[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REGULATORY REFORM TASK FORCE CHECK IN PART III
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
November 29, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
29-503 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Blake Farenthold, Texas Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Ron DeSantis, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Mark Walker, North Carolina Val Butler Demings, Florida
Rod Blum, Iowa Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Peter Welch, Vermont
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Will Hurd, Texas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Jimmy Gomez, California
James Comer, Kentucky
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
Robert Borden, Deputy Staff Director
William McKenna General Counsel
Christen Harsha, Counsel
Kiley Bidelman, Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy and Environment
Blake Farenthold, Texas, Chairman
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Dennis Ross, Florida Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Jimmy Gomez, California
James Comer, Kentucky (Vacancy)
Greg Gianforte, Montana
------
Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs
Gary Palmer, Alabama, Chairman
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Vice Val Butler Demings, Florida,
Chair Ranking Minority Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Mark DeSaulnier, California
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Mark Walker, North Carolina (Vacancy)
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 29, 2017................................ 1
WITNESSES
The Honorable David Bernhardt, Deputy Secretary, Department of
the Interior
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 9
Ms. Brittany Bolen, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of
Policy, Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Mr. Daniel Simmons, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
APPENDIX
Report titled, ``Alabama's Environment 2014: Six Critical
Indicators,'' submitted by Rep. Palmer......................... 42
Dr. Cliff Mass' blog submitted by Rep. Palmer.................... 43
Follow up responses from Department of Energy to in-hearing
questions...................................................... 44
Questions for the Record for The Honorable David Bernhardt,
submitted by Rep. DeSaulnier................................... 48
Questions for the Record for Ms. Brittany Bolen, submitted by
Rep. Demings 51
REGULATORY REFORM TASK FORCE CHECK-IN PART III
----------
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and
Environment, joint with the Subcommittee on
Intergovernmental Affairs,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold
[chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and
Environment] presiding.
Present from Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and
Environment: Representatives Farenthold, Palmer, Gianforte,
Plaskett, and Raskin.
Present from Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs:
Representatives Palmer, Grothman, Duncan, Massie, Walker,
Demings, DeSaulnier, and Clay.
Mr. Farenthold. The Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy,
and the Environment and the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental
Affairs will now come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
I would now like to recognize myself for five minutes for
an opening statement.
Good morning. Today, we are going to continue our hearing
series on the work of agency Regulatory Reform Task Forces, and
we welcome representatives from the Department of the Interior,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of
Energy, to provide us with an update on their rollback of
excessive, duplicative, and outdated regulations.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump issued Executive
Orders 13771 and 13777 as part of a push to reduce the burdens
that Federal regulators impose upon Americans. These executive
orders required Federal agencies to repeal two regulations for
every one new regulation they would like to impose. To help
meet this requirement, the orders directed Federal agencies to
establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review regulations
and identify the ones that are unnecessary, impose excessive
costs, or limit job growth.
Over the last two months, the committee has heard from a
number of agencies about the progress they have made on
implementing these executive orders and their unprecedented
efforts to take a fresh look at how our government regulates.
My colleagues and I have been encouraged by what we have heard.
For example, the Department of Education's task force uncovered
a whopping 1,772 guidance documents, 600 of which were out of
date or were interpreting laws that were no longer in effect.
The Department of Agriculture reported that during its first
round of review, its task force, composed almost entirely of
career staff, identified over 275 regulatory and administrative
recommendations to increase agency efficiency and reduce
duplication.
Agencies also testified how they have been able to reduce
the cost and the burden of their regulations while not
compromising important health and safety considerations. For
example, the folks at the Department of Health and Human
Services testified that they are fulfilling their mission to
remove burdens on patient-provider relationships. HHS personnel
are also reassessing healthcare quality measures to ensure a
focus on safety.
The Department of Transportation representatives testified
that, as a result of their review, DOT is reducing unnecessary
regulatory burdens and barriers to new technologies, and saving
the American public significant time and money, while actually
improving the safety and benefits of its regulations.
This check on the massive regulatory state is long overdue.
Our hardworking American taxpayers, landowners, small
businesses, and individual consumers are counting on these
agencies to get it right. As such, I am confident my colleagues
will respect the value of these agencies' efforts and our
witnesses' time, and please remain focused on helping the
committee evaluate the work of these task forces.
To our witnesses today, I look forward to hearing about
what your task forces have accomplished and how your work will
encourage a more productive relationship with the regulated
community, facilitate safe utilization of our resources, and
incorporate the voices of our States, localities, and tribes,
and most importantly, save the American people time, money, and
frustration, which concludes my opening remarks.
Mr. Farenthold. I will now recognize the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, Mrs. Demings,
for five minutes for her opening statement.
Mrs. Demings. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman
Farenthold--and I also want to recognize Chairman Palmer--for
convening this hearing today. I would also like to thank
Ranking Member Plaskett, who has joined us this morning, and
thank you to all of the witnesses for being with us.
This is the third hearing our subcommittees have had on
Regulatory Reform Task Forces, and I am pleased we have had an
opportunity to review the actions of three agencies which play
an important role in ensuring clean water and air, promoting
renewable energy, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
However, it is unfortunate that the agencies here today,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior
and Energy seem to be backing away from these responsibilities.
I think it is important for us, Members of Congress, agency
officials, and the public at large to remember the conditions
that led a Republican President to create some of the very
agencies before us today in the first place.
There are stories from across the country--I know you know
them well--of smog so thick the morning sun could not be seen
and rivers that change colors depending on the dye used that
day. Outside Tampa--I'm from Florida--Lake Thonotosassa had the
largest fish kill in history, 26 million, because it was so
polluted by discharges from four food processing plants. In my
district, just a mile from the town of Zellwood, a 57-acre
parcel of wetlands was used from 1963 to 1980 for a drum
recycling company to store a deadly mixture of chemicals just a
short walk away from communities that developed after World War
II. The contamination is still being modified and remediated by
Federal, State, and local agencies.
Just as the men and women who served before us understood
the importance of safe, clean water, air, and safe land, we,
too, must see the risk to future generations from climate
change and act now to avert catastrophe. Unfortunately, I fear
that recent administration actions indicate an abdication of
these responsibility.
EPA, for example, has proposed repealing the Clean Power
Plan, which provides States flexibility to limit carbon dioxide
emissions. Without the Clean Power Plan, the United States will
continue to release unsustainable levels of carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere. Not only will repealing the Clean Power Plan
negatively impact climate change, repealing it without
replacing it with another plan to limit carbon dioxide will
leave EPA in violation of the Clean Air Act.
EPA is not alone in proposing rulemaking that will
negatively impact climate change. The Department of Energy has
called a so-called grid resiliency pricing rule, ostensibly to
ensure that the power grid is resilient enough to meet demand
that any disasters might befall it. The rule is in fact a
giveaway to fossil-fuel-based power plants. By providing aid to
power plants that maintain a 90-day onsite fuel supply, the
proposed rule would grant a ratepayer subsidy to power plants
which are not sustainable.
