[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CUTTING EPA SPENDING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 12, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-95
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-567 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARY BONO MACK, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California JAY INSLEE, Washington
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
7_____
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
Chairman
LEE TERRY, Nebraska DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina Ranking Member
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas KATHY CASTOR, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California GENE GREEN, Texas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana Islands
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 13
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 13
Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oklahoma, opening statement................................. 14
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 14
Witnesses
Barbara J. Bennett, Chief Financial Officer, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Answers to submitted questions............................... 101
Additional responses for the record.......................... 112
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General for Audit,
Environmental Protection Agency \1\............................
David C. Trimble, Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
Government Accountability Office............................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Submitted Material
Letter, dated September 15, 2011, from Mr. Upton and Mr. Stearns
to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, submitted by Mr. Stearns............................... 78
Letter, dated October 11, 2011, from Barbara J. Bennett, Chief
Financial Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, to Mr.
Stearns, submitted by Mr. Stearns.............................. 85
Report, ``Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2010 and 2009 Consolidated
Financial Statements,'' dated November 15, 2010, Office of
Inspector General, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted
by Mr. Stearns................................................. 91
----------
\1\ Ms. Heist did not offer a statement for the record.
CUTTING EPA SPENDING
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Terry, Sullivan,
Burgess, Blackburn, Bilbray, Scalise, Gardner, Griffith,
Barton, DeGette, Castor, Green, Christensen, and Waxman (ex
officio).
Staff present: Carl Anderson, Counsel, Oversight; Mike
Gruber, Senior Policy Advisor; Todd Harrison, Chief Counsel,
Oversight/Investigations; Kirby Howard, Legislative Clerk;
Andrew Powaleny, Press Assistant; Krista Rosenthall, Counsel to
Chairman Emeritus; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Oversight; Sam Spector, Counsel, Oversight; Peter Spencer,
Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Kristin Amerling,
Democratic Chief Counsel and Oversight Staff Director; Alvin
Banks, Democratic Investigator; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff
Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff
Member; Brian Cohen, Democratic Investigations Staff Director
and Senior Policy Advisor; and Anne Tindall, Democratic
Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Good morning, everybody.
And the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will
convene. We welcome our witnesses.
My colleagues, we convene this hearing, the second in our
series of hearings on the line-by-line review of the Federal
budget.
Today we will examine how the Environmental Protection
Agency has put into practice the President's repeated
commitment to conduct a line-by-line review of the Federal
budget. The goal of this pledge is to eliminate unnecessary,
duplicative, or wasteful government programs to cut costs and
do more with less. This hearing aims to determine the results
of EPA's efforts to cut spending and to help EPA find more
spending cuts and savings for all Americans.
Less than a month ago, on September 22, EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson testified before this subcommittee on EPA's
regulatory planning, analysis, and major actions. We remain
very concerned over the impact on jobs and our economy from new
regulations that are issued and proposed every day by the EPA.
That said, the EPA is also an important public health
regulatory agency which has contributed to the tremendous
improvements in clean air, safe drinking water, and
environmental quality over the past 40 years. However, over the
past two decades, the Agency has become an $8 billion-plus
agency with about 18,000 employees around this Nation.
Yet with the size of the Federal deficit and long-term
fiscal challenges, we must ensure that EPA meets its core
mission at lower cost. Indeed, Congress has a constitutionally
mandated responsibility to oversee the annual budgetary process
affecting agencies under their jurisdiction.
We recognize that executive branch agencies are not alone
in their responsibility for having created many of the programs
that have given rise to our ballooning deficit. For its part,
this committee must remain deeply and regularly engaged with
the agencies within its jurisdiction, including EPA, as they
define their priorities, identify their needs, and set their
goals for the years ahead.
Today we look at the actual results of the EPA's efforts
thus far to meet the President's pledge to comb through the
Federal budget line by line cutting spending. We are aware of
several initiatives related to that worthy goal, but what
measurable results have been achieved? For example, the
committee has learned from an OMB document that EPA responded
to the President's April 2009 instruction to Cabinet members to
identify within 90 days at least $100 million in aggregate cuts
to their administrative budgets by proposing the ``energy
efficient lighting project,'' that is, changing light bulbs in
EPA's office buildings. EPA anticipated the annual savings of
that pilot project to be de minimis, although it claims the
initiative could lead to savings over the long run.
Now, while EPA claims to have implemented additional cost-
saving efforts since that time, they did not provide to the
committee the specifics on what actions were taken or, indeed,
how much money was actually saved.
To learn more about EPA's efforts, we will take testimony
today from the Inspector General of EPA, Arthur Elkins; and the
director of natural resources and environment at GAO, David
Trimble. These individuals and their staffs have conducted
rigorous oversight and audits of EPA for many years.
The GAO and the EPA Inspector General have frequently
identified areas where EPA can improve its internal controls,
its management, and its performance measures, all to cut costs
or get more bang for the buck. Their reports address concerns
about how effectively and wisely EPA uses its resources to meet
its mission. Their work, as we will hear this morning,
identifies problems and recommends improvements in EPA's
reporting of spending, such as the money it obligates through
grants, and EPA's ability to track whether its employees are
being used effectively to meet its core mission, and even in
EPA's knowledge about duplicative and unnecessary facilities
around this country.
As we will hear, there is still much room for improvement.
For example, the EPA's budget justification documents do not
describe the amount of potentially millions of dollars of
unspent money, known as deobligated and recertified funding,
that is available for new obligations. We say the word million,
but it is actually billions. Such information could be useful
to Congress because of the availability of recertified amounts
that could partially offset the need for new funding.
So, my colleagues, today I intend to inquire of them as to
what the EPA has done thus far and what remains to be done. For
that reason, the subcommittee also welcomes Barbara Bennett,
the chief financial officer of EPA. We hope that she will be
able to address the substance of the Inspector General's and
GAO's outstanding concerns. The subcommittee, and the committee
as a whole, is committed to working with the EPA to ensure that
it has the tools it needs to realize these aims and ensure that
it is a trustworthy custodian of hard-earned American taxpayer
dollars.
Today's hearing can be a good start to help deal more
effectively with the enormous challenge of getting Federal
spending under control. I look forward to revisiting this
subject with the EPA next year, following submission of the
President's budget.
With that, my opening statement is done, and I recognize
the ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stearns follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.005
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ms.
DeGette, for allowing me to go first with this opening
statement.
Today we are looking at EPA's budget. It is a lean one for
an agency with so many crucial responsibilities. Although I
think if the Republicans get their way, there will be no reason
for the Agency because we will have no environmental laws
anymore.
In February of this year, the President submitted his
proposed budget for fiscal year 2012, requesting $8.9 billion
for EPA. That is a 13 percent decrease over the fiscal year
2010 enacted levels. The President had to make some hard
choices in this budget. The President proposed cutting almost
$1 billion from the clean water and drinking water State
revolving funds, which help States improve municipal wastewater
and drinking water systems. He proposed cutting $125 million
from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and $70 million
from the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program. The
administration also targeted several categories of
administrative spending at EPA to achieve $40 million in
additional savings.
Now some of these cuts are excessive. The drinking water
State revolving fund should be getting an increase because it
makes investments in infrastructure that create jobs. Thus the
notion that EPA is not sacrificing its fair share is false.
Despite these painful cuts, EPA has set ambitious goals for
this fiscal year, taking action on climate change--well, some
people don't think they ought to do that; improving air
quality--well, a lot of Members don't seem to think that's a
good idea; protecting American waters--well, the American
people believe in that, but a lot of the Republicans don't;
ensuring the safety of chemicals; preventing pollution; and
enforcing America's environmental laws. Those are still the
law, and they have continued to be the law. And therefore, EPA
has a responsibility to enforce them and the American people
support that.
These are important objectives that benefit every American
in every State across the country. Americans know that their
families' health and quality of life depend on a clean
environment. They know we need a strong EPA to stop polluters
from poisoning our land, our air, and our water.
Today we'll hear that EPA should be doing more to squeeze
out extra savings. While I am sure EPA could find additional
reductions and efficiencies along the margins, I am equally
sure that the bill--that still won't be enough for my
Republican colleagues. Their goal is not a careful line-by-line
review of the budget. Their goal is to prevent EPA from
requiring dirty power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries,
and other large industrial sources to stop polluting the air
with toxic mercury and other dangerous emissions. That is what
we have been fighting on the floor about over the last several
weeks.
The Republicans' approach to EPA's budget is less about
targeted reductions and more about slash-and-burn politics. The
Republican budgets we have seen this year are the most sweeping
and reckless assault on health and the environment that we have
seen in decades.
The fiscal year 2012 Interior appropriations bill that
stalled in the House late this summer would slash EPA's budget
to $7.1 billion, which is 20 percent less than the President
requested. This would deny the Agency the resources it needs to
carry out the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act and other critical public health
protections.
But that is not all. Every week we consider another bill on
the House floor that stops EPA from doing its job to protect
our environment. In fact, the House has voted 83 times this
year to undermine the EPA. In total, the House has voted 159
times to undermine environmental protections. If the
Republicans had their way, the Clean Air Act and the Clean
Water Act would be gutted, and the EPA would be rendered
powerless to keep our air clean enough to breathe and our water
safe enough to drink.
I am glad we have EPA's chief financial officer here today,
and I look forward to her testimony. She will be able to tell
us what the impact of the Republicans' approach to EPA's budget
would be on her agency and for public health and the
environment. It is not a budget that is good for our
environment, our health, or American families. And that is my
comment on this hearing and the Republican agenda.
And because I have 20 seconds and I used my time frugally,
I yield that back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.007
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized for 2
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. I thank the chairman.
Former Chairman Waxman and I live in different worlds. We
are here to talk about EPA's budget. That is a legitimate role
of this subcommittee. We have a balance sheet that has been
prepared. It shows their total liabilities and assets are about
$23 billion. Between fiscal year 2009 and 2010, it shows a
decrease of about $1 billion, which would be about 4 percent.
That is not draconian.
My good friend from California would have you believe that
we want to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency and
eliminate all environmental laws. Nothing is further from the
truth. I have voted for all the major environmental laws since
I have been in Congress, and I voted to pass budgets to
implement them and to enforce them.
I have a sister who is an enforcement attorney at EPA in
Dallas with close to 100 percent success rate in enforcing laws
that some people try to get around.
What we have a debate about, Mr. Chairman, is an EPA under
the Obama administration that seems interested in pushing
everything to the limit, that seems interested in issuing
regulations that really don't have a sound basis in science or
in fact, that seem to be more for political purposes than they
do for environmental protection purposes.
My good friend from California apparently doesn't believe
that any of the laws that he and I have worked together to pass
in the last almost 30 years have had any impact at all and that
the only thing that is protecting the American people is
pending additional EPA regulation.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, nothing could be further from
the truth. And what Republicans in this Congress are attempting
to do is actually shine the light of transparency on what is
really happening at the EPA, where the money is going and
perhaps, just perhaps, how it could be better spend.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields his 2 minutes.
The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is
recognized for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have come to believe that this administration's view of
the economy can be summed up succinctly: If it moves, tax it;
if keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it.
And those are timeless words from former President Reagan, and
they couldn't be more appropriate today, as we look at the
tsunami of government spending and regulations, and much of
that is coming from the EPA.
Many of the complaints we hear in our district are about
the way EPA handles their rules, regulations, and spending. And
today I hope that we can kind of uncover what Administrator
Jackson has done to truly reform the budget process in the line
by line.
I had a quote she gave on February 27, 2009. It was in an
interview and she stated, ``As far as I understand the budget
process, I can't tell you what EPA's budget will be from year
to year.'' That one concerned me. And I read it a few times and
looked at it. And with that statement, I think that she clearly
laid out why we need to practice appropriate oversight, why we
need to go through this budget line by line to look for an
opportunity to help EPA provide a level of certainty, reduce
waste, and force the Agency to set priorities.
So I thank all of our witnesses who are with us today. As
you all are aware, we have another hearing.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman, Mr. Sullivan, is recognized for 1 minute.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. Sullivan. Chairman Stearns, thank you for holding this
important hearing today on cutting the EPA's spending.
