[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REALITY CHECK PART II:
THE IMPACT OF EPA'S PROPOSED
OZONE STANDARDS ON RURAL AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
APRIL 29, 2015
----------
Serial No. 114-17
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
REALITY CHECK PART II:
THE IMPACT OF EPA'S PROPOSED
OZONE STANDARDS ON RURAL AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 29, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-222 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. ZOE LOFGREN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY WEBER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan AMI BERA, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas DON S. BEYER, Jr., Virginia
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
C O N T E N T S
April 29, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
The Honorable Jim Reese, Secretary and Commissioner of
Agriculture, Oklahoma State Board of Agriculture
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Ms. Cara Keslar, Monitoring Section Supervisor, Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Dr. Paul J. Miller, Deputy Director and Chief Scientist,
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Mr. Kevin Abernathy, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Milk
Producers Council; Vice Chair, Dairy
Oral Statement............................................... 46
Written Statement............................................ 48
The Honorable Todd Hiett, Commissioner, Oklahoma Corporation
Commission
Oral Statement............................................... 93
Written Statement............................................ 95
Discussion....................................................... 103
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Jim Reese, Secretary and Commissioner of
Agriculture, Oklahoma State Board of Agriculture............... 114
Ms. Cara Keslar, Monitoring Section Supervisor, Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division...... 116
Mr. Kevin Abernathy, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Milk
Producers Council; Vice Chair, Dairy........................... 120
The Honorable Todd Hiett, Commissioner, Oklahoma Corporation
Commission..................................................... 127
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 132
Documents submitted by Representative Frank Lucus, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 133
Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 158
Documents submitted Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 495
REALITY CHECK PART II:
THE IMPACT OF EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE
STANDARDS ON RURAL AMERICA
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:37 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim
Bridenstine [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. The Subcommittee on Environment will
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to
declare recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Reality Check Part
II: The Impact of EPA's Proposed Ozone Standards on Rural
America.''
Without objection, our colleague from California, Mr.
Valadao, is authorized to participate in today's hearing.
I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
It is Congress' responsibility to provide oversight of the
executive branch, and that means we must carefully review the
impact and achievability of this proposed regulation. I am
deeply concerned lowering the standards at this time will have
a negative impact, particularly on rural America.
Ozone levels and emissions of volatile organic compounds
have significantly decreased over the past few decades.
Furthermore, according to EPA's own data, their ``projections
show the vast majority of U.S. counties would meet the proposed
standards by 2025 just with the rules and programs now in place
or under way.'' In other words, ozone levels will continue to
decrease without doing anything else.
However, it is concerning that the EPA is moving the
goalposts and proposing to tighten the standards without first
fully implementing the existing 2008 standard. The guidance for
state implementation plans was only released earlier this year
by the EPA. States have not even been given a chance to comply
with the existing standard.
Last month, the Full Committee held a hearing to examine
this complicated and massive regulation that will impact almost
every sector of the American economy and individual in the
United States. According to Dr. Allen Lefohn, who testified in
last month's hearing, it is his expert opinion that the EPA
Administrator is relying solely on one 2009 study of 31
participants in order to scientifically justify the costliest
regulation in the history of this country.
Just so everyone understands how massive this rule is, a
February 2015 analysis by NERA Economic Consulting finds that
GDP will be reduced by $1.7 trillion between 2017 and 2040, our
economy will have 1.4 million fewer jobs, and households will
lose an average of $830 per year.
Another troubling issue is one of natural or background
ozone. With these low proposed standards, background ozone may
become the main contributor to exceedances of the standard all
across the United States. States will be held responsible for
factors outside their control.
According to the Western States Air Resources Council,
there are numerous national parks in the western United States
with ozone monitors that regularly record concentrations which
exceed the proposed range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, and
some that even exceed the existing 75 parts-per-billion
standard. As this figure shows--you can see up on the screen
there--monitored ozone levels at rural sites in the West have
stayed relatively flat. It is possible that all 11 of these
areas would be considered in nonattainment under this new
proposal. This would include Yellowstone National Park. There
is no way this was Congress' intent when it passed the Clean
Air Act over four decades ago.
Two sectors of the economy will be heavily impacted by this
rule are agriculture and transportation. These are incredibly
vital to my home State of Oklahoma, and I look forward to
discussing more in detail with our witnesses.
Rural areas, like a lot of my state, will be especially hit
hard by the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity
requirements. A classification of nonattainment would mean that
the Federal Government can withhold Federal highway funds for
projects and plans if the individual projects do not meet
specific emissions and air quality standards. They're talking
about withholding Federal highway funds to my State of
Oklahoma. Currently, we're in attainment, and while we're in
attainment, we're still reducing our ozone. And now they're
going to change the goalposts, move the goalposts, and then
they're going to potentially withhold Federal highway funds.
Those who bear a regulation's compliance costs may also
suffer a decline in their health status, and these increased
risks might be greater than the direct benefits of the
regulation. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the EPA did
not include premature deaths and increased mortality caused by
the loss of disposable income when considering this proposed
rule.
Low-income Americans and senior citizens living on fixed
incomes may be forced to choose between medications, food, or
paying for heat and electricity. This is a continuation of this
Administration's ``war on the poor,'' to go along with the
Clean Power Plan and other existing and proposed EPA
regulations.
Supporters of the EPA's agenda will say opposition amounts
to opposing clean air. This could not be further from the
truth. My home state is in attainment, and has been for years,
and even still, efforts are being made to further reduce ozone
and other emissions. I am extremely proud of the work done by
our state and local leaders. Even with their efforts, a new
rule would plunge many areas into nonattainment.
This is all the more reason why any proposed rule should
not be decided in a hasty and hurried manner, especially since
the impact of this rule will be widespread and affect every
American.
I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this
afternoon and I look forward to hearing from you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment
Chairman Jim Bridenstine
Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's hearing entitled:
``Reality Check Part II: The Impact of EPA's Proposed Ozone Standards
on Rural America''
It is Congress' responsibility to provide oversight of the
executive branch, and that means we must carefully review the impact
and achievability of this proposed regulation. I am deeply concerned
lowering the standards at this time will have a negative impact,
particularly on rural America.
Ozone levels and emissions of volatile organic compounds have
significantly decreased over the past few decades. Furthermore,
according to EPA's own data, their ``projections show the vast majority
of U.S. counties would meet the proposed standards by 2025 just with
the rules and programs now in place or under way.'' In other words,
ozone levels will continue decreasing without doing anything else.
However, it is concerning that the EPA is moving the goalposts and
proposing to tighten the standards without first fully implementing the
existing 2008 standard. The guidance for state implementation plans was
only released earlier this year by the EPA. States have not even been
given a chance to comply with the existing standard.
Last month, the Full Committee held a hearing to examine this
complicated and massive regulation that will impact almost every sector
and individual in the United States. According to Dr. Allen Lefohn, who
testified at last month's hearing, it is his expert opinion that the
EPA Administrator is relying solely on one 2009 study of 31
participants in order to scientifically justify the costliest
regulation in the history of this country.
Just so everyone understands how massive this rule is, a February
2015 analysis by NERA Economic Consulting finds that GDP will be
reduced by $1.7 trillion between 2017 and 2040, our economy will have
1.4 million less jobs, and households will lose an average of $830 per
year.
Another troubling issue is one of natural or background ozone. With
these low proposed standards, background ozone may become the main
contributor to exceedances of the standard all across the United
States. States will be held responsible for factors outside of their
control.
According to the Western States Air Resources Council, there are
numerous national parks in the western United States with ozone
monitors that regularly record concentrations which exceed the proposed
range of 65-70 parts per billion, and some that even exceed the
existing 75 ppb standard. As this figure shows (FIGURE 1), monitored
ozone levels at rural sites in the west have stayed relatively flat. It
is possible that all 11 of these areas would be considered in non-
attainment under this new proposal. This would include Yellowstone
National Park! There is no way this was Congress' intent when it passed
the Clean Air Act over four decades ago.
Two sectors of the economy that will be heavily impacted by this
rule are agriculture and transportation. These are incredibly vital to
my home state of Oklahoma, and I look forward to discussing more in
detail with our witnesses.
