[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CRITICAL MISSION: FORMER ADMINISTRATORS ADDRESS THE DIRECTION OF THE
EPA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 11, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-42
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-572 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Chair
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Ranking Member
Massachusetts, Vice Chair MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
RAUL RUIZ, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
KATHY CASTOR, Florida SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
PAUL TONKO, New York JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
SCOTT H. PETERS, California
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Witnesses
Gina McCarthy, Former Administrator (2013-2017), Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Christine Todd Whitman, Former Administrator (2001-2003),
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
William K. Reilly, Former Administrator (1989-1993),
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Answers to submitted questions............................... 120
Lee M. Thomas, Former Administrator (1985-1989), Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 46
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Answers to submitted questions............................... 123
Submitted Material
Article of June 8, 2019, ``White House Tried to Stop Climate
Science Testimony, Documents Show,'' by Lisa Friedman, New York
Times, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky............................. 82
Testimony, original, of Dr. Rod Schoonover before the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 5, 2019,
submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.................................... 84
Testimony, corrected, of Dr. Rod Schoonover before the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 5, 2019,
submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.................................... 96
Letter of February 13, 2019, from Mr. Walden and Mr. Shimkus to
Mr. Pallone and Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. Walden............. 109
Letter of April 8, 2019, from Carol Browner, EPA Administrator,
1993-2001, et al., to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by
Ms. DeGette.................................................... 110
Letter of June 10, 2019, from Mary B. Rice, Chair, Environmental
Health Policy Committee, American Thoracic Society, et al., to
Ms. DeGette and Mr. Guthrie, submitted by Mr. Ruiz............. 113
CRITICAL MISSION: FORMER ADMINISTRATORS ADDRESS THE DIRECTION OF THE
EPA
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Diana DeGette (chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives DeGette, Schakowsky,
Kennedy, Ruiz, Castor, Sarbanes, Tonko, Clarke, Pallone (ex
officio), Guthrie (subcommittee ranking member), Burgess,
McKinley, Brooks, Mullin, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives McNerney, Soto, and
O'Halleran.
Staff present: Kevin Barstow, Chief Oversight Counsel;
Billy Benjamin, Systems Administrator; Jeffrey C. Carroll,
Staff Director; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Tiffany
Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Judy Harvey, Counsel; Chris
Knauer, Oversight Staff Director; Brendan Larkin, Policy
Coordinator; Jourdan Lewis, Policy Analyst; Perry Lusk, GAO
Detailee; Jon Monger, Counsel; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary;
Alivia Roberts, Press Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel;
Jen Barblan, Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and
Investigations; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Jerry
Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment and Climate
Change; Melissa Froelich, Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer
Protection and Commerce; Brittany Havens, Minority Professional
Staff Member, Oversight and Investigations; Peter Kielty,
Minority General Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Counsel,
Consumer Protection and Commerce; Brandon Mooney, Minority
Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Staff
Assistant; Zach Roday, Minority Director of Communications; and
Alan Slobodin, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel, Oversight
and Investigations.
Ms. DeGette. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing will now come to order.
Today, we are holding a hearing entitled ``Critical
Mission: Former Administrators Address the Direction of the
EPA.'' The purpose of today's hearing is to address the mission
and future of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and I
particularly want to thank all of our former Administrators for
joining us today.
You may see an empty chair. That's not for effect. That's
because Administrator McCarthy is trying to make her way here.
She has had now three planes canceled because of mechanical
difficulties this morning.
And so, with the assent of the minority, what we will do is
the Members will have their opening statements and then we will
recess until Administrator McCarthy gets here, which should be
fairly soon. And I think what we will do, we will probably
recess until 11 o'clock to be respectful to the Members.
And so the Chair now is going to recognize herself for
purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
As I said, I am particularly pleased to welcome our four
former EPA Administrators back to the Energy and Commerce
Committee this morning.
I know at least Administrator Whitman appeared in front of
this committee when I was in my early days on this committee.
The other two, I fear, were before my time. But I am happy to
have all of you here today.
I think it's really noteworthy that we are having a hearing
in the House with four former EPA Administrators testifying
together on the future of the EPA.
All of these four Administrators have dedicated their
careers both before and after their service to leading on
environmental issues, serving in both Democratic and Republican
administrations going all the way back to President Reagan.
They worked tirelessly to ensure that the EPA, working with its
partners both here in the U.S. and abroad, tackled the
environmental challenges of the day head on.
There has never been a more important time for our
environment and our planet. Communities across the country are
facing grave environmental threats. Homes and businesses are
being lost to historic flooding, hurricanes, and wildfires.
Our oceans are rising, threatening coastal communities. Our
coral reefs are disappearing, along with vast swaths of forest
and habitat across the globe, and we are seeing biodiversity
facing yearly declines.
Across the globe and here in the U.S., we are seeing record
temperatures year after year, increasing the risk of severe
agricultural drought and leading to deadly heat waves.
In my home State of Colorado, we have seen once-year-round
glaciers retreat while wildfire season only seems to grow in
length.
And just last week, a new report by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration found that carbon dioxide levels
in the Earth's atmosphere hit a record level and, according to
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, current
CO2 levels are likely at the highest level in human
history.
Let me say that again. The levels are currently at the
highest level in human history. Now, more than ever, we need
environmental leadership that rises to the challenges of our
time.
We need an EPA that will strengthen existing efforts to
fight climate change, because we know that States, businesses,
and cities cannot address this crisis on their own.
We need an EPA that's committed to protecting public health
and the environment, and we need an agency that can help the
U.S. lead on the international stage.
The global issues we are facing today not only threaten our
quality of life but increasingly are becoming national security
issues.
As the Administrators here today know all too well, strong
environmental leadership requires an EPA with unimpeachable
scientific credibility. The EPA must constantly be
strengthening its science to make sure that the policies are
driven by science and not the other way around.