In September 2009, the Obama administration announced plans
to implement a line-by-line, page-by-page review of the Federal
budget. And he tasked his Cabinet members to find savings. Here
we are, 2 years later, and the President has still not done
what he promised with the budget. The simple fact is, the
Federal Government is broke, and we are in a fiscal crisis. We
must make extraordinary efforts to cut spending, eliminate
waste, and find savings, which is why this oversight hearing is
so important. EPA has cut some spending as part of a routine
annual budget and appropriations process but has not taken any
real extraordinary steps to cut spending. We know that EPA has
upwards of $13.3 billion in unexpended appropriations and both
the GAO and the Inspector General say that EPA lacks basic
internal controls and data on employee workloads and how it
spends on its payroll. Thanks in advance to our panel before
us, and it is my hope that our discussion here today sheds
light on the EPA's budget situation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields back. The chairman
recognizes the ranking member, the gentlelady from Colorado,
for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
recognizing me.
This is the second in a hearing that the subcommittee
launched last week about the administration's budget review
process. When I went home to my district over the weekend, I
was telling people about the hearing last week, and they really
couldn't believe it because it was really one of the silly--
with all due respect, it was one of the silliest hearings that
I have seen in my 15 years in Congress. It started out with the
majority playing a video of the President promising a line--put
little clips showing him promising a line-by-line budget
review, which then I thought maybe that was figurative, but in
fact, literally then members of this subcommittee spent the
whole time talking about, did the President actually personally
review the budget line by line?
I don't really think that is what we need to be looking at,
and I would hope the majority doesn't think so either. Because
what we really need to look at is the budget process of these
various agencies and whether or not they have conducted an
efficient and effective budget review and whether improvements
can be made in this process. I think that that is an important
oversight responsibility for this subcommittee for every
agency, not just the EPA. And so I think that those are
important questions that should be asked of all of these
witnesses.
And so to that end, let's look at a few key facts about the
EPA budget review process as I understand it. Right here--this
large notebook--is what is known as the Agency budget
justifications, which the EPA prepares and provides to the
Appropriations Committee each year. This mammoth set of
documents reflects the detailed process in which the EPA
engages to produce a budget proposal. In this document, the
Agency provides a detailed explanation of the funding levels
requested for each EPA program area.
The EPA justifications document results from a multistep
review process, as I understand it, in which the EPA program
staff develop a budget proposal; the EPA chief financial
officer reviews the proposal; EPA senior leadership meets to
discuss overall funding level requests; EPA submits a proposal
to OMB; EPA negotiates with OMB over the proposal; and OMB
sends back an approved budget.
And as in previous years of the Obama administration, the
review process at the EPA has resulted in an administration
budget proposal for the EPA that requests increases in funding
for some programs and decreases funding for others. And that is
as it should be. And I would assume that that involves a line-
by-line review of these budget requests by the people in the
Agency who are responsible for those parts of those budgets.
But you can understand our concern about cuts to the EPA
budget because if you just look and see what Congress has
already voted to do, we are not just talking about, should we
have new regulations; in H.R. 1 and in other votes in this
Congress, we have seen substantial cuts to enforcement for
existing environmental review programs. In fact, they are some
of the most anti-environmental votes that I have seen. In the
first 10 months of this Congress, we have had 159 floor votes
to undermine protection of the environment; EPA programs to
reduce toxic mercury pollution, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and make our Nation's vehicles more efficient and
reduce gas costs for consumers, and on and on.
I have asked the Democratic staff to prepare a list of the
existing EPA agencies and regulations which Mr. Barton and
others say they support which have had drastic proposals
slashed budgets for enforcement in previous votes of this
Congress which I don't think are probably born out by the
evidence.
And so here is the thing, I think that the public values
clean water and clean air. I think they value strong
environmental enforcement, and furthermore, I think these
environmental laws produce health, economic, and environmental
benefits that actually increase our budget. In fact, some
estimates have shown $1.3 trillion in 2010. By 2020, the
benefits are projected to reach $2 trillion annually,
outweighing estimated costs by more than 30 to one.
Overall, in the three decade period from 1990 to 2020, the
Clean Air Act is estimated to deliver $12 trillion worth of
benefits, plus a host of additional health and welfare benefits
that cannot be monetized. And so if you look at the EPA
spending compared to the enormous impact on public health,
EPA's proposed 2012 budget is just 0.06 percent of the Federal
Government's total debt, 0.26 percent of total spending, and
0.69 percent of the Federal deficit. If you eliminated the EPA
altogether, it wouldn't even be a blip in our Nation's budget.
But the costs that we would pay in health and in other types of
spending would be astronomical. I think we need to have savings
in the EPA just like every other agency, but I think that this
fixation we have is wrong, and we have got to stop it.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady completes her opening
statement.
And let me introduce our witnesses before we put them under
oath. We have the Honorable Barbara J. Bennett, chief financial
officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the Honorable
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, who is accompanied by
Melissa Heist, assistant inspector general for audit, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; and we have Mr. David C
Trimble, director of natural resources and environment, U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
Welcome to you folks.
STATEMENTS OF BARBARA J. BENNETT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ARTHUR A. ELKINS, JR.,
INSPECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED
BY MELISSA HEIST, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND DAVID C. TRIMBLE,
DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Stearns. You folks are aware that the committee is
holding an investigative hearing. And when doing so, it has had
the practice of taking testimony under oath.
Do you have any objection to testifying under oath?
No. The chair then advises you that under the Rules of the
House and rules of the committee, you are entitled to be
advised by counsel.
Do you desire to be advised by counsel during your
testimony today?
Mr. Elkins. No.
Mr. Stearns. No. In that case, please rise and raise your
right hand. I will swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Stearns. You are now under oath and subject to the
penalties set forth in Title XVIII, Section 1001, of the United
States Code.
You may now each give a 5-minute summary of your written
statement.
Ms. Bennett, you shall start. And just turn your mike on.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA J. BENNETT
Ms. Bennett. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member DeGette, and
members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here to discuss
with you the important issue of ensuring the most effective and
efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
As you mentioned in your letter to Administrator Jackson,
President Obama has stated several times his intent that his
administration would review the Federal budget page by page,
line by line, and eliminating those programs we don't need, and
insisting that those we do operate in a sensible and cost-
effective way.
While we have always worked diligently with regard to our
budget formulation process at EPA, the President's directive
has given us an opportunity to look even more closely at our
budget process to ensure that we are achieving maximum
efficiencies.
To address how we have, in fact, been pursuing this close
scrutiny of our budget, I would like to take a moment to
discuss EPA's budget over the last decade or so. Apart from the
targeted increases to the State revolving funds and for
programs funded under the Recovery Act of 2009, EPA's budget
has not grown significantly over the last decade. Even
including the increase to the SRS in fiscal year 2010, between
fiscal year 2000 and the fiscal year 2012 President's budget
request, the Agency has experienced a compound annual growth
rate of just 1.4 percent, a rate less than that of inflation.
During this 10-year time frame, our responsibilities have
grown, as did our costs for such necessities as rent,
utilities, security, and payroll. For more than a decade, we at
EPA have needed to make cuts to existing programs to find
resources to fund emerging priorities.
The work of the Agency is reviewed at the appropriation,
program project and, where established, the subprogram project
levels. This is the budget structure developed in concert with
OMB and with Congress. Within this framework, the Agency
considers the progress made towards its annual and long-term
goals and priorities as articulated in our strategic plan and
emerging needs.
Meeting existing commitments and planning for future needs
cannot be done without considering opportunities to redirect
resources to higher priorities and reduce overall budget
levels, as required. In making these reductions, we have
carefully considered guidance from the administration and
Congress by looking first to less effective, potentially
overlapping activities for reductions or eliminations. However,
the need to find reductions and fund higher priorities also
means that at times worthy projects get cut.
During this administration, we have had to make some
difficult decisions to eliminate or reduce programs. In our
fiscal year 2010 budget request, we included a $10 million cut
to the U.S.-Mexico border program. In fiscal year 2011, we
proposed over $30 million in reductions to homeland security
programs. We also reduced our travel budget by nearly 40
percent over the prior year. In fiscal year 2012, in our
request, we have included a reduction of over $6 million from
indoor air and radiation programs as well as approximately $10
million in efficiencies in our agency-wide IT programs.
Over the past several years, we have also had success in
finding efficiencies that enable us to maximize the resources
available to core programs. Some examples include efforts to
find savings in rent and utilities through space consolidation.
Between fiscal year 2006 and 2011, we have released
approximately 375,000 square feet of space at headquarters and
facilities nationwide, resulting in cumulative annual rent
avoidance of over $12 million. These are just a few examples of
some of the choices we have made and efficiencies we have
achieved as we reviewed our programs in developing EPA's
budgets to ensure wise use of resource dollars and as we seek
to do our part to reduce the deficit while maintaining
effective protections for human health and the environment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for inviting
me to testify about the Agency's effort to apply close scrutiny
to our budget, and I hope I have conveyed to you the
seriousness with which we at EPA take our responsibility to
ensure that all funds are used prudently so that we can
continue to effectively fulfill our mission of protecting human
health and the environment, especially during these times of
tight fiscal constraint. And with that, I look forward to
responding to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bennett follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.011
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Elkins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR A. ELKINS
Mr. Elkins. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Stearns,
Ranking Member DeGette and members of the subcommittee. I am
Arthur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. I also serve as the Inspector General of the
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I am
accompanied by Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General for
Audit.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss recent
work we have done that identifies opportunities for cost
savings and greater efficiencies within the Agency. I submitted
a statement for the record which details this work. This
morning, I want to focus my remarks on two areas: Management of
the Agency's human capital and EPA facilities. Over the last 5
years, EPA has averaged a little over 18,000 positions with
annual payroll costs of approximately $2 billion. For an
organization to operate efficiently and effectively, it must
know what its workload is. The main objectives of assessing and
predicting workload are to achieve an evenly distributed,
manageable workload and to accurately determine the resource
levels needed to carry out the work.
We have issued three reports since 2010 examining how the
Agency manages its workload and workforce levels. We have found
that it has not collected comprehensive workload data or
conducted workload analyses across EPA in about 20 years. The
Agency does not require program offices to collect and maintain
workload data. Without sufficient workload data, program
offices are limited in their ability to analyze their workloads
and accurately estimate resource needs. Therefore, the Agency
must base budget decisions primarily on subjective
justifications at a time when budgets continue to tighten and
data-driven decisions are needed.
We also found that the Agency's policies and procedures do
not include a process for determining resource levels based on
workload, as prescribed by OMB. As a result, the Agency cannot
demonstrate that it has the right number of resources to
accomplish its mission.
Finally, we have found that the Agency does not have a
coherent program of position management to assure the efficient
and effective use of its workforce. Position management
provides the operational link between human capital goals and
the placement of qualified individuals into authorized
positions. Without an agency-wide position management program,
EPA leadership lacks reasonable assurance that it is using
personnel in an effective and efficient manner to achieve
mission results.
We have made several recommendations to address these
findings. While the Agency has taken action to study workforce
issues and update their budget guidance, most of our
recommendations remain unresolved and resolution efforts are in
progress.
Regarding EPA's space and facilities, in fiscal year 2009,
we collected data on staffing levels and total costs for EPA
facilities in response to a request from the House
Appropriations Committee. Based on EPA data, we reported at the
time that EPA had more than 18,000 employees in 140 locations
across the country. These locations cost approximately $300
million annually, which included rent or leases, utilities, and
security costs. EPA headquarters accounted for $100 million,
the largest portion of those costs. We also reported that EPA
had 86 locations with five or fewer employees, at a cost of
$2.25 million. Many of these offices were actually staffed by
only one or two people.
We made no recommendations because the request was limited
to data collection. However, we do believe EPA should examine
its real estate portfolio for possible cost savings. Facilities
data like we collected would assist EPA in determining whether
it should shrink its footprint either through consolidating or
eliminating facilities. We will soon begin a project this
fiscal year that will assess EPA facility occupancy to
determine whether EPA is maintaining optimal utilization of
existing space in its location and whether opportunities exist
to reduce facility costs, which will also assist EPA in its
decision making.
