    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                 REGULATORY REFORM TASK FORCE CHECK	IN PART III

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

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                     THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT

                                    AND THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                           INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               November 29, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-56

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                           http://oversight.house.gov

                                _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     29-503 PDF             WASHINGTON : 2018
    ____________________________________________________________________
     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 Oversight and Government Reform

                      Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
    Darrell E. Issa, California              Ranking Minority Member
    Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
    Mark Sanford, South Carolina         Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
    Justin Amash, Michigan                   Columbia
    Paul A. Gosar, Arizona               Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee          Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
    Blake Farenthold, Texas              Jim Cooper, Tennessee
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
    Mark Meadows, North Carolina         Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
    Ron DeSantis, Florida                Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida              Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
    Mark Walker, North Carolina          Val Butler Demings, Florida
    Rod Blum, Iowa                       Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
    Jody B. Hice, Georgia                Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Peter Welch, Vermont
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
    Will Hurd, Texas                     Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Gary J. Palmer, Alabama              Jimmy Gomez, California
    James Comer, Kentucky
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan
    Greg Gianforte, Montana

                         Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
                      Robert Borden, Deputy Staff Director
                        William McKenna General Counsel
                            Christen Harsha, Counsel
                             Kiley Bidelman, Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
              Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy and Environment

                       Blake Farenthold, Texas, Chairman
    Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair   Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
    Dennis Ross, Florida                 Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    Gary J. Palmer, Alabama              Jimmy Gomez, California
    James Comer, Kentucky                (Vacancy)
    Greg Gianforte, Montana
                                     ------

                   Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs

                         Gary Palmer, Alabama, Chairman
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Vice      Val Butler Demings, Florida,
        Chair                                Ranking Minority Member
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Mark Walker, North Carolina          (Vacancy)
    Mark Sanford, South Carolina

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on November 29, 2017................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable David Bernhardt, Deputy Secretary, Department of
      the Interior
        Oral Statement...............................................     6
        Written Statement............................................     9
    Ms. Brittany Bolen, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of
      Policy, Environmental Protection Agency
        Oral Statement...............................................    13
        Written Statement............................................    15
    Mr. Daniel Simmons, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office
      of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................    20
        Written Statement............................................    22

                                    APPENDIX

    Report titled, ``Alabama's Environment 2014: Six Critical
      Indicators,'' submitted by Rep. Palmer.........................    42
    Dr. Cliff Mass' blog submitted by Rep. Palmer....................    43
    Follow up responses from Department of Energy to in-hearing
      questions......................................................    44
    Questions for the Record for The Honorable David Bernhardt,
      submitted by Rep. DeSaulnier...................................    48
    Questions for the Record for Ms. Brittany Bolen, submitted by
      Rep. Demings                                                       51

