With the secret science bill is that it asked us to gather information we have no authority to gather and it asks us to release information where i cannot protect peoples personal privacy or confidential Business Information in order to release that publicly. And frankly, the way in which science works in this country is we dont look at the scientists dont exchange all the broad data, although they can and they often do, but they dont have to in order to do scientifically credible ng independent peer review which is the core of how this country has done science forever. Isnt it true that the American Cancer Society did that research independently of the federal government . Well, the two issues that started this concern about secret science had to do with the development of basically studies that were developed by the American Cancer Society and harvard, two not unknown or well thought of or poorly thought of entities. And they had information that we sought. We were given the information we had the authority to gather. They offered opportunities for that raw data to be reviewed in oneonone review by researchers, but they are cohort studies. Theyre individuals that are followed for many years. It is theyre great studies. We rely on it. But they are so filled with personal information that it would be impossible to redact that in sheer. So were doing the best we can to get the information out to people that were allowed to release, but in no way does the lack of access to raw data preclude us from relying on these studies and many others that have been the core of how we look at developing National Ambient air quality standards. Thank you very much. My time is expired. Thank you, miss johnson. Oh, wait a minute, do i have an extra minute . You do get an extra minute. Let me ask one more thing then. What do you think this committee will do with all that data when they get it . Were not researchers. Were just a legislative committee. Well, i think that i mean, we have it. And we havent done anything with it yet, but youre still getting badgered for more and more. What is your opinion . Is this a value to us . I havent figured it out myself. Well i think one of the reasons why we rely on Peer Reviewed science is to law raw data and science to be done by the scientists. My job is to rely on their judgment and to make sure that i practice all the practices that congress has laid out to rely on Peer Reviewed science. I do not know of what value raw data is to the general public, but i certainly will provide any information that i have the authority to provide and ill do it in a way that still protects peoples interest and the work of our agency. That i think. Thank you, myself johnson. The gentleman from oklahoma, mr. Lucas, is recognized for his question. Thank you, chairman smith. And i think its worth noting the comments from chairman of the epa Science Advisory Board that stated the data used to justify regulation should be made publicly available and that all data going into making solutions in a Scientific Study should be made available. And similarly, i think its worth remembering the president s science advisory testimony before the committee that regulatory decisions should be based available to the committee and made public. I think we should remember that. That having said, admin straighter, if the epas use of nonpublic Scientific Data consistent with the agencys scientific integrity policy . Are you doing things consistent with your own policy on scientific integrity . Yes, sir, we are. Can you and ill be honest with you administrator coming from a rural area im sensitive about the u. S. Waters. Can you guarantee me in this committee that all data supporting the final rule will be 100 publicly available . Actually, it was the docket it was published in the federal register just a short time ago. All the data that went into our Scientific Study is already available and the technical documents are provided in a in a particular area that goes with the waters of the u. S. Rule, have you made public how the e. P. A. Develops 4,000 feet of high tide line or the ordinary High Water Mark number in the final rule . But was not in the proposed rule or for instance the 1500 feet within the 100 year flood plain number in the final rule yep. Or all the waters located within a 100 feet of the High Water Mark . Has that information been made available in what youve provided . It is available and the good thing about attracting a million comments is it allows us to make changes between proposal and final that are based on better science, better understanding of how the agencies have been managing these programs for years and that is what we relied on both the knowledge and the expertise of our staff the information that we received from the peb on comments and the science thats available to us. I are hope the information you say is available is indeed available and continues to be added to. I would simply observe that, like many members of the committee and the public out there, i think the chairman of the Science Advisory Board make a very good point and we follow years ago i was told as a young legislator that theres a fine line of doing things for people and doing things to people. You and the agency may believe youre doing things for people but there is a perception out there across the country whether its in ag or construction or in a variety of places that in all these rules, youre not doing things for people, youre inevitably doing things to people. Thats an unfortunate set of circumstances. We in this committee and we in congress serve a very important role. Going all the way back to our predecessors and parliament on the other side of the ocean. Our responsibility is to protect the people from the king and his government. You are the president s administrator and its other responsibility to make sure our constituents interests are welfare care of and that the king using an old term remembers the