In closing, EPA must find ways to better manage and utilize
its resources and improve its operational efficiencies in this
tight budget environment. I believe the OIG has added value by
making numerous specific recommendations to the Agency over the
years to help address these issues, many of which it has agreed
to implement. Going forward, the Agency will need to intensify
its efforts to control the cost of, and maximize the benefits
from, the resources entrusted to it. We will continue to work
with the Agency to further identify areas needing attention.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Elkins follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.020
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Trimble, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID C. TRIMBLE
Mr. Trimble. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member DeGette, and
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to
discuss GAO's work on management challenges facing EPA as well
as observations on the Agency's budget.
As you know, EPA operates in a highly complex and
controversial regulatory arena and its policies and programs
affect virtually all segments of the economy, society, and the
government.
My testimony draws on prior GAO work and focuses on three
areas: The management of EPA's workload, workforce, and real
property; coordination with other agencies to more effectively
leverage limited resources; and observations on the Agency's
annual requests for new budget authority.
First, in 2010, we reported that the EPA had not
comprehensively analyzed its workload and workforce since the
1980s to determine the optimal numbers and distribution of
staff across the Agency. Rather than establishing a process for
budgeting and allocating human resources based on the Agency's
workload, EPA requested funding and staffing through
incremental adjustments based on historical precedent.
We recommended that EPA link its workforce plan to its
strategic plan and establish mechanisms to monitor and evaluate
its workforce planning efforts. Such efforts could enhance the
Agency's ability to strategically allocate scarce resources.
Earlier this year, GAO reported on challenges that EPA
faces in managing its laboratories, both from a workforce and a
real property perspective. We reported that EPA operated a
laboratory system comprised of 37 labs housed in 170 buildings
and facilities in 30 cities across the Nation. We reported that
EPA's laboratory activities were managed by 15 different senior
managers, were largely uncoordinated, and that the Agency did
not have a comprehensive process for managing its laboratory
workforce. For example, EPA did not have basic information on
its laboratory workload or workforce, such as data on the
number of Federal and contract employees working in its labs.
This report also identified challenges related to the
Agency's management of its real property, a government-wide
challenge that is part of GAO's high-risk series. In 2010, the
administration directed agencies to speed up efforts to
identify and eliminate excess properties to help achieve $3
billion in cost savings by 2012. In July 2010, the EPA told the
Office of Management and Budget that it did not anticipate
disposing of any of its laboratories in the near future because
the facilities were fully used and considered critical to the
Agency. However, we found that EPA did not have accurate and
reliable information called for by OMB on the need for the
facilities, property used, facility condition, and facility
operating efficiency to inform its determination.
Second, the nature of EPA's work requires it to coordinate
and collaborate with other Federal agencies as well as State,
local, and tribal partners. Our recent work on the Chesapeake
Bay cleanup and pharmaceuticals in drinking water has shown
that EPA could do a better job collaborating with these
partners and in turn better leverage limited resources. In
2009, we reported that the efforts of EPA and six Federal
agencies to support drinking water and wastewater projects on
the U.S.-Mexico border region were ineffective because only one
of the agencies involved has comprehensively assessed the
region's needs or had coordinated policies for selecting and
building projects. We included this issue in our March 2011
report to Congress concerning Federal programs with duplicative
goals or activities.
Third and finally, with respect to the Agency's budget and
annual requests for budget authority, our past reviews of the
Agency's budget justification documents have led to two
recurring observations: First, regarding proposals for new or
expanded funding, the Agency has not consistently provided
clear justification for the funds requested or what steps the
Agency would take to ensure the effective use of the funding.
Second, over the years, we have focused on the Agency's
efforts to make use of unliquidated balances or funds that were
appropriate and obligated but never actually spent. This occurs
when contracts, grants, or interagency agreements expire with
some level of funding remaining unspent. We have encouraged EPA
to quickly identify and recover these funds for other uses, as
it could decrease the need for new budget authority. While the
EPA has made progress in recovering these funds, we have
observed that EPA does not include this information in its
budget justification documents. We believe that information on
the reuse of such funds could help Congress in its budget
deliberations.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to
answer any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trimble follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.032
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Trimble, thank you very much.
I will start with my questions.
Ms. Bennett, you heard Mr. Trimble from the GAO. Were you
aware of his report? Yes or no.
Ms. Bennett. I am aware of most of the reports, yes.
Mr. Stearns. OK. And has your staff been working on answers
to some of the items he has talked about and particularly the
one dealing with unexpended appropriations?
Ms. Bennett. Yes. In fact, we have been working hard on
most of what are called the unliquidated obligations.
Mr. Stearns. OK. You said in your opening statement, you
also said in your prepared statement, that the President had a
directive to you to look at item by item, line by line in the
budget. So, just to be clear, the President asked you to review
the budget page by page, line by line. Was this a directive
that you understood?
Ms. Bennett. This is a directive that we have heard from
the President and by OMB. We have heard that, although there
hasn't been an explicit order or explicit guidance. But I am
familiar with that, obviously, from----
Mr. Stearns. So you have no written document from anybody
on what this means to you?
Ms. Bennett. Well, I have a very good understanding of what
line by line and page by page means in terms of----
Mr. Stearns. Would you say that it was a figure of speech?
Or did it actually mean--the President actually said, ``line by
line, item by item, page by page, program by program''? He was
pretty specific. Do you understand that to be literal, or do
you think that is a figure of speech?
Ms. Bennett. Well, I wouldn't suppose what the President
says, but I certainly took it to heart in terms of how we
approached it.
Mr. Stearns. Would it be fair to say that you have taken it
at its literal meaning?
Ms. Bennett. Well, what we have done is we have had a
process that goes through----
Mr. Stearns. So you have actually, procedure-wise. have
gone item by item, line by line, page by page, program by
program?
Ms. Bennett. We have a process that goes through the
programs and looks at all of our programs in terms of the
program project level and what we have identified and work with
both----
Mr. Stearns. Could I construe that to mean that you are
actually looking at every page and every line and every item?
Ms. Bennett. In terms of how the Agency is concerned----
Mr. Stearns. That is true?
Ms. Bennett [continuing]. We have staff that goes through
all aspects of the budget and is able to identify programs and
the like. So we have worked--as I mentioned, we have worked
with both OMB and with Congress on what we have----
Mr. Stearns. You could do that by just going in a broad
sense. You would have to get into a detailed sense. So your
prepared statement and your opening statement has confirmed in
my mind that you didn't consider this a figure of speech, but
you considered it something that you had to get into the
details and follow the directive from the President.
So maybe EPA's look at financial records, such as the
ledger sheet that I mentioned earlier, page 26 from the EPA
Inspector General's report on financial statements--and I want
to give a copy to Ms. Bennett. Did the staff give a copy?
Ms. Bennett. I have got it.
Mr. Stearns. OK. If you look at the highlighted line for
unexpended appropriations, it says $3.3 billion. Do you see
that one? It is in the bottom there.
Ms. Bennett. I do.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Now, EPA's budget is around $8 billion. So
to see unexpended money that is not obligated, that is just
sitting there--that amount of money, almost twice, not quite
twice of your overall budget, to us, obviously that is a very
large number. So what does that $13.3 billion in unexpended
appropriations mean in this document that I showed you?
Ms. Bennett. Mr. Stearns, Mr. Chairman, this is a balance
sheet from 2010 as compared to 2009. And in 2010, EPA's budget
was $10.3 billion as well as it had received over $7 billion in
Recovery Act funding. So the combination of those two, of $17
billion that would have come through in 2009, in 2010 would be
reflected here, not the $8 billion that you referenced for this
year.
Mr. Stearns. So, you are saying that you got so much money
that you couldn't spend it all?
Ms. Bennett. No, that is not what I said at all. What I am
saying is that it is not reflective of the $8 billion that you
mentioned.
Mr. Stearns. Well, the $8 billion is your annual budget.
Ms. Bennett. For 2010, we are at $8.7.
Mr. Stearns. OK. So when I look and you have got this
budget--but you are still not explaining to me how you could
have $13.3 billion of funds that have not been spent. Where is
this money--is it money that is in a bank account? Money that
you can get from the Treasury? What is this money doing? Why
can't you just give it back to the Treasury and reduce the
deficit?
Ms. Bennett. Well, actually, most of our funds go to the
States and tribal assistance grants, and many of those projects
are multi-year----
Mr. Stearns. So you are saying this is all--$13.3 billion
is obligated funds that you haven't spent yet?
Ms. Bennett. Most of the funds have been obligated and have
not been spent.
Mr. Stearns. How do you know that? Do you have a report
that you could give us to show how that $13.3 billion is
detailed in obligations to Indian tribes to--to who else?
Ms. Bennett. States.
Mr. Stearns. States, OK.
Ms. Bennett. States and communities. And for, both for
water infrastructure----
Mr. Stearns. I mean, is it obligated from 5 years ago, 2
years ago, 90 days?
Ms. Bennett. Well, a lot of them are all obligations. So
some of them----
Mr. Stearns. Over what period of time?
Ms. Bennett. Well, this is a balance sheet which reflects
cumulative.
Mr. Stearns. Could it be more than 5 years?
Ms. Bennett. Well, at the particular time of this balance
sheet, it could have been, yes.
Mr. Stearns. Could it be more than 10 years?
Ms. Bennett. For instance, in 2011, the budget that we
received--that encompasses the $8.7 billion that I referred
to--called for a rescission of unobligated--of unobligated----
Mr. Stearns. OK. I understand. I am going to close.
I will just ask Mr. Trimble, do you understand what she is
saying?
Mr. Trimble. Yes. I believe so. There is always a lag time
between when money is appropriated and obligated and actually
spent. So there is a lag through this process. We have not
looked, or I have not had a chance to look over the balance
sheet.
Mr. Stearns. I will close.
Ms. Bennett, I think for the record we would like to get
where this obligated fund is in a time-duration milestone so we
can see if it is money that can be returned to the Treasury or
that actually you have obligations. So, with that, my questions
are complete.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Going back to this balance sheet, a balance sheet is a
snapshot in time, as of, in this case, the end of the fiscal
year for 2010 and 2009.
Correct, Ms. Bennett?
Ms. Bennett. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. DeGette. So I think we are mixing apples and oranges a
little bit because, as of September 30 of each of those years,
you have got unexpended appropriations there on that balance
sheet. But what you are saying is that is--most of that--it is
not just money that is sitting there from an appropriation that
could be given back. It is obligated for something, correct?
Ms. Bennett. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. And so what Mr. Stearns and I would like you
to do is to go back and for each of those fiscal years to make
a breakdown of that, how much of that was obligated and where
it was obligated. And for each of those programs, how many--
because it is not the same for every program. It is a different
time period for which those funds are obligated, correct?
Ms. Bennett. Right. Correct. Some programs spend the funds
faster. For instance, the worker infrastructure projects----
Ms. DeGette. Right. So if you could just supplement your
testimony with that information, I think that would help us to
figure out exactly what that number means in terms of funds.
Ms. Bennett. We would be happy to do that.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much.
Now my second question to you is, there have been some
suggestions made by both of the other agencies represented here
today. Have you reviewed those recommendations?
Ms. Bennett. Just about all of them, yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. One recommendation that both the IG and
the GAO had made was that the EPA review its personnel policies
and its management policies to make sure that the human
resources are actually working to achieve the Agency's mission.
I hate to put words into your mouths, but that's essentially
it. Have you reviewed those types of recommendations?
Ms. Bennett. Yes. And I have spoken with both the Inspector
General and----
Ms. DeGette. And what is the EPA doing to address those
recommendations?
Ms. Bennett. So the workforce and the workload issues are
two separate issues. They may sound very similar, but they're
actually different issues. The workload is the amount of work
that the Agency has to do, and the workforce reflects more like
skills that are needed.
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Ms. Bennett. And might be needed in the future. So what my
office has done, has led the workload planning. And so we have
taken into consideration the recommendations from both the
Inspector General and from GAO, and my office is leading an
analysis that is really three-pronged in nature. One is
benchmarking line managers in terms of----
Ms. DeGette. OK. If you could just shorten up a little
because I have got a lot more questions and not much time left.
Ms. Bennett. Sure. We are taking a look to see where we can
address the recommendations.
Ms. DeGette. And when are you going to be finished with
that review so that you can--and having made your own internal
relations?
Ms. Bennett. We're finished with one part of it, and we
should be finished with the second step some time shortly.
Ms. DeGette. If you can provide the committee with that
information, that would be helpful as well.