The Department of Energy similarly has proposed climate
change-impacting rules. The Bureau of Land Management within
Interior has proposed delaying the Obama administration's
methane waste rules. The rules require oil and gas companies to
submit plans to cut waste, measure and report gas flared from
wells, and dispose of gas that reaches the surface during
drilling. Not only is this prudent management of our public
lands, America should get our money's worth from the natural
resources below ground, and we should ensure that nature is not
left spoiled from drilling, but it also impacts climate change.
The outcomes of the administration's actions are apparent
and real, no matter how great some wish to deny their cause.
Indeed, in Florida we have seen sea levels increasing so steep
that coastal communities like Miami Beach are investing
billions to stay above water.
I am, however, grateful to the chairman for calling this
hearing so we can further investigate the reasons behind
administrative actions and the policy goals they serve and
provide comment and insight on how agencies can more
effectively serve the American people.
I do look forward to the discussion, and thank you so much,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
I will now recognize the chairman of the Intergovernmental
Affairs Subcommittee, Mr. Palmer, for five minutes for his
opening statement.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman and the ranking members
for the subcommittees for participating in this hearing, and I
thank the witnesses for being here.
This Administration has seized upon a real opportunity to
undo much of the damage our government has created through
years of overregulation. Many of us have seen firsthand the
consequences of excessive regulation by way of lost jobs and
strained economic conditions and stifled growth in our
districts and really in the entire American economy.
There has been a major decline in business startups. In
fact, the Gallop organization put out a report that said that
prior to 2008, there were 100,000 more businesses starting up
than were closing, but by 2014, there were 70,000 more
businesses closing than starting up. And this was a period of
unprecedented overregulation.
My subcommittee has heard countless stories from States,
local governments, and individuals about their inability to
make decisions that are most important to them simply because
their hands are tied by the cost or logjam or the uncertainty
created by inconsistent and often contradictory Federal
regulations. The issue has simply gotten out of hand. Even
agencies themselves have testified they were ``amazed'' at the
number of guidance documents, policy memos, and other
regulatory documents that they maintain once they began their
review.
As the chairman noted, it has been encouraging to hear from
agency representatives that they are working to end this
practice of overregulation and start repairing the relationship
that the government has with its people, beginning with the
elimination of obsolete and duplicative and contradictory
regulations.
It is my understanding that tomorrow the full committee
will be considering a bill by our colleague, Mark Meadows from
North Carolina, which seeks to codify the administration's
regulatory reform proposals. I look forward to that discussion.
I appreciate the input our agency witnesses have provided
in these hearings to show how these policies are yielding real
results for the public by reducing not only the number of
Federal regulations and guidance documents, but also the costs
and burdens that Americans face every day, which amount to
trillions of dollars every year. In fact, last year alone,
regulations cost the average household almost $15,000, which,
I'd like to point out, places a disproportionate burden on
lower-income households, similar to what I grew up in.
Agencies report that in just the first half of this year,
their task forces have identified and withdrawn thousands of
out-of-date, duplicative, burdensome, and costly regulations
and policy documents.
And I do want to comment--not to put any burden on our
witnesses--the enthusiasm with which the people have come in
and testified about what they are doing. This is not policy
work, we are not asking you to legislate, and we commend you
for what you are doing.
We have a remarkable opportunity here before us to
modernize and streamline the Federal Government's approach to
regulation. Mr. Jitinder Kohli, who led the United Kingdom's
one-in and two-out regulatory reform initiative, testified at
our first hearing that this is ``fundamentally about culture
change''--it really is--and ``changing the culture of
government.'' I couldn't agree more. Getting our government to
take a fresh look at look at how it operates and change its
behavior is obviously no small task.
And, again, I commend you for the enthusiasm with which you
have taken on this task because I really believe that you are
trying to do what is right for the American people, and I am
excited about what you are doing.
I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses today
on how their deregulatory efforts will have a lasting effect
and how we can all work together to make the most of your
progress and to do the most for the American people.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
I will now recognize the ranking member of the Interior,
Energy, and Environment Subcommittee, Ms. Plaskett, for five
minutes for her opening statement.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you all for being here this morning. Thank you, Chairman Palmer
and Ranking Member Demings as well for holding this very
important hearing.
At President's Trump's direction, political appointees at
Federal agencies are repealing regulations that protect the
health, environment, and pocketbooks of average Americans. And
worse, it would appear they're doing so under the cloak of
darkness. This lack of transparency is very troubling and is
depriving the American people of their right to participate in
the rulemaking process.
Let's take, for example, the Environmental Protection
Agency. Administrator Scott Pruitt is not fully disclosing
details about which protections he is planning to repeal and
who is being consulted in that decision-making. This is
especially concerning since it has been reported that members
of the task force have previously had ties to corporations and
corporate-sponsored organizations which have blocked efforts to
clean up our air and water. Knowing if this is true or not
would be very important to this body, as well as to the
American public.
At the Department of Interior and Department of Energy,
Secretary Ryan Zinke and Secretary Rick Perry respectively are
not fully open about membership on their task forces that
President Trump is using to dismantle lifesaving regulations.
Much is at stake. Americans just recently in Texas,
Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have all
recently endured three major hurricanes in succession, and
scientists unanimously believe that climate change contributed
to their severity of those hurricanes. Just 10 days before
Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, President Trump signed an executive
order revoking regulations that, quote, ``would have required
the Federal government to take into account the risk of
flooding and sea level rise as a result of climate change when
constructing new infrastructure and rebuilding after
disaster.'' My constituents, the people in Puerto Rico, Texas,
and Florida, and other areas which have suffered in the past
from devastating hurricanes and will unfortunately continue to
do so want our government to take into account climate change
when building infrastructure. This would just appear to be a
commonplace factor in the decision-making, and it will save
lives. But it would appear that President Trump is rolling back
this lifesaving protection and many others.
I look forward to hearing this morning from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and the
Department of Interior, and I hope they will be forthcoming
about what protections they are targeting for repeal, which
companies would benefit, what are the factual justifications
for doing so, how those task forces are composed because the
American people have a right to know what their government is
doing.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you.
At this point I am pleased to introduce our witnesses. From
the Department of Interior we have the Honorable David
Bernhardt, and he is the deputy secretary there at DOI. We have
Ms. Brittany Bolen. She is the deputy associate administrator
of the Office of Policy at the Environmental Protection Agency
and a former intern on this committee. She will get to
experience what it is like to be on the other side of the table
today. And we have Mr. Daniel Simmons, the principal deputy
assistant secretary of the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy at the Department Of Energy. Welcome to you
all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify. Would you please stand and raise your
right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Farenthold. Let the record reflect all witnesses
answered in the affirmative, and you all may be seated.
In order to allow time for discussion and questions, we are
going to ask that you each limit your testimony to around five
minutes. Your entire written statement will be made a part of
the record. As a reminder, the clock in front of you shows your
remaining time, and the light will turn yellow when you have 30
seconds left and red when your time is up. Please also remember
to turn on your microphones. We are budget-conscious here. We
didn't buy the most expensive microphones, so you actually do
need to bring them close to your mouth so we can all hear you
very well.
So we will start out with Mr. Bernhardt, you are recognized
for five minutes, sir.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF DAVID BERNHARDT
Mr. Bernhardt. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to
testify before you today regarding the Department of the
Interior's progress in implementing President Trump's
regulatory reform Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. I serve as
the Deputy Secretary to the Department of the Interior, and in
addition to my role as the Department's chief operating
officer, I also serve as Interior's regulatory reform officer.
