    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 June 22, 2016

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. 114-85

                                   ----------

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 June 22, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-85

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    20-914 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         ZOE LOFGREN, California
        Wisconsin                        DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    STEPHEN KNIGHT, California           PAUL TONKO, New York
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   MARK TAKANO, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio

                                C O N T E N T S

                                 June 22, 2016

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     4
        Written Statement............................................     6

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................     8
        Written Statement............................................    10

                                   Witnesses:

    Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency
        Oral Statement...............................................    12
        Written Statement............................................    14

    Discussion.......................................................    18

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................    66

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Letter submitted by Representative Mo Brooks, Subcommittee on
      Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................    82

    Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    87

    Letter submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   101

    Letter submitted by Representative Lee Abraham, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   103

    Letter submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   108

    Letters submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................   110

    Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   114

                         ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:07 p.m., in Room
    2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman
    of the Committee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
    authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
        And welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Ensuring Sound
    Science at the EPA.''
        Before beginning our hearing, however, I'd like to welcome
    a new member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee,
    Warren Davidson from Ohio's Eighth Congressional District. He
    won a special election two weeks ago to succeed John Boehner.
        Representative Davidson graduated from West Point and has
    an MBA from Notre Dame. He served in the Army in the 101st
    Airborne Division and as an Army Ranger. After his military
    service, he returned to Ohio and took a manufacturing company
    from 20 to 200 employees. He will be a member of the Space and
    Oversight Subcommittees. As the only member of the Science
    Committee from Ohio, he will be popular with the aerospace and
    energy R&D companies in his state. Please welcome Warren
    Davidson to the Science Committee.
        I'll now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
    statement and then the Ranking Member.
        The Environmental Protection Agency has become an agency in
    pursuit of a purely political agenda rather than an agency that
    protects the environment. Little that the EPA has proposes
    would have any significant impact on the environment. But that
    hasn't stopped the EPA from imposing some of the most expensive
    and expansive regulations in its history.
        These rules will cost billions of dollars, place a heavy
    burden on American families, and diminish the ability of
    American businesses to compete around the world. EPA's
    political agenda is to rearrange the American economy,
    instituting ``command and control'' by the Obama
    Administration.
        This Committee's investigations have revealed an EPA that
    intentionally chooses to ignore good science. EPA cherry-picks
    the science that fits its agenda and ignores the science that
    does not support its position. When the science falls short,
    the EPA resorts to a propaganda campaign designed to mislead
    the public.
        Today's hearing will examine this unprecedented regulatory
    agenda and the manner in which the EPA has used suspect
    science, questionable legal interpretations, and flawed
    analysis to justify these regulations. A glaring example is the
    President's so-called Clean Power Plan. This plan is nothing
    more than a ``Power Grab'' to give the government more control
    over Americans' daily lives.
        This regulation stifles economic growth, destroys American
    jobs, and increases energy prices. That means costs will rise-
    from electricity to gasoline to food, disproportionately
    hurting low-income Americans. Even EPA data shows that this
    regulation would reduce sea level rise by only 1/100 of an
    inch, the thickness of three sheets of paper. The Clean Power
    Plan represents massive costs without significant benefits. In
    other words, it's all pain and no gain.
        The President used this regulation as the cornerstone of
    his agenda at the Paris climate talks. The Paris agreement is a
    bad deal for the American people that will shrink our economy
    without any recognized benefit. Even if all 177 countries meet
    their promised reductions of carbon emissions for the next 85
    years, that will reduce temperatures by only one-sixth of one
    degree Celsius. That is incredible.
        For almost two years, the Committee requested to see the
    data EPA uses to justify Clean Air Act regulations. The EPA's
    refusal to provide all the data led the Science Committee to
    issue its first subpoena in 21 years to retrieve that
    information, and we are still waiting. What is the Obama
    Administration hiding?
        The Committee's investigation and oversight of the EPA's
    development of the Waters of the U.S. rule has revealed
    troubling and illegal agency activities. During the course of
    our investigation, the Committee found that the EPA engaged in
    inappropriate tactics to generate grassroots lobbying in
    support of this rule.
        This past December, the Government Accountability
    Organization issued a legal opinion that found that EPA
    violated both the Anti-Lobbying and Anti-Deficiency Acts.
        The EPA's relationship with activist environmental groups
    and use of questionable science does not end there. The
    Committee's investigation of the Agency's decision to embark on
    a premature and unprecedented decision to stop the Pebble Mine
    has shown that career EPA officials acted with blatant bias to
    determine the outcome. Also, these same officials intentionally
    used personal email to prevent the Committee and the EPA
    Inspector General from discovering the extent of their
    incriminating actions. This is just another unfortunate example
    of the EPA allowing politics rather than science to drive its
    agenda.
        Earlier this Congress, the House approved H.R. 1030, the
    Secret Science Reform Act. This legislation requires the EPA to
    base its regulations on publicly available data. Why would the
    EPA want to hide this data from the American people? Because
    either the data is science fiction or it doesn't exist.
        During the last year, several of EPA's major regulations
    have been halted by federal courts. These include the Agency's
    efforts to stop the Pebble Mine, the controversial Waters of
    the U.S. rule, and the Clean Power Plan. Many of these
    regulations trample on the constitutional rights of individuals
    and rely on suspect legal interpretations of the law.
        I hope the Administrator will tell us today how she intends
    to follow the law in writing regulations and when she will
    provide the American people with the data and other information
    that this committee has requested.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
    the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice
    Johnson, is recognized for hers.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And before
    I begin my remarks, let me also welcome our new member and to
    tell him that I'm a product of St. Mary's and I graduated
    before you were born.
        And let me welcome Administrator McCarthy to today's
    hearing and express my deep appreciation for her distinguished
    public service. I look forward to her testimony.
        And, Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm here by myself on this
    side is that every other Democrat is on the House Floor
    awaiting a bill, because without a bill, there will be no
    break, the bill concerning gun violence.
        Based on previous committee hearings with EPA, I have
    little doubt that some members will try to argue today that EPA
    is an overzealous, job-killing agency that needs to be reined
    in, namely, the rhetoric we have heard from our majority
    colleagues throughout this entire Congress.
        Of course, the reality is far different. Administrator
    McCarthy, you and your dedicated agency staff have the noble
    and unenviable task of trying to protect human health and the
    environment in which we live and work from harm arising from
    many different sources. As such, your job is never truly done,
    and the ongoing nature of your work makes it easy for critics
    to find fault, with some arguing you're doing too much, some
    arguing you're doing too little.
        Let us be clear. The issues you--that underlie achieving
    these goals are complex, necessitating equally complex rules
    and regulations that require commitments and sacrifice from all
    involved parties to achieve a common benefit, a healthy
    environment. I am pleased that EPA continues to rise to this
    challenge and has developed regulations that are balanced and
    progressive, further illustrating that economic prosperity and
    environmental protection can go hand-in-hand. They're not
    mutually exclusive.
        Just in the last year, EPA has finalized the Clean Power
    Plan, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and its
    first-ever standards to reduce methane emissions from the oil
    and gas sector. While protecting public health, these
    regulations have also helped advance our efforts to limit the
    harmful effects of climate change. Actions taken by EPA have
    demonstrated America's intention to lead the world's effort to
    address climate change and have led to such a positive result
    as last December's Paris agreement.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope that this committee will take the
    opportunity today to give serious attention to Administrator
    McCarthy's testimony and examine what has actually been
    accomplished. It is an impressive record and one that this
    Congress should support. Unfortunately, that has not been this
    committee's approach to EPA's oversight in recent years.
    Instead, since the beginning of the current Congress alone,
    this committee has sent 28 oversight requests to EPA and has
    launched 12 separate EPA-related investigations. EPA has
    already delivered more than 15,000 documents consisting of
    139,000 pages to the Science Committee. I don't know where
    they're getting all these grocery carts to wheel it over here,
    with more document demands still outstanding, and I don't know
    where we're storing it once it gets here. And you can multiply
    these numbers by three to get the number of documents and pages
    provided to Congress as a whole over the same period.
        We're imposing an incredible burden on the hardworking men
    and women of EPA and spending a lot of taxpayers' dollars in
    the process to know--I don't know to what end. Does anybody
    read it when it gets here? The sum total result of all this
    committee oversight can be measured more in press releases that
    in any concrete findings that could justify the time and
    resources EPA has had to expend in trying to satisfy the
    majority's demands.
        I would hope that this committee will step back from the
    path it is on and not continue to engage in reflexive
    opposition to the efforts of an agency simply trying to carry
    out its statutory-mandated missions. While no agency is
    perfect, preventing EPA from doing its job at all is not good
    for the country and not a good use of time. Instead of trying
    to score political points through efforts to undercut EPA's
    important work, we should work together in a productive way to
    advance our economy, a cleaner environment, and a healthier
    world for humanity.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        Our witness today is the Honorable Gina McCarthy,
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Prior to
    her appointment as Administrator, she was the Assistant
    Administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. She also
    has served as the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of
    Environmental Protection. During her career, which spans over
    30 years, she has worked at both the state and local levels on
    environmental issues and helped coordinate policies on energy,
    transportation, and the environment.
        Administrator McCarthy received a bachelor of arts degree
    in social anthropology from the University of Massachusetts and
    a master's of science and environmental health, engineering,
    and planning from Tufts University.
        We welcome you, Administrator, and look forward to your
    testimony.

               TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GINA McCARTHY,

             ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Johnson, for inviting me to testify today on
    EPA's regulatory efforts.
        The mission of EPA is to protect public health and the
    environment, and the Agency's regulatory efforts further those
    goals. We are guided in meeting these goals by science and by
    the law, which serves as the backbone of each of the Agency's
    actions. I'll focus my comments today on providing more detail
    for three rules, which we believe tremendously benefit public
    health, as well as the environment.
        Climate change is one of the greatest environmental and
    public health challenges that we all face. The most vulnerable
    among us--including children, older adults, people with heart
    and lung disease, and people living in poverty--may be the most
    at risk from the impacts of climate change. Fossil fuel-fired
    power plants are by far the largest source of U.S. CO2
    emissions. To address these emissions, EPA finalized the Clean
    Power Plan August 3 of 2015.
        While the Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the Supreme
    Court, we are confident it will be upheld because it rests on a
    strong foundation of science and the law. Since the stay was
    issued, many States have begun to move forward voluntarily to
    cut carbon pollution from power plants. They've also asked EPA
    to continue our outreach and development of supporting
    information that will help guide States when the Clean Power
    Plan becomes effective, which we are doing while ensuring that
    we fully comply with the stay.
        For example, last week, we proposed design details for the
    optional Clean Energy Incentive Program to address States'
    request for additional clarification as they consider options
    to reduce their carbon footprint. In May, EPA announced steps
    to further reduce methane and other harmful air pollutants from
    new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry, along
    with a critical first step in tackling methane emissions from
    existing sources. These steps will help combat climate change
    and reduce harmful air pollution.
        These standards build on the Agency's 2012 rules by adding
    requirements that the industry reduce emissions of greenhouse
    gases and by covering hydraulically fractured oil wells, along
    with additional equipment and activities that were not covered
    in the 2012 rules. They also require owners and operators to
    find and repair leaks, which can be a significant source of
    emissions.
        These final standards reflect significant stakeholder input
    and in particular provide companies a pathway to demonstrate
    that requirements under a State rule comparable to requirements
    in the final rule. This would allow sources to comply with the
    specific final rule requirement by complying with the State
    regulation.
        As a first step in the regulation of existing sources of
    methane from the oil and gas sector, we have announced an
    information collection request that, when finalized, will
    require companies with existing operations to provide
    information on technologies and costs that are critical to the
    development of reasonable and effective regulations. In
    addition, EPA plans to seek voluntary information on innovative
    strategies that can accurately and cost-effectively locate,
    measure, and mitigate methane emissions. The draft ICR was
    published on June 3, 2016, and the first two public comments
    for--periods will last for 60 days.
        Finally, in October 2015 the Agency completed the periodic
    review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS,
    for ground-level ozone. We have a primary standard directed at
    protecting public health and a secondary standard directed at
    protecting public welfare. Exposures to ground-level ozone can
    harm the respiratory system, aggravate asthma and lung disease,
    and is linked to premature death. These health impacts pose
    significant costs on Americans and can adversely affect their
    daily lives through missed school and work.
        The two-step process of a science-based NAAQS review,
    followed by implementation and a system that works, that is the
    process that we implement. That is the process the Congress
    outlined. EPA and State, local, and tribal co-regulators share
    a long history of successfully managing air quality. For ozone,
    existing and proposed federal measures like vehicle standards
    and power plant rules and reducing--are reducing and will
    continue to further reduce ozone pollution nationwide. We
    expect that the vast majority of counties outside of California
    will meet the 2015 ozone NAAQS by 2025 without having to take
    additional steps beyond these federal measures.
        So I again thank the Committee for inviting me to give a
    statement, as well as to be here today, and I look forward to
    continuing to work with you and to answer your questions on
    these and other EPA actions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy.
    And I'll recognize myself for questions.
        The first is this. The nonpartisan Energy Information
    Administration at the Department of Energy has found that the
    Clean Power Plan will reduce economic growth, increase
    electricity costs, and result in almost 400,000 jobs lost over
    the next 15 years. And all this is with very little impact on
    climate change itself. So why has the Obama Administration
    imposed this regulation on the American people?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me just be clear if I could, Mr.
    Chairman. Our impact analysis that went with the rule indicated
    just the opposite of what you're saying.
        Chairman Smith. Right. So you----
        Ms. McCarthy. Let me answer the question----
        Chairman Smith. Okay. But--so you disagree with the Energy
    Information Administration of the Department of Energy?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, it depends on what you're looking at,
    sir. I don't have it----
        Chairman Smith. Okay----
        Ms. McCarthy. --in front of me, but I will tell you that--
    --
        Chairman Smith. --real quickly, let me repeat my question--
    --
        Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
        Chairman Smith. --to make sure you----
        Ms. McCarthy. Sure.
        Chairman Smith. --address it. They said it would reduce
    economic growth, increase electricity cost, and cost almost
    400,000 jobs in the next 15 years. This is the Department of
    Energy. This is this Administration. This is the Energy
    Information Administration. So do you agree or disagree with
    their conclusions?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I believe that we have designed this
    rule, and it's showing out already that we are following the
    energy markets. We are not changing the direction in which the
    market is heading, and as a result, you're going to see this
    being delivered well--with additional short--small reduction
    over a very short period of time. You're going to see short
    reductions, but over the length of this rule, you are going to
    see significant reductions in greenhouse gases. But also,
    you're going to see cost savings on the energy side.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. It's clear you disagree with the
    Administration. I happen to think they're probably less biased
    than the EPA, and I think their conclusions that were reached
    probably represent closer to the facts, but we're going to have
    to agree----
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I'm----
        Chairman Smith. --to disagree on that.
        Ms. McCarthy. --happy to take a look at it, Mr. Chairman. I
    don't know what the context of their analysis was.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. You are not familiar with the Energy
    Information Administration or you are?
        Ms. McCarthy. Very much so but----
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Have you read their----
        Ms. McCarthy. But they do----
        Chairman Smith. --report on the Clean Power Plan?
        Ms. McCarthy. In the past.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. And you disagree with that?
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what you just read, sir. I don't
    know which one it is----
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. --so I'm happy to take a look.
        Chairman Smith. Well, again, reduce economic growth,
    increase electricity costs, and cost 400,000 jobs----
        Ms. McCarthy. Is----
        Chairman Smith. --over the next 15 years.
        Ms. McCarthy. That is exactly opposite of what we believe
    will happen based on our----
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. --independent analysis.
        Chairman Smith. It's nice to have the Administration at war
    with itself. I'll go to my----
        Ms. McCarthy. No----
        Chairman Smith. --next question. If the Paris climate
    agreement involving 177 countries was completely implemented,
    okay, the entire climate agreement completely implemented, you
    have distinguished scientists including Bjorn Lomborg and 27
    other top climate scientists, including three Nobel laureates,
    who have concluded that the reduction in global warming would
    only be one-twentieth of a degree Celsius by 2030, one-sixth of
    a degrees Celsius in the next 85 years. It sounds to me like if
    they're anywhere close to being right, then this Paris Climate
    Agreement is almost all pain and no gain. Why is that not the
    case?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, no, sir. The Paris agreement was an
    incredible achievement that changed the direction of the world
    and is going to ultimately----
        Chairman Smith. Do you disagree that----
        Ms. McCarthy. --allow us to have a better climate----
        Chairman Smith. Do you think the Paris Climate Agreement
    will have a greater impact on climate change than I just said
    and that these 27 scientists said?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think it sets us on it course to work
    together on a planetary scale to address the biggest----
        Chairman Smith. Well, I understand----
        Ms. McCarthy. --environmental challenge we face.
        Chairman Smith. --as far as the actual impact on climate
    change, do you disagree with these 27 top----
        Ms. McCarthy. I disagree with the way in which----
        Chairman Smith. --climate scientists?
        Ms. McCarthy. --you're characterizing it, Mr. Chairman.
    With all due respect, it is a tremendous step in the right
    direction.
        Chairman Smith. No, no----
        Ms. McCarthy. The numbers you're talking about----
        Chairman Smith. Those are----
        Ms. McCarthy. --are actually steps----
        Chairman Smith. I know those are wonderful words----
        Ms. McCarthy. --to be taken by 2020.
        Chairman Smith. I'm talking about quantifying the impact.
    The impact is one-sixth of a degree over the next 85 years if
    every country, all 177 countries----
        Ms. McCarthy. There is not a single----
        Chairman Smith. --implement it----
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, there's not a single country that signed
    that expecting that the 2020 goals would get us where we need
    to be.
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. It is a step in that direction, and it should
    provide us an opportunity----
        Chairman Smith. But you don't disagree with the
    conclusion----
        Ms. McCarthy. --to get the necessary reductions.
        Chairman Smith. --of these scientists as far as the climate
    agreement goes in Paris----
        Ms. McCarthy. I----
        Chairman Smith. --as it stands right now?
        Ms. McCarthy. The agreement itself was designed as a step
    forward.
        Chairman Smith. I understand.
        Ms. McCarthy. It was not designed to produce all of the
    actions----
        Chairman Smith. I understand but----
        Ms. McCarthy. --that will be necessary to address----
        Chairman Smith. --as far as the step forward goes----
        Ms. McCarthy. --the challenges.
        Chairman Smith. --the step forward is as I described it.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, you can't make a marathon without
    getting across the starting line.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. It's clear you don't disagree with
    their conclusion. You may think it's a beginning, but you can't
    disagree----
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't even know what----
        Chairman Smith. --with their conclusion?
        Ms. McCarthy. --their--the context of their conclusion is.
        Chairman Smith. Again----
        Ms. McCarthy. What I do know, sir, is that----
        Chairman Smith. --it's reducing global warming one-sixth of
    a degrees Celsius over the next 85 years.
        Ms. McCarthy. It's better than we were before, and it's
    only the first step. We've made a----
        Chairman Smith. One-sixth for all----
        Ms. McCarthy. We've made a long-term commitment to get to
    the reductions that are necessary----
        Chairman Smith. It all sounds to me----
        Ms. McCarthy. --to stabilize the----
        Chairman Smith. --like it's all pain and no gain, and I
    think that's--why punish the American people if we're not going
    to have any significant impact on climate change?
        Ms. McCarthy. We actually don't think it's punishment. I
    think it's about leadership and I think it's----
        Chairman Smith. Let me tell you, increase electricity
    costs, slow economic growth, and lost jobs is punishment----
        Ms. McCarthy. Our analysis shows that----
        Chairman Smith. --for the American people.
        Ms. McCarthy. --that is not the case with the Clean Power
    Plan. It provides----
        Chairman Smith. All right.
        Ms. McCarthy. --ultimate flexibility----
        Chairman Smith. Okay. It's you against all these other
    scientists----
        Ms. McCarthy. --and reduced energy.
        Chairman Smith. --and that's okay. My next question is
    this. With out major environmental regulations, we have seen
    reduction in carbon emissions in the United States through
    technological breakthroughs. For example, in the last 11 years
    there's been a 12 percent reduction in energy-related carbon
    emissions in the United States.
        Rather than impose costly government mandates and interfere
    with free market, why not encourage more technological advances
    that will reduce the cost of alternative fuels and so encourage
    their use? In other words, you're not going to convince
    developing countries to go to alternative forms of energy if
    you don't reduce the cost. It's not good for them; it's not
    good for their economy. So why not allow technology
    breakthroughs to solve the problem as they have throughout the
    history of the United States? Why engage in these government
    mandates to skew the market, cost jobs, and are burdensome to
    the American people?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I don't think we're actually
    skewing the market; I think we're following it. And what I
    think the Clean Power Plan----
        Chairman Smith. Government mandates don't skew the market--
    --
        Ms. McCarthy. --is designed----
        Chairman Smith. --and subsidies don't skew the market?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually, we're following the direction
    of the market because renewable energy is actually becoming
    more and more cost-effective.
        Chairman Smith. Well----
        Ms. McCarthy. It is competing----
        Chairman Smith. --why not let the market work?
        Ms. McCarthy. --in the market itself.
        Chairman Smith. Why not--why impose the regulation? Why not
    let market work? It's going the right direction.
        Ms. McCarthy. The idea is to look at this as a long-term
    venture out to 2030 so that those that want to invest in
    innovation will have certainty that their investments will pay
    off.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. I think we're a democratic country,
    and the free market, if allowed to work, will work as it has
    been working. I'm just sorry that government wants to interfere
    with that. And that's going beyond my time by a minute. And the
    Ranking Member from--is--the Ranking Member is recognized for
    her questions.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Administrator, it has been said that Congress is one
    of the few places where you can find the rhetoric of climate
    change denial alive and well. While that is disheartening, I'm
    reminded that these views are not representative of the
    majority of Americans. What kind of response have you seen from
    people as you travel the country discussing EPA's work? And
    have you found more support and positive feedback than you do
    here in this room?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I do find that, as I travel, there is
    tremendous concern about the impacts that are already being
    felt by climate change. People know it's happening and they're
    feeling it and they're afraid it. They're worried about the
    safety of their communities and they're worried about the
    future of their children and they're worried about the public
    health impacts that are so well-defined and well-understood.
        And so things are changing. They're looking for us to take
    action, but they're looking for us to take reasonable action,
    action that respects our energy system, that follows it, that
    doesn't increase energy costs and that provides opportunities
    for the jobs of the future.
        That is what we are doing today. That's what the Clean
    Power Plan is all about. It's not trying to redesign the
    system. It's trying to understand that right now today our
    energy system is in transition, and it's moving towards a clean
    energy system. And we know internationally that the countries
    that lead in this transition are going to be the ones that come
    ahead.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Environmental challenges are often
    most severe among communities of color. The NAACP highlighted
    this fact stating that African-American children are twice as
    likely to die of asthma and three times more likely to be
    admitted to the hospital for asthma attack while African-
    American adults are more likely to die of lung disease while
    being less likely to smoke.
        The NAACP went on to applaud the EPA's progress in setting
    a stronger standard but echoed the call of every major health
    organization by stating that our children, families, and
    communities deserve better than the new standard.
        The NAACP also criticized the National Black Chamber of
    Commerce for citing a widely debunked report to justify claims
    of economic harm to communities of color as a result of these
    regulations.
        What bearing do you at EPA and EPA's activity have on the
    issue raised by the NAACP? And how can we prevent the most
    vulnerable among us from bearing a disproportionate economic
    and public health cost of environmental inaction?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, Ranking Member, I'm glad that you
    mentioned it because I think we've done a wonderful job
    nationally in looking at these issues, and it's one community
    and one vulnerable child at a time, and we have to be focusing
    our efforts in that direction.
        We know that our new ozone standard is a standard that was
    designed by law to be protective of public health with an
    adequate margin of safety. That means that ozone levels will be
    coming down, and those ozone levels reducing will mean less
    asthma attacks for our children. It will mean more protection
    for those that are most vulnerable.
        So we are following the science in providing the right
    standards and working with States to make sure that they
    continue to make progress moving down our air pollution, which
    they have for decades worked with us to achieve. And so it's an
    exciting opportunity.
        Now, on the Clean Power Plan, we wanted to make sure that
    while we gave States ultimate flexibility that we provided
    incentives for investment in low-income communities that most
    need it for opportunities for renewable energy and energy
    efficiency. So we developed an incentive program in there. It's
    voluntary, but that's what our Clean Energy Incentive Program
    is. It's to make sure that every community and every vulnerable
    individual has an opportunity to invest in the technologies of
    the future that are going to keep our planet stable and also
    protect public health.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Opponents of the new ozone standard
    of 70 parts per billion often criticize EPA for setting it
    before all areas of the country have attained the new--the old
    standard of 75 parts per billion, accusing EPA of shifting the
    goalpost. Why is it important that we build on existing
    improvements to air quality and not wait until the old
    standards of 75 parts per billion be attained by more parts of
    the country? And how does setting a new standard encourage
    additional action to achieve attainment? To those who claim
    attainment efforts will prove too costly, how would you
    characterize the cost of inaction to this issue?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the cost of inaction is borne out by
    health impacts for our kids and our elderly, and we can show