Now Mr. Elkins, you made a number of observations and
recommendations. These issues have been systemic in the EPA for
some number of years, correct?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. These didn't just rise up in the past couple
of years, right?
Mr. Elkins. Based on our findings, that's correct.
Ms. DeGette. Based on your findings, how long have these
issues been present at the EPA?
Mr. Elkins. Well, we have looked at this issue at least
over the last 3 or 4 years or so.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Last 3 or 4 years. And you are working
with Ms. Bennett and her staff to try to address those
recommendations.
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. OK. And do you believe that they are going to
address them?
Mr. Elkins. We have been told that they are actively
seeking to address them, that is correct.
Ms. DeGette. And Mr. Trimble, what about you? The issues
that you identified in your excellent report, how long have
they been going on in the EPA?
Mr. Trimble. Well, in regards to the workforce planning, we
know that the last time a comprehensive plan was done was in
the 1980s.
Ms. DeGette. So it is over 20 years that this has been
going on?
Mr. Trimble. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. And what about the other issues?
Mr. Trimble. Workload is probably also a longstanding issue
that crops up also when we do more programmatic focused work as
well.
Ms. DeGette. What about the facilities issues? I thought
that was an interesting issue and one that I think would take
time to address.
Mr. Trimble. Well, facilities is a little bit different in
that GAO has put government-wide facility management and
Federal real property management on its high-risk list, so a
government-wide issue in that regard.
Ms. DeGette. And how long has it been?
Mr. Trimble. That I believe it is the 2003-2004 time frame.
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Mr. Trimble. And the issue I site in the report just came
out of the work we did this year concerning the laboratories.
Ms. DeGette. Now, has GAO been working with the EPA to
address the GAO recommendations?
Mr. Trimble. We have made recommendations. We have
discussed those. I know, in regards to workforce, they have--a
contractor has just completed a study. Booz Allen, I believe,
is finishing a study. We have not looked at the scope or sort
of the findings of that work.
Ms. DeGette. Do you intend to do that?
Mr. Trimble. I imagine we will end up having follow-on
work, but nothing is planned at this point.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bennett, how many employees are currently employed at
the EPA?
Ms. Bennett. We requested in the 2012 budget just over
17,200.
Mr. Barton. 17,200. You mentioned in your prepared
testimony that the travel budget was reduced by 40 percent last
year, is that correct?
Ms. Bennett. Close to it, yes.
Mr. Barton. OK. Do you know how much was actually spent on
travel last year?
Ms. Bennett. In 2011, I don't off the top of my head. I
will be happy to get back to you.
Mr. Barton. Do you know how much was----
Ms. Bennett. I do know what we did with the budget.
Mr. Barton. Well you have said that you reduced it. It was
reduced 40 percent. So 40 percent from what?
Ms. Bennett. In 2010, we had a budget of approximately $60
million, and so we had reduced it to less than $50, and then we
have it reduced again to less than $40 million.
Mr. Barton. So that is in your budget. You don't know what
was actually spent. But you have gone from $60 million to $40
million.
Ms. Bennett. We took a significant cut in 2011.
Mr. Barton. Do you know what that would be per employee?
Ms. Bennett. I haven't done the math on a per employee. Not
everybody travels.
Mr. Barton. Just roughly, that would be either $2,000 or
$20,000. It is either $2,000 or $20,000 per employee. That is
just back-of-the-envelope numbers. Do you know how many
employees at EPA of these 17,000 have an EPA credit card?
Ms. Bennett. Have a credit card, an EPA credit card?
Mr. Barton. Yes.
Ms. Bennett. I don't know the number of how many.
Mr. Barton. Do you have an estimate?
Ms. Bennett. I would have to get back to you on.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Elkins, do you happen to know that number?
Mr. Elkins. No, I don't.
Mr. Barton. Could each of you attempt to get that number,
the number of employees that have EPA credit cards and the
credit limit on those credit cards and the amount spent on
those credit cards in the most recent fiscal year, can y'all do
that?
Mr. Elkins. I would be glad to.
Ms. Bennett. I would be glad to get back to you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Barton. Do you happen to know, either one of you,
whether EPA has ever done an audit of the EPA employees that
have credit cards?
Ms. Bennett. I know that we have a process in place within
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer that makes sure that
those travel vouchers are looked at and reviewed for
appropriateness.
Mr. Barton. Ms. Heist, you look like you want to say
something.
Ms. Heist. Thank you, sir. We have done some work. We have
not to this date identified----
Mr. Barton. Pull the microphone close to you.
Ms. Heist. We have done some minimal work in that area. We
haven't found significant problems. We have looked at all the
controls in place, and we have found them to be generally
working well.
Mr. Barton. When I was subcommittee chairman of this
subcommittee, we did an audit of the FDA and the number of
employees that had credit cards. And we found out that there
were thousands, and we found out that there were no real
controls, and we found out that one FDA employee purchased a
Ford Mustang on an FDA credit card. So it might be worthy of
some investigation because people being people, my guess is
that lots of folks at EPA have credit cards--and not all, but
some of them, probably abuse them.
Ms. Bennett, are you aware of a title 42 program at EPA?
Ms. Bennett. I am aware of the program.
Mr. Barton. Do you support that program?
Ms. Bennett. We have used the program for our highly
trained and highly skilled scientists that we have primarily in
our Office of Research and Development.
Mr. Barton. Are you aware that the EPA union for the
Washington region is opposing that program?
Ms. Bennett. I am not aware of that.
Mr. Barton. They are.
Do you know what the compliance budget is at EPA?
Ms. Bennett. The overall----
Mr. Barton. For enforcement of existing regulations.
Ms. Bennett. I can certainly access it, sure.
Mr. Barton. Could either you or Mr. Elkins give us a
ballpark figure what the compliance enforcement budget is? I
mean, after all, that is really where the rubber meets the road
in terms of protecting the environment. We know what the
general budget is. Do you know, either one of you, what the
compliance budget or enforcement budget is?
Ms. Bennett. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance has a
budget of over $600 million.
Mr. Barton. $600 million. Is that up or down from the last
year?
Ms. Bennett. It is slightly up.
Mr. Barton. Slightly up. In spite of all these mean-
spirited Republicans who want to, according to my friends on
the Democratic side, gut the EPA, the real heart of the EPA,
enforcement and compliance, is up. Is that right?
Ms. Bennett. We have proposed it to have an increase
largely due to an initiative that we were redirecting funds
toward in order to transition from paper reporting to
electronic reporting in order to reduce burdens.
Mr. Barton. Well, thank you for an honest answer. My last
question, and I know my time has expired. I would like for the
record, Ms. Bennett, to provide the number of enforcement
actions that EPA has initiated in the last several years and
the percentage of those enforcement actions that have resulted
in fines being collected or criminal sentences being applied.
Ms. Bennett. I would be happy to follow up with you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Barton. And if the Inspector General has information,
we would like for you to provide that also.
Mr. Elkins. I would be happy to.
Mr. Barton. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I ask my question, I just wanted to say that I can
see that from Ms. Bennett's testimony, that despite everything,
EPA is making a good attempt to respond to the recommendations,
and they are in the process of addressing issues that have been
around for a very long time. And I really think you could
probably do more of that if we didn't keep calling EPA up to
the Hill every day and asking for report after report. I
realize we have to do oversight, but I think we are overdoing
it a bit.
My questions are around the cuts to the EPA budget. The
President has proposed a budget for EPA for 2012 that is $8.97
billion. And it sounds like a lot of money. But when you put it
in perspective, it is really just 0.06 percent of the total
government debt, 0.26 percent of total government spending, and
0.69 percent of the budget deficit. So we could really close
down EPA and shudder the building and not make a dent in our
overall budget deficit. But the ramifications for public health
and the environment would be truly profound.
This summer, the House appropriators proposed cutting EPA's
budget by 20 percent below what the President requested for
2012, and the President's request was low to begin with because
it was already 13 percent below 2010 levels.
Ms. Bennett, could you describe what impact these proposed
Republican budget cuts would have on EPA's ability to implement
and enforce the Clean Air Act?
Ms. Bennett. Certainly that level of cut would make things
very difficult. And in terms of our overall responsibilities,
not just for the Clean Air Act but overall responsibilities, in
particular there is a proposal of another $1 billion cut to the
SRF budget as well as another I believe $100 million to State
categorical grants and over another $100 million to the Great
Lakes Initiative. So there would be a significant impact from
that level of cut. And that budget would be lower than what we
saw in 1998.
Mrs. Christensen. So you might not be able to--you might
have to reduce their quality monitoring also and might not be
able to update your air quality standards in a timely manner?
Ms. Bennett. We would certainly have to look at what we
would have to be able to discontinue or what we would be able
to afford at that time.
Mrs. Christensen. And what impact would these proposed
budget cuts have on EPA's ability to implement and enforce the
Safe Drinking Water Act?
Ms. Bennett. Well, again, I believe that the proposal would
be to reduce the SRF by a combined billion dollars, and
therefore, it would be reduced dramatically if it were on a pro
rata basis.
Mrs. Christensen. I want to note that the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund helps utilities deal with costs of meeting
drinking water standards and repairing or replacing aging
infrastructure, much of which is approaching the end of their
useful life.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that this spending
is an economic win-win because it creates jobs and spurs the
economy while ensuring healthy drinking water.
These budget cuts would also affect the pace of toxic waste
clean-ups in communities across the country.
Ms. Bennett, could you describe what these proposed budget
cuts would have on EPA's ability to clean up the Nation's worst
toxic waste sites?
Ms. Bennett. There would be, again, as I understand how--
you know, what has been proposed on that particular bill, is
there would be an additional cut to Superfund, and there would
be additional cuts to others, making it very difficult to
continue the work that has been done.
Mrs. Christensen. And you know, since it has been reported
that maybe around 60 percent of some of these toxic waste sites
are adjacent to minority communities, we would be extremely
concerned about that.
But EPA's budget is a drop in the Federal budget bucket. I
am sure EPA could identify additional efficiencies and trim the
budget along the margins, but overall, EPA is trying to
accomplish big goals with limited funds, protecting America's
water supply and air quality, taking action on climate change
and protecting all Americans from dangerous toxic chemicals.
So we shouldn't be fooled by Republican rhetoric about the
budget here. This is the most anti-environmental Congress in
history any way you look at it. It shows that in their effort
to pass legislation that would weaken the Clean Air Act and the
Clean Water Act, and it shows in the massive and damaging
budget cuts that they have proposed to the EPA.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a little personal experience in the State of
Nebraska regarding the State Revolving Fund. For example, a
battle that we had with some of the EPA folks in rural Nebraska
just a few years ago were on copper pipes. And what happens is
the groundwater is a little higher acidic, and so when it sits
in the pipe, it draws out some of the copper.
The mandate from the EPA was to put in a water treatment
facility. It would have been a fraction of the cost for one of
these small times--some of these small towns to just go out and
rip out on city dollar or little town dollars all copper pipes
and replace them, but those weren't options. We put those on
the table, and they were rejected by the EPA.
So sometimes a water treatment facility is the least
efficient, most expensive but yet the one that was mandated.
Those are the type of lack of commonsense over-zealousness that
we are looking at here. So perhaps at least from Nebraska, the
revolving fund for the drinking water is not exactly the
example to use to show how mean and anti-environmental the
Republicans are.
Now, reading through these reports, especially GAO, it
talks about many areas where there are redundancies, divided
responsibilities. And what we are trying to figure out, is
there a way to make you, the EPA, leaner.
So when you, Ms. Bennett, Honorable Bennett, mentioned that
there were worthy projects that have been cut, you mentioned
drinking water along the U.S.-Mexican border. Mr. Trimble also
mentioned a drinking water project along the Mexican border
which they felt was inefficient. Is that the same one that you
said was cut?
Ms. Bennett. It is the same program. I believe, if I--I
think it is the same program because I am only aware of one.
Mr. Terry. You probably should put it in full context that
that was also one that was declared by GAO as one that was
inefficient.
Could you do the subcommittee here a favor as we are trying
to make you a leaner, more efficient agency to accomplish your
legislative goals, or goals that Congress has set out for you,
could you provide us an itemization of all projects that have
been cut or eliminated in the last 2 fiscal years?
Ms. Bennett. In the----
Mr. Terry. Could you provide that? That is a yes or no.
