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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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