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

                          FISCAL YEAR 2017 EPA BUDGET

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

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                    AND THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-130

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    20-543 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 ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Missouri               JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                     Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               JERRY McNERNEY, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        PAUL TONKO, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman          GENE GREEN, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     LOIS CAPPS, California
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma               officio)
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
                                     ------

                  Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy

                             JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
                                     Chairman
    GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman          PAUL TONKO, New York
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                LOIS CAPPS, California
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JERRY McNERNEY, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TONY CARDENAS, California
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina           officio)
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      New York, opening statement....................................     4
    Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, opening statement....................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    10

                                   Witnesses

    Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    72

                               Submitted material

    Chart entitled, ``Coal-fired Power Plants Planned and Under
      Construction,'' submitted by Mr. McKinley......................    67
    Letter of January 14, 2016, from Members of Congress to the
      United States Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr.
      Mullin.........................................................    68

                          FISCAL YEAR 2017 EPA BUDGET

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                                                 joint with the
            Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
                               Committee on Energy and Commerce
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
    room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
    (chairman of the subcommittee on Energy and Power) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus,
    Harper, Olson, Barton, Murphy, Latta, McKinley, Pompeo,
    Griffith, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Bucshon, Flores, Mullin,
    Hudson, Cramer, Upton (ex officio), Tonko, McNerney, Green,
    DeGette, Capps, Sarbanes, Yarmuth, Loebsack, Schrader, and
    Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk, Energy and
    Power, Environment and the Economy; Mike Bloomquist, Deputy
    Staff Director; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and
    Power; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor; Tom
    Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; A.T. Johnston,
    Senior Policy Advisor; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and
    Power; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment/Economy; Mary
    Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Annelise Rickert, Legislative
    Associate; Chris Santini, Policy Coordinator, Oversight and
    Investigations; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment
    and Economy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer,
    Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Dylan Vorbach, Deputy
    Press Secretary; Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary;
    Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Timia Crisp, Minority
    AAAS Fellow; Jean Fruci, Minority Energy and Environment Policy
    Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional Staff Member;
    Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director,
    Energy and Environment; Josh Lewis, Minority EPA Detailee; John
    Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; Dan Miller, Minority
    Staff Assistant; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst;
    Matt Schumacher, Minority Press Assistant; Andrew Souvall,
    Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and Member
    Services; and Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment
    Policy Advisor.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Whitfield [presiding]. I would like to call this
    hearing to order.
        This is a joint hearing of the Energy and Power
    Subcommittee with the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee.
    Of course, the subject of today's hearing is the FY 2017 budget
    for EPA.
        I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        We, of course, welcome Administrator McCarthy. I went down
    before the hearing started. I know she has been testifying
    before the appropriators, and now, she is going to be
    testifying before us. I suggested that after she finished with
    us, that she go on to another committee and testify there.
        [Laughter.]
        But there is no secret that there is a really serious
    division in the country over some of the programs at EPA,
    certainly the Clean Energy Plan. The administration, we
    recognize, views climate change as the Number 1 issue facing
    mankind, and they have moved forward aggressively to address it
    in the U.S. with the Clean Energy Plan. From my personal view,
    I think it is being done because of international commitments
    that the President has made as a result of his Georgetown
    speech and his other commitments internationally to be a leader
    in addressing climate change.
        But I think that it has really come to a head in this
    country over the controversy of the Clean Energy Plan with the
    lawsuits filed by--is it 26 states or 27 states? Twenty-seven
    states filed a lawsuit. I think that shows quite clearly that
    there is real angst over the extreme process that EPA is
    utilizing to adopt this Clean Energy Plan.
        I might say once again that even Larry Tribe, who is a
    respected constitutional lawyer, said in some ways it was like
    tearing up the Constitution. So, many people do feel like that
    you can address climate change, but you ought to at least
    follow the law. Other people say, well, the ends justify the
    means.
        But the Supreme Court did stay the Clean Energy Plan by a
    vote of 5-to-4. Even under the Utility MACT, the Supreme Court
    ruled that cost should have been considered. We all recognize
    that, by the time they made their decision, the regulated
    bodies had already implemented the plan. So, it had been done,
    even though the Court said there were some problems with it.
    And even under the Tailoring Rule, the Supreme Court issued a
    decision that called that into question as well.
        So, one of the reasons many of us on my side of the aisle
    are upset is that we feel like the EPA is being too aggressive
    and that they have adopted a plan to be aggressive, recognizing
    that when you have a divided government, the only way that a
    party can contest it is go to court. If you go to court, and if
    you don't get a stay, then, frequently, by the time the
    decision is made and all the court procedures have been
    exhausted, it is too late.
        So, that is why we are going to do everything we can do to
    do serious oversight to make sure that the stay issued by the
    Supreme Court is followed, recognizing that even on that there
    is probably different legal opinions about what can and cannot
    be done.
        But we know that the EPA's proposed budget is $8.267
    billion, which is $127 million increased over the enacted level
    for FY 2016 and certainly higher than the FY 2009 enacted level
    of $7.6 billion.
        All of us want to have a lot of questions for you, Ms.
    McCarthy. As I say, we disagree with you on many things. We
    respect you as a person and we recognize that you are a
    talented person with very strong views. And we have very strong
    views.
        Unfortunately, we are going to have a vote during this
    process, but it won't take long. I think we are only going to
    have about 30-minute votes.
        So, with that, I would like to yield back the balance of my
    time and recognize the gentleman from New York for his 5-minute
    opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield

        Today is our final EPA budget hearing for the Obama
    administration, and as always I welcome Administrator McCarthy
    and look forward to her comments on the agency's budget and its
    priorities.
        EPA's proposed budget is $8.267 billion dollars for FY
    2017, a $127 million increase over the enacted level for FY
    2016 and still higher than the FY 2009 enacted level of $7.6
    billion. Of course, with EPA the issue is not so much the
    funding it gets but what it does with the money. As we've seen
    over the last 7 years, for every dollar allocated to the agency
    each year, we may end up with several dollars in new regulatory
    costs that hurt consumers, businesses and jobs without
    commensurate environmental benefits. In fact, the President's
    Clean Power Plan alone is estimated by the agency to impose
    billions of dollars in annual compliance costs, eventually
    reaching levels comparable to the agency's current budget and
    outside estimates are even higher. We see $280 million in this
    budget going toward addressing climate change, an increase of
    $85.6 million.
        The costs of climate regulations are having real effects on
    people and family budgets. According to a NERA study,
    electricity prices could increase by an average of 11% to 14%
    nationwide under the Clean Power Plan. Thousands of jobs are
    being lost throughout coal country in large part due to EPA
    regulations, with many more yet to come as several of the
    agency's rules targeting coal have not yet fully taken effect.
        The Supreme Court's recent stay of the Clean Power Plan is
    unprecedented and highlights the importance of protecting
    states from economic harm as the rule is reviewed by the
    courts. Yet, this agency is taking actions to move forward
    under the rule before courts can review the legal challenges.
    It is clear that EPA has no authority to implement or enforce
    the rule pending the judicial review process. I have a great
    deal of concern with recent comments by the EPA indicating that
    the agency is continuing to work and spend taxpayer dollars
    ``to assist states that voluntarily decide to move forward.''
    on the Clean Power Plan.
        The impacts of this climate agenda go beyond the lost jobs
    and consumer pain. This EPA has made global warming its
    overriding concern even though there is no Congressional
    authority directing it to do so. At the same time, the agency
    has taken its eye off the ball with regard to many of the
    agency's most important duties that are clearly delegated to it
    by statute.
        While EPA has been issuing an ever expanding set of climate
    regulations, the agency has repeatedly failed to meet its
    critical deadlines under the Renewable Fuel Standard program.
    The Clean Air Act specifies that the agency must finalize its
    annual rule setting out the required volumes of ethanol and
    other biofuels by November 30th of the prior year, so that
    regulated entities know ahead of time what the requirements
    are. Similarly, the agency faces numerous lawsuits for failure
    to meet other statutory deadlines. The agency diverts resources
    to the President's climate agenda yet it neglects statutory
    responsibilities and issues of direct consequence to people's
    health.
        Perhaps most concerning of all is what the agency plans to
    do now that time is running out on it. The pace of costly new
    regulations has been extreme throughout this administration,
    and I anticipate it may accelerate further as the Obama
    administration tries to get as much out the door in its final
    months.
        We have philosophical areas of disagreement when it comes
    to the President's extreme climate agenda. As the Committee
    with jurisdiction over the EPA, we will continue our extensive
    oversight of this agency and its proposed budget during the
    President's final year in office.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Chair
    Whitfield and Chair Shimkus, for holding this hearing I say
    thank you. It is important for us to focus on the Environmental
    Protection Agency's budget request for fiscal year 2017.
        Might I welcome, also, our Administrator McCarthy? Thank
    you for being here to share your thoughts and provide
    information, and thank you for your sound leadership and your
    stewardship of many of the programs that make for better
    results with the environment.
        Public health and a clean environment are intricately
    linked, and I strongly believe that these principles support
    economic growth. Whether it is reducing air pollution,
    financing drinking and clean water infrastructure, or helping
    support the cleanup of brownfields for reuse, the EPA plays an
    essential role in keeping Americans and our environment
    healthy.
        I know there are many members who believe that cutting the
    EPA budget will block the agency from issuing regulations and
    enforcing environmental laws, but, in reality, much of the
    budget supports state and local governments, either through
    grants and loans or with information and technical assistance.
    Cuts to the EPA budget cause additional burdens on state and
    local governments.
        The EPA has and will continue to play a critical role in
    our nation's response to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
    addressing the threat of climate change. Despite what some may
    believe, climate change is happening and needs actions. The
    Clean Power Plan is essential to this response.
        I also want to point out that this committee still has not
    held a single hearing to examine the poor and deteriorating
    state of drinking water infrastructure around the country. This
    is an area of jurisdiction that we have neglected, and I find
    that very troubling.
        EPA has estimated the 20-year capital needs for this
    infrastructure at some $384 billion. The American Society of
    Civil Engineers has graded our drinking water infrastructure a
    ``D''. Federal support for drinking water systems is primarily
    done through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, or the
    SRF, which was created and last authorized in 1996. Through the
    SRF, we provide grants to states to administer this funding,
    giving them plenty of flexibility to address the greatest
    concerns that they have in the individual states.
        Since 2003, we have made little to no effort to reassess
    whether the federal government is doing its fair share. The
    hundreds of thousands of water main breaks every year, trillion
    gallons of water lost through leaks, millions of lead service
    lines, and prevalence of century-old pipes suggest that we are
    not.
        USA Today recently reported that nearly 2,000 water systems
    across all 50 states have exceeded the EPA's lead action level
    within the past 4 years. That is unacceptable.
        The federal commitment is simple, not good enough, and we
    must step up to help states and local communities finance these
    projects. A majority of the Democrats on this committee have
    cosponsored the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability, or AQUA
    Act, which would reauthorize the Drinking Water SRF at Recovery
    Act levels and beyond, in addition to making some much-needed
    updates to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
        We stand ready and willing to be partners in this effort.
    For inspiration, we need not look any further than our
    colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
    who passed a bipartisan surface transportation bill that
    included a $70 billion transfer from the General Fund. We would
    only need a fraction of that to make major headway in our
    drinking water infrastructure backlog, that infrastructure
    which is hidden infrastructure.
        But, sadly, without the need for extension after extension
    of the Drinking Water SRF, we have forgotten the bipartisan
    nature of this issue in this committee. It is time to get
    serious about this committee's role in protecting public health
    and maintaining our drinking water infrastructure. Every job
    and every life relies on water. It relies on the commitment
    that we will demand nothing less than safe drinking water. It
    is time to come together, recognize this, and take action.
        With that, Administrator McCarthy, I look forward to your
    testimony and to working with you to continue our progress in
    environmental protection. Again, thank you for being here.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, who is chairman of the Environment and
    the Economy Subcommittee, for 5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome, Administrator McCarthy.
        Hopefully, we can continue to work on coal ash and, as we
    talked about earlier, getting TSCA over the finish line. We
    appreciate some of the expertise your office has been able to
    provide for us to make those decisions.
        Madam Secretary, there is real pain in coal country, as you
    know. Market conditions have some effect, but, also, they just
    can't keep up with the numerous rules and regulations that they
    are trying to meet, whether that is Casper or cooling towers,
    Clean Power Plan, mercury, MATS, stream protection rule, Waters
    of the U.S. It is just too much that they can handle and have
    any consistency and planning. That is why the coal regions of
    our country are in dire straits. When you lose a coal mine, you
    lose all the periphery jobs. You lose the grocery stores, the
    gas stations, and the like.
        We know that you are here asking at least the appropriators
    for more money. I am fresh off the campaign trail. I had to
    tell my folks that you were at 2008 funding levels and at 1989
    staff levels. And all my constituents said, well, that is still
    too much. So, we have an education to do.
        I had to remind them there are some things that I think are
    important that the agency does, too. We have the Superfund
    responsibilities. We have brownfield reclamation. There are
    things that we need to do. But the environment out there today
    makes it difficult for the public to really appreciate the
    budget request and the job challenges that our nation is facing
    right now.
        But I want to thank you for your service and the
    professionalism that you have shown. I will have a couple of
    tougher questions when we get to those, but I know that you are
    up to it. With that, I appreciate your coming.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus

        This is a budget hearing. So let's talk about the budget.
        Since Republicans took the House majority in 2012, we've
    used our power of the purse to readjust EPA's budget from the
    outlier levels of 2009 to something more in line with the trend
    set for 2008 spending levels and to reduce EPA staffing to 1989
    levels.
        Why? Why did we cut your agency's budget?
        It's not because Republicans are anti-environment. We all
    want to breathe clean air and drink clean and safe water.
        And it's not personal or political either.
        We appreciate your time here today, Madam Administrator,
    and I appreciate your willingness to work with Congress on coal
    ash legislation and to update the Toxic Substances Control Act.
    But, cooperation should not be the exception to the rule.
        The problem, and the reason we've cut your budget, is that
    your agency, is prioritizing new rules and regulations that
    Congress never told you to pursue in the first place.
        You're not doing a bad job, you're doing the wrong job.And
    that's a big problem.
        It's a problem because the Clean Power Plan you're working
    on is unconstitutional.
        It's a problem because the WOTUS power grab you've
    attempted ignores clearly worded statutes, and
        It's a problem because your cap-and-trade scheme was
    explicitly rejected by a bipartisan majority in Congress.
        This isn't the way our Constitutional Republic is meant to
    operate. Congress writes the laws, not the executive branch.
        So by cutting EPA's budget and reducing its staff levels,
    our intent is that you'll refocus your limited resources toward
    implementing and enforcing congressionally authorized core
    missions and policies. We want you to do your job--no more, no
    less.