Strong environmental leadership also means an EPA that's
transparent and accountable to the public so that Americans can
understand and participate in the processes that affect
contamination in their communities, and environmental
leadership also means holding polluters accountable by
enforcing laws that are already on the books.
Instead of leading on human health and environmental
protection, the track record of the current EPA has been
abysmal. This EPA has abandoned action on air quality and
climate change.
It has done away with sensible carbon reduction limits and
automobile standards that would save consumers thousands of
dollars at the pump.
It attacked mercury and air toxic standards that protect
communities from deadly mercury and other hazardous air
pollution, which even industry supports leaving in place.
And the EPA has ceded global leadership and effectively
been forced off the world's stage. And now, again, the Trump
administration has proposed cutting the funding of the EPA.
Of course, EPA's talented career staff heard this message,
too. In the first 18 months of the Trump administration, we saw
over 1,600 career employees leave the EPA, resulting in
staffing levels not last seen in decades.
And against this backdrop, seven former EPA Administrators
who served under Democratic and Republican administrations sent
this committee a letter calling for renewed oversight of the
Agency.
Their message of unity and bipartisan support was here.
Four of these Administrators are sitting right here today, and
so we can learn what happened with them when they were at the
Agency.
The committee continues to conduct oversight on a broad
range of EPA issues, including rollbacks of clean air and
climate protections, the drop in EPA enforcement activity,
drinking water safety, EPA's attack on science, and ethical
issues.
Now is the time for a strong and renewed EPA that will
protect American communities from the many environmental
threats of our time, and I am pleased to hear what additional
oversight that those here today think that we can have.
So I hope this morning our former Administrators will
discuss these serious issues facing EPA.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Diana DeGette
Today, we continue the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations' long record of oversight of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
I am particularly pleased to welcome four former EPA
Administrators back to the Energy and Commerce Committee this
morning.
This is an important and timely moment, and it is
particularly noteworthy to have a hearing in the House with
four former EPA Administrators testifying together on the
mission of the Agency.
Administrator McCarthy, Governor Whitman, Administrator
Reilly, and Administrator Thomas have dedicated their careers
to leading on environmental issues, serving in both Democratic
and Republican administrations going back to President Reagan.
They worked tirelessly to ensure that EPA, working with its
partners both here in the United States and abroad, tackled the
environmental challenges of the day head on.
There has never been a more important time for our
environment and our planet.
Communities across the country are facing grave
environmental threats--homes and businesses are being lost to
historic flooding, hurricanes, and wildfires. Our oceans are
rising, threatening coastal communities. Our coral reefs are
disappearing along with vast swaths of forests and habitat
across the globe, and we are seeing biodiversity facing yearly
declines. Across the globe and here in the U.S., we are seeing
record temperatures year after year, increasing the risk of
severe agricultural drought and leading to deadly heat waves.
My State of Colorado has seen once year-round glaciers
retreating while its wildfire season seems only to grow in
length.
And just last week, a new report by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration found that carbon dioxide levels
in Earth's atmosphere recently hit a record high. And according
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, current
CO2 levels are likely at the highest level in human
history. Let me say that again:the highest level in human
history.
Now more than ever, we need environmental leadership that
rises to the challenges of our time.
We need an EPA that will strengthen existing efforts to
fight climate change, because we know that States, businesses,
and cities cannot address this crisis on their own.
We need an EPA that is committed to protecting public
health and the environment and we need an agency that can help
the U.S. lead on the international stage. The global issues we
are confronting today, not only threaten our quality of life
but increasingly are becoming national security concerns.
As the Administrators with us this morning know all too
well, strong environmental leadership requires an EPA with
unimpeachable scientific credibility. EPA must constantly be
strengthening its science to ensure its policies are driven by
science, and not the other way around.
Strong environmental leadership also means an EPA that is
transparent and accountable to the public, so that Americans
can understand and participate in the processes that affect
pollution in their own communities.
Environmental leadership also means holding polluters
accountable by enforcing laws that are already on the books.
Instead of leading on human health and environmental
protection, the track record of the current EPA for the last 2
years has been abysmal. The current EPA has abandoned action on
air quality and climate change. It has done away with sensible
carbon reduction limits and automobile standards that would
save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump. It has
attacked mercury and air toxic standards that protect
communities from deadly mercury and other hazardous air
pollution--which even industry supports leaving in place.
And EPA--once regarded as the international leader on
environmental protection--has ceded global leadership and has
effectively been forced off the world stage.
And, year after year, the Trump administration has proposed
extreme cuts to EPA's funding, sending a clear message that
President Trump intends to make good on his campaign promise to
break EPA into ``little tidbits.''
Of course, EPA's talented career staff heard this message,
too. In the first 18 months of the Trump administration--as
President Trump was filling EPA political appointments with
former industry lawyers and lobbyists--we saw over 1,600 career
employees leave EPA, resulting in staffing levels not seen in
decades.
Against this backdrop, in April of this year, seven former
EPA Administrators who served under Democratic and Republican
administrations sent this committee a letter calling for
renewed oversight of the Agency.
Their message of unity and bipartisan support was clear,
and we are fortunate to have four here today, so we can learn
from their years of wisdom on how EPA should be run.
This committee continues to conduct oversight on a broad
range of EPA issues, including rollbacks of key clean air and
climate protections, the dramatic drop in EPA enforcement
activity, drinking water safety, EPA's attack on science, and
ethical issues at EPA.
Now is the time for a strong and renewed EPA that will
protect American communities from the many environmental
threats of our time, and we are pleased to hear what additional
oversight those that are here today believe is still needed at
the Agency.
So, I hope this morning our former Administrators will
discuss the serious challenges facing EPA, and how the Agency
and Congress can best address the urgent environmental issues
of our time, now and going forward.
