[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MANAGEMENT FAILURES: OVERSIGHT OF THE EPA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-138
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-897 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 25, 2014.................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Rhode Island
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 8
The Hon. David Vitter, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 13
The Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
APPENDIX
June 13, 2014 letter to EPA from Rep. Issa and Sen. Vitter
submitted by Rep. Chaffetz..................................... 70
Questions for the Record from Chairman Issa...................... 72
Questions for Administrator McCarthy, U.S. EPA, from Reps.
McHenry and Meadows............................................ 74
Additional questions regarding EPA negligence in responding to
Beale Fraud.................................................... 86
MANAGEMENT FAILURES: OVERSIGHT OF THE EPA
----------
Wednesday, June 25, 2014,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Darrell E.
Issa [chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Turner, Duncan,
McHenry, Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, Amash, Gosar, DesJarlais,
Gowdy, Lummis, Woodall, Collins, Meadows, Bentivolio, Cummings,
Maloney, Tierney, Clay, Connolly, Speier, and Lujan Grisham.
Staff Present: Melissa Beaumont, Majority Assistant Clerk;
Will L. Boyington, Majority Deputy Press Secretary; Molly Boyl,
Majority Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian; Lawrence
J. Brady, Majority Staff Director; Joseph A. Brazauskas,
Majority Counsel; David Brewer, Majority Senior Counsel;
Caitlin Carroll, Majority Press Secretary; Drew Colliatie,
Majority Professional Staff Member; John Cuaderes, Majority
Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of
Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority
Chief Clerk; Tyler Grimm, Majority Professional Staff Member;
Ryan M. Hambleton, Majority Professional Staff Member; Erin
Hass, Majority Senior Professional Staff Member; Christopher
Hixon, Majority Chief Counsel for Oversight; Michael R. Kiko,
Majority Legislative Assistant; Mark D. Marin, Majority Deputy
Staff Director for Oversight; Katy Rother, Majority Counsel;
Laura L. Rush, Majority Deputy Chief Clerk; Jessica Seale,
Majority Digital Director; Andrew Shult, Majority Deputy
Digital Director; Katy Summerlin, Majority Press Assistant;
Sarah Vance, Majority Assistant Clerk; Rebecca Watkins,
Majority Communications Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority
Director of Administration; Krista Boyd, Minority Deputy
Director of Legislation/Counsel; Beverly Britton Fraser,
Minority Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Communications
Director; Chris Knauer, Minority Senior Investigator; Julia
Krieger, Minority New Media Press Secretary; Una Lee, Minority
Counsel; Juan McCullum, Minority Clerk; Dave Rapallo, Minority
Staff Director; and Ilga Semeiks, Minority GAO Detailee.
Chairman Issa. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time. Without objection, so
ordered.
The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental
principles: first, Americans have a right to know that the
money Washington takes from them is well spent and, second,
Americans deserve an efficient, effective Government that works
for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility
is to hold Government accountable to taxpayers, because
taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their
Government. It is our job to work tirelessly in partnership
with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American
people and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy.
Today's hearing is in fact critical to our core oversight
responsibility. The Environmental Protection Agency is a
massive Federal bureaucracy that employs thousands of people
and regulates approximately 11 percent of the economy directly,
but its impact on energy effectively regulates the prospect for
competitiveness of our entire economy. It is an agency with far
reaching influence impacting the largest and the smallest
corporations in America.
While the vast majority of EPA employees are honest and
follow the rules, a troubling trend has emerged: a lack of
overall supervision and accountability for those employees who
cheat the taxpayers. Let's consider some examples.
For years, the top EPA official masqueraded as a secret
agent. Can't write this in a script. As a secret agent, a CIA
man, while running up bogus vacations and other charges,
airline tickets and the like, on taxpayers. In order to do
that, he had to have the willing cooperation of many people,
including the EPA administrator herself.
Another top former EPA official received a discount on a
new Mercedes worth thousands of dollars from a lobbyist with
business before the EPA.
EPA employees have been found watching mind-boggling
amounts of pornography while in the office. EPA supervisors
signed off on clearly fraudulent time claims for years. And I
repeat, EPA supervisors knowingly signed off on time sheets for
people they knew could not work, did not work, and in fact
never even logged into their computers.
Critical evidence about possible employee wrongdoing often
goes missing and investigators lack the necessary cooperation
and, in fact, find a hostile environment when they try to do
their job.
Even top EPA leadership has, in too many cases,
demonstrated a willingness to turn a blind eye to egregious
wrongdoing rather than confront the problem.
I appreciate the administrator appearing here today to
discuss the committee's concerns. We are already dealing with
one agency, the IRS, that has suffered a devastating loss of
confidence of and from the American people. My fear is the EPA,
without major changes, and those changes include how
supervisors deal with responsibility for the money and the core
rights of the American people, will suffer a similar loss of
confidence that hinders their ability to carry out their
mission.
I am also concerned that these problems, which the
committee has detailed in numerous letters and hearings, are
not being related to top officials with whom the responsibility
ultimately lies. Just last week, under oath in a transcribed
interview with our staff, an EPA top congressional affairs
person told us that not all letters sent by members or even
committee chairmen and ranking members actually are seen by the
administrator herself.
It is troubling to me that with the well documented
concerns raised by this committee and others may not even reach
the eyes and ears of the person who in fact was nominated by
the President and confirmed to have that responsibility. If
problems known by this committee cannot reach the person with
the statutory authority, then clearly there is a problem at the
very top. Moreover, the more we learn about the internal
workings of the EPA, the more it needs oversight, and an
abundance of it.
Our committee is not the only watchdog that has faced
obstruction tactics from employees of the EPA. At a hearing
last month, the Office of Inspector General described the
dysfunctional relationship they are experiencing with the EPA's
Office of Homeland Security. And I want to make sure I say this
correctly. The EPA's Office of Homeland Security has absolutely
no statutory relationship with Homeland Security and in fact is
a creation within EPA that does not have statutory authority in
any way, shape, or form that exceeds or preempts the Inspector
General's Office. And yet Homeland Security has disrupted and
prevented the IG from fully investigating employee malfeasance
at the Agency.
The administrator, in response, sent a letter to the Office
of Inspector General that further complicates the relationship
between the offices and allows the Office of Homeland Security
to continue conducting investigations without OIG involvement.
They don't have the statutory authority, they will not quit,
and the administrator herself has blessed the reduction in the
lawful rights and responsibility of her own inspector general.
With or without the administrator's knowledge, the EPA has
continued to obstruct congressional investigation by refusing
to provide subpoenaed documents.
During a hearing last month, I made a very simple request
to Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe with respect to a
subpoena I served to you, Administrator McCarthy, in November
of 2013. Comply with it. The failure to comply has illustrated
an apparent disregard for congressional oversight and an
unwillingness to accept responsibility for the problems
currently plaguing the EPA. As chairman of this committee, I
intend to use every tool at my disposal to ensure that
accountability and credibility is restored.
Administrator McCarthy, you are here to tell us what the
EPA can and should be doing to aid in this effort and prevent
the waste, fraud, and abuse that threaten the Agency's
reputation.
Additionally, we are joined today, and I am very pleased to
be joined by Senator Vitter and Senator Whitehouse. We welcome
them today and we look forward to their testimony.
We are going to run just a short video to kick this off. I
know Senator Whitehouse has one too.
[Video shown.]
Chairman Issa. I now recognize the distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Cummings, for his opening statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
remind everyone that this is our watch. We are on the earth
today. The question is whether we will guard our environment so
that, when our children's children's children inherit it, it
will be a better environment than the one that was in existence
when we lived upon this earth.
Mr. Chairman, today's hearing is significant because it
marks the first time that the administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, Ms. McCarthy, will testify
before any committee of Congress since the EPA issued its
proposed rule to limit carbon pollution from power plants.
The rule, which is part of the President's Climate Action
Plan, is a landmark step towards addressing climate change. The
time for our Nation to take action on climate change is right
now; not tomorrow, not next week, but now. The science is
abundantly clear and the evidence is simply overwhelming. This
is our watch.
So I welcome Administrator McCarthy and I look forward to
hearing more about the Agency's action on this very critical
issue.
I also welcome Senator Whitehouse and Senator Vitter. It is
good to have you both here today. Just last week Senator
Whitehouse, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and
Nuclear Safety, held a remarkable hearing with testimony from
our four previous EPA administrators. They were all appointed
by Republican presidents. Let me say that again. They were all
appointed by Republican presidents. And they all, all four of
them, testified about the urgent need for the United States to
act on climate change right now; not tomorrow, not next year,
now.
These four Republican administrators wrote an op ed in the
New York Times on August 1st, 2013, and let me tell you what
they said. I didn't say this, they said it. ``Each of us took
turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental
Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have
a message that transcends political affiliation: the United
States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate
change at home and internationally.''
These four Republican administrators endorsed President
Obama's Climate Action Plan, and here is what they also wrote:
``A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best
path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that is
unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington.
Dealing with this political reality, President Obama's June
Climate Action Plan lays out achievable actions that would
deliver real progress.''
This is our watch. These words came from officials who
served in the Nixon Administration, the Reagan Administrations,
and both Bush Administrations. But the question is is Congress
listening. Are we listening? Are we hearing the urgent
warnings? Unfortunately, it appears that the answer is no.
Republicans have designated this week in the House of
Representatives as Energy Week. Yet they refuse to consider any
legislation to address climate change. This is our watch.
Instead, they vote over and over and over and over again to
protect the interest of the fossil fuel industry.
This is our watch. We have a duty to pass on a cleaner
environment than the one we found when we came upon this earth.
As a result, this week the House of Representatives will take
its 500th anti-environment vote since Republicans took the
majority in the 112th Congress. Unfortunately, the actions of
this committee seem to reflect the same priorities. The
official purpose of today's hearing is not to address climate
change or the response of Federal agencies to one of the most
enormous challenges facing our Nation and our entire world.
Instead, the committee will focus on what appears to be an
effort to block EPA at every turn and to prevent the Agency
from getting anything done.
Since 2011, Chairman Issa has launched an unprecedented 18
separate investigations into EPA activities. He has sent 49
letters, issued two subpoenas, and held 15 hearings, including
this one. Today some committee members will accuse
Administrator McCarthy of obstructing congressional oversight.
But the facts show this simply is not true. The EPA employees
have testified at more than a dozen hearings; they have
participated in numerous transcribed interviews, depositions,
and briefings; and they have produced more than 200,000 pages
of documents to the committee since 2011.
This is our watch. So I want to be clear that some of these
investigations are worthwhile. The actions by John Beale, for
example, of pretending to be a CIA agent while working at EPA
are criminal, and they deserve to be investigated and
prosecuted, and he should be brought to justice. But eventually
I believe the committee must turn from oversight to reform,
because this is our watch. At some point history calls on us to
take on the greatest challenge of our generation, the greatest
challenge our generation has ever faced in global warming.
Ladies and gentlemen, we simply do not have the right to remain
silent.
Mr. Chairman, you said in your opening that the EPA
regulates businesses and affects the economy. I don't think you
mentioned its core mission. Its core mission: to protect the
human health and the environment. I just wanted to make that
clear.
Finally, EPA must fulfill its mission of protecting human
health and our environment, and Congress should do everything
in our power during our watch to make sure that they have the
resources and the tools necessary to do so.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
As we go to our witnesses, I might remind the witnesses
that the hearing has been designated as Management Failures:
Oversight of the EPA, which is within our jurisdiction, not
global warming.
Members may have seven days to submit opening statements
for the record.
We now welcome our distinguished first panel. As is the
usual practice of the committee, the Senators will be excused
immediately following the testimony and will not be sworn.
The Honorable David Vitter from Louisiana is the Ranking
Member of the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public
Works, and has been highly involved in the oversight process
with this committee.
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse, from Rhode Island, is a
member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Senator Whitehouse, I think you won the straw. You get to
go first.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHELDON WHITEHOUSE
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member
Cummings.
The Environmental Protection Agency is far more popular
than Congress, and its mission, to protect human health and the
environment, is one of the most fundamental and popular
responsibilities of the Federal Government. Bad actors like
John Beale can be found in large institutions, and should be
dealt with by the proper authorities. But we don't, in America,
impugn the integrity of an entire agency and its thousands of
public servants. That is a disservice to the American people
who rely on the EPA to protect public health.
Earlier this month, EPA used its Clean Air Act authority,
as established by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court,
to propose carbon pollution standards for the Country's
existing power plants. The approach taken in the standards was
based on unprecedented public engagement. The EPA held more
than 300 public meetings, working with stakeholders of all
kinds and all across the political spectrum.
EPA has put States in the driver's seat to come up with
their own best plan to meet State-specific targets. States and
power companies will have a wide variety of options to achieve
carbon reductions, like boosting renewable energy, establishing
energy savings targets, investing in efficiency, or joining one
of the existing cap and trade programs, each of which
strategies has been proven successful in our States. States can
develop plans that create jobs, plans that cut electricity
costs by boosting efficiency, plans that achieve major
pollution reduction. As proposed, the rule will reduce carbon
pollution while providing as much as $93 billion in public
benefit per year by 2030.
A recent Washington Post ABC News poll found that 70
percent of the public supports Federal standards to limit
greenhouse gas pollution. And just last week the Wall Street
Journal and NBC News released a poll showing that two-thirds of
Americans support President Obama's new carbon pollution
standard. More than half say the U.S. should address climate
change even if it means higher electricity bills for them.
EPA's proposal is also supported by major utilities like
National Grid, faith organizations like the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops, and nameplate corporations like Mars, Nike,
Starbucks, and countless others.
As the ranking member indicated, four former EPA
administrators who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan,
George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush testified recently before
my Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on clean
air and nuclear safety. They explained that carbon pollution
needs to be addressed immediately, that EPA's rule is a
reasonable way to reduce carbon pollution, and that industry
has a history of developing innovative ways to comply with
environmental regulations in ways that cost significantly less
than industry's initial estimates. Indeed, some say that those
initial estimates are often exaggerated.
The Clean Air Act, according to a 2011 EPA assessment, will
benefit Americans more than its costs by a ratio of 30 to 1,
$30 of value in the lives of regular Americans for every $1 the
polluters had to pay in cleanup costs. That is a good deal for
America.
I am grateful to Administrator McCarthy for working
diligently to do what Congress and the Supreme Court told EPA
to do, and what the American people want EPA to do, to reduce
harmful carbon pollution in accordance with the law and the
vast preponderance of the best available science. Whatever
questions may need to be answered, it does not serve the public
to interfere with the EPA in its performance of this vital,
popular, and beneficial task. Indeed, it would be a dereliction
of duty on, as the ranking member said, our watch.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Cummings.
[Prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.002
Mr. Walberg. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Now, Senator Vitter, we look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID VITTER
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Cummings and all members, for inviting me to testify before
your committee today. And I am going to break from the previous
two speakers. I am going to actually talk about the topic of
this hearing; ``entitled Management Failures: Oversight of the
EPA.''
As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, I have a responsibility to oversee the EPA.
Unfortunately, under the current majority in the Senate, our
committee has yet to hold a single oversight hearing on this
important matter, contending instead that a perfunctory
member's briefing was sufficient. That is why your work and
your effort is so incredibly important.
