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






                                 ______


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

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 11, 2025

                               __________

                           Serial No. 119-26
                           
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILANLE IN TIFF FORMAT
                        
                           
                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        ___________
                        
               U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
                          WASHINGTON : 2026                     
     60-976                              
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

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

                           Professional Staff

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

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

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

                               Witnesses

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

                              Legislation

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

                           Submitted Material

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

----------

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

----------

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


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

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 STATEMENT OF CHAD S. WHITEMAN

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

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

              STATEMENT OF JAMES W. BOYLAN, Ph.D.

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

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

                   STATEMENT OF JOHN D. WALKE

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

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

                     STATEMENT OF PAUL NOE

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

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

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

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