[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 16, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-42
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-194 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PAUL TONKO, New York
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio LOIS CAPPS, California
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas Islands
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois KATHY CASTOR, Florida
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) officio)
------
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky GENE GREEN, Texas
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio
FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 6
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Adam Kinzinger, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, prepared statement................................ 53
Witnesses
Bob Perciasepe, Acting Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Answers to submitted questions............................... 58
Submitted Material
Statement of former EPA administrator Al Armendariz, submitted by
Mr. Hall....................................................... 54
Charts submitted by Mr. Gardner.................................. 55
THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
joint with the
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed
Whitfield (chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power)
presiding.
Present from Subcommittee on Energy and Power:
Representatives Whitfield, Scalise, Shimkus, Pitts, Terry,
Burgess, Latta, Cassidy, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo,
Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Barrow,
Matsui, Christensen, Castor, and Dingell.
Present from Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy:
Representatives Shimkus, Gingrey, Hall, Murphy, Harper,
Bilirakis, Johnson, Tonko, Green, DeGette, Capps, Matsui, and
Waxman (ex officio).
Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte
Baker, Press Secretary; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator,
Energy and Power; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy
Advisor; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy and Power; Brad
Grantz, Policy Coordinator, Oversight and Investigations; Tom
Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; Ben Lieberman,
Counsel, Energy and Power; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel,
Environment/Economy; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member;
Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy
Press Secretary; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment
and Economy; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member,
Oversight; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Alison
Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; Greg
Dotson, Democratic Energy and Environment Staff Director;
Kristina Friedman, EPA Detailee; and Caitlin Haberman,
Democratic Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. I would like to call the hearing to order
this morning, and today's topic is the Environmental Protection
Agency's fiscal year 2014 budget. We are delighted that the
Acting Administrator, Mr. Perciasepe, is here with us today,
and had a nice meeting with him yesterday as well, and we look
forward to his testimony, and we really look forward to the
question-and-answer period as well. So we welcome him, and I
will recognize myself for 5 minutes for--oh, 3? I only get 3
minutes. I recognize myself for 3 minutes for an opening
statement.
This morning's hearing is on the Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed budget for fiscal year 2014. I might say in
the beginning that I don't think America needs to take a back
seat to any country in the world when it comes to doing an
effective job of maintaining a clean environment, whether it is
water, hazardous air pollutants, ozone, ambient air quality
standards, clean air, whatever it might be, and even our
CO2 emissions are lower than they have been in 20
years.
Now, the budget for the EPA this year request is $8.153
billion, and the Obama Administration EPA has been as
aggressive as any agency in the federal government in recent
years. As a matter of fact, in 2012, EPA finalized 635 rules
spanning 5,637 pages in the Federal Register, and I think this
Administration has demonstrated an ability to take each tax
dollar given to it and return to the American people many more
dollars in regulatory cost. The Utility MACT Rule alone has
been estimated by the Agency, which many people say is
conservative, to cost $9.6 billion annually, more than the
entire budget proposal for the Agency, and this rule is but one
of many recent EPA measures targeting coal-fired electric
generation.
Now, President Obama talks about an all-of-the-above
policy, and yet his Administration is doing everything possible
to eliminate coal from the equation. The rules already issued
have closed down over 289 coal-powered plants.
And these regulations go way beyond just coal. EPA's new
CAFE rules for cars and small trucks are estimated by the
Agency to cost $210 billion by 2025. Now, we know that there
are benefits but we also know that when fully implemented these
rules alone will add nearly $3,000 to the sticker price of an
automobile. And so you ask the question, when do you reach a
point of diminishing returns. We know that there are benefits
from these regulations but the costs are also very real and
many people lose jobs, many people lose their health benefits
because of losing their jobs, and frequently, EPA does not even
consider those costs.
So this is going to be an interesting hearing. I know that
members of this subcommittee have many questions on both sides
of the aisle, and we look forward to Mr. Perciasepe's testimony
and to the question-and-answer period.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield
This morning's hearing is on the Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2014. And we are
pleased to be joined by Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe to
discuss the administration's $8.153 billion dollar proposal.
A clean environment is very important to us all, and I am
proud of the improvements in air and water quality that we have
seen in Kentucky and across the U.S. over the past forty years.
And we all want to see continued progress. For this reason, we
need to be especially critical of those EPA budget items that
are unwise and wasteful and a detour from the core mission, and
unfortunately there appear to be several of them.
And while $8.153 billion dollars may seem like a small part
of the Obama administration's massive overall budget proposal,
my concern is not only over the expenditures themselves but
also with what the agency intends to do with the money. Indeed,
the Obama administration's EPA has demonstrated an ability to
take each tax dollar given to it and return to the American
people many more dollars in unnecessary regulatory costs.
The Utility MACT rule alone has been estimated by the
agency to cost $9.6 billion dollars annually, more than the
entire budget proposal. And this rule is but one of many recent
EPA measures targeting coalfired electric generation. These
rules have already resulted in plant shutdowns and lost jobs,
and they may lead to higher electric bills and reliability
issues as well.
And the regulations go beyond those aimed at coal. EPA's
new CAFE/GHG rules for cars and small trucks are estimated by
the agency to cost $210 billion dollars by 2025. When fully
implemented they will add nearly $3,000 to the sticker price of
a new vehicle. And this rule is just one part of EPA's global
warming regulatory agenda that is increasingly looking like a
very bad deal for the American people and the middle class
citizens who rely on affordable and abundant energy resources.
Granted, the agency routinely claims regulatory benefits in
excess of the costs. But while the costs are very real, the
benefits are more speculative and are often based on inflated
estimates of hypothetical lives saved from reducing fine
particular matter. According to a recent draft OMB report,
EPA's claimed benefits from its air rules alone far eclipses
the benefits of all other federal regulatory agencies combined.
This simply does not pass the laugh test.
These benefits estimates are especially dubious given that
the Clean Air Act has been in place since 1970 and many of the
new rules add to already-strict existing measures. For example,
coal-fired power plants were sharply reducing their emissions
of air pollutants well before the Obama EPA launched its wave
of new coal regulations. And the agency's proposed new Tier 3
regulations to reduce sulfur in gasoline comes after Tier 2
regulations have already lowered them by 90 percent. The
pattern of new agency rules imposing rising costs but
diminishing or nonexistent marginal returns is very worrisome.
While the economic stakes of many EPA rules are quite high,
the level of transparency and accountability is not. That is
one reason why my colleague Dr. Cassidy has introduced H.R.
1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act. This bill would provide
for Department of Energy review of all energy-related EPA
regulations costing a billion dollars or more, and protect the
economy from job losses, higher energy prices, and other
adverse impacts.
The goal of that bill is the same as the goal of this
hearing--to ensure that EPA is on the right path for the
environment as well as the economy.
# # #
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I will recognize the gentleman
from Illinois for 3 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
certainly want to thank you, Acting Administrator Perciasepe,
for being here today, and I also want to take a moment to thank
all the good people over at the EPA for all their hard work and
all their dedication protecting the public health on behalf of
the American people.
Mr. Administrator, I do not envy the task that you all face
over at the EPA, being responsible for protecting the Nation's
land, air and water, especially in a place of cut after cut,
criticism after criticism, charge after charge. But I know one
thing: the people of my State in Illinois, particularly the
people in a place called the village of Crestwood, located in
my district, certainly appreciate all the work that you do. EPA
played a critical role in helping to finally bring to justice
the public officials who are responsible for illegally pumping
contaminated water into the homes of my constituents in the
village of Crestwood for over 20 years from 1986 to 2007, and
this unlawful act, these actions were investigated and brought
to light by an ordinary citizen, Tina Quaff, whose courage and
tenacity helped bring this atrocity to the attention of the
public and to my attention. And after I wrote a letter to then-
Administrator Lisa Jackson in April 2009 calling for a federal
investigation, U.S. EPA played a crucial role by working with
the Justice Department to execute search warrants and to
commence raids on government facilities in order to unearth the
full extent of these appalling criminal acts. Due largely to
the U.S. EPA's role, just last month on April 29, 2013,
Crestwood officials including the water department supervisor
and a certified water operator were found guilty of lying about
covertly mixing contaminated well water into the village's
drinking water supply and now they are facing lengthy prison
sentences as a result of their shameful actions of using the
public trust.
Mr. Chairman, I can't do anything but applaud Acting
Administrator Perciasepe, former Administrator Jackson and all
the other hardworking individuals over at the EPA. They have
done a fine job, and they have done in this instance and in
other instances, they have done a job that the American people
expect them to do, and that is to protect the American people's
health, protect their public safety and protect the
environment, and Mr. Perciasepe, I want to thank you and your
Agency for some outstanding work.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I will recognize the chairman of the Environment and the
Economy Subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus, for 3 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to welcome
Acting Administrator Perciasepe here, Bob. I didn't see you at
baseball practice this morning. We did talk a little baseball
yesterday but we were out there at 6:30, so we missed you. But
thanks for coming to this oversight hearing on the budget.
There are a lot of things we are going to want to know and
follow, and especially what the Agency is doing at its core
statutory authorized programs, whether it is sticking to
Congressional intent or whether hardworking American tax
dollars are being used to appropriately, effectively, and
efficiently protect against significant risks to human health
and the environment, based on the best available and valid
science, and whether these laws are enforced fairly and
effectively. ``Fairly and effectively'' is in vogue right now
as we see issues of other agencies.
In fact, tomorrow, the subcommittee that I chair will be
holding a legislative hearing on small changes to the
Superfund, which we sort of addressed yesterday. This law was
enacted to clean up the most hazardous waste sites in America,
yet after almost 33 years, more than 1,300 sites, and billions
of dollars spent, less than 37 percent of these sites have been
completely cleaned up, and of course, that is not acceptable.
We are glad for the ones that have been totally cleaned up but
there are still many remaining.
Just doing things a certain way because that is how we have
always done them is not a viable excuse. We need to do a better
job. We need to recognize advancements in technology, reward
innovation, cut red tape, and leverage the expertise of state
regulators. A case in point is E-Manifest, and I am pleased
Congress was finally able to get these changes into law last
year and I applaud the Agency's budget for committing resources
to its usage. We should not stop there, and I am also
encouraged by the greater use of the Internet and other e-
technologies to modernize EPA reporting programs, including the
guidance supporting Consumer Confidence Reporting under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
On the other hand, I do not believe this is the time for
EPA to launch new programs when there is clear evidence it must
focus on its legally mandated responsibilities and doing a
better job on them within the current budget climate. I want to
know more about how EPA wants to use newer technologies to
transform existing programs, the Agency's capitalization goals
for the drinking water State Revolving Funds and whether we are
getting closer to a sustainable SRF program, and the specific
timeline for EPA before released Integrated Risk Information
Systems assessments have fully, not partially, implemented the
important National Academy of Sciences recommendations.
I appreciate that EPA styles itself as a science agency,
but its deployment of that science should be beyond reproach.
Unfortunately, external review boards have repeatedly called
this science into question. To truly protect the public from
harm as well as unnecessary negative economic outcomes, we need
an unbiased, valid process educating policymakers about the
science, not policymakers dictating that science.
Again, I want to thank you for coming, for being in the
committee today. I hope you and the EPA will welcome our
oversight efforts as a way to openly inform Congress and the
American people about the Agency's efforts and all its
activities, and I want to end by saying, we have developed a
pretty good relationship with some folks in the EPA on
legislation. We look forward to continuing to do so in the
future, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
I too want to welcome Mr. Perciasepe to our committee for
this joint hearing on the proposed budget and operations plans
of the EPA in fiscal year 2014.
We very much want to know what the agency is doing in its
core, statutorily authorized programs; whether it is sticking
to congressional intent; and whether hard working Americans'
tax dollars are being used to appropriately, effectively, and
efficiently protect against significant risks to human health
and the environment, based on the best available and valid
science, and that these laws are enforced fairly and
effectively.
In fact, tomorrow, the subcommittee I chair will be holding
a legislative hearing on small changes to Superfund. This law
was enacted to clean-up the most hazardous waste sites in
America, yet after almost 33 years, more than 1300 sites, and
billions of dollars spent, less than 37 percent of these sites
have been completely cleaned up. That is not acceptable.
Just doing things a certain way because that's how we've
always done it not a viable excuse; we need to do better,
recognize advancements in technology, reward innovation, cut
red tape, and leverage the expertise of state regulators.
Case in point is E-Manifest. I am pleased Congress was
finally able to get these changes into law last year and
applaud the agency's budget for committing resources to its
usage. We should not stop there and I am also encouraged by the
greater use of the Internet and other e-technologies to
modernize EPA reporting programs, including the guidance
supporting Consumer Confidence Reporting under the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
On the other hand, I do not believe this is the time for
EPA to launch new programs when there is clear evidence it must
focus on its legally mandated responsibilities and doing a
better job on them within the current budget climate. I want to
know more about:
How EPA wants to use newer technologies to
transform existing programs.
The agency's capitalization goals for the drinking
water State Revolving Funds and whether we are getting closer
to a sustainable SRF program, and
The specific timeline for EPA before released
Integrated Risk Information Systems assessments have fully, not
partially, implemented the important National Academy of
Sciences recommendations.
I appreciate EPA styles itself as a science agency, but its
deployment of that science should be beyond reproach.
Unfortunately, external review boards have repeatedly called
this science into question. To truly protect the public from
harm as well as unnecessary negative economic outcomes, we need
an unbiased, valid process educating policymakers about the
science, not policymakers dictating that science.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Perciasepe for being with the
committee today. I hope he and EPA will welcome our oversight
efforts as a way to openly inform Congress and the American
people about the agency's efforts and all its activities.
# # #
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. At this time I will recognize the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, recognize him for
3 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Thank you,
Chair Whitfield and Chair Shimkus, for holding this hearing on
the Environmental Protection Agency's budget request for 2014,
and welcome, Acting Administrator Perciasepe. Thank you for
being here today.
The Environmental Protection Agency has brought us a long
way since it was established by President Nixon in 1970.
Congress has enacted environmental laws to protect our water,
our air, our soil and food supply, and EPA has implemented
them. Public health and a clean environment are inextricably
linked. Our economy and our population have grown considerably
over the past four decades, demonstrating that environmental
protection is compatible with economic growth. In fact, if we
are willing to make investments in environmental infrastructure
such as drinking water treatment and delivery, source water
protection, sewage treatment and waste-to-energy systems, we
can create thousands of jobs and improve the conditions of our
rivers, our lakes and our coastlines. If we do not make these
investments, we risk damaging the resources that we require to
support a healthy, modern society.