Now, while there are certainly serious policy debates about
the Agency and its role in regulating our energy supply, that
is not what I am here to discuss. That is not what the hearing
is about. Rather, my testimony will focus on my work over the
last year that has uncovered what appears to be a systematic
breakdown in EPA operations that have wasted millions of
taxpayer dollars.
Now, at the very beginning let me emphasize three key
points. First of all, I am not saying I have never said that
all or most EPA employees are dishonest or incompetent. I have
never said that and I have never impugned their integrity.
Secondly, I have never said that these problems started under
this Administration and existed under this Administration
alone. I have never said that; I am not saying that today. But
number three, the statement by others, including the head of
the EPA, that John Beale was a lone wolf and a completely
isolated incident, is clearly not true; and the facts clearly
contradict that. The Beale saga has uncovered major systemic
management failures at EPA and has also led to the uncovering
of other significant time and attendance fraud, other unrelated
cases that you have heard about, including in your May 7th
hearing.
Let me give you the history of my work on this matter. In
July 2013, I was contacted by a whistleblower who described
serious and systemic time and attendance fraud at the EPA. Some
of these problems involved situations where senior EPA managers
discouraged remedial action against chronic offenders because
it was easier to ignore the problem than to fix it. Based on
this information, I requested EPA's Office of Inspector General
to brief me on the time and attendance problems they were
investigating at the Agency. I was expecting an account of the
instances reported by the whistleblower, but instead I learned
of another case, the bizarre tale of John Beale, the fake CIA
agent who pled the Fifth in this hearing room.
When we made the Beale saga public, I was aware of the
underlying symptoms of abuse going on at the Agency. Therefore,
it was immediately apparent to me that the Agency's claim that
Beale was a lone wolf or an isolated case was just flat out
completely false, and anybody who argued that he was a solo
actor was just flat out distorting the truth.
Since then, I have been focused on uncovering the
circumstances and management weaknesses that allowed Beale's
fraud to continue for so long, literally for decades. These
management failures have facilitated wasting millions upon
millions of taxpayer dollars and undermine congressional
oversight.
In August 2013, I requested the OIG to immediately launch
an investigation into the Agency's policies and process that
facilitated Beale's fraud and to make recommendations to ensure
this never happens again. When the OIG issued its report in
December 2013 on Beale's travel and pay issues, the findings
were, in my opinion, rather scant and prompted more questions,
such as who knew or should have known what Beale was up to and
when did they first reason to believe that Beale was defrauding
the Agency. So I asked the OIG to show me their work. My staff
then poured through all of the OIG's documents and interview
notes in hopes of answering these key questions. The results of
our review were the subject of a series of reports issued in
February and March of this year, which are attached to my
testimony today.
The key findings of these reports include, one, Beale could
not have accomplished his massive fraud without assistance,
knowingly or unknowingly, from former and current EPA officials
who have in no way been held accountable; two, one of the key
facilitators of Beale's fraud was Deputy Administrator
Perciasepe, who signed key documents and contributed to the
delay in reporting Beale to the OIG; three, the time line
offered by the EPA and the OIG that concluded Administrator
McCarthy was the first person to report suspicions of Beale is
highly suspect; and, four, other EPA employees had an
opportunity to be proactive and should have done more to
prevent the fraud, but chose to defer to senior officials
rather than report their concerns to the OIG.
Now, as I said at the beginning, and I want to emphasize,
Beale's fraud stretched through several administrations,
Republican and Democrat, so it is easy to second guess their
actions with the benefit of hindsight. But this does not change
the fact that many individuals at EPA had knowledge or were
woefully ignorant of Beale's ongoing fraud. These individuals
have never been held accountable.
I also emphasize that certainly most EPA employees are not
bad apples, are not incompetent, are not defrauding the public;
they are dedicated public servants. However, when an agency is
in the process of aggressively expanding its jurisdiction,
regulating something as significant as our energy supply, they
have a key responsibility to make sure that their own house is
in order, and EPA's is clearly not.
Aside from the Beale case, I have learned more about the
dysfunction of the EPA, again, thanks to courageous
whistleblowers, and this has made it abundantly clear again
that John Beale was not a lone wolf and his case is not an
isolated instance. You heard about other significant cases of
time and attendance fraud at your May 7th hearing. In addition,
a whistleblower has informed my staff that there was a dispute
between the Office of Homeland Security and the OIG. When I
learned of the dispute, I was immediately struck by the
coincidence that the same actors who delayed providing the OIG
with critical information about Beale were the same individuals
involved in an altercation with an OIG investigator. We now
know there are additional instances where EPA employees refused
to cooperate with OIG investigations and received no reprimand.
And I understand that as recently as yesterday, this issue is
completely unresolved in the eyes of the OIG.
Because of our joint efforts, a veil has been pulled back
revealing that wasted taxpayer resources and mismanagement
permeates the Agency. Given that much of our efforts to uncover
waste, fraud, and abuse at the Agency derive from the voice of
undaunted whistleblowers, I encourage additional concerned EPA
staff to come forward at any juncture. We can work together to
reform and rehabilitate the troubled agency.
As my testimony today demonstrates, representatives in
Congress do listen and do take action based on information
whistleblowers provide.
In closing, I want to commend this committee for taking the
issue of waste, fraud, and abuse at the EPA seriously and for
holding today's hearing. It is important that this story come
out and, because of your work, additional stories of this
systematic problem have come out and it has demonstrated that
John Beale and his crimes were just, unfortunately, the tip of
the iceberg.
Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.006
Chairman Issa. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator. We
appreciate your coming here to give us testimony, and once
again I want to thank you for your entire team's effort in this
joint investigation.
We will now take a very short recess in place for the
administrator to be seated.
[Pause.]
Chairman Issa. Our second panel today is Administrator of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the
Honorable Gina McCarthy. Pursuant to the committee rules, Madam
Administrator, would you please rise to take the oath?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
[Witness responds in the affirmative.]
Chairman Issa. Thank you very much. Please be seated.
As you know after so long doing this job as a deputy and as
the administrator, your entire prepared statement will be in
the record. You may choose to read it or use your five minutes
in any way you choose. The gentlelady is recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you very much, Chairman Issa, Ranking
Member Cummings, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today.
The EPA's mission is to protect public health and the
environment. It is important to every one of us, and I
understand and appreciate this committee's keen interest in the
EPA's work. In order to best achieve EPA's mission, one of the
themes for my tenure as administrator has been to embrace EPA
as a high performing organization. This means using our limited
resources effectively so that EPA employees have the tools they
need to do the important work that we ask of them every day.
Effective oversight is an important assurance that the
Agency's work remains faithful to its mission and its mandates.
In support of congressional oversight, the EPA works daily to
respond to letters and various requests for information from
this committee and others. Over the last six months, the EPA
has produced thousands of documents, tens of thousands of pages
to this committee alone. Cooperation with our overseers is not
just EPA's policy, but it has and has always been part of EPA's
culture.
EPA employees have always provided extensive information
and support to facilitate the oversight work of EPA's inspector
general. The inspector general plays a special role in helping
me to ensure that the Agency is operating at its best, and I,
along with my entire leadership team, remain committed to
supporting the important work of that office.
The responsible and accurate reporting of time and
attendance agency-wide has been a significant focus for both
the EPA, as well as our inspector general. Through
investigations of the conduct of John Beale, the former EPA
employee who defrauded the agency and is now serving time in
jail, we identified several weaknesses in Agency systems that
allowed that fraud to occur and persist. Based on those
findings, EPA has taken extensive steps to ensure this type of
fraud cannot be repeated.
It is also important to note that even though John Beale
has been criminally prosecuted and is currently serving time in
jail, the Agency continues to seek restitution for the fraud
that he perpetrated. In addition to the $1.4 million already
recovered from Mr. Beale during the criminal process, the
Agency is seeking to recover costs related to unwarranted
retention incentives and fraudulent travel costs, and we are
working to lower his retirement annuity.
Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse is critically important
to me for two reasons: first, as administrator, I believe it is
my obligation to provide the leadership and stewardship needed
to ensure the kind of organization that the public servants at
EPA deserve; and, second, because the work at EPA is so
important, the health and environmental protections we
administer benefit every person in the United States. We do
this work with public trust and public resources, and we simply
cannot afford to fail.
Nowhere is that more true than in our work to address
climate change. Climate change is one of the greatest
challenges that we face. The science is clear, the risks are
clear, and the high costs of climate inaction are clear: we
must act, which is why President Obama laid out a Climate
Action Plan. And why on June 2nd I signed the proposed Clean
Power Plan to cut carbon pollution, build a more resilient
Nation, and lead the world in our global climate fight.
EPA's proposed Clean Power Plant is a critical step
forward. It will cut hundreds of millions of tons of carbon
pollution and hundreds of thousands of tons of other harmful
air pollutants. Together, these reductions will provide
important health benefits to our most vulnerable citizens,
including our children.
All told, in 2030, when States meet their individual goals
through their own flexible compliance path, our proposal will
result in a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution compared
to our levels in 2005. In 2030, the Clean Power Plan will
deliver climate and health benefits of up to $90 billion. And
because energy efficiency is such a smart cost-effective
strategy, we predict that in 2030 average electricity bills for
American families will actually be 8 percent cheaper.
This is the kind of remarkable progress we can make when we
have forward-looking policy, when we have engaged stakeholders,
and when EPA is a high performing, high functioning agency.
I look forward to answering the questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.012
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Before I ask my round of questioning, your assistant was
asked this question more than 30 days ago. I made it clear--you
were in the back; hopefully you saw the video--that I would
hold you in contempt if I did not receive one of the two events
within 30 days, either compliance with the November 2013
subpoena lawfully served on you or item by item privilege logs
claiming executive privilege from the President. Are you
prepared to deliver those documents here today?
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, EPA remains interested in
working with the committee on the accommodation we have put
forward----
Chairman Issa. Ma'am, that is a yes or no.
Ms. McCarthy. I am answering the question, sir, as best I
can.
Chairman Issa. No, ma'am. You are talking about the same
things you did in your opening statement. You are talking about
your commitment to comply. I will let you answer fully, but I
caution you you have been threatened with contempt for not
complying with a subpoena from November of 2013. Your deputy
was warned. You are back here today because in fact no
compliance with this has happened and no executive privilege
has been claimed and no log has been produced. So I ask you
again are you prepared today to deliver the documents
consistent with the subpoena of November 7th, 2013.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the
staff have had discussions as early as just a short time ago
about this issue. You know we have worked hard to recognize the
interests of this committee in ensuring that there is no White
House interference in the work between us and delivering
documents that you require. We have provided an accommodation
which we actually shared with your staff this morning, and we
are looking to make sure that that addresses your needs so that
we can avoid institution problems with the request that you
made and hopefully move on to continue our work together.
Chairman Issa. Ma'am, this morning an in camera review of a
document we knew existed, demanded, was shown. It changes
nothing. The subpoena calls for you to deliver the document and
documents. You have not done so. Are you prepared, not to
negotiate with Minority staff or Majority staff, are you
prepared to deliver the documents or provide an item-by-item
privilege log with an executive privilege?
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, EPA has made no decision to not
work with you on this issue. In fact, we have been trying very
hard to do just that, which we know is your responsibility.
Chairman Issa. Could you imagine if I just went ahead and
set up a coal energy plant without a permit and started burning
raw coal to produce electricity, and then told you for month
after month after month that I look forward to working with
you? The fact is this was a lawfully served subpoena. I am
informing you today that it is my intention to hold the
Environmental Protection Agency in contempt and to schedule a
business meeting to do so at the first business day available
to this committee, which will be after next week.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think our accommodation
addressed the interests of the committee. I would like to just
make sure that we can continue these discussions and get a
final look at that document. Minority staff have looked at it,
nor the Majority have.
Chairman Issa. Ma'am, the President of the United States
said elections have consequences. During the Minority's time in
the majority under President Obama, no oversight was done. This
is my watch. This is my time. Elections have consequences. You
have not complied with the subpoena I am telling you the time
to comply is now. If it is not complied with, I will, today,
schedule a business meeting. I will hold that business meeting.
This committee will consider and vote on contempt at that
business meeting unless we have full compliance by that time.
And, ma'am, there is no negotiation. Negotiation time has
expired long ago. It is contemptible for months to pass and
have you say that you are negotiating. That in camera offer,
quite frankly, was insufficient.
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't say I was
negotiating. What I am trying to indicate is I certainly
respect the important interests that your committee has put on
the table that led to that subpoena being issued. You were very
clear. I am trying to indicate that there is clear
documentation that there was no White House interference. And
if that can be agreed, then I think we can all agree that the
important institutional considerations at EPA and of the
Executive Branch should also be considered and hopefully
resolved through this process.
Chairman Issa. Ma'am, I appreciate that. It is not clear
that there was no White House interference, so your statement
is, in fact, your position. It is not clear. So we will have no
preconditions that there was no White House interference. There
is a large office at the White House that was formed to, in
fact, handle it. The legislative liaisons that we deal with
every day work for the White House more than they work for you,
and that is true of all the cabinet positions.
So I want to get past that. Obviously we are not going to
see those documents today.
Does the ranking member have any comment on the----
Mr. Cummings. I do.
Chairman Issa. Please.
Mr. Cummings. In all fairness, I just want to make sure.
So, I understand the chairman is saying no negotiations and you
said you understand that. Why don't we have the documents
today? Why don't we? They were available in camera, is that
right?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually, you have----
Mr. Cummings. Well, hold on. I am asking her.
Ms. McCarthy. The entire request that started this process
and raised concerns, all of those documents have been provided
to the committee. The question that was raised to us was
related to a separate email exchange between EPA and the White
House. We have certainly shared that in camera with now both
sides of the committee, and that clearly shows there was no
White House intervention.
And that was the sole reason for the subpoena, which
requires five years of any communication between the Executive
Branch, the Executive Office of the President and EPA relative
to any congressional inquiries, which, to me, is a very large
task, significant taxpayer dollars. And if we have accommodated
this request by showing that the reason the concern was raised
is no longer justified or appropriate and we have addressed
that concern, we see no reason why we would want to expend
significant taxpayer dollars on that search.
Mr. Cummings. Well, obviously the chairman doesn't feel the
same way you feel, is that right?
I yield to the chairman. You don't agree with what she just
said?
Chairman Issa. The in camera document indicated I left you
a voicemail. That is certainly not something we can further
verify. And this investigation has everything to do with White
House interference with the discovery process. When we issue a
subpoena, the 106 documents that we became aware of because of
a whistleblower, when we issue a subpoena, to then go into a
series of negotiations, what is going to be redacted and so on,
with people at the White House is, in fact, now part of the
subpoena request. We are requesting the communications that
went into the production.
Now, if the President wishes to say that every time he
micro manages whether we get our documents pursuant to our
oversight, and he wants to claim executive privilege, he may do
so.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, this is a longstanding
practice, and I am more than happy----
Chairman Issa. Ma'am, ma'am, practices are written in the
Constitution. There is no precedent for this. And, quite
frankly, the longstanding practice that you speak of is a
longstanding practice that I inherited because for two years
the Minority, when they were in the majority, did no oversight.