At Interior, we are acutely aware that President Trump,
even as a candidate, clearly communicated a vision of
empowering the private sector, as well as State, local, and
tribal governments by unleashing American exceptionalism and
economic growth through reducing unnecessary and burdensome
regulation, while maintaining environmental protection and
public health. At Interior, we are also committed to ensuring
that the regulation that is necessary to advance our
conservation legacy remains in place.
If you were to go back and look at the President's
speeches, you would find that, during the campaign, he clearly
articulated that certain regulations related to the Department
of the Interior would be reviewed. In addition, as President,
he has followed through with this--with those statements with
clear direction in executive orders and presidential memoranda.
We intend to ensure that we fulfill his campaign commitments
and meet his direction to the extent the law provides us the
authority to do so.
In addition, we are leaning forward to ensure that we move
with due pace while meeting our legal requirements. You will
see this when you review the upcoming fall agenda. Frankly, our
measurable progress and pace to date benefited greatly from the
collaborative experience of working with Congress to enact
legislation under the Congressional Review Act. The
Congressional Review Act was applied to three Interior
rulemakings. Congress' decision to utilize the review act was
important. It avoided imposing needless burdens on the American
public, while also freeing up the administration's time to
address other important areas of focus.
At Interior, we administer the activities that take place
on 1/5 of all of the land of the United States, as well as the
intercontinental shelf, along with certain regulatory programs
Congress has entrusted to us that are not related to the lands
that we marriage--manage. We know that the substance, the
procedure, and the pace of our decision-making can have a
significant impact on a wide variety of activities. President
Trump has actively sought to establish an agenda focused on
economic growth. Executive Orders 13771 and 13777 are keystones
of his regulatory reform efforts.
The Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force was formed on
March 15, 2017. The task force meets monthly to evaluate
existing regulations and provide recommendations to the
Secretary regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of
such regulations. The task force focuses on regulations that
place unnecessary burdens on the economy or the American
people, that are outdated, ineffective, or unnecessary, are--or
are incompatible with the regulatory reform principles or
directions established in Orders 13771 and 13777.
To facilitate the task force activities, we have invited
public input to identify important areas of focus. We have
received comments from a wide range of individuals and
entities, including the environmental nonprofit community.
Since we published a Federal Register notice asking for--the
public for ideas to lessen the regulatory burdens, we have
received approximately 215 comments. In addition, we have
established a website to periodically provide information to
the public on regulatory reform and encourage the public to
share ideas on specific regulations that should be repealed,
updated, or otherwise improved.
So far, after a review of existing regulations planned for
publication, we have removed approximately 154 regulatory
actions from the spring agenda. This reduced our previous
inventory of 321 actions by almost half. Interior reported 13
deregulatory actions for fiscal year 2017 and 28 are planned
for 2018.
At the heart of our regulatory reform agenda lies the
President and Secretary's recognition that the Department of
the Interior has a responsibility to be a good neighbor to
those we serve. This responsibility includes creating and
implementing a regulatory framework that serves both our
conservation and our multiple-use missions. We have been and we
will continue to be relentless in our efforts to minimize
regulatory and permitting uncertainty, but we will do so while
maintaining our important environmental and safety standards.
I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Bernhardt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you.
Ms. Bolen, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRITTANY BOLEN
Ms. Bolen. Good morning, Chairmen Farenthold and Palmer,
Ranking Members Plaskett and Demings, and members of the
subcommittees. Thank you for holding this important hearing on
agency implementation of the President's executive orders on
regulatory reform. My name is Brittany Bolen, and I serve as
deputy associate administrator for policy at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. I also serve on the EPA's
Regulatory Reform Task Force. I'm grateful for the opportunity
to testify on the work of the task force under the leadership
of Administrator Scott Pruitt to engage in meaningful
regulatory reform that advances the Agency's core mission of
protecting human health and the environment.
EPA's regulatory reform efforts over the last year have
largely been driven by two executive orders, 13771 and 13777.
In implementing these executive orders, EPA has emphasized
three goals, which I would like to discuss today: transparency,
public participation, and progress.
First, EPA has enhanced the level of transparency for its
regulatory reform work. As a first step, Administrator Pruitt
issued an agency-wide memorandum listing the names of the task
force members and providing an open account of the specific
direction to the task force and EPA program offices to solicit
public input and the process for evaluating existing
regulations. Then, in April, EPA launched a new regulatory
reform webpage to provide the public comprehensive information
on the task force, these executive orders, and opportunities
for public input. The Agency has periodically updated this
website and is committed to continue to do so to keep the
public well-informed of our actions.
In regards to public participation, EPA has provided an
unprecedented level in its regulatory reform work. Beginning in
April, EPA offices invited more than 200,000 stakeholders to
participate in 11 public meetings and teleconferences on
regulatory reform. In order to provide an open and fair
opportunity for all members of the public to provide input, EPA
issued a Federal Register notice, opening a formal docket with
a 30-day public comment period. In those 30 days, the EPA
received a total of more than 460,000 public comments. While
many of these comments were form letters, over 63,000 were
unique individual comments which set an EPA record. These
comments range from a few pages dedicated to one rule to dozens
of pages providing detailed information regarding several
rules.
EPA is continuing to review and carefully analyze these
comments, and any specific regulations that the Agency may
review or may consider revising will indeed provide further
opportunity for public comment in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act.
Underpinning all of this work is a commitment to achieving
meaningful progress in air and water quality, land cleanup, and
safe chemicals, while meeting the executive order deliverables
to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American
people. In accordance with Executive Order 13771, in fiscal
year 2017 EPA rules imposed no new net costs, and we finalized
at least two deregulatory actions for each regulatory action.
EPA expects the same for fiscal year 2018, but further details
regarding specific regulatory and deregulatory plans for fiscal
year 2018 will be in the forthcoming unified agenda to be
published by the Office of Management and Budget. As EPA moves
forward with its regulatory reform efforts, the Agency will
continue to update the public and Congress with our progress.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on the work
of EPA's Regulatory Reform Task Force. I appreciate the time I
spent with bipartisan committee staff last month briefing them
on the task force's work, and I look forward to answering your
questions today.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Bolen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simmons, your five minutes starts now.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. SIMMONS
Mr. Simmons. Thank you. Chairmen Farenthold, Palmer,
Ranking Members Plaskett and Demings, and members of this--of
the--of both subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today and for your interest in regulatory reform at the
Department of Energy.
DOE is committed to reducing unnecessary, unreasonable,
duplicative, and outdated regulatory burdens on American
families and businesses. We are also committed to clean air,
clean water, and continuing to improve the environment.
Earlier this year, the President issued several executive
orders that have guided our regulatory reform efforts. The
President issued Executive Order 13771, reducing regulatory--
reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs; Executive
Order 13777, enforcing a regulatory reform agenda; and
Executive Order 13783, promoting energy independence and
economic growth.
Executive Order 13777 required the head of the--each head
of each agency to designate an agency official as its
regulatory reform officer and that a--the agency establish a
Regulatory Reform Task Force. Following the directions in these
orders, DOE formed a Regulatory Reform Task Force, and the DOE
chief of staff was designated as the regulatory reform officer.