                 REGULATORY REFORM TASK FORCE CHECK-IN PART III

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, November 29, 2017

                      House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and
           Environment, joint with the Subcommittee on
                             Intergovernmental Affairs,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold
    [chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and
    Environment] presiding.
        Present from Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and
    Environment: Representatives Farenthold, Palmer, Gianforte,
    Plaskett, and Raskin.
        Present from Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs:
    Representatives Palmer, Grothman, Duncan, Massie, Walker,
    Demings, DeSaulnier, and Clay.
        Mr. Farenthold. The Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy,
    and the Environment and the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental
    Affairs will now come to order.
        Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time.
        I would now like to recognize myself for five minutes for
    an opening statement.
        Good morning. Today, we are going to continue our hearing
    series on the work of agency Regulatory Reform Task Forces, and
    we welcome representatives from the Department of the Interior,
    the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of
    Energy, to provide us with an update on their rollback of
    excessive, duplicative, and outdated regulations.
        Earlier this year, President Donald Trump issued Executive
    Orders 13771 and 13777 as part of a push to reduce the burdens
    that Federal regulators impose upon Americans. These executive
    orders required Federal agencies to repeal two regulations for
    every one new regulation they would like to impose. To help
    meet this requirement, the orders directed Federal agencies to
    establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review regulations
    and identify the ones that are unnecessary, impose excessive
    costs, or limit job growth.
        Over the last two months, the committee has heard from a
    number of agencies about the progress they have made on
    implementing these executive orders and their unprecedented
    efforts to take a fresh look at how our government regulates.
    My colleagues and I have been encouraged by what we have heard.
    For example, the Department of Education's task force uncovered
    a whopping 1,772 guidance documents, 600 of which were out of
    date or were interpreting laws that were no longer in effect.
    The Department of Agriculture reported that during its first
    round of review, its task force, composed almost entirely of
    career staff, identified over 275 regulatory and administrative
    recommendations to increase agency efficiency and reduce
    duplication.
        Agencies also testified how they have been able to reduce
    the cost and the burden of their regulations while not
    compromising important health and safety considerations. For
    example, the folks at the Department of Health and Human
    Services testified that they are fulfilling their mission to
    remove burdens on patient-provider relationships. HHS personnel
    are also reassessing healthcare quality measures to ensure a
    focus on safety.
        The Department of Transportation representatives testified
    that, as a result of their review, DOT is reducing unnecessary
    regulatory burdens and barriers to new technologies, and saving
    the American public significant time and money, while actually
    improving the safety and benefits of its regulations.
        This check on the massive regulatory state is long overdue.
    Our hardworking American taxpayers, landowners, small
    businesses, and individual consumers are counting on these
    agencies to get it right. As such, I am confident my colleagues
    will respect the value of these agencies' efforts and our
    witnesses' time, and please remain focused on helping the
    committee evaluate the work of these task forces.
        To our witnesses today, I look forward to hearing about
    what your task forces have accomplished and how your work will
    encourage a more productive relationship with the regulated
    community, facilitate safe utilization of our resources, and
    incorporate the voices of our States, localities, and tribes,
    and most importantly, save the American people time, money, and
    frustration, which concludes my opening remarks.
        Mr. Farenthold. I will now recognize the ranking member of
    the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, Mrs. Demings,
    for five minutes for her opening statement.
        Mrs. Demings. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman
    Farenthold--and I also want to recognize Chairman Palmer--for
    convening this hearing today. I would also like to thank
    Ranking Member Plaskett, who has joined us this morning, and
    thank you to all of the witnesses for being with us.
        This is the third hearing our subcommittees have had on
    Regulatory Reform Task Forces, and I am pleased we have had an
    opportunity to review the actions of three agencies which play
    an important role in ensuring clean water and air, promoting
    renewable energy, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
        However, it is unfortunate that the agencies here today,
    the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior
    and Energy seem to be backing away from these responsibilities.
    I think it is important for us, Members of Congress, agency
    officials, and the public at large to remember the conditions
    that led a Republican President to create some of the very
    agencies before us today in the first place.
        There are stories from across the country--I know you know
    them well--of smog so thick the morning sun could not be seen
    and rivers that change colors depending on the dye used that
    day. Outside Tampa--I'm from Florida--Lake Thonotosassa had the
    largest fish kill in history, 26 million, because it was so
    polluted by discharges from four food processing plants. In my
    district, just a mile from the town of Zellwood, a 57-acre
    parcel of wetlands was used from 1963 to 1980 for a drum
    recycling company to store a deadly mixture of chemicals just a
    short walk away from communities that developed after World War
    II. The contamination is still being modified and remediated by
    Federal, State, and local agencies.
        Just as the men and women who served before us understood
    the importance of safe, clean water, air, and safe land, we,
    too, must see the risk to future generations from climate
    change and act now to avert catastrophe. Unfortunately, I fear
    that recent administration actions indicate an abdication of
    these responsibility.
        EPA, for example, has proposed repealing the Clean Power
    Plan, which provides States flexibility to limit carbon dioxide
    emissions. Without the Clean Power Plan, the United States will
    continue to release unsustainable levels of carbon dioxide into
    the atmosphere. Not only will repealing the Clean Power Plan
    negatively impact climate change, repealing it without
    replacing it with another plan to limit carbon dioxide will
    leave EPA in violation of the Clean Air Act.
        EPA is not alone in proposing rulemaking that will
    negatively impact climate change. The Department of Energy has
    called a so-called grid resiliency pricing rule, ostensibly to
    ensure that the power grid is resilient enough to meet demand
    that any disasters might befall it. The rule is in fact a
    giveaway to fossil-fuel-based power plants. By providing aid to
    power plants that maintain a 90-day onsite fuel supply, the
    proposed rule would grant a ratepayer subsidy to power plants
    which are not sustainable.
        The Department of Energy similarly has proposed climate
    change-impacting rules. The Bureau of Land Management within
    Interior has proposed delaying the Obama administration's
    methane waste rules. The rules require oil and gas companies to
    submit plans to cut waste, measure and report gas flared from
    wells, and dispose of gas that reaches the surface during
    drilling. Not only is this prudent management of our public
    lands, America should get our money's worth from the natural
    resources below ground, and we should ensure that nature is not
    left spoiled from drilling, but it also impacts climate change.
        The outcomes of the administration's actions are apparent
    and real, no matter how great some wish to deny their cause.
    Indeed, in Florida we have seen sea levels increasing so steep
    that coastal communities like Miami Beach are investing
    billions to stay above water.
        I am, however, grateful to the chairman for calling this
    hearing so we can further investigate the reasons behind
    administrative actions and the policy goals they serve and
    provide comment and insight on how agencies can more
    effectively serve the American people.
        I do look forward to the discussion, and thank you so much,
    Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
        I will now recognize the chairman of the Intergovernmental
    Affairs Subcommittee, Mr. Palmer, for five minutes for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman and the ranking members
    for the subcommittees for participating in this hearing, and I
    thank the witnesses for being here.
        This Administration has seized upon a real opportunity to
    undo much of the damage our government has created through
    years of overregulation. Many of us have seen firsthand the
    consequences of excessive regulation by way of lost jobs and
    strained economic conditions and stifled growth in our
    districts and really in the entire American economy.
        There has been a major decline in business startups. In
    fact, the Gallop organization put out a report that said that
    prior to 2008, there were 100,000 more businesses starting up
    than were closing, but by 2014, there were 70,000 more
    businesses closing than starting up. And this was a period of
    unprecedented overregulation.
        My subcommittee has heard countless stories from States,
    local governments, and individuals about their inability to
    make decisions that are most important to them simply because
    their hands are tied by the cost or logjam or the uncertainty
    created by inconsistent and often contradictory Federal
    regulations. The issue has simply gotten out of hand. Even
    agencies themselves have testified they were ``amazed'' at the
    number of guidance documents, policy memos, and other
    regulatory documents that they maintain once they began their
    review.
        As the chairman noted, it has been encouraging to hear from
    agency representatives that they are working to end this
    practice of overregulation and start repairing the relationship
    that the government has with its people, beginning with the
    elimination of obsolete and duplicative and contradictory
    regulations.
        It is my understanding that tomorrow the full committee
    will be considering a bill by our colleague, Mark Meadows from
    North Carolina, which seeks to codify the administration's
    regulatory reform proposals. I look forward to that discussion.
        I appreciate the input our agency witnesses have provided
    in these hearings to show how these policies are yielding real
    results for the public by reducing not only the number of
    Federal regulations and guidance documents, but also the costs
    and burdens that Americans face every day, which amount to
    trillions of dollars every year. In fact, last year alone,
    regulations cost the average household almost $15,000, which,
    I'd like to point out, places a disproportionate burden on
    lower-income households, similar to what I grew up in.
        Agencies report that in just the first half of this year,
    their task forces have identified and withdrawn thousands of
    out-of-date, duplicative, burdensome, and costly regulations
    and policy documents.
        And I do want to comment--not to put any burden on our
    witnesses--the enthusiasm with which the people have come in
    and testified about what they are doing. This is not policy
    work, we are not asking you to legislate, and we commend you
    for what you are doing.
        We have a remarkable opportunity here before us to
    modernize and streamline the Federal Government's approach to
    regulation. Mr. Jitinder Kohli, who led the United Kingdom's
    one-in and two-out regulatory reform initiative, testified at
    our first hearing that this is ``fundamentally about culture
    change''--it really is--and ``changing the culture of
    government.'' I couldn't agree more. Getting our government to
    take a fresh look at look at how it operates and change its
    behavior is obviously no small task.
        And, again, I commend you for the enthusiasm with which you
    have taken on this task because I really believe that you are
    trying to do what is right for the American people, and I am
    excited about what you are doing.
        I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today
    on how their deregulatory efforts will have a lasting effect
    and how we can all work together to make the most of your
    progress and to do the most for the American people.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
        I will now recognize the ranking member of the Interior,
    Energy, and Environment Subcommittee, Ms. Plaskett, for five
    minutes for her opening statement.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you all for being here this morning. Thank you, Chairman Palmer
    and Ranking Member Demings as well for holding this very
    important hearing.
        At President's Trump's direction, political appointees at
    Federal agencies are repealing regulations that protect the
    health, environment, and pocketbooks of average Americans. And
    worse, it would appear they're doing so under the cloak of
    darkness. This lack of transparency is very troubling and is
    depriving the American people of their right to participate in
    the rulemaking process.
        Let's take, for example, the Environmental Protection
    Agency. Administrator Scott Pruitt is not fully disclosing
    details about which protections he is planning to repeal and
    who is being consulted in that decision-making. This is
    especially concerning since it has been reported that members
    of the task force have previously had ties to corporations and
    corporate-sponsored organizations which have blocked efforts to
    clean up our air and water. Knowing if this is true or not
    would be very important to this body, as well as to the
    American public.
        At the Department of Interior and Department of Energy,
    Secretary Ryan Zinke and Secretary Rick Perry respectively are
    not fully open about membership on their task forces that
    President Trump is using to dismantle lifesaving regulations.
        Much is at stake. Americans just recently in Texas,
    Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have all
    recently endured three major hurricanes in succession, and
    scientists unanimously believe that climate change contributed
    to their severity of those hurricanes. Just 10 days before
    Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, President Trump signed an executive
    order revoking regulations that, quote, ``would have required
    the Federal government to take into account the risk of
    flooding and sea level rise as a result of climate change when
    constructing new infrastructure and rebuilding after
    disaster.'' My constituents, the people in Puerto Rico, Texas,
    and Florida, and other areas which have suffered in the past
    from devastating hurricanes and will unfortunately continue to
    do so want our government to take into account climate change
    when building infrastructure. This would just appear to be a
    commonplace factor in the decision-making, and it will save
    lives. But it would appear that President Trump is rolling back
    this lifesaving protection and many others.
        I look forward to hearing this morning from the
    Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and the
    Department of Interior, and I hope they will be forthcoming
    about what protections they are targeting for repeal, which
    companies would benefit, what are the factual justifications
    for doing so, how those task forces are composed because the
    American people have a right to know what their government is
    doing.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you.
        At this point I am pleased to introduce our witnesses. From
    the Department of Interior we have the Honorable David
    Bernhardt, and he is the deputy secretary there at DOI. We have
    Ms. Brittany Bolen. She is the deputy associate administrator
    of the Office of Policy at the Environmental Protection Agency
    and a former intern on this committee. She will get to
    experience what it is like to be on the other side of the table
    today. And we have Mr. Daniel Simmons, the principal deputy
    assistant secretary of the Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy at the Department Of Energy. Welcome to you
    all.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
    before they testify. Would you please stand and raise your
    right hand?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Farenthold. Let the record reflect all witnesses
    answered in the affirmative, and you all may be seated.
        In order to allow time for discussion and questions, we are
    going to ask that you each limit your testimony to around five
    minutes. Your entire written statement will be made a part of
    the record. As a reminder, the clock in front of you shows your
    remaining time, and the light will turn yellow when you have 30
    seconds left and red when your time is up. Please also remember
    to turn on your microphones. We are budget-conscious here. We
    didn't buy the most expensive microphones, so you actually do
    need to bring them close to your mouth so we can all hear you
    very well.
        So we will start out with Mr. Bernhardt, you are recognized
    for five minutes, sir.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                      STATEMENT OF DAVID BERNHARDT