Ms. DeGette. And I am very pleased to now recognize the
ranking member, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes for purposes of an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Chair DeGette, for holding this
hearing to focus on the future of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and thank all of our witnesses for taking
the time to be here today.
Today's hearing is an important discussion for us to have
in order to build on the important work that the Energy and
Commerce Committee has done, especially in the last Congress.
We held hearings focused on reducing carbon emissions,
boosting renewable energy options, including emissions-free
nuclear power, modernizing our power generation, and empowering
industry to lead the way through innovation.
Additionally in the 115th Congress, the committee led
legislative efforts on numerous bills, including the
reauthorization of the Brownfields program, nuclear energy
innovation and modernization, hydropower, and increasing
compliance for drinking water infrastructure, which all passed
the House and was signed into law.
Further, there were additional bills that passed the House,
including ozone standards, energy-efficient government
technology, advanced nuclear technology, new source performance
standards, and nuclear waste policy, just to name a few.
There are exciting new ideas in sight, like carbon capture
technology that can capture up to 90 percent of the carbon
dioxide emissions that come from the use of fossil fuels and
power generation and other industrial sources.
This technology means that the carbon dioxide emissions do
not even make it to the atmosphere to begin with. Since fossil
fuels will be used to power our country for decades to come,
the EPA should be working with its other Federal, State, and
local partners to help speed the way for innovative new
technologies such as this.
I want to be clear. We all want clean air, clean water, and
environmental protection. But those things do not have to be
achieved at the expense of jobs, prosperity, and national
security.
We are ready and willing to continue to have serious
solutions-oriented discussions about how to address issues
facing our public health and environment such as climate change
risks through American innovation rather than a massive
takeover of the Federal Government.
In addition to this committee evaluating ways for U.S. to
be leaders in the environmental protection space, today we will
hear from Members and the witnesses about concerns regarding
the current direction of the EPA.
While there may be differences of opinion on how to best
approach some of the issues facing the Agency today, it is not
out of the desire to have a polluted environment.
Let us not forget the EPA's nearly 50 years of age. It
might be appropriate to think beyond the model of the last 5
decades to contemplate an agency poised to tackle problems of
today and tomorrow, not armed for those of yesterday.
I think it is an important opportunity for this committee
to broadly examine structural and legal areas where Congress
may need to provide the Agency with clearer direction on its
responsibilities.
That is, after all, one of the main functions of
congressional oversight. Additionally, I am expecting that we
will hear concerns from the witnesses regarding changes to
regulations and how the ebb and flow of regulations from
administration to administration could have a negative impact
on industry.
I think that this highlights the importance of bipartisan
policy solutions, consistently transparent administrative
practice, and Agency regulations that appropriately balance the
goals of regulation with the cost of implementation.
Finally, it is no secret that much of rural America views
the EPA with--views it with distrust, and has for quite some
time.
Many Members of Congress have heard stories from their
district about family farmers and other small businesses
attempting to comply with Federal environmental regulations and
feeling that the EPA was not a helpful partner.
I am particularly interested in learning from our witnesses
today about what can be done to earn back the trust of these
communities.
Ultimately, to truly succeed we need stronger local, State,
Federal, Tribal, and private partnerships where we can team up
and leverage all available resources to accomplish the goals of
cleaner water, air, and soil.
I hope that we can have a thorough and honest discussion to
inform the future of the EPA, its mission, and how we can best
protect the environment.
I thank our witnesses for being here today and sharing
their perspectives, giving each of their experiences as former
EPA Administrators.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie
Thank you, Chair DeGette, for holding this hearing to focus
on the future of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Today's hearing is an important discussion for us to have
in order to build on the important work that the Energy and
Commerce Committee has done, especially in the last Congress.
We held hearings focused on reducing carbon emissions, boosting
renewable energy options including emissions-free nuclear
power, modernizing our power generation, and empowering
industry to lead the way through innovation.
Additionally, in the 115th Congress, this committee led the
legislative efforts on numerous bills, including the
reauthorization of the Brownfields program, nuclear energy
innovation and modernization, hydropower, and increasing
compliance for drinking water infrastructure, which all passed
the House and were signed into law. Further, there were
additional bills that passed the House, including ozone
standards, energy efficient government technology, advanced
nuclear technology, new source performance standards, and
nuclear waste policy, to name a few.
There are exciting new ideas in sight, like carbon capture
technology. Carbon capture is a technology that can capture up
to 90 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions that come from
the use of fossil fuels in power generation and other
industrial sources. This technology means that the carbon
dioxide emissions do not even make it to the atmosphere to
begin with. Since fossil fuels will be used to power our
country for decades to come, the EPA should be working with its
other Federal, State, and local partners to help speed the way
for innovative new technologies such as this.
I want to be clear--we all want clean air, clean water, and
environmental protection; but those things do not have to be
achieved at the expense of jobs, prosperity, and national
security. We are ready and willing to continue to have serious,
solutions-oriented discussions about how to address issues
facing our public health and environment, such as climate
change risks, through American innovation, rather than a
massive takeover by the Federal Government.
In addition to this committee evaluating ways for the U.S.
to be leaders in the environmental protection space, today we
will hear from both Members and the witnesses about concerns
regarding the current direction of the EPA. While there may be
a difference of opinion on how best to approach some of the
issues facing the Agency today, it is not out of a desire to
have a polluted environment.
Let's not forget that EPA is nearly 50 years of age. It
might be appropriate to think beyond the model of the last 5
decades to contemplate an agency poised to tackle the problems
of today and tomorrow, not armed for those of yesterday. I
think it is an important opportunity for this committee to
broadly examine structural and legal areas where Congress may
need to provide the Agency with clearer direction on its
responsibilities. That is, after all, one of the main functions
of congressional oversight.