public. That said, mr. Chairman, lie forward to all this information thats been promised to us. I know weve had a substantial amount thats appeared in recent days. Maybe we need to have more hearings so we can continue the flow of information. Service and some of the other members our transportation and fukt committee where weve held joint hearings with the senate and hearings on the same issues and that committee and the administrator has been there hearing from this committee and the administrator is here and i feel in some ways that weve asked so many of these questions so many times and, frankly with the clean water rule, i think since the majority has already voted to gut it, it seems unclear why were even discussing it here today. Nonetheless, you know, later in the day, were going to vote on the interior environment appropriations bill for physical year 2016. It includes a rider that prevents the e. P. A. From proposing a standard lower than the current 75 parts per billion. During the debate i ufrd an amendment to the bill to strike that rider specifically because of the testimony weve hear before this committee which told us the current standard is not in line with the current science. In testimony the smt received back in march on the health ozone, she indicated the research has only groan stronger since the last time the epa considered revising the today. Wuj areas that was highlighted was between increased ozone levels and human mortality. Can you explain how the e. P. A. Incorporate eps changes in the Scientific Understanding into the rule making process. Some of my colleagues have claimed that the science e. P. A. Uses for its ozone regulation sess somehow secret. So can you respond to those claims in your own words . And what policies does epa have in place for public review and comment on the science that epa is considering . And you can have the balance of my three minutes to do that. Thank you. Well, the Science Behind ozone is one of the most robust bodies of science that we have available to us. There are thousands of studies that have been done for decades that have underpinned two ozone standards im sorry three that the agency has put out and that will adjourn pin our next review. This science is developed using both our office of research and development and our office of air and radiation who Work Together to present thfgz that they call an inspection science assessment, that they bring to our clean air sorry our case ablths that is a actually directed, there is the process directed by congress to us to do. They are inspection and they peer review the science. It is a public process Public Comment hearings telephone calls they can join. Then ksac provides advice to us and we take a look at that and then the staff integrates what our regulatory standards are that are the basis of our judgment of what that science means. Then they actually propose to the administrator, usually a range of standards that i might consider that they would think would be appropriate on the basis of the science, recognizing that i have to look at whats adequate to protect Public Health and safety with a margin of safety. And so i have to look at, also adding to what they give to add my policy judgment. And so the process is a lengthy one. It takes years to develop. The body of science is robust. It is looked at with Public Comment by independent Peer Reviewed scientists. In the case of this ozone standard, they clearly articulated they thought the current standard of 75 was not adequate to protect Public Health and welfare and they indicated that i should be thinking about a range of 60 to 70 ppb as the most appropriate on the basis of the science available which, again is very robust and is well understood and has been commented on. And then they went on to say, but they recognize that i have a policy judgment to make, as well, on this issue of using a margin of safety to make sure its adequately protected and on the basis of that, i goned a rule making which is also public which we proposed late last year and we will finalize on october 1st or before of this year. And in that i proposed a look at the standard between 65 and 70, taking comment down to 650 and recognizing people would want to talk about 75 again. But it was very clear to me on the basis of ksac that this has been a tremendously open and public and credible process. Thank you very much. I have nine second left by my closhg. Mr. Chairman with unanimous consent, i would ask that i be allowed to enter lertsdz into the record from my constituents including a girl scout troop saying that we need to get on with it. Thank you very much. With that objection thank you, miss edwards. And the gentleman is from. The president is committed to reaching an International Deal where you support International Negotiations on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas emissions . I support effort to develop a global plan to move forward to address grous if the global plan ends up resulting in the price of carbon, are you concerned about the fact that that would disproportionately hurt poor and middle income people rather than people who were in the upper 1 . I believe that the actions we take on Greenhouse Gases will protect all of us, but most importantly, those most vulnerable to changes in climate, which are low income and well i think poor and middle income people will be most concerned about what happens to their expenses should the price of gas and electricity and natural gas and anything that is carbon related go up if you guys go along with an increase in the cost of carbon. I dont are you concerned about the Economic Impact on poor people . Absolutely. Im interested in two different ways, to make sure we reduce the Carbon Pollution threatening them, but do it in a way that continues to allow them to economically grow and to become part of the middle class. That is our and how do you do that by increasing their cost . You