        Mr. Bernhardt. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to
    testify before you today regarding the Department of the
    Interior's progress in implementing President Trump's
    regulatory reform Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. I serve as
    the Deputy Secretary to the Department of the Interior, and in
    addition to my role as the Department's chief operating
    officer, I also serve as Interior's regulatory reform officer.
        At Interior, we are acutely aware that President Trump,
    even as a candidate, clearly communicated a vision of
    empowering the private sector, as well as State, local, and
    tribal governments by unleashing American exceptionalism and
    economic growth through reducing unnecessary and burdensome
    regulation, while maintaining environmental protection and
    public health. At Interior, we are also committed to ensuring
    that the regulation that is necessary to advance our
    conservation legacy remains in place.
        If you were to go back and look at the President's
    speeches, you would find that, during the campaign, he clearly
    articulated that certain regulations related to the Department
    of the Interior would be reviewed. In addition, as President,
    he has followed through with this--with those statements with
    clear direction in executive orders and presidential memoranda.
    We intend to ensure that we fulfill his campaign commitments
    and meet his direction to the extent the law provides us the
    authority to do so.
        In addition, we are leaning forward to ensure that we move
    with due pace while meeting our legal requirements. You will
    see this when you review the upcoming fall agenda. Frankly, our
    measurable progress and pace to date benefited greatly from the
    collaborative experience of working with Congress to enact
    legislation under the Congressional Review Act. The
    Congressional Review Act was applied to three Interior
    rulemakings. Congress' decision to utilize the review act was
    important. It avoided imposing needless burdens on the American
    public, while also freeing up the administration's time to
    address other important areas of focus.
        At Interior, we administer the activities that take place
    on 1/5 of all of the land of the United States, as well as the
    intercontinental shelf, along with certain regulatory programs
    Congress has entrusted to us that are not related to the lands
    that we marriage--manage. We know that the substance, the
    procedure, and the pace of our decision-making can have a
    significant impact on a wide variety of activities. President
    Trump has actively sought to establish an agenda focused on
    economic growth. Executive Orders 13771 and 13777 are keystones
    of his regulatory reform efforts.
        The Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force was formed on
    March 15, 2017. The task force meets monthly to evaluate
    existing regulations and provide recommendations to the
    Secretary regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of
    such regulations. The task force focuses on regulations that
    place unnecessary burdens on the economy or the American
    people, that are outdated, ineffective, or unnecessary, are--or
    are incompatible with the regulatory reform principles or
    directions established in Orders 13771 and 13777.
        To facilitate the task force activities, we have invited
    public input to identify important areas of focus. We have
    received comments from a wide range of individuals and
    entities, including the environmental nonprofit community.
    Since we published a Federal Register notice asking for--the
    public for ideas to lessen the regulatory burdens, we have
    received approximately 215 comments. In addition, we have
    established a website to periodically provide information to
    the public on regulatory reform and encourage the public to
    share ideas on specific regulations that should be repealed,
    updated, or otherwise improved.
        So far, after a review of existing regulations planned for
    publication, we have removed approximately 154 regulatory
    actions from the spring agenda. This reduced our previous
    inventory of 321 actions by almost half. Interior reported 13
    deregulatory actions for fiscal year 2017 and 28 are planned
    for 2018.
        At the heart of our regulatory reform agenda lies the
    President and Secretary's recognition that the Department of
    the Interior has a responsibility to be a good neighbor to
    those we serve. This responsibility includes creating and
    implementing a regulatory framework that serves both our
    conservation and our multiple-use missions. We have been and we
    will continue to be relentless in our efforts to minimize
    regulatory and permitting uncertainty, but we will do so while
    maintaining our important environmental and safety standards.
        I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
    Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Bernhardt follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you.
        Ms. Bolen, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF BRITTANY BOLEN

        Ms. Bolen. Good morning, Chairmen Farenthold and Palmer,
    Ranking Members Plaskett and Demings, and members of the
    subcommittees. Thank you for holding this important hearing on
    agency implementation of the President's executive orders on
    regulatory reform. My name is Brittany Bolen, and I serve as
    deputy associate administrator for policy at the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency. I also serve on the EPA's
    Regulatory Reform Task Force. I'm grateful for the opportunity
    to testify on the work of the task force under the leadership
    of Administrator Scott Pruitt to engage in meaningful
    regulatory reform that advances the Agency's core mission of
    protecting human health and the environment.
        EPA's regulatory reform efforts over the last year have
    largely been driven by two executive orders, 13771 and 13777.
    In implementing these executive orders, EPA has emphasized
    three goals, which I would like to discuss today: transparency,
    public participation, and progress.
        First, EPA has enhanced the level of transparency for its
    regulatory reform work. As a first step, Administrator Pruitt
    issued an agency-wide memorandum listing the names of the task
    force members and providing an open account of the specific
    direction to the task force and EPA program offices to solicit
    public input and the process for evaluating existing
    regulations. Then, in April, EPA launched a new regulatory
    reform webpage to provide the public comprehensive information
    on the task force, these executive orders, and opportunities
    for public input. The Agency has periodically updated this
    website and is committed to continue to do so to keep the
    public well-informed of our actions.
        In regards to public participation, EPA has provided an
    unprecedented level in its regulatory reform work. Beginning in
    April, EPA offices invited more than 200,000 stakeholders to
    participate in 11 public meetings and teleconferences on
    regulatory reform. In order to provide an open and fair
    opportunity for all members of the public to provide input, EPA
    issued a Federal Register notice, opening a formal docket with
    a 30-day public comment period. In those 30 days, the EPA
    received a total of more than 460,000 public comments. While
    many of these comments were form letters, over 63,000 were
    unique individual comments which set an EPA record. These
    comments range from a few pages dedicated to one rule to dozens
    of pages providing detailed information regarding several
    rules.
        EPA is continuing to review and carefully analyze these
    comments, and any specific regulations that the Agency may
    review or may consider revising will indeed provide further
    opportunity for public comment in accordance with the
    Administrative Procedure Act.
        Underpinning all of this work is a commitment to achieving
    meaningful progress in air and water quality, land cleanup, and
    safe chemicals, while meeting the executive order deliverables
    to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American
    people. In accordance with Executive Order 13771, in fiscal
    year 2017 EPA rules imposed no new net costs, and we finalized
    at least two deregulatory actions for each regulatory action.
    EPA expects the same for fiscal year 2018, but further details
    regarding specific regulatory and deregulatory plans for fiscal
    year 2018 will be in the forthcoming unified agenda to be
    published by the Office of Management and Budget. As EPA moves
    forward with its regulatory reform efforts, the Agency will
    continue to update the public and Congress with our progress.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on the work
    of EPA's Regulatory Reform Task Force. I appreciate the time I
    spent with bipartisan committee staff last month briefing them
    on the task force's work, and I look forward to answering your
    questions today.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Bolen follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Simmons, your five minutes starts now.

