[Senate Hearing 113-754]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-754
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
MARCH 26, 2014
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
S. Hrg. 113-754
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 26, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-797 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 26, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 20
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 135
Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho........... 136
Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey.. 137
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 138
Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi... 140
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 143
Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska,
prepared statement............................................. 497
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming,
prepared statement............................................. 499
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland, prepared statement................................... 577
WITNESS
McCarthy, Hon. Gina, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 150
Prepared statement........................................... 152
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 157
Senator Markey........................................... 162
Senator Vitter........................................... 164
Senator Wicker........................................... 211
Senator Fischer.......................................... 215
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR
2015 BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Whitehouse, Booker,
Inhofe, Barrasso, Sessions, Crapo, Wicker, Boozman, and
Fischer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The committee will come to order.
We are on a fast track because we have votes. Could I ask
members to take their seats, please?
I welcome Administrator McCarthy to this oversight hearing
on the 2015 EPA budget.
EPA's mission is to protect the public health and the
environment through programs that address clean air, children's
health, safe drinking water, toxics, and water quality. Like
other Federal agencies, EPA has been asked to do more with
less. Five years ago their budget was $10.3 billion, and the
2015 budget request we are going to discuss today has been
reduced to 7.9, a 23 percent cut; and I am particularly
concerned about the proposed cuts to the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Grant Program. These programs are critical to
protecting our public health.
In addition to funding cuts, EPA has faced other challenges
in recent years, including a rogue career employee, John Beale,
who has been sentenced to prison for defrauding the American
taxpayers. I appreciate the work the Office of Inspector
General did to ferret out this employee, and I would like to
commend Administrator McCarthy for bringing his outrageous
actions to light.
EPA has over 15,000 employees and, just like any
organization, public, private, even the military, there are
bound to be a few outliers who must be held accountable. But
with thousands of dedicated employees, EPA has demonstrated
repeated success at improving our families' health by keeping
the Nation's air and water clean and safe.
For example, in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Standard and
Program under the Clean Air Act prevented 13 million lost work
days, prevented more than 160,000 deaths from air pollution,
prevented 3.2 million lost school days, prevented 1.7 million
asthma attacks.
Administrator McCarthy, I can't find very many agencies
that could say that.
I wanted to show a picture of what happens when you don't
pay attention to the air. This is another photograph of China.
We don't need to have a theory on this; we see what happens
when countries don't value their people enough to protect them
from dirty air. Actually, there was a new study that shows 3.7
million people worldwide have died prematurely from outdoor air
pollution.
We also know, over the last 40 years, while there were
people railing against EPA, the economy has grown 212 percent,
while air pollution has dropped 68 percent. A responsible
budget must not lose sight of our top priorities, including
protecting the health and safety of the people.
What is at stake if we do not have adequate safeguards in
place? Just look at West, Texas, where 15 people died in a
chemical explosion, or look at West Virginia, where a chemical
spill contaminated the water supply for 300,000 people. By
taking preventive action, we can help communities avoid similar
disasters.
I intend, next week, to mark up a bill, the Manchin bill,
that he wrote with Senator Rockefeller and myself, the Chemical
Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act. I really do pray we
can get that done next week here in a bipartisan way. We will
get it done, but I am hoping for bipartisanship, because when
you have chemicals that are not regulated and they are sitting
on top of a drinking water supply, look what happened to that
town economically when their drinking water was destroyed. I
think we need to act.
I also want to thank EPA for proposing a rule to clarify
the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Many colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, along with dozens of organizations,
including Ducks Unlimited, the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, the Farm Bureau, the National Mining Association,
the National Association of Homebuilders, have repeatedly
called on EPA and the Corps to go through a formal rulemaking
to clear up the uncertainty created by two confusing Supreme
Court decisions.
This proposed rule will now proceed through an open and
transparent process where all views can be heard, including
those whose views differ from yesterday's proposal. The
proposed rule ensures protections for the wetlands and small
streams that can be a source of drinking water for over 117
million Americans. For the first time, EPA has listed bodies of
water that are exempted from this regulation, including upland
ditches, artificial lakes or ponds, reflecting pools, and
swimming pools, and I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record the full list of exemptions. Without objection.
[The referenced documents follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. EPA has a record that Americans be proud of,
and I want to show you the support that EPA has in the public;
we have it on a chart here. The American people know what you
are doing and they appreciate what you are doing. Sixty-six
percent of voters favor EPA updating air pollution standards by
setting stricter limits. Seventy-two percent of voters support
new standards for carbon pollution from power plants.
So, Madam Administrator, I have to stop. I am holding
myself to 5 minutes. I will hold everyone to that. Thank you
for being here.
With that, I would call on our ranking member, Senator
Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for
being with us.
This is a very important oversight hearing about EPA's
budget and overall what is going on at EPA, its management
practices, how it is being run. This committee obviously has
that fundamental oversight responsibility. The starkest example
of concerns about how EPA is being run, what I would
characterize as a long-term culture at EPA, is the case of the
former senior EPA official, John Beale. Of course, he has
turned out to be a manipulator and charlatan of renowned
proportions.
We now know that EPA dithered for years rather than take
action against a fake CIA agent who stole over $1 million of
taxpayer money. This and other failings are detailed in a
series of memoranda issued by my committee staff, which I would
like to enter into the record at this time.
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced documents follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Vitter. Thank you.
This memorandum exposes an indisputable time line that
raises questions not just about John Beale, about EPA. In
January 2011, Ms. McCarthy was informed that Beale had been
receiving erroneous bonus payments that actually elevated his
salary above a statutory cap, and was advised by her human
resources staff and legal counsel to cancel the bonus. Instead,
she deferred to an EPA official equal to her in rank at the
time, allegedly because of uncertainty over Beale's CIA status.
However, a senior EPA official directly informed Ms. McCarthy
that there were no CIA employees at EPA.
While it appears Ms. McCarthy believed the matter was
closed when Beale announced his retirement in May 2011, she
learned in March 2012 that Beale had not retired and in fact
collected full pay plus the illegal retention bonus of $42,768.
Ms. McCarthy took no action against Beale for nearly a year
after this, finally canceling the illegal bonus in February
2013. And instead of firing Beale, Ms. McCarthy allowed him to
retire 2 months later with full benefits.
Now, it is now clear that Beale also led one of EPA's most
significant rulemakings prior to that, the 1997 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter.
This effort codified EPA's practice of using fine particulates
to inflate alleged benefits of nearly all Clean Air Act
regulations. Almost two decades later, the Agency still refuses
to share all the scientific data underpinning these very costly
regulations.
Collectively, Beale and his best friend Robert Brenner's
work on the standards introduced a series of dubious actions
that the Agency has continued to follow and comprised what my
committee staff has referred to as EPA's playbook, as detailed
in a comprehensive staff report issued last week on this issue,
and I would like to enter that into the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
[The referenced documents follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Vitter. The Obama EPA has embraced the strategies
of this playbook and pursued ideologically driven agendas in
much the same way as Beale did in the 1990s, pushing through
controversial regulations where the ends justify the means.
This is done by assenting to sue and settle agreements,
excluding public participation, employing heavy handed
management of the interagency review process, inflating
purported benefits, and, quite frankly, just hiding science.
EPA's continued use of the playbook has led to dire
consequences for Americans. For example, on March 10th of this
year, the New York Times reported on the story of 81-year-old
Ernestine Cundiff of Columbus, Ohio, a diabetic with
deteriorating health living on a fixed income. Ms. Cundiff now
struggles to pay her energy bills as a direct result of EPA air
regulations that have shut down electricity generation in her
part of the country.
To advance EPA's extreme agenda, it is also clear that this
EPA extends its regulatory arm with complete disregard for
American taxpayer dollars, and we have many examples of that.
These examples of waste and abuse make congressional
oversight absolutely critical. That is why this hearing and
follow up work is so enormously important to get at this
concerning culture, of which, unfortunately, John Beale is just
the poster child, not the full extent.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senator.
I want to place in the record a counter to some of these
things. An article in the Washington Post that says, outside of
Gina McCarthy, there wasn't ever, ever, in all the years under
the Bush administration, Republican and Democratic
administrations, no one ever stopped Beale except Gina
McCarthy. We will put that in the record and we will call on
Senator Whitehouse.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here. You
exercise one of the most important responsibilities of the
Federal Government, to protect human health and the
environment, and I applaud your service, and I am sorry that
this issue has become so partisan. I have the seat of Senator
John Chafee, who was both a Republican and an environmentalist,
and I am sorry that that combination of features no longer
seems possible in Washington.
You have had to do more with less, and I appreciate that.
There are people here who want you to do less with less. They
don't want EPA to be efficient; they want it to be wounded and
to be unable to protect the American public. But I urge you to
continue with your work. Your Tier 3 motor vehicle rule, for
instance, will prevent as many as 2,000 premature deaths and
30,000 respiratory illnesses in children every year.
