[Senate Hearing 114-306]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-306
OVERSIGHT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROGRESS IN
IMPLEMENTING INSPECTOR GENERAL AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
RECOMMENDATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 14, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-773 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
____________________________________________________________________
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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex BARBARA BOXER, California(ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 14, 2016
OPENING STATEMENTS
Rounds, Hon. Mike., U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota.. 1
Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 3
Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma........ 69
WITNESSES
Larsen, Alan, Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of
Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
U.S. Chemical Safety And Hazard Investigation Safety Board..... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 12
Response to an additional question from Senator Sullivan..... 19
Gomez, Alfredo, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Responses to additional questions from:
Inhofe....................................................... 54
Sullivan..................................................... 60
OVERSIGHT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROGRESS IN
IMPLEMENTING INSPECTOR GENERAL AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
RECOMMENDATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016
U.S. SENATE
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory
Oversight
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Rounds (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Rounds, Markey, Crapo, Boozman and
Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Rounds. The Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory
Oversight is meeting today to conduct a hearing entitled
Oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's Progress in
Implementing Inspector General and Government Accountability
Office Recommendations.
Approximately 1 year ago we held our first subcommittee
hearing with Inspector General Arthur Elkins of the
Environmental Protection Agency, who testified about his
office's work in conducting audits and investigations related
to EPA agency actions and programs. Since then we have held
hearings conducting oversight on various aspects of the EPA
rulemaking process to make certain the regulations the EPA
implements are promulgated in an open, transparent process with
adequate public participation.
Unfortunately, we have found this is often not the case.
The GAO is an independent, non-partisan agency that prepares
reports that are either mandated by public laws or committee
reports, or at the request of Congress. They provide
comprehensive audits examining the economy and the efficiency
of government operations.
The Office of Inspector General reports to both the EPA and
Congress regarding any problems and deficiencies relating to
the administration of the Agency's programs and operations, and
also serves as the investigative arm of the EPA, examining
possible criminal or civil violations by the Agency. These
offices conduct Agency oversight to determine whether Federal
funds are being spent efficiently and effectively, the Agency
is being managed property, and to make certain that Government
programs and policies are meeting their objectives in an open,
transparent manner, and are complying with the applicable
statutes when promulgating regulations.
In addition to conducting their own investigations, the GAO
and OIG make recommendations to the EPA that, when successfully
implemented in a timely fashion, can be effective at correcting
mismanagement and holding the EPA accountable in properly
fulfilling its mission and responsibly managing taxpayer
dollars.
The GAO and the IG prepare regular reports detailing EPA's
progress in implementing these recommendations. While both
offices track the EPA's implementation of these corrective
actions for several years after the recommendation is made,
testimony today reveals that the EPA is slow to implement
recommendations and there may be a need for these offices to do
more to followup on open recommendations.
When the EPA does not implement these recommendations or
delays their implementation while continuing to conduct
business as usual, the mismanagement at the Agency continues
and taxpayer dollars are improperly managed. Most alarmingly,
the EPA continues to promulgate regulations that impose huge
costs on the U.S. economy and American families, while not
using proper safeguards.
In the past year alone, the EPA has moved forward with its
finalizing the Waters of the U.S. Rule, the Clean Power Plan,
and tightening ozone NAAQS. These regulations will impose
unprecedented costs on American families and the U.S. economy.
Further, two of these regulations are on hold by the courts.
When the EPA finalizes regulations through an improper
process without implementing recommendations that would make
the process better, the result is bad regulations, and that is
what we have seen from the EPA. Additionally, in the past year,
the EPA has made headlines with the Gold King Mine spill and
the Flint water crisis. Now, more than ever, we need the EPA to
get back to its core functions rather than pursuing burdensome
regulations based on shaky legal ground. The GAO and the OIG
play an important role in this.
Our witnesses today will provide us with an update on the
EPA's progress in implementing recommendations and help us
conduct oversight over the EPA's process for implementing
corrective actions.
I am happy to have with us today Alan Larsen, the Counsel
to the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and Alfredo Gomez, the Director of the Natural
Resources and Environmental Team of the Government
Accountability Office.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us
today, and I look forward to hearing from your testimony.
Now I would like to recognize my friend, Senator Markey,
for a 5-minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
scheduling today's hearing.