                     STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. SIMMONS

        Mr. Simmons. Thank you. Chairmen Farenthold, Palmer,
    Ranking Members Plaskett and Demings, and members of this--of
    the--of both subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today and for your interest in regulatory reform at the
    Department of Energy.
        DOE is committed to reducing unnecessary, unreasonable,
    duplicative, and outdated regulatory burdens on American
    families and businesses. We are also committed to clean air,
    clean water, and continuing to improve the environment.
        Earlier this year, the President issued several executive
    orders that have guided our regulatory reform efforts. The
    President issued Executive Order 13771, reducing regulatory--
    reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs; Executive
    Order 13777, enforcing a regulatory reform agenda; and
    Executive Order 13783, promoting energy independence and
    economic growth.
        Executive Order 13777 required the head of the--each head
    of each agency to designate an agency official as its
    regulatory reform officer and that a--the agency establish a
    Regulatory Reform Task Force. Following the directions in these
    orders, DOE formed a Regulatory Reform Task Force, and the DOE
    chief of staff was designated as the regulatory reform officer.
    The chief of staff delegated they regulatory reform officers to
    me, the principal deputy assistant secretary in the Office of
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
        To inform the work of the Regulatory Reform Task Force, DOE
    published a request for information in the Federal Register on
    May 30 seeking comment from the public on DOE's regulations.
    DOE received 132 separate comments from businesses, trade
    associations, advocacy groups, and other interested
    stakeholders. DOE also established a dedicated email box,
    Regulatory.Review@HQ.DOE.gov, through which interested parties
    can communicate their regulatory reform ideas to DOE on an
    ongoing basis. In addition, upon request, DOE has met with
    interested party seeking to provide comments on DOE's
    regulatory reform activities, and we will continue to do so.
        On October 24, Secretary Perry sent a report to the White
    House detailing the task force's findings in response to
    Executive Order 13783 on energy independence. That report was
    also published online. DOE's task force made the following
    recommendations: Number one, streamline LNG natural gas
    exports. Several commenters encouraged DOE to export--expedite
    the export of LNG. On September 1, DOE issued a proposed rule
    to provide faster approvals of small-scale natural gas exports,
    including LNG. The comment period for the proposed rule closed
    on October 16. DOE is currently reviewing the comments and
    plans to complete the rulemaking in the near future.
        Number two, review our policies with regard to the national
    labs. DOE is the steward of 17 national labs, and it is
    critical that the important research and development work that
    occurs at the national lab is less encumbered by bureaucracy
    and that more of the money goes to the actual research and
    development, to get to Congresswoman Demings' concerns about
    the environment. And we have identified several areas for
    reform that would permit the national laboratories to operate
    more efficiently, focusing more time and resources on their
    mission-critical work.
        Number three, review DOE's implementation of the National
    Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. DOE received several comments
    that called for streamlining and simplifying the agency's
    regulations and internal operations related to NEPA. The goal
    is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of DOE's
    compliance with NEPA in reviewing and approving permits.
        And, number four, review DOE's appliance standards program.
    As required by statute, DOE implements minimum energy
    conservation standards and separate test procedures for more
    than 60 categories of appliances. The majority of the comments
    received from the public both in the request for information
    and in meetings concerned, number one, existing DOE energy
    conservation standards and test procedures; and two, the
    procedures DOE follows in issuing those regulations. Many
    commenters asked DOE to follow and review the so-called process
    rule. The process rule is a rule that describes the procedures,
    interpretations, and policies that guide DOE in establishing
    new or revised energy efficiency standards for consumer
    products.
        DOE will also consider voluntary nonregulatory and market-
    based alternatives to standard-setting when supported by
    statute. To this end, yesterday, DOE published in the Federal
    Register a request for information seeking comment on potential
    market-based approaches such as those used to set average fuel
    economy standards for vehicles. Such approaches may reduce
    compliance costs and increase consumer choice while preserving
    or enhancing appliance efficiency.
        DOE will continue to work with the public on the regulatory
    reform process as we will work to achieve the President's goal
    of reducing burdens on Americans, families, and businesses at
    the same time we work to continue to protect the environment.
    As DOE identifies additional areas for reform, the Department
    will provide more opportunities for public participation
    consistent with DOE's commitment to an open, transparent, and
    accountable rulemaking process.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today to
    explain DOE's efforts to achieve meaningful regulatory reform.
    I look forward to answering any questions. Thank you very much.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Simmons.
        It is my normal policy to save my questions for last.
    Unfortunately, today, simultaneously with this hearing there is
    a Judiciary Committee markup, so at some point I may need to
    leave for a short period of time to vote, so I'm going to go
    ahead and ask my questions first in the event I do have to move
    over to the Judiciary Committee for a couple minutes. So I now
    recognize myself for five minutes.
        Ms. Plaskett. You usually play cleanup.
        Mr. Farenthold. I usually bat cleanup, I do. I may have to
    do a second round of questions if we have to clean up.
        All right. Mr. Simmons, in Secretary Perry's October 25
    report on regulatory reform under the heading of ``Streamlining
    Natural Gas Exports,'' and you have talked a little bit about
    you all working on that, the DOE must conduct a public-interest
    review I think is what it's called. Can you tell me the basis
    for this statement?
        Mr. Simmons. I cannot. I will happily get with the Office
    of Fossil Energy ----
        Mr. Farenthold. All right. Well, here is where I am going
    on this. As I read the Natural Gas Act, section 3A, the
    Department must issue an approval on application unless it
    affirmatively finds, based on evidence in the record, that
    exportation will not be consistent with the public interest. So
    what that means to me is unless evidence in the record shows
    the export is not in the public interest, the approval should
    be granted. Unfortunately, through the previous
    administration--the previous administration insisted on a
    public-interest review as a reason to delay projects I think.
    Since it isn't required or authorized by the act, shouldn't we
    get rid of this concept and apply the law as it is written?
        Mr. Simmons. We are--at DOE we are always in favor of
    applying the law so ----
        Mr. Farenthold. All right. Well, we have companies in Texas
    whose export authorizations have been delayed for years by what
    I consider to be this unauthorized and illegal policy. I do ask
    that you take it back to Secretary Perry and the folks at the
    DOE to consider modifying the report to make it consistent with
    the law, and rather than doing a public-interest review,
    granting it unless the record or information positively shows
    that it is not in the public interest.
        This committee, the full committee a couple years ago held
    a field hearing in Fargo on the oil and gas industry and
    Federal regulations affecting it. Some of the testimony at that
    hearing indicated that in a horizontal well drilling-- that is
    where they go down a mile or two and then they take a turn and
    go out a mile or two, that they could get a permit from the
    State in a month, maybe two. But if any part of that horizontal
    drilling went under any Federal property, whether that is a
    Federal highway or something, it could take the permitting
    process over a year. Has the Department of the Interior looked
    at this and other examples of the amount of time it takes to
    comply with regulations, as well as just whether the
    regulations are burdensome or unnecessary, Mr. Bernhardt?
        Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We are looking at
    things from the following perspective: what is in the law and
    regulation, what is in guidance, and what are our actual
    business practices in processing permits and NEPA documents,
    for example. And what we find is that there is a great deal of
    business process practices that probably can be reformed and
    shortened significantly primarily through what is called the
    surnaming process at the Department. People review--you know,
    you may have 40, 50 people review a single document before it
    goes to the Federal Register, and we're looking at that to make
    that process a more streamlined and efficient process itself.
        Mr. Farenthold. Mr. Simmons, is DOE looking at process,
    too, to get the stuff out faster, whether it's these LNG
    exports or other things you all are dealing with?
        Mr. Simmons. Without a doubt, and that is--with LNG exports
    in particular, we are very much concerned about streamlining
    that process so it doesn't take years but, you know, takes a
    more reasonable amount of time.
        Mr. Farenthold. All right. And then let me--Ms. Bolen, I
    don't want to ignore you, and I may get everybody else's input