The health benefits of the rule can actually be quantified
and have been quantified to between $6.7 billion and $19
billion in value to the American public every year. This is a
particularly important public health victory in States like
Rhode Island, where more than 1 in 10 of our citizens suffer
from asthma. There may be people here who don't care about
that, but I do, and I think it is important that the public
health side of the equation be recognized, as well.
I also applaud your efforts to regulate the carbon
emissions that are coming from, first, to be new power plants
and then, shortly, the regulations we hope for on existing
power plants. We hope that we can do some work on your funding.
It is unfortunate that, because of cuts, funding for Clean
Water and Drinking Water State revolving funds had to be
reduced by 30 percent and 17 percent, respectively. Those are
important programs for our home States.
It is also unfortunate that lack of resources has required
EPA to delay some of its work, at least in part due to the lack
of resources. The coal ash standard that the Obama
administration committed to in 2008 was the result of a dam
collapse in Tennessee and a coal ash spill 100 times the size
of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In the last few weeks, tens of
thousands of tons of coal ash from Duke Energy facilities
contaminated 70 miles of river in North Carolina and Virginia.
Now, EPA has finally published the proposed rules in June
2010. There has not been action since. The Federal Court has
finally instructed EPA to complete the rule this year. I hope
the recent episodes with coal ash disaster have motivated you
despite the cuts. But that is the price of putting EPA under
the kind of financial pressure. When you want people not to do
more with less, but to do less with less, then that is what you
get, and I think it is very unfortunate for North Carolina and
Virginia.
So I look forward to working with you. We actually, at
last, have a budget timeframe that will allow appropriators to
work through budgets and get into some detail, rather than have
mad dashes and brinksmanship at the end between the President
and the Speaker, for instance, without Senators having an
opportunity to participate. So I am looking forward to working
on that process.
And please continue to go forward on climate change; it is
way past denial, as the American Academy for the Advancement of
Sciences recent report shows, as NASA scientists have
repeatedly showed. I find it remarkable that people contend
that NASA doesn't know what it is doing when they have an SUV-
sized vehicle drive around on the surface of Mars right now.
That is a pretty good sign that these people know their
science.
So thank you for being here. You have fans and supporters,
and we will have your back.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you for staying so well
within your time. The reason I am going to do a tough gavel is
we have votes. If we can get down to the floor about 11:20, I
think we will just make it.
So we will now turn to Senator Crapo, followed by Senator
Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this
important hearing on the EPA's fiscal year 2015 budget
proposal.
And thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for joining us
today.
To begin with, I would like to echo my colleague's concerns
regarding John Beale and his deep connections to regulatory
decisions affecting all Americans. It seems difficult to
conclude that any of Mr. Beale's work on the many initiatives
under his purview at EPA can be trusted at face value. As such,
I would like to take this opportunity to urge for a robust
review of all rulemakings and regulatory actions connected with
Mr. Beale's service at the EPA.
Moving to the budget in particular, the Federal Government
continues to face severe budget challenges, and further
attention is needed by Congress in order to improve our long-
term fiscal outlook, knowing the funding priorities of
executive branch agency is an important resource as Congress
prepares its own budget and fiscal measures. I understand that
the EPA, like all Federal agencies, has been working to do its
part in achieving deficit reduction. However, I am perplexed by
some of what I see in the EPA's budget proposals.
In reviewing the EPA's budget proposal, I am concerned that
the Agency has proposed funding reductions for programs that
enjoy strong bipartisan support and are critical programs,
while increasing funding for programs on initiatives that
remain controversial. Specifically, at a time when we have just
heard about a new proposal for what I consider to be nothing
more than a jurisdictional power grab over water with regard to
our Clean Water Act and safe drinking water statutes, we also
see in the budget proposal the proposed reduction of funding
for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State revolving
loan funds. That is a big concern to me.
I think we all in America know that we are facing over $200
billion of infrastructure needs in these arenas, and we have
been working for years to try to get adequate budgets to help
our Nation deal with its aging water infrastructure. And to see
over $580 million in reduction of that budget, when other parts
of the EPA budget could have been looked to for the necessary
savings, is disturbing. The small communities who need this
assistance to ensure that their water systems meet State and
Federal environmental regulations are going to be badly harmed
by this budget decision.
Additionally, the proposed reduction in funding for the
brownfields program is discouraging. Just last summer I co-
chaired an EPW subcommittee hearing in which we heard about the
positive impact this program has had in Idaho and across the
Nation.
Also, many of my colleagues and I continue to have serious
concerns with the President's climate action plan and the use
of Executive authority to circumvent Congress. The EPA's 2015
budget proposal clearly advocates the continuation of this
alarming process.
There are many other things I could say, but in terms of
trying to pay attention to the chairman's admonition to keep it
brief, I will end with this. But, Administrator McCarthy, I
encourage you to help find a way to correct the budget
decisions that will short-fund our State revolving funds and to
help us move forward in correcting that trend and, in fact,
help us to get increased resources into this critical part of
our Nation's water infrastructure. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much.
Senator Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Chairwoman, for this
opportunity. I want to thank not only the Chairwoman, but
Ranking Member Vitter for holding this hearing.
Administrator McCarthy, I just want to welcome you. I am
very excited about your leadership and the opportunity as a new
Senator to serve with you because, for me, it is very obvious
that the EPA's mission to protect public health is severely
urgent. In the State of New Jersey, we have more Superfund
sites than any other State. It is appalling how we, in the
past, have not stepped up to hold people accountable for the
messes that they are making, and we are spending billions of
dollars of taxpayer money, I believe unnecessarily, in costs
that should have been internalized by industry.
So I believe right now it is appropriate and important that
the proposed EPA budget for 2015 needs to make addressing
climate change as one of the Agency's top objectives. We must
address the threats posed by climate change before it is too
late and that we are cleaning up the more expensive damage that
it will do in the future.
I am pleased to see in your budget proposed requests to
allocate increased resources to climate change and air quality
work, and to see funding specifically dedicated--and this gets
me very excited--for preparing for the impacts of climate
change. That includes technical assistance for adaptation,
planning for risks associated with storm surges, a threat that
we are very familiar with in New Jersey.
New Jersey is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change. Scientists at Rutgers recently estimated that
the New Jersey shore will likely experience a sea level rise of
1.5 feet by 2050 and 3.5 feet by 2100. The projections for the
New Jersey coasts are higher than the projections for average
sea level rise globally. The projected sea level rise of 1.5
feet for 2050 for the New Jersey coast would mean places like
Atlantic City, if there was a 10-year storm surge--not a 50-
year storm or 100-year storm, but just the scale of storm that,
on average, we see every 10 years--flood levels from that storm
would be worse than any flooding that has ever been experienced
in Atlantic City, and it would be far more routine.
EPA's budget justification also demonstrates the Agency's
continued commitment to addressing issues of environmental
justice, an area I would like to work closely with you on as we
move forward. Climate change does not impact everyone equally.
Low income and minority communities will be disproportionately
impacted by future extreme weather events. While natural
disasters may seem like equal opportunity destroyers, they are
not. In today's economy, many people live in vulnerable
communities and are one paycheck away from the devastating
impact of poverty. In cities such as Newark and New Orleans, as
we saw from Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, one major storm can
destroy fragile networks supporting families' access to food,
shelter, and medicine. We must be prepared for increasing
climate change.
Low income and minority communities are systematically more
likely to lack parks and trees and green spaces, and have a
higher concentration of pavement than wealthier communities.
Newark, for example, where I was mayor, approximately 70
percent of its surface is impervious and only has 15 percent
canopy coverage. The temperature of a paved surface absorbing
summer heat can be 50 to 90 degrees above the temperature of a
green surface. This leads to significantly higher air
temperatures, which then result in increased air pollution,
spikes in asthma rates, and more cases of heat stroke and even
death among the elderly.
The EPA has taken important first steps toward reductions
of carbon emissions by setting standards that will cut carbon
pollution from automobiles and trucks nearly in half by 2025,
but we know that the power plants make up at least a third of
the Nation's CO2 emissions; and I commend the
Administration's work to limit greenhouse gas emissions from
both new and existing power plants. The EPA has both the
authority and the responsibility under the Clean Air Act to
reduce pollution from these plants.
Administrator McCarthy, I look forward to working with you
on these issues. I admire your courage in this overly partisan
debate. The truth is we share one common destiny in this
country. Whether you are a red State or blue State, Republican
or Democrat, the threats to our climate are real and they are
obvious, and we can do things to address them that actually
increase economic opportunity for our Nation and uplift our
higher aspirations to make this a country with liberty and
justice for all, and for that I thank you for stepping forward
to lead and I look forward, again, to working with you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. McCarthy, even though we have a good personal
relationship, I am growing increasingly concerned about the
EPA's systematic distortion of the costs and benefits. We hear
a lot about the benefits, but not the costs. While it is quick
to turn over every stone to find every conceivable benefit that
could come from a new rulemaking, the Agency exerts just as
much effort to cut corners and ignore the reality so it can
downplay the true economic costs of these regulations. This
distortion enables the Agency to enact outlandish rules of
obscene costs and harm to the economy and the American public
without any respect to the cost-benefit balance enshrined in
the foundation of our environmental laws.