The chief of staff delegated they regulatory reform officers to
me, the principal deputy assistant secretary in the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
To inform the work of the Regulatory Reform Task Force, DOE
published a request for information in the Federal Register on
May 30 seeking comment from the public on DOE's regulations.
DOE received 132 separate comments from businesses, trade
associations, advocacy groups, and other interested
stakeholders. DOE also established a dedicated email box,
[email protected], through which interested parties
can communicate their regulatory reform ideas to DOE on an
ongoing basis. In addition, upon request, DOE has met with
interested party seeking to provide comments on DOE's
regulatory reform activities, and we will continue to do so.
On October 24, Secretary Perry sent a report to the White
House detailing the task force's findings in response to
Executive Order 13783 on energy independence. That report was
also published online. DOE's task force made the following
recommendations: Number one, streamline LNG natural gas
exports. Several commenters encouraged DOE to export--expedite
the export of LNG. On September 1, DOE issued a proposed rule
to provide faster approvals of small-scale natural gas exports,
including LNG. The comment period for the proposed rule closed
on October 16. DOE is currently reviewing the comments and
plans to complete the rulemaking in the near future.
Number two, review our policies with regard to the national
labs. DOE is the steward of 17 national labs, and it is
critical that the important research and development work that
occurs at the national lab is less encumbered by bureaucracy
and that more of the money goes to the actual research and
development, to get to Congresswoman Demings' concerns about
the environment. And we have identified several areas for
reform that would permit the national laboratories to operate
more efficiently, focusing more time and resources on their
mission-critical work.
Number three, review DOE's implementation of the National
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. DOE received several comments
that called for streamlining and simplifying the agency's
regulations and internal operations related to NEPA. The goal
is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of DOE's
compliance with NEPA in reviewing and approving permits.
And, number four, review DOE's appliance standards program.
As required by statute, DOE implements minimum energy
conservation standards and separate test procedures for more
than 60 categories of appliances. The majority of the comments
received from the public both in the request for information
and in meetings concerned, number one, existing DOE energy
conservation standards and test procedures; and two, the
procedures DOE follows in issuing those regulations. Many
commenters asked DOE to follow and review the so-called process
rule. The process rule is a rule that describes the procedures,
interpretations, and policies that guide DOE in establishing
new or revised energy efficiency standards for consumer
products.
DOE will also consider voluntary nonregulatory and market-
based alternatives to standard-setting when supported by
statute. To this end, yesterday, DOE published in the Federal
Register a request for information seeking comment on potential
market-based approaches such as those used to set average fuel
economy standards for vehicles. Such approaches may reduce
compliance costs and increase consumer choice while preserving
or enhancing appliance efficiency.
DOE will continue to work with the public on the regulatory
reform process as we will work to achieve the President's goal
of reducing burdens on Americans, families, and businesses at
the same time we work to continue to protect the environment.
As DOE identifies additional areas for reform, the Department
will provide more opportunities for public participation
consistent with DOE's commitment to an open, transparent, and
accountable rulemaking process.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today to
explain DOE's efforts to achieve meaningful regulatory reform.
I look forward to answering any questions. Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Simmons.
It is my normal policy to save my questions for last.
Unfortunately, today, simultaneously with this hearing there is
a Judiciary Committee markup, so at some point I may need to
leave for a short period of time to vote, so I'm going to go
ahead and ask my questions first in the event I do have to move
over to the Judiciary Committee for a couple minutes. So I now
recognize myself for five minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. You usually play cleanup.
Mr. Farenthold. I usually bat cleanup, I do. I may have to
do a second round of questions if we have to clean up.
All right. Mr. Simmons, in Secretary Perry's October 25
report on regulatory reform under the heading of ``Streamlining
Natural Gas Exports,'' and you have talked a little bit about
you all working on that, the DOE must conduct a public-interest
review I think is what it's called. Can you tell me the basis
for this statement?
Mr. Simmons. I cannot. I will happily get with the Office
of Fossil Energy ----
Mr. Farenthold. All right. Well, here is where I am going
on this. As I read the Natural Gas Act, section 3A, the
Department must issue an approval on application unless it
affirmatively finds, based on evidence in the record, that
exportation will not be consistent with the public interest. So
what that means to me is unless evidence in the record shows
the export is not in the public interest, the approval should
be granted. Unfortunately, through the previous
administration--the previous administration insisted on a
public-interest review as a reason to delay projects I think.
Since it isn't required or authorized by the act, shouldn't we
get rid of this concept and apply the law as it is written?
Mr. Simmons. We are--at DOE we are always in favor of
applying the law so ----
Mr. Farenthold. All right. Well, we have companies in Texas
whose export authorizations have been delayed for years by what
I consider to be this unauthorized and illegal policy. I do ask
that you take it back to Secretary Perry and the folks at the
DOE to consider modifying the report to make it consistent with
the law, and rather than doing a public-interest review,
granting it unless the record or information positively shows
that it is not in the public interest.
This committee, the full committee a couple years ago held
a field hearing in Fargo on the oil and gas industry and
Federal regulations affecting it. Some of the testimony at that
hearing indicated that in a horizontal well drilling-- that is
where they go down a mile or two and then they take a turn and
go out a mile or two, that they could get a permit from the
State in a month, maybe two. But if any part of that horizontal
drilling went under any Federal property, whether that is a
Federal highway or something, it could take the permitting
process over a year. Has the Department of the Interior looked
at this and other examples of the amount of time it takes to
comply with regulations, as well as just whether the
regulations are burdensome or unnecessary, Mr. Bernhardt?
Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We are looking at
things from the following perspective: what is in the law and
regulation, what is in guidance, and what are our actual
business practices in processing permits and NEPA documents,
for example. And what we find is that there is a great deal of
business process practices that probably can be reformed and
shortened significantly primarily through what is called the
surnaming process at the Department. People review--you know,
you may have 40, 50 people review a single document before it
goes to the Federal Register, and we're looking at that to make
that process a more streamlined and efficient process itself.
Mr. Farenthold. Mr. Simmons, is DOE looking at process,
too, to get the stuff out faster, whether it's these LNG
exports or other things you all are dealing with?
Mr. Simmons. Without a doubt, and that is--with LNG exports
in particular, we are very much concerned about streamlining
that process so it doesn't take years but, you know, takes a
more reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. And then let me--Ms. Bolen, I
don't want to ignore you, and I may get everybody else's input
on this as well. A lot of your agencies employ folks from the
private sector who have moved over into the industry. Some have
said that this may create a conflict of interest when somebody
who lobbied for or worked in the private sector affected by a
regulation is in reviewing that regulation. Other people say,
look, this provides valuable insight from stakeholders who are
affected by these regulations. I am going to ask Ms. Bolen to
start and the rest of the witnesses to just comment quickly on
whether you see a conflict of interest there or whether you see
value in having another perspective in their view of these
regulations. Ms. Bolen?
Ms. Bolen. Thank you. So just, first, I will say that all
appointees at the Agency do receive ethics training through
senior career ethics officers, and so I think that there would
not be any conflict of interest as it's my understanding that
they would be in compliance with their ethics obligations.