    on this as well. A lot of your agencies employ folks from the
    private sector who have moved over into the industry. Some have
    said that this may create a conflict of interest when somebody
    who lobbied for or worked in the private sector affected by a
    regulation is in reviewing that regulation. Other people say,
    look, this provides valuable insight from stakeholders who are
    affected by these regulations. I am going to ask Ms. Bolen to
    start and the rest of the witnesses to just comment quickly on
    whether you see a conflict of interest there or whether you see
    value in having another perspective in their view of these
    regulations. Ms. Bolen?
        Ms. Bolen. Thank you. So just, first, I will say that all
    appointees at the Agency do receive ethics training through
    senior career ethics officers, and so I think that there would
    not be any conflict of interest as it's my understanding that
    they would be in compliance with their ethics obligations.
        In regards to their experience, certainly, I think that the
    Agency would have some value in getting the perspective of
    those that have been on the ground and have been working on
    implementing these regulations in real time.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. Mr. Simmons, do you have
    anything to add?
        Mr. Simmons. Just to add that the Department of Energy
    takes our ethics--our ethical and our legal commitments very,
    very seriously and that we strive to meet them as well and that
    people--you know, one of the things that we hope to have is
    people with a wide variety of backgrounds and experience to be
    able to provide additional information into all the matters
    that we consider.
        Mr. Farenthold. Great. And, Mr. Bernhardt?
        Mr. Bernhardt. It's an interesting question as I look up
    and see the portraits of Abraham Lincoln, who was both a very
    successful lawyer and one of our greatest Presidents.
        The first thing I would say is that the Federal law and the
    Trump Administration have laid out requirements for ethical
    practices. We have a team of experts at the Department and a
    variety of analysis take place about whether something is a
    matter--a general matter, a particular matter of general
    applicability, or a specific matter affecting--a particular
    matter affecting specific parties. Depending on that type of
    issue, there are different regulations that apply, and
    guidelines need to be followed. Every PAS signs an ethical
    document laying out their requirements, and so we take this
    very seriously. We have training, we have guidance documents,
    and we have experts to ensure that we are held accountable.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I see I went a little
    over with the answers.
        I will now recognize Ms. Plaskett.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much.
        And let me start by saying that, Mr. Bernhardt, I see in
    your written testimony you have as the mandate--one of your
    mandates that President Trump has said that he has
    ``communicated a vision of empowering the private sector, as
    well as State and local governments by unleashing American
    exceptionalism and economic growth through reducing unnecessary
    and burdensome regulations while maintaining environmental
    protection and public health.'' I have no problem with that
    statement, and I think the other members of this committee know
    that I may be one of the few Democrats who believe that we have
    maybe more regulations than are necessary. I have seen it in my
    own home in the Virgin Islands. The previous head of EPA was
    not really a friend of mine. I did not appreciate the
    maternalistic posturing that took place over the people of the
    Virgin Islands, who I believe knew better than she or the
    administration what environmental protections needed or did not
    need to be in place.
        However, that does need to be done legally and with
    transparency in that deregulation, and that is the concern that
    I have a committee member here, that I am not sure about the
    complete disclosure of the task forces that have been put in
    place for many of these agencies that are reviewing
    deregulation. I think that it is very important that the public
    know who is on the task force, the perspectives and
    backgrounds, while they may have followed conflicts, rules, and
    ethics laws in being there. How they may be swayed or may be
    influenced I think is very important for the public to be aware
    of.
        Ms. Bolen, the EPA put on its website on March 24 a memo
    that, among other things, provides the names of members of the
    Agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force. Why did the Agency
    decide to put the names online?
        Ms. Bolen. It was an agency-wide memorandum that the
    administrator signed and part of just transparency, good
    government, we posted it on our website to keep the public
    informed.
        Ms. Plaskett. And have you had any comments or thoughts
    from the public with regard to who the members of the task
    force are?
        Ms. Bolen. There--I'm not aware of any direct questions
    regarding the task force membership.
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Thank you. Last week, the full
    committee ranking member, Elijah Cummings, sent a letter to
    both the Energy Department and the Interior Departments
    requesting the names of the task force members. Mr. Bernhardt,
    the Interior Department has not to date responded to Mr.
    Cummings' inquiry, nor are the names of the task force members
    available publicly. Why has the Interior taken the position
    thus far, or do they intend to put the task force members'
    names available to the public?
        Mr. Bernhardt. It's--Representative, first, before I answer
    that question, I just want to say my heart goes out to your
    community. I was in the U.S. Virgin Islands two weeks ago
    looking at a variety of facilities as they relate to the
    Department of the Interior so ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. And the National Parks has been a
    tremendous partner in that recovery. Many of the rangers acted
    as first responders immediately after the hurricane and
    particularly on the island of St. John really came to the
    support of the people, and we are really grateful for that.
        Mr. Bernhardt. I spent a lot of time with those folks a
    couple weeks ago and also in terms of continuing rehab and
    ensuring that we had some facilities open.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
        Mr. Bernhardt. So let me say this. It's my understanding
    that we have made our--the names of the task force available. I
    can't speak to the letter specifically, but I'm happy to
    provide you the names, and I'm happy to do that right now to
    the best of my recollection.
        Ms. Plaskett. If you could put that in writing to us. And
    you said you had made the names available. Where are they
    available ----
        Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I know that they've been made
    available to people who've asked, reporters and others. I'm not
    sure if they're online, but I know that the--from my
    perspective, they're certainly publicly available ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Is there a reason why the task force
    composition is not online or available ----
        Mr. Bernhardt. Well ----
        Ms. Plaskett.--to the public?
        Mr. Bernhardt. Probably not. I think from my perspective
    the task force membership is likely to change as we get
    assistant secretaries and others in place, and the Senate has
    been relatively slow at providing those people. But we're
    certainly happy to make it available, and I'll certainly
    evaluate whether it ought to be on the web.
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Thank you. And the Energy Department as
    well, sir, Mr. Simmons, would you be able to provide those
    names to Mr. Cummings and to the committee? And is there a
    reason why those names are not public?
        Mr. Simmons. I believe we've already done both ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay.
        Mr. Simmons.--as in we did have a phone call with committee
    staff a couple days ago where we shared those names, number
    one. Number two, I don't know if it's posted on our website,
    but it has been the subject of FOIA, which I think was--has
    been released publicly, but we will--we'll make sure those
    names are public.
        Ms. Plaskett. You will make sure?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes.
        Ms. Plaskett. I don't know if you shared that with the full
    committee staff or the majority, but just--and thank you very
    much. I just think it is important that in the process of the
    review that the task force is making not only that the names of
    the members are there but the process in which regulations they
    are reviewing are there for public comment as well. Thank you
    so much.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Palmer
    for his questions.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes I feel like
    I am back on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee
    again. My background, I worked for 25 years for a think tank. I
    helped set a national network of State-based think tanks, but
    prior to that, I worked for two international engineering
    companies, one of which was in environmental systems, so I am
    acutely aware of the regulatory burden imposed on the American
    economy but also the importance of good regulations, sensible
    regulations. We have done a tremendous job of cleaning up the
    air and the water and the land in the United States.
        When I was still with the think tank, we published an
    annual--every two years, it may have been every four years-- a
    report on the progress that has been made. And I, Mr. Chairman,
    would like to enter the report into the record. It's entitled
    ``Alabama's Environment 2014: Six Critical Indicators.'' But it
    has data from the EPA and Federal agencies that reflect the
    progress for the entire country.
        The thing that I want to point out ----
        Mr. Farenthold. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--is that from 1980 to