know, ive seen economic studies that indicate that the increase in cost on a per family basis would be thousands of dollars. And that would have a much bigger impact on poor people than it would be on the ceos. Sir congress has designed a process for epa to develop a cost benefit analysis and weve done this with the clean power plant. There is no way that history tells us that we have to sacrifice for peoples income and jobs in order to continue to make improvements environmentally. And carbon is no exception. The way you do it is exactly the way we proposed our clean power plant to allow tremendous flexibility and time in to make reductions in a way that keeps our electricity reliable and affordable and keeps people working. Thats not what ive seen projecting things out. And, you know, i would ask you to have a preferential option to economically protect poor people that does not result in some goofy, politically designed Redistribution Program where youll collect some money and then taxes and then youll send it back according to what somebody decides is good social engineering. Will you commit to me that you wont do that . Well, sir, i havent proposed yes or no . Yes. I havent proposed any well, i know you have and im looking forward to thats not now ive got a couple other questions because im going to stay in the five minutes. All right. One of the problems that weve had in these Climate Change negotiations is that china and india and russia dont want to have any reductions in their growth race. The president kind of went along with reducing our Greenhouse Gas emissions but letting china do business as usual. Would you support an International Agreement that lets china and russia and india off the hook and not have the same reductions in Greenhouse Gases over the same Accounting Period as the United States . Congressman, im not reading whats happening the same way no im asking would you support. If it turns out that way, would you support that . So far thats not what i thats not the question i asked. Please ask the question i asked. Would you support it . Well, nobody is suggesting that. The president has supported Something Like this in the past and maybe we should stop doing that by giving china an opportunity not to reduce its Greenhouse Gases until 2030 while we have to reduce ours between 26 and 28 by 2025. That doesnt sound to be something to me thats very good for america. Well i certainly understand that do you think thats good for america . Well, you understand its good or isnt it good . Well i understand that Everybody Needs to act in clearly both china and the u. S. And other large economies need to move forward to reduce Carbon Pollution. I think china then i guess the deal that the president hatched with the chinese when he was in beijing does not fall within your markers that everybody has to step up to the mrais plate and significant theyre sitting in the dugout or some other place. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and thank you so much administrator mccarthy for appearing before us today and for the important work you do to protect the health of oregonians and americans. Im an optimistic person and im happy to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are concerned about low in many income people. I want to start by thanking you nor your support of the cleanup of the oregon site. We know bits been a challenge to find environmentally costeffective vections towards the goal of presenting the public with a proposed cleanup plan in 2016. But after many, many years, were all more than ready to resolve the situation in the Portland Harbor and i look forward to your continued work. The stated has been a wonderful partner in getting to this stage and we will get through that. I appreciate that on behalf of a lot of my constituents who have a lot at stake. So i just got back from oregon. People are very concerned about Climate Change and warming temperatures particularly with the risk associated for example, our water temperatures the aquatic habitats, to the extent core populations of some fish could become extinct. Were dealing with drought. But a lot of regions in oregon, we have a lot of Agricultural Production in eastern oregon. Its going to affect our region and agricultural products. Can you briefly mention how the work that youre doing will help with some of these issues. And i want to save time for another important question. Its a series of domestic actions that will reduce Carbon Pollution but also maintain the growth in our environment that were all looking forward to continuing. And epa in particular is moving forward in a variety of way toes take action on climate and to reduce Carbon Pollution. The good news is that it was done as a strategy to try to get Global Engagement happen because it needs a global solution, and, in fact, that is what is happening. Thank you so much. There have been a lot of conversations in this committee about the cost of regulation. Last year the emomb estimated that rules created created nearly 165 billion in benefits at a cost of 38 billion to 46 billion. That sounds like a pretty good number to me. And im glad that youre working on the clean power plant and reducing toxin necessary our air and water on behalf of not only my constituents, but americans. So some witnesses before this committee offered some opinion thats epa regulations should only be set if environmentally Friendly Technology is widely commercially available. But others have pointed to a wide history of technology becoming available after the e. P. A. Determines that theyre feasible. Does the regulation drive the innovation and the technology to reduce costs, for example, of renewables . So we saw this when we tacked acid rain. Can you comment on the view of the epa regulations such as the clean power plant or proposed rule to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions will incentivize innovation . The Clean Air Act was designed by