The Government Accountability Office and the Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of the Inspector General are a vital
component of governmental integrity. These watchdogs must be
independent, non-partisan, and maintain the highest ethical
standards. In addition to fighting fraud, waste, and abuse of
power, they ensure that Government works the way Congress
intended, and in a manner that the public deserves.
From its work uncovering nearly $100 million in wasted
refundable airline tickets, to probing weaknesses in aviation
security, to protecting our water supply from damage caused by
oil and gas production, GAO has provided an invaluable service
to the American public.
Inspectors general play an equally important role. The
Securities and Exchange Commission inspector general uncovered
the mishandling of whistleblower tips in the Madoff Ponzi
scheme. In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act,
bringing the most significant changes in financial regulation
since the Great Depression.
At the EPA, the inspector general has raised concerns
ranging from how the EPA oversees States' implementation and
enforcement of programs designed to protect the public from
bacteria-contaminated beaches to how the EPA conducts proper
long-term monitoring of Superfund sites and ensuring that they
are safe for reuse, to how the EPA can improve the review
process for potentially harmful chemicals.
EPA has implemented 174 GAO recommendations of the 325 made
during the last 10 years. When one factors in the 4-year
average time it takes to implement a GAO recommendation, the
Agency has a 77 percent implementation rate. This rate is on
par with other Federal agencies and with the 80 percent
implementation target for recommendations that GAO has set for
all agencies.
The EPA has also worked hard to close out recommendations
from the inspector general. Over the past 7 years, the
inspector general has made over 1,700 recommendations to the
EPA. At the time of the last annual report, only 158 remained
unimplemented. The EPA is battling diminished resources, a lack
of authority, and program updates that are underway but
incomplete. Those struggles are compounded by a 20 percent
decrease in appropriated funds and a 15 percent loss to its
work force since 2010.
If we are going to expect more rapid and complete agency
responses to GAO and the inspector general recommendations,
then we must ensure that EPA has access to the resources that
are necessary to achieve its mission. Just look at Flint,
Michigan and our Nation's failing water infrastructure, or
hazardous air water pollutants with health risks that have yet
to be assessed, or even the harmful pesticides that threaten
bee populations that are vital to our ecosystem.
We must recognize that our responsibility in creating those
problems due to the prevailing dissidence between required
funding levels and actions that should be taken by EPA are
necessary to keep Americans safe. We must also combat other
obstacles that hinder agency oversight. Both GAO and the
inspectors general provide a crucial public service, and it is
imperative that you are provided with all the tools you need to
do your job effectively.
Now, I have been made aware of the possibility that a
Department of Energy contractor who cooperated with the GAO
investigation that I requested may have been fired in
retaliation for their cooperation. We should be doing
everything possible to enhance GAO's ability to obtain the
information it needs to undertake its mission of ensuring ``the
accountability of the Federal Government for the benefit of the
American people and protect those who help in such efforts.''
Inspectors general's investigations can also be slowed
without a review of all the critical materials. Preventing
investigators from timely access to all records, documents, and
other materials is contrary to the fundamental idea of
transparency that Congress intended when establishing the
inspector general.
I thank each of you in advance for your testimony and I
thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Our witnesses joining us for today's hearing are Mr. Al
Larsen, Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of Inspector
General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Safety Board; Mr. Alfredo
Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team, U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
Gentlemen, your written statements will be made a part of
the record without objection and at this time we will turn to
both of you. Mr. Larsen, if you would like to begin, for your
5-minute opening statements.
STATEMENT OF ALAN LARSEN, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY AND U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION SAFETY
BOARD
Mr. Larsen. Good afternoon, Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member
Markey and members. I am Alan Larsen, counsel to the Inspector
General for the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I would like to
thank the Subcommittee for shining a spotlight on unimplemented
OIG recommendations. I will provide an overview of what happens
after OIG makes a recommendation and progress to date by both
agencies with regard to implementation.
Most of our audit and program evaluation work is performed
in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing
standards. Findings and recommendations for correcting any
deficiencies are issued to agency officials as part of the
final report, and that is also made public.
The impact of a recommendation may be direct cost savings
or an improvement in program efficiency or effectiveness. A
recommendation may ensure the integrity of a program or result
in other benefits.