Rural areas, like a lot of my state, will be especially hit hard by
the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity requirements. A
classification of non-attainment would mean that the federal government
can withhold federal highway funds for projects and plans if the
individual projects do not meet specific emissions and air quality
standards.
Those who bear a regulation's compliance costs may also suffer a
decline in their health status, and these increased risks might be
greater than the direct benefits of the regulation. Unfortunately, but
not surprisingly, the EPA did not include premature deaths and
increased mortality caused by the loss of disposable income when
considering this proposed rule.
Low-income Americans and senior citizens living on fixed incomes
may be forced to choose between medications, food, or paying for heat
and electricity. This is a continuation of this administration's ``war
on the poor,'' to go along with the Clean Power Plan and other existing
and proposed EPA regulations.
Supporters of the EPA's agenda will say opposition amounts to
opposing clean air. This could not be farther from the truth. My home
state is in attainment, and has been for years, and even still, efforts
are being made to further reduce ozone and other emissions. I am
extremely proud of the work done by our state and local leaders. Even
with their efforts, a new rule would plunge many areas into
nonattainment. This is all the more reason why any proposed rule should
not be decided in a hasty and hurried manner, especially since the
impact of this rule will be widespread and affect every American.
I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this afternoon and
I look forward to hearing from you.
Chairman Bridenstine. I now recognize the Ranking Member,
the gentlewoman from Oregon, my friend, Suzanne Bonamici, for
an opening statement.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
EPA's proposal to lower the current ozone standard to somewhere
in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion.
I do want to apologize in advance; I'm going to need to
step out of some point for a meeting. I thought I had things
perfectly timed and then they called votes and we're getting a
late start, so my apologies. It does not indicate a lack of
interest in this important issue.
At a hearing last month on this very topic, one of the
witnesses before the Committee, Dr. Mary Rice, stated that,
``the scientific evidence available seven years ago . . . has
been supplemented by an even greater understanding of the
health effects of ozone exposure, including greater
exacerbations of respiratory disease in infants and children,
worse lung function in healthy adults and those with lung
disease, . . . and increased mortality in adults.''
In addition to the adverse public health effects of ozone,
we'll also hear today about how high levels of ozone negatively
affect vegetation and ecosystems. For example, more than 40
years of research shows that long-term ozone exposure results
in decreased forest productivity and diminished crop yields.
Representing a state where agriculture is a critical economic
driver, I take very seriously the negative effects of ozone on
forest and crops.
Specifically, an analysis by the EPA states that high
levels of ozone may reduce the value of a whole tree such as
Christmas trees. Now, Oregon is the number one producer of
Christmas trees in the Nation. All in all, agricultural
production accounts for over $5 billion towards Oregon's
economy.
Furthermore, the Clean Air Act, as passed by Congress,
explicitly prohibits EPA from considering cost when setting at
ozone standard. Congress purposely put the health and well-
being of Americans first. Now more than ever the American
people need a strong EPA to protect their right to clean air
and water.
Some will argue today that implementing a lower ozone
standard is not worth it, that it will kill jobs and the
economy. Now, there is much more evidence showing that on
balance, jobs are created and the economy expands following the
passage of major environmental reforms. For example, in a
report to Congress on the cost and benefit of Federal
regulations, OMB estimated that major rules promulgated by the
EPA between 2003 and 2013 in that decade had benefits between
$165 billion and $850 billion compared to costs of $38 billion
to $46 billion. Such a significant return on investment should
prove the obvious, that when the environment is healthy, the
economy is healthy.
Let me be clear. I'm sensitive to the concerns we'll likely
hear today. In fact, my home State of Oregon, we recognize the
challenges associated with implementing a more stringent
standard. Wildfires and the long-range shifting of ozone from
Asia will need to be addressed if we're to achieve a lower
standard.
That said, comments submitted by my home State indicate
Oregon's support for the EPA's proposal. A letter from David
Collier, the Air Quality Manager at the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, our DEQ, states that ``Oregon welcomes
EPA's proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS based on advice
provided by the Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee in
order to provide adequate protection to human health and
welfare.''
Although significant progress has been made in the past 40
years, it is our job to build upon this legacy and ensure that
we continue to improve the quality of our air. A strong economy
and help the environment are not mutually exclusive. We can
have both.
The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee recommended in
2008 lowering the ozone standard to between 60 to 70 parts per
billion. They disagreed with the standards set previously of 75
parts per billion, stating it was not sufficiently protective
of public health. We should listen to our scientists and our
public health professionals and set a standard that is based on
the best available science. I'm confident in the ingenuity of
Americans to address these challenges. We can and must do
better for current and future generations.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you to our
witnesses for being here this afternoon. I look forward to your
testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Oversight
Minority Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here today to discuss the EPA's proposal to lower the current ozone
standard to somewhere in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion.
At a hearing last month on this very topic one of the witnesses
before the Committee, Dr. Mary Rice, stated that ``the [scientific]
evidence available seven years ago . . . has been supplemented by an
even greater understanding of the health effects of ozone exposure,
including greater exacerbation of respiratory disease in infants and
children, worse lung function in healthy adults and those with lung
disease . . . and increased mortality in adults.''
In addition to the adverse public health effects of ozone, we will
also hear today about how high levels of ozone negatively affect
vegetation and ecosystems. For example, more than 40 years of research
shows that long-term ozone exposure results in decreased forest
productivity and diminished crop yields.
Representing a state where agriculture is a critical economic
driver, I take very seriously the negative effects of ozone on forests
and crops. Specifically, an analysis by the EPA states that high levels
of ozone may ``reduce the value of a whole tree such as Christmas
trees.'' This is important to my constituents because Oregon is the
number one producer of Christmas trees in the nation. All in all,
agricultural production accounts for over $5 billion dollars toward
Oregon's economy.
Furthermore, the Clean Air Act, as passed by Congress, explicitly
prohibits the EPA from considering cost when setting an ozone standard.
Congress purposefully put the health and wellbeing of Americans first.
Now, more than ever, the American people need a strong EPA to protect
their right to clean air and water.
Some will likely argue today that implementing a lower ozone
standard is not worth it--that it will kill jobs and the economy. There
is much more evidence showing that on balance, jobs are created and the
economy expands following the passage of major environmental reforms.
For example, in a report to Congress on the costs and benefits of
federal regulations, OMB estimated that major rules promulgated by the
EPA between 2003 and 2013 had benefits between $165 billion and $850
billion, compared to costs of just $38 billion to $46 billion. Such a
significant return on investment should prove the obvious: that when
the environment is healthy, the economy is healthy.
Let me be clear, I am sensitive to the concerns we will likely hear
today. In fact, in my home state of Oregon we recognize the challenges
associated with implementing a more stringent standard. Wildfires and
the long-range shifting of ozone from Asia will need to be addressed if
we are to achieve a lower standard. That said, comments submitted by my
home state indicate Oregon's support for the EPA's proposal.
Specifically, a letter from David Collier, the Air Quality Manager at
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality states that ``Oregon
welcomes EPA's proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS [pronounced NACKS],
based on advice provided by the Clean Air Act Science Advisory
Committee, in order to provide the adequate protection to human health
and welfare.''
Although significant progress has been made in the past 40 years,
it is our job to build upon this legacy and ensure that we continue to
improve the quality of our air. A strong economy and a healthy
environment are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended lowering
the ozone standard to between 60 and 70 parts per billion in 2008. They
disagreed with the standard set by the Bush Administration of 75 parts
per billion, stating it was not ``sufficiently protective of public
health.'' We should listen to our scientists and our public health
professionals and set a standard that is based on the best available
science. I am confident in the ingenuity of Americans to address these
challenges. We can and must do better for current and future
generations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you to our witnesses for
being here this afternoon. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Bridenstine. I would like to thank the Ranking
Member for her opening statements.
We'll now introduce the witnesses. I will yield to the
gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, to introduce our first
witness, the Hon. Jim Reese, Secretary and Commissioner of
Agriculture for the Oklahoma State Board of Agriculture.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to introduce my old colleague from my state
legislative days.