Additionally, I am expecting that we will hear concerns
from the witnesses regarding changes to regulations and how the
ebb and flow of regulations from administration to
administration could have a negative impact on industry. I
think that this highlights the importance of bipartisan policy
solutions, consistently transparent administrative practice,
and Agency regulations that appropriately balance the goals of
a regulation with the costs of implementation.
Finally, it is no secret that much of rural America views
the EPA with distrust, and has for quite some time. Many
Members of Congress have heard stories from their districts
about family farmers and other small businesses attempting to
comply with Federal environmental regulations, and feeling that
the EPA was not a helpful partner. I am particularly interested
in learning more from our witnesses today about what can be
done to earn back the trust of these communities. Ultimately,
to truly succeed we need stronger local, State, Federal,
Tribal, and private partnerships where we can team up and
leverage all available resources to accomplish the goals of
cleaner water, air, and soil.
I hope that we can have a thorough and honest discussion to
inform the future of the EPA, its mission, and how we can best
protect the environment. I thank our witnesses for being here
today and sharing their perspectives given each of their
experiences as former EPA Administrators, and I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the
full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for purposes of an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to our
former EPA Administrators. We really appreciate your being here
today.
I think we are going to have four--because I think Gina's
on her way--who served under four different Presidents, and
obviously you're uniquely qualified to share your opinions with
us on President Trump's EPA and whether it's fulfilling the
Agency mission of protecting human health and the environment.
I want to thank you for your efforts and the actions of
previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat. Because
of them, our air and water is cleaner, our land is better
protected, and that's true not just here in the United States
but around the world as other countries followed America's
example of strong environmental leadership.
EPA's record of accomplishment over the years has shown
that protecting the environment and public health is not only
good policy but also good for the economy.
This is a challenging moment in history. The United States
must decide whether we are going to sit on the sidelines or do
everything we can to combat climate change and a host of other
environmental threats facing our planet.
You don't have to look too far to see the risks communities
across America are facing: historic floods threatening farms
and cities in the Midwest; a permanent wildfire season that now
regularly decimates vast amounts of land in the West,
destroying homes and businesses; rising oceans making coastal
communities even more vulnerable to extreme weather events; and
record high temperatures year after year, which can be deadly,
particularly for vulnerable populations.
Governor Whitman and I saw firsthand the tragic devastation
of Superstorm Sandy in New Jersey in 2012. I had never seen
worse storm damage in our area in my lifetime.
For many, the storm was the worst-case scenario. Lives were
lost. Businesses and homes were destroyed. As Governor Whitman
points out in her testimony, according to a recent report, 35
U.S. cities could be uninhabitable by the end of this century
because of climate change, and 9 of those cities are in our
State, New Jersey.
Just a week ago, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration reported that the Earth's levels of carbon
dioxide have now jumped to a record high.
More than ever before we need a strong EPA that can protect
public health and the environment against today's many threats
and help lead this effort on the international stage.
Unfortunately, we have seen over and over again that the
Trump administration is failing to rise to this challenge. In
the past 2\1/2\ years we have seen our country abdicate our
role as a global leader on meaningful climate action and ignore
consensus science that humans are now a major driver of global
warming.
We have seen the Trump EPA roll back commonsense limits on
pollution from power plants, attack protections which keep
American families safe from mercury and other toxic pollution.
The Trump administration has also moved to weaken
successful automobile efficiency standards, a decision that 17
of the world's largest automakers just last week threatened to
cut--they say threatens to cut their profits and produce
untenable instability in the manufacturing sector, and these
actions seriously undermine our ability to reduce greenhouse
gas pollution, making the climate crisis even worse.
We have also seen the Trump administration propose extreme
cuts, in my opinion, to the EPA's budget, which would eliminate
key Agency programs, cut money for States and Tribes, and
eviscerate the Agency's science apparatus.
Now, fortunately, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has not
accepted those cuts. And not only is the Trump EPA sidelining
science, in some cases it's purging it altogether.
As these events unfolded at EPA in April, the committee
received a letter from seven former EPA Administrators who
served under Presidents of both parties as far back as
President Nixon.
The former Administrators, four of whom are with us this
morning, urged oversight of EPA, offered to be a resource, and
affirmed the vital bipartisan mission of the EPA, and during
this Congress the committee has already conducted oversight on
a range of key issues affecting EPA, including rollbacks of
clean-air and climate protections, continued attacks on
science, lack of enforcement of environmental laws, failure to
protect workers from chemical risks, and the impact of the
Trump administration's drastic proposed cuts to EPA's budget.
And so we are looking forward now to hearing from this
distinguished bipartisan panel. The four former Administrators
with us this morning truly know what is at stake, because they
were there, and how to accomplish EPA's mission.
So more than ever our communities, families, and planet
need a robust EPA that is fully committed to protecting human
health and the environment, and we appreciate all the fact
that, you know, what you did in your distinguished service and
want to see what lessons there are to tell us for today.
Thank you, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Good morning. I am very pleased to welcome four former EPA
Administrators who served four different Presidents to our
hearing today. You are all uniquely qualified to share your
opinions with us on President Trump's EPA and whether it is
fulfilling the Agency mission of protecting human health and
the environment.
Thanks to your efforts and the actions of previous
administrations--both Republican and Democrat--our air and
water is cleaner, and our land is better protected. And that is
true not just here in the United States, but around the world,
as other countries followed America's example of strong
environmental leadership.
EPA's record of accomplishments over the years has shown
that protecting the environment and public health is not only
good policy, but also good for the economy.
This is a challenging moment in history. The United States
must decide whether we are going to sit on the sidelines or do
everything we can to combat climate change and a host of other
environmental threats facing our planet.
You don't have to look too far to see the risks communities
across America are facing. Historic floods threatening farms
and cities in the Midwest. A permanent wildfire season that now
regularly decimates vast amounts of land in the West,
destroying homes and businesses. Rising oceans making coastal
communities even more vulnerable to extreme weather events. And
record high temperatures year after year, which can be deadly,
particularly for vulnerable populations.