This topic has been one of focus to the committee, as
evidenced by the recent report. We have already talked about
John Beale and I won't elaborate on that, but more damage than
the money he stole from the taxpayers is that he and others
wrote the playbook on how to get away with this distortion of
costs and benefit. For the sake of the American public, it is
time to aggressively rein in this practice.
As one example, let me just consider utility MACT rule. The
utility MACT is the rule that requires powerplants to reduce
certain components of their missions. The Clean Air Act
requires these rules to be updated periodically, but only as
technology allows and to the extent that the benefits outweigh
the rule's full cost to the economy. In its cost estimate, the
EPA stated the rule would create 46,000 temporary construction
jobs and 8,000 net permanent jobs.
Now that this rule has set in, we are starting to see its
real impact, and the facts reveal that the rule has not only
had a devastating impact on coal production across the country,
but it also resulted in dozens of power plants being shut down,
which has caused significant increases in electricity prices
around the country.
The New York Times reported on these impacts on March 10th.
They wrote, ``Underlying the growing concern among the
consumers and regulators is a second phenomenon that could lead
to even bigger price increases: scores of old coal-fired power
plants in the Midwest will close in the next year or so because
of Federal pollution rules. Still others could close because of
a separate rule,'' we are talking about the water rule, ``for
utilities. Another frigid winter like this could lead to a
squeeze in supply, making it even harder and much more
expensive to supply power.'' That is all a quote from the New
York Times.
But this is already happening. The article reported that in
Rhode Island a utility received permission to raise prices 12
percent over the previous years. In Pennsylvania, utility bills
have tripled in some places. What is shocking to me is the New
York Times is connecting these increases back to the EPA's
regulation. So I have to wonder is it even remotely possible
that the utility MACT rule created 8,000 net permanent jobs as
EPA said it would. If this is causing electricity prices to
triple in some areas, how is that possible?
Before I came to Congress, I was in business, and when
input costs go up, it doesn't create jobs; it lowers profits,
it puts strains on the margins of the business. The same is
true with the whole economy. And when an input cost as
significant as electricity begins to soar in cost or wobble in
reliability, the impact is negative and felt across the entire
economy; it destroys jobs, it doesn't create 8,000 new jobs.
That the Obama EPA can get away with this kind of distortion
proves the Agency, in my opinion, is out of control, and this
is something I am going to focus on for the rest of the year;
it is simply too important for us not to. EPA's impact may be
coal now, but we know it is going to be natural gas next.
Whether it is hydraulic fracturing or methane emissions, the
EPA is intent to carry out what the Sierra Club has named its
Beyond Natural Gas campaign, just as the EPA did with Sierra
Club's Beyond Coal campaign.
We in the Senate are charged with stewarding this Nation,
which includes watching out for those who are most vulnerable.
The elderly and the poor are most at risk for losing their
homes and health due to the skyrocketing electricity bills,
which is exactly what will happen under the EPA's war on fossil
fuels. It is our job to watch out for them. These are the most
vulnerable people, I suggest to my good friend from New Jersey.
So I would only say, Madam Chairman, I am going to have to
excuse myself for a while for an Armed Services obligation, but
I am going to be coming right back.
Senator Boxer. Sure.
Senator Inhofe. And hopefully we will have a chance to
respond to some of these comments made concerning climate
change.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I am excited what you said about
the elderly and the poor, so we will work together on that.
Let me say what I am going to do, unless there is
objection. We are going to hear from the two Senators who
haven't been heard from, and then I am going to shut down the
comments here so that we can get to Gina McCarthy. Colleagues
coming in can do their opening statement with their questions.
Is that OK with everyone? OK, that is excellent.
So we will hear from Senator Wicker, followed by Senator
Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. I think that is a very good solution, Madam
Chair.
Senator Boxer. All right.
Senator Wicker. I would like to ask unanimous consent to
place in the record at this point an op ed from
WallStreetJournal.com entitled How Carbon Dioxide Became a
``Pollutant.''
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wicker. Thank you. And I do it for this purpose,
Madam Chair and Administrator McCarthy: We have had a lot of
discussion already this morning in the form of opening
statements about the proven dreaded results of particulate
pollution and poisons put into our environment, an issue where
everyone in this room agrees. We have heard discussion in
statements about respiratory illnesses; we have heard
endorsements by the American Lung Association; we have talked
about asthma; particulate pollution in China, this awful
picture that the chairman showed showing smog in China;
discussions of coal ash; Superfund sites.
And then without making any distinction at all between
these poisons and particulate pollutants, my friends on the
other side of the dais switch almost in the same sentence to
climate change, where the target there is greenhouse gases and
carbon dioxide, making no distinction between the fact and
making no mention of the fact that CO2 and
greenhouse gases have nothing to do with respiratory illnesses
or with lung disease or asthma or smog in China or coal ash or
Superfund sites, something we all are very much interested in.
And I would point out to my colleagues that toward the end
of this op ed that is now part of the record, EPA acknowledged
some positive impacts from higher CO2
concentrations. One is faster growing trees in tropical
forests, which helps offset deforestation. EPA has acknowledged
that. CO2 is good for the rainforest. Another is
that marshes can grow more quickly above rising sea levels,
providing an insurance policy of sorts for low-lying areas
against the potential ravages of rising sea levels.
So, at any rate, I would just point out that there are
differences on this committee about the effect of
CO2 on climate change, but no one is suggesting that
CO2 causes lung disease, asthma, or the kind of smog
that the chairman talked about.
I will tell you what we do agree on, Administrator
McCarthy. We agree that there are some mighty fine programs
that the Administration is proposing cuts for. The 2015 budget
process, the budget of the Administration proposes cutting $430
million from the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund, $150 million
from the Drinking Water Revolving Fund, and $5 million from the
Brownfields Program. This is something we can all agree on:
these are proven programs that are well received by State and
local communities, encourage the EPA to work with communities
in a cooperative manner rather than a confrontational one.
These cuts are even more troubling considering that some
estimate the amount needed to bring local water infrastructure
into EPA regulations is over $2.5 trillion. We need to be
helping local communities rather than putting unfunded mandates
on them.
All across the Federal Government, agencies are having to
make tough decisions to rein in the country's spending. I would
rather we help communities with safe drinking water and with
safe air, rather than putting some funding of dubious value
into CO2 regulation in the name of climate change.
I am also concerned that EPA addresses out-of-compliance
communities often with subpoenas and civil action, when we
should be coming to them with technical assistance and grants.
EPA's enforcement actions may help achieve compliance, but when
small and rural communities must funnel meager funds away from
schools and hospitals, I question the efficacy of this
approach.
I raised many of these same issues in the record during
Administrator McCarthy's nomination hearing. I look forward to
visiting with her about these in the future.
Finally, I hope we can work together to strengthen the
partnership between EPA and small rural communities in
developing and complying with regulations to protect our
environment and our citizens. This is an issue upon which
Republicans and Democrats can agree.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you.
Finally, Senator Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Senator Wicker, I thank you for saying what you said, it
was very important. CO2 is an odorless, tasteless
gas we emit when we breathe, and plants all breathe it in and
grow faster when there is more CO2, a fact which
cannot be denied. We need to differentiate that between the
kinds of actual pollutants that make people sick, and we can do
that. We have made a lot of progress in America to clean up the
air, and we need to keep at it, but we need to be smart about
it. It is a bit disingenuous when I hear people say carbon,
carbon, carbon, and what they really mean is CO2.
They use the word carbon and it makes people think of soot and
particulates and things of that nature, and I think that really
misrepresents the issue somewhat.
Ms. McCarthy, I am concerned about spending. We are going
to see interest on our debt grow from $211 billion last year,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, to $880 billion
in 1 year 10 years from now. Every agency has to watch its
spending, and Congress has a clear duty to monitor spending.
The ozone standard that you sought or your department
sought to advance early is an example, I believe, of wasted
money. In 2008, after a process that took 8 years, EPA
tightened significantly the ozone standard. That was done in a
proper way. And under the Clean Air Act the ozone standard was
to be reviewed again in 5 years. Yet almost immediately upon
coming into office, the Obama EPA began a costly and premature
process of reconsidering the ozone standard to make it even
more stringent, and this reconsideration was recognized as one
of the most expensive environmental regulations ever proposed,
with some estimates reaching $90 billion in annual costs. I
objected to that; 30 Senators wrote to object to that, and that
decision was reversed. I simply asked how much did this cost in
the 2 years that it was undertaken before it was abandoned; how
much money was wasted; how much money was spent on that, and I
have inquired on several different occasions.