My first request for documents was greeted with a please submit
a FOIA, as though we were the public or a newspaper and had no
further constitutional oversight. So we have issued a subpoena.
It has been lawfully issued; it has been out there for a long
time. My folks want to get to other questions as to your
failure to manage those limited resources----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am more than----
Chairman Issa.--so I would like to get past it.
Mr. Cummings, did you have any other questions?
Mr. Cummings. She was about to say something.
Ms. McCarthy. I was just going to say I am more than happy,
if the concern is that we just showed it to you and didn't
provide it, I am more than happy to provide this email if that
addresses the accommodation that we need to protect both of our
institutional considerations.
Chairman Issa. You certainly could make an in camera
presentation of all the emails, all of them. And that would
allow for staff to fully evaluate whether or not the production
of all of the emails or some of the emails would be necessary.
One chosen email is not in fact sufficient to take care of it.
There has been multiple correspondence. I will never get the
voicemail left, but I certainly am entitled for my staff to
look at all the correspondence with the White House related to
the production of these 106 documents. If that can be done,
then we can make an evaluation. We can't do it based on one
selected document. I am sure you understand.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it is just my understanding that this
was the document that raised the committee's concern. We
addressed this----
Chairman Issa. No, ma'am. This was the document that we had
an advanced copy of that we knew existed that we asked for
because we found out it existed because of a whistleblower. The
fact is there were many more. We want all the documents that
exist. Now, if there has been hard drive crashes, laptop
disappearances or other failures or losses, we also want to
know about those immediately since, pursuant to the subpoena,
there was a requirement to preserve documents. And we have done
a lot of that this week.
With that----
Mr. Cummings. One last thing.
Chairman Issa. Of course.
Mr. Cummings. It is my understanding that your staff
offered, months ago, to show these documents to the Majority
staff. What happened, do you know?
Ms. McCarthy. They did not take us up on that offer, sir.
And the concern I have is obvious. There are balance of power
issues here. I am trying to address the issue that was raised
to us tat raised concern. If this is a larger concern than EPA,
I doubt that any production we can provide you would quell that
concern. And I think there are legitimate issues that the
Constitution recognizes on balance of power, and the
appropriation we have offered is what we are supposed to do and
what we are supposed to have a good discussion about and try to
reach an accommodation to not tip the balance there, because we
believe that we need to have confidential communications with
the White House in a way that allows us to be efficient and
effective. This would quell that.
Chairman Issa. I appreciate that. My staff indicates that
no such offer to see all the documents was ever given.
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, let me clarify. The offer was to
show you the document you indicated that raised your concern.
Mr. Cummings. Not the 106.
Chairman Issa. Right. And that document raises my questions
than answers, and it was only shown today in camera. I asked
for them to look at it in camera, but we never presupposed that
we see one document; and if it raises more questions than
answers, we won't want to see more.
I am going to go to the ranking member and let him ask his
questions, but the fact is, Madam Administrator, your entire
power base, everything you do is in fact a power of the House
and Senate that has been essentially loaned to the Executive
Branch. The decision to decide a new ruling on any part of
Clean Air or Clean Water, to grant permits, these are all
powers of law. So I appreciate you talking about balance of
power, but you only exist because a power of this branch has
been loaned to the Executive Branch. EPA is not an inherent
power of the second article branch.
But I am going to take a break and not ask my own line of
questions yet. Mr. Cummings, please ask yours.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Administrator McCarthy, I want to pick up on this. I have
listened to the chairman and I simply disagree with his
characterization, but I do not believe you are obstructing
anything. I do not believe there is a conspiracy with the White
House. I believe that the EPA has been responsive. You produced
more than 208,000 pages of documents and the Agency has been
trying in good faith to cooperate in all 18 of the committee
investigations. However, I would like to give you a chance
again to respond to any question you may not have been able to
fully address. Would you like to raise any additional points?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the only thing I would like to mention
is that this issue arose significantly through an earlier
request for information. We spent considerable time and effort
to respond to a variety of information requests that were made
of us. These 106 emails were produced within seven days of us
receiving the subpoena. The one issue that is outstanding was
the committee's concern about whether or not there was White
House intervention on the basis of this one email exchange,
which we have now shown the staff.
So we think this should alleviate the concern and allow us
to get to our operation, our business at hand. And if we do
that, we work very hard with this committee; we take every
request seriously. We work with staff to prioritize as best we
can so we meet the most immediate needs. We have produced
hundreds of thousands of pages of information over the past few
years, and I think we will continue to try to do that as best
we can and hopefully work with the committee through this
process as well.
Mr. Cummings. Well, thank you. With that, I want to ask you
about a much more important issue. As we heard last week,
Senator Whitehouse held an amazing hearing with four of your
predecessors, all Republican administrators, testifying about
climate change. They all agreed that our Nation needs to act
now. One former administrator, William Ruckelshaus, was
appointed by President Nixon. He said, ``The four former EPA
administrators sitting in front of you found that we were
convinced by the overwhelming verdict of scientists that the
earth was warming and that the humans were the only
controllable contributor to that phenomenon.''
Ms. McCarthy, how significant is it that all of the
administrators came together to advocate for action on climate
change?
Ms. McCarthy. I think it is very significant, sir, and I
also am not surprised by it, frankly, because the science has
been clear for quite some time. I think the best thing about it
was in hopes of getting partisan politics out of the science
debate and moving forward to take a look at actions. Clearly,
Republicans were some of the first conservationists in the U.S.
We had Teddy Roosevelt that created the national park system.
President Nixon is actually the father of EPA. The first
President Bush actually signed the Clean Air Act amendments.
So we have worked together for years to find out how we can
preserve and protect both public health and the natural
resources, and continue to grow the economy. We are going to do
exactly the same with the challenge of carbon pollution and
climate change, and, indeed, the time is now to take action.
And the best part of the action, sir, is that they will benefit
the economy; they will spark American innovation; they will
continue to keep us in a leadership position on clean energy.
And I am very much looking forward to having this discussion on
our comment period of the proposal we released a few weeks ago.
Mr. Cummings. Now, all four of these Republican
administrators endorsed the President's Climate Action Plan.
They said, ``President Obama's June Climate Action Plan lays
out achievable actions that would deliver real progress.'' Your
proposed rule has also received praise from State governors.
For example, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee said this,
``Thank you to the President and the EPA for taking a step
forward to reduce pollution from power plants, which nationally
is a large source of carbon emissions.''
Why is it that States, in particular, favor the approach
you have taken in the proposed rule and what work have you done
with States to ensure that their concerns are addressed?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, as many of you may know, I actually
worked for State government for a number of years under both
Republican, actually, mostly Republican administrations. So
when we started down this venture of trying to respond to the
commitment that the President asked us to fulfill for the
American public, which is to develop rules for existing power
plants, we actually did unprecedented outreach. We spent
considerable amount of time with the States and, as a result,
we have a proposal that is as respectful of States as it
possibly can. It has maximum flexibility and actually sets
standards for those States that are practicable and affordable
and achievable, but it allows them to create their own path
forward so that it is done in a way that is most respectful of
their own economies and their own energy needs, and where they
are today and what they can do moving forward.
So I am excited about moving forward with this. We are
going to continue that spirit of outreach during this 120-day
comment period and will continue to work with States, who are
our greatest ally, in bringing these carbon pollution
reductions to the table and ensuring that our communities stay
safe and our public is protected.
Mr. Cummings. Chairman, just one more question.
Another Republican former Bush Administration Treasury
Secretary, Hank Paulson, wrote an op ed this week asserting
that the climate crisis we now face rivals the global economic
crisis of 2008. He said this: ``This is a crisis we can't
afford to ignore. I feel as if I am watching as we fly in slow
motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can
see the crash coming and yet we are sitting on our hands rather
than altering our course.'' He went on to say, ``We need to act
now. Even though there is much disagreement, including from
members of my own Republican party, we must not lose sight of
the profound economic risks of doing nothing.''
So my last question, Ms. McCarthy, is his argument to this
Republican colleagues is that the economic costs of inaction
far outweigh the costs of acting now. Do you agree with that?
Ms. McCarthy. I do, sir. And President Obama, I think, was
very wise in developing this comprehensive plan and bringing
together the entire Administration. He knew that climate change
wasn't just an environmental issue. It is a significant
economic issue for this Country that we need to face, as well
as a national security challenge. And when this body is asked
to figure out how to pay $110 billion in costs associated with
national disasters in 2012 alone that is not accommodated
through the budget process, then we have a problem here that we
need to address; and the great thing is we can do it in actions
that are actually going to grow the economy and keep our
communities safer.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
If you will put up the IG's statement.
Administrator, we received an email after this attempt,
supposed attempt to accommodate the IG. In a nutshell, your IG
is not satisfied that in fact the continued use of your Office
of Homeland Security undermines the Office of Inspector
General, statutorily responsible to both this body and to the
President. Will you commit today to fully allow the IG to do
their job and cease having this investigative process going on
by your Office of Homeland Security?
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I listened very closely to the
hearing earlier that you had on this and I thank you for that.
It became very clear that I needed to intervene personally on
this issue and I have. Since you last met on this issue, we
have made tremendous progress. We actually have staff in the
OIG and OHS working together. The memo that he is talking about
is our first step forward in this process----
Chairman Issa. Ma'am, ma'am, the email from the inspector
general says the progress has not been made. Homeland Security,
this creation of your department----
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I am not sure that is what that
said, sir. We have made tremendous progress, but clearly we
have not completely resolved all of our issues.
Chairman Issa. But nothing has changed to me means nothing
has changed, and that is what it says.
Here is the problem, administrator. You cannot, in my
understanding, have failures, particularly human resource
failures, abusive work environment, sexual harassment, fraud,
you cannot have it investigated by your Homeland Security
people who work for you. The IG exists to be independent.
Now, if you choose to have some of your own investigations
going on, I can't take away your ability to do it. I can tell
you that taking away the IG's authority, or in any way having
the IG not know about it, which has been testified before this
committee that under your watch that happens and happens
regularly, including the Beale situation, where, when you
discovered that for years you had been duped, you had gone to
lunch with Mr. Beale, he had been a pal of yours from all
indications, this is somebody you regularly have optional
meetings with.
He fooled you. When you discovered, after his supposed
retirement and non-retirement, that you and your agency had
been fooled, and we are not holding you responsible for that
kind of a failure; this man apparently was very good at his con
work, he probably should have worked for the CIA instead of the
EPA, but the fact is, when you discovered it, you did not
immediately go to the IG; you went and did additional work.
That policy flies in the face of the reason the IG Act was
passed by Congress and signed by the President.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I would do nothing to interfere
with the ability of the OIG to do their jobs. The OIG actually
requested that we take a look at defining roles and
responsibilities between the OIG and OHS. And if you look at
the memo that transferred this new process, where we were
trying to work these issues diligently together as one EPA, it
will verify that I have strongly supported this, and my process
changes are exactly to ensure that the OIG can do its job while
our national security issues are resolved.
Chairman Issa. Ma'am, this comment is related to the memo.
So I guess we are going to ask the OIG to come back again,
because he just doesn't agree with you.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we haven't had a chance to fully
discuss it, Mr. Chairman. It was presented as a work in
progress. It was presented to address some issues, and not all.
I am very confident that if you give us the ability to work
these issues, we clearly will.
Chairman Issa. Did the inspector general tell you, when you
gave him the memo, that it was unacceptable?
Ms. McCarthy. No. He told me it had not fully resolved his
issues. I totally agreed with him and I understood that.
Chairman Issa. Okay, we will consider those to be
synonymous.
Let me go through a couple of things. Do you remember Mr.
Martin Townsend?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know a Martin Townsend personally. I
am familiar with his name, yes.
Chairman Issa. Okay. And you know who Susan Strassman-Sundy
was?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know that person personally, no.
Chairman Issa. Well, for many years Martin Townsend falsely
signed and claimed that Susan Strassman-Sundy was in fact
working when she was in a nursing home. She wasn't working.
Now, we can understand the sad situation that Susan Strassman-
Sundy might be in, but what have you done to ensure that there
is zero tolerance for falsifying and claiming--you say you have
limited resources. These people were squandering your
resources, and doing so as a practice that repeated itself.
What have you done to make sure it never happens again?
Ms. McCarthy. In general, sir, we have taken steps to make
sure that our time and attendance is handled differently so it
can be better monitored. We are also pursuing administrative
action against Mr. Townsend and diligently pursuing that as
well. We are trying to systematically make sure that our system
is in place to catch these issues earlier and to work through
these processes. I am very committed to making sure that waste,
fraud, and abuse is pursued as diligently as we can, and I have
in no way tolerated any lack of accountability or these types
of issues. It is a disservice to the vast majority of people at
my agency who work very hard----
Chairman Issa. And you realize that the IG's strongest
point is, in fact, if you stay out of his way and let him do
this, even if your Homeland Security people think that they
should be doing the investigations.
Obviously, we could deal with the people who are on
administrative leave being paid full-time because of their
addiction to pornography being too much for you to allow them
to be on the job. I would hope that the EPA and other
Government agencies would try to come to us with a request for
authority to more quickly sever people who are so flagrantly
flaunting good judgment and law.
Ms. McCarthy. Anything that we can do to expedite these
resolutions would be great.
Chairman Issa. Lastly, although I chastised you, and will
continue to, for your failure to comply with the November
subpoena, I want to thank you or thank your people on behalf of
some cooperation we received on the Pebble Mine issue. It is
clear, though, that as long as individuals who were part of the
process that caused your agency to unilaterally attempt to
preempt the application for a mine to comply with clean water,
that we will find it unacceptable.
We have tried to serve a subpoena on your former employee
and we have asked for the failed hard drive from this Alaskan
individual, who now is in New Zealand and seems to never be
returning. We might strongly suggest that without the
underlying science that you used to support your unprecedented,
or nearly unprecedented, preemption of somebody's ability to
apply for a permit to your agency, that you reconsider and
allow the application to go forward, since the underlying
science now is not just in question, it is unavailable. If you
would respond, and then we will go to the----
Ms. McCarthy. Just to make it clear, sir, I believe that
our science assessment has been out in the public for quite
some time; it was properly peer reviewed a couple of times. But
I would also caution that the decision to move forward under
404(c) is not preempting that project from moving forward; it
is creating a very public process to discuss this issue, and no
decision has been made whatsoever as to whether or not EPA is
going to utilize this authority under the Clean Water Act.
Relative to the failed hard drive, I am happy to have our
staff talk. I did not realize that that was being requested,
but I am sure we can talk about that and work through these
issues as we have on the other issues.
Chairman Issa. We have new appreciation for failed hard
drives.
I will say that since the people requested the 404 action
before they did the science to support their conclusion, and
which they did the request for 404 before, that, in fact, that
prejudging that it was not going to be ever able to happen is a
little bit like somebody holding their finger in the air and
saying I understand there is a tornado coming. A tornado hasn't
come, but they are now asking us all to go to the shelters. The
reality is that the documents indicate they made a decision and
asked for the 404, and then did the science.
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, sir, I don't know who would have
made that decision, but my understanding is----
Chairman Issa. We will provide you the documents.