    that this is not--is an incredibly cost-effective step forward
    that will save thousands of lives. And so it's important in and
    of itself.
        But the important thing to remember about air pollution is
    over the past 40 years we have been able to reduce air
    pollution 70 percent while the economy tripled. We are not
    raising our ability to protect public health on the backs of
    workers. We are growing jobs at the same time in this country,
    and we can do both.
        But one thing--and one statistic always sticks out at me is
    this is an incremental step forward. We work with States to
    incrementally reduce air pollution, and of all of the areas
    that were designated nonattainment in 1997 when we set a new
    standard, 95 percent of them have achieved that standard
    already. So it is a steady march forward in which we work
    together with States and local communities for the benefits of
    our kids, for the benefits of public health, and we've been
    able to do that without a detriment to business or jobs. That's
    how EPA does its job. That's how it was designed to happen.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is--my time
    really hasn't expired. I'm going to give you back 20 seconds.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Well, yield to me?
    Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator McCarthy,
    the Cancer Assessment Review Committee report on glyphosate
    published on April 29 and then removed on May 2 came to the
    same conclusion as other global regulatory bodies about the
    safety of a vital agricultural tool. The report also addressed
    several deficiencies with the International Agency for Research
    on Cancer's monogram from early 2015, which, as you know, came
    to a different conclusion on glyphosate than your agency's
    report.
        I guess my first question, the Cancer Assessment Review
    Committee, they found that glyphosate is not a carcinogenic, is
    that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. That--not--say that again. Not likely.
        Mr. Lucas. Found that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.
        Ms. McCarthy. Not likely is I think the term that we use--
    --
        Mr. Lucas. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. --but I understand your point.
        Mr. Lucas. Was this report marked final and signed by the
    scientists at the Cancer Assessment Review Committee who
    completed the report?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, my understanding of the Cancer
    Assessment Review Committee is they do a memo. They do about 40
    of these registration reviews. It's pretty mundane. It's
    routine work for the Agency, although important work. So my
    understanding is that that memo was done. It was unfortunate
    that it was mistakenly released by a contractor because it is
    still in review in the Agency. And when we have an issue that's
    important--as important as glyphosate is to the agricultural
    community, we want to make sure that we get the science right.
        Mr. Lucas. But, Administrator, was the report dated October
    1, 2015?
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't have exact date in front of me, sir,
    but that's reasonable.
        Mr. Lucas. My understanding is the document that was placed
    online----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --on the 29th----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --had been dated the October before, some months
    earlier, and I'm under the general impression that it was
    signed out to the--the memo was by the scientist----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --who participated in it?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. So why did--and this begs the question, why did
    EPA wait several months to post the report marked final, then
    remove it from the Web site a few days later with no immediate
    explanation?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, because it's----
        Mr. Lucas. Could you expand on that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes. It's just--it's a step in the process
    towards the Agency's decision, and we know that it will
    ultimately be made public. The question is we don't want to
    confuse the public with interim decisions being made.
        And in this case--and I really want to be very clear here--
    the--what we call the CARC, which is our committee, is an
    internal committee. But very often, no less than 10 or 15
    percent, maybe five percent at the least, there is--there's an
    issue that's large enough that it warrants larger agency
    review. And this was one of those occasions.
        It is a big deal, sir, to deal with glyphosate both in
    terms of its international context and the importance it has
    for U.S. agriculture, so we have expanded that----
        Mr. Lucas. So, Administrator----
        Ms. McCarthy. --and it's one step in the process, but it's
    not a final decision----
        Mr. Lucas. But, Administrator----
        Ms. McCarthy. --for the Agency.
        Mr. Lucas. --if it was not a final document, why was it
    marked final?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. Why was it signed out in the fashion it was?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, it was a final review from that that
    particular committee. It was not a final agency action, and if
    you look at it----
        Mr. Lucas. But you understand why those of us who follow--
    --
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Lucas. --very carefully the actions that your agency
    takes----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --and all of the oversight work you have, the
    impact of these decisions is dramatic----
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, it was----
        Mr. Lucas. --in certain areas.
        Ms. McCarthy. --it was extremely unfortunate. It was
    released with a number of other documents that weren't yet
    ready for public viewing. It will be ready, and I don't want it
    to be----
        Mr. Lucas. But you would understand why there would be----
        Ms. McCarthy. --any signal other than we're still in the
    middle of a decision
        Mr. Lucas. --some concern from those of us----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --who watch the process----
        Ms. McCarthy. I get it.
        Mr. Lucas. --that perhaps a decision made in regular order,
    in regular process by the people of responsibility who
    understand----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --the issues had been overruled----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --somewhere else on high and backed up----
        Ms. McCarthy. Right.
        Mr. Lucas. --and that would be a grave concern----
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, there's two----
        Mr. Lucas. --if we were putting a----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --post-science decision that changed the outcome
    of the scientific work that had gone into the initial decision.
        Ms. McCarthy. This----
        Mr. Lucas. You can see the concern.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes. There's two things that are very
    unfortunate here. One is our Cancer Assessment Review Committee
    does great work. It is not an indication when we take their
    memo off the table that we don't appreciate it and agree with
    it. It was a question of making sure that we had fully
    articulated that in the decision-making process.
        Mr. Lucas. That----
        Ms. McCarthy. That's not the end of the line of the
    decision. That's all.
        Mr. Lucas. That said, Administrator, when will we see the
    final report?
        Ms. McCarthy. We're--given that it's raised concerns, we're
    going to try to get it out as soon as possible. I know we
    always try hard, but I'm--this fall should be the likely--
        Mr. Lucas. Raised concerns within the scientific community
    doing the review or raised concerns from those that----
        Ms. McCarthy. No, just----
        Mr. Lucas. --oversee the scientific community?
        Ms. McCarthy. --from yourself who would interpret this as
    some kind of a backing up or not in agreement with a final
    agency action. The problem we have here is this was not a final
    agency action. It was a step in the process. And we appreciate
    the work of the Committee----
        Mr. Lucas. But these are the kind of things,
    Administrator----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --that causes such doubt and concern----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --in the public and in Congress and in the
    entities that are affected.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I don't want it to send a signal----
        Mr. Lucas. This is not good for anyone----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. --to do it this way.
        Ms. McCarthy. You should not take it as a signal that the
    decision--that any decision has been made or what direction
    that decision will go. The committee offered us wonderful
    information. We just need to make sure that it's as robust as
    it needs to be for a decision as big as this.
        Mr. Lucas. And now the extra attention will be incredible
    when the final report----
        Ms. McCarthy. I'm sure.
        Mr. Lucas. --does come out.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think it was always----
        Mr. Lucas. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. McCarthy. --very important, sir, and I appreciate it.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you for being with us today and----
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --we--you were aware that this was going
    to be a tough hearing, and thank you for being here and sharing
    your views with us----
        Ms. McCarthy. I'll do my best.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --on this issue.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So now I'll have my shot.
        Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. First of all, let me ask you this.
    Do you expect that the public and the people of this country
    need to comply with the orders of the EPA where you are
    exercising your lawful authority? Do you expect them to do so
    in a timely manner?
        Ms. McCarthy. To the best of their ability. Often, that
    doesn't happen----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Ms. McCarthy. --and we discuss----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
        Ms. McCarthy. --what we need to do to work together.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. But there are several cases in which
    people were not complying, and EPA was very tough on them in
    your administration. There are those cases as well. Let me just
    note that we have lawful authority on this side of the aisle to
    it----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Here we are. We have legislative authority
    to oversee what our federal tax dollars are using. Yet since
    August of 2015, we have sent ten letters to you. The letters
    contained 35 total requests, and we got four replies back. And
    of those four replies, only one was fully responsive. The other
    seven were only partially responsive to the requests that were
    made.
        So we have 27 requests, more than 77 of all of our requests
    for information in pursuing our lawful authority to oversee
    what you're doing and getting a good understanding and
    protecting the American people's right to know these things, 77
    percent were not answered, six out of ten letters have received
    no reply at all. Do you consider that compliance and--with the
    lawful authority, our lawful authority as a legislative
    oversight of your agency?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I have tremendous respect for the
    job of this committee, and I will assure you that we are doing
    everything we can to respond to your request in a timely way.
        Now, I know that we have--we continue to do searches that
    are necessary. It is very challenging, the amount of requests
    that we receive from this committee and others. We do our best
    to make sure that everyone gets the--every gets the attention
    it needs, and will do our best to respond----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. --to the outstanding letters----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note----
        Ms. McCarthy. --inasmuch as we can.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --that if this was just you and we had an
    established working relationship with you and saw the tough job
    that you have, that might--we might actually take a different
    approach to this and give benefit of the doubt, repeated
    benefit of the doubt
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --over the years of not getting the type
    of cooperation we need. But this seems to be a pattern
    throughout this Administration, the idea of cover-ups, of
    inadequate professionalism and the job that needs to be done.
        I mean, there's an example here of this coal mine and
    several other cases like this where the EPA delayed in actually
    notifying people about toxic spills, and yet when we make
    requests for information, we don't get replies back. We're
    trying to protect the people and here you're saying, well,
    we're just doing our best.
        We see this in other agencies and departments throughout
    this Administration. I think it comes from the top where
    there's an arrogant disregard for legislative authority. The
    President comes to give a State of the Union and says I'm going
    to do this on my own. If I don't get my way, it's the highway.
        And then we come across things where we don't get even our
    request for information answered. I think that this does not
    speak well of the Administration, and I would hope that you
    could do better. I think that this is unacceptable. We need to
    make sure that if the EPA's requests are going to be taken
    seriously by the American people because that's your lawful
    authority, our lawful authority to oversee this and get the
    answers on why this--why we had this spill--and by the way,
    there's a judge actually backed this observation up where
    didn't he recently say that the EPA may have lied in court to--
    and demonstrated a total lack of commitment to carrying out the
    law? This was your Administration now that a member of the
    judicial branch is pointing out is just unacceptable.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I--no one would like to produce
    these documents more quickly than I would because I have great
    faith in the way in which EPA in this Administration has
    followed the science and the law. I want to be able to provide
    you information as quickly as I can. And, you know, we'll do
    our best. The Gold King Mine incident was--unfortunate is
    probably too weak a word in this issue. It was a disaster. We
    have been doing our best to take full responsibility for that.
    I am full well aware that while we notified people in advance
    so that efforts could be taken to make sure that contaminated
    water didn't get into farm fields, it does not excuse the
    fact----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well----
        Ms. McCarthy. --that our notice process wasn't up to snuff.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --you can't say you're trying to protect
    farm fields by not letting the information out.
        Ms. McCarthy. I understand that.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And let me just say that this type of
    stonewalling of mistakes and things and we're only trying to do
    our best, it just doesn't cut it when we see this happen so
    often in this Administration.
        Ms. McCarthy. All right, sir.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Administrator, for being here today.
        Ms. McCarthy. You, too.
        Mr. Neugebauer. As you know, as the Ranking Member pointed
    out, we've had numerous hearings about all the EPA regulations,
    both those proposed and finalized. And many of the witnesses
    that testified before this committee have consistently
    testified that EPA's regulatory agenda will harm the American
    economy. And so I'm concerned about that regulatory agenda that
    will regulate the United States into some kind of economic
    irrelevance.
        Now, the Clean Power Plan is a good example of EPA's
    command-and-control mentality. I don't think this is
    environmental protection, but I think it's unconstitutional
    usurpation of power in the name of environmental activism. Even
    President Obama's constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe
    stated that ``EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta,
    usurping the prerogatives of the states, Congress, and the
    federal courts all at once, but burning the Constitution of the
    United States, about which I deeply care, cannot be a part of
    national energy policy.'' This is not necessarily a very
    conservative jurist.
        So the question I have, Administrator McCarthy, does the
    Constitution give the EPA the right to ignore the will and
    intent of Congress and carry out its own agenda?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, it requires us to actually follow the law
    and follow science.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, numerous states, including my home
    state of Texas, for example, disagree with your analysis. In
    fact, the Supreme Court has placed a stay on the rule until
    it's examined whether it's constitutional or not----
        Ms. McCarthy. That's correct.
        Mr. Neugebauer. --is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. So citizens and businesses in my home
    state are very concerned about the increase in electricity
    prices that will occur when the Clean Power Plan goes into
    effect. And I think you said a while ago that you believe that
    the cost of electricity--did I hear you say you think the cost
    of electricity is going down with the Clean Power Plan?
        Ms. McCarthy. I--by 2030 our estimate is that it will be--
    an average family will actually reduce their energy bill
    annually by $80. Yes, I--yes, that's what you heard me say.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, I don't believe that and I would
    yield to the Chairman, but, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that
    anybody has testified before this committee that that the cost
    of electricity is going down, have they?
        Chairman Smith. That's correct/
        Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. So I think we've got EPA with one
    perspective and we've got the entire utility industry with
    another perspective, and not just the utility industry but
    other outside groups that disagree with that. So the question
    is can you furnish this committee with a cost-benefit analysis
    that you did that shows that the cost would go down? And have
    you shown that report to----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. --others to validate your finding?
        Ms. McCarthy. Our regulatory impact analysis is part of the
    final rule, and I'm happy to forward that if the Committee does
    not have it.
        Mr. Neugebauer. So the question is sometimes I think folks
    on our side of the aisle get painted with the perspective we
    don't care about the environment. We care very much about the
    environment. But we care very much about making sure, as the
    gentleman from California said, being good stewards of the
    taxpayers' money and making sure that the policies that are
    implemented in the Administration are policies that are in the
    best interest of the country. And I think one of the things
    that--and as the Chairman was pointing out, even if you employ
    all of these certain practices that are put in place, we're
    talking about making an infinitesimal change in the
    environment.
        And so I think when you look at--and I haven't done a cost-
    benefit analysis, but when you say it's almost as thin as a
    sheet of paper and you're going to cost billions and billions
    of dollars, I don't know how that's in the best interest of the
    American people.
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, that issue has been directly addressed
    by the Agency and backed up by the Supreme Court in its
    decisions. It was very clear that climate change requires a
    multiple of actions to be taken in order to address the
    changing climate and the challenge that that poses to the
    future of our communities, our kids, and our planet. No one
    action is going to resolve it, but inaction is going to
    preclude us from taking care of this very real and imminent
    danger. And in the----
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, I'm going to stop you there. I mean,
    here--I think what we have to kind of put this down in
    perspective, you know----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. --we can talk about numbers and billions
    and stuff. You know who I think about? I think about that
    little single mom----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. --that's raising two kids that's working
    two jobs and she's worried about whether she's going to be able
    to pay her electric bill or she's going to be able to buy
    gasoline to get to work to support her family and to make sure
    if those kids need to go to the doctor that they're able to do
    that.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. And what we're saying is we're willing to
    sacrifice those people for some long-term goal that we don't