I would offer for the record a letter that I wrote on a
letter that you wrote to me, a letter that was written by the
Republican members of this committee to you asking about an
analysis of what you spent, and, in effect, you responded this
way, or at least your Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe:
``It is difficult for EPA to estimate with any meaningful
precision the expenses and full-time equivalent employees used
for the reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard
specifically.''
Well, it is not difficult for you to answer that question.
I think that is a direct refusal to answer. And you said at the
hearing, when I asked you about it, that you would do that. I
asked you to provide a response, if you would respond to the
question for the record, and you answered, I absolutely will.
You were specifically asked, did EPA incur significant costs as
part of the ozone reconsideration? If so, how much? And you
ignored that question.
Can you not provide us the information that we asked? That
will be a question I will be asking you. I think it is a
responsible action for us to ask about and we will continue to
press it.
Madam Chairman, I will wrap up. Thank you for the
opportunity to ask these questions. And I will share Roger
Wicker, Senator Wicker's concern that we are moving money from
State programs for clean water and water treatment to the
bureaucracy at EPA. I think that is the wrong path to take.
[The referenced letters follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much for keeping it
under the time limit.
Yes, Administrator McCarthy, this is your time. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Vitter, and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's
proposed fiscal year 2015 budget. I am joined by the Agency's
Acting Chief Financial Officer, Maryann Froehlich.
EPA's budget request is $7.980 billion for the 2015 fiscal
year starting October 1, 2014. This budget meets the challenges
of domestic spending constraints while still fulfilling our
mission to protect public health and the environment.
The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects EPA's plans to take
advantage of new technologies and new regulatory and non-
regulatory approaches; it recognizes that EPA is part of a
larger network of environmental partners and States, tribes,
and communities.
This budget will provide the support for a smaller work
force by focusing on real progress in priority areas in
communities about climate change and air quality, toxics and
chemical safety, as well as clean water.
And we are asking for $7.5 million and 64 staff in fiscal
year 2015 to help provide green infrastructure technical
assistance for up to 100 communities to provide cost-effective
approaches for water management.
In addition, the budget requests continues our
environmental justice efforts. We will do more to partner with
States, tribes, and local governments and other Federal
agencies. Funding for State and tribal assistance grants, or
STAG, dollars is once again the largest percentage of EPA's
budget.
Addressing the threat from a changing climate is one of the
greatest challenges of this and future generations. The request
designates $199.5 million specifically for this work.
The Agency has added $10 million in 24 FTEs in fiscal year
2015 to support the President's Climate Action Plan, with $2
million designated for adaptation planning.
The Agency will also focus resources on the development of
common sense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power
plants, the single largest source of carbon pollution. When it
comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the President's
budget provides support for the States to help them implement
the Clean Air Act.
The EPA budget requests almost $673 million to support work
to improve chemical safety for all Americans, and especially
our children.
We are requesting $23 million and 24 FTEs in 2015 to
support activities under the President's Executive Order on
chemical safety, as well as Agency efforts on chemical
prioritization, air toxics, radon, and volatile organic
compounds in drinking water.
The Nation's water resources are the lifeblood of our
communities. We are requesting $1.775 billion for the Clean
Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
The Agency is also directing $8 million and 10 FTEs to
advance clean water infrastructure and sustainable design like
the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Program for
technical support to communities.
E-Enterprise is a major joint initiative between EPA and
the States to modernize our business practices, to get us into
the 21st century, to develop a new business model that looks
toward the future. The benefits of implementing the E-
Enterprise initiative can be seen in the budget. Just the E-
Enterprise initiative of E-Manifest alone includes annual
savings estimated at $75 million for over 160,000 waste
handlers.
In fiscal year 2015, the Agency is requesting $1.33 billion
to continue to apply effective approaches for clean up of RCRA,
Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank, and other
authorities. This strategy will ensure land is returned to
beneficial use. $1.16 billion is requested for Superfund, which
includes a $43.4 million increase for remedial work and an
increase of $9.2 million for emergency response and removal.
The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a total of $1.13
billion in categorical grants. Within that total is over $96
million for tribal general assistance program grants, an $18
million increase for pollution control, a $16 million increase
for environmental information grants, and a $15 million
increase for State and local air quality management.
Science is at the foundation of our work at EPA, and
science is supported by the President's budget request of
$537.3 million.
Last, across the Administration we recognize the importance
of the 2-year budget agreement Congress reached in December,
but the resulting funding levels are not sufficient to expand
opportunities to all Americans or to really drive the growth of
our economy in the way that is needed.
For that reason, across the Federal Government, the budget
also includes a separate, fully paid $56 billion initiative
that is supporting climate resilience. EPA would be the
beneficiary of approximately $15 million.
Chairman Boxer, I thank you for the opportunity to testify,
and I will take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I am sorry I kind of rushed you
at the end.
Ms. McCarthy. That is all right.
Senator Boxer. So I am so taken by some of my colleagues'
comments, and I have such great relationships across the aisle,
personal relationships, but this idea that the Republicans
support cracking down on ozone and smog and particulate matter
just isn't true. All you had to do is listen to these comments.
They are opposed to everything EPA does, not just climate.
And I want to point out and put in the record the
endangerment findings started under the Bush administration
from too much carbon pollution. We know you need a certain
amount in the air, but too much is dangerous. This is what it
says. And it started with Bush and it was completed under
Obama: Climate change threatens human health and well being in
many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather
events: wildfire decreased air quality, diseases transmitted by
insects, food, and water. Some of these impacts are already
underway, and there are cases of kids, for example, swimming in
lakes that used to be much colder; now they are warmer and
there are different kinds of bacteria and amoebas, and one
child got a brain disease swimming in a lake in Ohio. And we
will put all that into the record.
[The referenced documents follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. So there is an endangerment finding, so for
people to sit here and say it is no danger is simply
contradicted by the facts and by science.
I also want to ask you a couple things here. There is an
attempt now to blame all the clean air regulations, blame them
on this rogue employee who is now in jail. Is it not true that
any kind of proposed rule goes through public comment, peer
review, interagency review, and is subjected to judicial
review? Is that not so?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. OK. And that is the case with all of these
rules.
I also want to show you what has happened in California,
Administrator McCarthy. I think you know this, but I want to
show you what happened in the clean air with the dirty air
days. In our State, in Southern California, colleagues, we used
to have days where there were health advisories and people
could not go out; and every time I hear Senator Inhofe and
others complain about these rules and say this is baloney,
there were no benefits, excuse me. Open your eyes. Look at what
happened in L.A. and Southern California. In 1976 we had 166
advisories. People were warned not to go out. Everyone says
they care here about the elderly, and we all do. This was huge
for the elderly population, to be able to go out and breathe
the air. And now, in 2010, guess what? We had zero health
advisories.
So I would say, Administrator McCarthy, are you aware of
this in Southern California, and are there other places where
you can find similar results in the country?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Boxer. OK. I also wanted to share something else
with you, which is, again, a poll, the poll numbers on all of
this. And this is about climate change, where my colleagues are
railing against it; and that is a fact, they are. We had an
all-nighter that was organized by Senators Whitehouse and
Schatz, and we did hear from Senator Inhofe, for which I was
very grateful he came down; and he railed against what we were
doing and said, in other words, it is a hoax and all the rest,
and we respect him and his view.
But no one came down here. This is where people are. People
are not with the Republicans on this. Let's just be clear. I am
sorry to have to say this in partisan terms, because I served
with the great John Chafee. I served with the great John
Warner, and I saw bipartisan support to move; and I see none of
it now. It is sad. It is sad. And the reasons I don't even want
to go into, because I think I know why. But the bottom line is
81 percent of Americans think climate change will be a serious
problem if nothing is done to reduce it.
So thank you for doing what you do despite all the
pressure, despite all the insults.
Seventy-five percent of Americans say the U.S. should take
action on climate change even if other nations do less, because
they are smart. We don't wait for China to decide how to treat
our people and our economy and human rights and religious
freedom. We are America, we lead. So the American people get
it.
And I guess I don't have a lot of questions for you,
because you are going to get plenty. I just want to say keep
going. Keep doing what you are doing based on science.
And I would ask Senator Vitter now.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you, Madam
Administrator. I am going to use my very limited time to ask
some questions about the John Beale case, because I do think
this case reflects a deeply broken bureaucracy long-term; that
it is not an isolated incident and that John Beale, with his
good friend Robert Brenner, were instrumental in developing key
EPA regulations.
So, Madam Administrator, isn't it true that you received a
memo on January 12th, 2011, informing you that Beale's salary
was illegal, it exceeded the statutory cap, and recommending
that that bonus be terminated?