In regards to their experience, certainly, I think that the
Agency would have some value in getting the perspective of
those that have been on the ground and have been working on
implementing these regulations in real time.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. Mr. Simmons, do you have
anything to add?
Mr. Simmons. Just to add that the Department of Energy
takes our ethics--our ethical and our legal commitments very,
very seriously and that we strive to meet them as well and that
people--you know, one of the things that we hope to have is
people with a wide variety of backgrounds and experience to be
able to provide additional information into all the matters
that we consider.
Mr. Farenthold. Great. And, Mr. Bernhardt?
Mr. Bernhardt. It's an interesting question as I look up
and see the portraits of Abraham Lincoln, who was both a very
successful lawyer and one of our greatest Presidents.
The first thing I would say is that the Federal law and the
Trump Administration have laid out requirements for ethical
practices. We have a team of experts at the Department and a
variety of analysis take place about whether something is a
matter--a general matter, a particular matter of general
applicability, or a specific matter affecting--a particular
matter affecting specific parties. Depending on that type of
issue, there are different regulations that apply, and
guidelines need to be followed. Every PAS signs an ethical
document laying out their requirements, and so we take this
very seriously. We have training, we have guidance documents,
and we have experts to ensure that we are held accountable.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I see I went a little
over with the answers.
I will now recognize Ms. Plaskett.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much.
And let me start by saying that, Mr. Bernhardt, I see in
your written testimony you have as the mandate--one of your
mandates that President Trump has said that he has
``communicated a vision of empowering the private sector, as
well as State and local governments by unleashing American
exceptionalism and economic growth through reducing unnecessary
and burdensome regulations while maintaining environmental
protection and public health.'' I have no problem with that
statement, and I think the other members of this committee know
that I may be one of the few Democrats who believe that we have
maybe more regulations than are necessary. I have seen it in my
own home in the Virgin Islands. The previous head of EPA was
not really a friend of mine. I did not appreciate the
maternalistic posturing that took place over the people of the
Virgin Islands, who I believe knew better than she or the
administration what environmental protections needed or did not
need to be in place.
However, that does need to be done legally and with
transparency in that deregulation, and that is the concern that
I have a committee member here, that I am not sure about the
complete disclosure of the task forces that have been put in
place for many of these agencies that are reviewing
deregulation. I think that it is very important that the public
know who is on the task force, the perspectives and
backgrounds, while they may have followed conflicts, rules, and
ethics laws in being there. How they may be swayed or may be
influenced I think is very important for the public to be aware
of.
Ms. Bolen, the EPA put on its website on March 24 a memo
that, among other things, provides the names of members of the
Agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force. Why did the Agency
decide to put the names online?
Ms. Bolen. It was an agency-wide memorandum that the
administrator signed and part of just transparency, good
government, we posted it on our website to keep the public
informed.
Ms. Plaskett. And have you had any comments or thoughts
from the public with regard to who the members of the task
force are?
Ms. Bolen. There--I'm not aware of any direct questions
regarding the task force membership.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Thank you. Last week, the full
committee ranking member, Elijah Cummings, sent a letter to
both the Energy Department and the Interior Departments
requesting the names of the task force members. Mr. Bernhardt,
the Interior Department has not to date responded to Mr.
Cummings' inquiry, nor are the names of the task force members
available publicly. Why has the Interior taken the position
thus far, or do they intend to put the task force members'
names available to the public?
Mr. Bernhardt. It's--Representative, first, before I answer
that question, I just want to say my heart goes out to your
community. I was in the U.S. Virgin Islands two weeks ago
looking at a variety of facilities as they relate to the
Department of the Interior so ----
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. And the National Parks has been a
tremendous partner in that recovery. Many of the rangers acted
as first responders immediately after the hurricane and
particularly on the island of St. John really came to the
support of the people, and we are really grateful for that.
Mr. Bernhardt. I spent a lot of time with those folks a
couple weeks ago and also in terms of continuing rehab and
ensuring that we had some facilities open.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Mr. Bernhardt. So let me say this. It's my understanding
that we have made our--the names of the task force available. I
can't speak to the letter specifically, but I'm happy to
provide you the names, and I'm happy to do that right now to
the best of my recollection.
Ms. Plaskett. If you could put that in writing to us. And
you said you had made the names available. Where are they
available ----
Mr. Bernhardt. Well, I know that they've been made
available to people who've asked, reporters and others. I'm not
sure if they're online, but I know that the--from my
perspective, they're certainly publicly available ----
Ms. Plaskett. Is there a reason why the task force
composition is not online or available ----
Mr. Bernhardt. Well ----
Ms. Plaskett.--to the public?
Mr. Bernhardt. Probably not. I think from my perspective
the task force membership is likely to change as we get
assistant secretaries and others in place, and the Senate has
been relatively slow at providing those people. But we're
certainly happy to make it available, and I'll certainly
evaluate whether it ought to be on the web.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Thank you. And the Energy Department as
well, sir, Mr. Simmons, would you be able to provide those
names to Mr. Cummings and to the committee? And is there a
reason why those names are not public?
Mr. Simmons. I believe we've already done both ----
Ms. Plaskett. Okay.
Mr. Simmons.--as in we did have a phone call with committee
staff a couple days ago where we shared those names, number
one. Number two, I don't know if it's posted on our website,
but it has been the subject of FOIA, which I think was--has
been released publicly, but we will--we'll make sure those
names are public.
Ms. Plaskett. You will make sure?
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Ms. Plaskett. I don't know if you shared that with the full
committee staff or the majority, but just--and thank you very
much. I just think it is important that in the process of the
review that the task force is making not only that the names of
the members are there but the process in which regulations they
are reviewing are there for public comment as well. Thank you
so much.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Palmer
for his questions.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes I feel like
I am back on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee
again. My background, I worked for 25 years for a think tank. I
helped set a national network of State-based think tanks, but
prior to that, I worked for two international engineering
companies, one of which was in environmental systems, so I am
acutely aware of the regulatory burden imposed on the American
economy but also the importance of good regulations, sensible
regulations. We have done a tremendous job of cleaning up the
air and the water and the land in the United States.
When I was still with the think tank, we published an
annual--every two years, it may have been every four years-- a
report on the progress that has been made. And I, Mr. Chairman,
would like to enter the report into the record. It's entitled
``Alabama's Environment 2014: Six Critical Indicators.'' But it
has data from the EPA and Federal agencies that reflect the
progress for the entire country.
The thing that I want to point out ----
Mr. Farenthold. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--is that from 1980 to
2012 we saw a 462 percent increase in gross domestic product,
but during that same--we also saw a 93 percent increase in
vehicle miles traveled, a 38 percent increase in population
growth, 22 percent increase in energy consumption, but a 56
percent decrease in emissions. So I do commend the EPA and
other Federal agencies for the work that they have done in that
regard, but that doesn't mitigate at all the need to clean up
the regulatory environment so to speak, to get rid of the
obsolete, the out-of-date, the duplications, the contradictions
so that we regulate effectively and appropriately. So I
appreciate that.
There was also a comment made about climate change in
regard to hurricanes. We went through a 12-year drought of
hurricanes. It was the lowest number of--the lowest hurricane
activity on record until this past year.
