Bobby Rush

It can't even potentially have anything to do with the ozone question because ozone isn't concentrated in cities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Diette, I wanted to give you a chance to respond to anything that you have heard here but particularly the Keets study that was the subject of controversy and how the study was mischaracterized.

What would be the impact on public health if, as the chairman has suggested, that the majority party would rewrite the Clean Air Act to make cost to industry rather than the benefits of public health the primary driver of EPA rules?

Lowering the ozone standard from 75 ppb would literally save lives while also preventing hundreds of thousands of missed school days and missed work days and preventing hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks.

I do have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a letter from public health organizations opposing legislation or amendments that would block or delay EPA's work to update ozone standards.

I agreed with your characterization of the Science Advisory Board as bipartisan. I think it is probably more accurate to call it nonpartisan.

Healthier children, parents, and employees translate into very real economic benefits.

I know that the people who sent me here to represent them are some of the ones who would be impacted by this procedure.

Has there been any cost-benefit analysis by the EPA or any other agency either before, during, or after the proposal?

Well, you also point out that, since 1980, we have reduced our air pollution by nearly 70 percent and our economy has tripled.

The current standard of 75 parts per billion is not adequate to protect the public health.

The EPA's proposal will improve air quality and result in significant public health benefits.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards at concentration levels sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety for certain pollutants that endanger public health…

It seems to me that they are trying to run out the clock on you and I. They are not seriously taking our requests and our initiatives and our discussion to heart.

It is my opinion, Mr. Secretary, that they are--Argonne and Fermi specifically, are faking and fumbling on the issues of inclusiveness and outreach.

I believe that you will go down as one of the most consequential Energy Secretaries of our time.

I have no doubt that you will go down as one of the most significant and effective Energy Secretaries of modern time.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today on the QER, and--as well as on a variety of other energy issues covered in the discussion draft.

I will continue to reach across the aisle for support on this nonpartisan issue of codifying a quadrennial energy review, and I hope that we can find common ground.

Mr. Secretary, let me commend you for the outstanding work you have been involved in on a myriad of different issues, all important to the American people.

I want to thank you for your testimony today, and especially your comments regarding the nuclear fleet's contribution as carbon-free base load power.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is high time that this subcommittee revisit this extremely important issue of grid security and resiliency.

I look forward to the days that we can have a hearing on airplane reliability.

Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member Pallone asked this question of the previous panel, and I want to ask Mr. Roos-Collins the same question.