Ms. McCarthy. It is true that I became aware of the bonus,
yes.
Senator Vitter. And isn't it true that you did not cancel
that illegal bonus until over 2 years later, February 2013?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, Senator, what is true is I did
pursue that issue effectively, and I think the Agency was
addressing it effectively.
Senator Vitter. But the illegal bonus, you knew it was
illegal January 12th, 2011, was canceled February 2013.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. I went ahead and I reported that----
Senator Vitter. So that 2-year rapid response you consider
effective?
Ms. McCarthy. No. Actually, it took a while to get to the
bottom of the John Beale issue because he was a criminal that
had systemically intended to fraud the Agency. But the good
news is that he is in Federal prison right now, having paid
back----
Senator Vitter. But you knew the bonus was illegal and it
went on for 2 years.
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I understood that it was being
investigated, and I had sent it to the correct people to
investigate it.
Senator Vitter. OK. Why, in early 2011, were you reluctant
to finalize, to not cancel the bonus? Why were you reluctant to
take action?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I understood that the issue was
going to be referred to the Office of the Inspector General.
When that happens, you need to give them the opportunity to
investigate it and see if it is going to be managed criminally.
And I would never want to interfere with an investigation of
the Office of the Inspector General.
Senator Vitter. Now, Susan Smith, at OARM, has stated,
``Gina is reluctant to finalize cancellation of the bonus
unless OARM gives her the OK that the White House is aware and
there will not be any political fallout.'' Was that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what you are reading, sir, but I
don't think I have had a conversation----
Senator Vitter. That was an e-mail from Susan Smith. That
was a direct quote from her.
Ms. McCarthy. I have never had a conversation with her, so
I don't want to speak to her e-mails.
Senator Vitter. Were you concerned to act until the White
House looked into it and made sure there would not be any
political fallout?
Ms. McCarthy. I had no interaction with the White House on
this issue whatsoever, to the best of my recollection.
Senator Vitter. That wasn't the question. Were you
concerned that the White House look at this regarding political
fallout?
Ms. McCarthy. That was never a concern of mine, Senator,
no.
Senator Vitter. Did you ever talk to Scott Monroe about
that?
Ms. McCarthy. Many times.
Senator Vitter. OK.
Ms. McCarthy. No, I am sorry, not about the White House. I
spoke to him about Mr. Beale and his bonus.
Senator Vitter. Well, the same Susan Smith e-mail says that
Scott Monroe told her that you had those concerns. Is that just
not true?
Ms. McCarthy. I never had concerns about the White House's
interference or knowledge that----
Senator Vitter. So if Scott Monroe said that, he is not
speaking correctly?
Ms. McCarthy. Not based on any conversation he had with me,
no.
Senator Vitter. OK. Fundamentally, why did it take 2 years
to cancel this bonus that was just flat out illegal? The number
is above the cap. Why did it take 2 years to cancel that?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I referred this to the appropriate
authorities and we did get to the bottom of it, and we did it.
And while it might have taken longer than any of us would have
liked, he didn't go into the sunshine of retirement.
Senator Vitter. Well, he did, actually. He was allowed to
retire. He did go out in the sunshine of retirement.
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I don't know how much sunshine he
is seeing right now, Senator.
Senator Vitter. He was allowed to retire, right?
Ms. McCarthy. He was allowed to go to Federal prison.
Senator Vitter. First he was allowed to retire, having
gotten $90,000 of bonus illegally after you knew it was above
the cap.
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, every employee has their right to
retirement, and I am sure he exercised that right.
Senator Vitter. Now, Madam Administrator, you told OIG that
you relied on Craig Hooks for advice and that you were advised
by Craig Hooks to stand down on the matter, since it was a
criminal matter. Is that accurate?
Ms. McCarthy. That was my recollection, yes.
Senator Vitter. OK. Are you aware that on Monday Craig
Hooks told Chairman Issa's staff that he absolutely never told
you to stand down? Are you aware of that?
Ms. McCarthy. I am not aware of that, no.
Senator Vitter. OK. You stand by your previous statement
that he told you to stand down because it was a criminal
matter?
Senator Boxer. I am sorry, we have to move on.
Senator Vitter. Can she answer that final question?
Do you stand by that previous statement of yours?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sure.
Senator Boxer. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
It looks like we are going to hear a lot more about a
convicted former EPA employee than we are going to hear about
EPA's budget in this hearing, so let me ask you. You have had
long experience with EPA. Is this Mr. Beale character
representative of the employees at EPA in terms of work ethic,
integrity, or any other feature? Should the misconduct that he
engaged in find attribution by association to the rest of the
employees of EPA?
Ms. McCarthy. I am so glad you ask that question. He is in
no way indicative of employees at EPA. They are hardworking
professional, dedicated public servants. I have 16,000 people
who in no way represent him or anything having to do with him.
In fact, the most devastating part of all this is that any
indication that that is the case. I am proud of the people that
work at that Agency and I am extraordinarily honored to be in
the position I am in with them.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me say for the record that I know
EPA employees and I have known EPA employees over the years,
and the effort to tar all EPA employees with the misconduct of
one criminal I think is reprehensible.
Let me further ask you, let's go to the merits of all this,
of the EPA's work. Where are you guys on methane leakage? If
methane is burned, it is a dramatic improvement over burning
coal from a point of view of polluting our environment and
oceans with excess carbon dioxide. But if it is not burned, if
it just leaks, it is actually worse than carbon dioxide. So
getting after the leaks and making sure that it is not leaking
is important, because with that natural gas industry can't make
its argument that it is actually an improved fossil fuel; it
actually loses the battle and suddenly becomes just as bad,
perhaps even worse than coal. So that question of methane
leakage becomes really vital to the reputation of this industry
and to our success at battling climate change. Can you let us
know where you are on that? And we have about two and a half
minutes.
Ms. McCarthy. Sure, Senator. It is a big issue and one that
we have begun to tackle. You know that EPA has already issued
rules that are driving the recapture of methane and natural gas
wells. We are also working with the larger Administration to
look at all of the challenges that the Administration sees and
potential solutions for reducing methane across a number of
industry sectors. The President's Climate Action Plan indicated
that the Administration would be putting out a methane
strategy. You will be seeing that shortly.
Senator Whitehouse. Very well. I appreciate it, and I will
yield back my time.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to ask
three questions real quick, and we will talk fast here.
Ms. McCarthy, on January 10th of 2014, you sent a letter to
Frances Beinecke, the President of the Natural Resources
Defense Council, in which you detailed several regulatory
initiatives EPA is undertaking related to shale gas
development. In this letter you state that EPA is continuing to
work on its national research study on the potential, potential
impacts of hydraulic fracturing or drinking water sources. As
you know, we can call as many things up as potential impacts as
we want.
Would you commit to me that, to the extent the study
evaluates potential impacts, that EPA will work with industry
to determine the probability of these potential actions
occurring and feature those together with the potential impacts
of the report? This is very similar to what you and I actually
did successfully not too long ago.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. You will do that?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I always have and I will make that
commitment to work with industry on these.
Senator Inhofe. Very good. I appreciate it.
In the same letter you state the EPA is working closely
with the BLM in supporting their efforts on onshore oil and gas
order, which is the proposed guidelines for venting and flaring
natural gas. Can you provide the committee with any data or
summaries? The procedure there is that the EPA sent the BLM the
data. My concern is I would like to have industry, and we could
talk about how to set this up, evaluate that data that would be
going out. Would you be willing to do that?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I am quite sure that BLM is doing their
outreach to industry. We are just providing comment to BLM.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, but you have data that you are giving.
I would like to see the data and have an evaluation of that
data. In fact, I could do that myself.
Ms. McCarthy. It would be data that is already readily
available that we would be provided.
Senator Inhofe. That is fair enough. Fair enough.
Ms. McCarthy. And it is data that we are trying to make
better every day.
Senator Inhofe. Ms. McCarthy, the reason I am introducing,
and I think we did it yesterday, or maybe it was today, the 321
legislation is because I know that the EPA isn't looking at the
cascading impacts of the rules to determine the costs that it
will have on the economy. You look every way for the benefits,
but not for the costs, and I want to ask you do you think that
the regulations have a cost on the economy beyond the regulated
entity. Now, you know what I am talking about here.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, I do.
Senator Inhofe. You can confine it to the regulated entity,
but looking down the road at what it is going to be costing all
these people. You agree with that?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, we do the best we can to evaluate
all costs and benefits. You will be happy to know that Senator
Vitter, this is an issue that he raised with us, this whole
economy modeling, and we are pursuing that with a new science
advisory board panel.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Well, CASAC is going to be meeting in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, to debate the EPA's latest policy
assessments. This will be on the ozone standard.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. It is my understanding that EPA staff has
recommended they review a standard as low as 60 parts per
billion. I can remember during the Bush administration it was
80 parts, and then we actually went down to some 60 parts.