The Secretary acts as Governor Fallin's Chief Advisor on
Policy Development and Implementation related to agriculture,
food, and forestry issues. Reese grew up on a wheat and dairy
farm--you never mentioned that in the past, Jim is still a
wheat farmer near Nardin, Oklahoma, to this very day, a fellow
who has a lifetime of experiences in dealing with the issues
that we're talking about here.
He served in the Oklahoma House of Representatives from
1987 to 2001. After that, he was Executive Director of the USDA
Farm Service Agency in Oklahoma, a bachelor's degree from
Oklahoma State University in engineering technology, a fellow
who lives it, does it, understands it, and I appreciate that,
and it's a pleasure to have him here today, my old mentor from
legislative days.
And, Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me for one further
moment, without objection, I'd like to introduce the following
ten documents into the record, including comments from the
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, the
California Farm Bureau Federation, the Georgia Farm Bureau, the
Iowa Farm Bureau, the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Michigan Farm
Bureau, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, South Dakota Farm Bureau, and
the Texas Farm Bureau. And I'd also like to submit comments
from Mr. Howard Pearl, who's a small business and farm operator
in New Hampshire who runs Pearl & Sons Farm, LLC.
As a former Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I
am very sensitive to what's going on in this area and would
note if nothing else perhaps we should have finished
implementing the 2008 standards before we moved on to something
else.
With that, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to
submit these letters to the Committee.
Chairman Bridenstine. Without objection, they will be
included in the record.
[The appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Bridenstine. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
Chairman Bridenstine. Roger that. The gentleman yields
back.
Our next witness is Ms. Cara Keslar, Monitoring Section
Supervisor for the Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality's Air Quality Division. Ms. Keslar has 18 years of
experience in the environmental field, including 13 years in
the Air Quality Division. Ms. Keslar has a bachelor's degree in
chemical engineering from Clarkson University and a master's
degree in environmental and occupational health from the
University of Illinois at Chicago.
Our next witness is Dr. Paul Miller, Deputy Director and
Chief Scientist for Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management, NESCAUM, a nonprofit association providing
scientific, technical, analytical, and policy support to the
air quality and climate programs of eight Northeast States.
Before joining NESCAUM, Dr. Miller was a senior fellow at
Princeton University's Center for Energy and Environmental
Studies and a National Research Council Associate at the Joint
Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics at the University of
Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Miller has a Ph.D. in chemical physics
from Yale University and a J.D. from Stanford University.
I will now yield to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Valadao, to introduce our next witness, Mr. Kevin Abernethy,
the Director of Regulatory Affairs for the Milk Producers
Council, and the Vice Chair of Dairy CARES.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to come and spent some time in your committee and
introduce a personal friend.
As many of you know, I am a dairy farmer from Hanford,
California, and I've watched the industry struggle for many
years trying to survive under these regulations. And the
frustrating thing is when you see how the impact has really
changed the dairy world. It's forced all the smallest of our
producers, those who are just starting out, those who are
trying to get into the business, it's basically prevented them
from actually ever being successful because of the cost. It's
typically the larger farmers who've been around a lot longer
that have the ability and the financial ability to actually
hire the engineers, hire the consultants, and hire all the
crews they need just to survive.
But Kevin Abernathy I've known for long time as my time at
California Dairy Campaign. I was actually the Vice Chairman.
And through that whole process of watching all these
regulations start to be implemented, Kevin has always been
someone that's spent a lot of time not just in an office
pushing papers but actually out in the field working with the
dairymen, looking for ways to make sure that we do our job for
the environment but at the same time do it in a way that
actually makes sense, that is actually doing what it's supposed
to do on the environmental side but also have the ability
that's feasible that a business owner can do it, and to make
sure that the regulators understand what they're doing.
He's on the USDA Agriculture Air Quality Task Force, San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Districts, Dairy Producer
Advisory Group. He's on the Central California Ozone Policy
Committee, California Department of Food and Ag. He's got a few
committees that he sits on as well, and obviously, like you
mentioned earlier, Chairman, the Dairy Community Alliance for
Responsible Environmental Stewardship.
His background, animal husbandry over at Fresno State, so a
good local Central California school, and he's been an expert
that we've always leaned on to make sure that we have great
representation in the dairy business so that our farmers have a
fair shot at survival in producing food for our nation.
So again, thank you, Kevin, for being here, and thank you,
Chairman. And I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the gentleman from
California for his great introduction.
Our final witness is Hon. Todd Hiett, Commissioner of the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission. I know Todd personally. He's a
friend of mine from the great State of Oklahoma, born in
Kellyville, Oklahoma, graduate of Oklahoma State University,
first elected to the Oklahoma House of Representatives at age
27, served six terms, including his final term as the first
Republican Speaker of the House in Oklahoma in eight decades.
After eight years in the private sector experiencing the
hardships put on business by excessive regulation, Todd was
elected to be one of three Commissioners of the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission, which is responsible for regulating
fuel, oil and gas, public utilities, and transportation
industries. He and his family still live on a ranch south of
Kellyville near my hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to five minutes each. Your entire written statement
will be made a part of the record.
I'd like to now recognize Secretary Reese for five minutes
to present his testimony. Mr. Reese, you are recognized.
Mr. Reese, could you turn on your mike, please? There's a
button there.
Mr. Reese. To talk? Okay. I'm sorry.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JIM REESE,
SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE,
OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Reese. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I've presented my written testimony so I will try to
summarize quickly.
My visual presentation--my only visual presentation is a
picture of my farm near Nardin, Oklahoma. My daughter took that
on Easter Sunday of last year and it just happened to cover the
beautiful sky in the background. There are skies all over
Oklahoma and the rest of America that look exactly like this,
but there are some things we cannot control.
We cannot control the heat in the summer of 2011. Oklahoma
had the highest average maximum temperature during the three
summer months of any state since records began in 1895 at 100.4
degrees. It was also our third driest in history with four
inches of rain over those three months.
We had numerous exceedances of 75 parts per billion that
summer because of the heat and drought and circumstances that
were beyond Oklahoma's control. Despite that beautiful sky on
the screen, it may be very difficult for Oklahoma to meet the
ozone standard of 65 to 70 parts per billion. In fact, that
picture is in a county that EPA currently estimates to run
above the 65 to 70 parts per billion average standard.
The Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to set a
standard based on criteria requisite to protect the public
health. Biology teaches us the most important ingredients to
support human life are air, water, and food. One of those three
most important ingredients are to protect public health is
food, not only public health but human life. Many may think
food just appears in grocery stores but it does not.
Providing the safest, most affordable food supply in the
world requires a great deal of commerce that both cleans the
air and also contaminates the air. Agriculture and forestry on
one hand are among the greatest assets in improving air quality
in that growing plants consume carbon out of the air. Growing
agricultural crops consume carbon from the air. Those crops are
fed to livestock, which then is turned into protein and
delivers to your grocery stores and to your homes.
But it does require fertilizer inputs, transportation
inputs, diesel fuel inputs, food processing inputs, food
shipment inputs, until finally it is on the plates of Americans
supplying the third-most important necessary ingredient to
sustain human life and public health.
This proposed standard means greater cost to our producers,
retrofitting engines, increased energy costs for dairy barns,
poultry houses, possibly curtailing pesticide applications and
fertilizer applications. One of the most critical issues in
agriculture today is timing, planting, harvesting, applications
of fertilizer and pesticides. These critical decisions cannot
be made timely with EPA prescribing the formula. American
agriculture has never been more efficient but it must continue
to grow more efficient if it is going to continue to feed a
growing world.
Agricultural engines are more efficient and more air
friendly than ever before. We are making great strides and
great progress cooperatively. Much has been said about the
prevalence of asthma and its sensitivity to ozone. In Oklahoma,
we have an invasive nuisance that is also a major health risk,
and that is eastern redcedar. Pollen from eastern redcedar
causes itchy eyes, runny nose, congestion, migraines, and many
more. The solution to the health problems associated with
redcedar is effective land management, which does include
prescribed burning, prescribed burning that would be prevented
in Oklahoma counties if they are in nonattainment status.