Ms. Bennett. Well, in the budgets that we have submitted to
Congress, there is a list----
Mr. Terry. OK.
Ms. Bennett (continuing). Of terminations that already
exist.
Mr. Terry. All right. Well, that is looking--what I am
trying to figure out is, you gave me an example of two that
were cut. As I understand from this whisper in my ear, that the
budget gives us the proposed ones. I am looking backwards to
see which ones were actually cut or eliminated. Could you
provide ones that were actually in the last 2 fiscal years cut
or eliminated?
Ms. Bennett. I will be happy to get back to you on that.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Terry. Thank you very much. Now, in the--very bland. We
get it; this is just a balance sheet, and because it is so
bland, it lacks a lot of data. Of course, the data is in a 6-
inch spiral notebook, but on the unexpended appropriations/
other funds in note 17, can you itemize for us what programs
where they have the leftover unspent funds?
Ms. Bennett. The unliquidated obligations, yes. What we----
Mr. Terry. Tomato-tomato, yes.
Ms. Bennett. Well, the reason I state that is because there
is a difference between unobligated funds and unliquidated
obligations. And I just want to make sure that we are talking
about the same thing. And this line reflects the unliquidated
obligations or the unspent funds that have been obligated. This
year my office instituted a tool for the Agency to be able to--
--
Mr. Terry. OK. My time is up, so would you, could you,
provide a list of those unliquidated, which we call unexpended?
And also the next line, cumulative results of operation earmark
funds, I am kind of curious about that. Could you give us a
list of the earmarks of which there are unspent, unliquidated
funds?
Ms. Bennett. We will be happy to get back to you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Terry. Thank you. That is the perfect answer.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Ms.
Bennett be able to finish the answer she was trying to give
about the tool of her office.
Mr. Stearns. Sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Terry. Can the gentlelady yield to me? I wasn't trying
to be rude. I just had no time left.
Ms. DeGette. No problem.
Mr. Stearns. Ms. Bennett, go ahead and answer the question.
Ms. Bennett. Well, I think it is important to note that the
unliquidated obligations has been not only mentioned by the
Inspector General and GAO, but I know that when I came on board
wanted to tackle it myself. So my office this year, I know I
have put a real renewed focus on looking at unliquidated
obligations. We instituted a new tool and provided new guidance
to the Agency so that every unliquidated obligation was
reviewed on at least an annual basis, and they have to send
assurances to me that they have done so.
And by virtue of that tool, we have been able to reduce the
unliquidated obligations by over 50 percent in 1 year alone. So
we recognize that this is an issue. We recognize this is an
important budget item. And it is important for me as CFO to
make sure that funds are not only used properly, but they are
expended in the most efficient and effective way.
Mr. Stearns. All right.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you very much. I am very concerned that a lot of
these cuts are going to harm jobs and the ability of
communities across the country to improve the environmental
conditions. And it is interesting that we just had this
conversation on the unliquidated obligations.
The mayor of Tampa on October 6th received a letter from
the EPA, from Stanley Meiburg, the deputy regional
administrator, that says, we regret to inform you that the U.S.
EPA will not be able to award the City of Tampa $1.25 million
for the project regarding sediment removal from estuaries, the
headwaters of the canal that are at issue. This is a matter
that the city, the residents, the EPA and the State has been
working on for years. It is a grant the city received some
years ago. Sometimes these initiatives do take time. There are
some issues here with State permits.
I don't understand how the EPA, understanding all of the
actions that have gone on, on an issue like this, all of the
reliance on the grant funds, the moneys expended--I mean, we
have got an engineering firm that has already expended about
$600,000. We have another contractor that has expended about
$22,000. And EPA said that they are not going to live up to
their end of the bargain--they are on the hook, or the deal was
that they would pay 55 percent of this clean water initiative
and the City of Tampa would pay 45 percent. This has been an
understanding for many years.
Will you explain to me how this could happen, how the EPA
could just after all the years of work on this, how the EPA
could renege on the deal and take back the money that we have
relied on?
Ms. Bennett. Ms. Castor, that is a very good example of
very worthy projects that end up having to be cut. In the 2011
budget that we received in appropriations, we were directed by
Congress to rescind $140 million of unobligated funds in a
particular account, and that particular account was the State
and tribal assistance grant. We did not have a choice as to
which appropriation account. And we were also further directed
that it must come from unobligated funds.
So we attempted to try to be as fair as possible,
recognizing that there are so many good projects on those
lists. But we went back and went to the oldest unobligated
funds that we had in that category and came up with the $140
million of unobligated funds that were 2008 or earlier. And it
sounds like, I am afraid, that that particular one was one of
them.
Ms. Castor. But we have relied on it. The city has expended
money. People have been hired. They are ready to begin the
project next year. Doesn't EPA owe us at least the portion of
the funds that have been expended to date? And I would argue
all of it.
Ms. Bennett. We were left with very little latitude in
terms of how we had to take the cut to the budget.
Ms. Castor. So these jobs are just going to go away.
See, now this is a real world example of how when you do
things irrationally, it really hurts jobs, and it hurts the
environmental quality of our community. We have been working on
this for years and years and years.
And it is just, it is unconscionable that these kind of
cuts would have an impact on jobs and the environmental quality
in my community.
And I am going to leave these materials with you and want
to talk to you all at greater length about at least covering
the portion of the moneys that have been expended to date.
Explain that discrepancy. How come EPA doesn't recognize
that, OK, to date, we have spent over $600,000 on this and at
least that portion should be covered?
Ms. Bennett. Again, my--I had very little latitude in terms
of how we were to cover the cut. We looked at the funds that
had not been obligated. These were unobligated earmarks from
many years ago. And so we tried to apply them as fairly as
possible, recognizing when you cut funds, real projects get
hurt.
Ms. Castor. Real projects, real jobs, the expectations of a
community for many years.
Ms. Bennett. Yes. And there was a $140 million recision
across that had to be taken, and it was taken across the
country. And I appreciate your concern on that.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bennett, let me just ask you a question. And I
appreciate these problems that we are talking about at the EPA
are longstanding and long in degeneration. And your tenure
there began when?
Ms. Bennett. The end of 2009, so I am coming up on 2 years.
Mr. Burgess. OK. My deepest sympathy.
But you were a CFO in the real world at one time, is that
not correct?
Ms. Bennett. Indeed, I was.
Mr. Burgess. And I appreciate the problem that the
representative from Florida just articulated. That is very
difficult at home.
But on the other hand, as a CFO, I mean, you understand
when you see the net position unexpended appropriations $13.5
billion in an agency that has an $8 billion-a-year budget, and
that is one and a half times your annual budget, I mean, that
becomes an attractive target, especially in a time when budget
cuts are happening all over the place. So you see the problem
there; with your CFO eyes, you see that problem, correct?
Ms. Bennett. And that is why I put a real renewed focus on
it this year. My staff will tell you that it is what I talk
about an awful lot in terms of making sure that the funds are
used effectively and efficiently and most expeditiously.
Mr. Burgess. Well, and I would just second Mr. Terry's
request that we get the details of that and the details of the
next line, the earmarked funds, because I think that is going
to be very important in helping us foster an understanding of
just what is going on here.
Mr. Barton's request that the credit card statements be
reviewed I think is rational. If someone is buying automobiles,
we at least want to make sure they are buying hybrids, not
mustangs, because we all know the EPA rating for a mustang on
miles per gallon is pretty high.
You know, on the GAO report, and again, I am asking you to
look at this with your CFO eyes, here I am looking at the
management of EPA's workload, workforce and real property, and
the paragraph begins, with respect to workload and workforce,
EPA has struggled for years to identify its human resource
needs and deploy the staff throughout the Agency in a manner
that would do the most good. OK. Fair enough. You have only
been there for 2 years. This is a problem that is longstanding.
But, I mean, this is the stuff that really gets you. EPA
requested funding and staffing through incremental adjustments
based largely on historical precedent. That means our budget
was X last year for this, and it is going to be X-plus for this
year. And instead of going back and evaluating what you really
need to do the job to do the most good for the most people, you
simply take what happened last time and add to it. Is that what
is going on here? Is that what the GAO is referencing?
Ms. Bennett. The approach that I take to the budget process
is not on an incremental basis.
The direction that we give is to look at the programs and
to use subject matter experts to determine the level of
funding.
That said, I also recognize that the reports that GAO has
come forward with, with the workload, and that it has been a
long time in coming. I will tell you that when I asked about
the reports and what they referenced, what I was trying to
balance was a prior report on workload had indicated that we
might need as many as 3,000 additional people. And I didn't
feel that that was going to be an effective way----
Mr. Burgess. No, it was not. I am going to interrupt you,
only because of the interest of time. But the problem is the
reports we have in front of us, the Inspector General's report,
the GAO report, I mean, this same theme repeats itself over and
over again. In the IG report, the comments about the
information technology, that it has taken a long time and a lot
of extra money to get that right, and no one even knows how
many work stations and how many computers. You are a CFO.
I mean, that is pretty basic. I am just a simple country
doctor, but that seems to me to be CFO 101 stuff. Is that a
correct interpretation?
Ms. Bennett. It is definitely something that a CFO,
including myself, takes very seriously, and why I am working
with both the Inspector General and the GAO to make sure that
we are addressing those recommendations.
Mr. Burgess. Well, in the last Congress, we heard from the
Office of Water, and the IG's report at that time brought up
that the Office of Water had more un- implemented
recommendations by the IG's office than any other branch. And I
looked at the result as of March 31, 2011, and it is the same
thing, Office of Water stands out as having more unimplemented
obligations.
Let me just ask you this, Lisa Jackson, Administrator
Jackson, last summer convened a group of folks and said we got
to get ready for the budget cuts; is that correct? I have a
news report here somewhere that references that from I think
July 19.
Ms. Bennett. We need to get--we were preparing to go
through the budget process.
Mr. Burgess. Could you get us a list of the programs that
were identified as most essential from that meeting? Did the
meeting take place? I assume it did.
Ms. Bennett. We had a discussion at the meeting.
Mr. Burgess. Did you generate a list of the programs that
were most essential or least essential?
Ms. Bennett. We provided a lot of analysis during that time
in terms of how we go about in making decisions in terms--you
know, predecisional type of----
Mr. Burgess. Would you be willing to share with this
committee the results of that meeting?
Ms. Bennett. Well, predecisional meetings--excuse me,
predecisional materials are typically not provided.
Mr. Burgess. But you had a meeting. And were there no
action items then coming out of this meeting last July?
Ms. Bennett. The action items that are in reference to the
meeting in July and conversations since then were for the
presentation of the 2013 budget, which is still not complete.
Mr. Burgess. Well, I think this committee probably does
have the ability to see the predecisional material, the right
to see the predecisional material. And I would ask you when you
go back to see if you cannot make that information available to
the committee. Because just like you, we are faced with tough
choices, too. The water quality things on the Texas-Mexico
border, I mean, that is far away from my district, but I have
visited the Colonias; I know the problem that they have. And if
the problem was that you guys didn't study what you actually
needed before you started pumping money in and now you feel
that it is being wasted, that is a huge problem, and we need to
get to the bottom of it.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I would
ask that the predecisional materials be made available to the
committee and committee staff. And I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank our panel for being here today. And if you don't
mind let me go over, I know what you all have to do on the
executive branch budgeting, but we also have some
responsibilities on our congressional budgeting process that I
think needs to be concerned. In fact, I served many years in
the legislature, and our Governor sent us a budget, but we
immediately threw it in the trash can and drew our own, which
is typically what Congress will do. If you like the President's
budget, you talk about it. If you don't, you go ahead and draft
your own.
The focus today is on the budgeting of the executive
branch, but Congress plays a role. In fact, as Democrats on
this subcommittee and a bipartisan witness made clear at last
week's hearing, the Constitution vests primary responsibility
in Congress. In carrying out that constitutional duty and
responding to requirements of the Budget Act, once a President
submits its budget to Congress in February, we are supposed to
hold hearings on it, authorizing committees are supposed to
pass their views and estimates and send them to the budget
committees. And then Budget Committees are supposed to produce
a budget resolution. Once we have a budget resolution, the
Appropriations Committee should begin work on appropriation
bills; the authorizing committee begin work on reconciliation
instructions contained in the budget resolution.