Ms. McCarthy. My understanding is that the petitions came
in, EPA chose to do the science assessment before they
responded to the petitions, and then the decision was made to
move together.
Chairman Issa. Ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Just a friendly follow-up. Probably one of
the most important things to be answered here today the
chairman asked, and I just want to make sure we get a clear
answer on this. The Beale situation, what has been put in place
to make sure--the chairman asked that but I didn't hear the
answer--to make sure that doesn't happen again? Because I think
every single member of this committee was very upset about it.
I just want to know what now is in place to make sure somebody
isn't able to dupe an agency out of that kind of money for so
long.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Sure.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you for asking. We have put in place a
number of significant changes to the way we look at time and
attendance, the way in which we approve travel. We actually now
have a system that we switched to that is going to provide a
hard stop for retention bonuses. We are requiring different
levels of approval in requirements for approval of time and
attendance. I am happy to provide a full documentation of all
the steps we have taken to make sure that human error can't
happen and that managers don't have an ability and a
responsibility to hold their employees accountable.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
I am delighted to call on the gentleman from Missouri, who
was here before the gavel, Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator McCarthy, I want to ask about the case of
John Beale, a former senior policy advisor who worked for you
when you were assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air
and Radiation. As you know, this man lied to his friends,
family, and EPA colleagues for 13 years by claiming that he
worked for the CIA in order to avoid doing work for the EPA and
to steal time from the Government.
Mr. Beale got away with this for years under both
Republican and Democratic administrations until you started the
process of investigating his supposed CIA assignment. This man
is now sitting in a Federal prison serving 32 months and has
been required to pay nearly $1.4 million in restitution and
forfeiture. Mr. Beale claimed that he was able to deceive
colleagues at the EPA because he earned their trust and respect
over the years, and they did not think to question him.
Ms. McCarthy, when you first joined the EPA, did senior
officials tell you that Mr. Beale worked for the CIA?
Ms. McCarthy. I was led to believe that he did, yes.
Mr. Clay. And during your tenure as assistant administrator
of Air and Radiation, were you unhappy with the fact that Mr.
Beale was spending so much time supposedly working for the CIA?
Ms. McCarthy. I was, sir. I did my best to get him back to
EPA so we could utilize our Federal funds as appropriately as
we could, recognizing at that point that I thought he had
obligations to another agency as well.
Mr. Clay. During this committee's deposition of Mr. Beale
in December 2013, Mr. Beale stated that you halted his work on
a project he started in 2005 under one previous assistant
administrator and supported by two more after that. Mr. Beale
stated during his deposition that you asked him to stop working
on that project, come back to working full-time, and resume his
position at the Office of Air and Radiation. Is that true?
Ms. McCarthy. My main goal was to get him back to EPA for
as many hours as I possibly could, and I think his deposition
might indicate that I was a bit of a pest about that. But I am
glad I was; it led to a referral to the OIG and they did a
great job with DOJ in putting him in jail and getting back
Federal funds that belonged to the public.
Mr. Clay. And just for the committee's sake, Beale said
that you told him things were so busy that we just cannot
afford having somebody out there doing an academic project, and
we need all hands on deck. Is that accurate?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Clay. Administrator McCarthy, the plea agreement that
Mr. Beale signed with the U.S. Attorney's Office only covered
his fraudulent actions from 2000 to 2013. I believe there must
be unauthorized bonuses and travel expenses that the Federal
Government and American taxpayers paid which Mr. Beale has not
given back. Do you agree?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, I do.
Mr. Clay. And is EPA making efforts to collect these
additional monies from Mr. Beale?
Ms. McCarthy. EPA is continuing to seek additional
reimbursement and restitution, as well as taking steps to
reduce his retirement annuity. We are attempting to get back
everything that this convicted felon fraudulently took from the
United States of America.
Mr. Clay. And he is still eligible for his retirement?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, he is. As far as I know, that is what
the law indicates. Even if we had successfully fired him, he
would still be eligible for retirement.
Mr. Clay. I wonder if he gets one from the CIA.
Ms. McCarthy. I am not sure he is spending it in the place
where he would choose, but he has it.
Mr. Clay. You know, during this committee's interview in
March with Mr. Hooks, the assistant administrator for the
Office of Administration Resources Management, he told us that
you sought his assistance with Mr. Beale in December of 2010 or
January of 2011. I understand that personnel issues are within
Mr. Hooks's portfolio, is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. I did, yes.
Mr. Clay. And he stated that you were frustrated that EPA
was paying for Mr. Beale's salary when he was supposedly
working 100 percent for the CIA. He said you wanted Mr. Beale
back doing work for you. He also said you were concerned that
his retention bonuses were not recertified and he was being
paid over the statutory limit. Is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, and I
yield back.
Mr. Chaffetz. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman.
I will now recognize myself for five minutes.
Thank you for being here. Madam Administrator, you say that
you are cooperating with the Office of Inspector General, yet
in July of 2013 they highlighted to Congress that you had not
issued an all-hands memorandum to your employees encouraging
them to participate. Why not do that?
Ms. McCarthy. I actually was a bit appalled to think that I
had to send out a memo on one particular legal obligation of my
expectations to staff, and I knew that there were a lot of
challenges they were facing in terms of updating our systems.
Mr. Chaffetz. Are you doing to do that? Are you going to
issue an all-hands memorandum to your employees?
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, I will answer more quickly. I
actually, instead of doing a memo, I did an all-hands video and
speech where we talked about both accountability where I
confirmed my expectation that people would be accountable and
that the OIG was important and should be fully brought in to
any issues of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Mr. Chaffetz. I think to satisfy the OIG's concerns, to
issue a memorandum to make it clear to employees to help
participate would be much appreciated.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the June
13th, 2014 letter from Chairman Issa and Senator Vitter to this
effect.
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, can I just point out that I send a lot
of mass mailers out? I do very full town hall meetings----
Mr. Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. McCarthy.--and that is what I did this town hall
meeting to actually impress upon it.
Mr. Chaffetz. It obviously didn't satisfy their concerns.
Let me ask you. Prior to your being named the
administrator, you were, my understanding is, the assistant
administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation from 2009 to
2013, correct?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. And during that time it is my understanding
that you had three people that were direct reports to you,
correct?
Ms. McCarthy. I actually had quite a few more than that,
sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. How many direct reports to you?
Ms. McCarthy. Let me look. I had probably 10 or so.
Actually, 11, 12, something like that.
Mr. Chaffetz. A dozen or slightly less than. Is it against
department policy to view pornography on official work
computers during official time?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. What is the consequence if you get caught
doing that?
Ms. McCarthy. You either take criminal or administrative
action, or both.
Mr. Chaffetz. Can you be fired?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, you can.
Mr. Chaffetz. We have three instances here. For instance,
we have a GS-14 EPA employee within the Office of Air and
Radiation, something that you oversaw, who had been accused of
viewing pornography two to six hours a day since 2010. This
person is on administrative leave with pay. Why didn't you fire
this person?
Ms. McCarthy. I actually have to work through the
administrative process, as you know, and there is still an
ongoing OIG criminal investigation, is my understanding. We
have actually banned him from the building. He no longer has
access to any EPA equipment. But administrative leave----
Mr. Chaffetz. We have another person at the EPA within the
Office of Policy who admitted, they have admitted, viewing
pornography while at work for at least two hours at a time. You
have another person, an EPA employee at the Chicago Regional
Office, who had child pornography files on his work computer
and viewed them on a regular basis.
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, that gentleman was fired and was
actually put in prison.
Mr. Chaffetz. I just don't understand why--at one point the
OIG walks into the office, they are actually viewing
pornography when they walk into the office, and that person has
not been fired. I don't understand.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we just had an exchange with the
chairman that I would like to point out, which is any way that
we can make these processes move more quickly, I am all for it.
But there is an administrative process we must follow, because
it is one thing to get upset; it is a second thing to
successfully go through both criminal and administrative
procedures to address the issue----
Mr. Chaffetz. And I think that is something we are going to
have to address, because why these people aren't fired on the
spot I just do not know.
Ms. McCarthy. I would welcome Congress taking up some of
those challenges; it would be great.
Mr. Chaffetz. And I also, with all due respect, need to
understand why you had issued a memo. This is an email that you
sent on March 29th of 2012. This gets into knowing when John
Beale was a problem. I mean, at one point you say, ``I thought
he had already retired,'' and yet he continued on the payroll
for some time. You knew about his issues with his payroll
problems and his other things for years, and you didn't do
anything about it.
In fact, your own agency department here issued this report
saying from the beginning of 2001 it appears Mr. Beale began
not to appear in the office as much as one day per week,
although he was not approved to leave. Second, beginning in the
mid-2000s, Mr. Beale began not to appear in the office for more
lengthy periods of time. According to the EPA's Office of
Inspector General, those abuses ranged from weeks to several
months in the mid-2000s to the end of Mr. Beale's career. He
didn't even appear at work. He is one of your less than 12
employees. Why wasn't he fired at that point? If he doesn't
show up to work for months, did you not know that?
Ms. McCarthy. I think that we have discussed the fact that
it was my understanding from day one that he had obligations to
other agencies as well. I did the best that I could to try to
keep track of him and to bring him to justice and, frankly, I
am very appreciative of the work of the OIG and DOJ to
actually----
Mr. Chaffetz. Why did it take you so long? The OIG said it
took him one week to figure it out. You knew it was a problem
for years and you didn't think to call or ask anybody? Why is
it that the OIG could find it out in one week?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I did refer it to the OIG when I
had the information available to me that I had been requesting
for quite some time and working diligently to----
Mr. Chaffetz. You referred it to the general counsel; you
did not refer it to the OIG, which you were supposed to do. And
you got promoted because of all this.
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, sir, that is not correct. That is
not correct. I actually referred it as a human resources issue
to OARM, which is our office that handles that. It became clear
that there were other issues involved. They referred it to OHS
to do some communication through the intelligence agencies
because they are our liaison. When information was understood
that this was more than a time and attendance issue, then it
was referred to the OIG appropriately. This was a time and
attendance issue and other things.
Mr. Chaffetz. We will spend some more time on this issue.
My time is well passed and expired.
I believe we now go to Mr. Tierney now, from Massachusetts,
for five minutes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think perhaps you wanted to go somebody else? I am fine
with that.
[Pause.]
Mr. Tierney. Ms. McCarthy, how are you?
Ms. McCarthy. I like the way you say my name, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Hey, I can do it too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tierney. So, look, thanks for throwing out the first
pitch to the Red Sox this year. We have some more work to go on
that, but----
Ms. McCarthy. I did better than Fitty Cent.
Mr. Tierney. You did. You did.
[Laughter.]
Ms. McCarthy. You like the way I said that?
Mr. Tierney. I like the way you said that as well.
I want to shift gears a little bit here because I think
there are some important things being done that we have to talk
about here. One is the clean power plan that EPA put out. It
really has the potential to drive technological innovation and
the clean energy and energy efficient technologies. I think
that is critical on that and I am sure you will agree. It is
going to be a huge benefit to our economy, especially in the
long-term, but also in the more recent term.
So one of the elements of that proposal is the option for
States to use electricity more efficiently. You base and the
Agency based its proposal on what States are already doing to
implement energy efficiency measures. I want to ask you to tell
us a little bit more about the best performing measures that
States are already using to improve energy efficiency and
reduce electricity demand.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, what is most exciting about this is the
fact that States and cities--I was just at the U.S. Conference
of Mayors, and they know they have been dealing with these for
a while and they have developed a bunch of different techniques
that can address carbon pollution and put money in people's
pocketbooks. So they are pretty excited, as am I.
There are energy efficiency initiatives that can be brought
to the table. I think you will know from Massachusetts they
have a robust energy efficiency program. They also have a
renewable fuel standard program. They have been a leader in
energy efficiency, I am proud to say, for years, and they also
are participating in the regional greenhouse gas initiative,
because the other flexibility that we allowed in this proposal
to States is not just go it alone, but if you want to join with
other States or work on regional initiatives so that you get
better reductions for your money, that is wide open to you.
So I think this will indeed spark innovation in renewables
and energy efficiency technologies. It will be a leader in 21st
century energy generation and I am pretty pumped.
Mr. Tierney. And are you working to make sure that other
States have the advantage of knowing what the best practices
are in those States that are really aggressive in those areas?
Ms. McCarthy. We are. Actually, if you take a look at this
proposal, we give examples of State leadership here that others
can work from. We also are meeting with States and energy
officials and environmental officials from those States so that
everybody gets to see what the best practices are that they can
take advantage of, especially the efficiency ones, which pay
off for everybody consistently. It is just a way of getting
pollution reduction that is sustainable, and that is what we
are really looking for here because you can continue to grow
the economy while you cut those pollution levels down. That is
what EPA does.
Mr. Tierney. Look, in my district I know people are talking
about jobs, and I suspect it is not different elsewhere on
that. So talk to us a little bit about the number of jobs that
could be created by making these kind of investments on that
and just how we are going to boost the economy that way.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we know that this will actually create
thousands of jobs, and those jobs are going to be created in
the clean energy economy. We are talking about jobs related to
both renewable energy, as well as a wealth of energy efficiency
programs. If you are heavily reliant on coal, it also can be
expenditures that you make at those facilities to deliver that
energy more efficiently. So there is a lot of choices that
States get to make here. We wanted to take each State where
they were so that this wasn't an attempt to preclude any
generation from being utilized effectively. But it is to open
up the table to all kinds of new choices to States that would
continue to grow jobs.
Mr. Tierney. Did you find any parts of the Country that
didn't have a potential to boost their use of clean energy?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, one of the reasons we did individual
State standards and then allowed the States to develop their
own plans as a proposal was because we recognized that each
State was in a different place. So some have looked at that
kind of funny. If you look at percentages, you will see that
West Virginia, which emits a considerable amount of carbon from
their coal-based system, they have a little bit less percentage
reduction because their opportunities aren't as great for
inexpensive reductions.
Where you have the State of Washington that does very well,
we are asking a large percentage. We just looked at what they
were doing anyways, where they were. This is not a stretch goal
for any State; it is an opportunity to turn climate risk into
business opportunity, job growth, and economic growth.
Mr. Tierney. It seems pretty clear that you are giving
incentive to States to put in more solar panels, to erect more
wind turbines, weatherize more homes, install more energy-
efficient appliances and machinery. I mean, this is the
direction that we are heading. These are jobs that pay well.
They can't be exported. They are here to stay, is that right?
Ms. McCarthy. That is exactly right.
Mr. Tierney. So I just think that you are heading in the
right direction I think not only for the clean air aspect of it
and all the other economic and even national security issues we
are talking about, but the jobs, jobs, jobs part of it on that
and the allowance of States with the flexibility to innovate
and do it in the way that makes more sense to them. I thank you
and the Agency for your hard work in that regard and I yield
back my time.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Meadows. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. McHenry.
Mr. McHenry. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
Administrator McCarthy, I thank you for being here today
and I certainly appreciate your willingness to answer
questions. I want to ask you about a Superfund site in my
district, in Buncombe County, Region 4. And there is TCE
contamination, and TCE is often called sinker, right? And what
we found with studies, and what I have been told from the
experts, is that this TCE contamination is also a floater,
because there is a petroleum element to it, so it is on the
surface of the groundwater. So, therefore, finding that out is
a positive thing because it makes the cleanup easier and means
that we can actually take action now. So that is what I want to
ask you about, is about that very issue.