Behind me you will see a map on what would happen if the United
States standard were lowered to that level. We are talking
about 60 parts per billion. Nearly every county would be out of
attainment, certainly all the counties in my State of Oklahoma;
and, if you will notice down here, even the Grand Canyon area.
If this happened, businesses would not be able to expand, it
would essentially close the whole Nation for business and
result in millions of job losses.
Do you think lowering the NEC standard would impose costs
on the economy that are just not acceptable?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, we are in the middle of the science
process. I would rather not speak about any outcome of the
ozone standard.
Senator Inhofe. But I will give you a hypothetical. We all
deal in those nowadays. If it should come to 60, I don't think
you can refute the accuracy of these charts. Would you find
that to be unacceptable, economically?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I think, as you know, the NEC
standard is established based on the science, not on costs. We
look at costs on the implementation.
Senator Inhofe. And this is the problem. Do you think that
is wise? I mean, I have lived with this now for several years,
and they said, no, we can't talk about the costs of these
things. Why not? You know, people out there are hurting. The
Senator from New Jersey was talking about something before. I
disagreed with him because I think all these standards and
these new regulations are going to cost the poor more than the
more affluent people because they spend a higher percentage of
their income on heating their homes and this type of thing.
Do you think it is right that we do that? Maybe that ought
to be looked at and ought to be changed.
Ms. McCarthy. I think it is absolutely right that a science
question that asks what is healthy air for all Americans should
be answered by the science.
Senator Inhofe. And it should, but we are talking about how
to the exclusion of looking at it in terms of the cost to the
public.
Senator Boxer. It has started and we are going to move on.
The vote has started; we have to move on.
Senator Booker, please keep it to your 5 minutes.
Senator Booker. I certainly will.
Just real quickly, because I am new to the U.S. Senate and
my colleagues were talking about my possibly mistaking the
impact of CO2 in the air being good for forests and
stuff like that. But please help me understand, as just a new
guy on this committee. CO2 in the air causes
warming, correct?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Booker. Right. So if you have a preponderance of
CO2 in the air and a preponderance of warming, it
has effects on our climate, correct?
Ms. McCarthy. It does.
Senator Booker. And so if you have effects on the climate,
it affects everything from the health of our oceans, from coral
reefs to the fishing patterns that, frankly, affect the
industries of a State like mine in New Jersey, correct?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Booker. And, in fact, when you were talking about
issues of respiratory health, when the air gets warmer, I have
seen it. Again, I am just a guy who is new on this committee,
but I have a lot of experience in public schools. And when
temperatures warm, you have a lot more cases respiratory
problems, including things like asthma, right?
Ms. McCarthy. The scientists would agree with you.
Senator Booker. Right. So there is a direct correlation to
too much CO2 and respiratory problems and
disruptions of fisheries and disruptions of economies and sea
levels rising.
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Booker. Thank you.
The other thing I would like to ask is when EPA issues
proposed carbon pollution standards for existing power plants
later this year, do you contemplate that States that are not
participating in REGIs, regional greenhouse gas initiatives,
will be able to use that program to meet their new obligations?
Ms. McCarthy. We think that regional approaches could be
quite preferable, and we are going to make sure that the
standard is flexible enough for States to consider those
choices.
Senator Booker. I think, actually, the REGIs are phenomenal
things, and I guess my point and question is if New Jersey
fails to rejoin the REGI, the regional work on this, what types
of actions will New Jersey likely need to take in order to
comply with the new regulations?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we haven't put out the new regulations,
but they will have to look at other opportunities for
greenhouse gas reductions that are as cost-effective as they
can be. Having participated in the REGI process, it is a pretty
cost-effective program to achieve significant reductions.
Senator Booker. Right. So, in other words, it is an easy
way for New Jersey to meet these new regulations by being a
part of our surrounding States; and we have a lot more burden
if we are not part of that and a lot more level to hit in order
to comply.
Ms. McCarthy. Based on the information that I have, it
certainly would be a good choice.
Senator Booker. Then, last, I know that you and the EPA
have a tremendous amount on your plate right now, but 30 years
is simply too long to wait. Can I have your commitment that
finalizing and releasing for public comment the pending FFS and
proposed remedy for the lower eight miles of the Passaic River
will be a priority? Because the Passaic River, as you know, is
another thing my colleague, who is rightfully concerned about
poor and disadvantaged people, in a city, when you see what
happens when we allow pollutants to enter rivers like that,
poor people suffer because now folks who, 100 years ago, when
they couldn't get food, they would go to the river and fish and
enjoy the fruit and the bounty of the rivers. That has been
taken away by corporations that polluted our rivers, so this is
a big priority for our whole region running through the Passaic
River.
Ms. McCarthy. As it should be, Senator, and you should rest
assured that I have already had two briefings because of my
great regional administrator, Judith Enck, who, if I don't put
it out soon, she will drive me crazy; and that is official. And
I look forward to talking to you about it, and we will get that
done.
Senator Booker. I appreciate that. And you should give her
a raise, but obviously keep it under the cap, or you will be
back here talking about it.
Ms. McCarthy. I can't make that my commitment.
Senator Booker. OK.
Senator Boxer. Is that it for you, Senator?
Senator Booker. That is it for me.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you.
Senator Booker. I yield the rest of my time.
Senator Boxer. For the people who just joined us, we are
going to have to end this when there are 4 minutes left to
vote, so I think we can hear from two of our Senators.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Madam Chair, I would be happy to preside
over this hearing, if you would like to go.
Senator Boxer. Thank you for the offer. I will take it
under advisement.
Senator Wicker. Thank you so much.
Senator Boxer. Don't you want to vote?
Senator Wicker. I am going to vote when the Chair votes.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Senator Wicker. Somehow I believe the president of the
Senate is going to wait for Senator Boxer to vote.
Administrator McCarthy, Senator Booker is from Newark, New
Jersey. Sometimes it is 10 degrees in Newark, sometimes it is
85 or 90 degrees. A wide range of temperatures in Newark. Is it
your testimony, let's say temperatures have risen by 1.5
degrees. Let's just stipulate that the average temperature in
Newark, New Jersey has risen by 1.5 degrees over the last two
decades because of climate change. Are you telling me that
there is scientific evidence that that fact causes more lung
disease among children?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, to really properly look at
climate change, we look generally at three decades or longer.
Senator Wicker. OK, three decades.
Ms. McCarthy. The information that we know is that climate
change is happening. One of the lines of evidence of that is
increased temperature; it is rising----
Senator Wicker. Well, no. In the brief----
Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. Ozone.
Senator Wicker. In the brief time you have to answer the
question, my question is the Senator's line of questioning is
that increases in the average temperature cause more lung
disease among children. Is that supported by the science?
Ms. McCarthy. What the science tells us is when the
temperature gets warmer it increases a level of ozone, and that
ozone pollution actually has an impact on respiratory health,
as well as cardiac health.
Senator Wicker. OK, well, I would be interested in your
supplying to the committee any scientific basis for the
statement that increased average temperatures actually increase
respiratory disease among children.
Ms. McCarthy. OK. I am happy to do that.
Senator Wicker. If you would supply that.
Ms. McCarthy. You can actually find it on our Web page and
the climate change page.
Senator Wicker. OK, fine. If you will get that to me, that
is great.
Let me just ask you briefly, then, Madam Administrator, if
I can talk about air grant money.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Wicker. And, again, this is something we ought to
be able to agree on. Maybe you ought to go where the problem
is. There is a decades-old EPA allocation formula that gives
the Southeast region 12 percent, when actually we have 20
percent of the Nation's population. How can EPA continue to
develop strengthening rules and standards while at the same
time limiting access to resources for the States to get their
fair share?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, we have actually been
proposing to change that formula and to allocate resources
differently given the changes that have happened over the past
decade on population. We certainly feel that there is a need
for change. We are looking to do that over a period of time.
Congress has actually provided language in our budget that does
not allow us to do that last year. We will see what happens in
fiscal year 2015.
Senator Wicker. OK. Was this a rider to an appropriation
bill or was this a statute?
Ms. McCarthy. It is a congressional report act language
that has prohibited EPA from implementing the revised
allocation methodology. They have done that since fiscal year
2011, when we first proposed it.
Senator Wicker. OK. Finally, I would like to work with you
on that problem, Madam Administrator. Let's talk about helping
local governments implement the upgrades required to wastewater
treatment facilities and more stringent water regulations. A
significant and basic problem has been that many of these towns
don't have the tax base. And you and I have talked about this.
They don't have the tax base to meet the cost of upgrading
their wastewater systems.
However, not acting results in harsh fines imposed by the
EPA. In your nomination hearing I asked several questions
regarding the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds, and you said you would work with me on that. I am just
concerned that we don't have a proposal going forward and, as a
matter of fact, we are now seeing a proposal from EPA and from
the Administration to cut this by $581 million to the State
revolving funds.