Before the fiscal year begins on October 1, 12 separate
appropriations bills are supposed to be considered, debated and
passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President.
But that has not happened--I am trying to think of how many
years it has been since we have had it happen. To the contrary,
over the last year, Congress has funded the government through
a series of continuing resolutions, most recently one that
lasted only a few days. And I can't imagine that this approach
to budgeting enhances the efficiency of our Federal Government.
Ms. Bennett, what impact do these short-term continuing
resolutions have on your agency's ability to carry out its
mission, whether it be contracting, grant writing, hiring,
delay in projects or, particularly, cleaning up the
environment?
Ms. Bennett. Short-term CRs make it very difficult to
implement programs, especially when they are multiple and very
short in nature. It makes it very difficult to decide what to
do because you are not sure how much money you are going to
have. And I know certainly from my experience in the private
sector, it would make it very difficult to operate a business.
Mr. Green. Well, it seems like, I mean, EPA is a smaller
agency compared to GAO and even DOD. Twice in the last 6
months, our majority in the House has brought the government to
a brink of a shutdown, once threatening a default on the
Nation's loan obligations. What impact do these shutdown
threats have on efficient and effective agency operations?
Ms. Bennett. Well, certainly when the workforce is looking
at a possible shutdown, we--you know, a lot of work is just put
on hold to determine what we can do.
Mr. Green. If you will be there the next day, in some
cases.
Ms. Bennett. Exactly. And a very anxious workforce, as well
as trying to determine what we are actually legally able to do
in terms of a shutdown.
Mr. Green. In your agency, would your agency be better able
to act efficiently and effectively if Congress fulfilled its
statutory duties under the Budget Act and passed not only all
of the appropriations but maybe just a few on time?
Ms. Bennett. It would certainly--to have a budget that is
approved on time would certainly be helpful.
Mr. Green. Well, and I know a lot of us came out of the
business sector, and it is amazing how we couldn't run a small
business where I was at not knowing what we may be able to do.
Congress certainly has an oversight to play with respect to the
federal budget, but it also has a constitutional duty to
respond to the President's budget proposals in good faith and
ensure that the budget emerges from Congress in a manner that
promotes administrative efficiency and programmatic
effectiveness. I think maybe Congress ought to be looking at
our responsibility on doing that, whether it is this committee
or any other committee, particularly Appropriations and Budget
Committee.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to yield my
time to our ranking member if she has any other questions.
No?
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I noted with some interest that you indicated, Ms. Bennett,
that the $13 billion in unexpended appropriations, I think your
words were, may be more than 5 years in implementation; some of
these commitments may have been made more than 5 years ago. And
I am curious about that, because I guess what I am hearing is,
and I need you to tell me if I am incorrect, is that sometimes
to get complicated projects done and to do things in the right
way and to make sure that you are doing them in the most
efficient way possible, it takes more than 5 years to get some
of these projects done. Would that be an accurate statement?
Ms. Bennett. Well, I think that many projects can take more
than a few years.
Mr. Griffith. And so I guess what I am trying to figure
out, and I know it is not really your role, so I will make it
more of a rhetorical question is, why would the EPA oppose H.R.
2250, which would give businesses 5 years in order to comply
with new regulations from the EPA? I leave that as a rhetorical
question. But I do note with some interest that the EPA is not
able to follow the rules that they oppose for businesses.
And I would then point out to you that I also have heard a
lot of talk about wastewater and safe drinking water programs
and so forth and that a lot of those may be in here. And I will
tell you of an incident, because this may be part of the
problem, that has been brought to my attention recently where
without having the cooperation that we heard is not going on,
various agencies of the State and Federal, including the EPA,
came up with different rules, and some areas were trying to
work on these very issues, safe drinking water and wastewater,
and the big impediment to getting them done in a timely fashion
and what ended up costing more money were not having the
flexibility, like Mr. Terry pointed out, not the exact same
situation, but not having flexibility from the EPA and others,
and different people coming in and telling folks different
things. And so they had the construction crews there ready to
go, and then all of a sudden somebody comes in and says, wait a
minute, you haven't done X. And not looking at practical
solutions to the problem and just to note you have got to
follow this strict rule, that project was then delayed and cost
the community additional moneys. And it may very well be one of
your 13 billion programs because they are trying hard to both
bring safe drinking water and wastewater programs into my
district, but also to comply with the regulations put on them
trying to get those projects completed by the EPA.
And so I would ask that you do work very hard to make sure
that you get that cooperation going. Because when you don't
have the cooperation, folks actually have let the contracts and
have the bulldozers sitting there, that equipment costs money
to have sitting there while they try then to comply with
something new that was thrown at them at the last minute.
So I encourage you to encourage the EPA to do that. I also
would have to ask, in regard to figuring out the staffing, and
I guess I am going to switch to Mr. Elkins, would I be correct
that when you are saying that you need to know what kind of
staffing needs you have and that there hadn't been a study and
you really need to have a study be akin to trying to run a
McDonalds and not know when your peak periods were for that
particular community and neighborhood and how many employees
you needed to have and so then maybe you over staff all the
time to make sure you can meet the peak demands? If you don't
have the accurate information, how many people it takes to get
lunch served in that particular community, isn't it true you
are libel to have more employees than you need in order to meet
the peak periods?
Mr. Elkins. That would be a fair conclusion, yes.
Mr. Griffith. And is that the same kind of situation, not
that EPA is trying to meet the lunch crowd, but the similar
type of thing that they may not have the right number of people
in the right locations and they may actually be over staffing?
Mr. Elkins. That is a fair conclusion, yes.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Thank you very much.
And in regard to the rent, is it possible that EPA could
look for cheaper accommodations? I have noticed they have some
of the nicest buildings as I come into Washington every week.
Is it possible they could move to cheaper accommodations?
Mr. Elkins. Well, I would assume anything is possible.
Mr. Griffith. All right. If I indicated to you that we have
lots of empty space in the Ninth Congressional District of
Virginia and that that is actually close to an area that EPA
seems to be focused a lot of attention on, the coal mining
region of the Central Appalachians, it would seem to make
sense--and we might not want them close, but they might
understand some of the issues better. If I told you the rent
down there is a whole lot cheaper than Washington, they could
save some money that way, couldn't they?
Mr. Elkins. You know, that may be a little bit----
Mr. Griffith. It would have to be studied I assume?
Mr. Elkins. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. In regard to the 37 labs, I heard something
that I don't understand, and there was 37 labs, but it was like
115 buildings. Can you explain that to me, Mr. Trimble?
Mr. Trimble. Yes, 37 labs, but they have 170 buildings or
facilities. So some of those may not be full office buildings
or lab facilities but smaller operations as well. So it is
about 170 located in 30 cities, all operating under 15
different managers.
Mr. Griffith. And I think the conclusion that you have
made, and I think most people would make, is that there ought
to be some room for consolidation; you might not need 15, but
you might need 7 or 8 managers----
Mr. Trimble. Well, I think we are agnostic on whether you
need consolidation as much as that it is you need the
information to know whether you have the right number and in
the right place and the right skill sets. And if you are doing
workforce planning, you need to manage entire portfolios and
integrated portfolios as opposed to sort of stovepiped.
Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that. And I see that
my time is up, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields back his time.
Mr. Scalise is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the panelists coming to talk about the budget.
I know one of my colleagues on the other side was lamenting the
failure to pass a budget, and I would share that concern. I
know right, not 3 months after this Republican majority came
into Congress, we passed a budget over to the Senate. It has
been nearly 3 years since the Senate has passed a budget of any
kind. They took up our budget, voted it down. They took up the
President's budget and didn't even get one vote, not one vote
in the United States Senate for the President's budget.
So hopefully our friends over in the Senate will finally
start doing their job that we have already done over here. And
if they don't like our budget, pass one of their own that they
can pass. But it has been almost 3 years, so I would imagine
you almost have some frustrations with that as well.
When we are talking about--you know, you have mentioned
cuts. When I look at your budget, when President Obama took
office, it was around $7.5 billion. Is that correct? Is that a
ballpark?
Ms. Bennett. In 2009, it was $7.6 billion.
Mr. Scalise. And today, what is your budget?
Ms. Bennett. In 2011, it was just under $8.7 billion.
Mr. Scalise. So your budget has actually gone up over $1
billion. How is that a cut?
Ms. Bennett. From 2009, it was not a cut.
Mr. Scalise. So you had a $7.5 billion budget 2 years ago.
Every State, I know in my State, pretty much every State that I
have been following, they are actually cutting the size of
their budget.
You talk to families who are struggling in these tough
times, most families have been cutting back over the last 2
years. And yet you have got over $1 billion increase in your
budget over the last 2 years, and you are complaining that you
are cut somehow. I mean, maybe in Washington that is a cut. But
when you look at your budget 2 years ago, you look at what
States have dealt with, what families have dealt with, you have
actually got more than $1 billion increase over that time, and
you are somehow calling that a cut that is hurting health.
Ms. Bennett. Actually, in terms of the overall budget, from
2000 to 2009, there was no increase in EPA's budget from those
2 years----
Mr. Scalise. Well, we are looking at the 2 and a half years
going back to when President Obama took office.
Ms. Bennett. And in 2010, there was a large increase in two
particular areas in particular.
Mr. Scalise. And I hope you would understand that we are
living in the real world. And you know you talk to families;
when we go back home and meet with our small business owners,
they are cutting back. They want to reinvest in their business
and create jobs. And frankly, EPA has been the main source of
job losses when you talk to a lot of our small businesses. They
say it is the things that you all are doing, some of these new
regulations that are coming out, that are making it impossible
for them to create jobs in the real world. And I hope you would
understand that it is kind of hard for a lot of those
businesses and families that are struggling, and they are
cutting back. They want to create jobs, but they can't because
of the some of the rules you are sending out. You actually had
an increase of $1 billion compared to 2 years ago, and you are
trying to complain to us that you got a cut. And so I just want
to put that on the record because clearly, you go from $7.5
billion 2 years ago to over $8.5 billion today; that is not a
cut. I mean, are those numbers correct?
Ms. Bennett. And the increase of the SRFs and to the Great
Lakes are for the most part straight passthroughs to the States
and to the communities.
Mr. Scalise. And so again, like I said, a lot of people
struggling out there. They would be more than happy to have
that kind of increase, more than a 10 percent increase, over a
2-year period.
When we look at some of the things that are in this report,
when you go to the properties, in your testimony, let's see
right here, Ms. Bennett, your testimony on page 3, you said
that you all have released approximately 375,000 square feet of
facilities, resulting in cumulative annual rent avoidance of
over $12.5 million. By rent avoidance, you mean----
Ms. Bennett. We are not incurring it.
Mr. Scalise (continuing). You reduced the amount of space.
But then when I look at the Inspector General's report, it says
you are spending probably somewhere around $300 million a year.
In some cases, you have got buildings where you have one or two
EPA employees for that whole building. Have you seen that in
the Inspector General's report?
Ms. Bennett. I have. We do have a number of facilities. We
have not only a number of office facilities, we have, as Mr.
Trimble has mentioned, we have a number of labs, and we have a
number of warehouses. The field offices that have one or two
people, I have recently directed that we have a review of all
offices that have less than 10 people, in order to make sure
that we continue to need them, and with the new technology that
is available, that perhaps we have more----
Mr. Scalise. OK. And you go on to say you plan to further
reduce energy utilization. Maybe you can get some of those
extra Solyndra solar panels to put on the roof and maybe we can
get something to show for that $535 million we might be on the
hook for.
Going to the audited report, the EPA audited report, and I
know I am running low on time, so I am just going to ask these
quick questions and see if you can give me the details. On page
33, unpaid obligations looks like $13.8 billion. If you can get
me a breakdown or get the committee a breakdown of what that
really means, because we don't have anything beyond just one
line that says unpaid obligations, $13.8 billion. Undelivered
orders, $12.8 billion, if you can get the committee a breakdown
of that. And finally, unexpired, on page 71, unexpired
unobligated balance, $4.4 billion, if you could get the
committee details about what that really is, because it doesn't
give it to us in this audit. Thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith. [presiding.] Thank you.
And the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you as well for the witnesses their time to join
us today.
And so just to follow up on Mr. Scalise's questions, the
EPA funding has increased then over the last 2 years.