    even have a clear picture of whether it's actually achievable,
    number one, and secondly, whether it's beneficial. And what do
    you say to her?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think we're both looking at protecting the
    very same people from the very same concerns that you
    articulated. There is nothing in the rules that we have done on
    the Clean Power Plan that is going to threaten that woman.
    What's going to threaten her and her family is no action on
    climate and other efforts that we can take to reduce pollution
    that will allow them to have a healthy and viable future.
        And we can do this. It is already happening, sir. The very
    transition that we are looking at in every State and every
    region that said let's look at how we tackle this problem
    together, every State and every region is seeing a shift to
    clean power. Texas is perhaps the largest producer of renewable
    energy in the country.
        Mr. Neugebauer. My district is.
        Ms. McCarthy. They are not--well, you're not doing it
    because of the Clean Power Plan. You're doing it because the
    market demands it. Likewise, the Clean Power Plan is
    underpinning that to ensure that those investments continue and
    that market continues to move in the right direction----
        Mr. Neugebauer. But I don't think we need the EPA----
        Ms. McCarthy. --for those kids.
        Mr. Neugebauer. As the Chairman said, why don't we let the
    market determine it? The reason that I have more wind in my
    district than any place in the country, one is because of some
    very attractive tax credits----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. --quite honestly, but the other is----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. --you know, obviously, we've got a little
    wind out there. But I think the perspective that I'm saying
    is----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Neugebauer. --that the mandates--I don't have very many
    calls of people say, boy, the air sure is dirty here today.
    Would you do something about it? But I do have a lot of calls
    in my office with people calling and saying, you know, I can't
    afford my electricity bill, I can't afford the gasoline. I
    mean, those----
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I----
        Mr. Neugebauer. --are the calls that I get.
        Ms. McCarthy. I'm happy to share----
        Chairman Smith. Thank----
        Ms. McCarthy. --with you some of the calls that--the
    information and the communication we get from some of the
    communities in Texas and other places. But I appreciate your
    point of view, sir, and I want you to know that we are thinking
    about those kids, we're thinking about jobs, we're thinking
    more than about climate change when we design our rules.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer.
        And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        On August 31, 2015, I along with 17 other members of this
    committee sent you a letter regarding concerns about the ozone
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards that were in the process
    of being finalized. The final ozone rule was issued in October
    of last year. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record
    our letter dated August 31, 2015.
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears in Appendix]
        Mr. Brooks. Several committee hearings in 2015 raised
    serious doubts about the underlying science used to justify the
    proposed ozone rule. You acknowledged two distinct sets of
    scientific studies used during the rulemaking process. The
    first set contains large population studies which you yourself
    acknowledged as being unreliable. The second set are human
    exposure studies of which there are only four such studies that
    the EPA and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee both
    reviewed.
        In particular, the committee's letter raised concerns that
    the proposed ozone rule was based on a single study by
    Schelegle of just 31 individuals, 31 individuals, a remarkably
    small and unreliable sample size. More disconcerting was the
    inability of the Schelegle study to replicate key results from
    two other studies, as we clearly stated in this August 25
    letter. In other words, your entire rule depends on one study.
    Administrator McCarthy, do you agree that the basis for the
    ozone rule relies heavily on this one study by Schelegle?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually, sir, I believe it's part of a
    weight-of-evidence approach where we have thousands of studies
    that have been generated over decades. Ozone is perhaps the----
        Mr. Brooks. Okay. That's not answering my question. Please
    just answer my question. Do you agree that the ozone rule
    relies heavily on this one study by Schelegle, yes or no?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, I don't think in an extraordinary
    way. I think it relies on the entire weight of the evidence
    before us. There are a thousand new studies that were
    considered in the latest ozone standard.
        Mr. Brooks. As a party of this committee's oversight and
    investigations, we requested documents concerning the ozone
    role from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency has
    produced documents to the Committee with massive amounts of
    redactions. Administrator McCarthy, these are apparently
    PowerPoint presentations titled ``Ozone NAAQS Option Selection
    Briefing and Ozone NAAQS Information Briefing.'' Almost the
    entirety of it is redacted as nonresponsive to the committee
    requests.
        So let me just show you some of the stuff that we got.
    We've got 65 pages of responses, nonresponsive, nonresponsive,
    nonresponsive, nonresponsive, 65 pages. I would submit to you
    that these redactions are unacceptable, and I'll ask you today
    if you will agree to provide all of these documents to the
    Committee without any redactions?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, we have provided this committee and in
    the docket of our ozone standard deliberations, it is--probably
    would stand this tall if I brought it in. You've got an
    integrated----
        Mr. Brooks. That's fine. I'm asking are you going to send
    to this committee the documents we have requested? I'm not
    concerned about documents you have sent. I'm concerned about
    documents that have not been sent.
        Ms. McCarthy. As far as I know, we----
        Mr. Brooks. Will you commit to----
        Ms. McCarthy. As far as I know we have provided you full
    response, but I will go back and make sure that we have done
    that. Redactions are common when it's deliberative material. It
    protects our ability to work inside to make sure we do our
    jobs.
        Mr. Brooks. And so to the extent then that there are
    materials that have not been submitted, you're telling this
    committee today that you will submit them?
        Ms. McCarthy. Only if they're--if they're available to me
    and they're appropriate to submit, I will submit them. That is
    not a blanket statement that I'm going to provide the Committee
    with information that's inappropriate to provide and--or that's
    not responsive.
        Mr. Brooks. And it seems that a lot of your argument for
    these regulations is based on global warming or climate change,
    which seems to be the term that's used, but aren't you really
    talking about global warming?
        Ms. McCarthy. Not the ozone one, sir. That's----
        Mr. Brooks. I know not the ozone. I'm going to the broader
    brush now----
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we tend not to----
        Mr. Brooks. --carbon by way of example.
        Ms. McCarthy. --call it global coming because it--that is
    not particularly an accurate term. It's a changing climate,
    which can result in many different types of impacts and----
        Mr. Brooks. And is sea rise one of the concerns?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sea level rise, yes.
        Mr. Brooks. What is the largest body of ice on the planet?
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't know that, sir. I'm not--I'm not a
    scientist. I don't want to answer that.
        Mr. Brooks. I'm sorry, you don't know--we're talking about
    melting ice that you are arguing is going to increase sea
    levels. That in turn is going to cost the American people
    billions of dollars to try to rectify it based on these
    standards that you're pushing down on them without
    Congressional approval, and you're telling me you don't know--
    --
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir----
        Mr. Brooks. --what the largest body of freshwater ice is on
    the planet?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I don't agree with the way in which
    you've characterized this, but I hesitate to go down the lines
    of speaking like a scientist.
        Mr. Brooks. Well----
        Ms. McCarthy. You've had the President's scientists here--
    --
        Mr. Brooks. Wait, I've got----
        Ms. McCarthy. --that you've been talking with----
        Mr. Brooks. --limited time. You don't know that the
    Antarctic----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, well----
        Mr. Brooks. --continent----
        Ms. McCarthy. --I'm aware of the Antarctic, and I'm aware
    of the----
        Mr. Brooks. --comprises about 70 to 90 percent----
        Ms. McCarthy. --yes.
        Mr. Brooks. --of the freshwater ice on the planet? I mean,
    that's a rather remarkable amount. That's not like there's a
    close second place that you have to worry about.
        Ms. McCarthy. Is there a question?
        Mr. Brooks. Now, have I refreshed your recollection with
    respect to the Antarctic being the largest body of freshwater
    ice on the planet?
        Ms. McCarthy. I'm aware of that.
        Mr. Brooks. Now you're aware of that? Okay. That's good.
    Now----
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Brooks. What a bummer, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. But thank you, Mr. Brooks, for those great
    questions.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized for
    his questions.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Administrator.
        Ms. McCarthy. How are you?
        Mr. Bera. I'm doing fine. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking
    Member.
        I grew up in California, in southern California in the Los
    Angeles area in the 1960s, and I recall as a kid there were
    days where my mom would not let us go outside because if we did
    sneak outside, as kids are known to do sometimes, we'd get out
    there playing--we could see the air that we were breathing
    sometimes. And when you came in after playing, you could
    actually feel the burning in your lungs.
        And it was through understanding the damage that was
    causing to our population, our people, through enacting laws
    either through legislation or companies doing the right thing
    and understanding that they had a responsibility that we were
    able to clean up the air in Southern California so that we
    still have a ways to go. But we were protecting the public. It
    was a public health measure through acts like the Clean Air
    Act, through acts like the Clean Water Act to impact our public
    health.
        Now, fast forward. You know, I decided to become a doctor,
    went to medical school, went into internal medicine. To this
    day we're seeing dramatic increases in asthma rates. We're
    seeing impacts that are disproportionately affecting, you know,
    urban areas, lower-income communities, communities that don't
    have the benefits of some of the rules and regulations that we
    have in California, and we've still got a long ways to go. And
    that does have a net cost. It has an impact. It has an impact
    on individuals; it has an impact on their health.
        You know, Administrator, if you could just share from your
    perspective some of the public health benefits of, you know,
    Clean--the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, some of the things
    that--and then some of the negative consequences of trying to
    roll back some of the legislation that really in many ways has
    helped save and impact hundreds and thousands of lives.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think probably if you're returning to
    Los Angeles, you will see the benefits as well as feel it.
    We've been talking a lot about this to try to understand what
    we're going to do to educate people about what the world looked
    like before these environmental statutes actually came into
    being and Congress was wise enough to challenge us to limit the
    amount of pollution in the air we breathe and the water that we
    drink.
        I think you know as well as I do that these rules, when
    they reduce pollution, it's not an abstract concept; it's a
    real-life issue. You know, it has helped to save--and we can
    show you certainly our impact assessments. We have showed you
    that we are saving millions of lives. We are protecting kids
    from exacerbated asthma attacks, from trips to the hospital,
    many of which are African-American and Hispanic kids because
    that's the ones that have much higher prevalence of asthma.
        We are now understanding the cardiovascular challenge that
    it poses. If you have, you know, obstructive--what is the
    word--pulmonary disease, you are in a lot of trouble on a high
    ozone day.
        So part of the challenge we have with providing these NAAQS
    standards is to try to make sure that people have sound
    information to protect their own lives while we work with
    States to reduce that actual pollution.
        And we have had so much success. We have reduced by 70
    percent the amount of air pollution. We are where every other
    country wants to be on air pollution. But the more we learn, we
    more we know that there continues to be extreme challenges that
    we all have to face. We can see it in our drinking water. With
    lack of investment in our infrastructure, you are going to see
    more and more cities putting their hands up in the air and
    saying I cannot deliver drinking--clean drinking water because
    nobody's invested in my system for 20 years.
        So we are--have to really regroup and remember that we--our
    country has had our economic engine roaring ahead because we
    have a place where people want to live, where they want to grow
    their families, and that's all about making sure that
    environmentally we can be safe and healthy.
        Mr. Bera. And it's a shame that this body, which
    historically has been able to come together as Democrats and
    Republicans on issues of public health, on issues of public
    safety, is not doing that. And there is an urgency of now.
    There is an urgency to prevent the next Flint, to invest in our
    public health and our infrastructure because it's not just
    about us, it's about our kids, and I don't want my daughter or
    my grandchildren eventually to go out and be able to see the
    air that they're breathing. I want that air to be cleaner and
    healthier.
        So thank you for what you're doing, and then let's buy it
    for the next generation. I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for
    his questions.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Administrator
    McCarthy, good to see you again.
        Ms. McCarthy. You, too.
        Mr. Posey. And let me just follow up what the last speaker
    was saying. I believe everybody on both sides of the aisle on
    this committee most certainly wants clean air in the most
    honest, efficient way possible and transparent way possible.
        Last year, EPA proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion
    of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars.
    The regulation would have made the sale of certain products for
    use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was
    contained within a non-related proposal entitled ``greenhouse
    gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and
    heavy-duty engines and vehicles, phase 2.''
        In response to the behavior, members of both the U.S. House
    of Representatives and the U.S. Senate introduced legislation
    with bipartisan support, I might add, that would clarify the
    Clean Air Act to explain that it has always been illegal to
    modify a street vehicle into a racecar.
        It appears that three EPA employees, Mr. Brooks, a Ms.
    Werner, and a Mr. Belser, were involved with placing the
    provision in the rulemaking process. When those EPA officials
    briefed our committee staff on this issue, they readily
    admitted to conducting no scientific analysis on the impacts of
    the regulation whatsoever and with no scientific underpinnings.
    Your staff was questioned on the secretive nature of notifying
    the proposed regulation.
        Again, your staff confessed that YouTube videos of diesel
    trucks co-rolling hybrid vehicles was the primary motivation
    for the proposed regulation. They even brought pictures of the
    YouTube videos to illustrate their concerns. That reasoning,
    frankly, is embarrassing. I hope it is to you, too, and a clear
    overreach by your staff and the EPA who is charged with
    rulemaking based on sound science, as you say often, not of
    unsubstantiated videos posted on the Internet. In fact, your
    agency was forced to drop the controversial language from the
    heavy- and medium-duty truck rule, and thank you for that.
        The question is do you agree now with sneaking a provision
    into an unrelated rule without conducting any scientific
    analysis whatsoever and based on YouTube videos is not the
    proper way to do rulemaking?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me begin by saying that EPA
    supports the motorsports industry and it contributes
    tremendously to our economy and our contributions.
        I will have to say that this turned out to be a very
    misunderstood and misinterpreted step to try to clarify
    existing law. It was never intended to change the playing
    field----
        Mr. Posey. Okay. I read those reports----
        Ms. McCarthy. --so they----
        Mr. Posey. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next question
    here.
        Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
        Mr. Posey. Have any steps been taken to reprimand or
    discipline the officials involved in sneaking this provision
    into the rule?
        Ms. McCarthy. I disagree with the characterization that it
    was sneaking. They were intending to put clarification in in a
    heavy-duty vehicle rule about vehicles. Was--did it turn out to
    be a surprise and something we certainly should have discussed
    before? I think we should have discussed it. I don't like
    surprises any more than you do. I don't think they intended it
    to be nefarious in any way. They were clarifying for the
    benefit of what they believed to be the racing industry.
        Mr. Posey. I'm still concerned that EPA wants to regulate
    the amateur racing community and those who use non-road
    vehicles for racing. It is my understanding that the Clean Air
    Act never had the intent to regulate these vehicles, as you've
    indicated, and that subsequent report you've heard.
        Ms. McCarthy. Dedicated racing vehicles have never been a
    focus of our attention, and the question was could the--could
    we be clearer about that. And I think that's what the intent of
    the language was, but I understand your concern.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. So can you assure the American people
    beyond any shadow of doubt that non-road vehicles modified
    specifically for the purpose of racing will be exempt from the
    Clean Air Act in the future?
        Ms. McCarthy. My understanding is that we have considered
    them to be exempt since day one as long as you have dedicated
    racing vehicles. Our concern is just with companies that may be
    selling these sort of defeat devices for on-road vehicles.
        Mr. Posey. Well, and the racing community wants you to
    chomp down on those people.
        Ms. McCarthy. That's exactly right.
        Mr. Posey. You know, but----
        Ms. McCarthy. That is true. That is true.
        Mr. Posey. We would just like to have your personal
    assurance that, you know, you say they're exempt now, but there
    will be no future efforts to change that exemption.
        Ms. McCarthy. If we--in the future--when I'm here, if we
    want to resolve this issue and clarify it, we will work with
    the industry and stakeholders to make sure that we do it in a
    way that they understand it and we all agree that it's written
    as intended.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. So you--are you giving me the assurance
    and the American people that non-road vehicles modified
    specifically for the purpose of racing will be exempt from the
    Clean Air Act?
        Ms. McCarthy. As long as they are dedicated racing
    vehicles, they are exempt, and as far as I know----
        Mr. Posey. Is that a yes?----
        Ms. McCarthy. --they will be.
        Mr. Posey. Can I just take that as a yes?
        Ms. McCarthy. As long as it's phrased the way I said it,
    absolutely.
        Mr. Posey. All right.
        Ms. McCarthy. But I--you know, I do want to apologize
    because I know this raised a lot of issues, and frankly, it
    came out of conversations with the racing industry. It wasn't
    done well, not the way we generally do it, which is to road-
    test--sorry the pun----
        Mr. Posey. Yes.