Senator Boxer. I am sorry. We have to move on if we are
going to hear from your two colleagues, so we will go next to
Senator Fischer for 4 minutes and then Senator Boozman.
Senator Wicker. Does the witness get to answer the
question?
Senator Boxer. She does not at this point; she can do it
for the record.
Senator Wicker. Could you supply that answer on the record,
please?
Ms. McCarthy. Certainly.
Senator Boxer. We have votes. We have 5 minutes left to
vote.
Four minutes, please.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Administrator. It is nice to see you again.
Ms. McCarthy. Nice to see you, too.
Senator Fischer. Thank you for being here. I am sorry that
we are all rushing here at the end now. I can tell you that I
have some concerns maybe that we are seeing our coal-fired
electric plants in Nebraska, our utilities, they are spending a
lot of time, they are spending a lot of resources on keeping
their units in compliance with regulations; and I don't think
they are then able to spend that time in resources on the
innovations that could possibly lessen our dependence on coal.
We have an example here for you regarding regional haze. We
have a Nebraska utility, which is LES, the city of Lincoln. It
owns a little more than 10 percent of the coal-fired power
plant in Wyoming, the Laramie River Station. The Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality proposed a plan to address
regional haze that would require technology costing
approximately $100 million, and so the Nebraska utility share
sent about $10 million. The EPA rejected the Wyoming DEQ plan
and substituted its own plan that requires technology at a cost
of $800 million, which then is about $80 million for the city
of Lincoln, the LES utility that would have to provide that.
There would be a very small improvement in visibility. But
this difference is going to deprive this Nebraska utility of
moving forward on their investments in wind, which they have,
and in solar, in energy efficiency. You know, we are talking a
fairly small city, the city of Lincoln. It is large for
Nebraska; small nationally.
That is just one example. So I believe that that is
replicated across the country, though. You know, LES is a
leader in looking at renewables. The citizens and the city of
Lincoln want to move forward in that direction, but polls have
shown they are not willing to pay for it, and I think that is
also replicated across the country, the costs that are incurred
sometimes, especially when they have to meet requirements from
the EPA.
What are your feelings on that? Do you see that policy
moving forward with EPA? Are you going to try and reach out
more to help utilities be responsible in their coal-fired
plants, but also to move forward?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, we are doing the best we cannot just
to reach out to the utilities to understand what their business
plans are moving forward and how we can keep the lights on and
keep it reliable, but we are also working very closely with the
States on these regional haze issues. We understand that they
are important environmental benefits, but they have to be
looked at in the context of how much they cost and what they do
in terms of moving the clean energy system forward. So if we
need to work more closely together, we are more than willing to
do that.
Senator Fischer. OK, thank you. You know, we hear about the
war on coal and you hear about that as well.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Fischer. Is there a war on coal? You know, a lot of
people in Nebraska think there is because we have those coal-
fired plants. Do you think it is fair to say maybe the EPA has
somewhat of a war on coal so that we can lessen our dependence
upon coal in this country?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I don't think that that is fair to
say. What we are trying to do is our job to protect public
health by reducing pollution from some of the largest sources
of that pollution.
Senator Fischer. And I have a few seconds left. I am very
concerned about the water rules that are coming out from EPA.
Water is a State resource in Nebraska. I believe we manage it
in a very responsible way. I hope that you will have a long
period there. Would you commit to a long period for comments,
180 days?
Senator Boxer. We will have to do that answer for the
record.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Fischer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Deb Fischer,
U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska
Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, thank you for
holding this hearing today to review EPA's budget. I want to
welcome Administrator McCarthy. Thank you for being here.
Budget hearings are a fundamental responsibility of this
committee. It is important for Congress to continue its
oversight of the programs it has authorized and examine whether
taxpayers' money is being used appropriately, effectively, and
efficiently to fulfill EPA's core mission to protect human
health and the environment.
A clean and healthy environment is important to us all.
Over the past several decades, we have made great strides in
improving our air and water quality and protecting our natural
resources--while growing our economy. In Nebraska, farmers and
ranchers are growing more food and fiber in an increasingly
responsible and sustainable manner. Our public power utilities
are serving more customers while reducing emissions. Businesses
are achieving innovations to provide better goods and services
to enhance quality of life, as they maximize efficiencies and
reduce their environmental footprint.
We must work together to pursue a path forward that
continues both these environmental and economic achievements,
one that encourages meaningful environmental improvements
without stifling economic growth.
As the EPA proposes a budget that shifts significant
resources in support of the President's Climate Action Plan and
aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to
scrutinize the costs and benefits of proposed actions.
Because these issues are global in nature, we must examine
what benefit we are seeking by limiting American utilities'
choice of power-generation technologies that we know will drive
up electricity costs and customers' monthly bills and
jeopardize energy reliability.
While EPA routinely claims regulatory benefits in excess of
the costs, the benefit estimates are speculative at best. We
simply must have more transparency and accountability when it
comes to the underlying scientific justifications for these
rules.
EPA is seeking to expand its regulatory control in many new
ways--including an alarming Federal takeover of water--all at a
time when EPA's out-of-control ``playbook'' is being unveiled.
The deceitful schemes of John Beale and his leadership in the
creation of costly air regulations should give us all pause and
even greater reason to carefully examine the process, science,
and priorities of the agency.
Today's hearing is an important step in providing this
needed oversight. We must work to ensure EPA is operating
transparently and pursuing a positive course for our
environment and our economy.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Also, Senator Boozman, we will put your
questions and get those into the record as well.
Senator Boozman. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
And with the last 4 minutes, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I ask
unanimous consent my entire statement be put in the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection. Absolutely.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. McCarthy, I would just highlight the
Casper Star Tribune last week, Andy v. EPA, a gentleman in
Uinta County. Uinta County resident faces $75,000 in daily
fines for his pond.
So I want to ask about the EPA's specific Web site for the
new proposed waters of the U.S. rule.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. The EPA has a section entitled Fact
Sheet: How the Proposed Waters of the U.S. Rules Benefits
Agriculture. The site states that, under the proposed rule, the
Army Corps will exempt 53 farming practices as established by
the Natural Resource Conservation Services, which means that
any farmer or rancher who used those 53 practices in a newly
expanded, federally covered water would be exempt. This list,
however, of 53 does not cover all existing agriculture
practices. There are a number of farming and ranching practices
that aren't covered on the list that occur every day without
penalty. Under the new proposed rule will those farmers and
ranchers need to get a permit or find that they are penalized
if they continue to use those non-covered 53 practices and
newly federally covered waters under this proposed new rule?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, Senator, it is not taking away any
of the agriculture exemptions. What it is trying to do is
provide clarity so you don't have to go and ask. That is what
this rule does. It actually worked with the agriculture
community to identify those practices that we could highlight.
It even set up a really good process to expand on that. But it
didn't take away a single agriculture exemption that currently
exists.
Senator Barrasso. So what about the farmers and ranchers
who use these 53 new covered practices, but the farmers and
ranchers don't specifically follow the Natural Resource
Conservation Services Federal definition of these farming
practices, you know, perfectly to a tee, in the newly expanded
Federal waters? Would they need to get new Clean Water Act
permit or be penalized?
Ms. McCarthy. Nobody needs to get a permit today or under
this rule, should it go forward as proposed, that didn't need
it today.
Senator Barrasso. We heard the previous Senator ask a
question specifically about would you expand to 180 days the
comment period and her time ran out. Would you like to comment
on that or respond to that?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I can certainly respond to the
Senator. I don't believe that that is what we are currently
proposing, but, as always, if people comment and want to
request it, we will respond to that.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I would request it as well, as
another Senator.
And, Senator Boozman, I am on the last minute and a half if
you have a specific question that you would like to ask. Go
right ahead, please.
[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:]
Statement of Hon. John Barrasso,
U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming
Ms. McCarthy, I am from what I consider to be the most
beautiful State in the country. Folks in my State believe we
can balance our energy needs with our environmental needs.
People in my State watch what you and the EPA are doing, and
they think this agency is extreme.
Here are some of the examples of what we are seeing. We
have seen that when the EPA cannot get their way in Congress,
they go around Congress, and try to issue regulations or
guidance to accomplish policies that the American people
soundly rejected.
The American people rejected cap and trade, and the EPA
produced climate change regulations instead.
The American people rejected legislation to remove the word
navigable from the definition of waters of the United States,
and the EPA proposed guidance to do it anyway.
We learned about e-mails that were sent for years under a
false identity to circumvent recordkeeping laws so the EPA
could keep the public in the dark. If the business of the EPA
is transparent, and in the best interest of the American
people, why does the EPA leadership circumvent the law using a
false identity?
We learned of the ``crucify them'' mentality, where small
business owners and ranchers are bullied into submission by
arrogant and unaccountable bureaucrats. Former EPA Region 6
Administrator Al Armendariz had to resign after comparing EPA's
approach to enforcement as similar to a Roman crucifixion.