Now, I would suggest--I would not suggest that we rate one
health concern over another, but many times a solution to one
health concern aggravates another. When does government finally
decide that it cannot know all of the answers? Our ozone levels
are moving in the right direction and they have for the past 20
years. Prescribed burning is a technique that prevents
wildfires. It manages smoke contributions to the atmosphere. It
saves lives and property. It improves grassland and forest
health. All of these things are beneficial to the health of the
environment, the economy, and human health. Being in
nonattainment because of these EPA proposed rules can prohibit
these beneficial aspects of prescribed fire.
Americans working together these past 20 years have
resulted in lower ozone levels. I'm grateful for the efforts of
EPA and of Americans who have invested in protecting and
improving our precious air and water resources. However, at
some point we have to stop and consider competing interests in
protecting human health, and protecting natural resources, and
in protecting our food supply and our economy that are all
equally important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the
opportunity to provide this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reese follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Reese.
I now recognize Ms. Keslar for five minutes to present her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. CARA KESLAR,
MONITORING SECTION SUPERVISOR,
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
AIR QUALITY DIVISION
Ms. Keslar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Lower ozone NAAQS with design values influenced heavily by
background ozone leaves Wyoming and Intermountain West States
faced with new challenges in implementation.
This testimony will focus on the implementation issues with
the proposed ozone NAAQS that are of particular concern to
rural Intermountain West States like Wyoming and specifically
the effects of background on rural areas and the available
policies for addressing nonattainment issues, in particular,
exceptional events.
At ground level, ozone is formed by complex reactions of
pollutants in the atmosphere. Because of this, every
geographical area has a unique mix of sources and meteorology
that can govern its formation. Additionally, at high elevations
like in Wyoming, ozone can be injected into our atmosphere from
the ozone layer. This is called stratospheric ozone intrusion.
This makes ozone exceedingly complex to understand and control.
So far, EPA has focused on urban areas with highest ozone
concentrations to protect public health and their tools and
planning policies reflect that.
As the ozone standard is lowered, rural and mountainous
areas will also have difficulty attaining and implementing the
ozone NAAQS but have fundamentally different issues to contend
with such as more transported and natural pollution.
In the NAAQS proposal, background ozone refers to
components of international transport, transport into rural
areas, and ozone from natural sources, including wildfire and
stratospheric intrusion. This can account for a significant
portion of measured ozone in the Intermountain West and is
usually beyond a state's ability to control.
In its proposal, EPA suggests that these background
contributions can be addressed by existing regulatory relief
mechanisms, including the exceptional event rule. While we
appreciate the efforts to retain these mechanisms in their
current state they require extensive resources to document
uncontrollable pollution. It is imperative that EPA make
improvements to these mechanisms and streamline the
demonstration and approval process so states and EPA resources
are properly allocated to reducing emissions rather than
performing paperwork exercises.
The DEQ has extensive experience in implementation of the
exceptional event rule since its promulgation in 2007. We have
produced several demonstrations showing that fire, high wind,
and stratospheric intrusion have clearly caused exceedances of
the NAAQS for PM 10, PM 2.5, and ozone. Specifically for ozone
we've submitted five demonstrations to EPA Region 8 for
stratospheric intrusion and we're the only agency and the
Nation that has received a concurrence on intrusion event.
Based on this experience, each stratospheric intrusion
demonstration takes between four and eight months to produce.
The effort to produce those demonstrations use internal staff
expertise, as well as assistance from federal, state, and
academic staff focused on researching and diagnosing these
intrusion events.
While we've not produced a demonstration to show ozone
exceedances caused by wildfire, we're familiar with those
demonstrations that EPA has concurred with. And to prepare
comparable demonstration, it requires 15 months and contractor
assistance of $150,000 per event.
In order for states to implement the exceptional events
rule in the practical fashion, EPA must update and streamline
the process. A key to this is developing workable technical
tools to help states analyze these exceptional events. The EPA
and other governmental agencies already have several online
systems to provide data and analyses. There should be a
concerted effort by EPA to consolidate these tools into a
workable system to provide the necessary technical products.
Concurrently, EPA needs to follow through on their plans to
provide clear requirements to demonstrate an exceptional event
and produce very specific guidance for wildfire and
stratospheric intrusion demonstrations for ozone. Furthermore,
EPA needs to commit well-defined timelines for the region's
review and decision on exceptional event.
At this time, there are no timelines for EPA's review and
decision. This leaves air agencies with uncertainty when making
regulatory decisions that can be affected by the inclusion or
exclusion of exceptional data.
We recognize that EPA's responsibility to protect public
health is the driving cause of lowering the ozone standard.
However, overburdening state resources with administrative
exercises will not help to achieve this objective. In addition
to protecting public health, it is also the EPA's
responsibility as the promulgators of this rule to provide
states with the tools and guidance necessary to implement its
standards and commit to doing so in a timely fashion.
Therefore, EPA needs to devote the necessary resources to this
issue to resolve concerns of rural and Intermountain West
States.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Keslar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Dr. Miller for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PAUL J. MILLER,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND CHIEF SCIENTIST,
NORTHEAST STATES FOR COORDINATED
AIR USE MANAGEMENT
Dr. Miller. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Miller and I am
Deputy Director and Chief Scientist of the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management, or NESCAUM. I thank Mr.
Chairman, Ms. Ranking Member, and the Members of the
Subcommittee for providing NESCAUM with the opportunity to
provide these comments today on U.S. EPA's proposed ozone
standards.
NESCAUM is a regional association of state air pollution
control agencies representing Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island, and Vermont. NESCAUM provides policy and technical
support for our state member agencies in furtherance of their
air quality and climate programs. Our member state agencies
have the primary responsibility for developing strategies that
will attain and maintain current and potentially revised ozone
standards in their states and in downwind areas affected by
transport.
My testimony today reflects the majority views of NESCAUM
as a state membership organization. Individual NESCAUM member
states do hold separate views regarding issues specific to
those states' circumstances, which may differ from NESCAUM
states' majority consensus.
Over its 45-year history, the Clean Air Act has saved
hundreds of thousands of lives and generated trillions of
dollars in health and welfare benefits for our nation.
Compliance with national ambient air quality standards have
consistently proven less costly and more beneficial than either
its critics or supporters predicted.
Within the NESCAUM region, states have successfully met the
challenge of reducing air pollution over the years while their
economies, populations, and energy use have grown. While air
quality has improved markedly under the existing Clean Air Act
framework, the science clearly demonstrates that adverse
impacts continue to occur and more protective ozone standards
are needed.
NESCAUM supports a health-based ozone standard within the
range recommended by the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory
Committee, or CASAC, of .060 to 0.070 parts per million, eight-
hour average. Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant that
adversely affects both people with respiratory disease and
healthy children and adults. It can cause premature death.
The science was sufficiently strong in 2007 to justify a
more protective ozone health standard, but the standard set by
EPA at that time fell short of what was needed. The science
remained sufficiently strong in 2010 when EPA tried to
reconsider its earlier vision but ultimately could not do so.
It is now 2015 and the science has only become stronger. By
extension, the current ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million
remains inadequate. Retaining this as a standard should not be
an option.
As today's hearing encompasses impacts on rural and
agricultural sectors of America, I would like to focus the
remainder of my comments on EPA's proposal for the revised
secondary standard. The main focus of EPA's proposal is to
provide increased protection against vegetation-related
impacts.
Ozone is the most important air pollutant affecting
economically valuable agricultural crops and other vegetation
in North America and elsewhere. Long-term exposure to ground-
level ozone above natural background concentrations results in
diminished crop yields and in decreased forest productivity. In
the United States, studies of estimated crop losses due to
ozone damage are in the billions of dollars annually.
In light of the existing science, NESCAUM supports a
secondary ozone standard of the W126 index form, which is
intended to better reflect biologically relevant ozone levels.
EPA is proposing to revise the secondary ozone NAAQS to a level
within the range of 13 to 17 parts per million hours average
over three years, but setting the standard within the range of
an eight-hour average, .065 to .070, which it asserts would
provide equivalent protection.