And I would also like to enter into the record a blog from
Dr. Cliff Mass--he's University of Washington atmospheric
scientist--in regard to hurricane activity.
Mr. Farenthold. Without objection, it will be entered into
the record.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, sir.
With that said, again, as I said in my opening comments, I
am very appreciative of the work that you are doing. I realize
it is not policy work. It is more like an EPA cleanup effort.
Have you received any pushback, serious pushback from career
staff at your agencies? And we will begin with you, Mr.
Bernhardt, at Department of Interior.
Mr. Bernhardt. I think that I would say that our folks have
worked very ----
Mr. Palmer. Can you speak into the microphone? Thanks.
Mr. Bernhardt. Our folks have worked very collaboratively
with us, sir.
Mr. Palmer. How about you, Ms. Bolen?
Ms. Bolen. Career staff have provided valuable expertise
and collaboration with us throughout the regulatory reform
work, and I've not personally received any pushback.
Mr. Palmer. How about you, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. And I would also echo that, that the majority
of the members of the Regulatory Reform Task Force are career,
and they provide us with indispensable information as we move
forward with regulatory reform.
Mr. Palmer. Would you also say that, by going through this
process, that it makes the career staff, it makes all of you
more effective in carrying out the responsibilities that you
have in the regulatory sphere? And I will reverse order. I will
start with Mr. Simmons.
Mr. Simmons. Oh, without a doubt. The vast majority of the
work that the Regulatory Reform Task Force has been working on
is our relations with the national labs, the--you know,
Congress appropriates billions of dollars a year that go to the
national labs, and so we want to make sure that the--that that
process is as--you know, strip out as much bureaucracy as we
can, but also, the people that have to deal with that on a day-
to-day basis and will deal with it in 4 years and 8 years and
16 years, those are all career staff. So they very much want
the best process possible, and that's why--that their--
especially in that area that their input has been so valuable
to us.
Mr. Palmer. Ms. Bolen?
Ms. Bolen. Certainly. So at the EPA retrospective review of
existing regulations is not new. There was a prior effort under
the previous administration to conduct retrospective review,
and the EPA, some of our environmental statutes require
periodic reviews and potential revisions, so this is part of
what the agency does on a regular basis.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Bernhardt?
Mr. Bernhardt. I think since the establishment of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 ----
Mr. Palmer. Could you lean into the microphone?
Mr. Bernhardt.--the establishment of the SES Corps, they
are--they understand clearly that administrations come and
change policy perspectives and that that represents the will of
the people, and they're prepared to work with everybody. That's
generally my experience.
Mr. Palmer. Well, my final point on this--and I realize I
am over time, Mr. Chairman--is that the point of this exercise
is to bring clarity to the regulatory process, which not only
benefits the American economy and the American people, as I
said in my opening comments, it is costing the average
household $15,000 a year--it enables those who are responsible
for implementing the regulations not only at the Federal level
but at the State and local level to be able to do their job
effectively with the least negative impact on families and
businesses.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
I will now recognize Mrs. Demings from Florida for five
minutes.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much again, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you to our witnesses.
There is no doubt we want to get this right, and I am so
glad that we have spent quite a bit time talking about
transparency. It is important. The public's input, the public's
right to know is very, very critical to the overall process of
getting things right.
But it appears to me under the current administration
science-based policies are being repealed and replaced with
politics-based policies. We would hope that would not be the
case under any administration, but it certainly appears that
way to me.
Ms. Bolen, how many members of the Regulatory Reform Task
Force previously worked for companies regulated by the EPA?
Ms. Bolen. I do not have personal knowledge of the detailed
backgrounds of all the members of the Regulatory Reform Task
Force, though a majority were previous Capitol Hill staff.
Mrs. Demings. So you don't know of anyone who works for a
company or an agency that was regulated by the EPA that is
currently a member of the task force?
Ms. Bolen. To my knowledge, the members of the task force
had not been employed by any members of the regulated
community.
Mrs. Demings. Okay. How many political appointees appointed
by Administrator Pruitt specifically worked for oil or chemical
companies or their lobby groups? Do you know that answer?
Ms. Bolen. I do not have personal knowledge of all the
political appointees' backgrounds.
Mrs. Demings. Could you talk a little bit in general about
the backgrounds of persons that would be selected to serve on a
task force to decide which regulations will remain or which
regulations would be repealed?
Ms. Bolen. Um-hum. Certainly. The members of the task
force, I have full confidence in all of the qualifications of
the members of the task force, given their experience on
environmental and regulatory policy issues.
Mrs. Demings. But you don't know of one who worked for a
company or an organization that was regulated by the EPA?
Ms. Bolen. The EPA task force is comprised of four senior
staff members, and no, to my knowledge, none of the four has
specifically been employed directly by a company that the
Agency regulates.
Mrs. Demings. Do you know whether Administrator Pruitt
hired a former official with the American Petroleum Institute?
Ms. Bolen. I'm ----
Mrs. Demings. Erik Baptist?
Ms. Bolen. Yes, I'm familiar with Mr. Baptist.
Mrs. Demings. A former official with BP Troy Lyons?
Ms. Bolen. Yes.
Mrs. Demings. A former employee with Koch Companies,
Madeline Morris?
Ms. Bolen. Congresswoman, the members that you--the last
three that you just mentioned ----
Mrs. Demings. Is that ----
Ms. Bolen.--are not on the task force.
Mrs. Demings. Is Madeline Morris a member of the task
force?
Ms. Bolen. They are not members of the task force, no.
Mrs. Demings. What is their current position, please?
Ms. Bolen. Ms. Morris is no longer with the Agency.
Mrs. Demings. Okay. What was her position? Do you remember?
Ms. Bolen. To the best of my recollection it was executive
assistant. But, Congresswoman, I'm happy to follow up through
the proper channels with additional information that you have
regarding political appointees at the EPA.
Mrs. Demings. Okay. That would be great. And thank you so
much for taking the lead in your organization for making--in
your agency for making sure that task force members' names were
included up front on your website.
And with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I will now recognize
Mr. Duncan for five minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bernhardt, my understanding is is that you say your
department has taken 15 deregulatory actions and you have got
28 more under review or ----
Mr. Bernhardt. Yes, I think it's 13 and 28, but yes, you're
absolutely right.
Mr. Duncan. Okay. And would you give me an example of one
of those that you have taken action on?
Mr. Bernhardt. Sure. And it's--I think it's important to
recognize that taking action, particularly for Interior, the
President was very clear in his--in certain executive orders,
particularly those relating to energy, of some--of regulations
that he wanted us to look at. And so we did that. And, you
know, the process is not ultimately the task force's process.
It's the process enshrined in law to review and modify
regulations, which is through the Administrative Procedure Act.
And that process itself is a very public process, so, for
example, regulations related to hydraulic fracturing on Federal
land, regulations regarding methane, those would be two
specific ones where, after the task force reviewed them, they
went through a--they began going through a public process under
the Administrative Procedures Act.
Mr. Duncan. I have an article from one of the Washington
newspapers here from a few months ago, and it says that the
Obama administration issued final regulations in this last year
alone that cost $164 billion. Is it one of your goals in this
deregulatory effort to result in cost savings to taxpayers and
businesses?
