long-range shifting of ozone from Asia will need to be addressed if
we are to achieve a lower standard. That said, comments submitted by my home state indicate
Oregon's support for the EPA's proposal. Specifically, a letter from David Collier, the Air
Quality Manager at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality states that "Oregon
welcomes EPA's proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS [pronounced NACKS], based on advice
provided by the Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee, in order to provide the adequate
protection to human health and welfare."

Although significant progress has been made in the past 40 years, it is our job to build upon this
legacy and ensure that we continue to improve the quality of our air. A strong economy and a
healthy environment are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended lowering the ozone standard to
between 60 and 70 parts per billion in 2008. They disagreed with the standard set by the Bush
Administration of 75 parts per billion, stating it was not "sufficiently protective of public health."

We should listen to our scientists and our public health professionals and set a standard that is
based on the best available science. I am confident in the ingenuity of Americans to address
these challenges. We can and must do better for current and future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you to our witnesses for being here this afternoon. I
yield back the balance of my time.

Source