We believe that the W126 basis of EPA's proposed secondary
NAAQS is at and above the CASAC recommended range. As a result,
EPA's proposed level is not entirely consistent with the
existing science.
In achieving more protective ozone standards, mobile
sources remain an important emissions sector. EPA needs to be
forward-looking in addressing these as the full benefits of
their emissions reductions take time to be realized due to
fleet turnover rates and other factors. Strategies to reduce
ozone forming nitrogen oxides or NOx from mobile sources such
as lower emission standards for heavy-duty on-road diesel
vehicles, updated federal aftermarket catalytic converter
policies, diesel inspection and maintenance programs, and
idling reduction measures are significant opportunities for
lowering ozone pollution going forward.
In sum, NESCAUM firmly believes that science must drive the
ozone standards. EPA's most recent proposal generally better
aligns with the long-standing science but may not adequately
reflect levels needed to protect farms and forests.
I thank you for your attention and I'm happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Dr. Miller.
I now recognize Mr. Abernathy for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. KEVIN ABERNATHY,
DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
MILK PRODUCERS COUNCIL;
VICE CHAIR, DAIRY CARES
Mr. Abernathy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
Members of the Committee. I appreciate you holding this hearing
today to discuss the EPA's proposed new standards on ozone.
I've lived in the San Joaquin Valley of California all of
my life, and as you might already know, there's three things
that make unique--that are very unique to California. We are
the Nation's agricultural powerhouse. We're in the middle of a
terrible drought and we remain one of the most challenging air
basins in the Nation for meeting air quality standards.
While these things are true, there's much more to our
story. Valley agriculture, business, and regulators have worked
together to dramatically improve air quality while producing
more crops in hopes of a stronger economy, and we can continue
this if we act wisely, but we have to face the harsh reality.
That reality is as the air gets cleaner, achieving further
incremental improvements becomes technologically and
economically challenging. As we move toward near background
levels, it becomes almost impossible. A change in strategy is
certainly needed.
As the current act monitors air quality agencies and
bureaucracy and forcing them to implement multiple redundant
standards for criteria pollutants, this wastes time and money.
They're held accountable for these standards without regard to
whether they're achievable. They're asked to literally do the
impossible, control pollution and in some cases from sources
they don't regulate, achieve reductions from technologies that
don't exist today.
California dairy families produce nearly a fifth of the
country's milk generating $63 billion in the economy, over
443,000 jobs, and agricultural production and processing
accounts for 37.8 percent of the regional employment. It's to
be said that for every dollar that comes onto the dairy farm,
$8 are stimulated in the local community.
With the Valley's unique topography, temperature
inversions, we face very tough challenges. With 10 times less
pollution per square mile than Los Angeles with our stagnant
air conditions, we struggle to meet ever-tightening air quality
standards with pollution that's not only imported from the San
Francisco Bay area but also from countries as far away as Asia.
Slide one, please.
[Slide.]
We are very, very proud of this slide. It shows that we
have had a 97 percent reduction in the 1-hour ozone standard
with over 600 rules that have been implemented in the San
Joaquin Valley, such as Rule 4574 stationary engines, Rule 4702
on stationary engines, 4570 for VOCs from CAFOs. 4570 is an
interesting note from the standpoint that it's the San Joaquin
Valley's most expensive individual rule ever passed on Central
Valley dairy families. All told, businesses have spent more
than 40 billion in complying with these rules.
Slide #2.
[Slide.]
We've been committed. We made the comment that we would--we
wanted rules that were based on sound science and guided by
sound science that we would live with the results. With that,
we have spent more than $50 million studying air quality in the
Central Valley and in California. Now that the low-hanging
fruit has been picked, our air quality in the San Joaquin
Valley has the daunting task--we've reduced emissions by 80
percent but we have to find another 90 percent to meet the
current standard, let alone a reduced standard.
Slide #3.
[Slide.]
What's interesting about the past slide that I missed on
was the fact that we're potentially looking at shutting down
all combustible sources of emissions in the Central Valley to
meet the current standard. With that, Slide #3. Thank you.
[Slide.]
As you see here, with the potential lowering of the
standard, we're potentially looking at having a lot of the
country coming in to noncompliance.
Let me finish with, in summary, California dairy families
are under the Nation's most strict environmental regulations
from water quality to energy cost from the climate change
regulations--and this is all happening during the middle of the
historic drought in the Central Valley as farmers have been cut
back between 65 and 100 percent of their water allocations.
We must ask the question: How long will California remain
the number one agricultural state with nearly 500 dairy farms,
as Representative Valadao noted, have closed in the past five
years. As prominent states around us that have been luring our
farmers out of California, they've actually made public
comments thanking us for sending us ``your best farmers.'' It
may draw a chuckle but I would say beware; you possibly could
be next. California is just the canary in the coalmine. We
strongly urge leaders like yourselves to take careful
considerations of the testimony provided today.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, for your attention and opportunity to provide
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abernathy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Abernathy.
I now recognize Commissioner Hiett for five minutes to
present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. TODD HIETT,
COMMISSIONER,
OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION
Mr. Hiett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here.
It's quite an honor and certainly important to our State of
Oklahoma to weigh in on this very important issue.
This is a complicated issue, as you well know, subject to
requiring technical, legal, and environmental expertise.
However, without minimizing the importance of this issue, I
would like for us to keep in mind just a few basic concepts.
Number one, the proposed changes to NAAQS for ozone are
unwarranted at this time. On March the 6th, 2015, the EPA
finalized state implementation plan requirements for the
current standard. That was just a little over a month ago. And
these standards, we should note, are the most stringent ozone
standards to be imposed yet. It leads me to ask why, and why
now before the EPA has even had the opportunity to measure the
achievements under the current standards that are beginning to
go into place.
The second thing that I would like for us to keep in mind,
retaining the current NAAQS for ozone would result in
substantial compliance with the more stringent proposed
standards. In other words, the rules that are already in place
will actually work toward substantial compliance for the
proposed standards. The EPA's projections show that the vast
majority of U.S. counties with monitors would meet the proposed
standards by 2025 with the rules that are already in place.
Third, the proposed rule is arguably the most expensive air
regulation in U.S. history with a disproportionate negative
impact on rural America. The EPA's own numbers say that the
cost will be in excess of $15 billion. NERA, as was noted
earlier, performed a study that indicated that that estimate
may be way understated. Furthermore, they said that this would
cost the United States gross domestic product $140 billion and
cost us 1.4 million jobs. This is a lot of expense for a
questionable return as to the ozone levels.
I'd like to narrow the focus now to the rural part of my
testimony. As I stated earlier, the rural areas will be
disproportionately affected by the proposed rules. The
Department of Environmental Quality, the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality, explained that the areas primarily at
risk for a violation would most likely be the rural areas that
possess no ability to establish attainment through control of
ozone precursors.
Next, I'd like to address--and it's been addressed a couple
of times already--but I'd like to also address controlled
agriculture burns. These prescribed burns are so important in
so many different ways from environmental reasons to
agricultural reasons to protecting--to public safety reasons.
If we are limited, which is very possible under these proposed
rules, if we are limited and possibly prohibited from
prescribed burns in Oklahoma, I have no doubt we would
experience more wildfires.
In 2012--in the fall of 2012, my home area experienced a
wildfire that burned 60,000 acres and completely destroyed 209
homes. This was an area that unfortunately prescribed burning
had not been practiced by the owners in that general area, and
as a result, you see what happened. There are consequences to
these actions.
Next, I'd like to address the emissions controls on trucks
and heavy machinery. It's the farmer that will pick up the cost
on that, and as you well know, the farmer doesn't get to pick
his prices. He is a price-taker.
Another challenge facing rural Oklahoma is healthcare, a
huge challenge that we address every day. Nearly 1/2 of the
rural hospitals in the State of Oklahoma are experiencing
negative trend lines according to a study recently done by the
Oklahoma Hospital Association. Seven are currently in
bankruptcy.