        Ms. McCarthy. --but to talk to people about it, and we will
    make sure that that doesn't happen again.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
        And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director McCarthy, thank you for being here.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Weber. In your discussion with Randy Neugebauer, you
    said that Texas probably was the leading clean energy producer
    in the country----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. --and I can tell you from being from Texas,
    having worked on the Environmental Reg Committee, that it is,
    wind industry.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, it's amazing.
        Mr. Weber. And then you also said that you're not doing it
    because the Clean Power Plan requires it but because the market
    demands it.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. So Texas--the Texas Legislature, the Texas
    energy industry if you will was a little foresightful in that
    regard, wouldn't you say?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think that they--obviously, they were very
    forward-leaning----
        Mr. Weber. They were----
        Ms. McCarthy. --and they took advantage of a lot of
    investment----
        Mr. Weber. Very foresightful.
        Ms. McCarthy. --for your state.
        Mr. Weber. And Texans are benefiting from that now,
    wouldn't you say?
        Ms. McCarthy. I would hope so.
        Mr. Weber. Right, absolutely. So you would argue that--you
    would say--agree that the Texas Legislature had a legitimate
    purview and did the right thing for Texas constituents, and
    their constituents are benefiting from it? The reason I ask is
    because of the Clean Power Plan. Now 26 states, including
    Texas, which took the lead, by the way, filed a suit against
    the Clean Power Plan citing it as overreach----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. --and the Supreme Court seems to have, at least
    for the interim, agreed. Would you agree----
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, they've stayed it.
        Mr. Weber. They've--until they can look at it further.
        Ms. McCarthy. That's correct.
        Mr. Weber. So in staying it, what they've said is that
    apparently there's some merit here, we better take a look at it
    and not just remand it to the lower court decision?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, they certainly stayed it----
        Mr. Weber. Okay. So----
        Ms. McCarthy. --that's right.
        Mr. Weber. So, in essence, if the Texas Legislature has
    that kind of overview, purview, shouldn't Congress have the
    same kind of overview on the Clean Power Plan in those actions?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the Supreme Court will certainly get
    their eyes on this again.
        Mr. Weber. Well, I'm glad you recognize that. I appreciate
    that.
        What I want to ask is that, last month, EPA released its
    proposed renewable fuel standard, the RFS rule, setting the
    renewable fuel volumes for 2017.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. Now, under the proposed rule, the EPA requires
    18.8 billion gallons of renewable fuels be blended into the
    fuel supply by 2017, which is actually an increase from the
    EPA's 2016 rule. The proposed rule increases biofuel volumes in
    every category, even though the United States is currently not
    on track to meet the 2016 targets. So here's my--right? You
    understand that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. So here's my question. Do you believe that the
    proposed RFS rule for 2017 is achievable?
        Ms. McCarthy. We proposed it because we believe so, but it
    is in a comment period, and we're certainly welcoming those
    comments----
        Mr. Weber. I'm happy to hear you say that. The EPA's
    proposing to increase cellulosic biofuel volumes----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. --by 82 million RINs even though the United
    States is on track to produce only less than half of the 2016
    mandate. So if you've looked at it and you've proposed it
    because you think it can be done, you're proposing to increase
    the advanced biofuel volumes even though the trend suggests
    that on the current path we're on we're going to see a 380
    million RIN shortfall in 2016. The reality is the EPA has
    proposed an increase in the RINs with no demonstrable way to
    meet that mandate.
        Ms. McCarthy. Okay. Well, again, we're welcoming comments,
    but in the packet itself----
        Mr. Weber. Well, if we can't meet 2016 and you're
    increasing in 2017, how do you propose that to happen?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, you know, we are taking a look at
    what we know is happening in 2016, what's available to us
    because it's a long year. It's not quite over.
        Mr. Weber. Well, let me just argue in the last minute that
    I've got----
        Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
        Mr. Weber. --that I would say just as the Texas Legislature
    demonstrated its foresightfulness in helping be the wind-
    producing state that it is, how about Congress being given
    credit for having some foresightfulness, too, when we think the
    EPA has overstepped its bounds and is promulgating rules that
    are unrealistic? It ought to be up to us to point that out so
    that our constituents benefit as well, and I just want to make
    that point.
        I do want to segue to a little bit different topic. It's
    come out that some EPA employees were using their personal
    emails for official business in an apparent effort to evade
    Congressional oversight. Now, in our estimation, this is a
    violation of the Federal Records Act. What do you intend to do
    about it?
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what issue you're referring to,
    sir. We've certainly had many discussions about the use of
    private emails. We've had an OIG investigation into that issue,
    and I am unaware of any evidence to suggest that we're trying
    to subvert the normal process or not complying at this point
    with all of the rules and regulations that govern----
        Mr. Weber. So you're unaware of any violations in that
    regard?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am unaware that anyone has indicated that
    we have a systemic problem with using emails to subvert the
    process and subvert----
        Mr. Weber. Well, I didn't say systemic; I said any.
        Ms. McCarthy. You--I'm sorry, sir. You're going to have to
    show me that because all the times that I've been here, you
    know, we certainly had an IG. They did not verify that there
    was--that this was a practice in EPA, so I feel pretty good
    about where we are. And if there's information that you want to
    provide me, I'm happy to look at that.
        Mr. Weber. You're going on record today saying that you
    don't have any evidence of that in any of the Agency at all?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I'm not suggesting that there hasn't
    been, you know, an email that--a specific incidence, but to
    suggest that we're doing it to subvert a--the public process is
    what I am objecting to. You know, you will get oftentimes
    people sending--receiving something on their email. We have a
    direct policy that speaks to how you enter that in, if it's
    work-related, into the public process and to meet all of our
    federal obligations----
        Mr. Weber. Does that also apply to the Pebble Mine
    investigation?
        Ms. McCarthy. The Pebble Mine investigation is
    multifaceted. Folks have been----
        Mr. Weber. I'm talking about them using personal emails and
    corresponding.
        Ms. McCarthy. There have been--I do know that there was a
    gap when a person left the agency where we had trouble locating
    their emails and we've been trying to fill that gap----
        Mr. Weber. Okay. So you are aware. That kind of contradicts
    what you said earlier, you weren't aware.
        Ms. McCarthy. No, you asked me if someone was using their
    private system to subvert the public process. I am----
        Mr. Weber. So you know that they potentially did it in the
    Pebble Mine incident but you haven't been able to find those
    emails?
        Ms. McCarthy. If there a potential, I would like to be able
    to address the situation.
        Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
        The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar, is recognized.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator
    McCarthy----
        Ms. McCarthy. How are you?
        Mr. Moolenaar. --thanks for being here with us.
        First of all, I want to commend you. You apologized for the
    rule, the racing vehicle rule. You heard the feedback from
    stakeholders. You withdrew the rule, and you responded very
    promptly, and I want to--you know, I actually have a business
    in my district that really--that would have basically put them
    out of business, and so I want to thank you for that, first of
    all.
        Now, I want to tell you about another rule that has people
    in my district very concerned, farmers, property owners, home
    builders. That's the Waters of the U.S. Rule, and I would say
    that the EPA's approach, that has been very different when you
    consider that 32 states are suing the federal government over
    this, where the goal was to offer clarity and clearly that has
    not happened. I feel that the stakeholders involved in that are
    still very concerned about it, and I'm sure you hear from them,
    although I am also concerned about some of the, you know,
    social media efforts to promote the rule, lobby for the rule,
    if you will, that didn't give you really very accurate
    feedback, and I know your goal has been to clarify aspects of
    the Clean Water Act but I would suggest that rather than what
    happened before where I commended you, this has been just the
    opposite, and it has added further confusion. And are you
    hearing that from people?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am certainly hearing that people continue
    to both be for and against the Clean Water Rule but it is a
    final rule, and it is in court and we'll see where that
    litigation proceeds. Do I wish I could have had one moment
    where everybody would understand and agree? I wish I had it. I
    don't have it on this rule.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Well, I think it's pretty strong indication
    when a majority of Congress has voted to disapprove of the rule
    and 32 states are suing over that rule so I don't know if
    there's anything you can do to rescind it or modify it at this
    point but I would encourage you to reach out to the
    stakeholders to do something new on that because it's still
    more confusion and more concern throughout Michigan.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I appreciate that, and I'll do the best
    I can to reach out. I mean, it's primarily the agricultural
    industry that's worried about it and our farmers, and you know,
    I think what I'm most concerned about is that I paid very close
    attention to their comments and concerns, and in finalizing the
    rule, I went above and beyond the exemptions and exclusions in
    that rule.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Well, I don't-
        Ms. McCarthy. I did everything I could not just to protect
    it but go beyond it. That's what confuses me and concerns me.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Well, I would just encourage you to
    reach back out and see what----
        Ms. McCarthy. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Moolenaar. --can be done. I know there's a company, and
    you may have heard about this, that has been working for 30
    years to get a 404 CWA permit. Are you familiar with the ESG
    companies?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, I don't believe so.
        Mr. Moolenaar. They recently testified in the Senate
    Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the vice
    president stated that the EPA is working to change the rules
    again with the regulation, WOTUS, that would redefine the scope
    of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. They are trying
    to accomplish this by adding new terms, definitions and
    interpretations of federal authority over private property that
    are more subjective and provide them with greater discretionary
    latitude, and you know, I'm just concerned that that may be an
    indication of what other companies are experiencing, and I
    think you know that Justice Kennedy stated that the region's
    systemic consequences of the Clean Water Act remain a cause of
    concern. So I would just again encourage you to revisit this.
        I've only got a minute left, but I also want to talk to you
    about Flint because--and I had hoped that there might be some
    Democrats here who would want to, you know--because I know
    there was significant interest a while back from the Democrats
    on what happened in Flint, and----
        Ms. McCarthy. And there still remains a lot of concern.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Well, and you know, is the water in Flint
    safe to drink?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, right now we're using filters and
    bottled water but we're making progress and we're hoping that
    there'll be some new testing done actually this month and
    available to us early next to tell us whether we've now got the
    system where it needs to be.
        Mr. Moolenaar. And then do you--I mean, in hindsight, do
    you wish you would have listened to Miguel del Toral, who kind
    of raised this issue almost a year in advance before the EPA
    took action to address the problem? I mean, he's an EPA
    employee, and at some point people weren't listening to him.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I'm not sure whether he would
    characterize it that way so I don't want to speak for him, but
    had I known earlier the situation that was happening in Flint,
    I absolutely would have raised a red flag from the highest
    mountaintop.
        Mr. Moolenaar. And do you feel----
        Ms. McCarthy. And the fact is, I did not.
        Mr. Moolenaar. A while back you told me that you believed
    the EPA Region 5 Administrator, Susan Hedman, was a hero.
        Ms. McCarthy. That's right.
        Mr. Moolenaar. My sense is that she should have been the
    one on point listening to the employee who was raising these
    concerns and taking action. I don't consider that heroic, and I
    guess I'm wondering if in hindsight that should have been
    addressed at the region level.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, as you know, she did resign her
    position because I think she felt that she should have known
    and wanted to make sure that wasn't distraction on us focusing
    on the people in Flint, and I think it resulted in that.
        You know, I think there are a lot of failures in the
    system. We're trying to address those and the way in which we
    work and do oversight, but it was an extraordinarily
    challenging circumstance that in hindsight, if we could have
    addressed it earlier, it would have been all the better. So I
    can--I'm not defending the agency or anybody on Flint. The only
    thing I'm doing is trying to fix the situation and learn from
    it as best I can and make sure that there are no other Flints
    out there, and we'll do the best from this point forward.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for being
    here, Administrator McCarthy.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Babin. On April 28th, this Committee heard testimony
    from Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLaren about the EPA's
    efforts to limit the potential Pebble Mine project by using
    Section 402(c) of the Clean Water Act before the project had
    even applied for a permit.
        Ms. McCarthy. That's correct.
        Mr. Babin. The Committee demonstrated to Mr. McLaren that
    it has uncovered that EPA employees used non-official email
    accounts to discuss the Pebble Mine matter with mine opponents
    and determined that EPA employee Phil North provided edits and
    suggestions to a petition letter, which EPA claims is the
    impetus for starting the preemptive 404(c) process. The EPA
    Office of Inspector General found in agreement with your agency
    that this official may have misused his position as a federal
    government employee, and according to documents and deposition
    testimony received by this Committee prove that the petition
    from Alaska Native tribes the stated impetus for Region 10's
    Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment was in fact drafted with the
    help of at least one EPA employee.
        Doesn't this fact along with other EPA briefing materials
    and communications prove that the assessment was done solely to
    provide the political cover for an eventual Pebble veto?
    Doesn't this in fact prove that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I don't want to speak to anybody's
    motivations and we'll certainly address the issues that you've
    raised, but the motivation for taking action under 404(c) was
    multifaceted, the first and foremost being the value of Bristol
    Bay and the amount of jobs that Bristol Bay provides----
        Mr. Babin. But they had not had a chance to even file their
    plan yet, so how would you know that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, they have had ample years prior to us
    using--initiating this process, and they continue to have
    opportunities to submit a permit. The simple issue is that they
    were disrupting that area in a way that made us worry about
    our----
        Mr. Babin. Well, it just seems----
        Ms. McCarthy. --ability to----
        Mr. Babin. It seems very, very specious that one of your
    employees would be helping to draft this type of a document.
        Next question. The Committee has uncovered documents that
    show that EPA employee Richard Parkin stressed the following
    before a group supportive of EPA's action to stop the Pebble
    Mine: ``While a 404(c) determination would be based on science,
    politics are as big or a bigger factor.'' Does this concern you
    that this was the sentiment of a career employee or employees
    at the EPA with regard to the agency's determination regarding
    the Pebble Mine?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, again----
        Mr. Babin. Does that not raise a red flag with you?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, again, I have no idea what he was
    referring to or talking about. I know what----
        Mr. Babin. What he was referring to is that politics----
        Ms. McCarthy. --actually happened at the agency.
        Mr. Babin. --would be as important or more important than
    the science. That doesn't concern you?
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what politics he's talking
    about. I know the reality of decision-making in the agency. I
    know why we moved down this road, and I know what we were
    trying to protect, and you know, one of the missing pieces that
    I just want to make sure you are aware of is that in the
    history of the EPA and its relationship with the Corps on
    404(c), the Corps has done two million permits. We have only 13
    times ever used this, and it's because of the uniqueness of
    that resource----
        Mr. Babin. This----
        Ms. McCarthy. --and the challenge that the tribes had that
    rely on that salmon fishery.
        Mr. Babin. All right. Peer reviewers repeatedly warned EPA
    that the assessment was insufficient as a basis for a
    regulatory decision, a claim that the EPA publicly agreed with.
    Why did the agency then rely exclusively on the assessment when
    it launched the 404(c) determination?
        Ms. McCarthy. It didn't, sir. The assessment wasn't part of
    the 404(c). The assessment was looking at the value of the
    watershed. The documentation that was produced in the 404(c)
    process by the region was actually the policy and regulatory
    action. Did it consider the science? Absolutely, but that
    science document was not a policy document or a regulatory
    document.
        Mr. Babin. It sounds like the politics trumped the science
    to begin with.
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't consider policy to be politics or
    regulations to be. They're entirely different vehicles and I
    think appropriate to use for the agency.
        Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you.
        Isn't it true and hasn't your agency openly acknowledged
    that a preemptive veto of this kind had never been done before
    in the history of the Clean Water Act? Wasn't this the first of
    its kind?
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't--I'm not--I don't know. I don't--I
    can't answer with certainly. I'm happy to get back to you on
    it.
        Mr. Babin. I hope so.
        Well, anyway, my time's expired, Mr. Chairman, so I thank
    you very much.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
        The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized for
    his questions.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Administrator,
    welcome.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. You always do your job with great forcefulness
    and intellect, so we thank you for that.
        Today's hearing appears to be a revival of hearings we've
    held before, proposals that strengthen standards to protect
    public health and to protect our environment, an environment