Once OIG issues a report, it is up to the agency to
implement recommendations. However, OIG staff tracks each
recommendation until it is fully implemented, which is a
significant part of our oversight work.
OIG lists unimplemented recommendations in our semiannual
reports to Congress. Our most recent report cited 148
recommendations unimplemented by EPA and 10 recommendations
unimplemented by CSB. The average number of unimplemented
recommendations for the last seven semiannual reporting periods
was 144, or 133 for EPA and 11 for CSB. The numbers for the
first and the most recent of those periods were virtually
identical: 159 and 158. In other words, overall, the agencies
have been implementing recommendations at the same pace that
new ones are being added to the list.
Of the pending unimplemented recommendations reported for
EPA, the time elapsed since report issuance ranges from less
than 1 year to more than 9 years. The age of CSB's
unimplemented recommendations ranges from nearly 3 years to
more than 5 years.
Government auditing standards require that OIG obtains the
agency's views regarding proposed recommendations. If the
agency agrees with the recommendations, it must provide
intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates.
OIG's project team assesses the agency's proposal and
determines if it sufficiently meets the intent of our
recommendations.
When the agency does not fully agree with OIG's findings or
recommendations, we note that disagreement in our report. OMB
requires an audit resolution process; EPA fulfills this
requirement via its Manual 2750, which establishes that the
agency is responsible for ensuring that management decisions on
OIG recommendations are implemented.
In most cases, OIG and the agency agree on final report
recommendations. When there is a disagreement, we follow an
escalating resolution process with three tiers as needed. OIG
would not remove a recommendation from our unimplemented list
based on agency refusal to act or because too much time has
passed.
The EPA chief financial officer and OMB managing director
are responsible for assessing and reporting to OIG on each
agency's progress. In turn, the OIG monitors, reviews, and
verifies that progress. In addition, OIG conducts followup
audits. These assignments are based on size, complexity, and
significance of the issues and recommendations in the original
report.
In conclusion, accomplishing the tasks I have discussed
requires sufficient appropriated funds from Congress. During
the past year, we have returned $16 for every dollar given to
us. When OIG is unable to carry out its responsibilities
because of inadequate funding, it is a net loss to the Federal
Government and the American taxpayers. While I am aware that
this Subcommittee is not an appropriations committee, I
respectfully ask for any help that you can provide us in this
regard, and we certainly appreciate your support for our work.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will
be pleased to answer any questions you or the members have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Rounds. Mr. Larsen, thank you for your testimony.
We will now hear from Mr. Alfredo Gomez. Mr. Gomez, you may
begin.
STATEMENT OF ALFREDO GOMEZ, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Gomez. Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Markey, and
members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the status of recommendations GAO has
made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
As you have both noted, the mission of EPA is to protect
human health and the environment. We have conducted reviews
focused on various aspects of EPA's programs and operations,
and through these reviews we have made numerous recommendations
to improve EPA's performance and the efficiency and
effectiveness of its programs and operations.
My statement today focuses on two main areas: first, the
status of EPA's implementation of GAO's recommendations from
fiscal years 2006 through 2015, and how these recommendations
relate to EPA programs and operations; and, No. 2, benefits
realized by EPA based on our work.
As part of our process, we followup on recommendations we
have made and report their status to Congress. Agencies have a
responsibility to monitor and maintain accurate records on the
status of our recommendations. We then followup with EPA at
least once a year to determine the extent to which our
recommendations have been implemented and the benefits that
have been realized. We consider a recommendation implemented
when EPA has taken actions that address the issue or deficiency
we have identified.
With regard to the first area on the status of GAO
recommendations, we found that of the 325 recommendations we
made EPA had implemented 174. The remaining 151 recommendations
remain open or not implemented. For recommendations that we
made over a 4-year period, that is, from Fiscal Year 2006 to
2011, EPA had implemented 77 percent. For recommendations made
within the last 4 years, that is, from Fiscal Year 2012 to
2015, EPA had implemented 17 percent.
Experience has shown that it takes time for some
recommendations to be implemented. It is for this reason that
we actively track unaddressed or open recommendations for 4
years.
The 325 recommendations fall into six categories, such as
EPA management and operations, water-related issues, and
environmental contamination and cleanup. With regard to the 151
recommendations that EPA has not yet implemented, 70 percent of
these recs we made in the last 4 years and mainly concern EPA
management and operations and water-related issues.