You wonder why does that have anything to do with energy
costs? Energy costs are important to rural hospitals, to all
hospitals. As a matter of fact, we have over a billion-dollar
rate case before us at the Commission currently. The hospitals
in Oklahoma have joined together and have become an intervenor
in that case. So they obviously feel that it is important to
them.
In conclusion, I'd just say the far-reaching effects of the
proposed rule--proposed rules are immeasurable. The economy
cannot face the unjustified expense associated with proposed
rule and we owe to Americans to offer a balanced plan with
achievable goals, as has been proposed previously in current
standards.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hiett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Hiett, and thank you
for your testimony, especially on the health effects. I think
there's been a lot of evidence that when you control for
poverty, asthma in rural areas and asthma in urban areas where
there's higher, you know, outdoor ozone, when you control for
poverty, there's a significant difference between asthma is
really--it's not there when you control for those things. So
the health effects work on two different sides. Poverty is--it
does create, you know, bad health effects as well.
I wanted to ask--first of all, thank the witnesses for
their testimony. Members are reminded that committee rules
limit questioning to five minutes, and the Chair recognizes
himself for five minutes of questions.
Starting with Secretary Reese, you are the Secretary of
Agriculture for the great State of Oklahoma, and I wanted to--
and you're a lifelong farmer. I wanted to ask you how this
regulation would affect farmers not only in Oklahoma but all
across the country?
Mr. Reese. As you know, Oklahoma is a full attainment
State, and so currently we don't--aren't facing these
regulations, but you would just have to look at other states as
they've implemented these regulations and retrofitting tractors
and machinery and going from the Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4
engines would be extremely, extremely expensive for the farm
industry. Less than three percent of Oklahoma's tractors--this
is just my estimate and I would assume it would be nationwide--
would comply with the Tier 4 engines, combines, tractors, hay
machines, all those things put together.
Chairman Bridenstine. Real quick, is it your assessment
that most farmers can afford those costs?
Mr. Reese. It would be my assessment that they cannot, and
my assessment would be that the average farmer is 429 acres in
Oklahoma and it's smaller across the country. And 429 acres
does not necessarily support a $130,000 tractor or a $150,000
tractor. I mean it just takes times to make those investments
for those--that machinery.
Energy costs--we're a high-energy consumer, dairy barns,
poultry, swine, food costs. If we are required to upgrade all
of our engines, all of our machinery, it will affect food
costs, and thereby affecting poorer people who can't afford it.
We have the safest and most affordable food supply the world,
and as we increase that, it would be more difficult for people
to get nutritious food.
And then finally just growing crops, as I said, is a timely
issue. It has to be--if EPA is trying to govern when we apply,
when we plant, when we harvest, it would be--it would increase
food costs.
Chairman Bridenstine. Can you share with this panel because
a lot of us are not farmers, when you say it's a timely issue,
can you share with us what that means?
Mr. Reese. Well, exactly right now it's spring. It's
pretty--it's time to plant. We just had rains across the State,
and in the next two weeks, farmers will be going out planting
more acres as fast as they can get them planted. And if it was
a nonattainment time, the EPA said, you know, you have to
moderate your planting time, that's what your crop is based on
is when you plant it, when you're able to apply things to it.
And so it's just time-sensitive. Every--plants are just time-
sensitive.
Chairman Bridenstine. So it could in fact delay planting
and ultimately reduce your yield, which would of course also
affect the bottom line for the farmer, in addition to all the
costs that you've already talked about?
Mr. Reese. Exactly.
Chairman Bridenstine. Really quickly, could you share with
us, you mentioned redcedar in your testimony. Share with us
what you go through with red cedar.
Mr. Reese. Well, red cedar is a nuisance. It's a public--
it's a plant that we are trying to reduce. It's an invasive
species. And the best way to maintain it and the most cost-
effective and efficient way by virtually any environmental
group will agree is to burn. And so we cut them and we burn
them. And we need to prescribe burn to maintain that. And it is
a heavy pollen sensitive plant--tree and it causes health
concerns. And so you have to measure that, are you going to
allow prescribed burns to take care of the health concern or
are you not?
Chairman Bridenstine. So from a--I guess from an allergy
perspective or and asthma perspective, and of course as
Commissioner Hiett talked about, that prescribed burns are
necessary for safety, and it also reduces wildfires, that
ultimately would create even more ozone concerns. So thank you
for that testimony.
Commissioner Hiett, I've got about a minute left. Could you
share with impacts these proposed rules would have on economic
development, including transportation and other infrastructure
projects in Oklahoma?
Mr. Hiett. One of the greatest challenges we have in
economic development in the State of Oklahoma is the rural
area. Our urban areas tend to have more jobs. Our rural areas
struggle to have jobs. If you look at the areas that are the
best opportunities for jobs in rural areas, it's going to be
manufacturing, oil and gas, transportation, three industries
that will be targeted, will be damaged by the proposed rules.
So you can see the issue that's there.
Also, on the transportation side, and it was mentioned
earlier, a nonattainment stops the Federal projects. Well,
those of us in agriculture know if we can't get our product to
market, it has a diminished value, if any value at all.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you for that testimony.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.
Westerman, for five minutes of questions.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In his testimony during last month's hearing, Dr. Allen
Lefohn presented modeling results that indicated that if
emissions were reduced across the United States to achieve
alternative lower ozone standards, that there would be a
tendency for the fourth-highest 8-hour concentration to occur
not just during the summer but also in some locations during
the spring when the main contributors to ozone are background
or natural-occurring sources.
The locations affected by the springtime shift can appear
anywhere across the United States. He also noted that with more
stringent proposed standards, background would become an even
more important contributor to exceedances of the standard. We
all know that models have limitations but we also know that
some models are better than others. The modeling results that
Dr. Lefohn described appear to be supported by EPA's own recent
analysis.
I would like to enter into the record a memo dated November
19, 2014, from Ms. Joann Rice of the EPA. In her memo, Ms. Rice
indicates that EPA is proposing that the ozone season be
extended from its current period to longer periods of time. The
result of EPA's analysis was a total--was that a total of 39
States across the United States experienced exceedances of the
60 parts per million level during the spring. Background ground
ozone is highest during the spring.
As indicated earlier, ozone formation during the spring
from manmade sources is much less than during the summer. It
appears that naturally occurring ozone is a national issue, not
just limited to Yellowstone and to the Intermountain West. The
difficulties dealing with background ozone as experienced in
these States is only a precursor for the entire Nation.
As a forester and an engineer and after hearing much
testimony in this and other committees, it appears to me that
we've become so regulatory aggressive that we not only are
regulating humans but we're now attempting to regulate nature
itself.
Mr. Abernathy and Ms. Keslar and Mr. Reese, my question for
you is it time that Congress should revisit and modernize the
Clean Air Act?
Mr. Reese. I will say yes. We talk about--at least my
perception is the--the Secretary is a--the Administrator is
supposed to use criteria requisite to protect public health.
And so what does that mean? You have public health issues on
all sides of the issue, the redcedar issue versus asthma versus
other lung disease, and so I think that--and food and the need
to eat nutritious, economically produced food. So I think there
are a number of factors that need to be considered in addition
to define public health.
Mr. Abernathy. Mr. Westerman, the resounding answer is
absolutely. When you come from a State like--especially in
California and the Central Valley, we've implemented virtually
as many rules as we possibly can even though we still have a
no-stone-left-unturned mentality. When you're approaching those
background levels, the ability to get significant reductions
through the--through a rule process becomes extraordinarily
difficult if not impossible, and I think the best way to answer
your question--and this has actually been proposed in
California--that we have no farm days.
Ms. Keslar. I would also agree with the other two members
of the panel that it's absolutely time to revisit the Clean Air
Act. From my perspective and the implementation perspective is
that the Clean Air Act is very vague and it's left up to EPA to
interpret the Clean Air Act, and then States are left to deal
with the consequences of EPA interpretations of the Clean Air
Act. So--especially with respect to background, international
transport, rural transport areas, and the exceptional event
rule are very vague in the Clean Air Act and there's not a good
precedent for implementing those with the current EPA rules.