The EPA can require CTS, which is the company that did the
polluting, to move forward immediately to address the floating
contamination while it continues to investigate the sinker
contamination. Will the EPA urge CTS and direct them to do
that?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I don't know, sir, what the next step
is. I do know that progress is being made, and I really
appreciate your interest in this site. This is actually a site
that can significantly impact public health. So I think it is
important that we keep moving this forward. I am glad it has
been listed on the Superfund list, finally, so that we can move
it forward, and our next steps are actually to conduct some
follow-up air sampling studies to define the extent of the
contamination in the air and in nearby homes, which is
something that I think you have been very focused on. And the
study will expand and move away from the site so we can
identify the full extent of the release of the volatile organic
compounds and we can properly address both the immediate public
health challenge, as well as the environmental cleanup
challenges.
Mr. McHenry. So this has been 20 years in the making, long
before you and I had our current roles and long before
Congressman Meadows and I represented this county. We have only
represented this county for 18 months. But what we need is
action from you. And from what we understand from CTS
officials, and my constituents have heard from board members of
that company, they said they have asked and the quote is they
are doing everything that EPA has asked them to do. Right? So
there is a credibility problem for the EPA at stake here, both
on the time frame it took to get this site on the national
priorities list, as well as that type of message coming from
the company.
We also know that administrative orders of consent in 2004
and 2012 say that the EPA has the authority to direct the
company in very extraordinary ways. So I ask you to do that.
There is immediate action that can take place that would be
good for the public health of my constituents and Congressman
Meadows' constituents, good for western North Carolina, and is
a meaningful step that can be taken in the short-term to clean
up what we know is achievable, even though the more difficult
issue may still remain.
So what I ask you to do, what I urge you to do is to work
through these issues and deal with that and take action.
Ms. McCarthy. I would be happy to take a look at this. Why
don't I make sure that your staff and ours talk about this? And
I will do the very best I can to make sure that this cleanup
addresses both the immediate concerns, as well as the long-term
pollution issues that we are trying to address.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you. I thank you. We have worked
extensively with Region 4 staff. Look, we all want clean water.
We all want clean air. And what my families that I represent in
western North Carolina want is action taken.
So, with that, I would like to yield the balance of my time
to Congressman Meadows on this issue, because he has worked
extensively on this matter as well.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman
from North Carolina. Congressman Mica would like me to yield
just a couple minutes.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. I will be very brief. I came
late and I am leaving early.
I would just like if you could provide to the committee,
since it is such an important issue, any changes in the
definition of wetland. I know by regulation you are changing
the rules. It is going to have a huge impact. I have not been
happy with any changes from either this committee or the
Transportation Committee. If you could provide that timeline to
the chair and the committee, I would appreciate it.
I yield back.
Mr. McHenry. Reclaiming my time. I ask unanimous consent
that Congressman Meadows be yielded 50 seconds, since that
subject matter didn't have anything to do with the water
pollution issue we have in our district.
Mr. Meadows. Without objection.
Ms. McCarthy, I have worked extensively with Congressman
McHenry and your office in Region 4. The frustration that I
have experienced, if I was to be as passionate as the people
that I represent this morning, it wouldn't be something that C-
Span could cover. Truly, the inaction of the EPA to protect the
health and well-being of the citizens of Buncombe County at
best has been thwarted and at worst has been ignored, and it is
incumbent upon the EPA, if the mission is the health and well-
being of the citizens, that we get an action plan that not only
talks about the short-term, but that cleans it up. This is a
25-year problem that still exists today and cleanup hasn't
started.
So, with that, I would recognize Mr. Connolly, the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend from North Carolina.
You know, Ms. McCarthy, I thought I heard you say earlier
to the chairman that the subpoena in question subpoenaed all
communications regarding congressional inquiries between the
White House and the EPA for a five-year period?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. And I think you said that was a pretty wide
net.
Ms. McCarthy. It is a pretty broad search.
Mr. Connolly. Generally, when nets are that wide, what is
going on is called a fishing expedition. Do I also understand
that what is at dispute and why you were threatened with
contempt at the beginning of this hearing, which, by the way,
makes for an awfully nice headline, and I am sure the press at
the press table will be once again accommodating and provide
such a headline and, of course, substance with respect to EPA
will be set aside or lost in the noise. It is kind of a pattern
around here; get a witness, pillory the witness, interrupt the
witness, threaten the witness, tell the witness she or he is
not cooperating, interrupt the witness when the witness
actually starts to have a relevant answer to a question, and
focus often on the extraneous to make sure, however important
that extraneous might be in its own right, but to make sure
that we are not actually talking about something of substance
like global warming. In fact, a warning at the beginning of
this hearing that it is not about global warming, after one of
the most momentous regulatory decisions in the history of the
EPA and after a very interesting Supreme Court ruling which I
want to talk to you about this week.
So I am sorry you are getting the treatment; it is par for
the course. We have done it, unfortunately, with a lot of
consistency for the last four years. It is not pretty. My
friend, Jackie Speier, read into the record yesterday even the
speaker, Speaker Boehner, warning that witnesses coming before
committees here in Congress need to be treated with respect. I
find it really interesting, by the way, that we would also,
some of us, apparently, would focus on people who have
obviously abused or misused their position at the EPA by
watching pornography or engaging in other things that are
illegal or certainly inappropriate.
It was just announced yesterday that a chief of staff to a
member of Congress, Republican member, had to resign after it
was revealed he had had a long-term affair with a porn star and
had inappropriate pictures of his physique posted. And we have
members of Congress who have been in the books of madames of
brothels. We have had members of Congress selling or buying
cocaine. We have our own peccadillos and we can focus on those
too, and maybe we need a special prosecutor or maybe we need to
be investigated as to how long did we know and whether
Government property was used, and whether, when somebody
learned of it, they appropriately responded in a relevant
period of time.
I say Congress itself is hardly clean here. And that
doesn't mean we want to, in any way, shape or form, condone
inappropriate activity, but to somehow pretend in our
questioning that it is unique to you and to the EPA is really a
bit much.
If I may ask, in the time limited, about Justice Scalia's
opinion this last week. Is it fair to say that the endangerment
finding is now settled law after that ruling?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't want to speak as a lawyer, sir, but
it seems pretty settled to me, yes.
Mr. Connolly. The court did nothing to roll back the
landmark decision in 2007 that EPA has the authority to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Would we maybe agree that
EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is now
settled law based on that opinion?
Ms. McCarthy. It certainly appears that way to me, sir.
Mr. Connolly. The court was looking specifically at EPA's
program for regulating carbon pollution for large new
industrial facilities. The court took issue with the EPA's
legal approach but basically came very near to the same result
in terms of which facilities could be regulated. Is that your
understanding?
Ms. McCarthy. It basically confirmed what we are already
doing, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Justice Scalia reportedly said, in announcing
the opinion, it bears mention that EPA is getting almost
everything it wanted in the case; it sought to regulate sources
that it said were responsible for 86 percent of all greenhouse
gases emitted from stationary sources. Under our holdings, EPA
will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83 percent. Do
you believe the Supreme Court's decision validates your efforts
to responsibly regulate carbon emissions from large new
facilities?
Ms. McCarthy. Oh, very much so.
Mr. Connolly. Does anything in the court's decision last
week, or this week, really, impact your authority to cut carbon
emissions from existing power plants?
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir. It is a confirmation that EPA has
been on the right track and that the Clean Air Act is an
appropriate tool and that we can use it wisely and effectively.
Mr. Connolly. And how many members of the Supreme Court
joined Justice Scalia's opinion in that ruling?
Ms. McCarthy. Seven to two, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Seven to two. So a decisive opinion by the
Supreme Court validating your role and the regulation just
issued.
I thank the chair and I thank you, Ms. McCarthy, for your
service to your Country. By the way, where in Boston do you
come from?
Ms. McCarthy. I actually live in Jamaica Plain.
Mr. Connolly. Jamaica Plain.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. I was born and brought up in Kenton.
Mr. Connolly. All right. My family is in West Roxbury, and
I can talk like that too. And I love the Red Sox; they are
working good and I am hoping they win.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Meadows. Needing no translator, we will go to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman.
Ms. McCarthy, I understand your agency is not the agency
that ultimately decides, although you are pretty heavily
involved. When do you think the American people can expect a
decision on the Keystone pipeline?
Ms. McCarthy. My understanding is that there are certain
issues with the location of the pipeline that needs to be
resolved, so I cannot anticipate that.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know when the application for the
Keystone pipeline was first submitted?
Ms. McCarthy. No, I do not.
Mr. Jordan. September 2008. Almost six years ago. You are
familiar with the fact that the governor of Nebraska said he is
fine with the new proposed route?
Ms. McCarthy. It is not my decision, sir.
Mr. Jordan. But don't you have a critical part in the
ultimate decision? Didn't you guys do an environmental impact
report from your agency which said there are no significant
impacts to have this pipeline come through the United States?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, EPA's role is to comment on that
impact reported. It actually was developed by the Department of
State.
Mr. Jordan. And you guys gave it a thumbs up, isn't that
correct?
Ms. McCarthy. EPA has just provided comments. We have no
authority to do up or down on this one.
Mr. Jordan. And your comments were clear back in 2011. It
is my understanding August 2011 is when you gave the comments
that there are no significant impact, no significant
environmental impact.
Ms. McCarthy. It is not clear to me that that was a comment
from EPA.
Mr. Jordan. Have you had any conversations with the State
Department since that August 26, 2011 report, where you said no
significant environmental impacts? Have you had conversation
with the State Department about the Keystone pipeline? Do you
know if your agency has?
Ms. McCarthy. I personally have not. We have staff that----
Mr. Jordan. In your time at the agency, have you had
conversations with the State Department about the Keystone
pipeline?
Ms. McCarthy. I may have.
Mr. Jordan. Have you had conversations with the White House
about the Keystone pipeline?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. How recently?
Ms. McCarthy. Oh, we received information on the Keystone
pipeline when the pipeline issue and the route question arose,
and they actually sent a memo to us indicating that we should
hold off on submitting our comments. I think that was probably
four months ago or so.
Mr. Jordan. So in the past four months. Since that time
have you had any conversation with the White House and/or the
State Department regarding the Keystone pipeline?
Ms. McCarthy. Not that I can recall.
Mr. Jordan. No conversation in the last four months with
either the White House or the State Department?
Ms. McCarthy. Not that I can recall.
Mr. Jordan. How long do you think is appropriate for a
decision to take? Is six years too long, too short? Can you
hazard a guess at what point the Administration is going to
say, okay, six years is long enough, we have to make a
decision? How long do you think is an appropriate time frame?
Ms. McCarthy. There is no timeline, sir.
Mr. Jordan. There is no timeline?
Ms. McCarthy. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Jordan. Do you think it is okay if it took eight years?
Ms. McCarthy. It is not a project that I am proposing.
Mr. Jordan. I am asking your opinion, though. The whole
issue has been the environmental concerns. You head the
Environmental Protection Agency. I am saying is eight years
okay to wait after an application has been submitted?
Ms. McCarthy. There is no timeline, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Ten years would be okay?
Ms. McCarthy. There is no timeline.
Mr. Jordan. So forever. It could take 20, 30 years, and
that would be fine.
Ms. McCarthy. It is a project that goes through its own
work to get the project developed. It goes through an impact
statement development, EPA comments. We have nothing more to do
with it other than a commenter on somebody else's project that
is being evaluated by another agency.
Mr. Jordan. And you said there is no significant
environmental impact, and what I am trying to get at is----
Ms. McCarthy. I do not believe that was actually what we
said. We raised issues relative to the analysis that we thought
could be improved. I think work has been done since then, but
we have not seen----
Mr. Jordan. One last thing. Just for the record, so in the
last four months you have had no conversations, there has been
no input from the EPA to the White House and/or the State
Department regarding the approval or some kind of decision made
on the Keystone pipeline application.
Ms. McCarthy. I think you asked me about my own personal
communication since we received the memo that we should hold
off.
Mr. Jordan. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. I have not had personal conversations about
this.
Mr. Jordan. Well, then let's ask. Has your agency had any
conversations with the White House? To your knowledge, has your
agency had any conversation with the White House or the State
Department in the last four months?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know the answer to that question,
sir.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. McHenry. I thank the gentleman from Ohio and we go to
the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Speier.
Ms. Speier. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here. I
would like to, at the outset, point out that this committee has
made 18 separate committee investigations of the EPA; that in
making requests of the EPA, your office has provided 208,000
documents; that you have testified three times; and that you
have sat for a transcribed hearing. So I believe all of that
suggests that you are a very compliant witness, that you have
been very accommodating to this committee, and that for members
to throw around the threat of contempt, when there has been
this much attention paid by you and your agency to this
committee, is without merit.
Now, your clean power plan has gotten some rave reviews
recently, none the least of which is from The Wall Street
Journal, which says it strikes a balance between
environmentalists and utilities in terms of what they all want.
Nike and Levi and Starbucks have all commented on how they saw
it as valuable.
In California, unlike some of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle that suggest that curbing carbon dioxide
emissions kills jobs, California, as you know, has a cap and
trade environment in which we are operating, and in the last
couple of years we boasted some of the greatest economic
turnarounds ever. As long as cap and trade has been in effect,
California now ranks in the top 10 States in employment growth
and 4 of the top 20 U.S. regions for job growth. So I think in
California we believe that you can have a healthy economy and a
healthy environment, as well.
So my question to you, with the understanding that the
Government Accountability Office considers climate change to be
high risk to taxpayers, it appears we have just an outstanding
responsibility to address it. Would you tell us what you
believe the relative costs and benefits of the EPA's proposed
rule on existing power plants is?
Ms. McCarthy. I am happy to do that. And I think I will
just point out that the President indicates that this is a
moral obligation to act, and I couldn't agree with him more.
Ms. Speier. So does the Pope.
Ms. McCarthy. The power plant rule that we put out, the
proposal, looks at a $55 billion to $93 billion a year in
benefits in 2030 alone, which far outweighs the costs that are
estimated at $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion. This is clearly a
winning opportunity, not just in terms of a cost benefit
analysis for today, but in terms of the future it will provide
for our children. And this is all about public health. It is
all about protecting our children and keeping our communities
safe today.
Ms. Speier. In fact, your reference to public health is
worth restating. I am told that anywhere between 2700 people to
6600, on the high end, are not going to be subject to dying
prematurely because of this plan, and that between 140,000 and
150,000 children will not have asthma attacks as a result.
Let me shift gears for a minute. In an interchange with one
of my colleagues, who somehow objected to the fact that you
didn't go immediately to the inspector general on the Beale
case, you indicated that you went first to the Office of
General Counsel. Can you explain to us why you did that?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, originally my understanding and my goal
was to make sure that he was appropriately utilizing his time,
whether it was with us or with another agency. When I had
concerns about him not being at EPA, as well as concerns about
whether or not he was effectively working for another agency, I
brought it to the----
Ms. Speier. Can we say what the other agency is? I think it
is----
Ms. McCarthy. I believe it is the Central Intelligence
Agency.