Governor Whitman and I saw firsthand the tragic devastation
of Superstorm Sandy in New Jersey in 2012. I had never seen
worse storm damage in our area in my lifetime. For many, the
storm was a worst-case scenario: lives were lost, businesses
and homes destroyed.
As Governor Whitman points out in her testimony, according
to a recent report, 35 U.S. cities could be uninhabitable by
the end of this century because of climate change, and 9 of
those cities are in New Jersey.
And, just a week ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration reported that the Earth's levels of carbon
dioxide have now jumped to a record high.
More than ever before, we need a strong EPA that can
protect public health and the environment against today's many
threats and help lead this effort on the international stage.
Unfortunately, we have seen over and over again that the
Trump administration is failing to rise to this challenge. In
the past 2\1/2\ years, we have seen our country abdicate our
role as a global leader on meaningful climate action and ignore
consensus science that humans are now a major driver of global
warming.
We've seen the Trump EPA roll back commonsense limits on
pollution from power plants, and attack protections which keep
American families safe from mercury and other toxic pollution.
The Trump administration has also moved to weaken successful
automobile efficiency standards--a decision that 17 of the
world's largest automakers said last week threatens to cut
their profits and produce ``untenable'' instability in the
manufacturing sector. These actions seriously undermine our
ability to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, making the climate
crisis even worse.
We have also seen the Trump administration propose extreme
cuts to EPA's budget, which would eliminate key Agency
programs, cut money for States and Tribes, and eviscerate the
Agency's science apparatus.
And not only is the Trump EPA sidelining science; in some
cases, it's purging it altogether.
As these events unfolded at EPA, in April, the committee
received a letter from seven former EPA Administrators, who
served under Presidents of both parties as far back as
President Nixon. The former Administrators--four of whom are
with us this morning--urged oversight of EPA, offered to be a
resource, and affirmed the vital bipartisan mission of the
Agency.
During this Congress, the committee has already conducted
oversight on a range of key issues affecting EPA, including
rollbacks of key clean-air and climate protections, continued
attacks on science, lack of enforcement of environmental laws,
failure to protect workers from chemical risks, and the impact
of the Trump administration's drastic proposed cuts to EPA's
budget. And we now look forward to hearing from this
distinguished bipartisan panel. The four former Administrators
with us this morning truly know what is at stake and how to
accomplish EPA's mission.
More than ever, our communities, families, and planet need
a robust EPA that is fully committed to protecting human health
and the environment.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of
the full committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes for purposes of
an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Regardless of whether you're in government or not, we must
always keep in mind the EPA's core mission tasked by Congress
in statute: clean air for Americans to breathe, safe water for
our citizens to drink, soils free from pollution. That is the
core mission.
Too often people fall into the trap of assuming a clean
environment is incompatible with economic growth and job
creation. But we can and must have both.
We need commonsense regulations that protect the public,
actually clean up the environment, and do so in a way that
doesn't unnecessarily suffocate the economy or fail to consider
the impact on American consumers and taxpayers.
To this end, the EPA should focus on innovative problem
solving and partnerships with States, Tribes, communities, the
private sector, and other stakeholders that leverage their
resources and enterprise.
I anticipate much of the discussion today will focus on
climate change and the appropriate role of the EPA in combating
it.
I want to be clear--climate change is real, and as I have
stated numerous times, Republicans on this committee stand
ready, willing, and able to work with Democrats in a bipartisan
way to continue to tackle climate change in a prudent and
thoughtful manner.
I ask unanimous consent to enter in the record a February
13th letter to Chairman Pallone and Environment and Climate
Change Subcommittee Chairman Tonko from myself and Mr. Shimkus
asking to do just that.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. We can and must address climate change risks
through American innovation, conservation, as well as
adaptation and preparation, which should be focused on
continuing to reduce emissions, developing and exporting clean
energy technologies, and making our communities more resilient
by adapting what we grow and how we build.
The EPA has an important role to play in that by collecting
emissions information and setting meaningful standards and
regulations within the bounds of statutory authority granted to
the Agency by the Congress.
We should continue to make progress on reducing global
climate risks without adding unnecessary regulatory burdens by
promoting policies favoring clean energy like nuclear,
hydropower, natural gas, wind, solar, and carbon capture
technologies, and by removing barriers to development and
deployment of new technologies and innovation. I think we could
all agree on that.
Republicans have a clear record of bipartisan legislation
from this committee to do just that. Over the past several
Congresses we have removed regulatory barriers to new
technological advances in power generation from hydroelectric
power to small modular nuclear, from carbon capture and storage
incentives to power grid reforms.
Because innovation is where the long-term solutions to
climate change are, we want America to lead the world in
innovation as we always have, especially on clean energy and
environmental cleanup.
It also never hurts to work hard to root out unnecessary
red tape, to provide greater regulatory transparency so that
stakeholders, including the regulated community, better know
what is expected of them and to promote prompt, even, and fair
enforcement of the law.
So let's work together as we have in the past to reduce the
barriers to innovation, to unleash American ingenuity, to
develop new technologies to help confront the climate and other
environmental and public health challenges of the future.
For example, the previous Republican-led Congresses have
seen bipartisan responses to address contaminated drinking
water in Flint, Michigan--need I say the EPA kind of dragged
its feet and got that one wrong; renew important drinking water
programs, including those to address lead pipes; reinforce the
essential Federal/State dynamic in environmental protection;
and update toxic chemicals review and management. Those were
all done in a Republican-led Congress in a bipartisan way.
Moving forward, there is much that we could do right now in
a bipartisan way. For example, we could improve new source
review permitting, essential to ensuring more efficient
cleaner-operating stationary sources, and we could streamline
the air quality standards process to ensure more effective
implementation by States and localities.