For example, in 2014, we reported on EPA's Regulatory
Impact Analyses, or RIAs, which are analyses of the benefits
and costs of proposed regulations. We found that the
information that EPA included and presented in the RIAs was not
always clear. We recommended that EPA enhance the Agency's
review process for RIAs to ensure that information for selected
elements is transparent and clear, such as when discussing
regulatory alternatives. While EPA agreed with this
recommendation, the recommendation remains open until we see
evidence that EPA has taken action to enhance its review
process.
We have also identified many benefits, such as programmatic
and process improvements based on EPA taking actions on our
recommendations. For example, we issued several reports on
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure issues. In
particular, we reported on the drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure needs of rural and small communities.
We found that these communities face potentially
duplicative application requirements when applying to multiple
State and Federal programs, making it more costly and time-
consuming to complete the application process. We recommended
that EPA work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
develop a uniform preliminary engineering report template, a
key step in the application process, and they have done so.
In summary, our recommendations provide a good opportunity
to improve the Government's fiscal position, better serve the
public, and make Government programs more efficient and
effective. EPA's implementation of our recommendations will
help the Agency continue to improve its performance and the
efficiency and effectiveness of its operations.
We will continue to work with Congress to monitor and draw
attention to this important issue.
Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Markey, and members of the
Subcommittee, that completes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gomez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Rounds. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Gomez.
Senators will now have 5 minutes each for questions. I will
begin.
Mr. Larsen, the OIG's most recent semiannual report to
Congress cited 148 unimplemented EPA recommendations. Your
testimony mentions annual followup audits, but how else does
the OIG work with EPA to ensure these recommendations are
thoroughly implemented in a timely manner?
Mr. Larsen. The Agency has the official and ultimate
responsibility to track and implement these recommendations,
and they do that. We keep track, ourselves, of their progress,
and at the end of each semiannual reporting period we compare
with the Agency's tracking and we make sure that we agree on
what are open recommendations and what are unimplemented
recommendations. At that point we sometimes check back and say
you promised progress as of a certain date and you haven't done
it; why is that not happening. We also will do followup audits.
In addition to tracking the existing recommendations, we may
launch a new project to find out what is going on, why things
aren't progressing.
Senator Rounds. Do you report your progress back to
Congress as well, on the implementations and the followup? Is
there a followup on a regulation-by-regulation basis that
Congress receives as well?
Mr. Larsen. The primary reporting back is in the semiannual
report, and in that we have an appendix that report-by-report,
recommendation-by-recommendation indicates the status of the
unimplemented recommendations; how far behind they are and what
the Agency's reason for not having made the progress is.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Mr. Gomez, the EPA has implemented 77 percent of
recommendations that the GAO made from 2006 to 2011, as you
indicated, and only 17 percent of the recommendations were made
from 2012 to 2015. These figures also reveal that for older
recommendations, from 2006 to 2011, nearly 30 percent remain
unimplemented. What is the average amount of time the EPA takes
to implement GAO's recommendations and why does it take years
to implement your recommendations?
Mr. Gomez. So, in most cases, our experience has shown that
it takes agencies, EPA among them, about 4 years to implement
our recs. So we make a variety of recommendations. Some of them
do require a little bit more time, for example, if the
recommendation is where EPA has to work with stakeholders,
whether they be other Federal agencies, State agencies, to put
together different memorandums or strategies. In other cases,
though, where we make a recommendation, for example, that EPA
use existing web tools that it has to provide information to
the public to clarify information, in those cases we think that
the Agency could actually do those a lot faster than a couple
of years.
As I mentioned in my statement, we also track them for 4
years very carefully. We have a website where you can see for
each report the status of each recommendation, similar to what
the IG does. So anyone can see what the status is. We do
encourage the agency to implement the recommendations as
quickly as possible.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Gomez.
Mr. Larsen, you indicated there was a cost-savings for the
amount of money that we spend in OIG activities versus the
return. Can you elaborate on the amount of cost-savings your
office finds at the EPA and how you find these cost-savings and
how you make the recommendation?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. What I can't do, and I am sorry to say I
won't be able to do, is to take an individual recommendation
and say that one will end up saving $1 million. So we can't do
that. There are any number of recommendations we make that we
don't attempt to and are unable to assign a dollar figure to.