Mr. Westerman. And if you will hold those thoughts, I'll
yield back to the Chairman because I believe we need to go
vote.
Chairman Bridenstine. We have a vote on the Floor that
we've got to get to, but what we'll do is we'll just recess and
immediately following--we've got one vote. Immediately
following the vote, we'll come back here and convene, and if
you'd like to have two and a half minutes of the rest of your
time, we'll do that. Is that all right?
Okay. Well, we are now in recess until after the vote.
[Recess.]
Chairman Bridenstine. All right. We are back from recess
and we will reconvene.
We were in the middle of my good friend from Arkansas, Mr.
Westerman, asking five minutes of questions, and on the clock
we had two and a half minutes when we departed, so we will
resume with Mr. Westerman for two and a half minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr.
Abernathy was in the middle of a thought when we recessed, so
if you would like to pick up with that answer.
Mr. Abernathy. Thank you, sir.
It would be remiss for me not to include that in my written
testimony there was a series of potential modifications to the
implementation of the Clean Air Act that I think would be a
wonderful starting point for the committee to discuss moving
forward. And also on your question of how it affects
agriculture, Rule 4570 that I referenced in my oral in my
written testimony has had an economic burden to individual
producers in California to the tune of about $50,000 in cost
just to implement on an annual basis for Rule 4570. So that
certainly takes away from spending money on potentially more
important things from a dairymen's perspective when you're
looking at those kind of costs ongoing on an annual basis,
especially for small farmers.
Mr. Westerman. All right. So are there ambiguities and
issues with the ozone NAAQS that the judicial and executive
branch cannot properly deal with because the Clean Air Act
hasn't been modernized?
Are there any ambiguities or issues that--with ozone NAAQS
that the judicial and executive branch can't properly deal with
because the Clean Air Act hasn't been modernized?
Mr. Abernathy. I'll take a stab at it. We--I think this
really lends to a unique opportunity for Congress to dive into
this from the standpoint that in California, as I mentioned
with a mature regulatory program, way all too often we're
having our futures decided in a courtroom with a judge. And
I'll let you think about that for a little bit because that's
really--that has nothing to do to benefit public health or air
quality when you're in a courtroom and a judge is making those
decisions based on a very stringent look at simply the law.
Mr. Westerman. And, Mr. Chairman, with that I'll yield
back.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank my friend from
Arkansas.
I'd like to recognize my good friend, Ms. Bonamici from
Oregon, for five minutes of questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you again to your--to the witnesses for their testimony.
I want to follow up on the line of questioning and also Ms.
Keslar's testimony. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very
useful for us to have the EPA come in and inform us about
things like the exceptional event rule. I appreciate your
testimony, Ms. Keslar, about what it takes to comply with that.
It would be helpful for us to hear from the EPA about their
efforts and what can be done to make it easier for
jurisdictions to comply with that rule. That would be very
useful for us.
But Dr. Miller, the EPA and others have estimated the
benefits achieved by lowering the ozone standard, and you
talked about that in your testimony. Specifically, under the
proposed standard of 65 to 70 parts per billion, the EPA
estimates that it would generate an estimated $19-$38 billion
worth of benefits, and that includes a range of components from
the number of premature deaths avoided to the number of
children's asthma attacks that can be prevented. Can you please
describe some of the other benefits that could come from and
ozone standard in the range of 70 to 65 parts per billion?
Dr. Miller. Yes, thank you. What I would like to start with
is in the context of the need to modernize the Clean Air Act, I
would flip it and I would say maybe it's time to recognize that
the Clean Air Act has modernized America. And this is seen
through its technology-forcing nature and the innovation that
has resulted from in the past setting what was at that time
viewed as stringent and unachievable ozone standards, yet we
achieved them. Right now, in the Northeast we're largely
achieving the current standard outside of New York City. We
have achieved that. I'm hoping we can maintain that, but we
have achieved that already. And that was viewed at one time as
impossible.
Ms. Bonamici. And, Dr. Miller, can you talk just a little
bit about--I know you talked about where your organization--
your area. Can you talk about how much of that is urban and how
much of it is rural?
Dr. Miller. We also suffer from transport. Now, the largest
portion of our pollution load is urban. It is from
transportation and urban sources. But on top of that, we get a
pollution load from the West. There are large sources to the
West. We've actually successfully addressed to some extent
power plant pollution that comes across on the westerly winds.
So we have a mix, and so we're sympathetic to Western issues,
to transport from Asia. We don't get that kind of transport
from Asia.
We have our own kind of transport, and it is controllable
not by our States but through Federal measures that create
regional programs that have been done in the past such as a NOX
SIP Call that have been very effective and resulted in deep
reductions of ozone not just in the urban areas but across
these broad regional and rural areas that are under discussion
today.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And I know that some of the
benefits associated with improving the ecosystem are hard to
quantify, and it's likely that there's some benefits that don't
reflect in the full range of outcomes. Can you describe some of
the ecosystem services and their value to the economy, for
example, water regulation?
Dr. Miller. Right. So the same kind of emissions,
specifically nitrogen oxides that contribute to ozone formation
also contribute to acid rain, nitric acid. Nitric acid has
ecological impacts in terms of forest health. It frees up
aluminum ions in forest soils. Aluminum ions are toxic to
aquatic life so it ends up in streams and rivers, kills fish.
That has a detrimental impact on, say, sportsmen who like to
catch fish.
It has--nitrogen deposition in water has a fertilizing
effect. It creates algal blooms. Those blooms suffocate aquatic
life. Fisheries have large economic benefits, large economic
value, and that kind of impact diminishes those as well.
Ms. Bonamici. And thank you. We've heard a lot about some
of the costs and technical challenges, and you talked about
this a bit. The EPA does not allow consideration of those
factors when setting a standard, but can you comment on the
importance of separating the costs associated with attaining or
implementing the ozone standard from the assessment of what
level is appropriate to protect public health? And I know you
mentioned the incentives to develop new technology that come
from such regulation.
Dr. Miller. First, I'd like to just clarify. It's not EPA
that doesn't allow consideration of cost in the setting the
standard. Those are science-based standards based on health and
protecting public welfare. It's--the Clean Air Act is created
by Congress and is interpreted unanimously by the Supreme
Court--
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Dr. Miller. --that requires standards to reflect science.
Ms. Bonamici. Understood. Thank you.
Dr. Miller. The implementation part is where costs come in.
We've been very successful in that and that's where the
innovation comes.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific, thank you. And I just wanted to
mention that this committee did pass in the last Congress a
bill to do more research about the harmful algal blooms that
you mentioned, and I was proud to work on that with my
colleague from Florida, Mr. Posey.
And I'm out of time and I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the gentlelady from
Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Without objection, I'd like to enter into a second round of
questions. I'll recognize myself for five minutes. And if it's
all right, you're willing to stick around for another five
minutes?
So there's a couple of things I'd like to bring out. I
think all of us recognize that in urban areas there's a higher
incidence of surface ozone than in rural areas, not always the
case but in many cases that's the case.
I would like to submit for the record a study from Johns
Hopkins University, and what they attempted to do is they
sought--according to them, the objective, ``we sought to
estimate the prevalence of current asthma in U.S. children
living in inner-city and non-inner-city areas and to examine
whether urban resident, poverty, or race/ethnicity are the main
drivers of asthma disparities.''
What they found is that there was no statistically
significant difference once you control for poverty, once you
control for race and ethnicity, the incidence of asthma in
areas that have higher surface ozone are not greater than the
incidents that don't have as high ground level ozone.
So I'd like to introduce for the record the scientific
study from Johns Hopkins University.
[The appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd also like to--actually, we now
have back one of our Members here. I will retain my remaining
three minutes and fifty seconds. And is it possible to yield at
this time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Yes, sir, it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. You're recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Weber. I'm not sure five minutes is enough. Can I have
your other three minutes?
Chairman Bridenstine. Negative.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Hiett--is it Hiett? Is that how you that?
Commissioner Hiett?
Mr. Hiett. Yes, sir, Hiett.