This hearing is also a good opportunity to discuss whether
and how the EPA itself and its legal authority need to be
modernized to face 21st century challenges.
We are beginning another wildfire season in Oregon and on
the west coast. Last summer, smoke filled the air across large
parts of Oregon and California, giving us the worst air quality
short of Beijing for almost a month.
The Clean Air Act was last updated in 1990. Does this
nearly 30-year-old statute stand up in the face of issues the
EPA confronts today?
I think on nearly every EPA's watch there has been failure
to update legally mandated programs by Congress, and that's a
question we should be asking today, as well, as we go forward.
The EPA itself has never been authorized by Congress. Never. So
how should we do that?
I thank your witnesses for being here today. I know you
each have--had difficulties on your watches, challenges on your
watches. You always tried to do the right thing for the
American people.
But it's hard to always get it right. And so we want to
work with you and with our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to get it right more often for the American people and do
the right thing for our environment.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Thank you, Chair DeGette, for convening this hearing with
four former Administrators of the EPA. I welcome our witnesses
and this conversation about the future and direction of the
EPA.
Regardless of whether you are in government or not, we must
always keep in mind that EPA's core mission, tasked by Congress
in statute: clean air for Americans to breathe, safe water for
our citizens to drink, and soils free from pollution.
Too often, people fall into the trap of assuming a clean
environment is incompatible with economic growth and job
creation. But we can and must have both. We need commonsense
regulations that protect the public, actually clean up the
environment, and do so in a way that don't unnecessarily
suffocate the economy or fail to consider the impact on
American consumers and taxpayers. To this end, the EPA should
focus on innovative problem solving and partnerships with
States, Tribes, and communities, the private sector, and other
stakeholders that leverage their resources and enterprise.
I anticipate that much of the discussion today will focus
on climate change and the appropriate role of the EPA in
combating it. I want to be clear--climate change is real. And
as I have stated numerous times, Republicans on this committee
stand ready, willing, and able to work with Democrats in a
bipartisan way to continue to tackle climate change in a
prudent and thoughtful manner.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a February
13, 2019, letter to Chairman Pallone and Environment and
Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Tonko from myself and Mr.
Shimkus asking to do just that.
We can and must address climate change risks through
American innovation, conservation, as well as adaptation and
preparation. We should be focused on continuing to reduce
emissions, developing and exporting clean energy technologies,
and making our communities more resilient by adapting what we
grow and how we build.
The EPA has an important role to play, by collecting
emissions information and setting meaningful standards and
regulations within the bounds of the statutory authority
granted to the Agency by Congress.
We should continue to make progress on reducing global
climate risks without adding unnecessary regulatory burden by
promoting policies favoring clean energy--like nuclear,
hydropower, natural gas, wind, solar, and carbon capture, and
removing barriers to the deployment of new technologies and
innovation.
Republicans have a clear record of bipartisan legislation
from this committee to do just that. Over the past several
Congresses, we have removed regulatory barriers to new
technological advances in power generation, from hydroelectric
power to small modular nuclear, from carbon capture and storage
incentives to power grid reforms. Because innovation is where
the long-term solutions to climate change are. We want America
to lead the world in innovation, as we always have, especially
on clean energy and environmental cleanup.
It also never hurts to work hard to root out unnecessary
red tape, to provide greater regulatory transparency so that
stakeholders, including the regulated community, better know
what is expected of them, and to promote prompt, even, and fair
enforcement of the law.
Let's work together, as we have in the past, to reduce the
barriers to innovation and unleash American ingenuity to
develop new technologies to help confront the climate and other
environment and public health challenges of the future. For
example, the previous Republican-led Congresses have seen
bipartisan responses to address contaminated drinking water in
Flint, renew important drinking water programs--including those
to address lead pipes--reinforce the essential Federal/State
dynamic in environmental protection, and update toxic chemical
review and management.
Moving forward, there is much that we could do right now,
in a bipartisan way. For example, we could improve new source
review permitting, essential to ensuring more efficient,
cleaner operating stationary sources, and we could streamline
the air quality standards process to ensure more effective
implementation by States and localities.
This hearing is also a good opportunity to discuss whether
and how the EPA itself and its legal authority need to be
modernized to face 21st century challenges. We are beginning
another wildfire season in Oregon and on the west coast. Last
summer, smoke filled the air across large parts of Oregon and
California, and certainly had a negative impact on air quality.
The Clean Air Act was last updated in 1990. Does this nearly
30-year-old statute stand up in the face of the issues the EPA
confronts today? The EPA itself has never been authorized by
Congress--is it time for us to do so?
I thank our witnesses for being here today and hope that we
can have a constructive conversation about the future and
mission of the EPA.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now asks unanimous consent that the Members'
written statements be made part of the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
And the committee will now stand in recess until 11 o'clock
sharp.
[Recess.]
Ms. DeGette. The hearing will come to order, and the Chair
will thank everybody for their comity and welcome Ms. McCarthy,
who has had quite a morning of travel to get here, and we
appreciate it.
I now want to introduce the panel of witnesses for today's
hearing: Ms. Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency from 2013 to 2017; Governor
Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003; Mr. William R. Kelly, the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from
1989 to 1993.
Mr. Reilly. It's Reilly.
Ms. DeGette. Kelly. Reilly. I am sorry.
[Laughter.]
Ms. DeGette. Reilly. Kelly. They are all good Irish names.
Mr. Lee M. Thomas, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency from 1985 to 1989. And I do want to again
thank all of you for coming today.
I know you're aware that the committee is holding an
investigative hearing, and when doing so we have the practice
of taking testimony under oath.
Do any of you object to testifying under oath today?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have responded
no. The Chair advises you that, under the rules of the House
and the rules of the committee, you're entitled to be
accompanied by counsel.
Do you desire to be accompanied by counsel today?