So those $16 per dollar comes from the projects we do where
there is an identifiable dollar savings; and, as I say, many of
the other projects may have, I don't know, a more intangible
benefit, whether it is health benefits or a process savings. So
we don't try to establish a cost-savings where it would be a
fanciful number.
Senator Rounds. I understand. Thank you. My time has
expired.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Director Gomez, for the EPA to properly evaluate and
regulate toxic substances, it is essential that they have the
most up-to-date chemical and toxicity data available. One key
recommendation you have made is that EPA needs to improve its
efforts to test and evaluate chemicals. To what extent will the
recently passed TSCA reform legislation assist EPA in
addressing GAO's open chemical safety recommendations?
Mr. Gomez. So we believe that some of the provisions in the
new TSCA law would help EPA address some of the open
recommendations that we have. For example, one of the
recommendations we made was that EPA should take steps to
obtain more chemical toxicity and exposure information; and the
new TSCA legislation does enhance EPA's authority to obtain
such information from chemical manufacturers and processors. So
once EPA takes action on those measures, we will then
reevaluate to see if we can close those recommendations.
Senator Markey. Thank you so much, because when we were
working together on a bipartisan basis on that legislation, it
was important, as we negotiated TSCA, that we remove the catch-
22 that forced EPA to know a chemical was dangerous before it
could require safety testing to be done on that chemical. And I
am also that EPA's new authority will help with that as well.
Again, Director Gomez, in your testimony you stated that
the EPA has implemented 174 out of 325 recommendations made in
the last 10 years. However, GAO recognizes that recommendations
cannot be implemented overnight and takes an average of 4 years
to implement.
When you look at recommendations made four or more years
ago, EPA has an implementation record that is just about equal
to the 80 percent Government-wide average. Do you agree,
Director Gomez, that EPA is putting a concerted effort toward
implementing GAO recommendations in a manner that is similar to
other Federal agencies?
Mr. Gomez. So, right, EPA's average is similar to the
agency-wide average. What we have done with EPA most recently
was we decided to do outreach and update twice a year because
we wanted to get more current information from EPA so that
perhaps we could close more of the recommendations, or at least
just work with them in terms of if there are some
recommendations where they disagree with us, so we agree to
disagree.
But the recommendations for us is a pretty high bar. I
mean, it is a recommendation that is made based on having good
understanding of what is happening on the ground, what the
requirements are that the Agency is supposed to be doing, what
the reasons are as to why they are not doing that or why there
is a deficiency. So our recommendations are fairly well
supported and articulated, so we want the Agency to implement
our recommendations.
Senator Markey. Mr. Larsen, let me come over to you. In the
last 7 years EPA has received over 1,700 recommendations from
the inspector general. Since, in the last annual report, only
148 of those 1,700 remained unimplemented, would you agree, Mr.
Larsen, that EPA generally does act on your recommendations in
about 4 years, similar to EPA's record in implementing GAO
recommendations?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, Senator Markey. We don't track them
exactly that way, but in preparation for this hearing I asked
our staff to try to come up with that number and we came up
with 3.7 years on average for implementing the recommendations
by the Agency.
Senator Markey. So, in general, what you are saying is that
GAO and the inspector general at the department at the EPA have
a very similar view of the speed with which EPA does respond.
Mr. Larsen. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Markey. And that it is in line with all other
agencies in the Federal Government.
Mr. Larsen. That one I can't answer. We don't know where
the other agencies stand, but for us it appears we are in line
with the GAO.
Senator Markey. I guess the fact that we were having a
hearing, had you had to compile that information wouldn't give
you enough time to then compare it to the rest of the whole
Government.
But do you agree with that, Mr. Gomez, that in general it
is in the ballpark?
Mr. Gomez. So that has been our experience, that
Government-wide it generally takes agencies a little longer,
and that is why we track it each year closely.
Senator Markey. OK, beautiful. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Chairman Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Gomez, in response to a request that I
submitted, the GAO issued a legal opinion on December 14th of
2015 concerning the EPA's use of social media to promote its
WOTUS rule. Because GAO found EPA had violated the Anti-
Deficiency Act, the EPA was required to submit a report to the
President and Congress and GAO. Now, the first thing I would
ask is, what is the status of that request?