        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
    Pallone, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also
    Administrator McCarthy, for being here today to discuss the
    EPA's programs and budget.
        EPA's work is critically important to protecting the health
    of our communities and our environment. The President's fiscal
    year 2017 budget funds the EPA at $8.267 billion, a modest
    increase of $127 million from the fiscal year 2016 enacted
    level. And this also deals with the funding level approved as
    part of the bipartisan budget agreement in October.
        I support this increase, but it is important that we all
    recognize that far more resources are needed to properly
    address all the environmental issues facing our nation today. A
    clean environment is essential to public health and to a strong
    economy.
        It is also important to recognize that EPA's budget
    represents a small portion of the overall federal budget, less
    than one-quarter of 1 percent. We should also remember that EPA
    shares over 40 percent of its funding with the states and
    tribes to help them implement federal environmental laws and
    achieve national goals. These funds support local economies and
    communities big and small.
        The recent drinking water crisis across the nation
    demonstrates how important it is to invest in our drinking
    water systems. I commend the President for increasing the
    Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, or SRF, by nearly $160
    million. Our drinking water systems need more funding to help
    provide clean and safe drinking water to communities.
        While I am happy to see this funding increase, I must
    reiterate that so much more is needed. The Drinking Water SRF
    has been underfunded for years. According to EPA's most recent
    needs survey, $385 billion is needed over the next 20 years to
    modernize and repair our drinking water systems.
        We should be working together to make these critical
    investments to ensure the health of our communities. We have
    reached a point where essential water and waste infrastructure
    needs repair and replacement. We simply cannot allow this
    essential infrastructure to deteriorate further. If we do, we
    are going to be forced to spend more when a crisis occurs, and
    the longer we delay, the more expensive it will become to fix.
        The President's budget also provides an increase of nearly
    $68 million for climate and air-quality-related initiatives,
    which I support. We should be investing in programs that build
    climate resiliency and reduce the impacts of extreme weather
    events. I especially appreciate EPA's plans to help communities
    integrate climate adaptation policies to help them address our
    changing climate and plan for the future.
        In addition, the President's budget increases funding by
    nearly $40 million for the cleanup of Superfund and brownfield
    sites across the nation. These are vital programs for
    protecting human environmental health, while also creating jobs
    and improving the economy. As of March 1st, brownfields
    programs have created more than 100,000 jobs and in the first 2
    months of this year have revitalized over 4500 acres of land.
        While I appreciate EPA's efforts, the remaining Superfund
    and brownfields sites are becoming more complicated to clean
    up, and with limited resources, the time and cost to complete
    this work is extended significantly. With so many people living
    near contaminated sites, we must continue providing robust
    support for these programs. Cleanup of these sites transforms
    from liabilities to assets that generate needed revenues and
    economic opportunity.
        Finally, I would like to voice one area of concern:
    proposed cuts to the BEACH Act Grant Program. As someone
    elected to represent part of the Jersey shore, I understand the
    importance of protecting and improving the quality of our
    beaches and their importance to local economies. I am
    disappointed that, once again, the budget eliminates funding
    for this critical program, and I am troubled by EPA's
    unwillingness to prioritize funding to fight water-borne
    pathogens of pollution that affect coastal recreation. This
    program deserves continued support, and I will work with my
    colleagues to ensure adequate funding.
        But, again, I look forward to the Administrator's
    testimony.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here today to
    discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's programs and
    budget. EPA's work is critically important to protecting the
    health of our communities and our environment.
        The President's FY 2017 Budget funds the EPA at $8.627
    billion- a modest increase of $127 million from the FY 2016
    enacted level. This also adheres to the funding level approved
    as part of the bipartisan budget agreement in October. I
    support this increase, but it is important that we all
    recognize that far more resources are needed to properly
    address all of the environmental issues facing our nation
    today. A clean environment is essential to public health and to
    a strong economy.
        It's also important to recognize that EPA's budget
    represents a small portion of the overall federal budget--less
    than one quarter of one percent. We should also remember that
    EPA shares over 40 percent of its funding with the states and
    tribes to help them implement federal environmental laws and
    achieve national goals. These funds support local economies and
    communities big and small.
        The recent drinking water crises across the nation
    demonstrate how important it is to invest in our drinking water
    systems. I commend the President for increasing the Drinking
    Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) by nearly $160 million. Our
    drinking water systems need more funding to help provide clean
    and safe drinking water to communities. While I am happy to see
    this funding increase, I must re-iterate that so much more is
    needed. The Drinking Water SRF has been underfunded for years.
    According to EPA's most recent Needs Survey, $385 billion is
    needed over the next 20 years to modernize and repair our
    drinking water systems. We should be working together to make
    these critical investments to ensure the health of our
    communities. We have reached a point where essential water and
    waste infrastructure needs repair and replacement. We simply
    cannot allow this essential infrastructure to deteriorate
    further. If we do, we are going to be forced to spend more when
    a crisis occurs. The longer we delay, the more expensive it
    will become to fix.
        The President's Budget also provides an increase of nearly
    $68 million for climate and air quality-related initiatives,
    which I support. We should be investing in programs that build
    climate resiliency and reduce the impacts of extreme weather
    events. I especially appreciate EPA's plans to help communities
    integrate climate adaptation policies to help them address our
    changing climate and plan for the future.
        In addition, the President's Budget increases funding by
    nearly $40 million for the clean-up of Superfund and Brownfield
    sites across the country. These are vital programs for
    protecting human and environmental health, while also creating
    jobs and improving the economy. As of March 1, the Brownfields
    program has created more than 100,000 jobs, and, in the first
    two months of this year, has revitalized over 4,500 acres of
    land.
        While I appreciate EPA's efforts, the remaining Superfund
    and Brownfield sites are becoming more complicated to clean-up
    and with limited resources, the time and cost to complete this
    work is extended significantly. With so many people living near
    contaminated sites, we must continue providing robust support
    for these programs. Cleanup of these sites transforms them from
    liabilities to assets that generate needed revenues and
    economic opportunity.
        Finally, I'd like to voice one area of concern-proposed
    cuts to the BEACH Act Grant Program. As someone elected to
    represent part of the Jersey Shore, I understand the importance
    of protecting and improving the quality of our beaches and
    their importance to local economies. I am disappointed that,
    once again, your budget eliminates funding for this critical
    program, and I'm troubled by EPA's apparent lack of concern
    over potential for waterborne pathogens or pollution affecting
    coastal recreation and public health. This program deserves
    continued support, and I will work with my colleagues to ensure
    adequate funding.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony, Administrator
    McCarthy. Thank you.

        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the chairman of the full
    committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Administrator McCarthy, welcome back. We look
    forward to our discussion on EPA's proposed 2017 budget.
        I know that the agency has an ambitious agenda that it
    would like to put in place before the President's tenure in the
    White House is completed, but the EPA should focus, I believe,
    its efforts less on finalizing a wave of new regs and more on
    getting back to the basic functions for which the agency was
    created.
        Improving public health by ensuring the quality of the air
    we breathe and the safety of our drinking water supply, that is
    the reason Republicans and Democrats came together in 1970 and
    created the EPA. It was also the reason Congress passed many
    bipartisan public health bills, like the Clean Air Act and the
    Safe Drinking Water Act, for the agency to administer.
        However, the heartbreaking events unfolding in Flint are a
    sign that perhaps the EPA has strayed from its core mission.
    Make no mistake, the system failed at all levels that resulted
    in the lead contamination problems with Flint's water supply.
    It is clear to me that EPA's poor performance of its duties
    under the Safe Drinking Water Act were, in fact, part of the
    problem.
        I hope that, in the same bipartisan spirit that launched
    EPA in 1970, that we can rededicate ourselves to the basic
    public health protections that are the reasons that this agency
    was brought into existence, the most recent example being our
    bipartisan work to strengthen the public disclosure
    requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Not only was it a
    step in the right direction, more importantly, I hope that it
    provides the reset needed at the agency to focus it on doing
    the tasks assigned to it under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
    including compliance and verification activities.
        What we are doing now will not prevent damage in Flint, but
    we owe it to the people of Flint, as well as other communities
    across the country that may face lead-contaminated water
    supplies, to sharpen EPA's oversight role in protecting public
    health.
        I know many people in D.C. are eager to lay blame on one
    political party or another when disasters like Toledo, Gold
    King Mine, Flint threaten a community's drinking water.
    Regardless of who is responsible, we need to address the crises
    that those people face.
        I am interested in being part of the solution, and I know
    that you, also, want to be part of the solution. It is going to
    take creative solutions, and surely there will be challenges. I
    know that we can put our heads together and put a greater
    emphasis on problem-solving and doing right by the American
    people, rather than playing the blame game. And that is
    certainly my perspective.
        While we are talking about places where we can and should
    be working together, I want to follow up on what John Shimkus
    indicated with our committee's reform efforts for the Toxic
    Substances Control Act, or TSCA. As you know, we worked very
    hard to put together a bipartisan bill that addresses legal
    shortcomings in the law. I know that your agency would like to
    see reform occur in this Congress. I look forward to your
    support in helping it get to the President's desk. We look
    forward to working constructively with you.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        I know that the agency has an ambitious agenda it would
    like to put in place before President Obama's tenure in the
    White House is completed. But the EPA should focus its efforts
    less on finalizing a wave of new regulations and more on
    getting back to the basic functions for which the agency was
    created.
        Improving public health by ensuring the quality of the air
    we breathe and the safety of our drinking water supply--that's
    the reason Republicans and Democrats came together in 1970 and
    created the Environmental Protection Agency. It was also the
    reason Congress passed many bipartisan public health bills like
    the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act for the agency to
    administer.
        However, the heartbreaking events unfolding in Flint,
    Michigan, are a sign that EPA has strayed from its core
    mission. Make no mistake, the system failed at all levels that
    resulted in the lead contamination problems with Flint's water
    supply, but it is clear that EPA's poor performance of its
    duties under the Safe Drinking Water Act was a part of the
    problem.
        I hope that in the same bipartisan spirit that launched EPA
    in 1970 that we can rededicate ourselves to the basic public
    health protections that are the reasons this agency was brought
    into existence. The most recent example being our bipartisan
    work to strengthen the public disclosure requirements in the
    Safe Drinking Water Act. This was not only a step in the right
    direction, but perhaps more importantly, I hope it will provide
    the reset needed at the agency to focus it on doing the tasks
    assigned to it under the Safe Drinking Water Act, including
    compliance verification activities. What we are doing now will
    not prevent damage in Flint, but we owe it to the people of
    Flint, as well as other communities that may face lead
    contaminated water supplies, to sharpen EPA's oversight role in
    protecting public health.
        I know many people in Washington are eager to lay blame on
    one political party or the other when disasters like Toledo,
    Gold King Mine, or Flint threaten a community's drinking water.
    Regardless of who is responsible, we need to address the crises
    those people face. I am interested in being part of the
    solution and want you to know, Administrator McCarthy, that you
    should look to us as a partner in providing better drinking
    water to Americans. It is going to take creative solutions and
    there will surely be challenges, and I hope we can put our
    heads together and put a greater emphasis on problem solving
    and doing right by the American people rather than playing the
    blame game.
        While we are talking about places where we can, and should,
    be working together, I also want to mention our committee's
    reform efforts for the Toxic Substances Control Act. As you
    know, the House has worked very hard to put together a bill
    that addresses the legal shortcomings in the law. I know the
    agency would like to see reform occur this Congress, I look
    forward to your support in helping us get it to the president's
    desk.
        This committee looks forward to working constructively with
    EPA, and I hope that this final year for the administration is
    one that offers many such opportunities.

        Mr. Whitfield. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The EPA plays an important role in our society in
    protecting our citizens and our environment. Safe and clean
    drinking water has recently risen to the headlines because of
    the discovery of pipes corroded by using contaminated water in
    Flint, Michigan. This water has permanently harmed their
    children and shaken people's trust in our public services. This
    type of occurrence will become more common if we fail to invest
    in our failing infrastructure or if we fail to invest in the
    means to monitor our safe drinking water. Clean and safe
    drinking water should be a guarantee for every American. It is
    not only irresponsible, but criminal to withhold funds and
    resources to protect lives.
        The EPA also has a significant responsibility to fight
    climate change. Climate change is considered a contributing
    factor to crop failures and droughts in the Middle East and the
    African Sahel. Climate change is causing weather patterns to
    bring super-storms such as Sandy and Katrina. The evidence for
    climate change is dramatic and growing.
        The EPA has the experience and science to help us push back
    on climate change, and they are working on lowering carbon
    emissions and developing clean energy sources. We need reliable
    and resilient grid that we can depend upon. And I am going to
    take this opportunity to recommend to my coal state colleagues
    to embrace carbon sequestration before the coal industry
    collapses entirely.
        Climate change is also affecting people's health across the
    globe. Unchecked climate change could lead to 6 million to 7.9
    million acres of forest being destroyed by wildfires at a cost
    of $940 million to $1.4 billion. It could also lead to the
    destruction of ecosystems, such as coral reefs that support
    economic activity, including 35 percent of the coral reefs in
    Hawaii, at an economic loss of $1.2 billion.
        Both clean water and climate change are huge issues, but
    ones I am confident the EPA can address and ensure that
    American lives are protected.
        Now I know my colleagues would like to greatly reduce or
    eliminate the EPA, but what would we have without the EPA? If
    you have doubts, just visit Beijing or Kolkata, and you will
    find out.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        And that concludes the opening statements. And so, at this
    time, Ms. McCarthy, I would recognize you for 5 minutes for
    your opening statement.
        Be sure to turn the microphone on and get it real close.

     STATEMENT OF GINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
                           PROTECTION AGENCY