congress to have sections that were moving forward support. The section that were regulating on power plants under the Carbon Pollution plant is one of those sections. So its does say we need to continue to move forward under our new standard. So what we have done is set a standard thats 30 years away. We have set a standard thats an investment signal to tell states they have every flexibility to get to that standard but its also a signal to the market. I will tell people that investments and renewabilityies are not only affordable today, but it will be moving forward. So this is a marketsbased approach to address a confounding problem but in a way that states can drive it and in the way that it works best for them and develops the business they want to have in the jobs they want to take advantage of. Terrific. In our state when we pass the feed in tariff for solar, it sold out in 15 minutes. And i yield back. Thank you. The gentleman from california mr. Roybach is recognized for his question. Thank you very much. Youre obviously a very articulate and hardworking person. We respect that even though we may have differences in policy. Thank you, sir. I just do you know in your background of any example where scientists or people involved with policy were ignoring certain raw data in order to achieve a certain preconceived conclusion . Have you ever come across that . Not individual thats i have worked with. Do you know of examples of that . I cant so you dont know any examples of where people didnt really fulfill their job of being a if you ask me personally no. I would have to suggest then, that maybe youre a little naive in that area. Okay. Those of us who have been around a while have seen this on several occasions. So not knowing any examples of that, you then feel totally secure in telling us that we must have trust no, sir. In the outcome no, sir. Without knowing the raw data no, sir. That went youre not asking us to trust that . No, sir. What i am i clearly i read about instances where science has been manipulated. That is why we work through an independent peerreviewed body to be able to provide us advice. What about us . I mean, we are elected. Your peer review process is like people to watch out for you just excuse me one moment. I am sorry. We are elected by the people to make sure their interests are being watched out for. You are asking us to trust that someone who is appointed rather than trying to look at whatever data is used for these decision makings yourself. And theres no trust me about it, sir. Youve given me a job that this government has provided the structure by which i do my job including looking at the product temperature that was set up originally i believe was the constitution that Left Congress primarily responsible to watch out directly for the interests of the American People because they vote for us. Let me just point out you are undermining that basic constitutional privilege when you tell us theres information you will not give us. No, sir, you have lost that have been giving you Sensitive Information. Well within Sensitive Information not given to the people elected by the voters of this current is an insult to the people, to our constitution, to everything this country is supposed to be about in terms of freedom, responsibility, openness of government etcetera. Let me ask you, what perchbl of the atmosphere is co2 . What permanent of the atmosphere is co2 . I dont have that calculation for you sir. Maybe you could tell us what your personal gift is on what percentage of it is co2. I dont make those guesses, sir. Youre the head of the epa and you dont know you have all of these laws based on oh youre going to get your staffer to tell you now. But youre the head of the epa and you did not know and now you are pacing policies that impact dramatically on the American People and you didnt even know what the content of co2 in the atmosphere was, which is the justification for the very policies youre talking about . No, that isnt if youre asking me how much co2 is in the atmosphere, not a percentage, but how much, we have just reached levels of 400 parts per million. I think i was very clear what i was asking and i was very clear you didnt know. Co2, from what i be is only one half of one tenth of 1 of the atmosphere. And you believe that this minimal, tiny element and by the way only 10 of that as i understand, is actually manmade. And, of course, whatever youre suggesting and is being suggested as the basis for creating these what we skr cart conal controls is that onetenth of that is man immediate of the one half of one tenth of one half of 1 that would have impact on the weather to the point that it will impact the health the gentlemans time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate you being here, appreciate your testimony. I just wanted to ask you another percentage question. What percentage do you think of low income people in fact, all people in the world would be affected by Climate Change if we do not do something to address it . I believe everything 100 are already being affected and will be more severely impacted if we dont take action now. And will that impact be felt first, do you believe, by low income people . It usually is and in this case it will be, as well. I think thats well known across the world and youre seeing it play out right away. We need to adapt to the change thats already happening. But people in low income areas do not have the kind of wherewithal to be able to adapt that many of us actually enjoy. And so it is up to us to meet our responsibility, not just to them, but to our kids future and take action. We have had a lot of discussion about raw data. Could you go into independent review and hoe we review and determine what is valid science to base our regulations on. I do not have scientific training. I am an attorney by profession. I dont think i am qualified to look at raw data, even if redacted, to make an assessment