Thoughtless policies like sequestration that blindly cut
programs with no regard to their benefit or impact on the
public, the environment or the economy will not put our fiscal
house in order and can cause extreme damage. Our failure to
repair vital infrastructure and to address the complex
challenge of climate change has already cost us a great deal.
Infrastructure does not repair itself, and the pace and impact
of climate change are increasing. We need to address these
issues now before the costs rise even further.
The Administration and the Congress should work together to
ensure that we maintain and improve upon our record of
environmental protection. EPA's budget is an important part of
that effort, and I look forward to your testimony here,
Administrator Perciasepe, and to working with you and the
Agency to continue our progress in environmental protection. We
have a uniqueness here to that Agency. We have tremendous
mission statements associated with it, and we have an economy
to grow. So I look forward to again working with you and the
professionals at EPA.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much.
At this time I recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Upton, for 3 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
begin by acknowledging and applauding the success of our
Nation's efforts to protect and improve our environment over
the years. Under existing regs, our air quality has improved
dramatically. In fact, this is something that our entire
country should be proud of. EPA reports that total emissions of
toxic air pollutants decreased by about 42 percent between 1990
and 2005, and that between 1980 and 2010, total emissions of
the six principal air pollutants dropped by 63 percent.
However, with that success--some might even say in spite of
it--the number and scope of EPA regs is continuing to grow
without precedent. This administration is seeking to regulate
where they failed to legislate, and they are doing so at a
furious pace. According to our staff's review, the Agency
issued over 600 final rules in 2012, bringing the 4-year total
to more than 2,000. Even more striking than the number of new
rules is their unaffordable cost. A recent draft by OMB noted
that a disproportionate number of the federal government's
costliest regs in fact come from the EPA, and especially its
Air Office. Rules costing at least a billion dollars are no
longer uncommon, and the Nation's struggling economy sadly has
to absorb them. And while the cost and expansiveness of EPA
rules has increased, the level of transparency about those
rules appears to have diminished. Even the billion-dollar rules
are issued with more questions than answers, and sometimes that
final rule is a big departure from the proposed version.
Sometimes the underlying scientific justification is considered
confidential and not disclosed. Frequently, the cost data is
incomplete and the claimed benefits are speculative and poorly
supported. And quite often, the regulated community is not
given sufficient guidance as to how they can comply.
And while the Administration is aggressively pursuing
regulations within its own jurisdiction, it is also extending
its reach beyond. It is continuing to ramp up its greenhouse
gas regs, which have the potential to change the way we power
our grid by limiting fuel diversity as well as how we permit
new industrial facilities.
Another unwelcome example is the Agency's 11th-hour effort
to needlessly delay the Keystone XL approval process and the
jobs that landmark project would create.
I fear the consequences of EPA's aggressive regulatory
expansion for job creation and energy prices, and especially
the disproportionate burden on low-income households. That is
why I supported the Energy Consumers Relief Act, which would
put energy policy back in the hands of the agency with energy
in its name, the Department of Energy, by giving DOE the lead
role in reviewing all energy-related EPA rules that have in
fact a billion-dollar price tag.
EPA does have an important role to play in implementing the
Clean Air Act and other federal environmental statutes, and
doing so in the manner that Congress envisioned. So I hope this
hearing is the first step toward getting the agency on that
course, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
I want to begin by acknowledging and applauding the success
of our nation's efforts to protect and improve our environment
over the years. Under existing regulations, our air quality has
improved dramatically. This is something that our entire
country should be proud of--EPA reports that total emissions of
toxic air pollutants decreased by approximately 42 percent
between 1990 and 2005 and that between 1980 and 2010, total
emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 63
percent.
However, with that success--some might even say in spite of
it--the number and scope of EPA regulations is continuing to
grow without precedent. The Obama administration is seeking to
regulate where they failed to legislate, and they are doing so
at a furious pace. According to our staff's review, the agency
issued over 600 final rules in 2012, bringing the four-year
total to more than 2,000.
Even more striking than the number of new rules is their
unaffordable cost. A recent draft OMB report noted that a
disproportionate number of the federal government's costliest
regulations come from EPA, and especially its air office. Rules
costing at least one billion dollars are no longer uncommon,
and the nation's struggling economy must absorb them.
And while the cost and expansiveness of EPA rules has
increased, the level of transparency about those rules appears
to have diminished. Even the billion dollar rules are issued
with more questions than answers. Sometimes, the final rule is
a big departure from the proposed version. Sometimes, the
underlying scientific justification is considered confidential
and not disclosed. Frequently, the cost data is incomplete and
the claimed benefits are speculative and poorly supported. And
quite often, the regulated community is not given sufficient
guidance as to how they can comply.
And while the Obama EPA is aggressively pursuing
regulations within its own jurisdiction, it is also extending
its reach beyond. It is continuing to ramp up its greenhouse
gas regulations, which have the potential to change the way we
power our grid by limiting fuel diversity as well as how we
permit new industrial facilities. Another unwelcome example is
the agency's 11th hour effort to needlessly delay the Keystone
XL approval process and the jobs the landmark project would
create.
I fear the consequences of EPA's aggressive regulatory
expansion for job creation and energy prices, and especially
the disproportionate burden on low-income households. That is
why I support the Energy Consumers Relief Act, which would put
energy policy back in the hands of the agency with energy in
its name--the Department of Energy--by giving DOE the lead role
in reviewing all energy-related EPA rules that have a billion
dollar price tag.
EPA has an important role to play in implementing the Clean
Air Act and other federal environmental statutes, and doing so
in the manner that Congress envisioned. I hope this hearing is
the first step toward getting the agency back on course.
# # #
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I would like to recognize the
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman of California,
for 3 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting Administrator Perciasepe, thank you for being here
today and for your service to the Nation at the Environmental
Protection Agency.
EPA is making our air safer to breathe and our water safer
to drink. The agency is on the frontline of our national effort
to address climate change. It is a huge responsibility and one
that all Americans are counting on you to carry out. I want to
take this opportunity to urge you to do everything you can to
control carbon pollution. Many different sources and activities
contribute to this problem, and we will not be able to address
it unless we make reductions across the board. Power plants are
of course the largest source of emissions, but so are other
major sources like methane from coal mines and oil and gas
production. You need to find a way to address all major
sources.
Despite the critical importance of your work, the EPA
budget represents a tiny portion of overall federal spending.
Under the President's proposal for fiscal year 2014, EPA
funding would be less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the
federal budget. And EPA would share almost 40 percent of these
funds with the States and tribes to help them implement federal
environmental laws and achieve national goals.
But today we will hear that the Agency's budget is too big.
We will be told that we can't afford to invest in clean air,
clean water or a safe climate. These extreme positions are
endorsed by some very big polluters, but they aren't supported
by the American people. American families want clean air and
clean water. They don't want their health put at risk by
exposure to toxic chemicals. They want their children and
future generations to be protected from catastrophic climate
change.
We have just crossed a climate threshold. For the first
time since humans have lived on our planet, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide have surpassed 400 parts per
million. Scientists tell us that we urgently need to act.
But you wouldn't know that from this Committee because our
Committee won't let the scientists come in and testify. Since
the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, this
Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the climate
issue, has refused to hear from scientists about why climate
change is so serious.
We need environmental policies that are based on the best
science, not ideology. We need an EPA that has enough funds to
ensure we keep our moral obligation to future generations. One-
quarter of 1 percent of our budget is not too much to spend on
clean air, clean water and a healthy environment. In fact, it
is clearly not enough. We need to spend the money. We need to
make the commitment. We need to do the job despite those who
would like us to abandon that effort and to give in to the
polluters and let fossil fuels, like coal and oil, rule the day
and cause problems for the future.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman
Acting Administrator Perciasepe, thank you for being here
today and for your service to the nation at the Environmental
Protection Agency.
EPA is making our air safer to breathe and our water safer
to drink. The agency is on the frontline of our national effort
to address climate change. It's a huge responsibility and one
that all Americans are counting on you to carry out.
I want to take this opportunity to urge you, Mr.
Perciasepe, to do everything you can to control carbon
pollution. Many different sources and activities contribute to
this problem, and we will not be able to address it unless we
make reductions across the board. Power plants are of course
the largest source of emissions, but so are other major sources
like methane from coal mines and oil and gas production. You
need to find a way to address all major sources.
Despite the critical importance of your work, the EPA
budget represents a tiny portion of overall federal spending.
Under the President's proposal for fiscal year 2014, EPA
funding would be less than one-quarter of one percent of the
federal budget. And EPA would share almost 40% of these funds
with the states and tribes to help them implement federal
environmental laws and achieve national goals.
But today we will hear that the agency's budget is too big.
We will be told that we can't afford to invest in clean air,
clean water or a safe climate.
These extreme positions are endorsed by big polluters, but
they aren't supported by the American people. American families
want clean air and clean water. They don't want their health
put at risk by exposure to toxic chemicals.
They want their children and future generations to be
protected from catastrophic climate change.
We have just crossed a climate threshold. For the first
time since humans have lived on our planet, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide have surpassed 400 parts per
million. Scientists tell us that we urgently need to act.
But you wouldn't know that from watching this Committee.
Since the Republicans took over the House of Representatives,
this Committee has refused to hear from scientists about why
climate change is so serious.
We need environmental policies that are based on the best
science. And we need an EPA that has enough funds to ensure we
keep our moral obligation to future generations. One-quarter of
one percent of our budget is not too much to spend on clean
air, clean water and a healthy environment. In fact, it's
clearly not enough.
Mr. Whitfield. That concludes the opening statements, and
so Mr. Perciasepe, we appreciate once again your being with us
today, and at this time I will recognize you for 5 minutes for
your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB PERCIASEPE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Perciasepe. Chairmen Shimkus and Whitfield, thank you
so much. Ranking Members Rush and Tonko, thank you also for
your comments, and the members, the ranking and chair of the--
--
Mr. Whitfield. Would you mind moving the microphone just a
little closer?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think I got the button on but I guess I
have to get closer. I was just thanking all the ranking members
and chairmen that were here, if people didn't hear that. And if
you invite me, I will come.
Thank you for having this hearing on our 2014 fiscal year
budget, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, $8.153 billion. This
is to invest in clean air and clean water, clean land. These
are pretty important responsibilities that EPA that have been
given to us by Congress but we have also spent quite a bit of
time on this budget looking at how we can be more efficient,
how we can start looking at different ways to manage our work,
and I am looking forward to talking about some of those during
the course of our questions and answers.
I just want to run through a couple of quick highlights
here so we can get on with the questions and answers. First, I
think it has already been mentioned the significant amount of
our budget that our grant funds for both infrastructure and
State environmental work and despite the fiscal challenges we
face, we have maintained those funds in this budget and we have
been able to increase the programmatic grants to the States by
a slight amount in this budget, which is pretty important when
you look at the spread of the responsibility for conducting the
environmental work of the country, the mix between the federal
and the State budgets and work.
We have also requested a $60 million kick start to a
program that we call e-Enterprise at EPA, and I appreciated
Chairman Shimkus talking about the e-Manifest program that this
Committee and others and the chairman in particular helped get
through the Congress last year. We manage all the movement of
hazardous waste in the country through paper. I used to think
it was the pink and the blue and the yellow, you know, carbon
copies, and what we are asking for in funds in this budget is
to be able to start the process of getting that into something
as ubiquitous in our lives these days as how L.L. Bean or
anybody else moves their merchandise around, so we will be able
to use electronic means and scanners to be able to keep track
of the waste. But more importantly, on e-Enterprise, it is
really looking at--it is not some big computer system. It is
really looking at the business model of operating an agency
that interacts with the public, interacts with the regulated
community, interacts with the States in a way that we can
conduct more of that business through the modern technology
that is available today, and we believe that that will increase
transparency, increase compliance. It will reduce errors in
data transfer and it will result in widespread savings. We
think the e-Manifest system, for instance, and I know that
there has been testimony before the committee when you worked
on the bill last year in the last Congress, we expect over time
to be able to save at least $100 million to the regulated
community on that part of it alone.
We also have $176 million to support the work we are doing
on greenhouse gases. This not only includes cost-effective and
commonsense rulemaking like the automobile standards that were
mentioned earlier that we did with the Department of
Transportation but also programs that are tried and true and
have had great effect like ENERGY STAR, the greenhouse gas
reporting system, and SmartWay, which we do with the American
trucking industry to look at ways to reduce the fuel and
increase the fuel economy and therefore decrease the emissions
from long-haul trucks.
Nutrient pollution in water is a major issue confronting
the country on a number of fronts, and we have in part of our
State grant request $15 million to help the States get a jump
start on moving forward with more work on that issue of
nutrient pollution in water.
We also have provided funds in the President's budget for
the revolving funds. There is $1.1 billion for the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund and $817 million for the Drinking Water
SRF. But equally important in that program is work we are doing
with cities and States to look at integrated planning at the
municipal level to look at not only the most cost-effective
approaches at solving problems there but also how you work on
different types of water pollution problems at the same time so
that you can find the most cost-effective ways. So stormwater
and sewer problems, trying to work on those together in an
integrated planning approach. So not only are we looking at how
much funding we need but also we are looking at how we might be
able to reduce the costs and the lifecycle costs over the long
haul.
We have $1.34 billion for land cleanup. This is Superfund
and brownfields programs.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, would you get the committee in
order so the Acting Administrator can be heard?
Mr. Whitfield. I am sorry.
Mr. Perciasepe. I am almost done, Mr. Chairman, and I will
try to be quick here.
There is also $686 million for our work on chemicals from
pesticides to chemicals in commerce. You know, we provide
labeling for all the pesticides in use. We also have a number
of savings that we have put in this budget and moved some of
those funds out of the budget completely and some in to help
fund some of these other programs I was mentioning. There are
over 20 programs where we reduced the budget by over 10
percent.
And finally, I will just mention in addition to looking at
more electronic tools and looking at programs that might be
reduced, we are also looking at our space issues. We have
reduced our space footprint already over the last 4 or 5 years,
6 years, by about 400,000 square feet of space that we rent
around the country and we are looking to continue that process
as modern office design and modern laboratory design will move
us in that direction. We have already saved almost $6 million a
year in energy costs by reducing some of these spaces.
So I am going to stop there. We have a balanced approach
here that is looking at not only maintaining programs but also
at looking at how we become more efficient for the long haul,
recognizing what we all know about the funding issues that
confront the Nation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Perciasepe, thanks very much for your
statement. At this time we will go into questions and answers,
and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions to
begin with.