        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Chairman
    Shimkus, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Tonko, Ranking Member
    Pallone, and all the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before you to discuss EPA's proposed
    fiscal year 2017 budget. I am joined today by the agency's
    Deputy Chief Financial Officer, David Bloom.
        EPA's budget request of $8.267 billion for the 2017 fiscal
    year lays out a strategy to ensure steady progress in
    addressing environmental issues that affect public health. For
    45 years, our investments to protect public health and the
    environment have consistently paid off many times over. We have
    cut air pollution by 70 percent and cleaned up half of our
    nation's polluted waterways. All the while our national economy
    has tripled.
        Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of the
    EPA, states, and by tribal partners. That is why the largest
    part of our budget, $3.28 billion, or almost 40 percent, is
    provided directly to our state and tribal partners.
        In fiscal year 2017, we are requesting an increase of $77
    million in funding for state and tribal assistance categorical
    grants in support of critical state work in air and water
    protection, as well as continued support for our tribal
    partners.
        This budget request also reinforces EPA's focus on
    community support by providing targeted funding and support for
    regional coordinators to help communities find and determine
    the best programs to address local environmental priorities.
        The budget includes $90 million in brownfields project
    grants to local communities. That is an increase of $10
    million, which will help to return contaminated sites to
    productive reuse.
        This budget prioritizes actions to reduce the impacts of
    climate change and support the President's Climate Action Plan.
    It includes $235 million for efforts to cut carbon pollution
    and other greenhouse gases through common-sense standards,
    guidelines, and voluntary programs.
        The EPA's Clean Power Plan continues to be a top priority
    for the EPA and for our nation's inevitable transition to a
    clean energy economy. Though the Supreme Court has temporarily
    stayed the Clean Power Plan Rule, states are not precluded from
    voluntarily choosing to continue implementation planning. And
    EPA will continue to assist states that voluntarily decide to
    do so.
        As part of the President's 21st Century Clean
    Transportation Plan, the budget also proposes to establish a
    new mandatory fund for the EPA, providing $1.65 billion over
    the course of 10 years to retrofit, replace, or repower diesel
    equipment and up to $300 million in fiscal year 2017 to renew
    and increase funding for the Diesel Emission Reduction Grant
    Program.
        The budget also includes a $4.2 million increase to enhance
    vehicle engine and fuel compliance programs, including critical
    testing capabilities.
        We also have to confront the systemic challenge that
    threatens our country's drinking water and the infrastructure
    that delivers it.
        This budget includes a $2 billion request for the State
    Revolving Loan Fund and $42 million in additional funds to
    provide technical assistance to small communities, loan
    financing to promote public/private collaboration, and training
    to increase the capacity of communities and states to plan and
    finance drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
    improvements.
        The EPA requests $20 million to fund the Water
    Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, our WIFIA program,
    which will provide direct financing for the construction of
    water and wastewater infrastructure by making loans for large,
    innovative projects of regional or national significance.
        This budget also provides $22 million in funding to expand
    the technical, managerial, and financial capabilities of
    drinking water systems. Included is $7.1 million for the Water
    Infrastructure and Resilience Finance Center and the Center for
    Environmental Finance that will enable communities across the
    country to focus on financial planning for upcoming public
    infrastructure investments, expand work with states to identify
    financing opportunities, in particular for rural communities,
    and enhance partnership and collaboration with the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture.
        EPA is also seeking a $20 million increase to the Superfund
    Remedial Program, which will accelerate the pace of cleanup,
    supporting states, local communities, and tribes in their
    efforts to assess and clean up sites and return them once again
    to productive reuse.
        EPA's fiscal year 2017 budget request will let us continue
    to make a real and visible difference to communities and public
    health every day and provide us with a foundation to revitalize
    the economy and improve infrastructure across the country.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy. We appreciate that
    statement.
        And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes to get started
    here.
        Soon after the Supreme Court issued the stay on the Clean
    Energy Plan, I was reading an article and it said that in a
    letter you said that the rule had been suspended and has no
    legal force, the rule being the Clean Energy Plan. I was
    curious, who did you write that letter to? Was that letter sent
    to all the states or was this a letter that just was an
    interagency letter to members that work at EPA and colleagues?
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't know which letter you are referring
    to.
        Mr. Whitfield. It says, ``While Administrator McCarthy has
    suggested that her agency will continue to provide tools and
    outreach to states, none of these efforts by EPA should be
    perceived as requiring states to act. The rule has been
    suspended and has no legal force,'' the letter stated.
        So, did you send the letter to the states saying that the
    rule has been suspended and has no legal force?
        Ms. McCarthy. That would be an accurate statement, sir, and
    I assume that I did notice people, but I don't know which
    particular letter. I just don't recall.
        Mr. Whitfield. So, you don't recall? You don't recall
    sending out a letter? You don't recall sending a letter to the
    states?
        Ms. McCarthy. I certainly have said that in person and in
    letters to a number of individuals explaining that there is a
    stay in place and EPA won't be implementing or enforcing the
    law, and that it has to work through the courts, but we would
    certainly continue to work voluntarily with states that
    voluntarily want to continue----
        Mr. Whitfield. But you don't recollect yourself sending a
    letter to the states saying that?
        Ms. McCarthy. I actually believe that I did, sir, but
    reading a portion of it doesn't give me complete enough
    recollection to be able to confirm it positively.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, did you send a letter to every----
        Ms. McCarthy. I did send a letter to states letting them
    know what happened, yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. OK. Now, prior to the Supreme Court
    stay, each state was expected, by September of this year, to
    submit a State Implementation Plan to EPA, is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is correct, yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. And have they been notified that that State
    Implementation Plan is no longer expected by September?
        Ms. McCarthy. I believe everybody is aware of that, yes,
    sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. And now, Ms. McCabe has talked a lot
    about, and you have also, saying you are working with states
    that want to proceed. How many states would that be?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we are certainly working with many
    states. Every day that changes. I know that 25 or so states
    have indicated publicly that they are doing some portion of
    planning and continuing to think about it. But many states
    understand that there is a transition in the energy world right
    now and that the Clean Power Plan is on hold, but it is going
    to be looked at on its merits, and they are continuing to think
    about----
        Mr. Whitfield. But they can do the transition without the
    Clean Energy Plan, correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the energy transition is happening
    regardless of that, yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, I mean, it is all about pricing
    primarily.
        Ms. McCarthy. Right.
        Mr. Whitfield. But two component parts that Ms. McCabe
    keeps stressing is the Clean Energy Incentive Program and the
    Model Rules. Those are an integral part of the Clean Energy
    Plan. Without those, the Clean Energy Plan would not be very
    effective. Would you agree with that?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, sir. The Clean Power Plan actually is a
    rule that is moving forward on its own through the courts. The
    Model Rule was something that the states suggested that we do
    for them, and part of the Model Rule is how the states might
    handle the CEIP. So, both of those are related, and those are
    efforts that the states have asked us to do separate, and also
    related, but on its own separate.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, she refers to those as two key pieces,
    the Clean Energy Incentive Program and the Model Rules, key
    pieces. But she says it will be done consistent with the Court
    ruling.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. How do you determine that it is consistent
    with the Court ruling?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the Clean Energy Incentive Plan is part
    of the Clean Power Plan as it stands that the Court is going to
    look at. Separate from that, there is a question of how states
    might look at the Model Rule and how that might be also an
    opportunity to take comment on it and look more specifically at
    how states might look at their Clean Energy Incentive Program.
        So, those are being done for the benefit of the states'
    understanding, and it is being done at the request of states
    that voluntarily want to think about how they might comply and
    think about the planning process.
        Mr. Whitfield. Might comply with what?
        Ms. McCarthy. Might think about complying consistent with
    the Clean Power Plan, but it is not an underlying rule of the
    plan. It is all voluntary and it is the states asking us to
    help them as they are doing their voluntary planning moving
    forward.
        Mr. Whitfield. My time has expired.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Tonko, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And thank you again, Administrator McCarthy, for being here
    today.
        The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus included $863 million for the
    Drinking Water SRF, which was a $44 million decrease from
    fiscal year 2015. So, I was grateful that the administration
    has recognized a critical need to invest in our drinking water
    systems by increasing its request by $158 million for this
    year. But can you please explain the relationship between the
    Clean and Drinking Water SRFs?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes. I mean, both of those are SRF programs.
    One manages our wastewater system, the other our drinking water
    system. We tend to look at them together, but we also tend to
    look at what the outstanding needs are in both. Clearly, both
    of them are necessary for clean drinking water, let's make that
    clear, and rivers and streams that are clean.
        But, when we looked back at what the demand was for each
    over a period of time, looking out to 2030, we realized that
    drinking water at this point is in dire need of additional
    assistance, and we balanced that in terms of how we are looking
    at both in this budget.
        Mr. Tonko. So, you acknowledge, then, that there is this
    flexibility to shift funds between the two SRFs in order to
    address their specific needs, is that right?
        Ms. McCarthy. They have that opportunity to be able to
    shift as well. There is quite a bit of flexibility in terms of
    the use of both funds.
        Mr. Tonko. Yes, and it is why I am disappointed to see the
    $1 billion request for drinking water was at the expense of
    over a $400 million decrease in clean water. The combined total
    is some $250 million less than last year's enacted level, and
    even worse when compared to the last budget request.
        So, can you explain the decision to offset the drinking
    water increase with the clean water? I know you are concerned
    for, obviously, having to grow the one account, but, overall,
    it appears as though there is a dire need to have very robust
    funding.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes. I think there needs to be a very serious
    and larger conversation about this, as I am sure you would
    agree, overall. Our challenge was to meet the funding levels
    that were in the bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. So, we didn't
    have an opportunity to look for significant new funding.
        Every time those numbers are increased, it is at the
    expense of EPA's operating budget. Frankly, with a budget that
    is only looking for a 2-percent bump-up, it will be very hard
    for the agency to continue operating at an efficient and
    successful level if we have to continue to look at significant
    more investment within our budget for those activities.
        Mr. Tonko. Right, which speaks to the role of Congress
    here, as we control the purse strings. It appears as though we
    have to do a much more robust effort for our water issues.
        While I understand the budgets are tight, robbing Peter to
    pay Paul doesn't seem to be the appropriate solution. I am sure
    you would agree that both drinking and wastewater systems, as
    you are indicating, need additional federal support. And so, we
    must ensure that both are adequately funded.
        As I mentioned earlier, the EPA estimates that there is
    this 20-year capital needs level of some $384 billion. This
    estimate has increased in each report since 1995, and I would
    guess the next estimate will follow that trend. So, we have
    spent 20 years funding the SRF between $800 million and $1
    billion. This request appears to be much of the same.
        I have heard from the mayors in my district, from town
    supervisors in my district, that cash-strapped local government
    simply cannot come up with the financing on their own. And I
    have had tremendous glaring examples of painful consequences of
    underfunding.
        The Administrator of the EPA does a lot of work with state
    and local governments. In your experience, will we make
    significant progress in closing this $384 billion gap by
    maintaining the current federal funding levels?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, it doesn't even come close or consider
    the fact that we are looking at new, emerging contaminants that
    simply won't be resolved through the technologies we have in
    hand.
        Mr. Tonko. And do you believe that a more lucrative, a more
    robust, sustained commitment is needed to reduce the
    infrastructure project backlog that exists?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think there needs to be a much larger
    conversation about how you can start investing in a way that is
    commensurate with the challenge and the core needs of our
    communities and families.
        Mr. Tonko. I thank you for that.
        Earlier I had mentioned the AQUA Act that I have
    introduced. It is driven by the Recovery Act funding levels.
    And so, that defines our first-year commitment in that
    legislation of $3.1 billion and, then, ramping up to $5.5
    billion. Again, we would call for tremendously-focused
    attention to the water infrastructure in this country.
        I thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for, again, responding
    in a way that I think is deeply rooted in commitment to helping
    our state and local governments.
        Mr. Chair, I hope this is an issue that we can continue to
    investigate to ensure communities across this nation are
    getting support to meet their public health, public safety, and
    infrastructure needs, all very important. I think some of the
    flare-ups we have seen across this nation in all geographic
    regions remind us that our work is far from done.
        So, with that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So, again, welcome, Administrator.
        The good news is we got your letter today in response to
    statements for the record from Acting Assistant Administrator
    McCabe, who testified before us in October. The bad news is
    they create some more questions. And so, I want to read the
    story, and maybe you can help get this clarified for us.
        The basis of my questions in the statement for the record
    was to ask about the Regulatory Impact Analysis that was used
    to promulgate the CO2 regulations. So, throughout
    the transcript, I continue to kind of push McCabe on give us
    how you calculated how many power plants would be operating,
    because if you are going to do a Regulatory Impact Analysis and
    the cost, basic Economics 101 says supply and demand. There is
    a 31-gigawatt difference between the Energy Information Agency
    and what this Regulatory Impact Analysis says from your agency.
        So, we were hoping that, for the record, we would get back
    what was the formula that the EPA used to calculate the amount
    of power plants that were going to be decommissioned. What we
    got was a statement. The EPA discussed the assumptions
    underlying each of these projections in the Regulatory Impact
    Analysis accompanying the final Clean Power Plant.
        So, the questions I asked to be clarified using the
    Regulatory Impact Analysis were responded by a letter that says
    refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis. If you could help us
    get the real data and a better answer, I would appreciate that.
        Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I will do the very best I can
    to answer your questions today or to provide you followup on
    it.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. I mean, it is just the bottom line is, if
    you have lost 70 power plants, that does have an effect on----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. And we just want to find out how you all
    figured that out versus the Energy Information Agency. And so,
    we are glad you got that letter to us punctually. Otherwise, I
    would have had to send another letter. So, thank you.
        Since we have talked about TSCA a little bit, as you know,
    we are hoping to get something to the President. There are
    three questions. Do you have any idea what it might cost you to
    assess 10 chemicals in a given year? This is what we need. So,
    10 or 20. And then, really, the third question is, did you
    consider what would be a budget baseline for operating a
    reformed TSCA program and if fees were capped at $18 million
    per year? We are trying to get an idea of, if there are fees,
    what are your costs? Are they in the ballpark and stuff?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, that is well within the range of the
    technical information that both you and Congressman Pallone
    have been asking for. I am more than happy to support, to
    provide you with whatever information I can.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        And I am glad you mentioned Ranking Member Pallone. He has
    been very, very helpful on movement of this, and we are hopeful
    we will get to some agreement in the future.
        My last question, because I have a minute-and-a-half left,
    is I did mention in my opening statement Superfund cleanup,
    CERCLA. Has the ratio of administrative cost to cleanup cost
    changed over the last few years and, if so, how?
        My big concern is always we have the Superfund. A lot of it
    goes for the administration and the litigation cost. What is
    the ratio between that portion of the fund and actual cleanup
    cost?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. And do you know if there has been any
    significant change in that? I want money to go to cleanup more
    than bureaucracy.
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't know the answer, but we will
    certainly follow up.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. Thank you.
        Since I have 45 seconds left, I will yield back my time and
    thank the chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr.
    McNerney of California, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thanks for indulging and confusing, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Administrator McCarthy, I know the EPA is working to deal
    with drought issues.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. McNerney. Of course, I am from California. We know
    about drought.
        Can you explain some of the ways that EPA is working to
    address drought through technology and innovation?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir. We are working pretty hard through
    our National Resilience effort. We are working with other
    agencies to develop tools that communities can use to identify
    both what the drought challenge is and a variety of tools in
    which they can design systems more effectively. Those are
    everything from stormwater to their drinking water systems,
    looking at potential impacts, keeping our communities safe,
    making sure that our water and wastewater facilities are
    operating correctly. And so, we have a variety of tools that we
    work with.
        We also have people that go to the communities. We have
    regional folks that go to communities and work with them and
    try to help design solutions, so they can manage the kind of
    adaptive behavior that they need to have in a changing climate.
        Mr. McNerney. Do you believe that California can become
    regionally self-sufficient? In other words, different parts of
    California can become water self-sufficient ultimately?
        Ms. McCarthy. There are smarter people in California than I
    that know the answer to that question. But I know that we are
    available to work with anyone in California that wants to roll
    up their sleeves and look at this issue.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        I have been a proponent of water use efficiency, and it is
    important, especially considering threats to our water supply,
    for us to protect our water sources and to conserve our water
    supply. One program that aims to help communities conserve
    water and promote long-term sustainable infrastructure is the
    WaterSense Program. Can you please describe some of the
    successes of the WaterSense Program?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I am more than happy to supply you with
    a lot.
        But WaterSense is beginning to be seen, and it has been
    used in California, as a really good opportunity. Basically, it
    does the boring work of water conservation. It allows you to
    take a look at where your water is going, how much it costs,
    where it is leaking, and how do you take advantage of that,
    everything from how you can conserve in a household to how you
    can look at it from a systems approach, from a community or a
    region. So, we have some really dedicated people that are doing
    great work at all levels on WaterSense.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, moving on, the gas leak in California
    has raised the public awareness of how gas is leaking into the
    environment. I know it is not exactly related, but do you
    believe there is sufficient data related to loss and
    accountable gas, so that we understand how much gas is actually
    leaking into the environment across the country?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, we have been learning recently,
    most recently, through our last Greenhouse Gas Inventory how
    little we actually have known about the methane leaks in our
    oil and gas sector in our pipelines. We are getting educated.