Ms. Speier. All right. So that is why there was some
mystery.
Ms. McCarthy. But at that point in time I did not know that
that arrangement wasn't real. I knew I had a problem. I went to
the correct agency. That agency themselves brought in our
Office of General Counsel and they also made a decision to go
to our Office of Homeland Security because, programmatically,
it is our liaison with the intelligence community. And the
first question was did he have a relationship and an obligation
to another entity, and when that progressed far enough for us
to know that we had bigger problems than we originally
anticipated, I brought to the issue to the inspector general
and asked them to do a thorough investigation.
And I have to say as much as there are questions about
whether we support the OIG, is that clearly I do; the agency
does. There is a culture of embracing the Office of the
Inspector General, knowing that EPA needs to be high-
performing. Anything less wouldn't do service to the public and
to protecting public health and the environment, which is
clearly our mission, as well as our passion.
Ms. Speier. Thank you for your leadership.
I yield back.
Mr. McHenry. I thank the gentlewoman from California.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. McCarthy, in EPA's recent proposed rule to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, each State has a different target for
emission reductions. That is right?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Walberg. The target was determined by analyzing four
criteria, as I understand it, one of which was demand-side
energy efficiency programs. What does demand-side energy
efficient program mean?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, basically it means looking at
opportunities for consumers to retrofit their homes, to buy
more energy-efficient appliances. It is everything you can do
to reduce energy demand, which reduces draw on fossil fuel
energy, which in turn reduces carbon pollution.
Mr. Walberg. But my follow-up would be EPA does not, does
not have authority to directly regulate demand-side efficiency
programs, does it?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually, we are not doing that with
this rule, sir. We are actually regulating the pollution from
the fossil fuel----
Mr. Walberg. It doesn't appear that way. The fact is in
establishing those subjective criteria for each State, you are
attempting to regulate demand-side. I mean, the facts are the
facts.
Ms. McCarthy. I can understand where you would look at it
that way, and actually we have specifically called out this
issue in the rule itself. We are doing here what States
actually asked us to do, was to allow them maximum flexibility
to design their own plans on the basis of what they could do to
reduce carbon pollution at the source, which is what we are
regulating.
Mr. Walberg. But directly pushing demand-side.
Ms. McCarthy. No.
Mr. Walberg. Let me go on. EPA has said the rule not
increase the cost of electricity, but under this proposed rule
the cost of electricity per kilowatt hour will actually
increase. Isn't that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we have indicated that the monthly cost
of electricity at its peak will be somewhere around a gallon of
milk cost. But we also recognize that when demand-side
reduction is used, which is the easiest, quickest, and usually
the preferred approach of States, that it actually reduces the
bill itself, because while the rates go up slightly----
Mr. Walberg. But it reduces it based upon Americans using
less electricity; not the fact that the cost of electricity
goes down, but making it impossible for Americans to use
electricity as they ought to be allowed to use electricity.
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, the amount of increase in the rates
is well within the range of fluctuation that we have been
seeing. So we are quite convinced----
Mr. Walberg. Through scarcity. Through scarcity. That is
happening in my district.
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry?
Mr. Walberg. That is through scarcity. The push is to
reduce electricity by saying to the consumer don't use
electricity.
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, no.
Mr. Walberg. It is not by reducing the cost of production
of it.
Ms. McCarthy. It is actually by providing them more
opportunities to reduce waste, which I think----
Mr. Walberg. Well, does the Clean Air Act give EPA the
authority to regulate American electricity consumption?
Ms. McCarthy. We are not suggesting that we do regulate
that. We are regulating pollution at the source.
Mr. Walberg. Well, now that I got that off my chest,
because we are entitled to our opinion, but not to the facts,
and the facts are very much different than that when we are
pushing consumption as the issue; and in America that isn't the
normal way of doing it.
Let me go back to some of the Administration questions that
I have concern with.
Does Beth Craig, who served as former deputy assistant
administrator in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, still
work and receive salary from the EPA?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, she does.
Mr. Walberg. You, of course, we already know from
testimony, are aware that she cost the Government by not
overseeing the special agent man, Mr. Beale, at least $200,000
of cost to the taxpayers that were fraudulent. In your agency's
website it says, To meet our mission as a high-performing
organization, EPA must maintain and attract the workforce of
the future, modernize our business practices, and take
advantage of new tools and technologies.
Can you explain how Beth Craig, a current EPA director who
has cost the Government nearly $200,000, is part of the
workforce of the future?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I want to first point out, sir, that
there is no indication, and the OIG has confirmed this, there
is no evidence that she actually contributed to any fraudulent
activity or she was involved in any. Now, clearly Beth Craig is
now being looked at in terms of whether or not she diligently
looked at time and attendance sheets and travel. That
administrative process is proceeding.
Mr. Walberg. The OIG confirmed $200,000, and her management
of that, her administration of that allowed that to happen over
the course of a decade.
Ms. McCarthy. Whether or not Beth did----
Mr. Walberg. And she is still being paid by the taxpayer.
And if that is the workforce of the future----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, she has not been accused of any
fraudulent activity. The question was whether she was diligent
enough----
Mr. Walberg. And I am over time, I yield back, but the
question is why not.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
Administrator McCarthy, in August 2011, President Obama
acknowledged in a letter to Speaker Boehner that seven new
proposed regulations would each cost the economy at least a
billion dollars annually. In fact, out of those seven, four of
those regulations were put forth by the EPA. I repeat, four.
How many new regulations has the EPA proposed this year that
will cost the economy at least a billion dollars annually?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't have that figure, sir.
Mr. Gosar. Can you provide those names and those numbers
and estimates to the committee?
Ms. McCarthy. Of course.
Mr. Gosar. Now, as you know, Congress has repeatedly
rejected previous cap and tax energy plans proposed by the
President and his big government allies, knowing he can
lawfully enact a carbon tax plan, he can't, he has instructed
you to circumvent Congress and to impose these new regulations
by fiat. Do you believe the EPA should follow the intent of
Congress when implementing new regulations?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe that EPA is actually following the
law that Congress enacted in a way that we are supposed to
implement it, and I think that has been confirmed by the
Supreme Court every time it has been asked of them relative to
carbon pollution.
Mr. Gosar. Well, 83 percent, so remember that carefully
here. And I am glad you bring that up. So will you return the
new waters of the U.S. proposed rule to your agency in order to
address the legal, scientific, and economic deficiencies of
that proposal?
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, I didn't understand the question.
Mr. Gosar. So citing the Supreme Court again, I want to
just give you a little background. The Supreme Court has issued
four decisions that reinforce the limits of the EPA's
jurisdiction on waters of the U.S.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. Yet you seem to have another effect that you
want to violate this with this current set of rules. So I am
asking you will you return the new waters of the U.S. proposed
rule to your agency to address the legal, the scientific, and
economic deficiencies of your proposal?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it is out for public comment now, sir,
and it was specifically put out in order to address the
concerns raised by the Supreme Court in terms of the
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
Mr. Gosar. Once again, it has been identified legally with
economic deficiencies and scientific deficiencies, yes it has.
There are four Supreme Court rulings. You just acknowledged the
gentleman from Virginia that the Supreme Court had the rule of
the land. There are four jurisdictions from the Supreme Court
that limit the EPA and its jurisdiction of the waters of the
U.S. Will you return it to your agency?
Ms. McCarthy. I am happy to have more discussions about
this, sir, but the reason we put out the waters of the U.S. was
exactly to address the issues that the Supreme Court has put
squarely in front of us.
Mr. Gosar. I don't think that is true.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Gosar. Furthermore, David Sundling, the founding
director of the Berkeley Water Center and professor in the
College of Natural Resources of the University of California,
Berkeley, found major flaws in your agency's economic analysis
of the waters of the U.S. proposed rule and claimed the errors
in the study are so extensive as to render it unusable for
determining the true costs of the proposed rule. Once again,
does your agency have any plans to correct this flawed economic
analysis? When you put stuff out, you have to cede proper
information to the public, and you are not.
Ms. McCarthy. Certainly we are in a comment period where we
will take a look at that criticism and whether or not it is
substantive and how we would address it. We have recently
extended the comment period 90 days exactly because we know
that there are concerns raised about the proposal and we want
to provide clear public opportunity to comment on this so we
can understand the issues that have been raised.
Mr. Gosar. It is interesting that you keep doing that, but
you have to provide the public proper information, and this is
completely flawed.
Now, I have limited time.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Gosar. Your greenhouse gas rule proposed to threaten
the close of the Navaho Generating Station and kill 1,000 jobs
in Page, Arizona. Approximately 80 percent of those positions
are good paying jobs for Native Americans in a very rural area.
Besides being a critical employer, the Navaho Generating
Station provides the power that delivers more than 500 billion
gallons of Colorado River water to more than 80 percent of
Arizona's population. Do you believe, yes or no, that the
Navaho Generating Station should be closed?
Ms. McCarthy. I have no such belief, no.
Mr. Gosar. Okay. Do you share my belief that this power
plant is a special situation due to the Tribal Indian
Congressional Dialogue Trust obligations that were constituted
by Congress in directing the construction, the direction, the
obligations, water settlements, labor law directives associated
with that plant?
Ms. McCarthy. My understanding of that plant is it is one
of the most complicated situations that we have to deal with,
so it is fairly unique, yes.
Mr. Gosar. It is very unique because of where it sits on
tribal land and congressional oversight.
Ms. McCarthy. I agree. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. So it deserves special attention instead of what
it has been getting lately.
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, sir, we have been giving it special
attention because the proposal that we put out on our clean
power plan actually didn't speak to the Navaho Generating
Station. We actually left the tribal units so that we could do
a much more extensive analysis. There are three, one of which
is Navaho.
Mr. Gosar. I understand. And in the trust obligations the
jurisdiction over the tribes in those contracts is this body
here, Congress. Have you directed those conversations with
Congress as well?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I don't know what conversations you
are referring to. EPA definitely has been given the obligation
to regulate pollution from that facility if we feel like it is
necessary for public health. We have actually worked through a
lot of tough issues with Navaho Generating Station, working
with the Navajos, working with the other tribes that have an
interest, the Hopi and the Healer River. We have actually
worked very closely with the State, Salt River project. I
understand how complicated this issue is. We have worked
through some pretty big challenges in creative ways and I am
sure we can work through this when the time comes. But we have
not yet proposed any regulation of carbon pollution from that
facility.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I would caution the lady that there is
also another jurisdictional aptitude, and that is this body,
this body of Congress that oversees the trust obligations of
the tribal entities, and that has not occurred. So, fyi,
include us.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Duncan. [Presiding.] Thank you very much.
Mr. Collins is next.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here this morning. I know there are a
lot of management issues at EPA, which has been discussed, and
I know there is a lot more of oversight from basically John
Beale to Pebble Mine to employees not being fired for watching
pornography, all these other issues. But I want to really take
another step, take my five minutes and sort of continue some of
the conversation you just had, but from a different
perspective, from the northeast order perspective about the
Clean Water Act and affecting the waters of the United States.
The rule would vastly expand EPA's regulatory jurisdiction
and in turn would impugn businesses and families in Georgia's
9th Congressional District and across the Country. If this rule
is allowed to go into effect, basically dry ditches, rainwater
runoffs, low lying areas, and seemingly any area that would
hold water would be subject to EPA's jurisdiction. This would
force northeast storages, cattle ranchers to move their herds,
chicken farmers to move their chicken houses, and average
citizens to sell to the EPA for permission to build on their
land.
Actually, it takes it a step further, and I think this is
the concern that I have. Not just the production being done
now, but in many of my areas, my farmers, my grandparents, who
dairy farm, and I know there is an example just down the road
from where I live, where a gentleman has 100 acres of land.
Most of it grew up in dry gulches like we most know. But under
these kind of rules basically would make his land unsellable
because of this process. And this is a very real concern to
what we have.
So just a question, administrator. Do you have a dollar
value on the impact this proposed rule would have? Any kind of
a guess?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I do not believe there was an
economic analysis associated with this because it is a
jurisdictional question. But I would point out--and I am happy
to have further conversations in Georgia about this--we have
done, I think, a very good job at trying to not just recognize
the exemptions that exist in the Clean Water Act relative to
agriculture, but to try to expand those in this, and to not
write this in a way that would expand the jurisdiction of the
Clean Water Act and, in fact, try to make it narrower on the
basis of real science. So I do think there is a large gap
between our intent and I think how we wrote it and how it is
being perceived; and EPA has a big job to do to close that gap.
Mr. Collins. And I think what you have stated here is the
dialogue that goes on that I have all the time with our
constituents that I have been facing myself, and I think it
goes back also to an issue here of and you talked about it is a
jurisdictional issue, not a cost issue. Well, I think that is
the problem that we are having right now, is that there is
regulation after regulation or jurisdictional fights, whatever
you want to call it, but the bottom line is it affects the
taxpayers, it affects the people who fund the Government who
want to say why is the Government so affecting in my life,
especially in areas in which they, frankly, for some of our
even given some of the Supreme Court rulings, there is an
overreach here. I do believe there is a balance between
carrying out your role as an administrator and then also
balancing the intent of Congress, and I think it goes to
Congress being not very good at giving you direction.
Ms. McCarthy. I appreciate your concerns, and the more that
we can actually talk and even meet with your constituents to
understand where it feels like two ships passing in the night,
and I need to bring those together and we have to have a better
understanding. And I am entirely open to comment on this. That
is why we extended the comment period.
Mr. Collins. I have a couple of quick questions I would
like to get in.
Under the proposed rule, it is understood that farmers will
only qualify for Section 404 exemptions if they meet national
resources conservation and NRCS standards that are currently
optional. Yes or no, is that true or false?
Ms. McCarthy. No, it is not.
Mr. Collins. It is false. Okay, under current law would a
farmer be required to the NRCS compliant in order to be
exempted? Do they have to currently?
Ms. McCarthy. No.
Mr. Collins. So no. If a farmer or rancher has questions on
how this rule would affect their property or operation, how
does the EPA respond to these questions?
Ms. McCarthy. We work collaboratively usually with USDA and
the farmer to understand what their concerns are and to address
them so they can continue to farm appropriately.
Mr. Collins. What is the average response time?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't have an answer to that, sir.
Mr. Collins. If you don't respond in a timely manner, is
that farmer or rancher protected from fines or punitive actions
by the EPA if they are not in compliance?
Ms. McCarthy. Could I just clarify one thing?
Mr. Collins. Go ahead.
Ms. McCarthy. EPA is often not the permitting entity here,
so it is very often a State or Army Corps.
Mr. Collins. Well, you have hit something for me perfectly.
I believe this is more of a State issue, and not a national EPA
issue. We have just probably a fundamental difference in
national; in fact, EPA exposure and States are doing some of
this. I think you perfectly hit it for me, but we just honestly
disagree.
Ms. McCarthy. I actually don't think we have any
disagreement in hopefully how we do this rule.
Mr. Collins. Except maybe in the fact that I don't believe
your position should even exist. I think the States can do it
now.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, that may be a difference between us.
Mr. Collins. Now we have an interesting issue. But I just
want you to know----
Ms. McCarthy. It might be a fundamental difference as well.