    that we're going to then extend to the next generations, and
    claims that meeting these standards will be too costly,
    possibly not achievable, and in general a serious drag on our
    economy. So, you know, here we go again. So I have a few
    questions for you.
        Let me start where you just ended. Proponents of the Pebble
    Mine accuse EPA, particularly Phil North, of inappropriately
    colluding with tribal groups. Region 10, I'm informed,
    according to the EPA website, includes some 271 Native tribes
    in its jurisdiction. Can you speak to EPA's special
    responsibility to tribal governments, and if you could,
    Administrator, compare that with EPA's relationship with the
    given states and outside interest groups?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, with the tribes, we have, I think
    you know, a very special relationship because we treat them as
    government entities. We have a trust responsibility in our work
    with the tribes, and I think we paid very strong attention to
    the tribes as well as states that had concerns about protecting
    what is one of our most precious resources, Bristol Bay and its
    salmon fisheries, and we worked very closely with both the
    states but most importantly, there are tribes there whose
    culture depends on salmon. It is their livelihood as well as
    the focus of their lives and their community, and I think we
    were very cognizant of that when the region was looking at
    whether or not 404(c) was an appropriate step to take. For
    states, work with states and local communities, in general, we
    have a partnership relationship with them. They are co-
    regulators for many of the work we do. We delegate
    responsibilities to them and we try to be a good partner in
    terms of providing the kind of web of protection that Congress
    intended.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, we appreciate that, and again, thank you
    for the leadership that you provide the agency and the country.
        Let me switch to CASAC, the Clean Air Science Advisory
    Committee. I believe it was created in 1977 with the Clean Air
    Act Amendments. Their first report on ozone came out in the
    mid-1980s, and there have been a number of subsequent reviews
    over the past 35 years with much new research since the
    original report. Has CASAC found that ozone is less of a health
    risk than 1980s science determined that it was?
        Ms. McCarthy. No. They actually on the basis of much more
    robust science understand just how damaging ozone is to our
    public health.
        Mr. Tonko. And does it contribute less to other
    environmental problems--damage to plants, to visibility and
    other effects?
        Ms. McCarthy. No. We understand it's more than we had
    anticipated then.
        Mr. Tonko. So, if anything, research over the years has
    confirmed that ozone is a health risk and an environmental
    problem. Is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is correct. That was the basis of recent
    decisions that were made, yes.
        Mr. Tonko. And have past standards been criticized on the
    basis of their projected costs and/or benefits?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, most, if not all, yes.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, it's interesting because I believe that
    it's clear that we have been able to achieve cleaner air and
    grow the economy as we have strengthened the standards. Is that
    now not indeed the outcome?
        Ms. McCarthy. That's very accurate, yes.
        Mr. Tonko. And is there any reason to believe we cannot
    keep that record going?
        Ms. McCarthy. No.
        Mr. Tonko. You know, will the states have flexibility and
    discretion to determine how they might meet new standards in
    the most cost-effective manner?
        Ms. McCarthy. In the wisdom of Congress, that's how it was
    defined and designed, yes.
        Mr. Tonko. And as I understand it, EPA and others have
    estimated the benefits achieved by lowering the ozone standard.
    Can you please elaborate on what those benefits are about?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sure. Give me one second to pull it up. The
    benefits--the health benefits are estimated to be $2.9 to $5.96
    billion. That relates to issues relative to our kids in
    reducing asthma attacks and visits to the hospital. It has to
    do with cardiovascular improvements for adults and especially
    the elderly. So it's direct public health benefits, which
    considerably outweigh the costs, which are estimated to be $1.4
    billion.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. You know, I've exhausted my time, but
    I do want to thank you for leading the fight for clean air,
    clean water, response to climate change, a legacy that will
    imprint itself not only for this given political generation but
    for generations to follow.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
        And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this discussion
    a little different direction, if I may. I have a video I'd like
    for Administrator McCarthy to watch along with everyone in the
    room.
        [Video playback].
        Mr. Palmer. You know, it's very easy to sit here and have
    this discussion about all these regulations and try to deny
    that they have an impact on people but, you know, you are
    having an impact on people and unnecessarily so. You've
    destroyed thousands of jobs. You've impacted thousands of
    families, not just Alabama families but families all over the
    country, and I don't look at them as collateral damage. I mean,
    here's a guy who one of those families sat there and he cried
    through the interview. You got another guy whose wife's
    diagnosed with cancer right after he lost his job, two
    daughters having to drop out of college. You know, there's a
    price to pay for this, and you know, you may deny that this is
    impacting things.
        You know, the Energy Information Administration projects
    EPA's Clean Power Plan is going to kill 376,000 jobs in 2030,
    reduce GDP by about $58 billion. You've got a room full of
    young people here that all they're hearing is this climate
    change agenda. You talk about asthma. Asthma rates have gone up
    even though air quality has dramatically improved. You're not
    getting the whole story here, and I think the American public
    needs to get the whole story.
        You talk about it impacts people. I just want to read you
    some highlights from a recent report by Mr. Oren Cass, who
    testified before our Committee this past December, and I'm
    submitting this report, Mr. Chairman, for the record.
    ``President Obama's policies for tackling climate change would
    impose heavy costs borne disproportionately by lower income
    U.S. households.'' There's been a lot of talk today about how
    important is to take care of lower income people. His Clean
    Power Plan and proposal for a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax or
    equivalent of a 25 to 30 per-ton carbon tax would cost
    American's poorest families tens of billions of dollars per
    year. For households in the lowest quintile, such policies are
    equivalent to more than 160 percent of federal income tax.
        I just want to share something with you. Again, the
    National Energy Assistance Survey shows that because of the
    difficulty they face in paying utility bills, these households
    are forced to make choices that carry serious health risk. As
    many as thirty-seven percent went without medical or dental
    care. Thirty-four percent did not fill a prescription or took
    less than their full dose of prescribed medications. In
    addition, twenty-four percent went without food at least one
    day, and nineteen percent became sick because the home was too
    cold. These were decisions that low-income people made because
    their energy costs went up because of the EPA's policies, and
    we're talking again hundreds of thousands of jobs that have
    been lost.
        Administrator McCarthy, if you don't remember anything else
    out of this hearing today, I want you to remember the faces and
    the voices of the people who have had their lives absolutely
    destroyed by the EPA's policies.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
        And the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is
    recognized for his questions.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Administrator McCarthy, for being here today.
        I would like to go back to the line of questioning that
    Representative Lucas brought up, the glyphosate studies that
    were done, and for the benefit of those who haven't been
    following this and those who may be watching on television, let
    me just go back to review. This is a herbicide that is widely
    used both commercially and residentially. I've used a
    particular product to kill weeds. It does a very good job at
    it. In 1986, the EPA ruled or classified this as a group B
    chemical, which in layman's terms says there's no evidence that
    it causes concern. We are determining that there's no evidence
    that it does. And then in 1991, it was classified by the EPA as
    a group E, which says there is evidence that it does not cause
    cancer. So it sounds like we're finding out that this is
    actually a safer product than what we actually envisioned it to
    be.
        Then there was a term, because in March of 2015 the
    International Agency for Research on Cancer did a study saying
    that it probably is carcinogenic, it probably does cause
    cancer, which from what it appears as it prompted the EPA to do
    another study, which I can understand. Somebody else says that
    it probably does cause cancer, then we're going to study it for
    ourself. But in September 16th of 2015, the Cancer Assessment
    Review Committee of the EPA basically countered what the
    international study and said it's not likely to be carcinogenic
    to humans.
        So with that, my question to you is, did any EPA officials
    work on IARC's glyphosate review?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me just clarify one thing if I
    might, and then I'll answer your question. It wasn't what
    prompted the review.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. This was a standard regulatory----
        Mr. Loudermilk. So it was just a regular review?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. But here we got an international committee
    that says something different than what our team of scientists
    have determined. So--but we came up with something different.
    Was anyone at the EPA actually working with IARC or
    participating in that review?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, nobody was involved in the question
    of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. We had three EPA
    employees. One was actually there as an observer. He
    participated----
        Mr. Loudermilk. But did not--who was that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Hang on one second and I will----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Was that Peter Egeghy?
        Ms. McCarthy. Hang on. We had--while I'm looking, I'll give
    you the names.
        Mr. Loudermilk. We have limited time so----
        Ms. McCarthy. One was--participated in information relative
    to exposure.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. It was not relative to the carcinogenicity.
    None of them had any----
        Mr. Loudermilk. No one participated in the work?
        Ms. McCarthy. And one had to do with some of the tox
    information and how we helped them categorize it.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Your staff did indicate to us that
    Matthew Martin participated in the IARC conference but did not
    participate in the glyphosate review.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, and I have a Mr. Egeghy.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Egeghy?
        Ms. McCarthy. Right.
        Mr. Loudermilk. And he did do some limited participation.
    Is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. He actually just--he helped to draft and
    review portions of the human exposure. There were a number of
    pesticides being looked at at the same time.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. It really had nothing to do with its
    carcinogenicity.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. He looked at how it was used and that kind of
    thing.
        Mr. Loudermilk. And this was all in Lyon, France, with the
    112----
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't know where he was when he was----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Can we bring up the slide? I have an email,
    if you could bring that slide up, and this email--obviously it
    was Frank is responding to--or Matt is responding to Frank, who
    is part of the IARC, and if you notice on the first line of the
    original email, it says ``First, may I repeat it was a real
    pleasure to meet and work with you for IARC monograph volume
    112,'' which is the subject that we're talking about. And of
    course, the subject of the email is ``DZN and GLY'' which is
    indicating that glyphosate is what they're talking about. If
    Mr. Martin was not involved in glyphosate review, why is on the
    email chain with the team that was working on that?
        Ms. McCarthy. I can go back and look but I am--I have asked
    a number of times, and my understanding is that none of these
    individuals were there in the EPA capacity to participate in
    the issue of carcinogenicity.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Ms. McCarthy. Clearly, we have understanding of glyphosate
    and the other pesticides that were being looked at.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Can we pull up the next slide as well?
        [Slide]
        Mr. Loudermilk. In our second slide here--excuse me, let me
    make sure I get my proper slides up----
        Ms. McCarthy. My glasses are good but not that good.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Well, this is again an email that's to a
    distribution list of those who were working on the glyphosate
    review, and Mr. Martin is also included on this, which this
    happens to be a list of talking points of how to answer the
    questions on glyphosate. So again, my question is, if he didn't
    participate in the glyphosate review--here's what I'm getting
    at.
        Ms. McCarthy. He----
        Mr. Loudermilk. I'm concerned that there is some
    interference between EPA and the IARC, and let me jump to one
    other----
        Ms. McCarthy. Could I just clarify on Mr. Martin? He
    apparently was involved in the review for glyphosate but he
    didn't participate in the issues relative to its
    carcinogenicity. So I just wanted to make that clear. That was
    an entirely separate part of the----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Well, Mr. Jess Rowland was the lead--he was
    the chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee that did
    the actual report that was contrary to what the IARC--and we
    would like to be very interested in interviewing Mr. Rowland
    but I understand that he is retired from the EPA. Do you know
    when he retired?
        Ms. McCarthy. May of 2016. He went there as an observer. As
    far I know, he did not participate in the IARC process. Can I
    clarify? Because I made a mistake.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Very quickly.
        Ms. McCarthy. It says Mr. Martin was a computational
    toxicologist. He wasn't involved in the IARC review for
    glyphosate but he did participate in the IARC conference on
    other matters, and we have no toxicological data on glyphosate
    so he couldn't have contributed to the carcinogenicity issue.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Well, one of the lines in the email thanked
    him for his work but----
        Ms. McCarthy. Well----
        Mr. Loudermilk. --let me move forward because I'm really
    interested in Mr. Rowland and his retirement.
        Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Does his retirement have anything to do
    with the controversy over the CARC report?
        Ms. McCarthy. Not that I am aware of. He worked for the
    agency for many years is my understanding.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Have you investigated whether or not these
    circumstances are linked? It's just interesting, right after
    this report comes out that is contrary to what the
    international agency has determined that--now--and I have the
    report here if we can bring it up. It is stamped as a final
    report----
        Ms. McCarthy. It's a final memo.
        Mr. Loudermilk. --which--well, it actually says ``final
    report,'' not memo on the page, which indicates to me this is
    final, it's done, but you can understand the concern we have
    here is that it's a final report but maybe it didn't turn out
    the way that you anticipated it would so now we need to study
    it a little bit more.
        Ms. McCarthy. I know that the mistake that was made by the
    contractor to post this has caused all kinds of conspiracy
    theories to erupt but there's nothing that's unusual about the
    process we're following with this and we'll do it on the basis
    of the science----
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman----
        Ms. McCarthy. --and I don't want you to think that anyone,
    including me, is prejudging what our scientists say about this.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, Mr.
    Loudermilk.
        And the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Davidson, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator McCarthy, thank you. I was pleased earlier
    that you were personally familiar with the Waters of the U.S.
    Rule as you discussed with my colleague from Michigan, and my
    understanding is that this rule was a joint rule between the
    EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. Is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
        Mr. Davidson. Were you aware that the Army Corps of
    Engineers raised some technical concerns? Were they in the end
    supportive of your rule?
        Ms. McCarthy. That's my--that certainly is my understanding
    in my communication with the Assistant Secretary who oversees
    the Corps, yes.
        Mr. Davidson. Are you familiar with concerns that they
    raised during the rulemaking process?
        Ms. McCarthy. Not each of them because that was handled at
    the career staff level.
        Mr. Davidson. Are you familiar with a series of memos known
    as Peabody memos from Major General Peabody?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am now aware of them, yes.
        Mr. Davidson. Okay. Are you aware that in a 27 April 2015
    memo, General Peabody says ``The just-completed review reveals
    that the draft final rule continues to depart significantly
    from the version provided for public comment.''
        Ms. McCarthy. I am aware that a few memos were written. I
    was not aware of them at the time but that's an internal Army
    Corps issue that I assume was raised and resolved during----
        Mr. Davidson. They weren't talking about what they shared
    with the public. They were talking about what you shared with
    the public.
        Ms. McCarthy. No, they actually issued the proposal with us
    and issued the final as well.
        Mr. Davidson. It seems to me that they raised the concern
    that what was being shared with the public is what's different
    than what was in the final rule, what was in the rulemaking
    process.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, my belief is that you listen to public
    comment and you make changes that you think are reasonable
    after deliberating on that. That was the process that we
    followed.
        Mr. Davidson. Did you listen to the Army Corps?
        Ms. McCarthy. We certainly did. They were a partner in
    this. They had to sign off on it. They issued the rule with us.
    It was jointly done.
        Mr. Davidson. Do you know why in a May 15th, 2015,
    concluding statement to a memo, General Peabody would conclude
    ``We stand ready to assist the EPA in improving the technical
    analysis and to develop logically supportable conclusions for
    these documents if and when requested.''?
        Ms. McCarthy. It sounds like a collaborative partnership.
        Mr. Davidson. It sounds like he's got concerns that the
    documents are not logically supportable and that perhaps they
    were not previously requested, therefore, they were ready, to
    me.
        Earlier in this memo, he provides the support for his
    conclusion. He says, ``To briefly summarize, our technical
    review of both documents indicate that the core data provided
    the EPA has been selectively applied out of context and mixes
    terminology and disparate data sets. In the Corps' judgments,
    the documents contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with
    no connection to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical
    deficiencies and logical inconsistencies. As a result, the
    Corps' review could not find a justifiable basis in the
    analysis for many of the document's conclusions. The Corps
    would be happy to undertake a comprehensive review with the EPA
    to help improve these supporting documents, which we recognize
    are critical to the rulemaking.'' Have you read that before?
        Ms. McCarthy. I may have, sir, but that was an internal
    Army Corps issue, and again, the Army Corps signed off on this
    so those issues had to have been internally resolved between