    It is more than we ever thought before, but there clearly needs
    to be a continued effort to gather information. We fully intend
    to do that.
        Mr. McNerney. So, what do we have to do to get a hold of
    this and to stop the leakage or to reduce the leakage?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we have announced that we are actually
    going to put out an information collection request to the
    industry to get information from the oil and gas sector, in
    particular. And then, the challenge will be what are the cost-
    effective and available technologies that can reduce those
    leaks, look at the operating practices that need to be done
    differently to maintain those.
        But the good news about methane, in particular, and natural
    gas is that it is a product that is leaking, not a byproduct.
    And so, the more you can capture it, the more it is a very
    cost-effective way to do business.
        Mr. McNerney. There is an economic driver, in other words?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, that's right.
        Mr. McNerney. Very good.
        So, what is the current state of carbon sequestration?
        Ms. McCarthy. Carbon sequestration is available. It
    continues to be something that we are going to be relying on
    more and more. The Department of Energy has a robust program
    that is looking at carbon sequestration as well as use in
    sequestration. It is being utilized in a number of facilities
    in the U.S. We would like it to be more used. We would like the
    cost to go down considerably as it is being used, so that it
    becomes more and more available. It is most cost-effective when
    it is joined with enhanced oil recovery. That is when you have
    a good system or when it is used to actually produce chemicals.
        Mr. McNerney. So, can we save the coal industry with carbon
    sequestration?
        Ms. McCarthy. I actually think that carbon sequestration is
    going to be important, not just domestically, but, clearly,
    internationally. Coal is going to be around, whether it is in
    the U.S. or it is in other countries. And it is important for
    us to have technologies that can allow coal to continue to be
    part of the energy system.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        We do have a series of four votes on the floor. But, before
    we go, I am going to get Mr. Upton and Mr. Pallone. And then,
    once they complete, we will try to come back here at 3:30 to
    give everyone else an opportunity to ask questions.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Upton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Upton. Great. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, Ms. McCarthy, we are glad that you are here today.
        I want to thank you just real quickly for your support of
    the bill that we passed. Every member of this committee
    supported it on the House floor, H.R. 4470, which did pass 416-
    to-2, to try to clear up the confusion and close the gaps when
    communities like Flint are known. We are hoping that that gets
    to the President's desk in some form when it comes back from
    the Senate.
        A couple of questions. We are going to have a hearing in
    two of our subcommittees together next month that really looks
    to the future on this issue, not pointing fingers. It is my
    understanding that we are working with your Assistant
    Administrator for Office of Water, Joel Beauvais----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Upton [continuing]. To be our EPA person who is going
    to come testify.
        A question that I had for you, a couple of questions as it
    relates to the future, I know in the Protecting America's
    Waters book, I will read you briefly, it says, ``In FY 2017,
    the EPA will begin to fund WIFIA projects. EPA expects that
    entities with large-scale, complex water and wastewater
    projects will be attracted to WIFIA through the EPA....will
    work to provide assistance through a diverse set of projects.''
        How many communities do you think may apply for funds once
    that program is out?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, we are requesting $20 million----
        Mr. Upton. Right.
        Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. Fifteen of which would be used
    for leveraging opportunities. It is not clear to me how many
    that would----
        Mr. Upton. Fifty communities? Thirty? Twenty?
        Ms. McCarthy. It depends upon the size.
        Mr. Upton. Any idea? Will there be some accommodation for
    rural areas, I mean some setaside for rural communities that
    are under 100,000 population?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, we haven't yet determined that, sir. I'm
    sorry.
        Mr. Upton. OK.
        Ms. McCarthy. But I am happy to take your comments or
    concerns about that, if you would like me to.
        Mr. Upton. Yes. I know that you are working on a new Copper
    and Lead Rule. What is your expectation as to when that will be
    ready to be put out for comment?
        Ms. McCarthy. We would like it to be done as soon as
    possible, but I think the tragedy in Flint has made it very
    clear to us that we have to tackle this in a substantive way.
    So, our goal is to get a rule both proposed and finalized next
    fiscal year.
        Mr. Upton. As you look at the entire country, how many
    communities--I know Flint is in terrible distress over what
    happened. I would hope that there are no other communities in
    that same position. But how many communities do you think or
    how many states have communities like that that are in need of
    resources that could replace some of their lead lines to their
    residents? How widespread of a problem is that? We have seen
    stories in different publications. USA Today has had some good
    ones in the last number of days in terms of communities. What
    would your estimate be?
        Ms. McCarthy. Let me give you a sense of this. I want to
    make sure I answer your question. There are about 68,000 public
    water systems that have to report to us under the Lead and
    Copper Rule. About 96 percent of those have had no exceedances
    of the action level over the past three years.
        So, what I am trying to do is, I think Flint is unique, but
    I think there are challenges in communities. One of the things
    that I did was to write to every governor and to write to every
    what we call the primacy agency, the agency that is responsible
    for that at the state level, to ask them to do a few things; to
    get back to us to make sure that they are following and
    implementing the current statute; to ask them to identify where
    their lead lines are publicly and put it on the web; to start
    publishing their results----
        Mr. Upton. And that is a little bit of a requirement that
    we had in our bill, right, H.R. 4470, if you found a problem,
    right? You would do that?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is exactly right. That is exactly the
    same thing. Because one of the things we realize is, with Flint
    happening, you are right, it is a failure of government----
        Mr. Upton. Knowing that my time is expiring, and I want to
    let Mr. Pallone have the balance before these votes, do you
    think that it is possible that, when we convene again next
    month, when we have this hearing on looking to the future, do
    you think you will have some of that information available that
    you can provide to us prior to the hearing?
        Ms. McCarthy. We will. We know there is about 10 million
    lead lines, but the challenge is to treat water so that it is
    not corrosive, to systemically get rid of the lead lines, and
    then, to address the lead that is actually in people's plumbing
    fixtures. So, it is a multifaceted challenge, and it is one we
    have to tackle.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
    Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        We have got to be quick because we are going to go vote,
    and I have to cover both Superfund and beaches in one fell
    swoop here.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. So, on the Superfunds, cleaning up toxic
    Superfund sites not only reduces health risk, it helps create
    jobs during the cleanup and through newly-uncontaminated and
    productive land ready for redevelopment, as you know.
        Unfortunately, Congress has failed to reinstate the
    Superfund tax, leading to fewer resources for the program. In
    fact, the resources have essentially been cut in half over the
    last two decades. Without those revenues, important Superfund
    cleanups have been delayed. The backlog of sites has grown and,
    of course, that shifts it to the taxpayers.
        So, let me ask you first, would you say that the success of
    the Superfund program depends directly on the funding it
    receives?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. And would more funding, then, mean more
    cleanups?
        Ms. McCarthy. Absolutely. We are requesting an additional
    $20 million, which would get us three to five more started, but
    we certainly have a significant backlog.
        Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. I think that it is clear
    that the Superfund and brownfields programs show that creating
    jobs and cleaning up the environment are not mutually-
    exclusive.
        Now let me get to my beaches questions. Representing a
    coastal district, it has always been one of my top priorities
    to ensure that water at our nation's beaches is not
    contaminated and dangerous for those who visit them to swim,
    surf, and fish. And that is why, as you know, I was
    disappointed to see that the BEACH Act Grant Program has been
    zeroed-out again in the President's budget. States utilize
    these funds to monitor water quality and notify the public when
    our coastal waters are not safe for swimming.
        So, my question is, do you believe EPA's BEACH Grants have
    been successful over the years in expanding the number of
    beaches tested nationwide and keeping swimmers out of
    contaminated waters?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, I believe that it has been a good
    program. I think where we have challenges is that it was
    supposed to start up to make sure that communities and states
    have the ability to monitor and do this effectively. We believe
    that that ability is now there, which is why we think in a
    tight budget it is one of the areas in which we can be a little
    bit tighter in terms of----
        Mr. Pallone. Well, you know I disagree because I think that
    a lot of these towns don't have the resources.
        Ms. McCarthy. Right. I know.
        Mr. Pallone. So, I am going to try to work with you and my
    colleagues, as we did last year, to restore this funding----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone [continuing]. that helps address these health
    risks.
        The other issue related is another successful method is
    spotting spilled oil in commercial areas like the New York-New
    Jersey Harbor and collecting it before it damages the
    environment. It was the helicopter. You know that in 2014 EPA
    cancelled the Helicopter Monitoring Program in EPA Region 2,
    but operated it in the summer to monitor the waters in the
    Harbor and to identify debris, oil slicks, and algae blooms.
    Since the Helicopter Monitoring Program was cancelled, how is
    EPA engaging and participating in the Floatables Action Plan in
    the New York and New Jersey Region.
        Ms. McCarthy. We are certainly monitoring the activities
    that both of the states have taken to have boots on the ground
    there, to make sure they see the oil as it occurs and are able
    to address it. And we have a task force that, I think you know,
    we pulled together to make sure that we understand what the
    implications of having disinvested in that helicopter might be,
    if any. So, we want to continue to work with it with you, sir,
    on this issue because I know it is important to you.
        Mr. Pallone. When we spoke about this last year, you said
    that there would be, basically, a web of protection in place to
    guarantee no gaps in coverage with respect to monitoring the
    New Jersey coast. Has the EPA taken some specific actions to
    fill the gaps left by the cancellation of the helicopter?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think we felt that the helicopter at
    this point, because of the actions that the states have taken,
    was not as necessary as it was before. We didn't feel like we
    would be putting the water at risk by not continuing to fund
    it. And so, we do feel that there is a robust system in place.
        Mr. Pallone. See, the problem that I have with both the
    BEACHES Act and the helicopter is that, using New Jersey as an
    example, but I am sure New York is the same, the state and the
    towns and the counties all complain that they have less money
    and that they can't fill the gap. And so, that is why, if there
    was any way, obviously, to get the BEACHES Grants back in place
    or to get the helicopter back in place, and to pay for it
    federally, it would make a big difference. Because I know you
    believe that the states and the localities can make up the
    difference, but I really don't think that is the case.
        Ms. McCarthy. I appreciate that, sir. Thank you.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. McCarthy, once again, I apologize for this interlude,
    but I want you to know we have one of the best subway sandwich
    stores in the basement.
        [Laughter.]
        We will be back at 3:30, hopefully.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Whitfield. We will recess until 3:30.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Whitfield. We will reconvene the meeting and the
    hearing.
        Thank you for your patience, Ms. McCarthy.
        At this time I would like to recognize for 5 minutes the
    gentleman from Texas, the vice chairman of the Energy and Power
    Subcommittee, Mr. Olson.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair.
        And welcome, Ms. McCarthy.
        We have had our disagreements. Some are pretty strong. But
    there are some things we agree upon, like the Houston Astros
    going to Yankee Stadium and kicking the tar out the New York
    Yankees 3-to-zip last September.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. McCarthy. Totally agree on that one.
        Mr. Olson. There we go.
        And I appreciate the positive steps you have taken on
    exceptional events in that new rule. Thank you for that.
        That being said, though, I have heard recently that EPA has
    a proposal to change the rules on how locals work with you all
    on transportation issues, projects, highway projects. I am told
    that the changes to transportation and air modeling could add
    months' delay and hundreds of thousands of dollars to highway
    projects.
        States are saying that this new ``AERMOD Model'' is more
    complex and less accurate than current models. Apparently, the
    Federal Highway Administration's concerns may have fallen on
    deaf ears with EPA.
        So, my question is, did EPA know of FHA's concerns? If so,
    were they ignored, and why are they ignored, if so, as well?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, I am afraid that I am going to
    have to get back to you on that. I am not familiar with any
    recent changes to the AERMOD Model. But, certainly, our goal in
    any model change is to get more accurate as well as more simple
    in terms of how you can ensure compliance and work can
    continue.
        Mr. Olson. I like accurate and simple. That sounds good,
    yes, ma'am. Let's work together to make this stuff work. Work
    with me to get some information and make sure there is no
    problem here.
        Ms. McCarthy. That would be great.
        Mr. Olson. Great. Thank you.
        Question No. 2 is, last week I introduced a bipartisan new
    bill on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, H.R. 4775.
    It has almost a dozen revisions that would make the
    implementation of the ozone standards and other NAAQS practical
    and cost-effective. I don't know if you have had a chance to
    look at that bill yet. Have you seen that yet, ma'am? Or it is
    probably too quick?
        Ms. McCarthy. I have not studied it, sir, no.
        Mr. Olson. Can I get you to promise to work with me to get
    that bill at least discussed, where we can come to work
    together to get some commonsense, if that is the right term for
    it, but something that guys could achieve out there? Because I
    am concerned about right now many counties are in non-
    containment with the current standards. And going lower, let
    them get full attainment, and then, let them go lower. So,
    let's work on that together. Can we do that, please?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I will be happy to continue to
    talk to you on it. I do know, is this ozone that we are talking
    about?
        Mr. Olson. It is ozone, yes, ma'am, mostly, yes.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes. OK.
        Mr. Olson. And Question Number 3, as states struggle to
    implement EPA's Ambient Air Quality Standards, they send SIPs,
    State Implementation Plans, to you, EPA. You approve these
    plans, so that states can go about their business of having
    cleaner air. Your budget documents indicate that at the end of
    2015, FY 2015, EPA had 557 backlogged SIPs.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Olson. And while the Clean Power Plan is in limbo now
    because of the courts, the Supreme Court, can you shift that
    money to get rid of this backlog of these SIPs? Can you take it
    from the Clean Power Plan and make it address these backlogs of
    SIPs? Is it money you need or what do you need to get this
    backlog fixed?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, the challenge for us--and we do
    have a plan that we have worked on with the states that is
    racheting down the backlogs in the system.
        You mentioned the exceptional events.
        Mr. Olson. Yes.
        Ms. McCarthy. What we found was our failure to address
    exceptional events well and to make that a streamlined
    opportunity for states to talk about when they have an anomaly
    that they want credit for, we found that in California the
    minute we did an exceptional event policy for high-wind events,
    they could release 200 State Implementation Plans.
        Mr. Olson. Yes, yes, yes.
        Ms. McCarthy. So, it is more than money. It is really
    looking at what the substantive issues are and making sure we
    are doing our job to speak to the policy itself, so that the
    regions are comfortable in going through the approval process
    and getting that done.
        Mr. Olson. Great. And one final invitation, olive branch
    per se. Mr. McNerney from California talked about carbon
    capture sequestration.
        Ms. McCarthy. He did.
        Mr. Olson. You mentioned that EPA has some projects that
    are viable for enhanced oil recovery. That is right there in my
    district. It is called the Paris Power Plant, the Petra Nova
    Project.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Olson. Come on down and see it. They have got four coal
    generators and four natural gas. They are capturing coal out of
    one generator, putting it in a pipeline. There is an oil field
    about 65 miles to the south. Getting that in there, pressure,
    more oil; it pays for itself. Come down and see it personally.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the invitation.
        Mr. Olson. You are welcome.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas,
    Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here today. It
    is always a pleasure to have you before the committee. And I
    thank you for coming to Houston last month for the CERAWeek,
    and I am glad they treated you well there at that energy
    conference.
        Ms. McCarthy. They did. Thanks.
        Mr. Green. One of my questions--and we talked about it when
    you were in Houston--families in our district in eastern Harris
    County, they are very concerned about the Dioxin and the
    pollutants found in the San Jacinto River waste pits. Now the
    waste pits were declared a Superfund site 8 years ago, and to
    date, no final decision has been made.
        Ms. McCarthy, when will EPA make a final decision on
    remediating the San Jacinto River waste pits?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I will have to get back to you when the
    final decision is. I know that the concern is to make sure that
    we address the interim measures that we need to keep the
    opportunity to have that safe and go through the process to
    define the final remedy.
        Mr. Green. OK. Local stakeholders in our district are
    concerned that EPA will decide to keep the Dioxin in the river
    underneath a temporary armored cap that was put in place a few
    years ago. Our communities fear that the armored cap would
    fail, as it did recently either during a major flood/hurricane
    or the damage by the barge which happened recently.
        CERCLA requires and prefers remedies that will permanently
    and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, and movement of
    the hazardous substances for the protection of human health and
    the environment. And I join the local stakeholders in calling
    that for removal.
        The concern I have, Ms. McCarthy, is leaving Dioxin in the
    flood plain in an aquatic environment is not an appropriate
    permanent solution. What would prevent the EPA from adopting
    the most preventative remedy possible for the Superfund site,
    like building a container wall and, then, removing that Dioxin
    facility?
        Ms. McCarthy. Generally, what we do, sir, is when we put
    out for comment a proposed remedy, when you look at a proposed
    plan, we will put a range of options out, and we look at that
    from how protective they are, how certain we are that they are
    going to remain protective, as well as look at the costs
    associated with that. So, I am sure you will see that we will
    put out a full range of options for folks to comment on, and I
    appreciate the fact that you have communicated with me strongly
    about the interests of your constituents here.
        Mr. Green. And I appreciate EPA having a hearing in
    Channelview, Texas----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Green [continuing]. Six weeks ago or so, and I was glad
    to be there.
        I also notice, is it true that EPA requested $1.13 billion
    for Superfund for the next fiscal year, the lowest request in
    14 years? Is it $1.13 billion, the budget request?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am not aware of how low it is compared to
    other years. I know that it is an increase over what we had
    requested last year of $20 million.
        Mr. Green. And is it true that EPA completed work on only
    eight Superfund sites in fiscal year 2014, the lowest number of
    construction completions since 1997?
        Ms. McCarthy. I can get back to you on that as well, sir.
        Mr. Green. OK. Given the low number of sites, which
    includes the San Jacinto River, I would hope our budget
    proposal would be much higher than what the EPA requested.
        Last month in your visit to Houston we discussed our
    quality and monitoring. We are challenged in Houston, and I
    want to work with you and improve our situation as rapidly as
    possible. Can you give me a quick overview of EPA's budget on
    air monitoring and improvement?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir. We have a robust monitoring
    network, but we are requesting an additional $40 million for
    monitoring technology for the states. As you know, we have
    requested an increase in state and tribal categorical grants of
    about $77 million.
        So, we do think we have good monitors out there. We need
    more ability to be able to support state efforts. One other
    thing that I think is important to remember is that in your
    area I think that your community is working very hard, the
    communities in that area are. There are significant challenges
    in port areas.
        Mr. Green. Yes.
        Ms. McCarthy. And that really is something that our DERA
    Program has supported. We are looking for $10 million again
    this year, but the President has also proposed a climate