of good policy and laws. We nationwide scientist toes make that interpretation. Could you go into detail about that for mu me . Yes. The way it works is we have to have our science independent le Peer Reviewed. You need to have an open process thats transparent where you pick experts with the knowledge in that field. We have transparency without releasing every bit of raw data . We do have transparency. We have transparency in their discussions, in what they think about those documents, we have public review and comment on those documents. And that is before we can really rely on them as the basis of regulatory action. But we almost never just look at one document. We look at a hujts robust document, a series of science in order to underpin our major rule making. And the way it works is the scientists dont look at the raw data. They can if they want. They can look at the researchers who own that data and the molding used to analyze it. But they dont look at ate in the context of their knowledge of the science and the broad body of knowledge that we look at to see if it is being done correctly, according to the science, if all the factors that should be discussed are being discussed and its looked at within that context. Further, if it can be replicated by others. But they dont all sit around and say im going to take another four years give me the raw data and ill give you a sense of whether or not this works. That is the way that science cant get done. And do you see other agencies that are also looking at science where that is the process that they are going back to the raw data . If you name an agency in the United States that is a chrisbility Science Agency that is how they do their work. That is what the National Academies is. There is how you do it. And peopling of snalt sis last month the union of concerned scientists came out with a report that found recent decisions in state laws that predate the clean power plant have resulted in 31 states already making commitments that put them halfway towards their 2020 benchmark. Do you think were going to be surprised as how easily and efficiently states are going to be able to meet these benchmarks, even if the plan was not there . I think the challenge for us is to make sure we reduce carbon emissions. The way you do that is look at the way Energy Transmission is already happening. You go behind it and you keep pushing. Thats how this works. So i will not be at all surprised to see either the utilities or the dates go way further than we require. In fact, thats usually exactly what happened. Its called good regulation and rule making and i think this is exactly what we did with this Carbon Pollution plan because we give every state the flexibility to actually design the plan for themselves. All were doing is setting the standard. Its far enough way. The technologies are there. Theyre going to keep Getting Better if we send the right signals and i think well see this as an opportunity to continue that transition to its clean energy and low carbon that people are demanding. Thank you and i yield back. Thank you police clark. The gentleman from alabama mr. Brooks is recognized for his questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator mccarthy, epas proposal admits that the agencys proposel ground level ozone rule costs america at a minimum 3. 9 billion per year at 70 parts per billion and 15 billion per year at 65 parts per billion. In contrast, a study by the National Economic research associates, also known as nira Economic Consulting estimates that an epa ozone limit of 65 parts per billion would cut americas Gross Domestic Product by 74 billion per year in real dollar terms, totalling 1. 7 trillion in lost Gross Domestic Product between 2017 and 2040. Thus denying struggling American Families an average of 1. 4 million jobs per year through 202040. Administrator mccarthy, i hope you will concur that the more damage the epa regulations do to the American Economy the poorer the American Economy is and the less money america has to pay for and ensure that americans enjoy clean water clean air and proper disposal of hazardous materials. I would committee that you can look at any number of poor heavily populated regions around the globe that does not have the economic means to pay for pollution resulting in some of the worst mroous polluted areas on the planet. In february, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley sent you a letter emphasizing that the proposel ozone regulations do more damage than good to alabama. Mr. Chairman at this time id like to commit governor bentleys letter to the epa, more specifically the honorable Geno Mccarthy for the record. With that objection to ordered. The epa states in its proposed ozone rule that quote, the administrator notes that the did determination of what constitutes an adequate margin of safety is expressly left to the judgment of the epa at administrator, end quote. Administrator mccarthy it appears your calculation did determine the epas ozone parts per standard and what damage will be done to the American Economy and american jobs. Is that accurate . Is that the standard the epa will be going by adequate margin of state, yes, no or i dont know . That is what the statute requires. Since the epa ozone regulation might be the costliest regulation in American History, which is saying quite a bit, America Needs a precise and clear definition of what, quote, add with an adequate margin of safety, end quote marines. Administrator mccarthy, what is your precise definition of and what is the specific scientific methodology that you use to define adequate margin of safety . It is in the statute given as a policy judgment i would make. And what is your definition as you try to wrestle with what that phrase means, adequate margin of safety . I assume youre using scientific thodz methodologies, perhaps sound Economic Analysis as you try to determine what a vague term adequate margin of