Let the record reflect the witnesses have responded no.
If you would, please rise and raise your right hand so that
you may be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. DeGette. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have
responded affirmatively, and you may be seated. You're now
under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in Title 18
Section 1001 of the U.S. Code.
The Chair will now recognize our witnesses for a 5-minute
summary of their written statements. In front of you--I think
you all know the drill, having testified in front of this
committee many times--there's a microphone and a series of
lights. The light will turn yellow when you have a minute left
and red to indicate your time has come to an end.
And so, Administrator McCarthy, you are now recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF GINA McCARTHY, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR (2013-2017),
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR (2001-2003),
WILLIAM K. REILLY, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR (1989-1993), AND LEE M.
THOMAS, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR (1985-1989), ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF GINA McCARTHY
Ms. McCarthy. First of all, I want to send my thanks to
Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden for holding the
hearing, Chair DeGette and Ranking Member Guthrie for asking me
to speak today about the important work of EPA, and I apologize
for keeping everybody waiting. I appreciate it very much that
you waited for me.
I have spent all of my professional life working to protect
people from the dangers posed by pollution. As a kid, I could
literally see, taste, and feel pollution.
I can remember my third-grade classmates and I at St.
John's Elementary School, running to shut windows when the
stench from the Plymouth Rubber Company started wafting in the
windows.
What amazed me most was that the nuns never stopped
marching us through our times table, even when we were holding
our noses.
It wasn't until years later when I finished graduate school
and became the first full-time Board of Health agent in my
hometown that I figured out just how many people in and around
that plant had died from brain cancer.
And it was only 12 years or so after that when a dear
friend of mine died of brain cancer and I wondered whether her
classmates had just been a bit slower than me at shutting the
windows.
I know pollution kills, and it is not an equal-opportunity
killer. It attacks our children and the elderly, the poor and
the powerless. That's why environmental statutes have been
enacted to provide layers of protection between pollution and
the people that we love, so they have the fighting chance to
live healthy lives.
And for nearly 50 years we have been so lucky to have
dedicated public servants at EPA who are smart and amazing
human beings that we can rely on to implement those laws, and
political leaders like the three that I am sitting with today
who help to lead the agencies.
And I am here today for one reason and one reason only, and
it is not to weep about all my precious rules being rolled
back, although I admit that the constant rollback is beginning
to tick me off a bit, maybe even more than just a bit.
But this is not the real message for me this morning. I am
here to remind the political leadership at EPA that what they
do matters, and it is time for them to step up and to do their
jobs.
So just do your jobs. Right now, this administration is
trying to systematically undo health protections by running
roughshod over the law, by obfuscating the science while only
paying lip service to public disclosure and transparency, and
that is just not good enough.
EPA's mission is to protect public health and the natural
resources that we all depend on. EPA's success is measured in
human lives saved, fewer kids with asthma attacks, and how well
we protect those most vulnerable from human exposures to
pollution and arm the public with information and opportunities
so they can live better, healthier, safer, and more just lives.
That is worth standing up for, and I am here to ask the
committee to hold EPA accountable to its mission and its duty
to American families across the country who fully expect that
laws will be implemented, science will be followed, and people
will be given a chance to engage in decisions that matter to
them and their children and their future.
Right now, it feels like the fox is minding the henhouse.
EPA's political leadership is filled with conflicts that put
special interests and former clients ahead of our kids and
hard-working families.
Ethics investigations are ongoing across the Agency while
EPA rollbacks and divestments continue, with science being
sidelined, policies not being publicly vetted, and efforts
ongoing to change the way the Agency conducts its business, and
it's all designed to mask increases in pollution and to deny
health benefits of pollution reductions.
What does this all mean? Well, if we allow more pollution
to be emitted, if we stop supporting and listening to the best
available science, and if we start limiting EPA's ability to
monitor and enforce pollution standards, then we are putting at
risk the health and the future of every single child in our
country.
And make no mistake, our children are watching, and we need
to deliver for them, especially when it comes to climate
change, which has the ability to literally rob them of their
future if we don't act and don't act now.
If the American dream is about giving the next generation a
better life than the one we have, I fear with this
administration that dream may be slipping away, and I cannot
sit on the sidelines and allow that to happen.
I have a 9-month-old grandson, and I have a granddaughter
on the way. They are my face of climate change. They are my
moral compass and my reason to sit here today.
So we know what we are all fighting for, and we need to
remind ourselves of that every day. At times like these, the
onslaught of controversies creates an overwhelming problem.
But we mustn't lose sight of the core values that bind us
together. Surely, one of those values must be protecting the
health and well-being of our kids. It's time for this EPA to do
what is right for American families and start doing their jobs.
Thank you for your attention, and you can find many more
specifics in my written testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Administrator McCarthy.
I am now pleased to recognize Governor Whitman for 5
minutes for purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Ms. Whitman. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Pallone, Chairwoman DeGette, Ranking Member
Guthrie, all members of the subcommittee, thank you very much
for inviting us here today.
I believe you have a copy of my written testimony, which I
would like accepted into the record. Thank you.
I am here today because I am deeply concerned that 5
decades of environmental progress are at risk because of the
attitude and approach of the current administration.
I would like to touch briefly on several areas of
particular concern to me about EPA's current direction.
First is the Agency's retreat from science. The current
administration has been on a steady march to reduce if not
eliminate the role of science in developing and implementing
environmental policy.
There are numerous examples, but none illustrates this
retreat better than the understandable confusions among members
of the EPA Science Advisory Board at a meeting held just last
week.
At this meeting, the members of the Advisory Board were
told that the administration's effort to roll back certain
clean-water standards for the waters of the United States
proposal was strictly a policy call and had little to do with
science.
That seems surprising to me.
Second is the influence of the regulated community. All
stakeholders should be heard as EPA develops policy. But none
should be heard at the relative exclusion of any others.