Mr. Collins. That is a fundamental difference at that
point. But I have already commented in opposition to this
proposal. I know that many in Georgia in my district are. But I
have one quick question, and maybe you can clarify this for me.
In your conversation with my good colleague, Ms. Speier, just a
moment ago, did I hear you say that you went to the CIA first?
Ms. McCarthy. No, I never talked to the CIA about anything,
not directly, no.
Mr. Collins. Okay. I believe I heard you say in discussion
on the bill that you went to the CIA first.
Ms. McCarthy. No. What I indicated was I went to our office
that deals with our human resource issues. They actually
brought in our Office of General Counsel. They referred this to
our Homeland Security Office, which is the liaison with the
intelligence community. They actually communicated with the CIA
in seeking verification of whether or not John Beale worked for
them in some way and under what circumstances that occurred.
Mr. Collins. Just wanted to make sure for the record that I
heard you correctly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. McCarthy. Could I just answer one question? I want to
make sure----
Mr. Meadows. [Presiding.] The time has expired, but, yes,
you can answer.
Ms. McCarthy. I just want to clarify. When we were talking
about the Clean Water Act exemptions, I want to make sure that
I understood your questions, because the Clean Water Act
exemptions clearly indicate where there is agricultural
exemptions, the additional work that we tried to do with USDA
to identify other work that was exempted, as long as it is
conservation efforts working with USDA, was in addition to
those exemptions. And I just wanted to make sure I answered you
correctly.
Mr. Collins. And I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, if I can have just a moment.
Because this is the problem, and it exists, because you
have people who have real issues and real problems, they see
EPA from State level or national level. They can't get the
answers, and I think this is the problem that develops around
this whole thing. Again, we forget the end result is not about
a building up here in Washington that turns out rules; it is
about the people that get up every day and want to have their
own way to do their living and make their life, and do with as
least interference in the way that they can.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
Ms. McCarthy. And I also understand that there was an
economic analysis done with this rule, so I apologize. We will
get that to you.
Mr. Meadows. Okay, the time has expired. I thank the
gentleman from Georgia.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Bentivolio.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here today. Do
you know the current location former EPA employee Phil North?
Ms. McCarthy. No, I do not, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. Administrator McCarthy, are you aware that
Mr. North left the country, traveling to New Zealand, when this
committee had a pending request to voluntarily attend a
transcribed interview?
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, I don't know that.
Mr. Bentivolio. Has the EPA produced to the committee all
of Mr. North's emails since 2002 regarding his work on the
Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay?
Ms. McCarthy. We have submitted all that we have
identified, and we continue to search.
Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. Are you aware that the EPA cannot
produce all of Mr. North's emails to the committee because his
hard drive crashed and the EPA did not back up Mr. North's
emails?
Ms. McCarthy. I am aware that Mr. North was stationed
actually in a pretty remote area of Alaska. We are aware and we
notified the committee as soon as we were aware that there are
some gaps, but we have already submitted a significant amount.
So it is not clear how much we might have missed, but we are
looking at it.
Mr. Bentivolio. Let's see, I got the IRS and the EPA. What
is it with bureaucrats and Government agencies when this
committee is investigating, trying to find out about their
personal emails or emails on an EPA or Government computer, the
hard drives crash?
Is the EPA in possession of Mr. North's failed hard drive?
Ms. McCarthy. I am not aware. I don't know, sir, but I can
find out.
Mr. Bentivolio. Did Mr. North ever receive a bonus?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. Bentivolio. Did John Beale, fraudulent CIA, EPA
employee get a bonus?
Ms. McCarthy. Not under my watch. I don't know what
happened prior to that.
Mr. Bentivolio. Ever?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know.
Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. Did Beth Craig, who lied to special
agents investigating John Beale, get a bonus?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know exactly.
Mr. Bentivolio. How about the employee who had 7,000
pornography files on his EPA computer ever receive a bonus?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Bentivolio. Susan Strassman-Sundy, who produced no work
in the last five years working from her home, did she ever
receive a bonus?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know her or the facts of that.
Mr. Bentivolio. Ms. Renee Page, selling jewelry and weight
loss products from her EPA office, get a bonus?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Bentivolio. Unnamed EPA employee receiving paychecks
while in a nursing home for two years. By the way, is he still
getting paid?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know the answer to that question,
sir. I don't know the issue you are referring to.
Mr. Bentivolio. I have working middle-class Americans in my
district who are struggling to make ends meet, and employees at
the EPA are playing James Bond, watching porno movies on EPA
computers at EPA time. Nothing is getting done. They are
struggling and you don't know where your money is being spent.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Meadows. The gentleman yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, I think most of us, at least on this side, realize
that there is more anger and resentment and disgust with the
Federal Government probably today than any time in our history
because almost every day people are reading stories or hearing
stories about tremendous, ridiculous waste, inefficiency, over-
regulation by the Federal Government. Also, I think they resent
the fact that almost nobody or very few in the bureaucracy have
ever spent any time running a small or medium-sized business,
and they have no idea or understanding of the pressures, how
hurtful it can be to have to lay off people during slow times,
and things of that nature.
But the disgust I think probably hit its height when they
heard and read about a high EPA up official receiving $900,000
over a several year period for doing no work and even taking
paid vacations on the taxpayer dollar; and I want to get back
into that in just a moment. We were given background material
that says before the President nominated McCarthy to head the
EPA, she served as assistant administrator of the Office of Air
and Radiation from 2009 to 2013. While McCarthy was aware of
Beale's frequent absences and lack of work product, she never
adjusted Beale's pay or discontinued the unauthorized retention
incentive bonuses which made Beale the highest paid employee in
OAR during her tenure.
And then it goes on, In fact, EPA officials wrote an entire
report entitled John Beale Pay Issues in July 2010, which
McCarthy was aware of by at least January 2011. Despite
recommendations to cancel Beale's bonuses, McCarthy halted the
internal revenue and permitted the unauthorized bonuses to
continue. Both McCarthy and Bob Perciasepe attended Brenner and
Beale's joint retirement cruise in 2011.
And now we hear Ms. McCarthy say that Mr. Beale received no
bonuses. But we have an email here, and I think they put up on
the board there, in which this was Ms. McCarthy's response to
an OAR official asking, ``Has Craig''--that is Craig Hooks--
``gotten back to you about the pay issue yet? I am eager to
move ahead with canceling the bonus.'' McCarthy replied, No, he
hasn't. It is now in his hands, as far as I am concerned,
showing, really, a hands off attitude about bonuses for this
man who did no work and who defrauded the taxpayers out of
$900,000. And the title of this hearing is Management Failures:
Oversight of the EPA.
And that, I think, shows why this hearing was necessary.
But I will tell you, Ms. McCarthy, as concerned as I am about
that, I am more concerned about something else. President Obama
said, a few years ago, he said, Under my plan of a cap and
trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,
regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad,
because I am capping greenhouse gases.
The problem with that is, and we don't have enough people
at the EPA because they have these high-paying jobs, they don't
understand that a lot of people in my district and around the
Country have trouble paying their utility bills And if we
triple or quadruple these utility bills, it is going to hurt a
lot of poor and lower income and working people; and I don't
think the people at the EPA keep that in mind and I don't think
they realize, too, that if you come out with more and more
regulations, it helps the big giants. It helps the big, big
companies, but it hurts the little guys.
Overregulation by the Federal Government, not only by the
EPA, but a lot of it by the EPA, a lot of it has run small and
medium-sized businesses out of business or forced them to merge
or forced them to go to other countries. We have sent millions
of good jobs to other countries. For the last 40 or 50 years,
we have ended up now with the highest paid waiters and
waitresses in the world, and a lot of it, in fact, I think the
majority of it is because of environmental overregulation and
red tape.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chair.
Ms. McCarthy. Might I clarify something?
Mr. Duncan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McCarthy. I just wanted to clarify that the bonus issue
I was answering I didn't realize that they were talking about a
retention bonus. And that bonus I did not give; it was actually
awarded earlier. It continued to be on the payroll. I sought
that to be off the payroll on numerous occasions. And that is
one of the issues we are trying to get compensation back.
Mr. Duncan. Well, you were the head of this OAR in 2009,
right?
Ms. McCarthy. I did, and I alerted----
Mr. Duncan. And 2010?
Ms. McCarthy. My understanding----
Mr. Duncan. And 2011.
Ms. McCarthy. My understanding at that point----
Mr. Duncan. And Mr. Beale was employed by that agency, the
highest paid employee of that agency----
Ms. McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Duncan.--during 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Ms. McCarthy. It was just my recollection that when I
brought this to his attention, he advised me not to take action
because he needed to communicate it to the Office of Inspector
General, and that I should not alert Mr. Beale to any potential
investigation. That is what that email reflected.
Mr. Duncan. If the chairman would allow me just one other
thing, though. I will tell you this. Johnny Pesky was a real
close friend of mine, and he has had me in the dugout at Fenway
Park.
Ms. McCarthy. Really?
Mr. Duncan. And I was glad a few times, and I am sure if
are a Red Sox fan you have heard of Johnny Pesky.
Ms. McCarthy. I sure have.
Mr. Duncan. He was a great man. You and I can at least
agree on that.
Ms. McCarthy. He is spoken in the same breath as Ted
Williams, and it is great. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. The gentleman from Tennessee's time has
expired.
The chair would recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming,
Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, and welcome, Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. We have been waiting, as I understand it, for
about seven months for a response about the scientific and
other bases for regulations that will increase energy costs on
low and middle income Americans, as well as the cost of doing
business, and will lead to some job losses, certainly; and I am
curious. You received a set of science committee questions for
the record, after you testified last November. When will you be
responding to those?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, if this has to do with House
Science and Technology, we did receive a subpoena. We did
respond to that and we believe that issue has been closed out.
Mrs. Lummis. And could you tell me when that was? Because I
am on the Science Committee, as well as this committee. These
were questions for the record submitted to you on December 17th
regarding the peer review process behind the new source
performance standard, the integrity of the EPA's ongoing
hydraulic fracturing study, revisions to ozone regulations, sue
and settle, lack of data transparency, and some other----
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, I didn't realize that you were
asking about questions for the record, which they are in the
process now. I will get back to you in terms of the timing on
responding to those.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. I apologize, I didn't realize what you were
referring to.
Mrs. Lummis. And I apologize, I am just sort of breezing in
from another committee.
Ms. McCarthy. That is okay.
Mrs. Lummis. These were given to you on December 17th of
2013 and were questions for the record. I am the Energy
Subcommittee chair----
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you. I will look into it and we will
get right back.
Mrs. Lummis. That would be great. Any chance we could hear
back by July 14th, about three weeks from now?
Ms. McCarthy. Let me see what the status is and we will get
back to you by the end of the day in terms of what we think our
timeline might be. I have certainly noted that you are
interested in having it by then.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very, very much.
Another question. Under the EPA's proposed rule to restrict
carbon emissions from existing power plants, does the cost per
kilowatt hour go up or down?
Ms. McCarthy. The cost per kilowatt hour by 2030 is
estimated to go up slightly in some areas.
Mrs. Lummis. Okay. And those areas are areas that are
currently----
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, it depends. What we do is we look
at what kind of response we anticipate States to take, but one
of the issues that we are looking at, and clearly reliability
and affordability of the energy supply is one reason why we did
this as flexibly as possible with individual State standards
and individual plans, was to hear back during the comment
period on what States thought was their path forward so we
could do a good job on the final in estimating those costs.
Mrs. Lummis. Now, is it true that in order to make the
claim that the rule lowers energy cost, the EPA has to rely on
an assumption that, overall, electricity consumption will be
reduced?
Ms. McCarthy. It is actually recognizing that over that
period of time the most cost-effective strategy to achieve the
reductions at these fossil fuel plants is to actually look at
demand reduction; and that provides an opportunity not just for
reduced carbon, but also continued opportunity for economic
growth. This is not a cap program; this is an intensity goal.
So it doesn't limit the ability to grow economically; it looks
at how you produce energy in a way that says low carbon, less
waste, better use of low carbon sources.
Mrs. Lummis. So in order to say that the rule lowers energy
costs, you have to assume that consumers will be paying more
for electricity per kilowatt hour, but using less power
overall, is that true?
Ms. McCarthy. We don't have to make those assumptions. We
are recognizing that there will be some fluctuation in cost; it
will be fairly minor over time. But we also recognize that this
concern about affordability, and if you balance the way in
which States have to achieve these standards, they could do it
in a way that actually lowered bills for people and consumers
in the end of this process.
Mrs. Lummis. Well, I am terribly concerned about how this
rule is going to affect consumers in Wyoming. There are so many
middle and lower income people just trying to make ends meet,
and when the cost of electricity goes up over our current coal-
fired power plants, most of which are fully depreciated and are
being retired prior to the end of their useful life.
For example, because of these rules, the Neal Simpson Plant
in Campbell County, Wyoming, its Unit 1 was recently retired
fully 10 years before its useful life had expired. And had it
been able to carry on for the entirety of its useful life, the
consumers in Wyoming would have been able to enjoy lower
utility rates. Now it will be replaced by a higher cost brand
new plant and, hence, my concern about the average American
consumer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I apologize for
running over.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
The chair recognizes himself to ask a few questions, Ms.
McCarthy.
As I stated earlier, I could go on and on CTS and we would
be here long after. It has been a long morning, so I am going
to abbreviate some of those. Dot Rice and CTS have become a
household name over the last 13 or 14 months for me. It didn't
start on your watch, it didn't start on my watch, but it will
finish on our watch; and I need your assurances that not only
will we do additional testing, but that we will get the site
cleaned up. Can I have your assurances of that today?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, that will be our shared goal, sir.
Mr. Meadows. I know that is your goal, but it has been your
goal for 25 years that it would be cleaned up, and nothing has
started. Do we have your assurances that it will get cleaned
up?
Ms. McCarthy. I can't give you a timeline for that, sir. It
would be something totally out of my control.
Mr. Meadows. So let me ask you what is a reasonable amount
of time? Knowing that the public health is your central focus.
Ms. McCarthy. It is.
Mr. Meadows. And this has been 25 years contaminating the
groundwater and air of people that I represent. How long does
it take to come up with an action plan?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know in this instance. I understand
it is complicated, but I also understand your frustration. Why
don't we just get together and figure out how you can be
confident that we are moving with as much speed and as
diligently as we can?
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Ms. Rice has given me 10 questions that
I need answered. If I submit those to you, can you have those
back to this committee within the next 30 days?
Ms. McCarthy. I will do the very best I can.
Mr. Meadows. So let me go on a little bit further. Today we
have talked about the EPA mission and how important it is. So
let's look at Superfund sites. There are currently 1,164 sites
on the Superfund priority list. Eighty-one percent of those
have been there over 20 years. Eight-one percent of them. So we
have been dealing with most of those sites for over 20 years.
If the EPA is very effective of cleaning up what we know are a
priority because it is a priority list, and it is toxic, many
of them toxic, is it not hypocritical that we continue to pass
new rules trying to do something and clean up the air and water
when we have known areas that we are not cleaning up? What is
the issue?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think we try to address the
priorities as they come up. I don't want folks to think that
Superfund sites have made no progress that have been in the
system for a long time.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I have the records. Three hundred sixty-
three of them have come off of the list out of 1527.