safety means. Congressman, you will be able to see in the rules in a very good discussion of what my judgment is on the basis of that. Sth is a healthbased standard to product public length. Cost is not a consideration. How can you say cost is not a consideration for health . The health we enjoy is a function of what we can pay for. This rule, they far outweigh what we estimate to be the illustrative costs. But costs in what we define as ozone standard is not considered are you going to share with us today your definition your understanding, your methodology of what the phrase a adequate margin of safety means . That will be shared with you when you see the final rule, sir. That is when i apply my judgment and explain it completely and as of today, you have no judge and youre not able to explain it to this committee and the there is no specific definition i am document for you. How long has the epa been working on that definition and how long has that definition been in the staet statute . Since the Clean Air Act. What year . When was it . I dont so decades later, you still dont have that definition with respect to ozone . No, sir its not applied that way. You apply it to the individual rule the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Buyers is recognized for his questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Madam administrator, i want to thank you at the top for being so sporting despite the rather combative nature of the questioning. Our chair claims that the epa actions of the last six years have severely damaged our economy. How do you rec sooig siel that with 64 straight months of job growth, 123. 8 million new private sector jobs, tripling of the stock market, the recent news that we have 5. 3 million job openings now advertised, the most in American History . And if there is a is it not perhaps better to also look at the infrastructure bills we fade to pass the immigration act we failed to act oregon tax reform rather than blaming it on the epa . Well, i think one of the things to recognize as well when you look directly at epa, you look at 70 improvement in our air pollution. We know how to do these rules in a way that is not just contrary to job growth, but can fuel it and become part of it. Thank you. I use text mess edgeages as a great deal mostly because my children will not return my phone calls. I also find im not allowed to talk on the house floor. I read and delete, read and delete. I cant ever imagine doing anything important over 140 characters. So is there anywhere reasonable to think your 6,000 text message aes were more than nonconsequential and personal . There were two that i saved because they were a record. Other than that, they were to the best of my recollection, family, friends, im going to be a little late for something. A text does not accommodate a substantive conversation, but it does accommodate me keeping in touch with my kids when im pretty far away. Thats the reason why i started it and we do not, and thoroughly discourage the use of text message. But when we do use it for government purposes been but when we do, theres a process and a policy in place to make sure those are preserved. That is the policy you said reflected here. Do you have an a epa rule that require staff to call their children back . I wish i could. On oh scone, were now at 75 parts per billion and the chair says thats a 33 improved. Youre asking for 6. 6 . Wooerve offered armies until midnight or 1 00 or 2 00 in the morning and again and again and again we hear we can cut the budget by 5 or 10 and its not going to make any substantive difference at all. 70 parts per billion is what robust science says is needed for our health, why the hysteria about a 6 cut . And weve heard that the conservative think tank projection of job loss. Can you talk anything about the economic value of the Health Benefits and how that compares to the potential costs . The Health Benefits of this rule are dwarf the economic costs that were projecting. Were talking at a level of 76. 4 billion per year at benefit to 65. Its 19 to 38 billion. So we are talking about significantly more benefits and costs. But the most important benefit of this, sir if i might, is that youre telling the American People what clean air is supposed to be. So the benefit immediately is that individuals who have kids that have asthma will know that their air quality im sorry let me put it another way. They can take a look at what the air quality is today on their Weather Channel that we help provide and they can decide whether their kids should go out and play. The biggest value is individuals can protect themselves, their kids, their elderly parents make decisions for themselves today while we give states lots of time to think about what other cost productive ways to achieve that over many years. Some of these states wont even face these challenges for a very long time. But you dont worry about the implementation. If that means that youre not giving the public the information they need today to protect themselves and their kids. Thats what this is all about. Thank you madam administrator. The gentleman from illinois is now recognized for his chairman. Yes, sir. First i would Text Messages to staff are official Text Messages and for the administrator to say all but one or two out of 6,000 were personal is simply laughable. The other statistic i wish the gentleman mentioned in his list of statistics is that we have the lowest Labor Participation today in america in 38 years. I thank the gentleman from illinois for yielding and yield back. Thanks, chairman and thank you, administrator market carthy. I prepare appreciate the job your agency is tasked with and as i mentioned the last time you were here, its important to realize the good work weve been able to do according to your own data. Emissions for the six common pollutants have decreased 68 since your agencys implementation of the Clean Air Act while we travel 168 