    them and us and certainly internally at the Corps.
        Mr. Davidson. Don't those concerns fit with the pattern
    that the Chairman of this Committee has raised with you, that
    in fact, the EPA has been selective in applying this? This is
    not just some pernicious claim, this is supported by what's
    actually happening by our uniformed officers. This is a general
    in our Army. Would you recognize the Army Corps as an
    authoritative body with respect to rulemaking on the Waters of
    the United States?
        Ms. McCarthy. Which is why I was satisfied by them signing
    off on the rule itself. There is much deliberation that goes on
    among the staff. I think that's healthy. I think we should
    challenge one another so our rule is legally sound and based on
    science.
        Mr. Davidson. It seems to me that the Army Corps' advice
    was ignored and by a political appointee, the Administrator,
    disregarded what the sound science of the Army Corps was doing.
    I don't want to jump to conclusions, but there's enough
    concerns that there's a stay thankfully blocking the
    implementation of this rule.
        Earlier you spoke with one of our colleagues, and in fact,
    the Chairman, about saying that the EPA does not distort the
    market and in fact follows the market. Is that your view of
    what the EPA does?
        Ms. McCarthy. I believe in the Clean Power Plan, we
    recognized a market--the market transition in the energy world,
    and we did our best to follow it knowing full well that that
    was the least and most cost-effective way to do it.
        Mr. Davidson. If you don't distort the market, then what is
    it that you're actually accomplishing if you're not actually
    steering the market in some way?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we're doing our--under the law what
    we're required to do, which is follow the Clean Air Act, which
    actually requires us to address pollution that endangers public
    health.
        Mr. Davidson. Are you attempting to steer the market with
    respect to your pending 4,000-page rule on medium-duty diesel
    engines?
        Ms. McCarthy. I'm not--we are not attempting to steer the
    market. In this issue, we are attempting to reduce pollution.
    What we try to do is understand where the market is heading so
    that we can get the most cost-effective, flexible way to
    achieve the reductions while letting the market drive how to
    get there. That is exactly what we did with the Clean Power
    Plan, and we do it every opportunity we can get.
        Mr. Davidson. My time is expired. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Davidson.
        And the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Administrator
    McCarthy, I believe that you desire to see the United States
    lead the world in environmental protection. Is that a fair
    statement?
        Ms. McCarthy. Certainly to the extent that Congress gives
    me that charge.
        Mr. Westerman. Are there other countries or regions of the
    world that are doing good things for the environment such as
    Western Europe, U.K., or the Netherlands?
        Ms. McCarthy. I'm sure that every country is doing the best
    they can and some have very interesting programs that they've
    initiated.
        Mr. Westerman. So any of those in particular that----
        Ms. McCarthy. Nothing that I want to highlight, no.
        Mr. Westerman. Okay. Secretary Vilsack sent a letter to the
    U.K. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in which
    he wrote, ``The U.S. wood pellet industry increases our
    forested area, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and improves
    U.S. forest management practice.'' He went on to state,
    ``Demand for wood pellets also delivers compelling carbon and
    societal benefits to the United States. Independent analysis
    undertaken has consistently shown that demand for wood pellets
    promotes U.S. forest growth and reduces risk to U.S. forests.''
    And without objection, I'm going to submit this letter for the
    record.
        [The information appears in Appendix]
        Mr. Westerman. Given this stated position of the Secretary
    of Agriculture, how will EPA take into account these comments
    in the scientific analysis on which it is based?
        Ms. McCarthy. We are in the middle of looking at different
    types of biomass for its use and how we can account for the
    greenhouse gas benefits. We are in a science process with our
    Science Advisory Board to develop an appropriate accounting
    process for that. So we're excited to be able to make progress
    in that because we do believe that there are many types of
    biomass that really will provide us an opportunity to move
    forward with----
        Mr. Westerman. Do you disagree----
        Ms. McCarthy. --reductions in greenhouse gases.
        Mr. Westerman. --with the Secretary's position, what he
    stated about wood pellets and the use of biomass and wood
    pellets? Is there still science to be determined on that or the
    science that he based his analysis on correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. I'm happy to talk to him and see what is the
    basis of his letter. I don't think that we're in disagreement.
    I think he knows that we're in a process to try to better
    account for those emissions.
        Mr. Westerman. Okay. And I was jotting down a few of the
    things you were saying earlier about people are expecting us to
    take reasonable actions, that you're following the science. I
    hope that you would continue to do that.
        You also said that the, switching gears a little bit, the
    Gold King Mine is a disaster. You said you're doing your best
    to hold people accountable. I want to talk a little bit about
    the Gold King Mine spill that took place last August.
        Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
        Mr. Westerman. Given the gravity of the situation, is it
    fair to say that you took that spill very seriously?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Westerman. And you've conducted your own internal EPA
    investigation?
        Ms. McCarthy. We have for the most part relied on
    independent investigations by both internally with our Office
    of Inspector General as well as externally.
        Mr. Westerman. So what EPA employees did you find to be
    responsible for the Gold King Mine spill?
        Ms. McCarthy. We did not find that anyone was derelict in
    their duties but we continue to have investigations and we're
    going to wait to see what they say.
        Mr. Westerman. So you didn't find anybody to be at fault in
    this mine spill?
        Ms. McCarthy. So far, the reports that I have read that
    were independent continue to show that we were there working
    with the state and those communities to try to prevent the
    tragedy, that preliminary site work did cause a problem there
    and we've done our best to try to make sure that we take
    responsibility for that and work with those states and
    communities and tribes to resolve this.
        Mr. Westerman. So given your commitment and expertise on
    the issue, who was the EPA on site coordinator the day of the
    Gold King Mine spill?
        Ms. McCarthy. I can't recall his name. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Westerman. I believe his name is Mr. Griswold, Hayes
    Griswold.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yeah, that was it. Sure. Thank you.
        Mr. Westerman. So is Mr. Griswold responsible for the Gold
    King Mine spill?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think the actions of EPA certainly caused
    the spill. It depends on what you think of ``responsible.'' If
    that indicates that he did something wrong, I'm certainly not
    willing to say that.
        Mr. Westerman. So is he to blame for the Gold King Mine
    spill?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think what's to blame is a history of those
    mines being left and abandoned where we knew there was a
    problem and EPA came in to try to help fix it. Did we fix it?
    No.
        Mr. Westerman. So who's to blame for the spill?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the spill happened. The spill happened
    because we were doing preliminary----
        Mr. Westerman. Because somebody----
        Ms. McCarthy. --work to try to resolve----
        Mr. Westerman. --failed in their execution of the project.
    Has Mr. Griswold been reprimanded or received training or a
    suspension for his role as onsite coordinator?
        Ms. McCarthy. I do not believe so.
        Mr. Westerman. As head of the EPA, do you take
    responsibility for the spill?
        Ms. McCarthy. I take responsibility for the agency's role,
    certainly I do.
        Mr. Westerman. So you take responsibility of the agency's
    role, which was to the on-scene coordinator, so I'm trying to
    connect the dots here.
        Ms. McCarthy. So we have many responsibilities here, and we
    have a responsibility not just to explain ourselves why we're
    there, what we were doing, what we thought contributed to the
    problem. We have a responsibility to look at how we long-term
    monitor that situation. We have a responsibility to look at
    whether or not we can help effect a solution, which will be
    hopefully looking at whether or not it's appropriate for
    listing as a Superfund site. We have responsibilities to take a
    look at whether our notification was good and how to make it
    better.
        Mr. Westerman. Do you have a responsibility to hold
    somebody accountable?
        Ms. McCarthy. If somebody did something that was incorrect
    and inappropriate----
        Mr. Westerman. That was last August. Has anybody been held
    accountable for the spill?
        Ms. McCarthy. We are all held accountable for the spill. If
    you ask me whether I----
        Mr. Westerman. Has anyone been reprimanded or faced any
    consequences for their role----
        Ms. McCarthy. Not that I'm aware of.
        Mr. Westerman. I've exceeded my time, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
        And the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, is
    recognized for his questions.
        Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
    Administrator, for being here today.
        Just a couple notes to clarify the record. Yes, Texas does
    have the most wind. There is no doubt about that, but
    California leads in solar by a huge, huge margin, and I think
    it's absolutely laughable that we think that 1.78 percent over
    the last year is great growth, but that is what we have.
        You're aware that this Committee has been very active in
    attempting to understand the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards. This Congress alone, we have held three
    hearings and sent numerous letters to EPA on the topic.
    Democrat Senator Michael Bennett stated that this ozone
    regulation is a perfect example of applying the law but doing
    it in a way that doesn't make sense on the ground. State air
    regulators from Texas, California, Arizona, and Utah have
    testified before Congress calling for a delay in implementation
    because EPA is unprepared to take background ozone into account
    when implementing the standard.
        Now, I come from California, and it is very, very clear
    that ambient is a problem, that--that air standards that we do
    not have an effect on, that we did not create is a problem in
    California. The problem is, if we didn't create it and yet we
    are responsible for it because of standards, it makes it very,
    very difficult for us to be in compliance. In fact, we'll be
    out of compliance and we will be at a problem with these types
    of standards. The background ozone issue is one that is very
    important. Do you think that the EPA has adequately addressed
    the concerns of the states that have identified background
    ozone as an issue for compliance, much like California?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think we have made great progress. Areas
    like California have actually a considerable amount of local
    and regional ozone that is being emitted by manmade activities,
    which falls well outside the boundaries of background. So we've
    held a conference. We've developed a white paper. We have put
    together, one a rulemaking, one a guidance that's been proposed
    and will be finalized to try to make it understandable and
    easier for states to take a look at wildfires that cause these
    types of exceedances. If we can document anything that's coming
    into nationally, we certainly recognize that that's not
    something that the state will be responsible for. So we think
    we've made a lot of progress, but as you know, we continue to
    work with states on the implementation.
        Mr. Knight. But you also understand that at certain states,
    and I won't be too over-the-top about California, but certain
    states do have certain issues that other states just do not
    have. In fact today, we have major wildfires that are affecting
    the air that we breathe, and that is something that happens in
    California every summer without a doubt. We wish it didn't
    happen but it does happen, and----
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, that's why we're putting out a guidance
    document. We are well aware, and in fact, with the changing
    climate, we're concerned that those wildfires are going to be
    more expansive and more frequent.
        Mr. Knight. Well, we're afraid of those wildfires when
    certain people go out and start those fires, but one witness
    told the Committee that due to background ozone, EPA's new
    ozone standard will unfairly punish communities due to air
    pollution they did not create and that the state cannot
    regulate. The National Association of Counties stated,
    ``Additionally, a more stringent ozone standard challenges
    local governments' ability to increase economic development
    within their regions because areas designated as nonattainment
    can have a more difficult time attracting industry to their
    counties due to concerns that permits and other approvals will
    be too expensive or even impossible to obtain.'' Many areas in
    California today, you basically cannot do any more activity
    there because they have gone to the limit. That means the
    credits are no longer there or the credits have been taken by
    other areas that are ports in the southern California are
    almost to the very limit of what they can do because of the
    credit situation.
        Now, that's not EPA but that is exactly where I'm going
    with this with the standards that the EPA is setting, and that
    local or state areas are being the regulators for, much like in
    California because--and I'm sure in every state of this--of the
    diesel regulations that are coming that the EPA will or
    probably already is looking at regulations to change the diesel
    standards to have the states be in compliance.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I recognize that California has
    incredible challenges, and a lot of that is related to
    geography and the weather there, and I perfectly well
    understand it, but what we know about this ozone standard is
    that the vast majority of counties that aren't achieving the
    standard now will be achieving it just as a result of national
    rulemakings that are moving forward, ones that are already on
    the books and in place and that you well know of. So we're
    working hard with the states to get there.
        But California's made tremendous progress, and they
    continue to look at every opportunity, and we'll keep working
    with them on it, but I don't think background is really the
    issue there. I think we've well documented the inventories that
    are contributing to the ozone problem and working hard with the
    state to see if we can figure that out.
        Mr. Knight. Well, I would agree that we have made many
    strides and I would agree that we have many challenges but I
    would disagree that background is an effort--or is a problem in
    California that basically we have to adhere to, just the West
    Coast, and it does affect all the way over to Arizona. It does
    come all the way over to states on the West that have to do
    that that other states do not have to, and I would appreciate
    looking into that a lot harder, and making sure that this is
    not something that's just discriminatory toward the West Coast.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Knight. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Knight.
        And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood, is recognized.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Administrator McCarthy, for being here. I know you've been here
    for over two hours, and appreciate your testimony here today.
        I know a couple of my colleagues have asked about the
    proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule, and in my district in
    Illinois, I represent a fairly heavy ag district, and I think
    the frustrating part for me is, when I travel around my
    district and I talk to people, you know, they ask all the time,
    well, you know, Darrin, how did this law get passed, what
    happened, how did this law get implemented, and I explain to
    them that this isn't in fact a law, this is a rule implemented
    by EPA that really circumvents Congress and circumvents the
    Constitution in a lot of ways and that really unelected people
    are putting in this rule, and they also couple that with the
    real-world effect that this rule's going to have on
    agriculture, whether that's a puddle or it's a stream or it's a
    creek on a farmer's land. And when I travel around my district,
    I can't find anybody that thinks this is a good idea, and you
    look at a rule or a law or a statute as fixing a problem. No
    one in my district thinks that there's a problem that needs to
    be fixed.
        And I would also point to you that back on October 9th of
    2015, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, second highest court
    in our country, issued a stay on implementation of the rule on
    the Waters of the U.S.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. LaHood. And that decision, written decision, stayed,
    that said this rule cannot go forward. In there, they
    specifically cite a significant legal question as to whether
    certain parts of this rule are supported by science. Now,
    that's not Republicans saying that on Capitol Hill. These are
    two independent judges, second highest court in the country
    saying this.
        So when I look at that, I guess my question to you is, do
    you disagree with the court on the basis that this rule lacks
    science?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, far be it from me to disagree with the
    court. We are going and hopefully with the full information
    available that we have that the court will have through oral
    arguments and our briefings in the record that the court will
    agree with us that it is well documented why we came to the
    decisions we made on the basis of science, on the basis of
    history of ours and Army Corps' experience here.
        You know, one of the biggest frustrations I have is that--
    is the fact that I think the agriculture community really--we
    would benefit from further discussions on this because we have
    actually expanded the exemptions for agriculture. We have
    provided clarifications that should allow them to produce the
    food, fuel and fibre that we rely on. We did everything we
    could to make sure that it wouldn't add any permitting issues
    or responsibilities to the agriculture community. We did
    everything we could not just to protect their interests but to
    make their interests clearer and more sustainable.
        Mr. LaHood. Well, I appreciate that, but I mean, again,
    that's not what the Farm Bureau says, that's not what the
    Illinois State Farm Bureau, the American Bureau says. I don't
    think you're going to get that from anybody in agriculture
    thinks the way you're doing it.
        And I think the other thing is, there was lots of talk and
    rhetoric from the EPA and the Corps is, we're going to listen
    to your comments, give us all your comments, we're going to
    listen to them, we're going to take them into account, and I've
    seen the detailed merit-based comments that were given to you
    and your department and the Corps, and all of them in my
    estimation fell on deaf ears. None of them were taken into
    account when you look at the rule and how it's implemented and
    the effect that it has on them, and it's consistent in the
    agriculture community that people are absolutely opposed to
    this rule and the way that it's being put forth.
        The other thing that I would mention, you know, this--as
    you implemented this rule, you abided by the Administrative
    Procedure Act, the APA, in doing that, and you testified back
    on March 4th, 2015, in the Senate, and Senator Sullivan from
    Alaska had asked you about the WOTUS rule, and you--concerning
    the APA Act and following that, and you said there have been--
    ``There have been individuals represent various constituencies
    in the states that have commented but we have received over one
    million comments and 87 percent of those comments we have
    counted thus far are supportive of the rule." I find that
    absolutely hard to believe. Is that still your statement today?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is my understanding when folks looked at
    the record. That's correct.
        Mr. LaHood. Eighty-seven percent is supportive of this rule
    across the country?