Mr. Bernhardt. Right. So at least from our perspective, the
baseline is a zero increase on burden, and we're hoping to
actually have the economic burden be a net decrease, so that's
our ultimate goal.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Ms. Bolen, I heard you say that you
have gotten 460,000 comments and 63--but most of them have been
form letters, but 63,000 have been individual comments. Is that
correct?
Ms. Bolen. That is correct.
Mr. Duncan. And you are going through all those. Has the
EPA taken any deregulatory actions yet?
Ms. Bolen. Yes. We have several proposed deregulatory
actions.
Mr. Duncan. Several proposed?
Ms. Bolen. And we--and for fiscal year 2017 we were able to
finalize a number of deregulatory actions as well.
Mr. Duncan. All right. And would you give me an example of
one of those?
Ms. Bolen. Certain. So for proposed deregulatory actions,
we have a proposed repeal of the 2015 Waters of the United
States rule. In terms of a final deregulatory action, we
withdrew an information collection request for methane emission
information from the oil and gas sector in March, and that
information collection request is a deregulatory action under
Executive Order 13771. And that is--that information collection
request alone was estimated by the Agency to provide upwards of
over $30 million in cost savings.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simmons, what about your department? Have you taken any
deregulatory actions as of yet?
Mr. Simmons. We've--we have not--the only deregulatory
actions that we have finalized are not regulations per se, but
as our--as we work with the labs, we've taken some final
actions there. Otherwise, just yesterday, we published in the
Federal Register a request for information on market-based
reforms, as I mentioned in my testimony, to possible changes
that we could make to the Appliance Standards Program. That was
yesterday. Just today, this morning, we sent a request for
information about how we could improve the process rule, and
that should be published in the Federal Register in the next
couple days, as well as we have put out a proposed rule to
streamline small-scale natural gas exports, and we should be
finalizing that in, you know--in the not-too-distant future. I
don't know the timeline but in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much. I apologize. I
had to go briefly to another hearing. I didn't get to hear your
testimony, but, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
from California for five minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and
all those involved in this hearing. I wish this was purely
bipartisan. I know there to be some arguments, but I think
getting regulations for the general public right, and that
includes the business community.
So, Mr. Bernhardt, representing northern California and the
California Delta, you have had a long relationship in this
regard. For my colleagues, Mark Twain once famously said about
water in California, that whiskey was for drinking in
California, but water was for fighting over. So, Mr. Bernhardt,
this is in the context much like my friend and colleague from
Florida. The regulation is important, but who is enforcing it
is important, and whether there is a conflict of interest. So
you have been in the Department and the Bush administration.
You have been a lobbyist with clients who have an interest in
this field.
When you were confirmed, you, quote/unquote, said that you
``wouldn't act on any issues in regards to conflicts unless you
were first authorized to participate,'' quote/unquote. You have
had two former clients who have been in the news in California
who seem to have crossed that bridge at least from my
perspective. Caddis Inc. is now allowed to pump groundwater in
southern California since you rejoined this administration, and
that was a change in policy from the Obama administration. And
then Westlands Water District has been involved in a subsidy
that has been brought to us by the IG in the Delta tunnels
planning process.
So my question for you is have you sought or received any
waivers to work on these matters or any other matters when it
comes to California water?
Mr. Bernhardt. My ethics recusal is very clear that I will
not participate personally or substantially in any particular
matter involving specific parties in which I know a former
employer or client of mine is a party or represents a party.
Mr. DeSaulnier. So you're not involved right now in any
policy ----
Mr. Bernhardt. That is ----
Mr. DeSaulnier.--in this regard?
Mr. Bernhardt. I'm sorry. I did not hear you, but let me
finish ----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Okay.
Mr. Bernhardt.--addressing your first question. I've had no
role in any particular matter regarding either of these--any
particular matter involving specific parties involving either
of these two clients, and I've not sought a waiver in such
instance.
Mr. DeSaulnier. So just on the issue of perception,
perception being important, obviously, you have put some
thought into this. How would you deal with the general public
in California that would say here is somebody who has worked in
the administration who has gone outside the so-called revolving
door? It seems to me that you are trying to establish a bright
line, but perception-wise, you have made many outside that
might say you know more about it. But is this sufficient given
the role you have in people who are working underneath you or
carrying out this policy, knowing that you have had a
relationship and may in the future have a relationship with
these clients?
Mr. Bernhardt. Well, let's be very clear. I think I've put
in place the most robust process ever devised by a deputy
secretary, and let me tell you, we have specific recusals. We
require specific guidance. I have had training sessions, and I
consult regularly with the experts. Every request for a meeting
by me is run through--not by me but for a meeting with me is
run through ethics experts, so we have put in place a very
robust process. And, you know, I can't speak necessarily to
what others may say, but at the end of the day, I know that
this is a far more robust process than was ever in place when
other folks from large law firms have joined entities like the
Department of the Interior, and I will stand behind them.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Could you be more specific as to those
other situations?
Mr. Bernhardt. Sure. Go look at David Hayes, the deputy
secretary who came from Latham Watkins. Go look at Janice
Schneider. Those will be two from the prior administration. I
could give you a long list. And in regards to policy matters, I
think you'd find that their client list looked very similar to
mine before they went into the Department of the Interior.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And when the time comes for you to reenter
the private sector, is it your intention to go back to your
former law firm?
Mr. Bernhardt. I have no intention to do that. You know,
life leads the way it does, but certainly, when I left my law
firm, I gave up my interest, and I don't have a relationship
with my law firm in any sort of way. And the future will hold
what the future does.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Okay. I appreciate those comments. You can
certainly appreciate from my perspective and my constituents'
the perception that may be subjective, given their desire to
protect the environment, where they live, they are impacted
by--certainly the perception is different. With that, I ----
Mr. Bernhardt. And I also think that ----
Mr. DeSaulnier.--yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bernhardt.--part of that perception is based on people
not understanding the actual rules.
Mr. DeSaulnier. It is all based on perception. And with
that, I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. We will now recognize
the gentleman from Montana for five minutes.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the
committee, thank you for being here for this important work.
I appreciate the President's order to identify overly
burdensome, costly, and outdated regulations for repeal or
revision, as well as the administration's desire for two rules
to be repealed for every one that is added. One of the reasons
I came to Washington was to make it easier for job creators
back in Montana.
Mr. Bernhardt, you have a huge job covering all the
entities at Interior from the National Park Service, the Office
of Surface Mining and Reclamation, and the enforcement, and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Land Management
controls just over 8 million acres in the State of Montana. The
National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service each
control another 1 million acres, so over 10 million acres in
total. As part of this Regulatory Reform Act, how did you work
with local and State organizations to collect input on what
regulations to focus on? And if you could share some of the
successes you have had.
Mr. Bernhardt. So we've received comments from States.
We've received comments from associations like the Western
Governors' Association. We've received comments from
localities, some of which have very specific problems, and some
of which have more broader concerns. And what we do in our
meetings is we take the comments that we've received between
the last meeting and that one, and we go through them and we
say, ``Hey, this has merit; let's have the Bureau do some
research on that.'' And so that is the way--it's a very--it's a
process that anybody can take advantage of, and many have.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Great. And I just applaud you for that
work so far, and I encourage you to continue it.