Ms. Bennett. Since 2009, it has increased.
Mr. Gardner. It has increased. OK. Thank you for that. And
you had mentioned earlier there is about 17,200 employees at
the EPA, or at least that was in the request.
Ms. Bennett. That we requested in 2012.
Mr. Gardner. What percentage or what number of those are
actually involved in writing regulations?
Ms. Bennett. Off the top of my head, I am not sure, but I
would be happy to get back to you on that.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Gardner. If you can get back to me and let us know how
many of those are involved in writing regulations, I would
appreciate it. And do you anticipate a budget being passed by
the Senate this year, and if so, what would that number be?
Ms. Bennett. I don't think I will answer that one.
Mr. Gardner. Is that because you don't think they will pass
one?
Ms. Bennett. No, because I think that is not my decision.
Mr. Gardner. And if you could ballpark the number of
mandates that are coming out of the EPA on various drinking
water regulations, on various municipal treatment, sewage
treatment regulations, excuse me, regulations that are going
out to local municipalities when it comes to drinking water
treatment and sewer treatment, do you have an idea of the
unfunded mandate, the level of unfunded mandates right now?
Ms. Bennett. My responsibility as CFO is to ensure the
financial integrity of the EPA's budget. And so----
Mr. Gardner. You are not involved in those, OK.
Ms. Bennett. I am not involved.
Mr. Gardner. Then going back to that question, of this
$13.3 billion that has been discussed at length today, that is
not in the budget justification submitted to Congress, is that
correct?
Ms. Bennett. No. And that is a figure that is a year old.
Mr. Gardner. And so what would that figure be today?
Ms. Bennett. We are still closing the books. I don't have
the number for you.
Mr. Gardner. But surely you know what has been spent out of
that as the year goes. I mean, you keep a running tally of how
much money you spend out of that.
Ms. Bennett. I would have to get back to you on that. Off
the top of my head, I don't know the figure. But we have looked
at the unliquidated obligations, which is the same thing as the
unexpended obligations, and have done and implemented a tool
that allows for us to be able to review all of the unliquidated
obligations and see what we might be able to de-obligate and
either recertify or return back.
Mr. Gardner. And that has been implemented now?
Ms. Bennett. My office implemented it this year in 2011.
Mr. Gardner. But you still don't not know how much of the
$13.3 billion is left?
Ms. Bennett. Off the top of my head, I do not.
Mr. Gardner. Even though that tool has been implemented?
Ms. Bennett. I don't have the tool in front of me at this
particular moment.
Mr. Gardner. So it is still something that you don't know
about $13.3 billion where it is or how it is being spent or how
much is being left?
Ms. Bennett. I would have to get back to you on that.
Mr. Gardner. Mr. Trimble, does EPA have access to that
$13.3 billion for other program use?
Mr. Trimble. I have not--we have not looked at the balance
sheet, so I really couldn't speak to that. I could probably
come back to you with something----
Mr. Gardner. Ms. Bennett, where is that $13.3 billion
today?
Ms. Bennett. We have already agreed that we would get back
to you on the information in regards to that particular amount.
But it reflects obligations that the Agency has made and
for projects that are ongoing. And so we will be happy to get
back with you on any more details.
Mr. Gardner. And Mr. Elkins, do you know where that money--
can they use that money, have access to that $13.3 billion for
other programs?
Mr. Elkins. Let me defer to Melissa Heist on that question.
Ms. Heist. It varies by appropriation. Some can be made
available and some would have to be returned, so it depends.
Mr. Gardner. And when you say returned, who is that
returned to?
Ms. Heist. Well, the money hasn't actually been drawn down
from the Treasury and has been sitting in EPA, so it would be
available to be reappropriated, I guess.
Ms. Bennett. Only if they are not----
Ms. Heist. Some of it.
Ms. Bennett [continuing]. Valid obligations.
Ms. Heist. Exactly.
Ms. Bennett. So if they haven't been drawn down and they
would be--let's say there is some left over on a particular
project, then they would be returned. If there is still time
left in terms of the amount of money, excuse me, on the amount
of time that could be used, they could be recertified and
redeployed; otherwise, they would be returned to the Treasury.
Mr. Gardner. And so recertified and redeployed, by that are
you talking about on a new program, re-obligated for what it
was initially offered for?
Ms. Bennett. Re-obligated.
Mr. Gardner. And so there is no way then for EPA to use
that for other purposes within EPA?
Ms. Heist. Some of it could be reused at EPA.
Mr. Gardner. For different purposes than what they had
originally?
Ms. Heist. Well, it would have to be used for the purpose
of which it was appropriated. So if it was for water projects,
it would have to be used for water projects.
Mr. Gardner. But maybe on a different water project?
Ms. Heist. Yes.
Mr. Gardner. And you will get information back to us on
where that money is and how it is used?
Ms. Bennett. We have agreed to follow up with you on it.
Mr. Gardner. And can you give us some kind of a guarantee
that you will put that into the budget justifications so that
we have that information before us so we don't have to have a
congressional hearing to find out what is happening with this
money?
Ms. Bennett. I will be happy to get back to you on it.
Mr. Gardner. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Griffith. If we will pause for a second, I will have
the real chairman resume his position. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns [presiding]. I thank the gentleman from
Virginia.
Ms. Bennett, my colleague, Dr. Burgess, requested the
predecisional materials resulting from the July meeting called
by Administrator Jackson. Can you please confirm for the record
that the EPA will provide these materials to the committee?
Ms. Bennett. It is not my decision as to the provision of
predecisional meetings, but I will be happy to confer with OMB
and inside the Agency. I certainly appreciate your interest in
the issue and be happy to get back to you on it.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Trimble, does the EPA have access to funds
that it does not report to Congress in its budget proposal?
Mr. Trimble. Well, I think if this is in reference to
monies that they have de-obligated and have recertified for
other programs, yes. So, for example, if they have a grant or
an interagency agreement that it has been closed and there are
funds that have been left over, EPA, during the course of the
year, can use those funds for other purposes within certain
constraints.
Mr. Stearns. How much money are we talking about? Has the
amount of unexpended appropriations remained relatively
constant?
Mr. Trimble. I don't have a trend that I could give you. I
know when we first started tracking this issue over 10 years
ago, this was an area where the Agency was not doing a good
job. They have done much better recently. I believe the last
year I remember looking at this they had, the number they had
repurposed was about $160 million.
Mr. Stearns. Considering the large amounts of unexpended
appropriation raises a question: Why isn't the EPA spending the
money provided by Congress?
Mr. Trimble. Well, in the moneys that we are talking about
that we have looked at as part of our review of the budget
justification requests, typically the moneys we are talking
about are for programs where they did spend some of the money
just not all of the money, for example a grant or an
interagency agreement or a contract. They have carried out some
of the work, or the contract was terminated earlier; it didn't
cost as much, so there is money left over, so the contract is
closed. And what our past work had shown is that they had
done--been doing a good job of monitoring that and sweeping
those moneys up to be used for other purposes. So over the
years, the GAO plus the IG has been pressing the EPA on this.
They have improved their tracking. What we have recommended or
suggested is that when they have repurposed this money, it be
transparent to the Hill so that you can consider that in your
budget deliberations.
Mr. Stearns. If the EPA is not spending the money, even you
mentioned that they might cancel a contract and they had
leftover funds.
Mr. Trimble. Well, it could be that the reason they have
the leftover money was the contract was cancelled. So, for
example, a project is terminated or it is finished early, so
they thought it was going to cost $10 million; it cost $5
million. They complete the contract. You still have the money
that was obligated, but they never spent it.
Mr. Stearns. So what happens to that $5 million?
Mr. Trimble. Well, it sits, unless they flag it and then
deobligate it and then put it to another purpose. And those
were the issues that we have been flagging over the past 10
years.
Mr. Stearns. Could they use that for next year's budget?
Mr. Trimble. I think, depending, I defer to EPA on this,
but I think you could, depending on some of your moneys, no,
your money; some money may have a time limit on it.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Trimble, is it correct that GAO issued a
report just this past July that identified challenges relating
to EPA's management of its real property, namely property
management identifying excess and underused property as an area
where there may be budget savings for our Supercommittee?
Mr. Trimble. I am not familiar with the work we have done
for the supercommittee, but I believe that is----
Mr. Stearns. I mean, just in general. You are stating there
are areas where there is underused property, that we could save
money, isn't that true?
Mr. Trimble. Yes, I believe. And that is an area of high
risk that we have identified for a long time for the Federal
Government.
Mr. Stearns. Isn't it also true that GAO found that the EPA
did not have accurate and reliable information on the need of
its facilities, property use, facility conditions and operating
efficiencies?
Mr. Trimble. Yes. Specifically that is in relation to its
laboratory facilities.
Mr. Stearns. Ms. Bennett, do you agree with what Mr.
Trimble indicated that the GAO findings concerning the
completeness and reliability of operating costs and other data
needed to manage EPA properties are not there?
Ms. Bennett. We certainly respect the findings of the GAO,
and we are working toward addressing the issues and being able
to improve on those issues.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Trimble, you referenced in your--let's see
here, June 2010 Presidential memorandum that directed agencies
to accelerate efforts to identify and eliminate excess
properties to help achieve $3 billion in cost savings by 2012,
is that correct?
Mr. Trimble. That is correct.
Mr. Stearns. Did EPA eliminate any of its laboratories or
major assets as a result of that directive?
Mr. Trimble. No. EPA told OMB that they needed all their
lab facilities.
Mr. Stearns. Let me see if I understand this. EPA tells the
White House it doesn't have excess property, but GAO's own
work, and EPA concurs, shows the Agency doesn't have accurate
or reliable information to make this determination. Is that an
accurate statement, Mr. Trimble?
Mr. Trimble. Well, I don't know about the EPA concurring.
At the time, the key factors that they needed to factor into
the decision concerned need, usage, efficiency, cost, those are
all the things called for by OMB for the analysis, and our
review found that EPA's data in those areas was either
incomplete or the accuracy was questionable.
Mr. Stearns. Ms. Bennett, so the question for you is, how
can EPA justify its response to the White House that it doesn't
have duplicative or excess property when it doesn't have the
data to support even their determination?
Ms. Bennett. Well, in terms of the labs, for 2012, we have
included in our President's budget request some funds in order
to make sure that we properly look at the use and the skills
that are necessary for the labs to see where we might be able
to have additional efficiencies and where we might be able to
save costs.
Mr. Stearns. You see what I am saying, though. I mean, EPA
is making this decision, and yet it is clear you don't even
have the reliable information to make this decision, yet you
are telling them----
Ms. Bennett. And we are working on getting better
information to make the decisions that are necessary.
Mr. Stearns. How long is that going to take you?
Ms. Bennett. The lab study that we hope to be undertaking
pending appropriation would be done in 2012.
Mr. Stearns. OK. My time is expired.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Trimble, I completely agree with the
recommendation that for unexpended appropriations, which are
actually going to go to a project and they are repurposed by
the Agency, that needs to be transparent.
And I am assuming, Ms. Bennett, you would agree with that
as well.
Ms. Bennett. Indeed.
Ms. DeGette. And just so we can be clear for the record,
Mr. Trimble, Ms. Bennett told us a little while ago that of
this unexpended appropriation line, some of that is for
projects that are coming down the pike. GAO doesn't object to
any of that, right?
Mr. Trimble. Yes. You know, I am not an accountant, so full
disclosure here.
Ms. DeGette. Me neither.
Mr. Trimble. The numbers that GAO has been talking about
are not the unexpended appropriations on this balance sheet. I
believe, my understanding, and limited as it is, is that the
balance sheet numbers may include, there may be obligations
behind those numbers so it is just a matter of a timing issue
in the spending.
Ms. DeGette. Right. And the other thing is, for some of the
appropriations, they might be appropriations that couldn't be
redirected, depending on how broad or narrow they are, right?
Mr. Trimble. Yes. And again, I would defer to----
Ms. DeGette. You know, if it is an--I will ask Ms. Bennett.
If it is an appropriation for like water projects and you
didn't need it for this one, but for that one, you could
repurpose that, right?
Ms. Bennett. If it was within the same appropriation.
Ms. DeGette. Right. But that is what we should know if you
are doing that, right?
Ms. Bennett. Exactly.