more miles. Thank you. We are doing well and thats why i have concerned about an agency that many in my community see as continually moving the goal post as an activist, not as a regulator. With the porched mercury rule we saw all on display two weeks ago, im not sure that thats been the case with your agency. I also expect your agency to work with our states and counties as a partner. And when former officials from an administrationer consider epas efforts to be a sham, i can tell you that it does not appear your collaboration with our state agencies has been any better. Mr. Chairman id like to enter into the record a left from the u. S. Conference of merits the National Association of counties and the National Association of regional counsel dated march 17th, 2015, where they call on the epa to retain the existing epa standards set in 2008 which has not been fully implemented without objection so admitted. Id like to point out the effects. The center for Regulatory Solutions released a study showing how epas proposed ozone regulations, the most expensive regulation in epa history will cause significant burden to the chicago area economy. As you can see from the slides above, with 21 counties out of attainment im worried the about sdwroefr all impact. If you change the second slide, youll see how bad this is for the counties i represent. We are putting 73 of the states already fragile gdp at risk. Last year, illinois enrolled twice as many recipients on snap benefits and then it created jobs. Just last week, the illinois blank Blake Chamber of commerce joined by the chamber of commerce hosted a symposium of the xlb and employment impacts the ozone regulation would have on chicago and communities. It is clear this would have an impact on low income communities. Administrator mccarthy, do you consider your agencys efforts to coordinate and collaborate with our state and local agents better or worse than dealing with d. O. E. [ i think we collaborate as well with our sister agencies as well as state and local communities. Thats not what were hearing. It reminds me of how when we were in school and did group events, everyone put in a paper saying one person didnt participate and that person would stand up and say sir, the studies that youre quoting didnt even study this proposal. The studies im quoting are talking about the and this was released today. I dont know if youve seen it. This is the one that weve absolutely seen dealing with your proposal. Well make sure you have it and you can respond to us later. We just got it. It was just released today. I havent been holding it back from you, but if we would have gotten it sooner we would have gotten it to you sooner. In the letter that i submitted, it was pointed out the Clean Air Act requires federally transported activities are consistent with state air quality implementation plans. The chicago area is the largest rail hub in the country. Freight traffic is expected to increase by 80 by 2020. How does epa expect the most troubled state to xwlekt this when the agency does not consider the cost of implementation . The Health Standard sets up a process where states develop plans over time and there is significant time to achieve this standard. But the majority my time is expired. If you could, maybe respond in writing back to me on these. The vast majorities of the candidates will be as a result of national standards. Thats an important thing to remember. This is not on the backs of the states. It is a partnership between the National Government and the states to get this done. The gentlemans time is surprised. Thank you. The gentleman from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator mccarthy, thank you for being here this morning. Representative george brown was, you know, partly responsible for the establishment of the epa and the passage of the Clean Air Act. My constituents and i have seen first hand how the epa can improve Public Health. In my own county, according to the state of the air 2015 a report from the American LungAssociation Still has stre struggles with ozone and particle pollution. We are situated you know, downwind from my other colleague from california. And we typically have middle class, lower income folks that cant afford homes along the coast. And i am glad to hear my colleagues also care about poor people and middle class people. I dont understand where theyre not so concerned about the wealthy people along the cost whose Property Values stand to be put in jeopardy by global Climate Change. But im struck by the fact that the epa regulations save us money in the long run by improving Public Health and a you know im struck by the comment that this is what we can pay for. But im also struck by a comment that a senior once made to me that nothing can really you cant place a value on your health. A study by the epa shows that by 2020 the benefits of the Clean Air Act will outweigh the costs by more than 30 to 1. It has cut down on case of asthma, heart sdeet and cases of infant immortality. And i want to put this here and in context. Im afraid my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are exploiting the publics frustration with the economic down turn to push an antienvironmental war on science. For me its particularly offensive because the people in my area greatly suffer. We were ground zero for the mortgage crisis. Its was the Financial Services meltdown, not environmental regulations. And they propose to solve our situation that was caused by a financial meltdown by deregulating our you know not regulating the environment or taking these controls off to which the people in my area benefit from those, from the epas relg regulations. The ozone and the particulates we would suffer far great b wir i claim, if we did not have epa improving our air quality over the past 20 years. Now, do you administrator, do you believe that the epa, you know did she what is the balance listening to elected politicians