        Ms. McCarthy. The comments, yes.
        Mr. LaHood. And has that changed since then? That was your
    testimony on March 4th.
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what--I haven't surveyed folks
    throughout the United States at this point to see whether or
    not they still would feel the same way.
        Mr. LaHood. And can you name for me any agriculture groups
    that are supportive of this rule today?
        Ms. McCarthy. I probably can't go down that road, sir. I
    know there's a lot of concern among the agriculture community.
    I think we've received certain letters and support from
    individuals. Whether or not there's any association,
    agriculture association, I can identify, I don't think I can.
        Mr. LaHood. And my time is almost up. And you're also aware
    there's another Federal District Court in the Dakotas that has
    also issued a stay here for many of the same reasons that were
    done in the Sixth Circuit. I think that was at the federal
    district level. Are you aware of that also?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you. Those are all my questions, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. LaHood.
        And the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Abraham, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. McCarthy, let's you and I pick up a discussion that we
    left off on a previous hearing. In one of your previous
    appearances, you testified that ozone exacerbates asthma.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Abraham. Yet you went on to specifically state, and I'm
    quoting here, that ``the scientists actually have not made any
    connection between the levels of ozone and the prevalence of
    asthma,'' and Mr. Chairman, I'll ask to submit for the record a
    letter signed by many, many Members of the House and Senate
    that questions EPA's anticipated health benefits.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection, that will be made
    a part of the record.
        [The information appears in Appendix]
        Mr. Abraham. Ms. McCarthy, are you familiar with some of
    the other factors that can exacerbate asthma other than ozone
    as the EPA claims?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sure.
        Mr. Abraham. Would you elaborate, please?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, certainly. There are--we have an entire
    asthma portion of our agency that works with local communities
    to identify triggers for asthma attacks. That can have
    everything to do with dust in individuals' homes, so indoor air
    contributes significantly.
        Mr. Abraham. And what is the role of indoor pollution in
    asthma, in your opinion? What role that does that indoor
    pollution play?
        Ms. McCarthy. Mold and dust can certainly be triggers for
    asthma attacks.
        Mr. Abraham. So they can exacerbate it?
        Ms. McCarthy. They certainly can.
        Mr. Abraham. I mean, you know, I'm a doc and I've treated
    children with asthma for 20-plus years, and you know, I'll just
    read a partial list from the CDC and from medical textbooks
    that are exacerbaters of asthma: plant pollen, pet dander,
    dust, dust mite feces, cockroach feces, insect bites, mold,
    eggs, peanuts, soy, wheat, fish, shrimp, salads, fruits,
    respiratory infections, cold air, exercise, certain medications
    including aspirin, ibuprofen and naproxen, sulfites and
    preservatives in foods, and the list goes on and on.
        I guess the question that this leads to, you were having a
    discussion with Mr. Tonko about the benefits of cardiovascular
    disease with possibly ozone. I guess you believe it maybe
    exacerbates that. Did the EPA's final ozone NAAQS regulation
    take into consideration all these additional factors in its
    analysis to determine if a new standard needs to be implemented
    at this time?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, my understanding is that during the
    development of our Integrated Science Assessment, the look at
    all of the health and exposure information would have looked to
    determine whether or not outside ozone levels contributed to
    additional attacks or hospital visits and other things. So they
    would have factored those issues into those considerations.
        Mr. Abraham. And you know, let me remind you that, again,
    we had this back and forth last year, that the ozone levels
    have decreased dramatically over the last three decades yet
    asthma has gone up, and after all these years, you or your
    advisors have never really managed to connect those dots and
    look into the indoor air pollution aspect of it.
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, you just indicated how many factors go
    into asthma attacks. The issue--the point I'm making is that it
    seems very clear from the science that outdoor ozone levels
    cause problems for kids who have asthma. That seems pretty
    clear to me.
        Mr. Abraham. And again, I could probably debate that on
    another day on an issue as far as, you know, I've seen some of
    your data that you rely on but I've seen other data that would
    refute that most mightily, let me say.
        What did your advisors say specifically about the issues of
    indoor air pollution and asthma?
        Ms. McCarthy. I do not believe that the information
    provided to me in terms of the science spent a great deal of
    time talking about indoor asthma.
        Mr. Abraham. So I mean----
        Ms. McCarthy. It talked about outdoor asthma, which is what
    we were looking at----
        Mr. Abraham. And I guess that's my point. You know, how can
    the EPA's analysis, how can you say it's complete if, you know,
    your advisors have really failed to address this issue----
        Ms. McCarthy. No, sir.
        Mr. Abraham. --and failed to understand the importance of
    indoor air pollution on these poor children.
        Ms. McCarthy. Because their reports to me looked at
    thousands of studies that actually did factor in different
    considerations that concluded based on the weight of evidence
    that ozone contributes to exacerbating asthma attacks. I don't
    know how much clearer I can get.
        Mr. Abraham. Well, I can be much clearer myself because
    I've seen thousands of studies also that would refute your
    scientific basis, and that's where we, I think, diametrically
    oppose each other is on your, what I will put in quotes,
    objective scientific data. I think it's flawed, and I think we
    can refute it on every level and turn. And again, nobody here
    wants to see a child's asthma get worse. We don't even want a
    child ever to have asthma. But I think we have to be honest and
    fair with the child and the family as to what's causing it, and
    again, I don't think we're addressing that fully.
        Ms. McCarthy. I think we've established that causal
    relationship.
        Mr. Abraham. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Abraham.
        And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Administrator.
        I'd like to first submit for the record the following
    bipartisan letter from members of the Illinois delegation, both
    Republicans and Democrats, regarding the proposed closure of
    two nuclear power plants. A state report found--and I'd ask to
    submit that to the record.
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, it will be made a part
    of the record.
        [The information appears in Appendix]
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you.
        A state report found that Illinois would lose 4,200 jobs
    and $1.2 billion in annual economic activity as well as
    significant increases in electricity rates and carbon emissions
    if these two plants closed their doors. Such a result would be
    bad for the State of Illinois and devastating for the
    communities in which they operate.
        The premature closure of these plants would also
    significantly impede the ability of the state to submit a
    viable implementation plan for the Clean Power Plan should the
    Supreme Court stay be lifted and the rule remain. As a matter
    of fact, even if the stay of the Clean Power Plan is lifted,
    I'm concerned that Illinois will fail to meet the plan even
    though the state may do everything possible in its power to
    meet it.
        Does this news concern you, Administrator?
        Ms. McCarthy. It certainly is an issue that we'd like and
    be open to working with the state at any time on. I think we
    well knew that there are many older nuclear power plants that
    right now are not called upon regularly to generate, so the
    closure of those facilities will have to be considered by the
    states, and we made that pretty clear. But I do not think that
    we have made the Clean Power Plan standards so challenging that
    states cannot address the changing circumstances.
        Mr. Hultgren. That's not what we're hearing from Illinois,
    but let me ask you, how did EPA take into account existing
    nuclear power when designing the mandates you're sending to the
    states for carbon emission reduction? Seems like we're being
    penalized for being ahead of the curve.
        Ms. McCarthy. No. Actually--well, I don't believe we
    considered it to be penalized, but we were looking for were
    reductions that were achievable on a baseline of 2012. If those
    were producing electricity, we included those in the baseline.
    If they were new facilities, which there are some new nuclears
    being constructed, those would certainly go as counting towards
    reductions that would be achievable under the law that would be
    included or compliance purposes.
        Mr. Hultgren. It seems like the goal again of what you've
    stated of, you know, reducing carbon emission, exactly the
    opposite is going to be happening with potential closure of
    these Illinois plants plus certainly the loss of a significant
    number of jobs. And again, this is bipartisan. This isn't a
    Republican issue, it's not a Democratic issue. It was split
    exactly 50/50, Members from Illinois on both sides of the aisle
    concerned about that.
        Are you concerned what's happening in Illinois may happen
    in other states, making it more difficult to comply with the
    plan?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, again, we made the plan to be
    extraordinarily flexible to deal with things on an individual
    state basis, regionally, nationally----
        Mr. Hultgren. Well, let's--can you get into specifics on
    that? What flexibilities specifically will states have in this
    specific kind of incident? So these two plants in Illinois,
    what specific flexibility will they have to be able to remain
    and continue to provide great service? Illinois is again one of
    the leaders in this field, very successfully so. What
    flexibility is in the plan?
        Ms. McCarthy. I can't say I know all of the circumstances
    here, sir, but I do know that--my understanding is, there was a
    lot of concern about nuclear facilities potentially being
    closed. There was a lot of discussion about individual states
    taking action to keep them open, to support upgrades and needed
    construction at those facilities to allow them to stay open for
    certain longer periods. But those are all individual state
    decisions that get made in the individual market. I don't think
    we should suggest that the Clean Power Plan is going to solve
    those problems prematurely because there's no compliance window
    until beginning in 2022----
        Mr. Hultgren. Well, you mentioned there is flexibility
    there.
        Ms. McCarthy. There is.
        Mr. Hultgren. We're just not seeing it, and there's great
    concern. Again, both sides of the aisle have grave concern of
    negative impacts, exactly the opposite of what you're trying to
    accomplish.
        Ms. McCarthy. Can I just----
        Mr. Hultgren. I only have one minute left. Let me--have you
    requested any legal analysis to ensure that the agency has the
    legal authority to pursue and expend resources on regulatory
    actions and implementation of the Clean Power Plan while a stay
    has been issued?
        Ms. McCarthy. We have certainly been consulting in close
    coordination with the Department of Justice to make sure that
    we fully comply with the stay, and we are fully complying with
    the stay.
        Mr. Hultgren. The question was, have you received any legal
    analysis to ensure that the agency has the legal authority to
    pursue and expend resources on regulatory actions and
    implementation while the stay is in? So it's not complying with
    the stay, it's----
        Ms. McCarthy. We are not implementing the rule or spending
    resources to implement the rule.
        Mr. Hultgren. Are you moving forward with model trading
    rules?
        Ms. McCarthy. There's no decision that's been made. We're
    looking at----
        Mr. Hultgren. When will that decision be made?
        Ms. McCarthy. --what's appropriate and what path needs to
    be moved forward.
        Let me provide a little bit of clarity, sir, and that is
    that we are not implementing the rule. That does not mean that
    we cannot continue to support states that voluntarily want to
    keep moving forward and ask us to develop tools that would
    allow them to hit the ground running when the stay decision is
    made.
        Mr. Hultgren. As far as the model trading rule goes,
    doesn't this deprive states and other stakeholders the benefits
    of the stay by compelling participation on a matter that is
    still pending before the courts?
        Ms. McCarthy. We're not compelling anything. There is no
    implementation of the Clean Power Plan.
        Mr. Hultgren. So the model trading rules are not moving
    forward?
        Ms. McCarthy. I do not know whether we're going to move
    forward with the model trading rule. The model trading rule is
    a tool. It is not a requirement. Whether or not we move forward
    with that tool is something we'll discuss with DOJ but we will
    not risk anything that would show the court that we are doing
    anything other than fully complying with the stay.
        Mr. Hultgren. My time's expired. I yield back. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren, and the
    gentlewoman from Virginia, Mrs. Comstock, is recognized for her
    questions.
        Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
    convening this hearing, and it's been very interesting for me
    to hear some of the highlights from my other colleagues.
        I wanted to call attention to a decision by the EPA a few
    years ago that would have had a detrimental impact on Fairfax
    County, which is a significant part of my district. In 2011,
    the EPA attempted to regulate water by considering the
    stormwater runoff from a local creek as a pollutant, so the EPA
    was--you're going to regulate the stormwater runoff, and when
    this new regulation was first released, officials from Virginia
    Department of Transportation estimated the cost of compliance
    would have been $70 million for the commonwealth. It would have
    had to do a lot of structural purchases and new management
    structures. In addition, Fairfax County officials said they
    would have to adopt costly and impractical new standards to
    reduce stormwater runoff, which would have at least cost the
    county $300 million and up to $500 million according to our
    county officials. So I can imagine $500 million is a pretty
    huge budget in a county budget. Just to give you an idea, our
    school budget in 2012 around this time frame was $2.2 billion,
    so that would have been almost a quarter of the school budget
    that would have been required to divert to these regulations.
        In this instance, and I would like to highlight, it was a
    Democrat-controlled county. I think only a couple of
    supervisors who are even Republican there. But they teamed up
    with our then-Republican, an arch conservative attorney
    general, and you know, at the time, the Democrat chairman said,
    you know, a lot of people were scratching their heads over that
    but she said we're willing to spend money to protect our
    watersheds, our drinking water and the Chesapeake Bay but we
    want to make sure the money is well spent. In this case, she
    said the EPA's rule would've done nothing to help the
    environment because they were already doing things that were
    going to work better than the rules that were going to cost us
    up to $500 million.
        Fortunately in that lawsuit, we did prevail. Fairfax County
    prevailed, the state prevailed, and I appreciate that the EPA
    did not decide to appeal that case. But, you know, in sitting
    and listening here today, we're hearing so many times where
    this is costing our local communities. I mean, while I
    appreciate my county didn't have to spend $300 to $500 million
    and cut into budget and muscle and firefighters and police and
    all those other things, they certainly did have to cut into
    their budgets to take those lawsuits as did the state,
    certainly a lot less than $300 to $500 million.
        But when you have things like this, and fortunately, it was
    Fairfax County who did this, who had the resources to bring
    that lawsuit. You know, another county might not have those
    kind of resources. I mean, do you look at that kind of impact
    and the economic impact when you're doing this, and what would
    you tell a county when it was going to cost them $500 million
    but didn't have the resources to sue the EPA and prevail the
    way they did?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, Congresswoman, I don't know the exact
    rules that you're talking about or a decision that was in
    dispute. You know, we do our best to make sure that we are
    considering the individual circumstances of states and
    communities. We actually have policies in place which guide us
    in doing that when we're dealing with----
        Mrs. Comstock. Well, in this case, the judge said you are
    overreaching your authority, and I think the fact that EPA did
    not appeal probably was a recognition of that, but
    unfortunately, not everyone can take those actions. So this
    kind of overreaching, you know, what does the county that can't
    afford to deal with your overreaching to do?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I don't know the circumstances. I
    apologize for that, but I'm not aware of the circumstances that
    you're talking about so I can't really speak to it directly.
        Mrs. Comstock. Well, I certainly think these kind of costs,
    and I think all of my colleagues have highlighted these very
    well, have a dramatic impact on local budgets and oftentimes
    local budgets--and we're talking schools. When you're talking a
    county and you come in and do that, you're talking about
    cutting our schools, unless you have any ideas. I mean, when
    half of a county's budget, sometimes more--you know, in Loudoun
    County, it's higher than half. So if you'd gone in and done the
    same in that county, it would have cut even more.
        So I'd like you to, when you're looking at these things,
    understand the limited budgets you're dealing with. It's asking
    our firefighters, our teachers, our local officials to say
    we're going to cut you for something that our local Democrat
    chairman of the board of supervisors said did nothing to help
    the environment. Nothing. That's a big cost to do nothing to
    help the environment when we already had some very good
    practices in place.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mrs. Comstock.
        And I believe that is all the members who are present and
    they have asked their questions, so that takes us to the end of
    our hearing today.
        And Administrator McCarthy, you have reassured several
    members today that you will produce the documents and data that
    we have requested. I hope you meant that because we have a lot
    of requests that are still outstanding. So I look forward to
    your responsiveness in that regard.
        Thank you for being here today. I appreciate your taking
    the time to testify, and we will be following up with some of
    our questions as well.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you for being here.
        Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Smith. And the gentlewoman from Texas has request
    that some items be made a part of the record.
        Ms. Johnson. Yes.
        Chairman Smith. And she is recognized for that purpose.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        I ask unanimous consent to make the NAACP letter a part of
    the record, and simply want to thank the Administrator for
    being here today and being questioned for two and a half hours.
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, those letters will be
    made a part of the record.
        [The information appears in Appendix]
        Chairman Smith. Thank you.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Responses by The Hon. Gina McCarthy

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

                  Letter submitted by Representative Mo Brooks

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Letter submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 Letter submitted by Representative Lee Abraham

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Letter submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 Letters submitted by Committee Ranking Member
                             Eddie Bernice Johsnon

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Letters submitted by Chairman Lamar S. Smith

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]