We have heard some concerns at these hearings about
previous employment of staff assisting with this regulatory
reform across the agencies. As a business guy, it is kind of
puzzling to me why an agency assembling staff would not
consider people with prior experience in the area they are
going to be working. That seems to be portrayed as some kind of
novel approach. In fact, it has been a practice that has been
followed in prior administrations.
For example, when not serving as the EPA's senior policy
advisor to the administrator under President Obama or deputy
administrator for President Clinton's administration, Bob
Sussman headed the environmental practice at a large D.C. law
firm to advise and advocate for companies and trade
associations.
In the previous administration, Cameron Davis, a senior
advisor to the EPA administrator, provided counsel on the Great
Lakes policy and coordinated funding initiatives. His previous
occupation was president and chief executive officer of the
Alliance for the Great Lakes.
David McIntosh at the previous administration's EPA had
also worked as a Clean Air Act litigator and regulatory lawyer
at the National Resources Defense Council. In fact, that
organization is well represented in that administration.
The Department of Interior's Ned Farquhar served as the
National Resources Defense Council as an energy and climate
advocate prior to being named deputy assistant secretary for
Lands and Minerals Management.
Before Janice Schneider appeared before this very committee
on behalf of the Department of Interior to defend its proposed
Stream Protection Rule in 2015, she co-chaired a large law
firm's energy and infrastructure project siting and defense
practice.
Also, in 2015, Mark McCall was appointed executive director
of the Department of Energy's Loans Program. And this list goes
on and on. Clearly, agencies have considered prior experience
and hired people with expertise.
So my question, after that long list of prior
administrations, is it appropriate for agencies to select
people who have experience to do the jobs they are being hired
for? And each one of you, if you could answer.
Mr. Bernhardt. Absolutely, provided they follow the
regulations and the ethical requirements that have been
established by law.
Mr. Gianforte. Ms. Bolen?
Ms. Bolen. I agree with that statement.
Mr. Gianforte. And Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. Agreed. Prior experience is incredibly
important, as Mr. Bernhardt said, as long as we meet our
ethical, legal--and legal obligations.
Mr. Gianforte. And I would just--you have been very clear
that that was a requirement in all cases, that, as you had
said, Mr. Bernhardt, you had separated yourself, as we do in
our positions, from prior engagements so that we can serve the
people of America. And you have done that in your agencies, and
I applaud you for hiring talented, qualified people to fill
these positions. And I thank you for your testimony today.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. And I would like to
thank our witnesses for appearing before us today.
Oh, did we miss Mr. Grothman? Sorry about that.
Mr. Grothman. That is okay.
Mr. Farenthold. You disappeared, and you are back. Welcome
back.
Mr. Grothman. I was hanging out in the Education Committee,
but I wouldn't miss this for the world.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. I apologize. You're recognized
for five minutes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I want to follow up a little bit again
as far as the background of people you hire, and a lot of my
experience actually came at the State level, but I always felt
it was a big mistake to hire people in regulatory agencies
straight out of college or academics because they really didn't
understand how burdensome those regulations are. Are any of you
and your agencies hiring people straight out of university or
people whose only experience has been in the world of academia,
or are you restricting yourselves hopefully to people who have
experience with the businesses that are going to be regulated?
Mr. Simmons. I--well, I'll start by answering that. For the
broad swath of hiring across DOE, we--you know, we meet our
human capital requirements and, you know, we look to hire the
best people for the appropriate job. For these entry-level
positions, we definitely would like to have people right out of
college because, I mean, that's what those positions are, to
give people experience. For more senior-level positions, you
definitely want people with various types of experience to
provide that necessary information. So it all depends on the
position for the--for hiring.
Mr. Grothman. Yes?
Ms. Bolen. So certainly, the Agency does have fellowship
programs with recent graduates, but just generally speaking,
the--I'm aware that the political staff I think has a broad
scope in their background and qualifications and levels of
expertise that they can offer, but I couldn't speak to the
Agency as a whole's hiring practices.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
Mr. Bernhardt. We have approximately 70,000 employees. We
hire all sorts of folks. Obviously, at a policy level, at a
senior level, what we see in folks tend to be people that have
experience in State or local government, people that have
experience in regulatory paradigms that are complicated, or
people that have science backgrounds that are relevant to their
mission.
Mr. Grothman. I am a little bit concerned, and I would like
you to comment on this because, having dealt with regulatory
agencies, sometimes somebody who has never worked outside of
government--and that is fine--but they don't understand how
burdensome a new regulation can be or, you know, you may change
a regulation from three years ago you thought you were
complying, now you are not, that sort of thing.
I am a little bit concerned with--you know, and I realize
not your entire functions are regulatory. You know, I mean, if
you are hiring somebody for the parks or something, that is one
thing, but if it is a regulatory agency that affects how
somebody else is doing business or their property, I think it
is important to hire somebody who has been on the other side
first.
And I wondered if you would ever consider, you know, maybe
putting an administrative rule, putting in requirements that
people who work for the regulatory part of your agencies have
to have three or four years' experience first so they
understand how it looks when a new wave of paperwork is thrown
at you or you have to spend perhaps millions of dollars on
something when two years ago you were in compliance. Would any
of you comment on maybe if you would ever even have the ability
to maybe put some administrative rule in effect so you greatly
increase the chance that you will be hiring people who have
experience other than just college-related ----
Mr. Bernhardt. So ----
Mr. Grothman.--if they are interacting with private
individuals?
Mr. Bernhardt. Yes, I don't--I've never thought about the
rulemaking, but I will give you a similar example, and that is
at times I think the folks that we have in our headquarters,
even if they're regulatory people, they don't necessarily know
what folks are actually doing on the ground and the challenges
that our field offices are facing. And I've seen this and, you
know, one of the things we're looking at is ensuring that the
people that are making regulatory policy decisions actually
know what the on-the-ground effects are even within the local
regulators because I think their perspective tends to be a
little different because they are there experiencing these
things as well. Your idea is an interesting one. We'd have to
talk to our lawyers about that.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Ms. Bolen?
Ms. Bolen. I would have to take back your suggestion, but I
will offer that the Office of Policy, the office in which I
serve, does have a program that we've relaunched that was first
initiated under the Clinton administration known as Common
Sense, and now we have rebranded it to Smart Sectors, which is
an opportunity for the Agency to develop partnerships with the
regulated community and to provide a means for career staff to
get on-the-ground tours and site visits and to better
understand the regulated community. And this is just a
partnership that we relaunched several months ago that was
something past administrations have done to try to bridge the
gap between career staff and the regulated entities.
Mr. Grothman. Right. One way to make sure that the staff
always understands the regulated community is to make sure you
hire them from the regulated community, but thank you.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. Just checking to make
sure nobody else walked in.
All right. With that, I will thank our witnesses again for
being here. It was great hearing from you, great hearing about
the wonderful work that you all are doing to reduce our
regulatory environment.
We are going to hold the record open for two weeks for any
member to submit a written opening statement or questions for
the record. And if you guys would be so kind as to reply to any
of those we get, it would be greatly appreciated.
If there being no further business, without objection, the
subcommittees stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Cliff Mass' blog can be found at: http://
cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/08/global-warming-and-hurricane-
harvey.html.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]