Mr. Weber. Okay. You said on March 6, 2015, the SIP, state
implementation plan, was approved for Oklahoma or finalized I
think you said. How long did that process take?
Mr. Hiett. I'm sorry, that was the requirement.
Mr. Weber. Was that the requirements?
Mr. Hiett. That was the requirements that were issued on
March 6----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Hiett. --of 2015.
Mr. Weber. Can you describe the length of that process?
Mr. Hiett. It began in 2008 is my understanding.
Mr. Weber. So that's seven years----
Mr. Hiett. Yes.
Mr. Weber. --give or take? When were--and I'll ask this
question of Dr. Miller. When were the last EPA--ozone regs
changed or recommended to be changed? Was it six years ago, ten
years ago?
Dr. Miller. Regs, you mean standards?
Mr. Weber. Standards, yeah, National Air Indoor Quality----
Dr. Miller. The last time the ozone standards were revised
was 2008.
Mr. Weber. 2008, so that's seven years ago. Okay. And if I
understand your testimony, Commissioner, earlier, prescribed
burning actually would help in your area in Oklahoma?
Mr. Hiett. Absolutely. There's a public safety factor----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Hiett. --there's a health factor, there's--and of
course the agricultural and economic factors.
Mr. Weber. Sure, but your testimony here today is that
proposed--I call them regs--would actually prevent that it
would actually endanger lives, property, and commerce?
Mr. Hiett. And in addition to that would--yes, that is
correct, and in addition to that would require that agriculture
producers use more chemical to fight--to battle these invasive
species----
Mr. Weber. Sure.
Mr. Hiett. --where now they can do it with fire.
Mr. Weber. Sure, absolutely.
Mr. Hiett. With prescribed burning.
Mr. Weber. So thank you. Dr. Miller, you testified earlier
right before we went to votes, when Congress set up the Clean
Air Act, they were very specific that they don't take the cost
into account. Do I recall correctly you said something to that
effect?
Dr. Miller. Yes, it's setting standards. They are health-
based, based on science. Costs come into implementing the
standards.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Do you think that that might have been
shortsighted on their part? Is there any possibility, on
Congress' part? Not that we would ever be shortsighted.
Dr. Miller. Actually, I think was very farsighted. And as
I've mentioned several times, I think that's forced areas to
innovate, industry to innovate in areas that they weren't going
to do, and that's----
Mr. Weber. So it's not like Congress couldn't have been
wrong or the Supreme Court could never be wrong? The Supreme
Court has never reversed itself. Or is that----
Dr. Miller. It does all the time.
Mr. Weber. They do all the time. Congress I would submit
probably does need to as well.
Mr. Abernathy, the EPA's cost-benefit analysis for the
ozone proposal caps, the cost of unknown controls, I'm from
Texas, Gulf Coast, a lot of chemical plants, refineries there
on the Gulf Coast. Texas produces 60 percent of the Nation's
jet fuel in my district, and I think maybe again it was Dr.
Miller said that this was the most expensive regulation--going
to be--one of you said that and we've heard that over and over
again. But my question is more specific.
So industry--I own an air-conditioning company. Industry
will do what's very pretty to and very competitive to be able
to get that competitive edge for the most part. Mr. Abernathy,
I think the controls--they're saying in the proposal that the
caps have cost of unknown controls that don't even exist are
assumed to be around $15,000. Have you seen that figure?
Mr. Abernathy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Mr. Abernathy. No.
Mr. Weber. I've been in these chemical plants and
refineries and I can tell you--and in the Texas Legislature I
was on the Environmental Reg Committee. I can tell you without
a shadow of a doubt that's nowhere near close to the cost. So,
you know, when they say it's assumed to be that kind of a low,
I think that's pie-in-the-sky or dare I say ozone-in-the-sky.
Mr. Abernathy, one other question. What happens to
permitting for the dairy industry throughout the country,
throughout the country when ozone standards are set basically
to background levels?
Mr. Abernathy. Sir, would you like me to answer the first--
end of your first question?
Mr. Weber. Absolutely. You've got more input on it, you
bet.
Mr. Abernathy. Thank you. I actually have the privilege of
knowing Chairman Shaw and----
Mr. Weber. TCEQ.
Mr. Abernathy. Yes, sir, and working with the Dr. Shaw,
Chairman Shaw with the USDA Air Quality Task Force, and we've
had the pleasure of going over quite a few of the struggles
that Texas has had as an extreme nonattainment area. And
keeping that into consideration, he's bumping up to the same
virtually impossible task of trying to continue to regulate
industries that he has really regulated to the point where
there's nothing left to pick off the tree. So I have firsthand
knowledge of the commonality that the Central Valley in
California, along with South Coast and Texas share when it
comes to setting standards that are right at background levels
of ozone.
And with that, on the cost, this is--in California we call
it a black box. We've had standards that we've had to meet,
we've had technologies that didn't exist, and we've had a
timeline that we have to meet.
Mr. Weber. All within seven years and it's fixing to be
changed again.
Mr. Abernathy. Yes, sir. And the interesting part about
that is when we--when the board--San Joaquin Valley Board
passes a rule on a business, we have no idea or hopes that
there will be technology that will get us there. The district
has had the farsightedness to actually develop one program that
I've been associated with that's called the Technology
Advancement Program that actually looks at new and innovative
processes, whether it's emission controls or so forth to help
advance.
But even those certain things--and I'll give you this as an
example--we had John Deere at one of my members' dairies in
Fresno County. It was a million-dollar piece of equipment. It
was the latest, greatest technology that had ever been put into
a John Deere tractor. During the silage harvest, it burned to
the ground. So with that, technology does come along and
innovations do come along, but as every farmer at this table
knows, it takes a long time to go from conceptual to reality
where you can depend on that 24 hours a day, 365 days year.
But answering your question, $15,000 a ton, just as another
number, when the $61.5 million that Rule 4570 cost Central
Valley dairy farmers came out to about $6,700 a ton. At the
same time, NOx was being traded as environmental reduction
credits/ERCs from businesses that had closed down in the
Central Valley at a tune of $32,500.
Mr. Weber. And they still had a way to make money.
Mr. Abernathy. That's right.
Mr. Weber. And you--and forgive me, Mr. Chairman, if you'll
indulge me for one more half-a-minute--and you know that 70
percent of NOx comes from nonstationary point sources, i.e.,
vehicles.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. Roger that. And thank you for your
questions.
And just as a reminder, the record will remain open for two
weeks for additional comments and written questions if the
gentleman from Texas would like to submit more written
questions. I know you definitely needed more than five minutes.
Yeah, you bet.
I'm going to yield. I've got three minutes and fifty
seconds remaining. I'm going to yield two minutes to my friend
from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, and then we'll close the hearing at
that point.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I'll
need two minutes.
I wanted to add to the record, first, a letter from the
National Farmers Union, the second-largest general farm
organization in the United States, in support of the EPA's
proposed revisions. Particularly, they found compelling the
effect on crop yields a causal relationship between exposure to
ozone and ambient air and visual--visible foliar injury affects
on vegetation, reduced vegetation growth, reduced productivity
and terrestrial ecosystems, reduced yield, and quality of
agricultural crops.
So with that, I'd like to enter that into the record.
And one more thing, just released today is the American
Lung Association's 2015 State of the Air Report showing that
more than four in ten people live in areas with an
unhealthful--unhealthy level of ozone. According to this
report, there's more than 17.7 million people in the United
States who live in counties where the outdoor air failed all
three of the tests.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce this letter and
this report into the record.
Chairman Bridenstine. Without objection, they will be
introduced into the record.
[The appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Bridenstine. I would like to--are you yielding
back?
Ms. Bonamici. I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Chairman Bridenstine. I would like to thank the witnesses
for their valuable testimony. Thank you for sticking around and
answering questions. I apologize that we had a vote in the
middle of it. I'd like to thank the Members for their
questions.
As a reminder, the record will remain open for two weeks
for additional comments and written questions from the Members.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Hon. Jim Reese
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Cara Keslar
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Kevin Abernathy
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by The Honorable Todd Hiett
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by full Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Representative Frank Lucus
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Suzanne
Bonamici
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]