Ms. DeGette. Yes. And then you might have an appropriation,
though, for something else. You might not have, you may not be
able to repurpose that because of the nature of the
appropriation. That would revert to the Treasury, right?
Ms. Bennett. If we cannot recertify, if we cannot find
another project of a suitable nature----
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Ms. Bennett [continuing]. Then my understanding is it would
go back to the Treasury.
Ms. DeGette. Right. And does that happen?
Ms. Bennett. It does.
Ms. DeGette. OK. I think that is part of what the chairman
is wanting to know, how much that happens. But just to be
clear, this money that is on this balance sheet, or any other
money that--it looks like a lot of money sitting there, $13
billion or $14 billion, but that is not actually just a whole
bunch of cash just sitting around that could be used to offset
against next year's EPA appropriation. Much of that money is
obligated, correct?
Ms. Bennett. That money is obligated, so the government has
an obligation to meet its contracts.
Ms. DeGette. And when we just cut those funds of previously
obligated money, what Congresswoman Castor was talking about,
that is exactly the kind of thing that happens, is projects
have to be eliminated, even sometimes projects that are
underway, right?
Ms. Bennett. Well, in her case, it was for projects that
had not actually been obligated.
Ms. DeGette. Oh, OK.
Ms. Bennett. So those were those particular funds. So a
contract had not been entered into. A grant had not been
entered into her case. However, it still affected real work and
real jobs, according to what she said.
Ms. DeGette. They were counting on that money, even though
it wasn't obligated, and then it got cut, right?
Ms. Bennett. It was a very, very difficult decision.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. And I want to thank all of these witnesses for
coming. I think it is a really useful review.
And as I mentioned in my--oh, well, as I mentioned in a
side bar to you, Mr. Chairman, I think once the EPA completes
this analysis of what they are going to do based on the IG's
recommendations, that we should have a follow-up hearing, I
think would be useful.
I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Griffith from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The EPA has various initiatives like the American Great
Outdoors Initiative, Green Power Partnership, the AgStar
Program and the Energy Star, just to name a few. I was
wondering if you can tell me, do you know how many voluntary
programs there are at the EPA?
Ms. Bennett. I know we have quite a few voluntary programs.
The exact number I would have to follow back up with you on
that.
Mr. Griffith. And do you have an idea how much the Agency
spends on the voluntary programs versus statutorily required
programs?
Ms. Bennett. Most of the funds go to statutorily required
programs, but I don't know the exact----
Mr. Griffith. All right. If you could give me the answers
to both of those questions later, that would be greatly
appreciated. Can you do that for us?
Ms. Bennett. I believe I can. I will certainly follow up
with you on it.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Griffith. All right. And in its 2012 request, EPA
proposed a $36 million reduction from nonpoint source pollution
grants. However, at the same time, it proposed increases in
other programs with a focus on nonpoint pollution, the
Mississippi River Basin Initiative, Chesapeake Bay Program, et
cetera. After review, it appears the EPA may be proposing to
just move money from one account to another. Are these cuts
real cuts, or is the EPA simply shifting the money from one of
its programs to another?
Ms. Bennett. I think you are referring to what we call the
categorical grants in the STAG account. And indeed, the
nonpoint source did sustain that--we are proposing a $36
million cut. We had--part of our budget process is consultation
with the States, with ECOS, and with the tribes. And based on
that consultation, although the 319 program is a very important
one, we also recognize that there were other categorical grants
that they had indicated might be more important to them, and so
we were trying to accommodate those requests.
Mr. Griffith. Now, as a part of that cooperation that we
heard about today from other witnesses, is it possible, do you
think that the--because it looks like the USDA is doing the
same work on nonpoint source that you all are doing, is there
some way you all can get together and perhaps reduce the cost
of working on the problem? I am not saying you shouldn't work
on the problem, but reduce the cost of working on the problem
by not duplicating that particular information, and have you
all talked to the USDA about what they are doing so you can
coordinate?
Ms. Bennett. That was actually a factor in when we were
making the decision in terms of how we would make trade-offs
within those categorical grants working closely with USDA and
seeing if we might be able to leverage our collective resources
better.
Mr. Trimble. Sir, if I may, just so you know, we have an
ongoing review of the 319 program. And part of the scope of the
review is to look at coordination with the USDA.
Mr. Griffith. Let me ask you, in regards to this
cooperation with the States, is that a real cooperation? Can
any of you all answer that question for me? Because I just left
the State legislature about a year ago, and it didn't feel much
like cooperation when representatives of the EPA came down and
told us what we were going to do and that we couldn't look
for--again, as Mr. Terry said earlier and as I pointed out
earlier, we couldn't look for more cost-effective ways to try
to achieve the same purpose. We were going to have to follow
one of two models that the EPA approved. Can anybody answer
whether or not there is actual cooperation with the States? Or
is it just being dictated to? Because that is the way I felt in
Virginia.
Mr. Trimble. Well, yes. I couldn't answer that, but
broadly, I think in the 319 program, part of the review will
look at its implementation and its structure throughout the
State. So it may indirectly get at your question.
Ms. Bennett. Mr. Griffith, strengthening the partnerships
and the relationship with the States and the tribes is one of
the administrator's seven priorities and one of our aspects in
our strategic plan, one of the cross-cutting fundamental
strategies that we have. So we are taking the relationship with
the States very importantly.
I know I have had several conversations with the State
leadership and ECOS, in particular, on these unliquidated
obligations and how we can move the money faster. So I know as
the CFO, I am trying to take it very seriously, and the Agency
has set a very high priority.
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that very much. I appreciate you
all's time today. It has been very helpful. I appreciate the
chairman having this hearing because I am learning lots, and I
am new and a lot of these things I haven't heard before, so I
appreciate it.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a couple follow-up questions on the Title 42
provisions. Now, Mr. Inspector General, have you studied the
Title 42 provisions and the number of positions that the EPA is
now employing under Title 42 guidelines?
Ms. Heist. No, we have not looked at those.
Mr. Burgess. Well, and you know Mr. Barton referenced that
one of the unions was concerned. It is the National Treasury
Employees Union. In fact, the data I have was supplied to them
under a Freedom of Information Act request. It is not directly
from the EPA, though it was the EPA's response to the Freedom
of Information Act request filed National Treasury Employees
Union. Well, just for an example, on the--and Ms. Bennett, you
may not be able to tell us. But the starting salary or the
salary that would be required to hire someone with a title of
``research microbiologist,'' what would the typical salary
range for that be?
Ms. Bennett. I am not able to say that. I do know that in
any Title 42 hiring, a very rigorous process is undergone to
ensure that those individuals are pertinent for that kind of a
salary. If it is over and above the regular GS or SES
schedule----
Mr. Burgess. Did you try? I mean, we are in a recession.
Everyone talks about, nobody can find a job. Did you try to
fill it with someone who might be able to accept the normal GS
scale for that position? Was it necessary to go to a Title 42?
Ms. Bennett. As you suggested, I am not familiar with each
individual one. But typically, as I understand, the Title 42s
are used when other, you know, other avenues have been
exhausted, and they can't be hired.
Mr. Burgess. Well, again, I am having difficulty believing
in this environment, where all the time we hear when people
cannot find jobs, people are looking and they can't find them,
I find it hard to believe that the position couldn't even be
filled with an American citizen. That is troubling.
Ms. Bennett. I am not familiar----
Mr. Burgess. Well, I will provide you with some of this
information, and I would like some of your feedback on that
because I have been trying to get information on this program
for quite some time. I recognize that it is occasionally
necessary to go out and get someone with particular expertise.
But you know, since your tenure started, it has been what,
seven people that you have hired under Title 42 provisions,
essentially doubling the number--almost doubling the number of
hires under that provision from previous years. So I, again, in
the worst recession the country has ever known, I would just
ask the question, can we not find anyone suitably qualified who
doesn't require the additional payment under Title 42
provisions? And I will get you that information, and I would
appreciate your attention to that.
One other thing has come up, are there dollars that the EPA
is spending in grants that are delivered to concerns overseas?
Ms. Bennett. There has been a longstanding practice in the
Agency and in the administration and several administrations to
provide grants to some foreign entities.
Mr. Burgess. But in this budgetary environment, does it
make sense that we provide millions of dollars in grants to the
Chinese Government--I mean, they can certainly afford their own
research--supporting projects related to coal mine methane
utilization. I mean, it seems like that is something they would
want to do on their own, and they have got the cash to do it,
right?
Ms. Bennett. I won't speak to what the Chinese can and
can't do. However, I do know that in terms of a longstanding
practice, that this is--that foreign entities have received
grants----
Mr. Burgess. How is that----
Ms. Bennett. And as well as to help deliver and build
capacity in order to have a more level playing field for U.S.
products and services.
Mr. Burgess. Still, though, it is a stretch to think that
is helping our constituents directly. The EPA providing
$150,000 to the International Criminal Police Organization in
Lyon, France, to promote and strengthen international
environment enforcement through capacity building. We're
supposed to be helping them enforce their cap-and-trade law? Is
that what we are to be doing?
Ms. Bennett. I am not familiar with the individual grants.
Mr. Burgess. Well, how about the taxpayer benefit from the
EPA's hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding Breathe Easy
Jakarta, a partnership with the government of Jakarta to
improve their quality management?
Ms. Bennett. Again, I am not familiar with individual
grants.
Mr. Burgess. Sure and we will----
Ms. Bennett [continuing]. A longstanding practice of many
administrations.
Mr. Burgess. Sure. And we will provide you the direct
things that we are concerned about. We would like responses to
these because, again, these are questions that we get.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
You know, I go home and have a town hall and 300 or 400
people show up and someone sees one of these stories. These are
the questions they ask. How can we justify spending--wouldn't
we be better to make that investment in our air quality here at
home as opposed to Jakarta, Indonesia?
Ms. Bennett. It has been a longstanding practice of all--
many administrations to do this kind of funding. I understand--
--
Mr. Burgess. Well you are the CFO and your recommendation
to your administrator may be that it is time to concentrate--
what moneys we can spend, it is time to concentrate them here
at home and not Breathe Easy Jakarta.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman yields back.
And I think we have completed our second round.
Before I close, I just want to make a comment.
Ms. Bennett, my understanding is that you have testified
that with respect to the excess lab issue, the EPA is
requesting more money in the President's budget to study issues
concerning the EPA's labs; is that correct?
Ms. Bennett. In terms of how we should approach the labs in
terms of the usage and how we best structure them.
Mr. Stearns. This is even though GAO has already performed
an audit and issued recommendations to EPA already, isn't that
correct?
Ms. Bennett. That is correct.
Mr. Stearns. So you are saying that the EPA needs to
spend--needs to ask for more money in order to achieve savings
from the GAO audit in which they specifically outline ways that
you could save money, so you are saying this morning, you need
more money to save money?
Ms. Bennett. What we are trying to do is make sure that we
keep in mind science that is being done in each one of those
labs and that anywhere we might be able to consolidate, if that
is an appropriate avenue, that we do so with the science in
mind.
Mr. Stearns. So, the GAO, though, has already issued
recommendations, and they have been specific on how to save
money, and they have done an audit. I would think lots of those
you could implement, couldn't you implement any of them?
Ms. Bennett. There are some recommendations that we can
implement.
Mr. Stearns. You would need more money under the
President's budget to do that, that is what you said.
Ms. Bennett. The money that we are asking for in the 2012
budget would be a study that is done by the--and reviewed by
the National Academy of Science to make sure that the science
that is done in those labs continues to be of the caliber and
it is not impacted at all.
Mr. Stearns. It seems to me that you could just run with
the GAO's recommendation and do a lot of them and save money
today, but you are not willing to commit to that. You just want
to say you need more money to save money. So I am a little
puzzled.
I ask unanimous consent that the committee's September 15,
2011, letter to EPA Administrator Jackson on line-by-line
budget review as well as EPA's October 11, 2011, letter
response be introduced into the record.
Without objection, the documents will be so entered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.044
Mr. Stearns. And also to put into the record the
Environmental Protection Agency's consolidated balance sheet
that we have talked about all morning.
By unanimous consent, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.053
Mr. Stearns. I want to thank the witnesses for coming, for
staying, and their testimony and for the members staying for
the second round.
The committee rules provide that members have 10 days to
submit additional questions for the record to the witnesses.
And with that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4567.073