Ranking Member Johnson's Remarks on EPA Proposal to Update National Air Quality Standards

Statement

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson's remarks on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposal to Update National Air Quality Standards for Ground-level Ozone are below:

"We are here today to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to lower the standard for ozone, the pollutant that causes smog, from the current standard of 75 parts per billion to a standard in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion.

"As someone who worked in the public health field before I entered politics, I am very sensitive to the problem poor air quality can have on the health of Texans, especially the young and the infirm. Unfortunately, those of us from the Dallas-Fort Worth region are very familiar with the negative effects of smog and are accustomed to seeing orange and red alerts warning us about being outside because the air is too polluted for it to be safe. Air quality-related illnesses have a very real and destructive effect on the economy -- nationally, on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars annually - and the benefits for reducing those effects will be seen throughout the country.

"The scientific evidence supports a lower standard for ozone than we currently have and according to the Agency's analysis, strengthening the standard will provide better protection for our children by preventing 320,000 to 960,000 asthma attacks; it will keep them from missing 330,000 to 1 million days of school; and it will stop between 750 and 4,300 premature deaths per year.

"It is worth noting that children and communities of color are disproportionately affected by air pollution. Children are more likely to be active outdoors and their lungs are still developing. In addition, a 2011 analysis of U.S. populations and air quality found that African Americans and Latinos were more likely to live in counties that had worse problems with particle pollution. African Americans were also more likely to live in counties with worse smog pollution, have nearly two times the rates of current asthma as white children, and are four times as likely to die from it.

"Some will argue that EPA's proposal will kill jobs, decimate the industrial base, and result in irreparable economic disruption. This is not a new argument. It's what's been said for decades about every major new environmental and consumer protection--from catalytic converters to scrubbers to seatbelts. We all know that none of those predictions have come true. In fact, there is much more evidence showing that jobs are created and the economy expands following the passage of major reforms. For example, the U.S. economy grew by 64 percent in the years following passage of the Clean Air Act.

"However much we might wish for a world where big environmental issues are addressed voluntarily by industry or through the workings of the free market, or are best-regulated by the individual states, we all know that it just does not work that way. Now, more than ever, the American people need a strong EPA to protect their rights to clean air and water.

"Yes, some types of industries may see a decline in the face of new regulations. In Texas, depending on how the relevant firms decide to comply, some jobs could be lost. While I truly hate to see any family suffer a job loss, I am an optimist with a well-founded faith that ultimately these regulations act as a catalyst for the creation of new jobs and industrial sectors, and that the hardworking and talented Texas workforce will be the ones to benefit in the end. Stricter pollutions limits force us to push the envelope of scientific innovation and create new technologies. And, as it has been proven many times over, improved worker productivity, increased agricultural yield, reduction in mortality and illness, and other economic and public health benefits far outweigh the costs of compliance.

"Thankfully, poll after poll shows that the public believes that the EPA should protect their right to clean air and water more than they believe that pollution is the price they must pay for economic security. I stand here today with the people of Texas who, regardless of where they fall in the partisan divide, universally agree that respiratory diseases, heart attacks, and premature deaths are not part of the sacrifice they should have to make for the sake of the "Texas Miracle."

"Although significant progress has been made in the past 40 years, it is our job now to build upon this legacy and ensure that we continue to improve our environmental quality. In the great State of Texas a healthy environment and strong economy are not mutually exclusive, and I am supportive of the EPA's efforts to lower the ozone standard. We can and must do better for current and future Texans."

Source