    infrastructure fund that could really ramp up our ability to be
    able to support reductions in pollution in the port areas. That
    could have appreciable difference in the quality of air in
    Houston.
        Mr. Green. Well, thank you. Having the Port of Houston, an
    industrial port, it is important, particularly with our
    industries on the side.
        Ms. McCarthy. And they do a good job. I have actually been
    there to give them some awards before. They are doing a great
    job.
        Mr. Green. Well, we are trying. In fact, I know we have one
    refinery who has problems, and I suggested to EPA that that
    refinery ought to be able to monitor their own fenceline.
    Because, again, in our area we have literally fenceline-to-
    fenceline of industry, and we want to know who the bad actors
    are or the ones who need help. That fenceline monitoring by the
    industry would be helpful.
        Ms. McCarthy. And the technology is there. In fact, our
    most recent changes to the refinery rule are going to start
    requiring that. So, we are interested in the same thing, sir.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your patience.
        I would like to submit a question on methane emissions to
    the Administrator, and appreciate you responding.
        Mr. Whitfield. Without objection.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio,
    Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Administrator, thanks so much for being with us today.
        Last October the EPA revised its 2008 Ozone Standards. Is
    that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Latta. How many counties does EPA expect will be
    designated to be in non-attainment with the 2015 standards?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, to the best of my recollection--and
    I can get back to you on that--it is going to amount to, we
    estimated about a dozen areas potentially, in addition to some
    areas in the State of California which face particularly
    unusual challenges because of the geology.
        Mr. Latta. But do you know how many counties, just not the
    states?
        Ms. McCarthy. That is how many areas that we are looking
    at.
        Mr. Latta. Because looking with the Congressional Research
    Service, based on their most recent data, they are looking at
    probably 241 counties in 33 states. Does that sound correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think that may be an overestimate on the
    basis of what we believe our current on-the-books rules will do
    in terms of reducing NOx and VOC emissions.
        We have taken a lot of steps, as you know, to reduce air
    pollution, and we think they will have an appreciable
    difference in terms of the years. We are not looking at what is
    out of attainment now because attainment isn't until 2017. So,
    we are looking at data from 2014, 2015, and 2016 to make a
    judgment on what is in non-attainment. We don't think that is
    going to amount to a significant amount of designated areas.
        Mr. Latta. OK. But, just out of curiosity, then, why did
    CRS come up with 241? Weren't they looking at the data?
        Ms. McCarthy. I would be happy to go back and take a look
    at that and, also, to verify the number of areas we are talking
    about. I apologize, but----
        Mr. Latta. Yes, if you can do that, I would appreciate if
    you would get back to the committee on that.
        Ms. McCarthy. I am happy to do that.
        Mr. Latta. OK. Then, also, going right along with that,
    because, again, in my district I have 60,000 manufacturing jobs
    in northwest plus central Ohio. Has the EPA done any analysis
    of the impacts of either the 2008 or the 2015 standards on
    manufacturing in areas designated as being in non-attainment?
        Ms. McCarthy. We certainly have done an impact assessment.
    Our understanding of this is that we are focused more on what
    the impacts are and what it means for individual states and in
    counties. I don't recall a specific impact on industries in
    those areas. I know there will be challenges, but I don't think
    we have understood them to be appreciable.
        Mr. Latta. Let me ask this, could you define, when you say
    you have done impact assessment, how would you define that
    impact assessment, especially if you say you haven't really
    been looking on the manufacturing side? But, again, there is
    just massive thrust in Ohio. Also, when we look at what
    happened in the last several years, we are at least about 74-75
    percent coal-fired power plants in Ohio, and it is down in the
    70 percent now. But how would you define, then, the term
    ``impact assessment''?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, can we reclarify again, sir, what
    you are talking about?
        Mr. Latta. Well, right. You said that you had been working
    on some impact assessments.
        Ms. McCarthy. Which rule are we talking about, sir?
        Mr. Latta. Pardon me?
        Ms. McCarthy. Which rule?
        Mr. Latta. OK. This would be the 2008 and, also, 2015, when
    we look at the non-attainment.
        Ms. McCarthy. OK. Right.
        Mr. Latta. Right.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we have done some analysis, sir, to
    look at the impact of designation on industries and whether or
    not they can continue. I think you know that it does put a
    burden when you are in non-attainment in order to not make the
    unhealthy air more unhealthy as industries grow. So, there are
    opportunities to look at offsets that can continue to expand
    industries. We just have not identified that those are
    insurmountable in any area. They are more challenging in
    California than anywhere else. But, usually, when you are
    looking in other states, you find opportunities for offsets at
    reasonable cost that can allow even new industries to locate in
    non-attainment areas.
        Mr. Latta. OK. Just to follow up on that again, because I
    am not sure I caught what you just said a little bit earlier,
    you said whether they can continue. Are you talking about the
    manufacturing or the power, or both?
        Ms. McCarthy. I was talking about manufacturing. At the
    levels they are manufacturing and even with new facilities
    coming in, you need to account for the emissions that you may
    add into the area, but you can do that using offsets, which
    means you can look at your permitting process and identify the
    least-expensive way to get NOx reductions and
    utilize that for new facilities coming in, which is what I
    understood to be the major issue.
        Mr. Latta. OK. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask, also, if maybe
    we could follow up on that question and, then, also, maybe the
    earlier question to the Administrator and get back to the
    committee?
        Mr. Whitfield. Absolutely. Without objection, so ordered.
        At this time the Chair would recognize the gentleman from
    Iowa, Mr. Loebsack, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Good to see you, Madam Administrator, as always.
        Ms. McCarthy. You, too.
        Mr. Loebsack. I appreciate the work you are doing.
        A couple of questions. The first one, as you know, the
    Department of Energy states, using ethanol as a vehicle fuel
    has measurable CHG emissions benefits compared with using
    gasoline. Carbon dioxide released when ethanol is used in
    vehicles is, in fact, offset by the CO2 captured
    when crops used to make ethanol are grown.
        Now, given the role of renewable fuels, given the role that
    renewable fuels play in cutting down greenhouse gases,
    shouldn't the recent RFS Renewable Volume Obligations, RVOs, be
    increased to achieve this goal?
        Ms. McCarthy. We certainly are looking to be as aggressive
    as we can, knowing that the U.S. is a leader in biofuels.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right.
        Ms. McCarthy. In looking at the aggressive nature of the
    renewable fuels standard, we are looking for every opportunity
    to both make it aggressive, but also recognize that it has to
    be achievable at the same time.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right. Because you are working on 2017, I
    assume, is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Loebsack. Yes.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Loebsack. And you will be hearing from a lot of us, no
    doubt----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. As you did in the past when it
    came to the past renewable fuel standard. I know it is
    controversial. Not everybody is onboard with it on either side
    of the aisle, for that matter, as well.
        Ms. McCarthy. But, sir, you have spoken to me from
    Congress. I am implementing the law as it is, and that is what
    I do.
        Mr. Loebsack. Yes, and I look forward to continuing to have
    that conversation. In fact, I have some corn growers here in
    the audience. I just happened to meet with them prior to this
    meeting. And so, that is something that is clearly important to
    them and to the whole State of Iowa, for that matter, but not
    just Iowa, many other places around this country as well.
        The second one has to do with the Waters of the U.S.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Loebsack. I am sure all my colleagues are in agreement
    that providing clean water is critical for all of us. Folks in
    the agricultural community recognize as well that we have got
    to have clean water.
        One program, in particular, of course, the Waters of the
    U.S., has had a bit of an uphill battle over the years, as we
    have seen. It is in the courts as we speak. But I think
    everybody can agree that we have to have clarity on the rules
    before anything else. That is the one thing I hear from folks
    in the agricultural community in Iowa more than anything else.
        I have been taken out to ditches, and folks there are
    frightened, to be quite honest, that without necessary clarity,
    that all kinds of lawsuits and all kinds of actions could be
    taken against them. And I have to say I understand their
    concerns. I want to have clean water. I want to make sure we do
    the right thing, but so do those folks in rural areas.
        But we have got to have the clarity when it comes to things
    like not just streams and rivers, but ditches and ponds, and
    what have you. There is real concern in farm country that there
    still isn't that kind of clarity with respect to WOTUS. Can you
    speak to that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think that we tried to actually
    provide greater clarity. That is what the Clean Water Rule was
    intended to do. I actually think we accomplished that in many
    ways, and we need to have a really good conversation about
    that, knowing that it is in the courts at this point.
        But let me give you an example on ditches. Believe me, I
    never created the word ``ditch''. It is in the statute, which
    is why we had to deal with it. But we made it really clear that
    ditches exclude intermittent and ephemeral ditches. It is only
    when a ditch has been constructed in an existing stream or
    wetland that it becomes significant enough to warrant
    protection.
        Mr. Loebsack. Can you tell me what ``intermittent'' means?
    Sorry to interrupt. What does ``intermittent'' mean?
        Ms. McCarthy. Basically, you are talking seasonal or just
    when it rains. I mean, that is what we are talking about.
        So, we have tried to make it clear that these intermittent,
    these only have water in them every once in a while, do not
    constitute a jurisdictional water.
        Mr. Loebsack. Well, I have heard the stories like, what if
    there is 7 inches of rain and it is not intermittent?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Loebsack. But that creates an environmental problem as
    such. And a DNR person comes out and checks it out, and all of
    a sudden the farmer is in trouble because it happened to rain 7
    inches that night.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, that is why what we did here is make it
    much clearer than the existing rule actually does. We made it
    clear that that does not constitute a jurisdictional water.
    Only if it was a stream to begin with and you have channeled
    it. So, we tried to get clearer.
        We have also gotten clearer on erosional features, to make
    the case that, if it rains hard, it looks like there are
    streams everywhere.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right.
        Ms. McCarthy. Those don't count.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right.
        Ms. McCarthy. It only has to be something that is
    constructed or natural that really can impact the downstream
    water----
        Mr. Loebsack. Well, my time is almost up.
        Ms. McCarthy. Otherwise, there is no connection.
        Mr. Loebsack. And I do appreciate this conversation. I hope
    we continue to have this conversation. I know you came to the
    Iowa State Fair a few years ago.
        Ms. McCarthy. I did.
        Mr. Loebsack. I will personally invite you out there if you
    are willing to come.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Loebsack. And I can guarantee you we can get some folks
    in the agricultural community together and have a conversation.
        Ms. McCarthy. I will take every opportunity I can. Thank
    you very much.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me go over. Thank
    you. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from West
    Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you again, Ms. McCarthy, for coming.
        I am curious, you have given us kind of a smorgasbord of
    things to go after here a little bit this morning. If I could
    just touch base on one, I want to get it clarified. You said
    that there was more than one facility using carbon capture. You
    didn't mean coal-fired power plants, did you? Because there is
    only one coal-fired power plant using carbon capture, is that
    not correct, in America?
        Ms. McCarthy. I would have to go back and check, sir. I
    haven't looked recently.
        Mr. McKinley. That is what you said to me 2 years ago and
    last year. So, I hope you do get back to us on that. But Kemper
    is the only one. You know that. It is the only one.
        Ms. McCarthy. I do know. I know Kemper, yes.
        Mr. McKinley. So, my other question, have you ever visited
    the West Virginia coal fields or been in a West Virginia coal-
    powered plant?
        Ms. McCarthy. Not that I am aware of, sir.
        Mr. McKinley. Have you ever been to one in Kentucky or
    Wyoming?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, sir.
        Mr. McKinley. That is what I was afraid of. So, I am just
    curious, you are part of this bureaucracy that is passing all
    of these legislative fiats and regulations, but never really
    touching base with the people that you are affecting their
    lives.
        When he was here the other day, the Secretary said he wants
    to come to West Virginia and he wants to see because he had
    heard about the Longview Power Plant. Do you know anything
    about the Longview Power Plant?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, I don't.
        Mr. McKinley. That is one of the most efficient, if not the
    most efficient, power plant in America, and it doesn't use
    carbon capture.
        So, I would extend the invitation to you again and again. I
    have done that. And whatever your schedule is, it has never
    permitted you to come West Virginia. So, I think we had better
    take this seriously, the impact we are having on people's
    lives.
        In the last couple of weeks, some of the candidates have
    been saying that we need to move away from coal and other
    fossil fuels in their campaigns. One of them said we are going
    to put a lot of coal miners out of work. Do you agree with
    that? Is that good for the economy, to put our coal miners out
    of work?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, it is certainly not good for anybody to
    be out of work in an economy.
        Mr. McKinley. So, you would disagree? You would disagree
    with that premise that someone said we ought to put them out of
    work?
        Ms. McCarthy. Personally, I do not agree that anyone in the
    United States of America should go without a job who wants to
    work.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you. OK.
        So, if I could go back to part of your testimony, also, you
    talked about a stable climate.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. McKinley. And you want to maintain a stable climate,
    but, unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't seem to be
    following in those footsteps in that stable climate. We have
    got a chart someplace they are going to put up here in a minute
    that shows--my clock is ticking.
        Ms. McCarthy. Technology is always tricky.
        Mr. McKinley. Yes, it is always. Well, thank you.
    Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I was told that chart would be up.
        It shows that China is going to increase its production or
    use of coal by 460 gigawatts of power and India another 360
    gigawatts of power. I don't know what it is going to take. The
    world is not following our leadership.
        So, I am curious, 2 or 3 years ago, I raised the same
    question to you. You were going to get back to me and I never
    heard back from you again. That was that, according to the IPCC
    with the United Nations, it said that, if we terminated all
    coal-fired power plants in America, so that we didn't burn one
    ton of coal in America, the total reduction to CO2
    on the globe would only be two-tenths of 1 percent. Do you
    think that is a measurable impact on the climate of the world,
    especially given that the other nations aren't going to follow?
    So, if we terminate two-tenths, but, yet, the other nations of
    China and India are going to way more than make up for that
    loss, that it is worth it to our economy to put all our people
    and our coal companies out of work for something that is not
    measurable?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I am not looking at making any choices
    on the kinds of energy that are generated. I am really trying
    to keep my eye on my job, which is to try to reduce pollution
    in ways that are reasonable.
        Mr. McKinley. Someplace along the line, it was not yours,
    but others. The Interior just put 33 percent of our coal
    reserves in the western coal on federal land, they put it on
    the shelf and said we don't have access to it to generate
    power. Forty percent of America's power comes from coal from
    federal lands, and 33 percent of our reserve comes from federal
    lands. And they just put 33 percent on the shelf. We can't
    access it.
        So, it may not be your Department, but you are part of that
    administration that has this war on coal that is saying we are
    not going to use coal. And even your successors are talking the
    same language. I don't understand. If it doesn't have an impact
    on climate change around the world, why are we subjecting our
    hardworking taxpayers and men and women in the coal fields to
    something that has no benefit?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think, sir, we see it as having had
    enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well
    as garnering support around the country for the agreement we
    reached in Paris.
        Mr. McKinley. But even though no one is following this?
    China has doubled. Since that Paris accord, China has already
    announced that they are going to put up 360. India has
    announced that they are going to double their use of coal since
    the Paris accord.
        I am afraid my time is over.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
        We will ask the staff to get that chart and we will include
    it in the record.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
    Oregon, Mr. Schrader, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate it.
        And I appreciate the Secretary for being here. It is always
    a good time, very interesting comments so far. I learn a lot at
    these types of hearings about my friends and colleagues around
    the country.
        We have a big issue out in Oregon, and I think we saw it
    nationally, with our forest burning up during this last summer,
    unprecedented wildfires, unprecedented carbon pollution into
    the atmosphere, exactly the opposite I think of what we are
    trying to do with all these programs at EPA.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Schrader. In that regard, we are trying to use and work
    our forests in a much more sustainable manner. There is an
    opportunity for more active timber management, I think, that
    would take that carbon fuel, if you will, out of the forests
    and make it healthier. The devil is always in the details, just
    to say.
        One thing I would ask you to look at in your Department,
    and in trying to encourage use of a carbon-neutral life-cycle
    resource like wood and like our forests, is look at some of the
    standards that you have. In September the agency put out some
    standards regarding government procurement----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, we did.
        Mr. Schrader [continuing]. Dealing with different third-
    party verification processes. I am very concerned that it,
    inadvertently I hope, discriminates against a large part of our
    land mass, particularly in the West, where there is alternate
    ways to look at certification of these forests for sustainable
    practices or FSC. Out where we are, it is a lot of SFI. I won't
    bore the committee with all the acronym evaluations here, but
    you understand where I am going with that.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Schrader. I would urge you to take a look at that. My
    evaluation on your Web site is that they all meet the criteria
    you have put out there. I have gone through an appendix from
    your agency that talks about the different pieces or
    evaluations that each goes through. It looks almost exactly the
    same when it comes to species, monitoring, control, and
    response to disease and disturbances, these sorts of things,
    reforestation. There is a difference maybe in the acreage size.
    That is the only thing I can see there.
        Frankly, rural Oregon is not doing well. Rural America
    isn't doing well. They have not recovered from the Great
    Recession. I see that Portland is doing great. But I am
    interested in how the rest of the country is doing.
        What has happened, because of these artificial standards
    that I think are misapplied and could stand some revision--
    these forests could be put back to sustainable use. Decrease
    our carbon footprint and, hopefully, employ lots of people in
    this country, folks in my state.
        I will give you a quick example. In Oregon there is over
    4.3 million acres that are certified by the three big programs
    that are out there. EPA's current recommendation, current
    interim rule, would exclude over 4.1 million of those 4.3
    million acres. That just doesn't seem right, Madam Secretary.
        We all want to be in the same place, I think, on this. I
    think you would get broader support for some of the rules and
    some of the work you are trying to do at EPA if you opened up a
    little bit to some of these other certification programs that
    are just as valid, very well certified by third-party people.
    If you could do that, I would really appreciate it. But maybe
    get back to myself and maybe members of the committee on how
    you are going to be looking at that.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I really appreciate your comments.
    We did hear that we were too narrow in the interim. We went
    with the standard that the Department of Energy was using,
    which is why it seemed like a reasonable first step.
        Mr. Schrader. Sure.
        Ms. McCarthy. But in no way was it the only step that we
    are taking. So, we are taking a look already at all the other
    standard-setting opportunities that we have to see if they are
    comparable, equally aggressive, how we would take account of
    those. And we recognize that there is work to be done, and we
    are starting that work now.
        Mr. Schrader. All right. Well, very good, because there is
