The legislation before us, which I prefer to call the ``Just Say No'' bill, would effectively give Governors the power to opt out of the Federal requirements of the EPA's proposed clean power plan if they decide that complying with the…

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the fine ranking member of the full committee, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chair, I applaud the Obama administration for its veto threat of this abhorrent legislation that we are now…

These findings are in line with a similar study conducted by the National Medical Association last year which found that older Americans, low-income communities, and the sick will all be disproportionately impacted by climate change if we…

I have an amendment at the desk. The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 4, after line 15, insert the following (and redesignate subsection (b) as subsection (c)): (b) Additional…

I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be postponed. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan The CHAIR. It is…

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.

There is a strong consensus among people who actually take care of sick patients with asthma and other lung diseases that ozone is harmful.

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.

I want to thank you so very much for your giving me this time. I really appreciate it.

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?

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

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.

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

Healthier children, parents, and employees translate into very real economic 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…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, 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.