The first comment I would like to make relates to sort of
an administrative issue, and that is that last year when the
Administrator came to testify about the budget, we had
submitted a number of questions that we wanted to be answered
as we worked with the appropriators and others trying to make
some final decisions about budget numbers and so forth, and
unfortunately, it took EPA nearly 11 months to respond to our
questions. And so I would just ask for your commitment that you
work with us on the questions we are going to be submitting
after this hearing and hopefully maybe we can get an answer
within 3 months or so instead of 11. So would you agree to work
with us on that?
Mr. Perciasepe. You have my commitment, Mr. Chairman, and I
think we all recognize that the budget windows are tighter than
they normally have been on top of what you suggested, so I will
make sure that we put the effort necessary so that you have
answers to your questions in the time frame that is going to be
appropriate for you to work with the appropriators.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much. As you know, EPA has a
proposed Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standard, and if
that rule as proposed became final, it would be impossible to
build a new coal-powered plant in America because the
technology is simply not available to meet the emission
standard. And as far as I know, we would be the only country in
the world where you cannot build a new coal-powered plant, and
by the way, I read the other day that in Europe they are
getting ready to build 69 gigawatts of new coal-powered plants
in Europe. So with our demand for increasing electricity, I
would ask, number one, is EPA going to repropose this rule?
Mr. Perciasepe. We are still in the process of looking at
all the comment we got on that. A lot of the comment was in the
vein that you are talking about here, Mr. Chairman, that what
technologies are out there now for coal plants or oil-fired
plants or natural gas plants. So we haven't made that kind of a
decision at this time. We are still in the process of looking
at what the framework might be.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, I tell you what, I think it is going
to be extremely difficult for the American people to accept the
fact that a plant at Texarkana, Arkansas, that opened up in
December of last year with the best available technology that
it would not be able to meet the emissions standards set in
this proposed rule and to believe that a country our size with
the electricity demands that we have cannot build a coal plant
using the best available control technology is almost
unbelievable to me and many other people. And I would ask the
question also, it is the first time that I am aware of that EPA
ever set an emissions standard using one fuel source that would
be applicable to another fuel source. I would ask the question:
what is the legal justification for doing that?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think the legal framework for that was
laid out in the rule that was proposed, and this may sound a
little repetitive and I really apologize, but we are looking at
that issue along with all the other issues that have been
brought up on this rule, and it is going to still require going
through some interagency review process at the federal level.
So we are looking at that particular issue, we are looking at
the other issue you mentioned, and I want to be clear to the
committee that we are not yet done figuring out how to finalize
that rule.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, I know that the agency is no stranger
to lawsuits, and I know that there will be lawsuits filed for
whatever, but one of the most contentious parts of this is the
fact that you have this emissions standard that is applicable
to more than one fuel source, and so I hope that you all will
continue to look at that very seriously.
Now, it is bad enough not being able to build a new coal-
powered plant but do you all have plans to set greenhouse gas
standards for existing coal-powered plants?
Mr. Perciasepe. We don't currently have a plan for existing
plants because we have to finish what the performance standards
would be for new plants of electric-generating facilities. I
think contextually we should recognize that the two largest
sources of greenhouse gases in the United States are vehicles
and electric generation. And so it is pretty logical for the
Agency to be looking at those sources at the outset on how we
would manage it. I would note in addition to some of the points
that you are making that need to continue to be looked at, that
the Alliance to Save Energy recently came out with a report
that looked at how energy efficiency and energy productivity
could actually significantly reduce greenhouse gases just by us
being better at using the electricity and fuel for cars that we
have. So there are many different options here going forward,
and I want to make sure that you all know that.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, my time is expired but I am going to
be submitting a question to you relating to the Navajo
Generating Station in Arizona, which I think there are some
real serious issues with. At this time I recognize the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perciasepe, as I stated in my opening statement, I
commend you and your agency for the work you all do on behalf
of the American people protecting our air quality, protecting
our land and protecting our water quality, and as you are well
aware, EPA's budget has been a favorite topic of my Republican
colleagues who can't disband the Agency, as some of them would
prefer. So they are overly and excessively critical of EPA. But
I want you to be assured that there are millions of Americans
who depend on your agency to be the stewards of the public
health and the protectors of our environment.
But once again, your resources are being depleted with the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget, which requests a $325
million decrease, or 3.8 percent reduction from the enacted
level of fiscal year 2013, and a $296 million decrease, or 3.5
percent decrease from the enacted level for 2012. In fact, Mr.
Perciasepe, the President's current request is lower than the
fiscal year 2004 enacted level, and these reductions will be
felt by my constituents such as those in Crestwood and in other
places throughout the Nation. Sometimes they will be felt at
the level of life and death, and these are critical reductions.
I would like to note that I am concerned about many issues but
one of the issues that I am primarily concerned about, or two
of the issues, are, one, poor people in general, minority
communities and how, given your reductions, how do you
strategize to deal with the issues of minorities and poor
people in terms of keeping their standard of air quality, water
quality and other environmental issues, keeping them in check
or at bay. And I would like for you to specifically, if you
would, respond to this enormous $9.8 million cut to the
brownfields project. Would you please respond to those
questions?
Mr. Perciasepe. On the general question of looking at the
disproportionate impacts that pollution has on society, this is
something that is of critical interest to EPA. It is of
critical interest to our State partners and also city
governments where those are some of the areas where that may
occur, and we are working carefully with our State partners to
develop tools and techniques to do those kinds of analysis. One
of the key tools we are using now is more robust community
involvement in decision making so that we reach out to some of
these communities who were not historically involved with the
sort of normal government processes. So it is a combination of
outreach improvement and analytical tools that we can use to
analyze the potential for disproportionate impact of pollution,
and we are building these analyses into some of our rulemaking
processes so that we can avoid and find ways to mitigate when
those impacts might happen. So it is very much on our mind, and
we are----
Mr. Rush. Well, what is going to happen to the brownfields
program at EPA, given these drastic cuts to EPA?
Mr. Perciasepe. Which program?
Mr. Rush. Brownfields.
Mr. Perciasepe. Brownfields? Well, the brownfields program
is reduced slightly in this budget from the enacted 2012 and
obviously it was reduced in 2013 by the sequestration process,
but it will slow down. It is an oversubscribed program. It is
one that brings land in developed areas that had been used in
the past, it brings it back into productive use, sometimes for
manufacturing. In fact, that is one of the things we are
working on in an Administration-wide manufacturing initiative,
but it also sometimes comes in for other community-related
uses. So yes, the brownfield program is robust, it is in the
budget, but it will be a reduced amount and so there will be
fewer brownfields projects in 2014.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perciasepe, I am going to try to get through four
questions pretty quick, and I kind of gave the intro in the
opening statement. So I am going to first go through the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. What are your
capitalization goals for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund, and are we getting any closer to a sustainable State
Revolving Fund Program?
Mr. Perciasepe. When I look at--I think we are always
getting closer, as long as we can continue to put
capitalization grants in the budget. We are staying ahead of
inflation and we are building those funds through the whole
country. Last year, the combined revolving funds produced $7.7
billion of infrastructure investment because it is made up of a
capitalization grant that you all approved, the State match to
that grant, the repayments that are now are coming in between
$3 and $4 billion a year, and the leveraging that States are
doing with their funds blending in municipal or revenue bonds
into it. So when you mix all of that together, the investment
we are making here is leveraged because these banks are getting
bigger and bigger. I think that this is a long-term issue we
all have to discuss and wrestle with on how big you want those
banks to be before we feel like the federal component is there.
We think we need to stay ahead of inflation and we still think
we need to be putting some capitalization into those banks.
There is a huge need.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, there is huge need, a lot of interest, a
good program. So that is why I wanted to put my focus there.
I want to also talk about the IRIS program, and the
National Academy of Sciences, and really just a caution. We
will have these fights here on the dais and in the room on
science, what is the real science. I think it would be helpful
for the EPA to make sure that the substantive changes are in
line with the National Academy of Sciences and that you hold as
close as you can to that because then that takes really a
pretty arguable point off the table for anyone if we are using
a clear, science-based proposal. Does that make sense?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, absolutely, and there are two things
going on that I just want to make sure you have on your table
when you are thinking about this. The first is, we have asked
the National Academy to sort of look at the progress we are
making and so they are in that process again, so we keep linked
up with them. Second, we are shortly going to come out with
another set of improvements to the program that we have been
working on, again, keeping in line with the original National
Academy. So we are saying link with the National Academy to
have them keep looking at it as we are making these
improvements, and we have another batch coming up. So we are
very keen on exactly what you are saying.
Mr. Shimkus. On the e-Manifest, would $2 million be enough
for you to get started in fiscal year 2014?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think we need a little more than $2
million. I know that is what the authorized amount was. There
is a little hop, skip and a jump here with whatever you want to
call 2013. We need to put a little extra money in there, and I
don't know the exact amount but I think we have $4 million. I
can get you the precise number, but we have a little bit more
in the budget.
Mr. Shimkus. Great. That is why we ask these questions, and
we look forward to working with you and we will evaluate that.
Mr. Perciasepe. Four point four is in the budget.
Mr. Shimkus. The last part of my line of questioning really
deals with kind of local interest. This past April, press
reports indicated, and you all confirmed, that had released
personally identifying information for thousands of farmers and
ranchers. What recourse do the folks have whose information was
leaked?
Mr. Perciasepe. We have no evidence that any of the
information was leaked. I think we have been able to----
Mr. Shimkus. But you confirmed that the information was----
Mr. Perciasepe. We got that information from the States. I
think it was released without the appropriate review that it
needed to have, and we have now done that review several times
over, and I am pretty confident that where we are now it is in
good shape. However, we have been working with the people who
received it both in the ag community and in the NGO community
to not release and change back the information.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask a final question. Were any of the
FOIA processing fees waived by EPA for this request for
information, and if so, on what grounds? And if you don't have
that available, if you could let me know, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Perciasepe. I can get you the precise information.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Administrator
Perciasepe, again, thank for your leadership.
EPA is required to conduct a drinking water infrastructure
survey every 4 years and to produce a report to Congress
summarizing the survey results. That last report was delivered,
as you know, in 2009. Is the Agency on track to complete its
report sometime this year?
Mr. Perciasepe. I believe we are. I know that it is in the
final stages of review. I am saying I don't see a reason that
it won't get done this year.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And the 2009 report indicated a need
for investment of over $300 billion over the next two decades,
an average of about $16 billion per year. That is to maintain
safe drinking water for our citizens. I am concerned that with
budget cuts and the sequester that we are falling even farther
behind in maintaining these vital systems, and when you
consider situations like those we in New York have experienced
with Hurricanes Irene, Lee and Sandy, the need to harden these
systems or redesign them creates yet another bit of additional
challenge. How have the revolving loan funds that provide
support for this work fared under the current sequestration?
Are we going to be able to meet the needs of hurricane-impacted
areas?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, in terms of the hurricane-impacted
areas, we had a separate appropriations for Superstorm Sandy,
which was around $600 million. It did get trimmed by the
sequestration, but I want to say that the appropriations to
deal with that storm and its aftermath are not only in EPA,
they are also in the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA and in HUD,
and what we are working on very hard with the States, and we
have very good connection with the States and very good
interagency federal level, is how those funds can work
together. So the FEMA funds can look simplistically, we build
things to the way we are. The HUD funds could be used to extend
beyond the sewage treatment plant itself and look at some of
the infrastructure coming in, and as they are looking at
neighborhood and community rehabilitation, and we can look to
the EPA funds, which are small comparatively to the other ones,
as to how you would make resiliency improvements at the
facilities themselves, you know, elevating pumps or flood-
proofing electronic boxes and improving the emergency backup
power systems. So I think we are in good shape for the
hurricane-damaged areas.
In terms of the overall needs of the safe drinking water
program for the United States, you know, that mix of federal
funds and local funds is something that is a constant back and
forth, because if you look at just the federal funds, it looks
like it will be a long time before we would meet those needs.
So we really have to look at what the local bonding authorities
are and funding as well as the federal together. There is still
not enough to do these things in the 20-year time frames that
are looked at in these surveys. However, we are also looking at
how we can reduce costs, find more cost-effective ways to do it
like green infrastructure. I am sorry. That is a long answer to
your question.
Mr. Tonko. No, I appreciate that, but the $16 billion per
year you believe is something that we are falling short of in
terms of any of the creative financing that we could come up
with?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, certainly the federal government
isn't covering $15 billion a year, but the other sources that
are out there including things like the Rural Utility Service
in the Department of Agriculture and Army Corps of Engineers
and others as well as the local funding, you don't have the
number, whether it is at that level across the country.
Mr. Tonko. And in terms of facing significant costs, is
that not the case if drinking water systems are deficient?
There is an impact here that we can't escape.
Mr. Perciasepe. If they are not up to date?
Mr. Tonko. If they are not up to date, if there is delayed
response.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, the longer you delay maintenance and
capital upgrades, which is obviously part of the needs, the
ongoing capital upgrades, it can cost more in the future. You
know, if you don't keep the pipes and the pumping stations and
everything up to date or replaced in a proper time, you know,
it is just like bridges and any other infrastructure,
eventually it costs more to fix them in the future. So it is
important that we continue focusing on this at the national
level to make sure that we have funds to do that.
Mr. Tonko. And obviously the States would have to make up
this difference, which is a huge.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, States and/or local governments are
often the ones that are funding these water infrastructure
projects.
Mr. Tonko. Has anyone quantified jobs as they relate to
these sort of projects?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, we look at the jobs, and in fact, when
we did the Recovery Act, there was a $6 billion influx into
these funds, and I don't have them here with me but we have the
calculations of the jobs created by that, which is a good
indicator of the jobs that are created. But in the last 4
years, we have put a little over $20 billion into these
revolving funds, which has been a boost to getting ahead a
little bit.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, and Mr. Chair, I yield
back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. I was on the phone a little bit earlier. My
hometown was hit by a tornado last night, and my staff was
downtown and giving me a report on the damage. We had millions
of dollars of damage. The tornado hit approximately a mile from
my home and my Congressional office, but at least in Ennis,
Texas, nobody was injured. We did have at least six deaths in
the area. So that is why I was on the phone getting that
report.
We appreciate you being here, sir, as the Acting
Administrator. We have a new tradition that we allow people out
in the country to Twitter in questions for members to ask, and
we have gone through some of them, and we have a question from
a constituent of mine actually, Crodagnonman, C-r-o-d-a-g-n-o-
n-m-a-n, Crodagnonman, if I am saying that right. He is
referring to a Competitive Enterprise Institute story that some
research has been done comparing the request to have Freedom of
Information Act fees waived. They did a review of some of the
requests and found that left-of-center groups seemed to have a
very good chance to have their fee request approved while
right-of-center groups had almost no chance. They looked at
some information for the last year and said that in January
2012 to this spring, the National Resource Defense Council,
Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,
Earth Justice had their fees waived in 75 out of 82 cases.