    2012 we saw a 462 percent increase in gross domestic product,
    but during that same--we also saw a 93 percent increase in
    vehicle miles traveled, a 38 percent increase in population
    growth, 22 percent increase in energy consumption, but a 56
    percent decrease in emissions. So I do commend the EPA and
    other Federal agencies for the work that they have done in that
    regard, but that doesn't mitigate at all the need to clean up
    the regulatory environment so to speak, to get rid of the
    obsolete, the out-of-date, the duplications, the contradictions
    so that we regulate effectively and appropriately. So I
    appreciate that.
        There was also a comment made about climate change in
    regard to hurricanes. We went through a 12-year drought of
    hurricanes. It was the lowest number of--the lowest hurricane
    activity on record until this past year.
        And I would also like to enter into the record a blog from
    Dr. Cliff Mass--he's University of Washington atmospheric
    scientist--in regard to hurricane activity.
        Mr. Farenthold. Without objection, it will be entered into
    the record.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, sir.
        With that said, again, as I said in my opening comments, I
    am very appreciative of the work that you are doing. I realize
    it is not policy work. It is more like an EPA cleanup effort.
    Have you received any pushback, serious pushback from career
    staff at your agencies? And we will begin with you, Mr.
    Bernhardt, at Department of Interior.
        Mr. Bernhardt. I think that I would say that our folks have
    worked very ----
        Mr. Palmer. Can you speak into the microphone? Thanks.
        Mr. Bernhardt. Our folks have worked very collaboratively
    with us, sir.
        Mr. Palmer. How about you, Ms. Bolen?
        Ms. Bolen. Career staff have provided valuable expertise
    and collaboration with us throughout the regulatory reform
    work, and I've not personally received any pushback.
        Mr. Palmer. How about you, Mr. Simmons?
        Mr. Simmons. And I would also echo that, that the majority
    of the members of the Regulatory Reform Task Force are career,
    and they provide us with indispensable information as we move
    forward with regulatory reform.
        Mr. Palmer. Would you also say that, by going through this
    process, that it makes the career staff, it makes all of you
    more effective in carrying out the responsibilities that you
    have in the regulatory sphere? And I will reverse order. I will
    start with Mr. Simmons.
        Mr. Simmons. Oh, without a doubt. The vast majority of the
    work that the Regulatory Reform Task Force has been working on
    is our relations with the national labs, the--you know,
    Congress appropriates billions of dollars a year that go to the
    national labs, and so we want to make sure that the--that that
    process is as--you know, strip out as much bureaucracy as we
    can, but also, the people that have to deal with that on a day-
    to-day basis and will deal with it in 4 years and 8 years and
    16 years, those are all career staff. So they very much want
    the best process possible, and that's why--that their--
    especially in that area that their input has been so valuable
    to us.
        Mr. Palmer. Ms. Bolen?
        Ms. Bolen. Certainly. So at the EPA retrospective review of
    existing regulations is not new. There was a prior effort under
    the previous administration to conduct retrospective review,
    and the EPA, some of our environmental statutes require
    periodic reviews and potential revisions, so this is part of
    what the agency does on a regular basis.
        Mr. Palmer. Mr. Bernhardt?
        Mr. Bernhardt. I think since the establishment of the Civil
    Service Reform Act of 1978 ----
        Mr. Palmer. Could you lean into the microphone?
        Mr. Bernhardt.--the establishment of the SES Corps, they
    are--they understand clearly that administrations come and
    change policy perspectives and that that represents the will of
    the people, and they're prepared to work with everybody. That's
    generally my experience.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, my final point on this--and I realize I
    am over time, Mr. Chairman--is that the point of this exercise
    is to bring clarity to the regulatory process, which not only
    benefits the American economy and the American people, as I
    said in my opening comments, it is costing the average
    household $15,000 a year--it enables those who are responsible
    for implementing the regulations not only at the Federal level
    but at the State and local level to be able to do their job
    effectively with the least negative impact on families and
    businesses.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
        I will now recognize Mrs. Demings from Florida for five
    minutes.
        Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much again, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you to our witnesses.
        There is no doubt we want to get this right, and I am so
    glad that we have spent quite a bit time talking about
    transparency. It is important. The public's input, the public's
    right to know is very, very critical to the overall process of
    getting things right.
        But it appears to me under the current administration
    science-based policies are being repealed and replaced with
    politics-based policies. We would hope that would not be the
    case under any administration, but it certainly appears that
    way to me.
        Ms. Bolen, how many members of the Regulatory Reform Task
    Force previously worked for companies regulated by the EPA?
        Ms. Bolen. I do not have personal knowledge of the detailed
    backgrounds of all the members of the Regulatory Reform Task
    Force, though a majority were previous Capitol Hill staff.
        Mrs. Demings. So you don't know of anyone who works for a
    company or an agency that was regulated by the EPA that is
    currently a member of the task force?
        Ms. Bolen. To my knowledge, the members of the task force
    had not been employed by any members of the regulated
    community.
        Mrs. Demings. Okay. How many political appointees appointed
    by Administrator Pruitt specifically worked for oil or chemical
    companies or their lobby groups? Do you know that answer?
        Ms. Bolen. I do not have personal knowledge of all the
    political appointees' backgrounds.
        Mrs. Demings. Could you talk a little bit in general about
    the backgrounds of persons that would be selected to serve on a
    task force to decide which regulations will remain or which
    regulations would be repealed?
        Ms. Bolen. Um-hum. Certainly. The members of the task
    force, I have full confidence in all of the qualifications of
    the members of the task force, given their experience on
    environmental and regulatory policy issues.
        Mrs. Demings. But you don't know of one who worked for a
    company or an organization that was regulated by the EPA?
        Ms. Bolen. The EPA task force is comprised of four senior
    staff members, and no, to my knowledge, none of the four has
    specifically been employed directly by a company that the
    Agency regulates.
        Mrs. Demings. Do you know whether Administrator Pruitt
    hired a former official with the American Petroleum Institute?
        Ms. Bolen. I'm ----
        Mrs. Demings. Erik Baptist?
        Ms. Bolen. Yes, I'm familiar with Mr. Baptist.
        Mrs. Demings. A former official with BP Troy Lyons?
        Ms. Bolen. Yes.
        Mrs. Demings. A former employee with Koch Companies,
    Madeline Morris?
        Ms. Bolen. Congresswoman, the members that you--the last
    three that you just mentioned ----
        Mrs. Demings. Is that ----
        Ms. Bolen.--are not on the task force.
        Mrs. Demings. Is Madeline Morris a member of the task
    force?
        Ms. Bolen. They are not members of the task force, no.
        Mrs. Demings. What is their current position, please?
        Ms. Bolen. Ms. Morris is no longer with the Agency.
        Mrs. Demings. Okay. What was her position? Do you remember?
        Ms. Bolen. To the best of my recollection it was executive
    assistant. But, Congresswoman, I'm happy to follow up through
    the proper channels with additional information that you have
    regarding political appointees at the EPA.
        Mrs. Demings. Okay. That would be great. And thank you so
    much for taking the lead in your organization for making--in
    your agency for making sure that task force members' names were
    included up front on your website.
        And with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I will now recognize
    Mr. Duncan for five minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bernhardt, my understanding is is that you say your
    department has taken 15 deregulatory actions and you have got
    28 more under review or ----
        Mr. Bernhardt. Yes, I think it's 13 and 28, but yes, you're
    absolutely right.
        Mr. Duncan. Okay. And would you give me an example of one
    of those that you have taken action on?
        Mr. Bernhardt. Sure. And it's--I think it's important to
    recognize that taking action, particularly for Interior, the
    President was very clear in his--in certain executive orders,
    particularly those relating to energy, of some--of regulations
    that he wanted us to look at. And so we did that. And, you
    know, the process is not ultimately the task force's process.
    It's the process enshrined in law to review and modify
    regulations, which is through the Administrative Procedure Act.
    And that process itself is a very public process, so, for
    example, regulations related to hydraulic fracturing on Federal
    land, regulations regarding methane, those would be two
    specific ones where, after the task force reviewed them, they
    went through a--they began going through a public process under
    the Administrative Procedures Act.
        Mr. Duncan. I have an article from one of the Washington
    newspapers here from a few months ago, and it says that the
    Obama administration issued final regulations in this last year
    alone that cost $164 billion. Is it one of your goals in this
    deregulatory effort to result in cost savings to taxpayers and
    businesses?