    a lot of lives, jobs, and community sustainability at stake
    here----
        Ms. McCarthy. I agree.
        Mr. Schrader [continuing]. As well as our forests.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you.
        With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        Mr. McKinley was talking earlier and raised concerns about
    the fact that coal on U.S. federal lands are off-limits. Many,
    many jobs have been lost. You acknowledge that it is always bad
    for folks to be unemployed. Large numbers of people in Mr.
    McKinley's district and in my district are now unemployed as a
    result of policies of this administration, including your
    agency itself.
        And you indicated--and correct me if I got it wrong--you
    indicated that you were just doing your job, trying to set
    examples. But I would submit that, because of the concerns that
    Mr. McKinley raised with China increasing, even after the Paris
    accord was reached by the President, and India, according to
    Mr. McKinley, is going to be doubling their use of coal. Of
    course, they want to be energy-independent, as many nations
    want to, and they have some coal.
        I am just concerned that we are actually doing more harm to
    the world's environment, particularly in relationship to the
    air, because when we take our previously-reasonable regulations
    and we ratchet it up and we throw folks out of work, we raise
    the cost of energy in our country and we put our manufacturers
    at a disadvantage. And then, they decide that it is easier in
    some cases, in some not, but in some cases they decide it is
    easier to go places where they don't have those regulations,
    whether it be Mexico or China or India, or some other nation,
    but where they don't have the regulations that we have. So, we
    are actually creating a net increase in air pollution.
        I am just wondering, have you all not looked at that? Now I
    understand your job is just the United States. But when you are
    putting my folks out of work and Mr. McKinley's folks out of
    work, and I think that there is a good likelihood that there is
    a net increase, I am just wondering, have you all looked at the
    possibility that you may be inadvertently creating--and we can
    disagree about what is and isn't a pollutant--but are you
    inadvertently creating a net increase in the Northern
    Hemisphere for the air that we all breathe, whether it is in
    China or India or in Salem, Virginia?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, if you are looking at greenhouse gases,
    sir, it doesn't matter where it is emitted. I think it matters
    to all of us.
        I will say that we have been working with a lot of
    businesses, a lot of international businesses, that are
    actually expressing serious concern that we do take notice of
    climate change and take action on it.
        But I will also say that the administration, I think, is
    very cognizant that the coal communities, the communities that
    rely on coal are facing significant challenges. We are
    interested in really moving forward with the President's POWER
    Plus proposal to see how we can build an economy that will be
    more sustainable and lasting.
        Mr. Griffith. Look, I don't disagree with that. That is an
    area where I think we have got to put some resources there----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Griffith [continuing]. To try to help these
    communities. But that being said, what do you do in a community
    where we had a dispute over a piece of land because in
    Dickenson County in my district there were two pieces of flat
    land in the entire county that could be built on, and they
    needed a new high school. So, they had to use eminent domain to
    take one of the two pieces.
        How are we going to reinvent the economy? They have
    mountains, they have water, and they have trees.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Griffith. We don't have flat land. In Buchanan County,
    the largest chunk of our flat land is formerly a surface mine
    that leveled things out, but folks think that is bad. So, it
    really puts us in a dilemma.
        And then, I have another dilemma that I think I have to
    bring up. That is many of my constituents don't understand an
    EPA that has eight buildings in the Washington, D.C., area. It
    has got 12 different zip codes. It has got so many employees
    floating around up here. And they say to me, ``Why don't you
    defund the EPA completely?'' And I have always defended by
    saying, ``Well, let's look at our clean water programs. There
    are other things that the EPA does that I think are good.''
        And then, we have the Flint, Michigan problem.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Griffith. I don't know how I am going to tell those
    folks now where we have got these programs like clean water,
    when, clearly--and I know that there was some dispute in
    another committee earlier this week--but, clearly, the EPA
    dropped the ball.
        It looks like to me--I was in on one of those hearings in
    O&I, in our Government Reform Committee--it looks clearly to me
    like one of your employees was doing a coverup, told Ms.
    Walters of Flint, Michigan that they had handled Del Toral. The
    employee of the EPA who it appears was punished for blowing the
    whistle on the lead out there, I think that is a problem.
        Then, a former employee now, Ms. Hedman, comes in and says
    that she didn't think she did anything wrong. My constituent,
    Mark Edwards, a Virginia Tech professor--and, look, I don't
    know his politics, but Blacksburg is not a conservative area.
    It is one of the most liberal areas of Virginia and one of the
    most liberal areas in my district. But he says, if you are part
    of a government agency, it means you don't have to say you are
    sorry, and said that she was ``willfully blind, unremorseful,
    and completely unrepentant, and unable to learn from her
    mistakes''.
        How do I defend an EPA that that is the condemnation coming
    out of my district from the professor, Dr. Edwards? That is the
    thing I have always pointed to as being one of the good things.
        My time is up. I don't know if the chairman will allow you
    to answer that or not. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. Did you want to respond or not?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sure it is not an easy answer, sir. But,
    you know, I have asked the office of our Inspector General to
    take a look at this.
        I think the distinction I was trying to make is Flint is,
    no doubt, a tragedy. I know how it came about. Why I don't
    know, but I know how it came about.
        The question for EPA is, did we respond quickly enough when
    we found out that there was a problem? Did everybody raise it
    as quickly as they could, so that we could address it? That is
    a significant issue of accountability that we need to face, and
    we will face that.
        The individual in the region did resign, knowing it was on
    her watch. But we will see what the Office of the Inspector
    General says.
        Mr. Griffith. I don't think it is just the Inspector
    General, Madam. I believe it is also you. You are the boss.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Capps, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members. Thank
    you for holding this hearing.
        Thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here today.
        Clean drinking water, wastewater treatment, stormwater
    management systems, these are critical to our nation's basic
    functioning. Accessible water for agriculture is paramount to
    our economy and food security.
        But, unfortunately, and as has been discussed, our nation's
    water infrastructure is aging and deteriorating, and the
    impacts of this deterioration are significant and they are
    costly.
        We also know that climate change is directly threatening
    our ability to guarantee the delivery of safe and reliable
    drinking water, and at the same time it exacerbates the
    inadequacies of our nation's water infrastructure. So, it is
    kind of a perfect storm.
        One effect of climate change that has been particularly
    devastating to my home State of California is drought, a word
    we hadn't talked about it for a little while, but it is always
    there. While parts of California have had a little rain
    recently as a result of some kind of ongoing El Nino, this
    relief has not been equally felt across the State and we are by
    no means out of the woods.
        For example, in my district is a lake called Lake Cachuma.
    It is the source of our drinking water for over 220,000
    residents in and around Santa Barbara. This vitally-important
    reservoir has less than 15 percent of the water it can hold.
    Given the impacts of climate change, drought will,
    unfortunately, continue to be a pervasive issue, not only in
    California, but in other states as well.
        We have to act now to minimize the impacts of the changes
    and ensure that we are prepared. We have to do everything at
    once, juggle a lot of balls for the challenges that are ahead.
        I know EPA is working to address these issues. And just
    yesterday the President announced the establishment of the
    National Drought Resilience Partnership, NDRP--they always get
    an acronym right away--as part of his Climate Action Plan. NDRP
    will help to coordinate drought-related efforts, which is good,
    communities to mitigate the effects of the drought and build
    resilience. Those are the keywords, mitigation and resilience
    against future droughts. Everything has to be done at the same
    time. The NDRP will help coordinate it, do all of this, and I
    applaud the President for these efforts, as it clearly needs to
    be a priority for us all.
        I have a few questions for you, if we can kind of zip
    through them. I wanted you to just briefly describe EPA's role
    in the NDRP.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, EPA is part of the project.
        Mrs. Capps. Yes.
        Ms. McCarthy. EPA brings to it a level of expertise in how
    communities can work through these issues. We provide tools.
        Mrs. Capps. So, you are at the table?
        Ms. McCarthy. Oh, absolutely, yes.
        Mrs. Capps. OK. So, are there some existing programs that
    you have already that will help to implement this initiative?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes. We have been leading really a federal
    effort to look at resiliency issues and to develop tools that
    communities can use to understand opportunities for capturing
    water, keeping it local, and preserving it and conserving it.
        Mrs. Capps. And can I go home and talk about how the EPA's
    drought-related efforts will assist communities like ours right
    on the central coast----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, you can.
        Mrs. Capps [continuing]. Because they are waiting for some
    good news?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mrs. Capps. OK. They look to the sky and the rain doesn't
    come enough. And now, they are going to look to you,
    Administrator McCarthy.
        As part of the NDRP, what kind of outreach and education
    strategies will be utilized? A lot of this is in how we present
    ourselves in the community. You know, are we here to work with
    existing partnerships? And there are many of them on the
    ground.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we certainly, as part of our proposal,
    are looking for some more additional money to look at making
    sure we have basically what we call circuit riders, which is
    individuals with expertise in this area, so that they can be
    available full time to go work with communities on this issue.
        Mrs. Capps. Can you describe that? There is another minute
    left on my time. It goes fast.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mrs. Capps. I would like to hear more about these circuit
    riders? That is kind of a western term.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, circuit riders mean that you can't
    build expertise everywhere and afford to get everybody up to a
    certain level. So, you basically have people in each region
    whose job it will be to work with communities, identify
    opportunities for tools that are available to us. We actually
    have a whole local community package on our web page of tools
    that they can look at and make available to themselves.
    Hopefully, it will help them jumpstart. Then, we share best
    practices. We look at what communities like yours that we could
    marry with and make progress moving forward.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
        I am going to suggest what you are saying. Hopefully, there
    is a way I can do that with some of my district folks.
        What has happened now with this word drought that is
    looming large over us is that this suddenly has everybody's
    attention. We have got all these constituencies all needing
    water. And so, reclaiming, recycling, we are building a desal
    plant, we have to look to you as a partner at the table.
        Ms. McCarthy. One of the issues we need to look at is how
    that is connected with infrastructure and investments like
    drinking water, stormwater. You need to keep water local.
    Drinking water systems like the one in Flint loses 30 to 40
    percent of its water in leaks alone. We simply can't afford
    that.
        Mrs. Capps. No, we can't afford that. We need that water
    that is leaking in Flint in my district.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio,
    Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Administrator McCarthy, thanks for being with us
    today.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you for having me.
        Mr. Johnson. As you know, America's brick and tile industry
    is struggling in our current economy. It is made up largely of
    small family-owned businesses that have been in business for
    generations and for the most part or in many cases are the only
    source of employment in the communities in which they reside,
    where they provide jobs and a tax base for their communities.
        The House recently passed bipartisan legislation that would
    impose a legislative stay of the Brick MACT Rule, pending
    judicial review. Administrator McCarthy, is the EPA willing to
    provide an administrative stay to protect these small
    businesses, especially given what happened to this industry
    before the rule was vacated in 2007, after they had already
    come into full compliance with a previous rule in 2003?
        Ms. McCarthy. We actually think that, when we met with
    small businesses, we did a good job at listening to the
    flexibility they needed in the rule itself. We provided very
    flexible options for smaller businesses, so they could comply.
    We actually gave maximum time as well for compliance.
        So, we believe that the rule as written should continue to
    move through the courts. Hopefully, we will have that on the
    books because it yields significant reductions in toxic
    pollutants in a way that we think small businesses can manage--
    --
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, I am going to get to that aspect of it in
    a moment. But here's the problem: the industry doesn't see it
    the way that you just described it.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars to
    comply with the 2003 rule, only to have it set aside by the
    courts in 2007. Then, when the EPA started formulating this new
    Brick MACT, they started with a baseline of where the 2007 rule
    that was set aside ended off----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Giving the industry very little
    credit for the accomplishments of the reductions that they had
    achieved with the hundreds of millions of dollars that they had
    invested for control technology between 2003 and 2007.
        So, here they are again under stress. I mean, there are
    only about 7,000 jobs in America attributed to the brick
    industry. The industry is telling us that many of these small
    businesses will close down. And here is the real crux of the
    issue: we don't import brick in America. We have got a brick
    and tile industry that makes our construction materials. We
    don't import it from anybody else.
        Ms. McCarthy. No.
        Mr. Johnson. Unless we want to start making buildings and
    homes out of sticks and straw, we had better figure this out
    because these companies cannot continue to stand up under this
    duress. And we are not suggesting that we not move forward with
    the rule. We are just suggesting that we delay the rule, an
    administrative stay, work with your Department to do that,
    until the judicial reviews are completed. If the courts say,
    fine, go ahead, then we have something else to talk about. But
    that seems to be the prudent thing to do, rather than put this
    industry through another round of egregious compliance that the
    courts could come back and set aside, but then the damage will
    have been done again and we may lose a lot of our brick
    manufacturing capability.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, I think the administration has
    already submitted a SAP indicating that we really don't want to
    give up what amounts to 30 tons of reduction of toxic
    emissions.
        Mr. Johnson. So, they are willing to give up bricks and our
    ability to build buildings and homes for that?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, sir. We think that small businesses have
    been given enough flexibility in the rule as it has been
    designed. But I certainly understand your concern.
        Mr. Johnson. We disagree.
        Ms. McCarthy. If we have the Congress and the President
    move forward, we will certainly abide by it.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we disagree strongly.
        Your agency has recently proposed an update to the Cross-
    State Air Pollution Rule. Many states and stakeholders have
    raised concerns about the feasibility of implementing EPA's
    proposal, especially within a short period of time. It has got
    a proposed implementation of this summer or the summer of 2017.
        So, has your Department, your agency, done a specific
    analysis of this latest proposal on the reliability of the
    electricity grid and, if not, why not?
        Ms. McCarthy. I certainly know that we have done a
    regulatory impact assessment on this rule. This rule, it used
    to be called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. I think we
    still do call it that. But this is an actually very
    sophisticated and should be very successful trading program.
    So, it does provide lots of flexibilities to get these
    reductions, and it is a rule that we just proposed. We are in
    the comment period. We certainly want to take cognizance of the
    comments that come in and anticipate any adjustments that are
    necessary before the rule might be finalized.
        Mr. Johnson. I know I am over my time, Mr. Chairman.
        But would the EPA consider reproposing this rule, given the
    concerns that have been raised about the likely unworkability
    of the proposal?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we just proposed it, sir. It is going
    to be important for us to see what the comments look like when
    they come in.
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
    Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks, Administrator McCarthy, for coming over today.
        In 2005, when Congress passed the Energy Act, they exempted
    hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act, as you
    know. In 2009, our former colleague Maurice Hinchey and I, we
    secured funding for the EPA to study the effects of hydraulic
    fracturing on drinking water. Up to that date, the research on
    fracking was very limited and it mostly consisted of reviews of
    similarly-limited literature.
        So, especially being from Colorado, where we have a lot of
    fracking going on, I thought it was important that we
    understood the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking
    water. So, last June the agency issued a draft version of the
    assessment, and it found that there were mechanisms by which
    hydraulic fracturing activities could impact drinking water
    resources.
        But, then, at the same time, the press release and the
    executive summary that came out also prominently stated that
    hydraulic fracturing has not led to ``wide systematic impacts''
    to the drinking water of the United States.
        I was, frankly, surprised in this press release that it
    would say that because the study that we authorized was
    designed to develop the understanding of specific ways that
    contamination could occur with hydraulic fracturing. Frankly, I
    am glad that we haven't had wide systematic impacts, but it
    doesn't matter whether we have had it, if it could occur.
        And so, what we were trying to do is to say figure out the
    preliminary research that could characterize the currently
    little understood or unknown pathways to contaminating of
    drinking water from hydraulic fracturing, not in broad
    proclamations.
        And then, in the draft version of the study the EPA said,
    ``The limited amount of data collected before and during
    hydraulic fracturing activities reduces the ability to
    determine whether hydraulic fracturing affected drinking water
    resources in cases of alleged contamination.''
        And then, the Scientific Advisory Board charged with
    reviewing the study agreed that the broad declarations in the
    summary and press materials ``are presented ambiguously and are
    inconsistent with the observations, data, and levels of
    uncertainty presented in the report''. So, basically, this
    preliminary version that was released last June, it just
    created even more confusion, which is what we have had since
    2005.
        And so, what I am worried about is that the EPA doesn't
    know still, and cannot estimate still, what the potential
    impacts of drinking water contamination are. The assessment
    identifies several mechanisms by which a spill, leak, or
    migration of hydraulic fracturing fluids could potentially
    contaminate drinking water, but the scope of the study didn't
    have the EPA evaluate how those events would affect human
    health.
        So, pretty soon here, I am hoping in the next few months,
    the EPA will release the final report. I am hoping what it will
    do is more clearly emphasize the risk, the real scientific
    risk, to drinking water resources and what we can do, how we
    can get that data to ensure that our drinking water is safe.
        Anyway, you might want to comment on that in one minute and
    four seconds.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. McCarthy. OK. My only comment is I think that it was
    clearly a necessary study for us to do. I think very often,
    when we put out a science study, people will pick and choose--
    --
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. Sentences in it. Basically, we
    said we didn't have evidence of widespread systemic impacts to
    drinking water, but we clearly did identify that there are
    potential mechanisms in the water system where impacts could
    occur, but there were also opportunities for offsetting those
    by taking the right preventive measures----
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. Like looking at how you
    construct a well, understanding your groundwater flow and
    pattern before you even consider inserting hydro-frack fluid
    into the groundwater----
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. Or below the groundwater.
        So, there are challenges here, but we did suffer from
    having little real data, significant amounts of data, to more
    effectively be able to speak with certainty about what was
    going on.
        Ms. DeGette. Well, I am just hoping that, when you all
    issue the final results of the study, that you can clearly say
    where the gaps still are. Because that is exactly why we need
    the study, to be able to say how you can do fracking in a safe
    way that protects our drinking water, which I think it can
    happen, but we need to get that data to know how.
        Ms. McCarthy. In many ways, we are relying on states like