Meanwhile, the Competitive Enterprise Institute was rejected 14
out of 15 times. The Sierra Club had 11 out of their 15
requests approved. The NRDC had 19 out of 20 approved. Earth
Justice was perfect, got all 19 requests approved. Employees
for Environmental Responsibility went a perfect 17 for 17.
Water Keeper Alliance had all three of its requests granted.
Greenpeace and the Southern Environmental Law Center were two
for two, and Center for Biological Diversity were four for
four. We have just seen the scandal that has erupted over the
IRS targeting the conservative groups for audits and things
like that. What is your response to something that seems to be
of a similar nature happening at EPA? As the Acting
Administrator, will you investigate this, and if it needs to be
corrected, promise to correct it?
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you for that question, and yes, this
came to my attention yesterday, I think, as it did to a number
of folks. I had an opportunity to talk to the chairman very,
very briefly yesterday about it, and I have not read yet
personally the report that you are bringing up but I want to
assure the committee that it is not EPA's policy in any way,
shape or form to treat people differently when they request to
be waived for fees, and we have six criteria that I looked at
last night that the staff uses to make those determinations. I
have also discovered since the last time we talked, Mr.
Chairman, that we do about 500 of these a year. So what I have
asked this morning is that our Inspector General help me do a
programmatic audit of this. I don't know if these criteria are
causing any problem or whether or not this kind of decision-
making that is pointed out in this report is actually what is
happening, so I need to get an unbiased opinion on this.
I should point out that even if the fees are not waived, it
is frequent that fees are charged anyway because a certain
amount of the work we do is free regardless, and with our new
FOIA online system, there is no duplication fees because some
of the fees used to be in copying all the materials and now it
is all electronic. So even if somebody's request is denied for
whatever reason, the chance of them having to pay any fees are
much lower today than it used to be. That said, I am going to
look forward to doing an audit of this.
Mr. Barton. Well, we can have disagreements on policy and
we have disagreements over the implications, but to the people
out in the public, if it is government information and you are
going to give it free to one side, you ought to be able to also
provide it free to the other and then let the policymakers and
the public make the decision, and it certainly appears that
there is a bias when if you are the Sierra Club it is almost a
guarantee your fees will be waived, and if you are the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, it is almost a guarantee your
fees are not going to be waived.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, as I said, I am going to get an
independent look at all of that information so that I can make
a determination, so I appreciate you bringing it up. I have
been looking at this over the last 24 hours.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Waxman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing is
supposed to focus on the President's fiscal year 2014 budget
request for the EPA. However, first we need to understand the
immediate impact of sequestration, what it will have on the
Agency's ability to protect public health this year.
Earlier this year, EPA provided an assessment of the
sequester's potential impacts across the Agency. I would like
to explore how this is actually playing out, Mr. Perciasepe.
One expected effect was to slash funding for States to
monitor local air quality and provide the public with essential
air quality data. Administrator Perciasepe, are these
reductions still expected to occur, and what will that mean for
States and communities?
Mr. Perciasepe. All the, we call it the State-Tribal
Assistance Grants budget program in the Agency, all of those
were cut by 5 percent. There was no discretion on our part on
that, so the purposes of those grants and the activities that
they were going to conduct have that level of reduction
including air quality monitoring programs.
Mr. Waxman. Will it make a difference? Should we be
concerned about it? What will be the impact?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, on the air quality specifically or on
the grants in general?
Mr. Waxman. Well----
Mr. Perciasepe. Even the Sandy supplemental we were just
talking about was reduced by 5 percent. The drinking water
revolving fund will probably result in 40 fewer projects
started during the year. The purchasing of air quality monitors
under that section of the Clean Air Act will just be stretched
out longer.
Mr. Waxman. So money for the States to monitor local air
quality efforts will be reduced. They just won't know what is
going on to the full extent that they are now able to, with the
funds that are going to be cut. Will the Agency still have to
significantly reduce inspections and other compliance and
enforcement activities?
Mr. Perciasepe. We have a combination of issues there
because our travel budgets are cut but also we have to furlough
employees. So when we furlough employees, obviously that
translates into fewer hours available to do the inspections.
Our estimate is probably around 1,000 fewer inspections, and we
haven't translated it down to the fewer inspections the States
will do if their grants will be reduced.
Mr. Waxman. Well, if there is not going to be a credible
possibility of inspections and enforcement, compliance, I
think, would break down. The companies that comply with the law
are disadvantaged, creating more incentives to cheat. Is that a
fair conclusion?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think it is fair to say that some
compliance will go undetected.
Mr. Waxman. Another EPA initiative at risk are two of the
joint EPA/NIH Centers of Excellence for Children's Health
Research, which researched the role of environmental factors in
some of the most pervasive and devastating childhood diseases
including asthma, autism, childhood leukemia and diabetes. Will
EPA be forced to stop funding two centers conducting research
on these childhood diseases?
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't know the answer to that. I am
sorry.
Mr. Waxman. Well, I would like you to get it for me because
that is my understanding that it would happen. I am also
concerned about the assistance EPA gives local communities for
conducting cleanups and upgrading infrastructure. EPA projected
no new Superfund cleanups, slowdowns in ongoing Superfund
cleanups, fewer water quality protection and restoration
projects, and hundreds of underground storage cleanup projects
that will no longer happen. Administrator Perciasepe, will
States still face these substantial cutbacks?
Mr. Perciasepe. We will have fewer brownfields projects,
probably about 10 under a cooperative agreement that we have,
five fewer cleanups. There will be 12 fewer Superfund removals.
These just permeate through the whole thing.
Mr. Waxman. These cuts are irrational. They will going to
hinder efforts to protect Americans from radiation after a
terrorist attack or disaster. They are going to undermine our
ability to protect our waters from oil spills. They will weaken
efforts to protect our infrastructure against national
disasters and nuclear accidents. These cuts are bad for public
health and for the economic health of our communities and
industries. They stop good investments for our communities that
are labor-intensive, which means good jobs for construction
workers and engineers. Some of the projected effects would hurt
American businesses as well.
But the key point that I think what we must recognize is
that next year's proposed budget cuts under sequestration would
be another $325 million from EPA's current funding levels under
the sequester. And of course, the Ryan budget would go further.
In 2014, they would cut EPA funding by an estimated 14 percent
from 2012 levels. This is unacceptable. EPA has critical
responsibilities: protecting clean air, clean water, slowing
devastating climate change. Even if you want to protect your
coal industry, it is not reason enough to cripple EPA.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. I want to thank the chairman for hosting this
hearing, and I thank Acting Administrator Perciasepe. I
appreciate you coming here and answering my questions. I have
got a number.
I want to start with a question about ozone standards. In
2010, the EPA had proposed a change to the existing ozone
standard that had just been put in place in 2008, hadn't yet
even been implemented. Ultimately, I think the standards were
estimated to cost between $19 billion and $90 billion annually
to our economy, and I think they were pulled back, but I know
in my district, that would bring levels in many of the parishes
I represent into nonattainment, which would add tremendous cost
and burden onto a lot of families and businesses out there.
I want to ask you, first of all, when you come out with
your proposals next year, do you intend to repropose the
current standard or are you looking at doing something similar
to what you all had floated out in 2010?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, as you pointed out, we are in the
process of implementing the current standard that was enacted
in 2008. What is going on right now and is not completed yet is
the science process that goes on in front of any proposed new
standard, and I believe the schedule has that happening
sometime early next year, I think as you have pointed out, or
very close to the end of this year. But right now the Clean Air
Science Advisory Council is in the process of reviewing science
documents on that. So there is no particular proposal in front
of the Administrator at this point.
Mr. Scalise. Will you all be taking public comment on
maintaining the current 2008 standard?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes. Once that science process is over,
they will probably identify a range and those will go out for
public comment.
Mr. Scalise. All right. I want to go back to that
Competitive Enterprise Institute report that Congressman Barton
was just talking about. This is the report. I have gotten a
copy of the report to your staff. It came out earlier this
week. It details some of the FOIA request information that you
alluded to that clearly your office is aware of it because it
involves lawsuits that have been going on for years but
ultimately what they have done is compiled a list. They took
many left-leaning, what many people would consider left-leaning
groups, and they took what man would consider right-leaning
groups that issue FOIA requests upon the EPA and have the
ability to get those fees waived, and they found, and it is
categorized in this report, that 92 percent of the time, this
goes back to January of 2012 through now, 92 percent of the
time the EPA waived those fees for left-leaning groups and 93
percent of the time you denied those same fee waivers to
conservative-leaning groups. And so when we take this in the
context of what just happened and what has just been exposed at
the IRS where yesterday USA Today's headline was ``Liberals get
a pass,'' it seems like at the EPA the same thing is happening
where liberals get a pass. And, you know, if it was just an
isolated incident and maybe you can go back and look at a
couple of things, that might be one thing. But when you start
seeing a culture of anti-conservative attitude by the Obama
Administration, it raises very troubling questions. When you
see some of these numbers and you look at not only the
Competitive Enterprise Institute but also the American
Tradition Institute were rejected more than 93 percent of the
time, and then you go look at the Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Sierra Club, the Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, they were a perfect 17 for 17 at
getting their fees waived by you all. And so after a pattern of
this, it is not just a coincidence. And so what I want to know
is, who makes the decisions at EPA to waive these fees?
Mr. Perciasepe. Those decisions are made in our FOIA
office, which is a career program office in the Agency, and
they have criteria that they use to make these decisions, and
what I mentioned to Mr. Barton, and I will repeat again, it is
not our policy to not apply these things----
Mr. Scalise. I understand. Does the Assistant
Administrator, Ms. McCarthy, have any involvement in these fee
waivers?
Mr. Perciasepe. No.
Mr. Scalise. Let me ask you this, because one other thing
that they raised, and this is something that came from the
American Tradition Institute, I think there is a separate
lawsuit going on that involves instant messaging, and they are
trying to get instant messaging in FOIAs, and it seems like
only emails were turned over but not IMs, and I think you even
issued a memo recently reminding your employees that it seems
like maybe at EPA they have been using IMs to try to avoid
using emails to try to hide that information from FOIAs. Number
one, what are you doing about making sure that instant messages
are also included in FOIA requests but also do you know of any
history of destroying IMs, those instant messages, over at the
EPA, and whether they are destroyed accidentally or in
violation of disclosure laws?
Mr. Perciasepe. I can say that we just changed our computer
system for email that has a better instant messaging
preservation system in it. To my knowledge, instant messaging
is not widely used at EPA, but we are putting in place, as I
suggested in my memos to the staff and to others, that we are
putting in place a backup preservation system so that they----
Mr. Scalise. Do you know if any have been destroyed?
Mr. Perciasepe. Not that I know of.
Mr. Scalise. Thanks. I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. I
ask unanimous consent to provide my remarks in the record and
to include certain correspondence between me and EPA, which
will be occurring shortly.
Mr. Perciasepe, many of us in the Great Lakes have sent a
letter to the Appropriations Committee requesting $300 million
for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Administration
has requested that level of funding as well. I have concerns
that EPA is not doing enough to address the water quality in
the Great Lakes. As you know, we had a massive algae growth in
Lake Erie, which was referred not long back as America's Dead
Sea, and I have worked long and hard to clean this up but I
note that in the response your office has given, you have
referenced your resources to combat massive algae blooms such
as the one on Lake Erie. I would like to hear, do you have
enough resources to deal with that algae bloom and do you
propose to do anything about it this year so that we don't have
another repetition?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think it is a----
Mr. Dingell. Yes or no.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I have the funding for the EPA part of
this.
Mr. Dingell. I will ask you to submit for the record what
you propose to do about that and whether you have adequate
funds.
Now, I would appreciate it if you would submit for the
record additional information on efforts EPA is taking to
address this issue, and so if you could submit that for the
record, it would be appreciated.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dingell. I have the distinct feeling you do not have
the resources to do the job.
Now, next question. I see that the President's fiscal year
2014 budget request for CERCLA or Superfund is $33 million less
than for fiscal year 2012. Yes or no, can CERCLA continue to
fulfill its duties and its current cleanup responsibilities and
obligations without slowing down significantly because of this
reduction in funding? Yes or no.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, for existing Superfund sites. Future
ones, we are going to have to delay.
Mr. Dingell. In other words, you do not have enough money
to do the cleanup at the same rate or the necessary rate
because of that cut. Is that right, or no?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Would you submit some additional information
on that issue, please, so that we may evaluate that more
adequately?
Now, this is an important issue, given the fact that
tomorrow we are going to be having a hearing on amending
CERCLA. I am concerned again about something different about
which you have no say, and that is, the majority appears not to
be allowing the minority to request certain witnesses. Given
the complexity of the issues the draft legislation seeks to
address, I hope the majority would hold fair and open hearings
so that we can have a proper input and all the information that
is needed.
Now, I would like to have you answer this question.
Mr. Shimkus. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. Dingell. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. Shimkus. The fact of the matter is, we were asked by
the ranking member on the floor--the hearing tomorrow has three
Republican witnesses and two Democrat witnesses. Then we were
asked for government witnesses, which you said we would have at
an additional time. So I don't know what this frustration is
but it is very disappointing because it is not the intent. In
both government agencies, we are not going to testify on the
pending legislation.
Mr. Dingell. My question is, are we going to have enough
time and enough witnesses to get the answers? These hearings
are supposed to afford the minority adequate opportunity to be
heard----
Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would yield?
Mr. Dingell [continuing]. That is the case.
Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would yield, the answer is
absolutely.
Mr. Dingell. All right.
Mr. Shimkus. But I don't know what you all are crying
about. That is my frustration.
Mr. Dingell. Well, I only have 44 seconds left.
What is EPA doing to enforce the cost of cleanups and
emergency cleanups? Please submit that for the record. And I
want you to tell me what is EPA doing to hold the property
owners responsible for the costs related to cleanups? We have
one situation in my district where the mayors are continuously
complaining about the fact that a property owner is doing
nothing and that he is paying fines or is supposed to pay fines
of about $37,000 per day for his refusal to carry forward. This
individual has a long history of having failed to have done
what it is he is supposed to do to comply with a wide array of
laws. I will be sending you a letter, which I ask unanimous
consent for to be inserted in the record together with the
response about this particular individual and about what you
are doing there, and I am hoping that you will give me an
adequate and prompt response.