Mr. Gomez. So we have not received the Anti-Deficiency Act
report from EPA.
Senator Inhofe. Are they making any statement that they
deny that this was a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act?
Mr. Gomez. Based on our finding, as you noted, the agencies
are required to submit a report to Congress, to the President
through OMB, and at the same time submit that report to the
comptroller general, who is my boss.
Senator Inhofe. Now, do you have any idea of any kind of
discussion or response to that particular one that has taken
place since 2015?
Mr. Gomez. I do not, but what we can do is we can inquire
with EPA through our general counsel's office and get back to
you.
Senator Inhofe. OK, so it would be in line for me or any
Member of Congress to request that you get a status report on
that and anything that we want to release for public
consumption would be acceptable?
Mr. Gomez. Yes, I can take that back.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. All right, I think we should do that,
because in this case this is a statute that is on the books. It
is one that we knew this was going on at the time. It is on an
issue, the WOTUS issue is arguably the most significant issue
of all the over-regulations that we have, at least in my State
of Oklahoma, and I think it is really incumbent to do that.
Mr. Larsen, as you know, I have been a frequent requester
of the IG investigations reviews. For instance, in response to
a request I submitted in 2011, the IG made several
recommendations for EPA to update its conflict of interest
policies and peer review process in the 2013 report. This is
something that Senator Boozman has called to our attention in
these meetings; it is something that is significant.
Now, I understand the EPA has reported the recommendations
are complete, but the OIG has not conducted any formal followup
review to assess the adequacy of EPA actions. Does the IG plan
to followup on EPA's actions per this report?
Mr. Larsen. As I mentioned, we do followup reports. We are
entering into, as we head into summer, the work plan planning
process, and out of that comes our discretionary projects. I
don't know if that is on tap for next year for followup. I will
check with our entities that do those reports and get back to
your staff.
Senator Inhofe. What concerns me is if it is a case of a
corporation, corporations or an individual could own stock in a
corporation, the corporation could own two or 300 or many, many
more. So that could fall as a conflict of interest. When it is
an environmentalist group of some kind, you don't have that,
you don't have the reams and reams.
So I assume when you are looking at the reform of a
conflict of interest, you are taking things like that into
consideration, and they are looking at it now, is that correct?
Mr. Larsen. What I don't know is if we have a new project
planned in that area, and I will get back to you on whether we
do.
Senator Inhofe. OK, I appreciate that.
Mr. Gomez, July 2014, the GAO report found, among other
things, that the EPA does not properly consider the impact of
its regulations on employment. The GAO recommended EPA update
its approach to estimating employment impacts, but the EPA has
not done so. You have heard, if you watch what goes on in this
Committee, on three different occasions we have quoted
Administrator McCarthy when she said that there is no evidence
that EPA regulations have a negative impact on jobs.
Senator Capito is sitting over here and her eyes started
rolling around. There are some things that are so obvious it
doesn't take that type of a report out there.
Now, how can McCarthy make such claims when EPA's process
for evaluating employment impacts remains broken?
Mr. Gomez. So that was one of our recommendations in the
report also, for EPA to look closely at the information they
were using in calculating employment of facts, and to really
find more current----
Senator Inhofe. Let me ask both of you a question. I know
my time has expired, but it is significant to me.
I agree with Senator Markey when he said that both GAO and
IG have to be independent. Now, GAO, in my eyes, is independent
because there is not a relationship in that line. That isn't
quite true with the IG because isn't the IG actually a part of
EPA?
Mr. Larsen. Senator, we are a part administratively, but
the IG and the OIG do not take direction from the
administrator; we report results to----
Senator Inhofe. So you think your level of independence is
not impaired by that relationship?
Mr. Larsen. That is correct.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and
Senator Markey for having this hearing today.
Mr. Gomez, last year you appeared before this Committee at
a hearing examining S. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform
Act, which I introduced with Senator Manchin and Inhofe. At the
time you testified that EPA's procedures for processing
congressional requests to the Science Advisory Board did not
comply with the law. GAO subsequently issued a report with four
specific recommendations to ensure EPA compliance.
Your written testimony for today's hearing indicates that
EPA has not implemented the recommendations. The question is
how can EPA go a year without adopting these common sense
recommendations to ensure compliance with the law?