        Mr. Bernhardt. Right. So at least from our perspective, the
    baseline is a zero increase on burden, and we're hoping to
    actually have the economic burden be a net decrease, so that's
    our ultimate goal.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. Ms. Bolen, I heard you say that you
    have gotten 460,000 comments and 63--but most of them have been
    form letters, but 63,000 have been individual comments. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Bolen. That is correct.
        Mr. Duncan. And you are going through all those. Has the
    EPA taken any deregulatory actions yet?
        Ms. Bolen. Yes. We have several proposed deregulatory
    actions.
        Mr. Duncan. Several proposed?
        Ms. Bolen. And we--and for fiscal year 2017 we were able to
    finalize a number of deregulatory actions as well.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. And would you give me an example of
    one of those?
        Ms. Bolen. Certain. So for proposed deregulatory actions,
    we have a proposed repeal of the 2015 Waters of the United
    States rule. In terms of a final deregulatory action, we
    withdrew an information collection request for methane emission
    information from the oil and gas sector in March, and that
    information collection request is a deregulatory action under
    Executive Order 13771. And that is--that information collection
    request alone was estimated by the Agency to provide upwards of
    over $30 million in cost savings.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Simmons, what about your department? Have you taken any
    deregulatory actions as of yet?
        Mr. Simmons. We've--we have not--the only deregulatory
    actions that we have finalized are not regulations per se, but
    as our--as we work with the labs, we've taken some final
    actions there. Otherwise, just yesterday, we published in the
    Federal Register a request for information on market-based
    reforms, as I mentioned in my testimony, to possible changes
    that we could make to the Appliance Standards Program. That was
    yesterday. Just today, this morning, we sent a request for
    information about how we could improve the process rule, and
    that should be published in the Federal Register in the next
    couple days, as well as we have put out a proposed rule to
    streamline small-scale natural gas exports, and we should be
    finalizing that in, you know--in the not-too-distant future. I
    don't know the timeline but in the not-too-distant future.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much. I apologize. I
    had to go briefly to another hearing. I didn't get to hear your
    testimony, but, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
    from California for five minutes.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and
    all those involved in this hearing. I wish this was purely
    bipartisan. I know there to be some arguments, but I think
    getting regulations for the general public right, and that
    includes the business community.
        So, Mr. Bernhardt, representing northern California and the
    California Delta, you have had a long relationship in this
    regard. For my colleagues, Mark Twain once famously said about
    water in California, that whiskey was for drinking in
    California, but water was for fighting over. So, Mr. Bernhardt,
    this is in the context much like my friend and colleague from
    Florida. The regulation is important, but who is enforcing it
    is important, and whether there is a conflict of interest. So
    you have been in the Department and the Bush administration.
    You have been a lobbyist with clients who have an interest in
    this field.
        When you were confirmed, you, quote/unquote, said that you
    ``wouldn't act on any issues in regards to conflicts unless you
    were first authorized to participate,'' quote/unquote. You have
    had two former clients who have been in the news in California
    who seem to have crossed that bridge at least from my
    perspective. Caddis Inc. is now allowed to pump groundwater in
    southern California since you rejoined this administration, and
    that was a change in policy from the Obama administration. And
    then Westlands Water District has been involved in a subsidy
    that has been brought to us by the IG in the Delta tunnels
    planning process.
        So my question for you is have you sought or received any
    waivers to work on these matters or any other matters when it
    comes to California water?
        Mr. Bernhardt. My ethics recusal is very clear that I will
    not participate personally or substantially in any particular
    matter involving specific parties in which I know a former
    employer or client of mine is a party or represents a party.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. So you're not involved right now in any
    policy ----
        Mr. Bernhardt. That is ----
        Mr. DeSaulnier.--in this regard?
        Mr. Bernhardt. I'm sorry. I did not hear you, but let me
    finish ----
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Okay.
        Mr. Bernhardt.--addressing your first question. I've had no
    role in any particular matter regarding either of these--any
    particular matter involving specific parties involving either
    of these two clients, and I've not sought a waiver in such
    instance.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. So just on the issue of perception,
    perception being important, obviously, you have put some
    thought into this. How would you deal with the general public
    in California that would say here is somebody who has worked in
    the administration who has gone outside the so-called revolving
    door? It seems to me that you are trying to establish a bright
    line, but perception-wise, you have made many outside that
    might say you know more about it. But is this sufficient given
    the role you have in people who are working underneath you or
    carrying out this policy, knowing that you have had a
    relationship and may in the future have a relationship with
    these clients?
        Mr. Bernhardt. Well, let's be very clear. I think I've put
    in place the most robust process ever devised by a deputy
    secretary, and let me tell you, we have specific recusals. We
    require specific guidance. I have had training sessions, and I
    consult regularly with the experts. Every request for a meeting
    by me is run through--not by me but for a meeting with me is
    run through ethics experts, so we have put in place a very
    robust process. And, you know, I can't speak necessarily to
    what others may say, but at the end of the day, I know that
    this is a far more robust process than was ever in place when
    other folks from large law firms have joined entities like the
    Department of the Interior, and I will stand behind them.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Could you be more specific as to those
    other situations?
        Mr. Bernhardt. Sure. Go look at David Hayes, the deputy
    secretary who came from Latham Watkins. Go look at Janice
    Schneider. Those will be two from the prior administration. I
    could give you a long list. And in regards to policy matters, I
    think you'd find that their client list looked very similar to
    mine before they went into the Department of the Interior.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. And when the time comes for you to reenter
    the private sector, is it your intention to go back to your
    former law firm?
        Mr. Bernhardt. I have no intention to do that. You know,
    life leads the way it does, but certainly, when I left my law
    firm, I gave up my interest, and I don't have a relationship
    with my law firm in any sort of way. And the future will hold
    what the future does.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Okay. I appreciate those comments. You can
    certainly appreciate from my perspective and my constituents'
    the perception that may be subjective, given their desire to
    protect the environment, where they live, they are impacted
    by--certainly the perception is different. With that, I ----
        Mr. Bernhardt. And I also think that ----
        Mr. DeSaulnier.--yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Bernhardt.--part of that perception is based on people
    not understanding the actual rules.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. It is all based on perception. And with
    that, I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. We will now recognize
    the gentleman from Montana for five minutes.
        Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the
    committee, thank you for being here for this important work.
        I appreciate the President's order to identify overly
    burdensome, costly, and outdated regulations for repeal or
    revision, as well as the administration's desire for two rules
    to be repealed for every one that is added. One of the reasons
    I came to Washington was to make it easier for job creators
    back in Montana.
        Mr. Bernhardt, you have a huge job covering all the
    entities at Interior from the National Park Service, the Office
    of Surface Mining and Reclamation, and the enforcement, and the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Land Management
    controls just over 8 million acres in the State of Montana. The
    National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service each
    control another 1 million acres, so over 10 million acres in
    total. As part of this Regulatory Reform Act, how did you work
    with local and State organizations to collect input on what
    regulations to focus on? And if you could share some of the
    successes you have had.
        Mr. Bernhardt. So we've received comments from States.
    We've received comments from associations like the Western
    Governors' Association. We've received comments from
    localities, some of which have very specific problems, and some
    of which have more broader concerns. And what we do in our
    meetings is we take the comments that we've received between
    the last meeting and that one, and we go through them and we
    say, ``Hey, this has merit; let's have the Bureau do some
    research on that.'' And so that is the way--it's a very--it's a
    process that anybody can take advantage of, and many have.
        Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Great. And I just applaud you for that
    work so far, and I encourage you to continue it.
        We have heard some concerns at these hearings about
    previous employment of staff assisting with this regulatory
    reform across the agencies. As a business guy, it is kind of
    puzzling to me why an agency assembling staff would not
    consider people with prior experience in the area they are
    going to be working. That seems to be portrayed as some kind of
    novel approach. In fact, it has been a practice that has been
    followed in prior administrations.
        For example, when not serving as the EPA's senior policy
    advisor to the administrator under President Obama or deputy
    administrator for President Clinton's administration, Bob
    Sussman headed the environmental practice at a large D.C. law
    firm to advise and advocate for companies and trade
    associations.
        In the previous administration, Cameron Davis, a senior
    advisor to the EPA administrator, provided counsel on the Great
    Lakes policy and coordinated funding initiatives. His previous
    occupation was president and chief executive officer of the
    Alliance for the Great Lakes.
        David McIntosh at the previous administration's EPA had
    also worked as a Clean Air Act litigator and regulatory lawyer
    at the National Resources Defense Council. In fact, that
    organization is well represented in that administration.
        The Department of Interior's Ned Farquhar served as the
    National Resources Defense Council as an energy and climate
    advocate prior to being named deputy assistant secretary for
    Lands and Minerals Management.
        Before Janice Schneider appeared before this very committee
    on behalf of the Department of Interior to defend its proposed
    Stream Protection Rule in 2015, she co-chaired a large law
    firm's energy and infrastructure project siting and defense
    practice.
        Also, in 2015, Mark McCall was appointed executive director
    of the Department of Energy's Loans Program. And this list goes
    on and on. Clearly, agencies have considered prior experience
    and hired people with expertise.
        So my question, after that long list of prior
    administrations, is it appropriate for agencies to select
    people who have experience to do the jobs they are being hired
    for? And each one of you, if you could answer.
        Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely, provided they follow the
    regulations and the ethical requirements that have been
    established by law.
        Mr. Gianforte. Ms. Bolen?
        Ms. Bolen. I agree with that statement.
        Mr. Gianforte. And Mr. Simmons?
        Mr. Simmons. Agreed. Prior experience is incredibly
    important, as Mr. Bernhardt said, as long as we meet our
    ethical, legal--and legal obligations.
        Mr. Gianforte. And I would just--you have been very clear
    that that was a requirement in all cases, that, as you had
    said, Mr. Bernhardt, you had separated yourself, as we do in
    our positions, from prior engagements so that we can serve the
    people of America. And you have done that in your agencies, and
    I applaud you for hiring talented, qualified people to fill
    these positions. And I thank you for your testimony today.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. And I would like to
    thank our witnesses for appearing before us today.
        Oh, did we miss Mr. Grothman? Sorry about that.
        Mr. Grothman. That is okay.
        Mr. Farenthold. You disappeared, and you are back. Welcome
    back.
        Mr. Grothman. I was hanging out in the Education Committee,
    but I wouldn't miss this for the world.
        Mr. Farenthold. All right. I apologize. You're recognized
    for five minutes, sir.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. I want to follow up a little bit again
    as far as the background of people you hire, and a lot of my
    experience actually came at the State level, but I always felt
    it was a big mistake to hire people in regulatory agencies
    straight out of college or academics because they really didn't
    understand how burdensome those regulations are. Are any of you
    and your agencies hiring people straight out of university or
    people whose only experience has been in the world of academia,
    or are you restricting yourselves hopefully to people who have
    experience with the businesses that are going to be regulated?
        Mr. Simmons. I--well, I'll start by answering that. For the
    broad swath of hiring across DOE, we--you know, we meet our
    human capital requirements and, you know, we look to hire the
    best people for the appropriate job. For these entry-level
    positions, we definitely would like to have people right out of
    college because, I mean, that's what those positions are, to
    give people experience. For more senior-level positions, you
    definitely want people with various types of experience to
    provide that necessary information. So it all depends on the
    position for the--for hiring.
        Mr. Grothman. Yes?
        Ms. Bolen. So certainly, the Agency does have fellowship
    programs with recent graduates, but just generally speaking,
    the--I'm aware that the political staff I think has a broad
    scope in their background and qualifications and levels of
    expertise that they can offer, but I couldn't speak to the
    Agency as a whole's hiring practices.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay.
        Mr. Bernhardt. We have approximately 70,000 employees. We
    hire all sorts of folks. Obviously, at a policy level, at a
    senior level, what we see in folks tend to be people that have
    experience in State or local government, people that have
    experience in regulatory paradigms that are complicated, or
    people that have science backgrounds that are relevant to their
    mission.
        Mr. Grothman. I am a little bit concerned, and I would like
    you to comment on this because, having dealt with regulatory
    agencies, sometimes somebody who has never worked outside of
    government--and that is fine--but they don't understand how
    burdensome a new regulation can be or, you know, you may change
    a regulation from three years ago you thought you were
    complying, now you are not, that sort of thing.
        I am a little bit concerned with--you know, and I realize
    not your entire functions are regulatory. You know, I mean, if
    you are hiring somebody for the parks or something, that is one
    thing, but if it is a regulatory agency that affects how
    somebody else is doing business or their property, I think it
    is important to hire somebody who has been on the other side
    first.
        And I wondered if you would ever consider, you know, maybe
    putting an administrative rule, putting in requirements that
    people who work for the regulatory part of your agencies have
    to have three or four years' experience first so they
    understand how it looks when a new wave of paperwork is thrown
    at you or you have to spend perhaps millions of dollars on
    something when two years ago you were in compliance. Would any
    of you comment on maybe if you would ever even have the ability
    to maybe put some administrative rule in effect so you greatly
    increase the chance that you will be hiring people who have
    experience other than just college-related ----
        Mr. Bernhardt. So ----
        Mr. Grothman.--if they are interacting with private
    individuals?
        Mr. Bernhardt. Yes, I don't--I've never thought about the
    rulemaking, but I will give you a similar example, and that is
    at times I think the folks that we have in our headquarters,
    even if they're regulatory people, they don't necessarily know
    what folks are actually doing on the ground and the challenges
    that our field offices are facing. And I've seen this and, you
    know, one of the things we're looking at is ensuring that the
    people that are making regulatory policy decisions actually
    know what the on-the-ground effects are even within the local
    regulators because I think their perspective tends to be a
    little different because they are there experiencing these
    things as well. Your idea is an interesting one. We'd have to
    talk to our lawyers about that.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Ms. Bolen?
        Ms. Bolen. I would have to take back your suggestion, but I
    will offer that the Office of Policy, the office in which I
    serve, does have a program that we've relaunched that was first
    initiated under the Clinton administration known as Common
    Sense, and now we have rebranded it to Smart Sectors, which is
    an opportunity for the Agency to develop partnerships with the
    regulated community and to provide a means for career staff to
    get on-the-ground tours and site visits and to better
    understand the regulated community. And this is just a
    partnership that we relaunched several months ago that was
    something past administrations have done to try to bridge the
    gap between career staff and the regulated entities.
        Mr. Grothman. Right. One way to make sure that the staff
    always understands the regulated community is to make sure you
    hire them from the regulated community, but thank you.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. Just checking to make
    sure nobody else walked in.
        All right. With that, I will thank our witnesses again for
    being here. It was great hearing from you, great hearing about
    the wonderful work that you all are doing to reduce our
    regulatory environment.
        We are going to hold the record open for two weeks for any
    member to submit a written opening statement or questions for
    the record. And if you guys would be so kind as to reply to any
    of those we get, it would be greatly appreciated.
        If there being no further business, without objection, the
    subcommittees stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]

                               APPENDIX

                              ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Dr. Cliff Mass' blog can be found at: http://
    cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/08/global-warming-and-hurricane-
    harvey.html.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]