Mr. Whitfield. Without objection, and the gentleman's time
is expired..
Mr. Dingell. And I thank you. Just one more question,
quick. Is EPA doing enough to adequately carry forward existing
steps to the highest level of performance or are you having to
cut back because of lack of personnel and money?
Mr. Perciasepe. For emergency cleanups, if I am correct in
your question, we make sure that we have the adequate resources
to deal with emergency responses.
Mr. Dingell. Due to the fact that I am 53 seconds over, I
am going to request that you submit that for the record.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and my colleague for your
courtesy. We do want to work with the majority. We want to see
that we get the time, we want to see that we get the witnesses,
and we want to see that we have a record that gives us the
ability to look at things properly.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Perciasepe, did you understand the
documents that he asked you to provide?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I do, and we will follow up.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I would like you and my other
colleague to know that these questions are asked with great
respect and great affection.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chairman, since this subject came up, and
Chairman Shimkus raised the question, I believe for the record
what we would like is a full discussion of the Superfund before
the markup of the bills. So if we have other witnesses coming
in which he has been kind enough to grant, we believe it would
be helpful to do the sequence and that the Committee has this
additional hearing to which it is committed.
Mr. Shimkus. But if the gentleman would yield, we just
marked up the track-and-trace on the FDA, and we didn't have a
whole FDA authorization hearing. It is kind of an irresponsible
request. This is a legislative hearing. We can have a hearing
on the Superfund on its own. But to say you have to have a full
hearing on a full agency before you move on a hearing on
legislation, it is problematic.
Mr. Tonko. In those other areas, though, Chairman, I would
suggest that you have had hearings. There has not been a
Superfund hearing in some 10 years with many committee members
being new to this committee since that time, and I think it
would be very helpful to have that sort of understanding of how
Superfund is working or not working before we amend it, and to
do that before the markup of the bill.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, listen, I am sure you and Mr. Shimkus
can work this out for your subcommittee. At this time I am
recognizing the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the recognition.
Mr. Perciasepe, I am going to ask you to get very close to
the microphone, if you will. I am suffering from swimmer's ear
this morning and I can hardly hear my own self talk. I don't
know whether I am yelling or speaking softly. So bear with me.
I would like to thank the Acting Administrator for testifying
at today's joint hearing on the fiscal year 2014 budget. I will
get right to my questions.
Mr. Perciasepe, in your capacity as Acting Administrator or
as Deputy Administrator, have you ever solicited money from the
stakeholders which your agency supervised? Yes or no.
Mr. Perciasepe. No.
Mr. Gingrey. Have you ever suggested, requested or
otherwise asked stakeholders your agency supervised to donate
money or otherwise assist in implementing a law for which your
agency is responsible? Yes or no.
Mr. Perciasepe. No.
Mr. Gingrey. Have you ever suggested, requested or
otherwise asked stakeholders your agency supervised to donate
money to or otherwise assist outside groups that share your
goals for implementing your agency's laws? Yes or no.
Mr. Perciasepe. No.
Mr. Gingrey. Well, I appreciate those responses and I am
glad to hear that because as you may be aware no doubt, this
past Friday the Washington Post reported that HHS Secretary,
Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, has for the last
3 months been making phone calls to health industry executives
asking that they contribute to nonprofit groups working to
implement various aspects of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise
known as Obamacare. In fact, the New York Times then reported
on Sunday that Secretary Sebelius suggested that they support
the work of Enroll America, a nonprofit organization that
indeed is advocating for Obamacare.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased by the Acting Administrator's
answer that the EPA has not acted in this manner. However, in
light of the indiscretions, and my colleague from Louisiana,
Mr. Scalise, touched on this, he stole my thunder but not my
lightning, these indiscretions admitted this week across
multiple agencies----
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gingrey [continuing]. Re the Department of Justice or
the Department of Treasury.
Mr. Rush. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gingrey. I am extremely concerned----
Mr. Rush. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gingrey. No, I will not. If I have time at the end, I
will be glad to yield but I will not yield now. I am extremely
concerned with conduct of this Executive Branch. It is
abundantly clear that each agency has significant power over
the very industries that they regulate. I expect these
Subcommittees of Energy and Commerce, this one, will continue
to utilize their oversight of this Administration to monitor
agencies and ensure that the private sector has the ability to
create jobs and bolster our economy without the threat of
retribution, and that is what we are facing right now, and I
will yield to any of my colleagues on this side at this point
the rest of my time, or else I will yield back my time.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gingrey. Or I will yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Chicago. I am sure he knows a lot about this.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I am sure my friend has outrage
about a whole lot of matters but we can all have sense of
outrage about a lot of matters, but why waste the time of this
subcommittee on such far-reaching and inappropriate feigned
outrage because you want to attack the Obama Administration?
This has been an orderly hearing. It has been a hearing
conducted with some decency, and out of the blue come these
outrageous, ill-timed and ill-conceived remarks. Mr. Chairman,
let us keep our committee--the Energy and Power Subcommittee,
has a record, has a way of keeping proper demeanor between
individuals.
Mr. Gingrey. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming
my time, I now yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. I think he owes us an apology.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Rush, let me just say----
Mr. Rush. He is wasting our time.
Mr. Whitfield. I would just say that the gentleman from
Georgia actually complimented the EPA for not involving
themselves in those kinds of activities.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, we have been abused in this hearing
by the gentleman from Georgia--abused.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I would recognize the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Capps. I thank the chairman for recognizing me, and I
thank you, Mr. Perciasepe, for your testimony.
I appreciate EPA's acknowledgement of the strong link
between our energy sources and usage, climate change and clean
air and water. As a representative of a coastal district, I am
particularly mindful of these impacts on our oceans. As you
well know, we rely upon healthy oceans for countless economic
activities like fishing, tourism and recreation. One of the
most troubling impacts of climate change is ocean
acidification, which threatens countless organisms, ecosystems
and livelihoods. Ocean acidification is caused by the increased
uptake of carbon dioxide from the air and nutrient runoff from
land. Managing coastal runoff is clearly within EPA's
jurisdiction so I would hope that EPA has a plan for managing
this contributor to ocean acidification.
My specific question, Mr. Perciasepe, is, is EPA doing
anything to monitor nutrient runoff? If so, what are you doing
to reduce this runoff and its impacts on the ocean?
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you for the question. I mentioned in
my opening comments, and I want to emphasize this more with
your question, that nutrient pollution, whether it be Lake Erie
or in the Great Lakes or Lake Tahoe or the ocean near coastal
waters is a major issue in the United States. We have asked in
this budget for some additional funds to help States put
together more concrete plans on some of those impaired waters,
and we have been working with the States to identify all the
places in the country where there is impairment.
I want to add one thing very quickly. We have also been
working very hard with our partners in the Department of
Agriculture because they also have concerns about this because
obviously they want to maintain nutrients on the land so that
they can help grow the crops. So we have a good working
relationship there and we are hoping to provide some more
funding to States here through this budget.
Mrs. Capps. And I appreciate that, and we will look forward
to working with you to make sure this happens.
Another topic: One of the deeper program cuts in the EPA is
to the National Estuary Program, which was reduced by nearly 15
percent, and this is compared to the 5.2 percent reduction to
the Agency as a whole. Our national estuaries, and you know
that I have one in my district, are such an important resource
for coastal communities through ecosystem preservation and also
providing local jobs. Despite these programs' ability to
leverage minimal EPA funding--and they partner with such a
variety of private sources and nonprofit sources, so they are
really are good at leveraging--these estuary programs are
relatively small and they can't weather cuts as well as some of
the larger programs. For example, Morro Bay National Estuary
Program in my district raises about $2.50 for every dollar it
receives from EPA. This program helps our cities, the county,
State agencies, local nonprofits and landowners further the
conservation goals in our local communities. But this proposed
cut is going to force Morro Bay to eliminate a position in that
estuary to pull back on promised services to our community.
So Mr. Perciasepe, I understand EPA's very tough budget
challenges, but what is the rationale for making such a
substantial cut to the National Estuary Program and how does
this align with EPA's overall mission? I know it is a tough
question. You didn't ask for this budget, but we are trying to
understand it.
Mr. Perciasepe. You know, the National Estuary Program is
something I personally worked on for many, many years. Being
from Baltimore for the middle part of my life, obviously the
Chesapeake Bay is a pretty important amount. Now, what you are
talking about is the difficult choices we had to make in
implementing the sequestration in 2013. I want you to know that
the budget before you for 2014 restores the funding for the
estuary program at the basic level that we think it needs to
have, and I hope again that the committee will in its advice
and coordination with the Appropriations Committee support
that.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. I look forward to getting that
information.
I did have one other question which won't fit into the last
18 seconds because it is such a big topic. Our country's water
infrastructure is in such need of repair and upgrades, so I
would like to, Mr. Chairman, submit this question to Mr.
Perciasepe in written form and ask that both the committee and
myself personally receive a written answer in response because
I think we are at a crisis level in many of our water districts
in the country. I know we certainly are in the central coast of
California. And so again, thank you for continuing this back
and forth.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, they will certainly be submitted. As
you know, when the hearing is over, we will be gathering
material for additional questions and getting it to the
Administrator. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Hall, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first thank the
witness for your statement: ``If you invite me, I will come.''
And you stand by that, do you? You are not going to change your
mind on that?
Mr. Perciasepe. No. I mean, that is to play baseball.
Chairman Shimkus said I didn't show up for practice last night,
and I said if you invite me, I will come to the next practice.
Mr. Hall. Your folks, Gina McCarthy and Lisa Jackson,
fouled out on all the letters I have written to them requesting
them to come here, and Mrs. Jackson refused to come here until
we threaten subpoena. Finally, she agreed to a time under her
conditions, she thought. I sure hate to see you follow
something like that. You are so important to us.
Mr. Dingell helped write a bill for clean air and clean
water back, I don't know, some time in the 1980s, early 1990s.
Were you with the EPA at that time?
Mr. Perciasepe. I was not at the EPA in 1990. I was working
for Governor Schaefer in Maryland in 1990.
Mr. Hall. Well, we at that time set some provisions for EPA
to have some control over--I am from Texas and I know the oil
and gas business and I know they need some control and need
some supervision, some oversight. We set them up to give them
that oversight and also, though, we expected them to give them
some support, and that has been their practice up until this
Administration came into being. And one time with Gina
McCarthy, I asked her, did you consider the impact your
resolutions have on our jobs, and her answer, and it is in the
record here, and they are being made aware of that over there
as she seeks to be confirmed, that her answer was ``I am not in
the business of creating jobs.'' And I told her I thought that
was one of the meanest answers I had ever had here with the
problem people are having not having jobs and having to tell
their families they can't provide, and I left her a place to
apologize. She has never done that. So I am going to really
expect you to come when we invite you because we want you to.
As you know, EPA recently designated Wise County, Texas, a
county with significant gas production and transmission as an
Ozone Nonattainment Area. You are aware of that, aren't you?
Just yes or no, if you know?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Mr. Hall. And this action was initiated by your former
colleague, Mr. Al Armendariz. You remember that name, don't
you?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, he was a former regional
administrator.
Mr. Hall. And he likened EPA's regulatory enforcement
philosophy toward the oil and gas industry to Roman
crucifixion. Do you remember that statement by him? Just yes or
no. You may not. If you don't, tell me no.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I remember its reporting.
Mr. Hall. Well, I am going to do better than report it. His
predictions came true in this designation given his
recommendation was totally inconsistent with methods applied by
other EPA regions and was not based on any sound science. So I
guess my first question is, why did EPA headquarters rubber-
stamp his recommendation, which was inconsistent with other EPA
regions and not based on a sound scientific record?
Mr. Perciasepe. This is on Wise County?
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, the factors that EPA looks into when
it tries to define the area that is contributing to the
nonattainment is the sources of pollution in those areas, the
connectivity in the metropolitan area in terms of people
commuting or jobs that may be in the different locations and
how people move around and what the emission sources are, and
so I think that that decision was based on those kinds of data.
Mr. Hall. OK. I will accept that.
Mr. Perciasepe. So I would----
Mr. Hall. I want to also say and just read you some of what
his statement was. He said, ``But as I said, oil and gas is an
enforcement priority. It is one of seven, so we are going to
spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production,
and I was in a meeting once and gave an analogy to my staff
about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably
a little crude and maybe not appropriate. It was kind of like
how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the
Mediterranean. They would go into a little Turkish town
somewhere. They would find the first five guys and they would
crucify them, and then you know that that town was really easy
to manage for the next few years.'' That was his statement. So
as you make examples of people who are in this case not
complying with the law, fine people who are not in compliance
with the law and you hit them as hard as you can. May I have
permission to have this inserted into the record, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Whitfield. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Hall. And I would just like for you to explain, given
the evidence that we have seen of his indisputable bias against
the fossil fuel industry including this transcript that is
going to be in the record, and it is in the Senate record also
of his comments about wanting to crucify oil and gas companies,
which I have offered for the record, so I guess my question to
you is whether or not you will commit to me to reexamine the
decision and ensure that EPA applies a standard and methodology
consistent with all EPA regions.
Mr. Perciasepe. Of course I can commit to that. That
statement and the policy that it might be implicated with is
not the policy of EPA. EPA's policy is the fair application of
the law.
Mr. Hall. Well, it hasn't been. It hadn't been based on
science, and we have proven that many times. I yield my time. I
hear the gavel.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman for holding this hearing
and I thank the Acting Administrator for coming. I am going to
explore a local issue, if you don't mind too much.
The State Revolving Fund programs provided more than $5
billion nationally each year for water quality projects such as
wastewater treatment, nonpoint source pollution control,
watershed and estuary management. These programs' missions
address many of the issues that face California's current water
systems. Meanwhile, the controversial Bay Delta Conservation
Plan, a minimum $15 billion project, continues to receive
resources from federal government despite serious doubts about
its environmental attributes and benefits. Do you believe it is
prudent for the State of California and federal agencies to
commit scarce resources to the BDCP before the State even uses
the $455 million that has already been allocated and unused
through the State Revolving Fund?
Mr. Perciasepe. There are many needs, and our general
objective is to make sure that we work with the States to get
those funds into use and so that is what we are doing across
the country.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, I just want to submit that that is
a dubious plan and it is receiving federal resources despite
the fact that the State has already got a large chunk of money
that is unused.