versus independent scientists . When you make a decision like this, you must listen to the independent scientist and base it on peer review science. That is what the law requires but its sort of what all of us would agree would be a good thing to do. I think the American People would say lets trust the opinions of independent scientists, theyre not sujtded to the interests that can play upon them. But this body indicated that is the way we do it. The congress set it up that way. Yes. Now i understand the power plants burn coal. One of the serious emissions is mercury, is that right . That is right. And mercury is linked to neurological illness in children. Thats correct. And i understand that tends to be located and inhabits the areas plants tend to be low income people. Often people of color. Yes. Is that true . That is true. As much as and im glad the majority cares about people, but i am wondering whether or not they care about the health of poor people. And it seems to me that its contradictory to say oh we care about the pore people being able to buy carbon, but not all of us have taken into consideration the fact that we have many, many, many dispropoes portionally People Living around these power plants. I only have 20 second left, but can you make comment about the ability of your regulation lagzs to generate greater Economic Activity . Yeah. Its actually a well done rule for the environment is actually extremely supportive of the foundation of a growth economy. Because were talking about premature deaths. Were talking about asthma attacks, kids not being able to go to school. Were talking about families not being able to go to work. So we actually believe and i think the data shows that our rules are so cost beneficial because they give so many more Public Health benefits than they do cost the economy. And if you structure this right you generate activity in the economy to grow new technologies to grow new jobs. I think thats important to remember. The gentlemans time has expired. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator mccarthy, a 2004 department of Environmental Protection report claims from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection due to the relatively large Geographic Area covered by forest and other vegetation in the gulf area of florida, buy yourgenic voc, volatile organic compounds emissions make up to 80 to 90 of the total vocs emitted on a typical summer day. Another Florida Department of Environmental Protection reports said epa also should consider whether or not natural background concentrations would preclusion compliance with the epas standards in certain Geographic Areas. For example, epa estimates that 70 to 80 of the seasonal mean ozone levels in florida are aclinted to background contributions. So my question is, how can they comply with a new requirement of 65 to 70 if nature gives them 70 to 80 for a start . Congressman let me assure you that states are not health responsible for reducing emissions that are not in their controls. The Clean Air Act is very clear about that. So there was a great discussion, frarnlgly okay. Thats you say thats a fact. Ill accept that. Okay. Thank you. With regard to the clean power plant, are you at all concerned about the increasing costs of electricity and causing many, the poor, which my colleagues referred to a moment ago you seemed to concerned about and also seniors to make different choices as to which necessities in life they can afford due to the increase in their electric bills and they may possibly be extreme . Well, let me be clear. I am always concerned about the economic consequences of our rules and we sooem seek very much to make sure those are as minimal as possible. And if take a look at the carbon plan, our projections indicate that when this rule, at the time of the final goal in 2030, the final standard youre looking at a a decrease in what people have to pay a month for their electricity. So how much could the Senior Citizens of florida expect their rates to go down because of this new rule that youre going to pass . They can expect their bills to go down by about 8 in 2030, according to our projections. What about between now and 2030 . At most the increase is a gallon of milk. Its about 3. About 3. A month. For what . What volume of the usage . If you pay 100 today, it could be as much as 103 i believe in to 25 been but over time, that goes just before my time runs out, did i hear you say did i hear this correctly that of the 6,000 messages you received or sent on your governmentissued blackberry and your governmentissued iphone, that only one or two of those were official business . Only one or two of those were records under the federal reports action that should be preserved. Now, there were changes about im late for this meeting or that. Those are transitory and those are not to be preserved. Thats how the frerl records act works because theyre not substantive. The two substantive ones i knew i about preserved. So out of 6,000, you only are two substantive transmissions . We highly discourage through policy the use of mobile dwooig devices for the very reason that we knife need month make sure were preserving reports. So we highly disoccur aenl it and, frankly, to my recollection, i only started using text because my kids wouldnt answer my did you receive or tend any message to any special Interest Groups interested in environment from your iphone or your blackberry out of 6,000 of them five years you never once never once youre telling us, ever once, sent a substantive message or received a substantive message from a special Interest Groups group pertaining to the environment . To my recollection the two that needed to be preserved were preserved. Just you can say yes or no. I dont thats my best answer. You cannot tell me that you never received my on her substantive message or sent one to a are we talking about text message or anything from your blackberry our your iphone