Mr. Gomez. So, right, we made four recommendations in that
report and the recommendations were focused on helping to
improve the procedures that EPA has in place for processing
congressional committee requests for scientific advice from the
Science Advisory Board; and as we understand it, as of March of
this year, EPA is developing a written process that would
address our recommendations.
We are waiting for that process to be completed so that we
can then assess it and look to see if it addresses the intent
of our recommendations. And our recommendations were very
specific about the process that we believe EPA should have in
place as it processes requests from Congress for scientific
advice.
Senator Boozman. So is this a budget issue, as to why they
have not come forward?
Mr. Gomez. We have not been told that is a budget issue.
Our recommendations were about improving the process that they
have in place. In some cases it wasn't well documented, so we
don't see that it is a resource issue and they haven't said it
is a resource issue there.
Senator Boozman. And I guess that is an irritant of mine.
We hear a lot about budgets and budgets are tight, but some of
these things just don't get done; and, again, a year is a long
time.
On the topic of the EPA Science Advisory Board, I want to
ask you about a requirement of the Fiscal Year 2016 omnibus
that EPA develop a policy statement on Science Advisory Board
membership that would incorporate the goals of increasing State
and Tribal representation on the Science Advisory Board, as
well as update its conflict of interest policy similar to what
Senator Inhofe was asking Mr. Larsen.
Per the omnibus, EPA was to develop the policy and submit
to the GAO again for review in March. Has EPA submitted the
statement to GAO?
Mr. Gomez. EPA has not submitted that conflict of interest
statement to us yet. The last we had heard was that they were
reviewing it internally and it was due to us the end of April,
but we have not received it yet.
Senator Boozman. OK. So do they say the reason for the
delay, then?
Mr. Gomez. Only that it is currently being reviewed by the
EPA Office of congressional and Intergovernmental Relations.
Senator Boozman. And, again, this is another thing that
doesn't seem to be driven by budget, but just simply not
getting things done.
Mr. Gomez. Yes, it is not a budget issue, as we understand
it; it is going through their process. And I know that you had
a timeframe for when it was due to GAO, and it is over that
timeframe.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen, IG plays an important oversight role in helping
Congress improve programs by leading efforts to cut waste,
fraud, and abuse across Washington. In the EPA OIG semiannual
report to Congress, more than $6 billion was accounted for as
insufficient or not documented as being provided to the EPA
because EPA failed to have complete and accurate data. The
report goes on to further describe the negative impact this has
had on taxpayers, public health, and natural resources.
Can you address the findings and explain to us how the EPA
could mismanage $6 billion? Again, with us talking about the
problem of not having the resources that some of these basic
functions need to get done.
Mr. Larsen. I understand the question and I am not going to
pretend that I have the answer to each and every of the reports
we have. I do have in the room our assistant inspector general
for audit, or I can get back to you with a specific answer to
that, but I don't have those facts at my fingertips.
Senator Boozman. My time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Senator Boozman. But I would appreciate it if you would get
back to us.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Senator Rounds. Just thinking and listening to the
testimony here and your responses to the questions, first of
all, I appreciate the candid way in which you have responded.
Second of all, I sense the frustration that members of this
Committee have offered, both Senator Markey and also Chairman
Inhofe and Senator Boozman. In each case there has been a
frustration suggested, and I am just going to try to paraphrase
this and see if there isn't something that we need to do about
it.
Three and a half to 4 years seems like an awfully long time
in which to expect to have these things implemented as an
average, regardless of whether it is with the EPA or with any
other Federal agency. And at the same time, as Senator Inhofe
had suggested, there was clearly a wrongdoing, one that you
have pointed out and that you have asked for a response on,
none of which has been forthcoming at this time.
If there was one thing that would frustrate anybody who is
concerned with appropriate application of law, protections, as
Senator Markey has shared or as Senator Inhofe has indicated, a
violation of a law in terms of how the money was spent, justice
that takes that long to come through seems to me to be, as they
would suggest, justice denied.
I am just going to ask this, and, Senator Markey, I
understand that you have another meeting that you have to be
at, but I would give you, as Ranking Member, the opportunity to
respond as well.