The EPA along with other agencies will analyze proposed
actions related to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, but as
currently drafted, the BDCP will consist of two large tunnels
capable of diverting the entire Sacramento River around the
Sacramento Delta. As currently drafted, do you believe that
that's a permittable plan?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think we are in the process of reviewing
that plan at this time, so it is an interagency process among,
you know, Department of Interior. EPA has a small but not
insignificant role in the review of that plan, which is being
led mostly by the Department of Interior. So I can't--I don't
have the evaluation yet of what the federal government thinks
about that overall plan.
Mr. McNerney. Well, again, I submit, that plan as currently
drafted has serious environmental impacts in the entire delta
including endangered species implications, so I submit that you
look at that very carefully.
Mr. Perciasepe. I will, and I worked on the Bay Delta Plan
in the 1990s as an EPA employee back in the 1990s in the
Clinton Administration, so I am personally generally familiar
with the issue but I have not yet been participating in the
review of that plan.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you. The NEPA would require that an
agency must prepare a detailed environmental review discussing,
among other issues, alternatives to the proposed actions. Do
you believe that additional viable alternatives to the BDCP
should be reviewed in this process?
Mr. Perciasepe. Generally, that is what NEPA requires, as I
think the State environmental review law in California as well,
but again, I do know because of my past history almost 20 years
ago now on this whole Bay Delta project that many, many
alternatives have been looked at through the years. So I don't
know what the status of all those are now but I will look into
it.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. There is significant political
pressure to move forward with one plan without considering the
alternatives. So again, I submit that you look at that
carefully.
The EPA is required to review and publicly comment on
environmental impacts of proposed federal projects. The EPA is
also the official recipient of all Environmental Impact
Statements prepared by federal agencies. How will the EPA's
fiscal year 2014 budget request for the BDCP be used to
continue to develop Environmental Impact Statements and
environmental impact reviews?
Mr. Perciasepe. I believe that division in our agency is
adequately funded in the 2014 budget to carry out its duty of
reviewing the Environmental Impact Statements that we receive.
We don't allocate it for every project. It is just a unit in
the agency.
Mr. McNerney. Well, what I was trying to get at was, how
much money is being allocated or used for those processes and
other processes related to the BDCP? So if you could submit
that?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, we will.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Welcome here. There are questions I wanted to
address here. First of all, I noticed in your opening statement
here in the second paragraph, you said the President's fiscal
year budget demonstrates that we can make critical investments
to strengthen the middle class, create jobs and grow the
economy while continuing to cut the deficit in a balanced way.
In the past, the Administrator of the EPA when before us has
said they did not take into account the impact on jobs of
environmental policies, and I just wonder if your statement is
a reflection of a change in policies and that is that creating
jobs is important and you will be taking into account job
impact of EPA policies. Is that true?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think it would be within anyone's
commonsense mind that job creation is an important priority,
and while that is not the provisions in some of the
environmental laws that we are given by Congress, it is
certainly something we look at in our economic analysis of our
rules.
Mr. Murphy. I would hope so, because I know I represent a
lot of coalminers, I represent a lot of people that deal with
natural gas, nuclear, and when we are looking at hundreds of
thousands of people in the coal-related industries losing their
jobs, I oftentimes think one of the greatest threats to the
environment is poverty because when you have no money, it is
hard to care about other things. So I appreciate that.
I also want to know, with regard to sue and settle, are you
familiar with what the concept of sue and settle is and the
accusations that the EPA may meet with or communicate in any
way with outside groups the results on a lawsuit with
environmental groups who are suing the EPA or the U.S.
government and then the EPA continues to meet or communicate in
any way whatsoever to come up with some sort of a settlement as
another way of having a regulation go through. Has the EPA ever
engaged in sue-and-settle practices, sometimes referred to as
friendly lawsuits, with environmental groups, to your
knowledge?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, the way you described it, I would say
no, but we get sued and we do settle them. So----
Mr. Murphy. But are there discussions then between the EPA
and these groups? Many times these groups will move to bypass
the legislative process and will sue and then the EPA works
with them to come up with a regulation, and does that happen?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, when we are sued, about 70 percent,
maybe a little over 70 percent of the lawsuits that come
against the EPA are on mandatory duties that we have under the
laws that Congress enacted, and we didn't make the deadline or
there is a periodic review that we didn't do, and so those
settlement discussions are often about what the schedule should
be, because we didn't meet the schedule that Congress----
Mr. Murphy. And a lot of those are by environmental groups.
Am I correct?
Mr. Perciasepe. Some are environmental groups, and some are
by business groups, but they are not on matters of law, they
are on matters of schedule.
Mr. Murphy. Well, sometimes they are also pushing for some
issues too such as enforcement activities there along those
lines, and I know that, you know, certainly environmental
groups have a right to stand up for the things that they
believe in. That is fine. It has been brought up before about
concern about these groups having some favored practice with
the EPA with regard to having fees waived. I think a number of
us are concerned about what may be a culture of conspiracy and
abuse of power and abuse of the public trust when it favors any
group over any other groups. And certainly I think it violates
a fundamental pillar of our Nation with regard to fairness and
freedom and democracy, that no one should be above the law,
whether it is the IRS targeting some groups, pro-Israel groups,
conservative groups or difficulty this committee has with
getting information on Solyndra or other committees have with
Fast and Furious and Benghazi, etc. I got to tell you
oftentimes it has left this committee it is difficult if not
impossible to trust agencies that have some ties with some
other political motivation to nurture some and silence others.
Now, I want to know if it will be a change in the practice
of the EPA to either give everybody waived fees with FOIA or
everybody will have to pay. I don't know another way around it.
When you are talking about 90 plus percent in one direction and
90 percent in another, it is hard to deny that there is some
other motivation there. And so I wonder if this is going to be
a change in some policy of the EPA that we can look to to say
that they are going to treat everybody with the same fairness.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, our policy is to treat everybody the
same on that, on everything we do.
Mr. Murphy. Well, along those lines too, I hope you will
submit for the record too, let us know how much the value of
those waived fees are, because obviously if that's not needed
by the EPA, that might be an area we can make some changes.
Mr. Perciasepe. I absolutely would, and as I mentioned
earlier in a response to a question on this matter, even when
fees are not waived under the process that is currently there,
it is frequent that there are no fees involved anyway because
of the nature of the way we do it these days electronically,
but we will provide that information to you.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
Thank you for being here to review the EPA budget.
I represent the Tampa Bay area in Florida, and my local
communities truly value the partnership that they have with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, whether it is the
brownfields initiative where the city of Tampa just won a
substantial grant to help put some contaminated property back
into productive use for some business owners there or it is the
legal refit initiative that the city of St. Petersburg won a
grant for that is going to help clean the air and help them
change over their fleet, or whether it is the Clean Water
Revolving Loan Program or Drinking Water Revolving Loan Program
that are substantially underfunded, and are underfunded in this
budget again and then are suffering another reduction. These
are--when we are talking about job creation, these are
important and very modest investments that help our communities
create jobs, whether it is the brownfields or the business
owner that has an opportunity to expand a business because that
property is no longer contaminated or the engineering firm or
construction firm that is hired to fix the old pipes that we
have miles and miles of these old leaky pipes throughout our
community. We have to recognize the leverage we get through
those important but very modest investments create a lot of
jobs. So we value that partnership, and I wish that the United
States Congress would end the sequester, replace the sequester
so that we can continue to make those job-creating investments.
But I wanted you to focus today on a great success by the
EPA, and that is fuel economy standards, and all you have to do
is get in your car and see the types of cars that Americans are
purchasing right now, and one personal story. I am a member of
a family who leased one of those new hybrid plug-in electric
vehicles in October of last year. It came from a dealer with a
full tank of gas, and since that time he has never been to the
gas station and is averaging about 500 miles per gallon, has
never been to the gas station since the car was leased in
October. It is remarkable. It is kind of a revolution what is
going on in that field, but just in fuel economy, if you look
at what is happening with the ability to put money back into
the pockets of American consumers because the Obama
Administration and a couple Congresses ago pushed and said the
technology exists. Could you quantify what has happened with
fuel economy, summarize what kind of savings consumers have
realized over the past few years, the money back in their
pockets, the clean air benefits and then the recent
announcement to go even further?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes. I thank you for those comments, and I
think, as you have already pointed out, to put a little bit of
measure into it, you know, obviously for the fuel economy and
greenhouse gas standard combined, a program that we have put in
place to provide level playing field for all the automobile
manufacturers and coordinate with DOT and the State of
California to make sure that it is all the same and working
together, that is going to double the average fuel economy for
American automobiles by 2025, and every year the fleet fuel
economy is going to continue to improve and the amount of
pollution from it is going to continue to go down, so you are
going to have significant public health benefits and you are
going to obviously have savings at the pump, and we would
expect over the life of that program compared to the way
vehicles are today that we are probably talking about over $1
trillion of savings over time.
Now, that translates not into more money into the economy.
That would also, you know, as people purchase things or
whatever, create jobs, but it also improves our national
security because we are reducing every year our dependence on
imported oil. We are not there yet and we have production
growth as well in the country of our natural resources. So when
you look at all these things together holistically, we really
are improving our overall profile. I could probably tell you
the public health benefits because somebody just gave me the
piece of information here, but for nitrogen oxide, it is 6.9
million tons VOCs, 592 million tons. The net benefits that we
have calculated on the public health side is about 174 billion.
So I appreciate your question.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time is expired. At this
time I will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Good morning, and thank you for being with us
this morning. Thank you for your forbearance in this lengthy
interview process, but it is important, and I think you would
agree with that.
Mr. Perciasepe. Absolutely.
Mr. Burgess. I too drive a hybrid. I have had it for 10
years' time. Back when I bought my hybrid, the price of
gasoline was actually a lot less so I can't really say I bought
it because I am cheap, which I am, but I really bought it
because then I could have that sense of moral superiority that
a hybrid affords you, and I still enjoy that today.
Let us talk a little bit about some of the things that have
come up during this hearing. First off, what is the mission of
the EPA?
Mr. Perciasepe. I am sorry. Say that again.
Mr. Burgess. What is the mission of the EPA? What is your
core function?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, our mission obviously is to protect
public health and the environment.
Mr. Burgess. Stop there. That is good. That is a sound
bite. I will accept that.
Mr. Perciasepe. But if you go to the next level, it is
essentially to implement the laws that Congress has enacted for
EPA to be the----
Mr. Burgess. And will accept that as secondary. Now, we
have heard a lot of discussion here this morning about the
sequester and the effects of the sequester, how it should be
undone, but, you know, I will just simply ask you, you are the
boss of the EPA, right? You are the head honcho of the EPA?
Mr. Perciasepe. The current acting head honcho.
Mr. Burgess. Right. It is head honcho. We keep it simple
here for this committee. And your boss is?
Mr. Perciasepe. President Obama.
Mr. Burgess. Correct. And President Obama in August of 2011
signed a very famous law now called the Budget Control Act, did
he not?
Mr. Perciasepe. I am certain he did.
Mr. Burgess. And incorporated in that Budget Control Act
was a condition known as the sequester. Is that correct?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Mr. Burgess. It was something that was asked for by the
Administration, asked for by Jack Lew who at the time was chief
of staff or head of Office of Management and the Budget. They
asked Congress to pass this law. The Congress accommodated.
Now, to his credit, the President has not had to come back to
the Congress with another debt limit discussion since August of
2011 so you could certainly argue he achieved his goal of
wanting to get past Election Day and then some so that worked.
Now, why is it that you as his agent at the Environmental
Protection Agency cannot perform your core mission under the
guidance of your President who said there will be a reduction
in funding for the EPA under the sequester. Why is it you are
having trouble doing that?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I am reporting to this committee the
impacts of doing that.
Mr. Burgess. Well, let me just ask you this. Why is it that
it is only in federal agencies, and we certainly saw this, not
your area but the Department of Transportation with the FAA
flap a few weeks ago, when you got to do budget cuts, they
immediately have to hurt people. I was in private business for
a number of years. There were plenty of times where I fell on
lean times and I had to look at my budget, and I had to squeeze
7 cents out of every dollar that I spent. Otherwise I wasn't
going to be able to provide my core mission. And we did it, but
I didn't lay off my scheduler. I did it in a way that allowed
the business to continue to function and continue to take care
of those patients who came into my medical practice. Why is it
when in the private sector when times get tough and you have
got to make budget cuts we try to do those in a way that
minimizes the impact on our clients, patients or customers, and
yet in federal agencies, let us extract the maximum amount of
pain. Why is that?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I can't ascribe to that particular
point of view. But I am giving you the information as best I
can of what those across-the-board kinds of reductions have
done in our agency. The flexibility that you just suggested
that you have in private industry is not afforded to me as the
head of the Agency because I have to make the cuts in every
program. And within that----
Mr. Burgess. You have some discretionary authority, I would
submit and look, you know, you have got some stuff listed here
of things that--and I realize it wasn't your helm at the time
but in 2012 Lisa Jackson goes to the United Nations Conference
on Sustainable Development, referred to as Rio Plus 20, Agenda
21, whatever you want to call it. How much did we spend to do
that? How much did we spend to send Lisa Jackson to Rio Plus
20?
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Burgess. Can you find that out and get that information
back to me?
Mr. Perciasepe. Certainly.
Mr. Burgess. It seems to me that would be a far better
place to cut rather than when Henry Waxman goes through you are
cutting radiation safety and air quality, this would be a
better place to cut, and if I were to advise you on how to look
at your budget and make it work and comply with your core
mission, these are the types of activities I would ask you to
look at, and I cannot believe your boss, the President, did not
do that, and I think that is a failing on the part of the
Administration because they did ask for the sequester.
Remember, that was the baseline.
Mr. Perciasepe. I mean, I can attest to the fact that he
signed the bill but I was not involved with any of the
negotiations.
Mr. Burgess. And I appreciate that you weren't.
Mr. Perciasepe. But----
Mr. Burgess. But you are now to do the job, correct?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I am, and I just want you to know that
I did cut the Agency's travel budget in half.
Mr. Burgess. Good for you. Eliminate it. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Let me tell you that I was going to ask about the
discrepancies on the FOIA matter but I believe that has been
covered. However, I had originally intended to drop that
question but I don't want you or anybody else to believe that I
think it is a waste of time ever to try to reassure this
committee and the American people that we are trying to have a
just system, and the appearances, as previous folks have said,
the appearances are that when it comes to waiving the fees that
it has not been just, that somebody is placing their finger on
the scales of justice. I believe that what you have laid out
talking to the Inspector General and all makes sense, but I
don't want anybody thinking that we think it is a waste of time
to try to assure the American people that we are setting up a
just system.
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't believe that for a minute.
Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that.