This ``crucify them'' approach has been most recently on
display in the treatment by the EPA of my constituent, Mr.
Andrew Johnson. He is facing thousands of dollars in penalties
from the EPA for constructing a stock reservoir on the Six Mile
Creek.
According to a March 18th Ron Arnold column in the
Washington Examiner, ``EPA regional bureaucrat Andrew M.
Graydosh issued a compliance order requiring Johnson to return
the creek to its original condition in 60 days. Graydosh
threatened Johnson with fines of $75,000 per day per
violation--which could reach $187,500 per day, or over $5.5
million in a month--if he didn't comply. Johnson had 10 days to
reply.''
The Casper Star Tribune stated on March 19th that such a
penalty was ``a penalty often reserved for companies that emit
toxic hazards.''
This treatment by EPA is draconian and unacceptable.
Most recently, Ranking Member Vitter has done a thorough
job in highlighting the activities of one John Beale. Beale was
the senior lieutenant to the current EPA Administrator when she
was in charge of the Air and Radiation Office, and he was also
the highest paid on staff. Beale not only masqueraded for years
as a pretend CIA agent, but also as a pretend environmental
rulemaker.
As the Washington Times summed up in a March 19th article
entitled ``Fake CIA agent helped craft sweeping environmental
rules while at EPA,'' the article described Beale as ``a former
high-ranking EPA staffer convicted of stealing nearly $900,000
by pretending to be a CIA spy, had virtually no experience, got
his job with help from a college buddy, and went on to play a
key role in sweeping environmental regulations.'' They also
note, as does Senator Vitter's report, that ``Those regulations
remain in place despite John C. Beale's lack of environmental
expertise.''
We now know that EPA has allowed this fraud's work to
stand. In fact, the underlying data, the basis for numerous job
crushing EPA rules has not been shared with Congress, or with
the public, despite repeated requests. This is despite the
sweeping impact of these rules on the economy. The EPA's
response to Congress and the public is always to say ``just
trust us.'' I would put as much trust in this EPA as I would in
Beale being a real spy. It defies logic that his work will be
allowed to stand, or why data underlying EPA's long list of job
crushing rules cannot be released.
It is clear that the EPA is broken. What we should be
discussing is what are the best ways to manage our air and
water while trying to get our economy moving again. The only
way to do that is to have an agency that can work with us to
chart a bipartisan path of consensus, sound science,
transparency and accountability. Today it is clear we do not
have such an agency.
I thank the Chair and look forward to the testimony.
Senator Boozman. The only thing that I would like to do,
Madam Chair, is I ask unanimous consent to insert into the
record a letter to the Administrator that is signed by every
minority member, requesting that the Agency provide all
documents relating to EPA's proposal to cut funding for the
Clean Water and Drinking State Revolving Funds.
Senator Boxer. Sure. Without objection.
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely. I want to thank both Senators
for your cooperation.
I am going to put in the record the statement by the
Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy: ``Heat caused by
climate disruption is especially harmful to children.'' I
think, Administrator, if you could send that to Senator Wicker.
Last, I must put in the record, in response to Senator
Vitter's attack on you, Administrator McCarthy, on Beale, page
22 and page 26 of the committee's briefing, where the IG said
you were the first person and the only senior person to call
attention to this rogue employee, and I want to again thank
you.
[The referenced documents follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. I am really sorry that you have been
vilified by certain members; you should be lauded, as the IG
lauded you, and also to point out that, you know, in an
organization of 15,000, 16,000 people, whether it is public,
private, the military, you are going to have some outliers, you
are going to have some bad actors. But the vast majority of all
these people in the private sector, in the public sector, in
the EPA, in the military are fantastic. So let's just try not
to brush everybody with the ugliness of a John Beale. And I
thank you for doing what you did to call attention to him.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Senator. I am incredibly proud of
the folks that work at EPA.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m. the committee was adjourned.]
[An additional statement for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland
Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Vitter, thank you for
holding today's hearing on the President's proposed fiscal year
2015 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Administrator McCarthy, it is always a pleasure to see you, and
thank you for being here today.
EPA's proposed budget for fiscal year 2015 outlines a
fiscal plan that will enable the Agency to continue to its
important work of keeping the health of citizens and the
communities we live in healthy and safe.
It would be an understatement to say that EPA faces
challenges in fulfilling its mission to protect the environment
from factions within Congress and from the supporters of
polluting industries that resent being regulated.
I want to commend the President and the Agency for its
proposed budget for the Chesapeake Bay Program. I will work
hard with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to see
that the request is met. Ensuring that EPA and its Federal
partners that cooperate in the administration of the Chesapeake
Bay Program is critical to fulfilling the goals established by
the President's May 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order. The
President's recognition of the value of this national treasure
has been a critical catalyst to improve the health of the Bay.
In addition to the soon to be 5-year-old executive order,
on January 29th, the Chesapeake Bay Program issued its revised
Chesapeake Bay Agreement establishing new conservation goals
for the watershed as determined through a collaborative process
involving Federal agencies, the six States and DC, local
governments and non-governmental organizations across the
region. This budget is critical to supporting the goals of the
agreement.
More specifically, the funding for the Chesapeake Bay
Program will allow Maryland and other Bay States to focus on:
Total Maximum Daily Load implementation,
Implementing Phase II of watershed planning and
increasing accountability, and
Making progress to address toxic contaminants in the Bay.
I am also pleased to see the budget's prioritization of
programs to combat and adapt to the effects of climate change.
Maryland faces tremendous challenges from the effects of
climate change. With 70 percent of my State's population living
in a coastal zone, sea level rise and increased intensity of
extreme weather events pose a serious risk to the safety and
economy of my State.
I do want to express concerns that for the second year in a
row the Administration's budget is recommending cuts to both
the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds
(SRFs). These cuts are being recommended despite ever growing,
multi-billion dollar, backlogs of maintenance and repair needs
for water infrastructure across the country.
We should be mindful of the need to invest in our Nation's
own crumbling water infrastructure. The President's EPA budget
makes deep cuts to the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water
SRFs, despite the established need for increased water
infrastructure investment and the significant economic growth
that would result from such investment. We take for granted the
ability to turn on the tap and pour a clean glass of water. We
take for granted the ability to go to our outdoor spaces and
fish and swim safely. The work of the EPA is central to this
sense of safety, and robust funding for these programs benefits
all Americans.
Cuts to the State Revolving Loan Funds, however, are
extremely deep and will significantly impact States that are
already struggling to maintain their drinking water and
wastewater systems.
The reductions in the SRF funding levels will impact
Maryland as well as every other State. Our Nation's drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure is aging and overburdened.
A number of densely populated cities are served by pipes that
are at least 100 years old. These funding cuts will affect the
States and municipalities that are already struggling to deal
with the increased costs associated with drinking water and
wastewater treatment plant upgrades. At the same time, Federal
investments in water and wastewater infrastructure can yield
hundreds of thousands of jobs and help grow our economy.
This year, as in years past, Senator Crapo and I are
leading a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee calling
for robust funding for the SRFs to make sure that this program
continues to provide adequate resources for drinking water and
wastewater service providers to keep their systems working
effectively. I would encourage all members of this committee to
sign our letter.
Last, I want to talk about how persistent cuts to EPA's
budget are contributing to the biggest decline in employee job
and workplace satisfaction among large Federal agencies in
2013, sinking five spots in the Best Places to Work in the
Federal Government rankings. The EPA's overall Best Places to
Work score stands at 59.3 out of 100, a drop of 8.3 points, for
a 10th place ranking out of 19 large agencies. Last year it
ranked 5th out of 19 agencies.
Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe said EPA employees
have a strong sense of mission, believe in the importance of
their work, and will rebound from what turned out to be a
difficult year. He pointed out that EPA was forced to furlough
an extremely high number of employees because of the across-
the-board budget cuts mandated by Congress, and reduce cash
awards for high performers. He noted that the unpaid furloughs
began to occur at the same time employees were taking the
Federal survey that is used to compile the Best Places to Work
rankings. As he put it, ``The EPA's budget was constrained
perhaps more than other agencies', and I do believe the
furloughs were a problem at that time.''
This is shameful. Our country and political leaders of both
parties once held our Nation's civil servants in the highest
regard. These days, in some circles, it's become politically
popular to vilify Federal workers. It is the middle class
families of hardworking civil servants that have shouldered a
disproportionate burden of the hollow efforts to balance the
budget.
Madam Chairman, I know that you understand the tremendous
amount of work we have ahead of us to make the United States
Government an environmental leader both at home and abroad. I
also believe that this administration understands the
significant role EPA plays in this effort. I look forward to
working together to achieve our goals, and to hearing from
Administrator McCarthy.
[all]