Gentlemen, is there something that we should be doing here
in order to expedite responses? Is there something we can do to
actually get a more expedited response from not just EPA, but
from other agencies as well, when those recommendations are
there and clearly there is a time delay?
Mr. Larsen. Senator, this is going to sound more
bureaucratic than I intend it to be, but the structure that was
created for the IGs allows us to make recommendations. We
cannot order an agency to do anything. And it is left to them
to decide what to do. Part of the independence that I was
discussing with Senator Inhofe is that we report to the agency.
We also report to the Congress. If the agency chooses not to,
or is unable to, act, Congress is also aware of the
recommendations we have made; and the way the process works,
then, if Congress has the ability, if it chooses, to waggle its
finger or take more strong action.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Mr. Gomez.
Mr. Gomez. So our recommendations are exactly that,
recommendations; they are not binding. I think what you are
doing now is exactly what we would like, is to bring more
attention to the recommendations. As I noted also, our reports
are public. Anyone can go and look at the recommendations and
look at the status.
And I have to tell you that we get a lot of inquiries from
lots of people asking what is the status of recommendations, so
EPA is well aware of that; and that is one of the reasons why
we have agreed to update the recommendations twice a year, so
that we can try and bring closure to them or at least
articulate why there is disagreement in some cases.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Gentlemen, once again I want to thank you for your
testimony and just for taking the time today to be with us and
participate in this hearing.
I would also like to thank Senator Markey, my colleague,
Senator Boozman, Senator Inhofe for being here.
The record will be open for 2 weeks, which brings us to
Tuesday, June 28th, and, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
Thank you Subcommittee Chairman Rounds for convening
today's oversight hearing, and thank you to our witnesses from
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Inspector
General (OIG) for being here to testify.
Today's hearing is important because Members of Congress
are charged with conducting oversight over executive agencies,
such as the EPA, to ensure compliance with their statutory
authority and mission in a manner free of waste, fraud, and
abuse. EPA watchdogs such as the GAO and the OIG play a
critical role in partnership with Congress to fulfill this
oversight function.
I have long valued this partnership as a frequent requester
of both GAO and EPA OIG reviews and investigations, which in
many cases result in recommendations for the Agency to enhance
performance, create efficiencies, and safeguard taxpayer
dollars. However, as testimony today reveals, EPA has been slow
to implement OIG and GAO recommendations. For instance, GAO
will testify that nearly thirty percent of EPA recommendations
made between 2006 and 2011 remain unimplemented, and only 17
percent of GAO's recommendations from 2012 to 2015 have been
implemented. The EPA OIG's testimony similarly highlights a
significant number of open recommendations; most recently
reporting 148 unimplemented EPA recommendations, 89 of which
are more than a year old.
Among those unimplemented OIG and GAO recommendations,
several are of great interest to the Committee's oversight
efforts. For example, EPA has yet to implement various GAO
recommendations regarding the Agency's procedures for
processing congressional requests for scientific advice by the
Agency's Science Advisory Board. Further, EPA has yet to
implement nearly 2-year-old recommendations from GAO to improve
its regulatory impact analyses, including updates to the way
EPA estimates the impact its regulations have on employment.
Finally, EPA still needs to implement various recommendations
from the OIG to ensure its hiring process is sound in light of
the John Beale scandal and the Agency's recent mass hiring.
These outstanding recommendations are concerning as both
the EPA OIG and GAO are in the midst of substantial reviews and
investigations into the Animas River spill at Gold King Mine
and the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Subsequent
GAO and OIG reports will undoubtedly include numerous
recommendations for EPA, yet based on testimony today I have
little confidence EPA will fully and swiftly implement these
recommendations.
Indeed, today's hearing raises questions about why EPA has
been late to implementing many common-sense recommendations. I
have been concerned the EPA has been deviating from its core
mission and focusing on pushing new regulatory actions that are
political priorities of President Obama without new authority
from Congress, as is the case with the Clean Power Plan and
Waters of the U.S. rule, which have both been halted by the
Courts pending judicial review.
For these reasons, we need to engage with EPA watchdogs
like GAO and the OIG to ensure they are effective and hold EPA
accountable. Today is another step toward continuing that
relationship.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today who will
share perspective on EPA's major challenges and how the Agency
is implementing GAO and OIG recommendations.
I ask that my full statement be entered into the record.
Thank you.