Mr. Perciasepe. It is one of my most important
responsibilities as a public servant.
Mr. Griffith. And as a part of trying to make sure we have
a just system, there have been concerns with the sue-and-settle
process that the EPA frequently agrees to, what we believe to
be unrealistic deadlines for issuing major rules that are going
to impose massive new costs on businesses and consumers. The
schedules the EPA agrees to may not allow the EPA enough time
to collect the data the Agency needs or enough time for the
public to review the rule and offer meaningful comment. Can you
commit that going forward the EPA will consult with affected
stakeholders before committing to those deadlines?
Mr. Perciasepe. One of the things that I am committed to
doing is when there is a request for a--when we have a petition
or request to do a rulemaking on whatever schedule to post that
request on the Web so that all the stakeholders can see it, and
then whatever process that is required under the Administrative
Procedures Act, et cetera, which is also----
Mr. Griffith. Well, I would encourage you to go a little
bit further than just posting, although that certainly would be
helpful, because I believe that as we go forward being more
transparent and involving all the affected stakeholders in the
process will help ensure that the EPA does not commit to
unrealistic deadlines.
In the case of the Clean Air Act, consent decrees before
they are entered by the court, there is a statutory opportunity
for the public to comment. Does the EPA publish copies of the
actual rulemaking settlements and proposed consent decrees in
the Federal Register?
Mr. Perciasepe. All the consent decrees under the Clean Air
Act for sure have to be published in the Federal Register.
Mr. Griffith. But is that done? When you are discussing
this, there is supposed to be an opportunity for the public to
comment before they are entered by the court. Do you put it
into the public register before the court enters a decree?
Mr. Perciasepe. Right. It goes out for public comment, and
then when the public comment period is over, the comments are
reviewed and then that is when it gets entered into the court.
Mr. Griffith. All right. Does this opportunity for public
comment ever result in changes to a settlement? Because we are
only aware of one instance where involving technology and
residual risk reviews for various source agents where that
occurred.
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't have that information.
Mr. Griffith. Can you get that information?
Mr. Perciasepe. I can certainly get that for you. I do know
that we also get--once we complete some rulemaking, we often
get requests for reconsideration of those rules as well, and
which we have done on many occasions.
Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that. Sorry, my time is
short. I have got to keep moving.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Griffith. There are some in the Agency in the past
related to Utility MACT and other regulations that have
indicated that coal-fired power plants are not being retired
because of regulations but because of the low cost of natural
gas. Of course, natural gas costs are going back up. But while
some have made that argument, and we have retired 41,000
megawatts of coal-fired generation, there is a Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment report that has concluded
that the cost of complying with tougher EPA air quality
standards could spur an increased shift away from coal and
toward natural gas for electric generation. Also, an April 23
of this year analysis, the Energy Information Administration
explained that the interaction of fuel prices and environmental
rules is a key factor in coal plant retirements. How do you
make the two of those fit? And I would submit that what you
have got is that the regulations are in fact retiring these
plants, and like Mr. Rush said earlier, he is concerned about
what happens to poor folks. In my district, they are having a
hard time paying their electric bills and their food and their
drugs, particularly for my elderly who are trying to survive on
a fixed income, and I am just wondering if the EPA takes any of
that into consideration when they are trying to make these
decisions, because when I raised this last year with your
predecessor, she said--or I guess it was a year and a half
ago--she said ``We have programs to take care of that,'' but in
the budget, not your budget but in another part of the budget,
the President actually cut the LIHEAP program, which would have
helped folks with their heating bills and their electric bills.
How do you justify or make all that work together?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, first of all, we do analyze what we
think the impact of the regulations will be on potential
closures, and you are correct that it is a complex mix of what
the age of a plant is, what it would cost to continue to keep
it running and fix it up versus modernizing with another kind
of plant. Our estimates continue to show that a very small
amount but not a zero amount of the changing that is going on
in the industry, which has been going on for 10 years, is not
due to the regulations but the regulations no doubt have a role
to play there, and we have analyzed that and we have been
public about it.
I know that this has come up several times, and, you know,
I went ahead and looked a couple of weeks ago at what the
projections are, even under the current situation that you are
bringing up here, that EIA and others have put out there, what
coal production and coal usage for electric generation will be
in the future, and it is still fairly robust. I mean, there is
no expectation on our part nor desire on our part to have coal
not be part of the diversity of fuels that are available for
electric generation in the United States, and all of our
projections including EIA's show that it will continue to play
a role.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Perciasepe,
baseball practice is at 6:30 in the morning. If you want to
know where it is at, I play, so I can give you directions.
Mr. Perciasepe. I think Mr. Hall was saying if I am invited
to the committee, and I was going back to the other one.
Mr. Johnson. Oh, oK.
Mr. Perciasepe. I will of course come if the committee
invites me.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Great. As the former Assistant
Administrator for Air, you are well aware that under the Clean
Air Act, the agency historically has always subcategorized fuel
types, not just between coal and natural gas but sub-coal types
such as subbituminous or lignite. Why did the Agency break with
that tradition on the NSPS for greenhouse gases and set one
standard, a natural gas standard?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I think when the proposal was made,
there was some careful consideration that there would be
technology available that would enable everybody to meet the
same performance standard. Because there is some question about
the technology, that proposal actually recommended a 30-year
averaging period so that, you know, you would allow the
technology to catch up. So we felt like there was an ample
opportunity for a diversity of fuels there regardless of the
single performance standard. That said, we have received, as I
think you know, significant comment on this issue and it is
certainly something that we are trying to analyze ourselves
right now as to what the final rule will look like.
Mr. Johnson. So will the new NSPS rule that comes out of
the EPA have not only subcategories for fuel types for coal and
natural gas but also back to those sub types for different
types of coal?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, we are looking at the comment that we
got on that. I can't say what the final one is going to be yet
because we are still in that process.
Mr. Johnson. I would certainly urge you to consider that
because it leads me to my second line of questioning here
dealing with cost and benefits. As regulations become more
complex and expansive, would you agree that impacts may affect
more than just the directly regulated sector due to price
effects and other costs that ripple through the economy? Would
you agree that taking fuller measures and estimates of energy
price effects and other costs up front would be important for
fuller understanding of regulatory impacts economy-wide?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think that this issue is a pretty
important issue and it is one that we have been working on what
kind of analytical tools can we get that would really enable us
to do that. You just heard me answer the member from California
about the--no, Florida, I am sorry--about the fact that the
fuel economy/greenhouse gas rules for the cars are going to cut
the amount of gasoline in half and that translates into less
money spent, and then that money obviously will have another
potential benefit in the economy.
Mr. Johnson. But you are talking about benefits.
Mr. Perciasepe. Right.
Mr. Johnson. What about the cost implications to the
industries?
Mr. Perciasepe. Right. We have to look at both of those
when we do this, so we are committed to continuing to move in
that direction and I have actually had some conversations with
the Senate committees about convening some panels to----
Mr. Johnson. Well, our committee has heard testimony that
for its major air rules, the EPA has failed at least during
this Administration to look at the economy-wide impacts. We
understand that economic modeling can more fully account for
the economy-wide impacts of regulations by measuring the ripple
effects of prices through other sectors of the economy not
directly affected by the regulations. This provides a fuller
picture of job shifts and other economic impacts. We understand
that since 1997, the EPA has conducted economy-wide modeling of
regulatory impacts just two major air rules both in 2005. Can
you explain why the EPA has not performed such modeling during
this Administration?
Mr. Perciasepe. The models that exist are not adequate to
do what you are suggesting. There were attempts to do it and--
--
Mr. Johnson. What are you doing to update the modeling?
Mr. Perciasepe. I was trying to answer you, that I have
suggested to your Senate counterparts that we convene a panel
of economists and look for advice from them on what kind of
models we can use to do this kind of impact across that looks
at both the benefits and the costs, because if you are going to
look at the whole economy, you have got to look at both sides
of that equation.
Mr. Johnson. Can I then take that going forward? It sounds
like you are making a commitment that the EPA will undertake in
the coming fiscal year to look at the economy-wide impacts of
its major rules using state-of-the-art economic modeling. Is
that what I am hearing?
Mr. Perciasepe. What you heard me commit to do is to try to
find out if there are models that we can actually do that with,
so----
Mr. Johnson. I mean, this is 2013. We have got a lot of
smart people, particularly in the EPA. Surely you can find a
modeling methodology. We are pretty good at this kind of stuff.
Am I hearing that you are making a commitment to address the
modeling?
Mr. Perciasepe. We are going to convene an expert panel of
economists to give us some advice on that. We have done some of
it. We have done it on our 812 cumulative impact analysis on
the Clean Air Act. We have done it on a couple of rules.
Getting the benefit side right as well as the cost side right
is the tough piece.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Cassidy. Sir, thanks for coming. Listen, it just so
happens this morning I was meeting with some folks who are
wholesalers of fuel, and so they tell me that in October of
2011 the EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks announced a
proposed revision to the 1988 Federal Underground Storage Tank
regulation, and industry stakeholders along with the Petroleum
Marketers Association of America submitted comments. EPA
estimated the compliance costs to be about $900 per year per
facility while the petroleum marketers and others estimate true
costs to be $6,100 per year. Now, of course, this concerns
them, and they are requesting that the EPA withdraw the
proposed rule, which is to be finalized in October of 2013,
this year, and form a small business regulatory advisory panel
to determine the true compliance costs. They tell me a letter
was received from EPA, and the letter did not agree to the
regulatory advisory panel. I mean, here is a bunch of folks,
some of whom are mom-and-pops, some of whom are large, and they
are looking at a compliance cost of $6,100 a year, and I gather
this is for the double tanks, not for the older steel with
fiberglass but the current double tanks, so the ones which
presumably are safer. Of course, this is a concern.
Now, I heard about this issue this morning but I am here to
represent those folks providing services. Your thoughts on this
and what we can do about it?
Mr. Perciasepe. Let me make sure I understood. You said
there was a response already presented?
Mr. Cassidy. There was a letter sent back, and apparently
there still remains disagreement as to what the true compliance
costs are.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I am not familiar with the specific
issue that you are bringing up, but I can commit to you and to
the committee that I will look into it personally, find out
what the issues are. I do quite a bit of work myself with the
small business part of our agency both in terms of our own
acquiring of services as well as, you would be interested to
know, almost 50 percent of our purchasing of services as an
agency is by small businesses. But I am sensitive to this and I
will find out what it is and get back to you.
Mr. Cassidy. True compliance costs, and if there is a
reluctance to form that advisory committee or at least have
some ad hoc committee which comes to agreement.
Mr. Perciasepe. I understand what those panels are, yes.
Mr. Cassidy. Secondly, in a previous hearing on
formaldehyde, we had a report from the National Academy of
Science, which pilloried the methodology used by EPA, and at
the time I understand there were other critiques, very sharp,
about how EPA is basing their regulations. Now, I am a doc, I
am a physician, and I keep on wondering if the criticism is
that your methodology is unclear and those articles selected
among the many to choose from do not support the conclusions,
in this case causing cancer or such like that. Why can't EPA
beginning tomorrow to write documents that have clear
methodology and have the same sort of standard that a peer-
reviewed journal would require for such a thing? So one, my
question is, why not, and two, if you say you are going to do
so, when would that begin?
Mr. Perciasepe. And I would agree with you, why not. So
after we got that report a couple years ago, we immediately
embarked on a modification of how we do those programs. We have
done a couple of them already. We submitted them back to the
National Academy of Sciences to see if we are getting it right.
We hired a new head of that part of our Office of Research and
Development who is in the process of putting some additional
modifications of that together, and we expect to be getting
that out in the public shortly. So we are in the middle, if not
near the end, I hope----
Mr. Cassidy. So I know that some of these rules take a
while to develop. Those that are halfway through the process,
will they be redone to include this new, improved kind of
standard methodology?
Mr. Perciasepe. We are trying to catch as many of them as
we can. Keep in mind, these are the science assessments; they
are not the actual----
Mr. Cassidy. Let me get one more question if I can real
quickly. Also, oftentimes EPA will make a rule, and I gather
that the data are not made public, at least Congress doesn't
know what the data are, and this may be related to it being
proprietary, but heck, they are doing it with federal funds,
and I know there is a big push to have those medical research
papers done with federal funds to have open source or free
download. It seems like if this is being done with an EPA
grant, we should be able to see those data as should anybody
who would want to look at that methodology. Do you see where I
am coming from?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Mr. Cassidy. Any thoughts about that? What is the obstacles
to getting the data? Can we start making that database?
Mr. Perciasepe. There are two categories of information
that fall into this world. One is sort of a computer model and
survey instruments and questionnaires that are used in the
gathering of the information, and then of course there is the
information itself. You have to sort of look at those things
together. So whenever--so in the particular instance where we
are currently working on this issue, we obviously don't
currently have the data in our possession. So we have to work
with the researchers and the other funders. Usually there is
many, many funders, even if EPA is a small funder. So yes, we
understand this issue and, yes, we are in the process of trying
to, in the case of some of the particulate matter,
epidemiological studies that I think you are probably referring
to, we are in the process of trying to get some of those
questionnaires and the front-end part of the data and then we
are going to probably continue talking to the researchers
about----
Mr. Cassidy. I will yield back. We are out of time. You
have been generous. But I would say, wouldn't it be great in
terms of your contract up front you said your condition of
accepting this contract is that this must be made public.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time the chair recognizes the
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Perciasepe, for your time in front of this committee.
Just a quick question. Are you familiar with the Colorado
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan?
Mr. Perciasepe. I know one exists but I can't tell you----
Mr. Gardner. If you don't mind, I have some questions for
you for the record to follow up.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Mr. Gardner. I wanted to just shift a little bit over to
some budget questions. We have heard people on this committee
characterize the budget reductions as a result of sequestration
as catastrophic, as ending the world as we know it. Maybe
people believe that. Talking about dire consequences with the
reductions, and I think it is what, a 3.5 percent reduction
overall to the EPA budget from 2013 to 2014?
Mr. Perciasepe. From 2012. Well, 2013, it is lower because
of the sequestration.
Mr. Gardner. About a 3.6 percent reduction, 3.5 percent
reduction. And you are aware that almost 80 percent of the
households in America had about a 2 percent tax increase at the
beginning of this year?
Mr. Perciasepe. Our budget in 2012 was $8.45 billion, and--
--
Mr. Gardner. So it----
Mr. Perciasepe [continuing]. This request is $8.15 billion.
Mr. Gardner. So you are aware, though, that most Americans,
almost 80 percent of households experienced a 2 percent tax
increase at the beginning of this year, a payroll tax increase?