Ms. McCarthy. Right. That is a complete cleanup.
Mr. Meadows. So that is a batting average of 237. Even the
Boston Red Sox wouldn't trade a draft pick for that.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, one of the challenges we face is to
make sure that we take care of the immediate impacts on public
health. One of the first things----
Mr. Meadows. But you haven't done that in my district.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we need to talk about that. But one of
the first things we do at these Superfund sites is to ensure
that they are not continuing to pose a health threat----
Mr. Meadows. But you didn't do that in my district.
Ms. McCarthy.--while we work long-term to clean it up.
Mr. Meadows. You know. You have been briefed on mine
because they have told me in Region 4 they briefed you before
you were coming here today.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, they sent me a couple pages, yes.
Mr. Meadows. You know that that didn't happen, is that
correct?
Ms. McCarthy. I know that there has been some immediate
effort to take care of some vapor intrusion issues, and I think
that was a long process.
Mr. Meadows. Only in the last 60 days.
Ms. McCarthy. We will work together. I don't know what to
tell you.
Mr. Meadows. Do I have your commitment today that you will
work with me and keep my office informed before you inform the
WLOS or any of the others? Because I am learning about it from
the news media, and I have been working on this for 13 months.
Do I have your commitment today?
Ms. McCarthy. We will do our best job to have no surprises
for you, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Do I have your commitment, yes or no?
Ms. McCarthy. We will do the best job we can.
Mr. Meadows. Okay, so I would take that as a no.
Ms. McCarthy. No. In the issue that you are referring to,
it had to do with some private information----
Mr. Meadows. No it did not, Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. That was my understanding.
Mr. Meadows. I know that is what they are telling you. What
is private about the EPA going to do a test? It has nothing to
do with tax records; it has nothing to do with health. It has
to do with our actions. There is no constitutional right to
privacy for that, Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. We do everything we can to not surprise the
folks that represent the people----
Mr. Meadows. Well, I would disagree with you. So let me go
on a little bit further.
Ms. McCarthy. Let me tell you we will do better.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. I mean, I will work hard to do better. I
don't want surprises because I know this is an issue----
Mr. Meadows. Well, it will continue to come up until we get
it cleaned up.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So let me go back to the public mines
that Mr. Bentivolio brought up. He brought up this thing about
Pebble Mine in terms of--it sounds like we have another missing
hard drive, is that correct, Ms. McCarthy?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know whether that is the case.
Mr. Meadows. Does your counsel behind you? I think he is
shaking his head yes. Do we have a missing hard drive?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't believe this is a missing hard drive
issue. There is a challenge getting access to the data on it--
--
Mr. Meadows. So is it a crushed hard drive? What does your
counsel tell you? I mean, you brought your counsel here. I
assume he is here to tell you.
Ms. McCarthy. He just told me we are having trouble getting
the data off of it and we are trying other sources to actually
supplement that, but we are working through the issue.
Mr. Meadows. So do you believe you can get the data?
Ms. McCarthy. We are increasingly getting information in
different ways and we are taking a look at it.
Mr. Meadows. All right, so the Federal Records Act came up
yesterday in a hearing.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. I noticed it didn't get brought up today, but
it looks like the Federal Records Act has been violated by the
EPA. Did the gentleman that was involved from Alaska, did he
print out his emails?
Ms. McCarthy. That is not required, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Did he preserve his emails? That is required
by the Federal Records Act.
Ms. McCarthy. I can't know where the failure occurred. We
are talking about a series of emails where it is not one
particular incident, it is an individual that is located in the
Kenai Peninsula.
Mr. Meadows. So you are saying you can't collect stuff
because it is a long ways away?
Ms. McCarthy. No, no. I am just saying that we are
challenged in terms of trying to figure out where those small
failures might have occurred and what caused them to occur. But
we have produced a lot of information. These are pretty old
documents----
Mr. Meadows. I understand. I heard very similar testimony
yesterday that a lot of documents had been produced. You gave a
great answer to a question I didn't ask.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay, what is your question, then?
Mr. Meadows. My question is were all his emails preserved
according to the Federal Records Act? Were they all preserved
or was a law violated?
Ms. McCarthy. Originally you asked me if he preserved them.
That is what I was----
Mr. Meadows. Were they all preserved?
Ms. McCarthy. I think we have notified the appropriate
authorities that we may have some emails that we cannot produce
that we should have kept, and we have notified----
Mr. Meadows. So I am not aware that you----
Ms. McCarthy.--whether we can recover all these or not.
Mr. Meadows. So did you notify the National Archives?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, we did.
Mr. Meadows. When did you do that?
Ms. McCarthy. Yesterday.
Mr. Meadows. After the hearing.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it became clear that----
Mr. Meadows. So yesterday it became clear that you didn't
have emails?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, no. We informed the committee when
we identified this problem, and we kept them abreast; and I, in
the end, am not sure whether or not we won't recover all of it.
The question I understood you might ask was whether we have
already identified, and we did and we are where I think we need
to be, but I am still hoping that we recover all those emails.
And this is not a broad swath of emails over a series of years;
these are very selective failures that we haven't yet
understood why those records weren't kept, but it appears that
people did what they were supposed to do.
Mr. Meadows. Okay, so yesterday you informed the National
Archivist.
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Meadows. The Federal Records Act actually requires that
you would notify them at the time that you noticed that you had
a problem. So it was either that you violated the law or
yesterday you notified them because you saw it on a hearing and
you said, oops.
Ms. McCarthy. No, we notified them without telling them
that we have confirmed that there is a problem, but there is a
suspicion that we may not be able to locate all of them. And we
have properly identified that information.
Mr. Meadows. And that happened yesterday.
Ms. McCarthy. It did.
Mr. Meadows. Wow. Okay, let me go on a little bit further.
Really, as we start to look at this, you do know that the
IG has an investigation looking into all this.
Ms. McCarthy. I do, yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And do you also know that the
committee has been asking for over two years for these
documents?
Ms. McCarthy. Which?
Mr. Meadows. Many of the documents, requesting additional
during the subpoenas investigation during that.
Ms. McCarthy. We actually have complied with some earlier
request for information, and we continue to respond as the
committee looks for additional information.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Are you aware that with the EPA with
regards to a recommended 404 action, kind of the preemptive 404
veto, are you aware that there might have been some collusion
that was going on?
Ms. McCarthy. I am aware that people have expressed concern
about that and it has been referred to the inspector general
and he is looking into it.
Mr. Meadows. Does that concern you, that there might be
collusion?
Ms. McCarthy. I have seen no evidence of it so far, but
certainly----
Mr. Meadows. I didn't ask you that. I just said would it
concern you if there was collusion.
Ms. McCarthy. I am actually happy the inspector general is
looking at this, and I look forward to his report when it is
produced.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So if you have a crushed hard
drive, are you willing to produce that and give that to the
committee as well?
Ms. McCarthy. I will be happy to get back to you on that. I
just want to make sure that I have this right, because the
challenge we have been having is, again, that this is--we are
not sure where the failure came from and what it is attributed
to, but we will be happy to share whatever we have available to
the committee.
Mr. Meadows. All right, so it sounds like we just have a
whole lot of unknowns here as it relates to Pebble Mine, right?
I mean, with all of this going back and forth and
investigation, it sounds like there is just a whole lot of
uncertainty.
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, what you have expressed----
Mr. Meadows. Or are you certain what is going to happen?
Ms. McCarthy.--uncertainty about a fish biologist who
provided input into his expertise on Bristol Bay. I think the
thing I want to make sure that everybody understands was he is
not a decision maker in this process; he inputted into the
science assessment. That has been fully peer reviewed. We have
not made any decision on Bristol Bay; we have just taken a
first step, and it will be a fully engaged public process.
Mr. Meadows. But he could have been one of the ones that
colluded on this. In fact, there have been innuendos made that
he may very well have been the one.
Ms. McCarthy. Which is why it is important that the
inspector general conduct their investigation and that we be
mindful of the report and we take appropriate action.
Mr. Meadows. Well, in light of that, then, wouldn't you
think that it would be prudent to cease the 404(c) action at
this point, until we get all the facts?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, there is no----
Mr. Meadows. Are you willing to cease that 404(c) action
until we get the facts?
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir. I don't see any evidence that there
was collusion here. And I want to again point out that he is a
fish biologist, he is not a decision maker for the Agency.
Mr. Meadows. Well, but collusion by this biologist is still
collusion.
Ms. McCarthy. That decision is made on the basis of the
science.
Mr. Meadows. All right, so let me close with this. What
about the money that we are spending there on Pebble Mine? What
if we took that money and we brought it over and cleaned up the
CTS site? Don't you think that would be a great idea?
Ms. McCarthy. We all have our priorities, sir.
Mr. Meadows. And CTS is mine.
Ms. McCarthy. That has been made abundantly clear.
Mr. Meadows. I want to be sympathetic to Mr. Cummings, if
he has some additional questions he would like to ask.
Mr. Cummings. I promise you I won't take 12 minutes.
But let me say this, Ms. McCarthy, as I close, because I
have to get to a meeting. You have a tough job. You have a
tough job. And when you are trying to protect the health and
the safety of all Americans and keep the environment and the
water clean, you have a tough job. On the one hand we hear
folks say don't regulate us too much, but I keep thinking about
that situation in West Virginia with the water, and they had to
bring in bottled water. And I ask myself the question if that
happened in various districts throughout the Country, that
would be a major, major, major problem. So I just want to leave
you with two things.
One, I don't know if you heard my opening statement when I
said that this is our watch. And it is our watch to make sure
that we keep our environment clean, safe, all the things that
you try to do; our water; all the things you do, the mission of
the EPA. But at the same time, you know, sometimes if an
organization has problems within itself, it is kind of hard for
it to carry out its mission. When I hire people, I always check
with them to make sure they are not drama people, because a
drama person can mess up a whole office. And when you have a
drama person, it takes away from the ability to accomplish what
you set out to do.
At the same time, when we hear about situations like Beale,
it really just rubs everybody the wrong way. And the reason why
I had asked Chairman Issa to let me interject my questions
earlier, and I have been here for 99 percent of this hearing,
is because I wanted to make sure that you all, in this moment,
this is a critical moment, had gotten the wake-up call or calls
to take action to make sure that we did every single thing in
our power to make sure another Beale did not happen. And I
remember, as I was raising my kids, I used to tell them you are
going to be punished today because I realized that if I allow
this moment to come and you did something improper and I don't
correct it, it is usually going to get worse. And what I am
saying to you is those critical moments come along, and Beale
is the poster child for a critical moment. The question is
whether we will take that moment, learn from it, correct it,
and put in all the safeguards that are necessary so that it
does not happen again; but, just as significantly, so that it
doesn't get worse.
So while it is our watch, it is our watch to guard our
environment, to take care of our water, to do all those things
to keep our people safe, but it is also our watch to make,to
help the Agency be the very, very, very best that it can be.
The other thing that happens is this: that takes away from
that is when we have hearings and legitimate questions, but the
time that we spend dealing with those kinds of issues also
takes away. But we have to do that. You understand that. This
is not personal. We have to look into the Beales. We have to do
those things. You have to ask the critical questions like the
chairman was just asking. But we have to also make sure that we
do all that we can to minimize the problems within so that we
can address the problems that we are supposed to be addressing.
Does that make sense?
Ms. McCarthy. Everything you say is absolutely on target,
and I want to just verify that I understand the importance of
this committee and the work that you do. I understand the
importance of the Office of Inspector General at EPA. We have
challenges to keep up with modern times in terms of our systems
of accountability. We are working through those.
I was handed a John Beale when I got in there. While I
would have loved to have corrected that situation and known
right out of the gate. He is sitting in a jail right now; we
got money back and I am getting more. I had a town hall just in
May on this very issue. Two reasons: one is to enforce
accountability in our Agency, but, secondly, to let my Agency
know that I know what we are dealing with here is out of 16,000
people I am dealing with a handful; and I cannot let that
handful of people destroy the morale of my Agency and our
ability to get done what the public expects us to do. I am
surrounded by incredibly dedicated, talented people, and I want
them to be rewarded for what they do and know that when there
is a bad apple there it is coming out. I am finding it and it
is coming out as quickly as I can get it.
Mr. Cummings. And as I close, in your town hall meeting I
hope that you addressed the issue of whistleblowing, because I
think that is the way we can get to some of this. Somebody has
to know something. So I think that is important.
But the last thing you said, and I have to end on this, is
a lot of times we criticize Federal employees, but I have often
said that when I talk to Federal employees, particularly I have
talked to people in your Agency and others, and a lot of these
folks, most of them, as a matter of fact, they come in and they
do these jobs. They could make a lot more money outside of
Government, but they come because it feeds their souls, because
they see something greater than them. And I see that over and
over again with EPA employees. So I just want to--and others.
But we are talking about your Agency today. And I want to thank
them because a lot of them have sacrificed a lot because they
know that it is our watch and they are good watch persons
trying to make a difference for the future.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you. And it is an honor for me to
represent them.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Administrator, by our standards, you have done well, and
quickly. As we bring it to a close for today, we began with the
question of the outstanding subpoena. Clearly, I hope that over
the next few days that our folks and your folks can resolve
this with all the emails being known and understood. If we
can't, we have already had that discussion. But I hope that we
can. I am sure that when you mentioned in your dialogue at the
opening, that you talked about the balance of power, that you
appreciate that we too have an obligation, as Article I, to do
that balance fully and freely; that the documents we are asking
for a court under FOIA would undoubtedly order. And that is
really what we are asking for, is to be as never less than a
FOIA discovery would arrive at, and this committee has a recent
history in the case of Benghazi investigation of knowing that
in fact correspondence from the White House is often protected,
shielded, and not disclosed to the committee, but ultimately a
Federal judge seems to be respected.
As I look at Article I, Article II, and Article III, and I
have just been over in my other role at Judiciary, I realize
that Article I and II need to resolve as many things as they
can before we go to Article III, before we go to the courts.
That is my goal; that is the reason that I would like to have
you seriously relook at the issue of all of the documents, not
just one, since that document, I think if you relook at it, you
will realize if you have a suspicious nature, as my
investigators are required to, they could say it asks more
questions than it answers and it leads to their wanting to see
more for that reason. So I hope we are able to do this.
Obviously, we are still trying to get the Pebble Mine
question of the documentation, the order, and individuals who
are not available to us resolved, and we will continue to do
that with other committees.
Lastly, the committee has begun doing interrogatories,
whenever possible, in order to not need to bring witnesses
back. This allows you to use a vast portion of your staff to
get us answers to questions. There were a number of questions
asked today that, by nature, you can't fully answer, so what we
will do is we are going to recess. We will present you
interrogatories that are consistent either with the discovery
questions that we mentioned, and call them just questions to
EPA, they are either related to today's hearing or they are
related to the outstanding subpoenas, and we would ask that you
respond to them in a timely fashion. Then, once they are
responded to, we will close the record on this.
So we will stand in recess on this hearing pending the
response to all of those. And again I want to thank you for
your presence.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you very much for the hearing and the
courteous way in which you have run it, and we certainly hope
we can resolve these issues together. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. I do too. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the committee was recessed.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9897.062