    Colorado.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for joining us
    today.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Hudson. Administrator, I am sure you are familiar with
    EPA's proposed rule released last July that proposed new
    greenhouse gas standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hudson. Are you aware that in the middle of that
    proposed rule there is a proposal by EPA to make it illegal to
    modify vehicles used solely for competition?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, I don't believe that that is what it
    says, but I certainly understand the section that you are
    talking about.
        Mr. Hudson. Well, I can read the language to you. It says,
    ``Certified motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and their
    emission control devices must remain in their certified
    configuration even if they are used solely for competition or
    if they become non-road vehicles or engines.''
        It seems pretty clear to me. In your opinion, are owners of
    vehicles that have been modified so they can be used for
    competition now abolished in the law?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, there is a clear exemption in the
    statute that addresses NASCAR and other professional raceways
    and why we do not regulate those vehicles. I think we were very
    directly trying to make sure that we are doing no more than
    what we have done before in terms of either compliance or
    enforcement. And we are trying to recognize that exemption and
    that rule.
        Now I fully recognize that this has raised a lot of
    confusion and we need to address this confusion moving forward,
    because there is no way--NASCAR has been a great partner of
    EPA. They do great work on biofuels. The last thing I want to
    do is alienate them. That is for sure.
        Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that, but NASCAR is one facet.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Hudson. But what about the man or woman who likes to
    take a car in their backyard and fix it up and take it down to
    the local drag strip and race it? I mean, that kind of
    modification it appears very clearly is now ruled out.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we have never ever enforced on an
    individual of that nature. What we are trying to do is get at
    manufacturers of these devices, that they sell and make sure
    that they sell them only for competitive dedicated vehicles.
    Because it is really challenging to us to make sure that the
    certified vehicles remain in compliance with air regulations.
        Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate what you are saying, but it
    says here emission fuel devices must remain a certified
    configuration, even if they are used solely for competition. I
    mean, it sounds different; the rule sounds different from what
    you are explaining.
        Ms. McCarthy. We will do the very best we can. We have had
    substantial amounts of discussion. Whatever we can do to
    clarify this, we are going to be able to take those steps.
        Mr. Hudson. Well, I think taking the words ``solely used
    for competition'' out----
        Ms. McCarthy. I will have to see it in its entirety, and I
    am not a lawyer. I appreciate the need to use common-sense
    language. I know that what I have told you is what our intent
    was. We will make sure that the language matches that.
        Mr. Hudson. OK. Well, I certainly appreciate that because
    not only is this an important way of life for a lot of
    Americans who enjoy taking cars and modifying them, so they can
    race, but it is a billion-dollar industry of aftermarket folks
    who make parts for people to use in competition.
        I remember, back in February, you testified before the
    committee and you made the point that not one EPA regulation
    has ever cost one job. I am telling you this is a billion-
    dollar industry that would be wiped out if we can't clarify
    this and make sure the intent you have expressed is reflected
    in the regulation.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from North
    Dakota, Mr. Cramer, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Ms. McCarthy, for being with us.
        Ms. McCarthy, I have a couple of questions, maybe a
    statement and a request. Are you familiar or how familiar are
    you with a series of enforcement actions that your agency is
    working with the DOJ on using Section 114 to basically find
    consent, I guess, or a consent decree with a number of North
    Dakota oil companies? How familiar are you with that action?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am somewhat familiar with it, sir.
        Mr. Cramer. Yes. Does it seem like it makes sense to use a
    consent decree or to bully, if you will--my term, bully, and
    many companies' term, by the way--bully companies into some
    sort of agreement apart from a transparent process?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually, sir, settlement agreements
    are reached in order to get compliance and make it easier for
    both the industry as well as----
        Mr. Cramer. Let me ask, are you familiar with a memo from
    Cynthia Giles from your office, the enforcement shop, to
    Regional Directors where she discusses the EPA's plan of,
    quote, ``innovative enforcement'' to force upon companies the
    compliance tools that go well beyond the regulations and laws
    as they currently exist? Are you familiar with that memo?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am not sure what----
        Mr. Cramer. Are you familiar with the term ``innovative
    enforcement''?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we actually are using a lot of
    innovation to make sure that we can use our resources wisely,
    take advantage of new technologies that are out there.
        Mr. Cramer. OK. Technologies such as perhaps FLIR cameras?
    Are you familiar with the use of FLIR cameras to capture images
    of----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Cramer [continuing]. Methane gas escaping?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Cramer. Do you know that FLIR cameras do not measure
    the amount of methane that is being leaked from a----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cramer. OK. So, how do you, then, justify going to a
    company and saying, ``You are not in compliance'' based on this
    FLIR camera which does not measure the amount of the emission
    and then, I guess, threaten them with a fine of several
    thousand dollars per days since the construction? Are you
    familiar with threats of fines of millions, tens of millions,
    hundreds of millions, even multiple billions of dollars against
    companies?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am aware that we have reached settlements
    using that as a----
        Mr. Cramer. You have not reached any settlement in North
    Dakota with an oil company yet. You have with Mobil, a gas
    company, very different than oil----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Cramer [continuing]. In Colorado; Colorado, a non-
    attainment state, and North Dakota, an attainment state.
        My point is this: by attainment--you seem confused--that
    means attaining, meeting the compliance, compliant with your
    Ambient Air Quality Standards. North Dakota does that.
        My point is this: this is a State Health Department issue,
    in my view, not an EPA issue. North Dakota is a compliant
    state, not a non-compliant state. Our industry, in response to
    early notices from the EPA, well over a year ago, nearly 2
    years ago now, our State Health Department, our Oil and Gas
    Division which operates under the North Dakota Industrial
    Commission, which is three elected officials, the governor,
    attorney general, and the commissioner, working with industry,
    came up with a comprehensive plan, a global plan to deal with
    100 percent of the emissions.
        Your agency, ignoring that, rather than participating in
    that, has picked one company at a time--there are now somewhere
    around half a dozen to a dozen companies--to try to find
    consent, in other words, admission of guilt to something that I
    don't believe they are guilty of, by using this innovative
    enforcement activity. I find it, frankly, reprehensible.
    Frankly, I find it illegal.
        But, when companies are forced, especially with $40-a-
    barrel oil to less, forced to either pay millions of dollars in
    attorneys' fees to fight this or comply or consent, sometimes
    it is cheaper to consent. I don't think that is an appropriate
    regulatory regime, quite honestly.
        I would rather see, here is what I would in the last
    minute. I want to ask you this closing question, and I am
    looking for a really good answer. Will you commit today to,
    instead of using these 114, this bullying tactic--again, my
    term--extortion tactics, would you, instead, work with our
    State and work with our Health Department, work with our
    Industrial Commission, our Oil and Gas Division, and our
    industry who want to comply 100 percent--they all want to
    comply--work with them on a global solution that actually
    reaches attainment rather than a fine or a penalty? How about
    we do that? You agree to that today and we will have a great
    industry.
        Ms. McCarthy. I will say 114 is an information collection
    request.
        Mr. Cramer. Yes, it is.
        Ms. McCarthy. And the tool that you are talking about is a
    screening mechanism that asks the question whether or not we
    think there may be significant violations of emissions of
    volatile organic compounds. And that is why you ask for the
    information from the companies. I wouldn't characterize it as a
    bullying tactic.
        Mr. Cramer. Well, except I think an issue is used to try to
    extort huge fines----
        Ms. McCarthy. It is used to see whether or not they are in
    compliance, and that has nothing to do with non-attainment.
    That has to do----
        Mr. Cramer. Explain that to the DOJ attorneys.
        My time has expired.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, I appreciate your raising that issue
    because all of us have heard about that issue, and I am glad
    that he brought it to your attention.
        Ms. McCarthy. Could I just mention, and we are certainly
    happy to--we are in discussions with the State of North Dakota
    on this, and we would love to be able----
        Mr. Cramer. Well, we could save a lot of your budget money
    if you would just let the State handle it.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time the Chair recognizes the
    gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Ellmers, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Bloom, for being here
    today for this subcommittee hearing.
        Administrator McCarthy, the 2015 ozone standards
    immediately apply to preconstruction permits that businesses
    need to grow and create jobs. That means businesses will have
    to immediately show their projects meet the 2015 Ozone
    Standard, something that may be hard to demonstrate in an area
    that it is or may be going into non-attainment status.
        What preconstruction permitting relief will EPA provide for
    areas in this situation?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, what preconstruction--what did
    you say?
        Mrs. Ellmers. What preconstruction permitting relief will
    the EPA provide for areas in this situation? What are the
    options for a non-attainment status area for preconstruction
    permitting?
        Ms. McCarthy. Right. The non-attainment designation isn't
    even going to be made until 2017. So, we are working with
    states to make sure that they understand what their attainment
    status might look like, but there is a fairly-lengthy process.
    We work back and forth with the governor of each state to
    identify non-attainment areas.
        Mrs. Ellmers. OK. So, that does not go into effect until
    2017?
        Ms. McCarthy. We haven't even finished collecting that data
    that would go into determining non-attainment yet. That is
    through 2016.
        Mrs. Ellmers. OK. So, the Obama administration pledged the
    United States would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28
    percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Were you consulted? Was the
    EPA consulted on that? I mean, how did the President come up
    with that number by 2025?
        Ms. McCarthy. This has to do with reductions of greenhouse
    gases nationally. That is a determination that is made by the
    White House in consultation with all of the agencies, including
    EPA, that look at what existing authority we have, what is
    planned, what is reasonable, and what is achievable.
        Mrs. Ellmers. So, can you explain that process then? So,
    you are saying that EPA was involved. Number 1, what other
    agencies were involved? And describe that process to us of how
    that became the determining number.
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I wasn't involved in the
    calculation of that number. EPA's job was to look at our
    regulatory authority, what we thought was reasonable and
    achievable under our existing authorities. We provided that
    information to the White House. Other agencies similarly did
    that. And that was the commitment, and the accounting was done
    behind that to submit for our commitment.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Was the public consulted on this beforehand?
        Ms. McCarthy. I apologize.
        Mrs. Ellmers. No problem. Was the public, was there a
    comment period for the public on this? Again, I am trying to
    find out how we came up with that number and was there
    consideration of public comment.
        Ms. McCarthy. I am not aware of that process.
        Mrs. Ellmers. OK. Well, I guess what I am asking now is,
    can you provide for the committee what it was or the sources
    that the EPA used to--I know you said that this has more to do
    with jurisdiction, the involvement of regulations and
    authority. Can you provide for the committee what information
    you used to come up with the EPA's authority on that?
        Ms. McCarthy. I can see what I can make available to you--
    --
        Mrs. Ellmers. OK.
        Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. And at what level. The reason I
    am just double-checking is I believe that number was by 2030,
    not 2025.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Not 2025? OK.
        Ms. McCarthy. I could be wrong, but I am just having
    trouble----
        Mrs. Ellmers. OK. Questionable 2030. OK. All right.
        I just want in the time I have left--I only have about 40
    seconds left--EPA's budget document states that the Clean Power
    Plan is ``The President's highest priority for the EPA and the
    central element of the U.S. domestic climate mitigation
    agenda.''
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Is the Obama administration's pledge to
    reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels
    contingent on the Clean Power Plan?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the Clean Power Plan was a reflection
    of what we thought the direction of the energy transition was
    heading. What we are seeing already is that the energy
    transition is happening towards the low-carbon sources even
    more quickly than we had anticipated. So, we fully expect the
    Clean Power Plan, when it is looked at on its merits, would be
    found to be legally solid. We don't think we are going to lose
    any ground in terms of our ability to make those commitments
    real.
        Mrs. Ellmers. OK. So, just in closing, because I am
    actually over time, you don't believe that there would be a
    delay further at the court level as far as the Clean Power Plan
    goes?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think that the Clean Power Plan will be
    found to be legally solid and it will move forward, and that we
    will not be in a position to have lost ground in the end, when
    it is fully implemented.
        Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time the Chair recognizes the
    gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much.
        Sorry.
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry.
        Mr. Bucshon. No, no, no, I just totally paused my time
    while you had to get some counsel from your staff.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Bucshon. A couple of things. First of all, earlier in
    your testimony you mentioned carbon capture and sequestration,
    facility sites that are working in the United States. Can you
    give me the name and the address of all of those places that
    are----
        Ms. McCarthy. I would be happy to do that.
        Mr. Bucshon. And whether or not they are in continuous
    operation?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Because that I am aware of--I mean, maybe I am
    wrong--but there aren't any. There is a couple of--one in
    Illinois and one up in Canada. If there are some down in the
    South, maybe Louisiana that are working----
        Ms. McCarthy. We definitely want to----
        Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. I would be interested in knowing
    because you made it sound like this is an ubiquitous thing
    across the country, that carbon capture is----
        Ms. McCarthy. I would be happy to do that, sir. I do
    realize that----
        Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. is working because----
        Ms. McCarthy. But it is used not just on coal facilities,
    on generating facilities. It has other applications where it is
    being used today.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. So, are there any coal facilities that it
    is working on right now today?
        Ms. McCarthy. I believe it is in Kemper here and I believe
    there is a dam in Canada where it is being fully utilized.
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes, and the one in Canada is going broke, by
    the way, and the one in Illinois----
        Mr. Whitfield. And Kemper is not operating.
        Mr. Bucshon. And Kemper is not operating.
        Ms. McCarthy. OK.
        Mr. Bucshon. So, the idea is that was misleading, I think,
    to say that carbon capture and sequestration, when we were
    talking about coal-fired power plants, is commercially viable.
    In Indiana I have every coal mine in the State. So, to my
    knowledge, it is not commercially viable or economically viable
    to implement that in Indiana. If it was, I would be in favor of
    it being on all of our coal-fired power plants.
        Just so you know, I agree the temperature is changing. I
    agree that, with technology and innovation, we should always be
    advancing how to use all of our fuels. I agree with that
    premise. What I don't agree with is federal agencies setting
    regulations that can't be met with current technology, and that
    is what this is doing.
        With that said, I am going to change course a little bit
    and talk about athletic fields.
        Ms. McCarthy. OK.
        Mr. Bucshon. We have noticed that, I think, in recent media
    reports in the press about alleged potential adverse health
    effects young people might experience from playing on crumb
    rubber athletic fields. Almost two months after the committee
    sent you a letter asking a number of questions about this
    situation, Dr. Thomas Burke signed a letter stating that,
    although the EPA was aware of the number of studies that showed
    no elevated health risks, the studies are limited and did not
    comprehensively address the concerns about risks to children's
    health from these exposures.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Bucshon. EPA then said that, in order to fill in the
    gaps, it was planning to work with the State of California on a
    comprehensive evaluation of tire crumb. Ultimately, the EPA
    decided not to work with California and now is collaborating
    with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission on a 1-year study.
        So, the question I have is, what changed the EPA's mind
    about working with California. I mean, I am just generally
    interested in getting the information, so that all of us can
    make an assessment of whether this is or is not a problem for
    kids.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I appreciate that. Part of the
    challenge that we were facing was that some of the studies, the
    earlier studies that had been done, really weren't looking at
    the material that is being used currently in most fields. We
    are finding that the material themselves, those small balls
    that are being used, actually have an opportunity for potential
    exposures that we hadn't really looked at. And the materials
    themselves are changing. So, we felt that it was prudent, given
    the concerns, to just take a look at it because the material
    itself is changing.
        Mr. Bucshon. Sure.
        Ms. McCarthy. How it is being utilized is different. We
    thought we should at least close the loop to make sure that
    there weren't human exposure potentials that we hadn't yet
    evaluated.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK, and I appreciate it. So, the study, is it
    1 year? You are planning on a 1-year study----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. That will have the impacts?
        Ms. McCarthy. We are hoping to have good data by the end of
    this year.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. Tell me the kind of description of it
    because I was a healthcare provider before I was a doctor, and
    sometimes it takes many, many years to determine the health
    impacts. If you do a study for a year----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Bucshon. If you do a study for a year, then you may not
    know what the health impacts are for 5 or 10 years later. I am
    just kind of interested in that.
        Ms. McCarthy. When we got together, we realized that there
    were studies being done, but people were concerned. And the
    scientists said the first question to look at is whether there
    was any potential exposure route. If I can't ingest it, if it
    can't get in my blood, if it can't get into my system--so, this
    is really about identifying whether there is an exposure route.
        Mr. Bucshon. That makes total sense. OK. So, it is just the
    initial study is about exposure, only about exposure, not----
        Ms. McCarthy. It is not what that exposure results in in
    terms of health impacts.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. OK. That clarified it.
        Well, this seems to me a developing important issue related
    to athletic fields not only for children, but other athletes.
    And so, I appreciate your work.
        Thank you for being here.
        I yield back.
        Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I raised
    confusion. I think it is 26 to 28 percent by 2025. I had a
    little brain freeze. So, I just wanted to thaw it out while I
    had a moment.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much for bringing that to our
    attention.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
    Mullin, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator, thank you for being here today. I cannot
    imagine how bad your head must be hurting going through this
    entire line of questioning, but we do appreciate your time and
    your effort for being here.
        I have a couple of questions. On January 14th of this year,
    I sent a letter, along with 14 other members who sit on this
    committee and subcommittees, with three questions about your
    agency's plan to send U.S. federal employees overseas to help
    countries meet emission chart targets that were set at the
    Conference of Paris at the end of last year. We requested the
    answers by January 29th. It is now March 22nd, and we have yet
    to hear from anybody. Are you aware of this letter? Have you
    received this letter?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sure the agency has. I will double-check
    on the response. Is this specific to Paris or is this more
    broad?
        Mr. Mullin. This is specific to Paris, to a statement that
    you made while speaking to send federal employees, EPA
    employees, over to other countries to help them identify
    emissions. Are you familiar with that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Not particularly, but I will certainly look