Mr. Perciasepe. I have no reason to----
Mr. Gardner. But I just want to just talk a little bit
about the budget here. I have some charts I would like to share
with you. This chart--we talk about budget cuts and what is
happening. We talk about the impact that they have had on the
EPA. This chart shows agencies with the most regulatory actions
reviewed by OMB from 2009 to the present. Well, EPA is second.
You have the second-most regulatory actions reviewed by OMB,
the second-most concluded by OMB, and actually it looks like
you have the highest number of actions pending, and this is
despite cataclysmic budget cuts. If you look at the EPA rules
finalized and published in the Federal Register, this chart
shows that you have a--in 2012 you finalized 635 rules spanning
5,637 pages, this despite record budget cuts that would be
ending the world as we know it. This chart here shows agencies
with the most regulatory actions currently under review, going
back to the other chart, EPA, 21, the highest of any of these
agencies. Are you familiar--you were not there in 2009. Are you
familiar with the budget in 2009, EPA's budget in 2009? It is
about $7.6 billion in 2009. The budget request for 2014 is
about $8.1 billion, so about half billion dollars difference.
In 2010, the EPA budget was about $10.3 billion, which was
a 30 percent increase from 2009. So the budget has come down a
little bit at the EPA. The budget request right now is about
$296 million less than the 2012 enacted level. Isn't it true
that in this year's EPA budget, you are just requesting half a
billion dollars more than the Agency received in 2009? Is that
correct?
Mr. Perciasepe. We are requesting less than we received in
2012.
Mr. Gardner. But in 2009, it is about a half a billion
dollars more.
Mr. Perciasepe. In 2009 and 2010, there was a large influx
of infrastructure money under the America Recovery Act and
related infrastructure money.
Mr. Gardner. Is the air cleaner today than it was in 2009?
Mr. Perciasepe. I would hope so.
Mr. Gardner. Will the air be cleaner next year than it was
in 2009?
Mr. Perciasepe. I would hope so.
Mr. Gardner. And so we are doing that despite the fact that
there have been budget reductions.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, the regulations we put in place every
year, the cars are cleaner, so every year we buy 13 million new
cars, thank goodness, and then----
Mr. Gardner. And so that is happening despite the budget
reductions.
Mr. Perciasepe. Because of the regulations, and that will
happen in the future because of the regulations----
Mr. Gardner. Despite the budget reductions.
Mr. Perciasepe. First of all, let me just say, the numbers
you have up there don't appear to match the numbers that I
have. I mean, the ones that are in----
Mr. Gardner. We are happy to take your numbers.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, all right. My numbers are for the
first 4 years of this Administration, we finalized or proposed
434 rules compared to 536 the last 4 years of the last
Administration. So I have very different numbers on----
Mr. Gardner. I am happy to look at those numbers.
Mr. Perciasepe. However----
Mr. Gardner. We can make new charts with your number. But I
just asked a question. Are we reducing air pollution at an $8.1
billion request as we were with $7.6 billion? Are we going to
have cleaner air next year?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, if I point to the automobiles as a
particular example----
Mr. Gardner. So the answer is yes?
Mr. Perciasepe. The regulations that we put in place have
been since 2009.
Mr. Gardner. So the answer is yes? So we are actually able
to have cleaner air today with more money than we did last
year, with more money than we did in 2009. So even though you
are not getting $296 million as much as you were last year, we
are going to have cleaner air?
Mr. Perciasepe. And I never said we weren't.
Mr. Gardner. Good. Does the EPA track total amount of the
new compliance costs imposing through regulations every year?
Mr. Perciasepe. We do a cumulative assessment of the Clean
Air Act.
Mr. Gardner. What about other regulations? Do you track
compliance costs on the regulations we have?
Mr. Perciasepe. We have some retrospective studies going on
to look at what our estimates of the costs were and what they
ended up actually being. Usually it ends up being less.
Mr. Gardner. Can you provide the committee with total new
compliance costs associated with all the new rules issued by
the Agency in 2012?
Mr. Perciasepe. Whatever we have analyzed, we can provide.
Mr. Gardner. Because I think if we are talking about the
fact that EPA's budget is missing $296 million from last year,
we have to remember that businesses are actually paying more in
energy costs because of EPA regulations, that they are paying
more because of payroll tax increases this year, and so when
the EPA comes here and complains about a 3 percent budget cut--
--
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gardner [continuing]. The fact that households across
this country have had their budgets cut, businesses have had
their budgets cut, I think we ought to know that, and I think--
--
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Gardner. I would yield back my time.
[The charts from Mr. Gardner's presentation appear at the
conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I welcome our
colleague. I know, Mr. Perciasepe, you have been here a while
now.
I personally have been very interested for a number of
years on the issue of electronic waste, and I have been working
on the issue. We actually have legislation the last couple
terms, and I have noticed that some in EPA believe the Agency
should spend money and build capacity for managing e-waste in
developing countries. While I agree that these countries need
to do more to develop their capacity to manage their own e-
waste, we must address the e-waste problem we have
domestically. Greater investment in responsible recycling here
at home could go far in helping curb e-waste problems overseas.
The committee recently held a briefing with the U.S.
International Trade Commission regarding its study on e-waste
and found that several industrialized countries such as Sweden,
Belgium and Korea have high-tech smelting facilities that
specialize in recovering gold, copper and valuable metals from
the electronic waste. We were also told that no similar
facilities operate in the United States. First of all, how much
money did EPA request for international efforts to address
electronic waste?
Mr. Perciasepe. I am afraid I don't know.
Mr. Green. I think we can find that out. I guess one of my
concerns is, coming from an industrial area, it seems like we
might have some impediments for creating one of those
facilities, a high-tech smelting operation, because I know the
problems with smelting, just like in my area, I have refineries
in East Harris County. But is there something that the United
States should say we want to be able to do this and create our
own high-tech smelting operation? Obviously if these countries
like Belgium and Sweden could be able to do it or even South
Korea, we should be able to do it under our environmental laws.
But we will go on to that later too at another time.
Has EPA studied the state-of-the-art smelting facilities
abroad that specialize in processing e-waste and recovering the
valuable metals? Do you know of anything that the EPA has done
on that?
Mr. Perciasepe. We have been working in a voluntary way
with many of the large producers of electronic products to come
up with a long-term strategy. We have a partnership with a
number of them. I am sure that the people who are working on
that, and it is a priority for us to try to work on that----
Mr. Green. If you could get back with the committee, I
would appreciate it.
Next question. In recent testimony, you mentioned that you
were postponing release of the diesel guidance document for
hydraulic fracturing and mentioned this would dovetail with a
larger EPA study. Can you elaborate on how guidance to the UIC
regulatory personnel and use of diesel during operation
correlates with either the prospective or retrospective case
study on the larger EPA study?
Mr. Perciasepe. I will try. First of all, as you probably
know, the Underground Injection Control program doesn't get
involved with hydraulic fracturing as a general matter because
of exclusions in the law, but that----
Mr. Green. But the study was required by Congress.
Mr. Perciasepe. The study was required by Congress. The
fact that when diesel fuel is used remained in the law so in
the study that is undergoing, we are working with some of the
businesses and with some of the producers on technology and
approaches they are using for exploration and production of
natural gas wells, and we are looking at what the best
management practices are, and we may learn from some of that,
from some of the companies and some of the retrospective and
prospective studies we are doing what new approaches might be
available for well bore integrity and things of that nature,
and it would seem that there is some logic to whatever we might
do in the case where there is diesel fuel use, it would want to
benefit from what we are learning there. I am using that as an
example.
Mr. Green. And I appreciate EPA, and I look forward to the
study, but as I have said before to administrators and even our
Energy Secretary, you know, if we make it impossible to frack,
we shut down this huge growth in reasonably priced energy, so
we need to make sure it is done right and done safely.
The last thing, and Mr. Chairman, just a minute, our
committee last Congress passed an E-Manifest bill, and it was
for tracking hazardous waste shipments, and I appreciate EPA's
work on that as really good bipartisan legislation came out of
our committee, and the new electronic system will improve the
transparency and efficiency of the data. Could you not, if not
today, but get back with us? Because we want to do a full
follow-up on how that is working with EPA and the success of
it.
Mr. Perciasepe. I think that would be a great idea. We are
starting to formulate the approach where we come and give the
committee a briefing on the status of that. It is a really good
program. We are so appreciative of the work all of you have
done on it.
Mr. Whitfield. We will work with them on that. Thanks, Mr.
Green. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr.
Pompeo, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pompeo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to talk about a piece of legislation I have and it
relates to a budget item that you have as well. This year, the
EPA's budget calls for a little less than $63 million in
chemical risk reduction and about $3.5 million in chemical risk
management. Included in that would be enforcement of the Clean
Air Act general duty clause, section 112(r) of the Clean Air
Act. Are you at least somewhat familiar with that provision?
Mr. Perciasepe. I know what 112(r) is, yes.
Mr. Pompeo. Fair enough. So just to be clear, operators
have a general duty to design and maintain a safe facility if
they are processing, handling or storing a specific list of
chemicals or other extremely hazardous substances, which EPA
admits is undefined because there has been no guidance, there
have been no guidelines. In fact, Ms. Jackson testified that
there has been no EPA definition of ``extremely hazardous
substances'' in front of this committee. It is a very vague
law, and I think that creates enormous regulatory risk. I think
it is not the way to do it. This bill has been in the hopper
for a while. In light of what happened with the Internal
Revenue Service this week, I think specificity is very
reasonable to make sure that agencies don't prosecute these
things in a way that are either inconsistent across regions or
disfavor folks whoever they might be. We saw what happened in
West, Texas, the tragedy there related to ammonium nitrate that
was stored on site, but that is regulated today by DHS but is
not listed and not covered under EPA's RMP program.
I have a couple of concerns. We have got this incredibly
vague section which doesn't provide notice for folks on how to
store chemicals and what chemicals are covered, and then this
general duty clause on top of it that doesn't tell these
operators what to do. So my legislation, it does something very
odd for someone who sits on this side of the dais. It asks the
EPA to issue a regulation. It asks you to clarify what this
means. I am glad I got that out of my mouth and didn't choke.
But I am happy to withdraw the legislation if I could get you
today to tell me that you all will begin the process to develop
a regulation to clarify what is in the general duty clause and
what it is you all intend to do with that.
Mr. Perciasepe. I certainly commit to look at that. You
know, it has been looked at before, and because of the nature
of what we are talking about, it gets complicated very quickly,
and I think you are probably aware of it, and we also have the
potential need to coordinate with other responsibilities like
worker exposure and also national security, homeland security.
I think we are going to find out today from the State folks
what their best guess is of what happened at West, Texas. They
briefed the governor yesterday and they are supposed to
announce, I think, at noon at 1 o'clock Central Time. So I
think what I heard was it looked like it was the ammonium
nitrate, because what we are looking at under the Clean Air Act
at this time is the stuff that would be getting into the air,
which would be the anhydrous ammonia, and if the full tank of
anhydrous ammonia at that particular facility leaked out in the
middle of the night in the summer when everybody had their
windows open, it would be quite a substantial impact.
But your point is well taken. I think that in light of the
tragedy there and in light of some of the work that you have
been doing, it is certainly something we need to turn our
attention to. I can't commit to any particular process at this
time.
Mr. Pompeo. Then I will continue to proceed, and we
hopefully can work together to get this done. I just don't see
why when you are in this constrained environment that we have
been talking about all morning you would seek to go regulate in
a space that is already highly regulated. I have to tell you,
it continues to confound me.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, that is why I am in the position to
want to look at what all the other agencies do and maybe get
that better coordinated before I do anything else.
Mr. Pompeo. That would be awesome. I appreciate that.
Last thing. Some folks here this morning have used
different words to describe EPA's budget in 2014. Some would
suggest that it was crippling. I have probably heard that we
are gutting various statutes. I have been in Congress 27
months, so dozens and dozens of times. Would you use--the 2014,
would you describe the 2014 as crippling an agency with 18 some
thousand employees?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think that the 2014 budget that the
President has proposed is adequate to obviously maintain what
we are responsible to do. I mean, we wouldn't have proposed
that budget if it wasn't. But embedded in that budget are some
real ideas to try to make ourselves even more efficient in the
future, and again, I hope that the committee will see its way
through. It has been a leader in the e-manifest, and I think
that if you work with us on some of the other ideas to make the
agency more efficient, it would be in everybody's long-term
interest.
Mr. Pompeo. We look forward to that. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, and Mr. Perciasepe, I am sorry to
say this concludes the hearing. But we do appreciate your being
with us very much this morning, and Mr. Rush and I and the
other members look forward to having an opportunity to spend
another morning with you soon, perhaps.
The record will remain open for 10 days, and the staffs on
both sides will be getting the material for a follow-up for
additional comments from you all.
Mr. Perciasepe. And I won't forget my commitment at the
beginning of the hearing to get to the answers.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, and that will conclude
today's hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Adam Kinzinger
Administrator Perciasepe, thank you for being here today to
provide testimony and answer questions on your agency's FY2014
budget request.
In the committee's role of providing oversight over EPA, we
want to ensure that our nation's resources are protected
according to the law while preserving individual and economic
freedom. As we continue to experience unacceptably slow
economic growth, it will be important that we do not apply
additional barriers from Washington. As a budget reflects
priorities, the focus of your agency's budget should be on how
to best protect Americans' health and our environment without
adding unnecessary burdens to individuals and job-creators.
Undoubtedly, the EPA plays an important role protecting our
nation's environment and local communities from bad actors and
other hazards. Throughout my district there are sites being
investigated and cleaned up under Superfund authority. To
highlight a recent example, the town of Wedron, Illinois
started receiving Superfund emergency funding in 2011.
Residents of that town have been trying to identify the source
of a contaminated water supply for nearly three decades. I have
made it a priority to work with the EPA and the Illinois EPA to
help solve this problem, find solutions to protect the town's
resources, and ensure residents have access to clean, safe
drinking water.
I was discouraged, then, to see a budget reduction for the
Superfund program in your agency's request. Having worked with
the EPA with this program, I have seen how limited resources
can delay agency actions for communities in need. EPA's
emphasis should be on protecting taxpayers and the American
environment first, and I would hope its budget will reflect
that.
As we look to spur economic growth and create better
opportunities for Americans, it will be important that EPA
works with the committee to help protect our environment
without unnecessarily hurting American jobs. The EPA should not
regulate what Congress does not legislate. I look forward to
working with you and your agency to help achieve this balance
and ensure Americans do not suffer under unnecessary burdens
and regulations.
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]