    at it.
        Mr. Mullin. You gave a speech at the Council of Foreign
    Relations----
        Ms. McCarthy. OK.
        Mr. Mullin [continuing]. And you mentioned that the EPA
    would deploy employees to certain countries to help these
    countries learn how to identify and measure sources of
    greenhouse gas emissions.
        The letter that we sent to you specifically asked three
    different questions. Now, one, I do have a letter here with me
    that I will be happy to give to you, and I would like to submit
    it, also, for the record. I have a copy for you to have.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Mullin. It asks three questions. And those three
    questions, since you are here today, I am going to go ahead and
    ask you. One, how many U.S. federal employees will be deployed
    to participate in these countries?
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't know the answer to that question,
    sir. I think you are referring to the work we do with the
    Department of State to do capacity-building in other countries.
    Very often, that is----
        Mr. Mullin. That may be true, but in your statement you
    said that the EPA was going to deploy these.
        Ms. McCarthy. The EPA does do that, but we often resource
    from the Department of State for those----
        Mr. Mullin. So, how many employees do you plan on sending?
    I mean, you are here today to talk about your budget, and I am
    concerned that the EPA is using taxpayer dollars to send
    employees to other countries to help them with a non-binding
    agreement that was set in Paris.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the kind of resources that we have in
    our international unit is actually very small. If we want to
    utilize more for a purpose like this, which is our capacity-
    building, related to the Paris agreement, then it usually is
    the Department of State provides us those direct resources.
        Mr. Mullin. We have reached out personally from my office.
    The Oversight Committee has also reached out, to zero response,
    none.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mullin. Your office has yet to respond back to us. We
    asked for January 29th. And so, once again, I will ask these
    three questions. If you don't have the answers, I would really
    appreciate your getting back to us----
        Ms. McCarthy. OK.
        Mr. Mullin [continuing]. In a timely manner----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Mullin [continuing]. Which hasn't happened so far.
        One was, how many federal employees are going to be
    deployed? Second, how long will these employees be deployed?
    And third, what will the cost be to deploy?
        Ms. McCarthy. OK. So, I will go check on the response and--
    --
        Mr. Mullin. Do you have any answers to that right now?
        Ms. McCarthy. I do not know the answers to those questions.
        Mr. Mullin. Do you think it is appropriate to send
    individuals from the EPA that are being paid by taxpayer
    dollars from the United States to help countries meet a non-
    binding agreement?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sir, we do work internationally because
    pollution knows no boundaries.
        Mr. Mullin. How much do you spend in the EPA working in
    other countries? Is it EPA? I mean, because we have a hard
    enough time dealing with you guys in the United States, much
    less in other countries.
        Ms. McCarthy. We have very few resources in this regard,
    but we utilize them in----
        Mr. Mullin. What are the resources you----
        Ms. McCarthy. We spend a lot of time training trainers in
    other countries to----
        Mr. Mullin. When you say ``very little,'' what is that
    number? You are referring to a specific number by saying ``very
    little''. How much is that number?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me tell you.
        Mr. Mullin. I would appreciate that.
        Ms. McCarthy. This has to do with the total number of
    grants is less than 1 percent.
        Mr. Mullin. What is that 1 percent? What does that
    represent in dollar amounts?
        Ms. McCarthy. One point six million.
        Mr. Mullin. One point six? And that is not including what
    the State Department helps offset, is that correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. That would be our resources. The State
    Department would----
        Mr. Mullin. Can you give me----
        Ms. McCarthy. Oh, I am sorry. I am sorry. That includes
    State Department.
        Mr. Mullin. That includes the State Department?
        Ms. McCarthy. Is that what you said?
        Mr. Bloom. Or come from other federal agencies.
        Ms. McCarthy. Let me get back to you.
        Mr. Mullin. I would appreciate the total numbers, if you
    don't mind.
        Ms. McCarthy. I don't want to be incorrect.
        Mr. Mullin. I am out of time, but I would make sure in a
    timely manner that you respond back to us, because, once again,
    this is talking about budget and we are talking about dollars
    spent here. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. And also, I mean, that is a very good point.
    We would like to know the total dollar value of the grants
    given to other countries by EPA.
        Mr. Mullin. Yes.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
        At this time the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
    Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Ms. McCarthy, I understand that the EPA has set a
    standard of 70 parts per billion for the 2015 Ozone Standards.
    Does this mean that counties over 70 parts per billion will be
    designated as being in non-attainment, I think is the phrase
    you use, with the 2015 standards?
        Ms. McCarthy. It means that we are looking at 2014, 2015,
    and 2016, using a specific formula to identify those that are
    in non-attainment.
        Mr. Long. But the ones that will be in non-attainment are
    the ones that are over 70 parts per billion, correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Long. OK.
        Ms. McCarthy. Using that formula.
        Mr. Long. And will those counties become subject to new
    planning requirements like State Implementation Plans, and
    other obligations?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Long. Counties that are below 70 parts per billion will
    not be subject to these same planning requirements, is that
    correct?
        Ms. McCarthy. They may be subject to earlier requirements,
    depending upon whether----
        Mr. Long. No, I am not talking about earlier requirements.
    I am talking about this requirement.
        Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, they would not be.
        Mr. Long. OK. The EPA has said that most areas will be in
    compliance with the 2015 standards by 2025 under existing
    regulations and programs. Once these counties meet the
    standards in 2025, will the non-attainment designation
    automatically be lifted or is there a process for that, also?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, there is a process for that.
        Mr. Long. OK. My understanding is that, once an area is
    designated to be a non-attainment, it is locked into a complex
    bureaucratic process to meet these standards, followed by an
    additional 20 years of the maintenance plan and oversight from
    the EPA. How is it that the county that is just over 70 parts
    per billion gets locked in a 20-year-plus process while similar
    counties just barely under 70 parts per billion do not have to
    undergo this process? Could you explain----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Long [continuing]. The wisdom of that to me?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think that what we try to make sure that we
    do is, when you are designated as non-attainment, we try to
    make sure that whatever actions the state took to drive down
    the pollution that level and to achieve healthy air does not
    backslide. So, it is just a question of maintaining those
    actions, so that you can continue moving forward, knowing that
    you have not only achieved it on a given date, but you don't
    backslide and start allowing emissions that would, then, drive
    you into non-attainment again.
        Mr. Long. But the ones that barely got under the 70
    billion, do they have to worry about backsliding?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, they don't because we have determined
    that that is the level that we are seeking to achieve to
    provide healthier air, and there is no legal reason why we
    would want them to do more. We want everybody to stay below
    that 70 level.
        Mr. Long. Is there any way to reduce the 20-year regulatory
    burden on counties that are just barely out of the window?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we are talking to the states because I
    think there is an opportunity to streamline that process, and
    we are working with states all the time to try to make sure
    that we do that, to streamline the process of redesignating
    them as areas of attainment and, also, that we make sure that
    we don't overburden them with this obligation for anti-
    backsliding.
        We know that states worked hard to get there. They don't
    want to backslide. We just want to make sure that we have a
    system in place that maintains that. But if there are ways in
    which we can streamline it, we certainly want to do it.
        Mr. Long. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi,
    Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator McCarthy, I know it has been a long day. We
    thank you for coming, though, to help us understand some of
    these issues in a better manner.
        The Clean Power Plan includes various compliance deadlines
    for states ranging from September of this year, when plans
    would have been due, through 2030. Assuming that the rule is
    upheld, won't each deadline under the rule be extended by the
    amount of time for completion of judicial review?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, that is not actually what the Supreme
    Court said, but we assume that the courts will make that
    judgment over time or leave that to EPA to make their own
    judgment. It is usually spoken to, but not at this stage.
        Mr. Harper. Well, let me ask you, are you aware that in the
    filings submitted to the Supreme Court that the Solicitor
    General explicitly said that the effect of the stay would be
    toll every sequential step of the rule's implementation?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think what he was speaking to was that the
    request for a stay included that in it, but the Supreme Court
    did not choose to make that determination. They simply said
    that it would be stayed until it made its way back. And we
    expect that it will be there in due time and that the courts
    really will speak to that or give it to EPA to make that
    determination. But I don't know what choice they are going to
    make until they go and make it.
        Mr. Harper. Sure. The Solicitor General also said that
    granting the stay--and I am quoting what he said, ``would toll
    all of the rule's deadlines, even those that do not come due
    until many years after'' the case would be resolved, for the
    period of time between the rule's publication and the ultimate
    disposition of this suit. Was the Solicitor General right or
    wrong when he----
        Ms. McCarthy. No, he was speaking to the full breadth of
    what folks were looking for who were seeking a stay. But the
    Supreme Court didn't speak to that issue. The only thing they
    spoke to was the stay of the rule. They didn't speak to any
    tolling or what it meant in terms of compliance timelines.
        Mr. Harper. Sure. Are you encouraging states and utilities
    to continue to work with EPA in the event that the rule is
    upheld?
        Ms. McCarthy. We are certainly encouraging states to
    continue to look at where their energy system is moving
    forward, and we have made ourselves available to states that
    voluntarily want to keep looking at their implementation
    options. And we will keep working with them on that, but we
    certainly won't do anything that implements or enforces the
    rule, consistent with the Supreme Court stay dictates.
        Mr. Harper. The point of the stay was to protect the
    economic interests of states and stakeholders, regardless of
    whether the rule is overturned. So, you appear to be signaling
    the states that they must continue to take action and expend
    resources, and signaling to utilities that they must respond to
    the potential rule, which appears to undermine the purpose of
    the stay. If you can't respect the purpose of the Supreme
    Court's stay, it appears that Congress may have to take steps
    to come in and prevent you from taking any action that
    effectively undermines the stay.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, as I have said, sir, EPA is not
    dictating any implementation of this rule or telling any state
    they have to do anything. We are just offering an ability to
    support them, as we always do.
        Mr. Harper. So, that is not happening in any conversations
    with any utilities that you are aware of?
        Ms. McCarthy. No, not that I am aware of, sir.
        Mr. Harper. In your testimony you state, ``Although the
    Supreme Court has stayed the Clean Power Plan Rule, the stay
    does not preclude all continued work on the CPP.'' Has EPA
    discontinued any of its previously-planned activities relating
    to the Clean Power Plan since the stay was issued and, if they
    have, what activities ha ve been discontinued?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, we have been working with the
    Department of Justice, and it is very clear we have
    discontinued our implementation and enforcement of the rule.
    What we have not discontinued is our willingness to work with
    states that want to voluntarily keep moving forward to look at
    planning, but we certainly are not indicating to states that we
    expect to see their preliminary plans come in or that they
    should be working on those at this point in time.
        Mr. Harper. Has there been any action to encourage the
    utilities or states to continue to work with you? Any
    incentives or anything of any nature?
        Ms. McCarthy. We have not provided any incentive for that,
    no.
        Mr. Harper. Has EPA reassigned any of its staff to other
    projects as a result?
        Ms. McCarthy. I can't answer that specifically. I don't
    manage the staff at that level.
        Mr. Harper. Yes. I believe my time is close enough. I will
    yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas,
    Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator McCarthy, thank you for joining us today.
        In November of 2014, the EPA proposed a new, more stringent
    standard for ozone prior to finalizing the implementation
    standards for the standard set in 2008. In fact, what this did
    is it forced states to make decisions under a new standard
    without final implementation rules on the prior standard, all
    again coming from your agency. And so, not only from an air
    quality standpoint, but also from an administrative standpoint,
    does it make sense to permit the 2008 standard to be fully
    implemented prior to doubling down and creating a new standard?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, that is not the way the law has
    been worked or has been implemented. The prior standards remain
    in place. Some states achieved those. In fact, we have had
    great success in NOx reductions or ozone compliance
    since we first started identifying health-based standards and
    moving forward.
        So, we do not believe you have to--in fact, I don't think
    the law says that we are supposed to wait until one is done
    before we do and take a look at whether the health-based
    standard needs to be adjusted. It is required for us to look at
    that every 5 years, regardless of attainment status.
        Mr. Flores. Well, but you rolled out a new set of rules at
    the same time right after you rolled out the implementation
    standards for the 2008 rules. And so, what you basically
    created is two sets of standards that states have to follow.
        The National Association of Clean Air Agencies testified to
    EPA that the new ozone standard will have a profound impact on
    the work of state and local air pollution control agencies,
    which differs from what you just said. Did the EPA assess the
    impact that implementing the new ozone standards would have on
    state and local agencies that were already trying to implement
    the 2008 standard?
        Ms. McCarthy. We did look at that impact, sir, and we did a
    cost/benefit analysis of that. And we determined that the
    benefits far exceeded the cost, but there is no question that
    it provides the need for both EPA and states to actually expend
    more resources. And for that reason, this budget includes both
    additional resources for EPA for that implementation as well as
    a request that state resources be also boosted up as a result
    of this.
        Mr. Flores. Wouldn't it make more sense for these standards
    to be harmonized, so that you could flow from the 2008 standard
    to the 2015 standard, instead of trying to worry about the dual
    implementation?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, sir, we do the best we can to make sure
    that we are not requiring duplication of the states as they
    move forward with their implementation planning.
        Mr. Flores. Now the EPA chose to project the cost of its
    new ozone standard to 2025. In a sense, EPA bases its entire
    economic analysis on predicted 2025 air quality.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Flores. Would the agency support extending compliance
    deadlines under the standards to 2025?
        Ms. McCarthy. We have not considered that at this point,
    sir. We are actually following the statutory timelines.
        Mr. Flores. In the budget, EPA has requested funding for
    implementation of new National Ambient Quality Standards. I
    have got two parts to this question. One, when will EPA begin
    the process of implementing the 2015 standards?
        Ms. McCarthy. We are already in the process of providing
    guidance to the states on that. We have yet to complete 2016
    and see what that data looks like because the actual attainment
    decisions and non-attainment decisions are based on 2014, 2015,
    and 2016 data. And then, we have the process of working with
    governors from that point forward to see where the non-
    attainments areas they would suggest, and we look at those. So,
    we are talking about non-attainment designations in 2017. That
    is when we also make determinations on how difficult the
    attainment process is, which dictates how quickly attainment
    needs to be achieved. And then, that is how they do their state
    implementation plans to coordinate with achieving those
    reductions in those time----
        Mr. Flores. Right, but when you established the last set of
    standards in 2008----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Flores [continuing]. EPA almost immediately began
    reviewing that standard, but it didn't finalize the
    implementation for 7 years, until 2015. So, shouldn't we have a
    system where we prioritize implementation of existing
    regulations before we expend resources on a new implementation?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think the way we look at it--and you
    are right, we should be avoiding duplication as much as
    possible or any extra work--but it is almost as if we now know
    what the health-based goal is. And getting there is the
    challenge. The fact that we get partway there with one decision
    and further along with another is not shifting direction. It is
    all moving to the direction of healthy air.
        Mr. Flores. I would submit that you have created a lot of
    confusion in the real world, and that is something that you and
    I are going to disagree on.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Mr. Flores. I am going to throw out one last thing. I sent
    you a letter on May 29th of last year regarding the Regional
    Haze Plan for Texas. I got a letter from the Region 6 Director
    about two months later in 2015, and he said he couldn't comment
    on anything because you were in the rulemaking process. I never
    did get a followup to that letter. So, I would like, now that
    you have completed your rulemaking for the Regional Haze
    Project, I would like to get a followup letter to answer the
    six questions I put in my May 29th letter----
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Flores [continuing]. From 2015.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        And that concludes the questions today.
        Ms. McCarthy, I just want to make a couple of comments, and
    Mr. Tonko may or may not want to make some summary statements.
        First of all, I think anyone who has worked with you likes
    you because you have a great personality and you are effective
    in what you do. But I think you also recognize that America
    really is a divided country today and there really is a red and
    blue America.
        And one of the reasons, certainly not the only reason, but
    one of the reasons those of us on our side of the aisle, when
    we go back to our districts, a common theme that we hear is the
    excess authority and pushiness, for lack of a better word, of
    the EPA. That comes about for a lot of different reasons, the
    Clean Power Plan being one of those.
        Congress had nothing to do with that. Now I recognize that
    many on the left side of this dais support it. But that was
    initiated by the executive branch entering into international
    agreements, non-binding, and the EPA has been driven because of
    that.
        Twenty-seven states filed lawsuits to try to delay it. I
    talked in an opening statement about the Brick MACT. You all
    lost that in the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Utility MACT, the
    Tailoring Rule, the Clean Energy Plan. So, many people out
    there in the country say here's EPA going right down the road
    trying to accomplish their goals set by this administration
    without a lot of input from the Congress, and many times being
    overruled by the courts. Now I recognize that a stay is not a
    decision on the substantive part of a rule, but it is a
    probability or they would not have issued the stay.
        So, I just want to point out that you all have the Clean
    Air Act, you have the Clean Water Act. All of us want to
    protect the environment, but I just want you to know personally
    that there are many people out there who do feel that EPA
    particularly is being overly-aggressive. And I don't know what
    the final outcome of that is going to be, but it is something
    that should concern all of us. Like I said, America is divided.
    There is no question about that. We know that.
        But I want to thank you for spending the entire day
    testifying before the Appropriations Committee, our committee,
    about your budget. We appreciate your willingness to work with
    us, and we will be submitting the individual requests that
    members have made about additional information they have
    requested. And we will keep the record open for 10 days here
    for additional comments.
        I now recognize Mr. Tonko for whatever time he might want.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the
    hearing.
        And thank you, Administrator, for joining us and for all of
    your cooperation and for your leadership.
        Rather than focusing on our divided nation, I will talk
    about a united nation that is united in its need for clean
    water. It affects every life; it affects every job.
        And so, we look forward to working with you and EPA on
    advancing clean drinking water as an outcome that provides
    resources to our states and local governments, and will have a
    strong outcome, I think, for both residential opportunities,
    families and children, and for businesses alike.
        So, thank you again.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
        And that concludes today's hearing, and thank you again.
        [Whereupon, at 5:17 p.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]