A study published last year found that the Trump
administration has explicitly sought to reorient the EPA toward
industrial and industry-friendly interests, often with little
or no acknowledgment of the Agency's health and environmental
missions.
This is wrong. It's wrong for the Agency, it's wrong for
the environment, and it's wrong for public health. It skews
policymaking away from EPA's mission and diminishes public
confidence in its decisionmaking. This trend must be reversed.
Third is an apparent decline in concern by EPA's leadership
about EPA's public health mission. The United States has made
significant progress in improving the environment and
safeguarding public health from pollution.
But millions of Americans, especially children, continue to
suffer from the effects caused by pollutants. That is why it is
almost impossible for me to understand EPA's failure to commit
to continue to fund the research projects at the 13 Children's
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers.
EPA's own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee
has urged the EPA to continue to fund these centers.
Inexplicably, the administration has refused to commit to doing
so.
Children are not small adults. They metabolize differently.
They need different sets of protections. This isn't an isolated
example. It's part of a troubling trend that must be addressed.
Fourth is the erosion of the morale at the EPA. This has
been documented by studies, and I have observed it myself. It
is also reflected in the large number of departures of career
scientists and others from the Agency.
The hostility of EPA leadership to its own mission is
driving people out and keeping new people away.
Finally is the EPA's denial of the importance of climate
change. The Earth's climate has always changed, but never
before has that change been accelerated by human activity.
We are not the sole cause of climate change, but we are
having a real effect. But the White House is still not
convinced and is reportedly going to require certain Federal
scientists to debate whether the widely held accepted
scientific consensus on climate change is correct.
These researchers are concerned that participating in such
an exercise might harm their credibility and their careers. And
yet, they stand to be forced to participate.
Putting the administration's doubts aside, I am especially
concerned about the effects of climate change on the world's
oceans. As a former Governor and lifelong resident of a coastal
State, I cannot help but focus on the damage climate change is
doing to our oceans.
Oceans bear the brunt of climate change. From the sea level
rise, growing acidification, and coral bleaching to increased
coastal flooding, expanding dead zones, and an increase in
marine diseases, our oceans are in trouble, and what threatens
the health of our oceans threatens life on Earth.
Climate change is real, and the administration is
abdicating its responsibilities by denying it.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, there is no doubt in
my mind that under the current administration the EPA is
retreating from its historic mission to protect our environment
and the health of the public from environmental hazards.
Therefore, I urge this committee in the strongest possible
terms to exercise Congress's oversight responsibility over the
actions and directions of the Environmental Protection Agency
in the areas I have raised, and especially when it comes to
climate change.
Thank you, and I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Whitman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Governor.
I am now very pleased to recognize Administrator Reilly for
5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. REILLY
Mr. Reilly. [Inaudible.] Congressman Guthrie, Mr. Chairman
Pallone, Congressman Walden, thank you for the opportunity to
appear here today. I will try not to recapitulate, though, in
fact, I could because my prepared testimony very much tracks
the testimony that you have just heard of two of my admired
predecessors, or successors.
I want to say in my 5 minutes, first of all, something
about science. The Science Advisory Board, which has been vital
through several Administrators, was particularly important to
mine when I asked in the early weeks of my term that they rank
the priorities in terms of health and ecology to the people of
the United States--what are the most serious threats--and then
estimate the degree to which the budget priorities of the
Agency corresponded to those priorities.
They did that, and we followed that as a template
throughout, and I think the last time I acted on one of their
recommendations it was that we pay more attention to indoor
air. And so we declared side-stream smoke a Class A carcinogen.
Within 1 year, almost 500 communities in the United States
enacted laws forbidding smoking indoors. We didn't have the
statutory authority to regulate that. Peculiarly, we regulated
the air where people spend 10 percent of their time, not where
they spend 90 percent of their time.
But that is a measure of the degree to which the people of
the United States trusted EPA and trusted the science. That is
a vital jewel of our system.
It is a characteristic of the EPA historically. It is at
risk. Say no more about it now, but I would love to talk about
it. There are other things that EPA has done without having any
particular regulatory authority to move on it. Energy Star is
the best example.
I recall talking to one of the large developers in
California who built Dodger Stadium and he said, ``You know,
the most powerful regulation that I've ever encountered that
you have is not even a regulation--it's Energy Star.''
Can't get a loan for a significant building in California
if it's not Energy Star. The EPA created that as part of its
responsibility, in essence, for being the environmental
conscience of the country.
Second point I want to say is, with respect to oversight, I
think there are a number of important measures. There's budget
and staffing, and I compliment the previous Congresses of the
last 2 years for not accepting the proposals to gut EPA's
staffing by a third and its budget by a third, and maintaining
the amount of support, the resources available to the Agency,
for its vital missions at just about where they were.
It's significantly below in inflation-adjusted terms where
it was in my time. But it's sure a lot better than what the
administration proposed.
Budget and staffing, enforcement numbers, regulatory
justifications--these are the measures of integrity of a
regulatory agency which fashions itself in deregulatory mode.
Look at the justifications for the mercury rule, the
methane rule, the coal ash rule, the waters of the United
States. The Administrator said in his testimony and
confirmation that they are very proud of having some 33 major
regulations or deregulations efforts proposed or completed.
Look at the language that justifies and explains those
measures. Look for the environment and health and ecology as a
priority. They are invariably presented in terms of their
economic advantages, and he said that they in fact would reduce
by $2 billion the burdens on industry to conform to those
rules.
With all due respect, EPA is supposed to pay attention--and
tries to, with its cost/benefit--to the economic impact of its
regulations. But the environment health come first. They don't
even come first in the justifications for most of the actions
affecting the matters I described.
Finally, I just want to say something relative to the
future. As we address, if we ever do--and I certainly hope that
we will do it in this Congress--the climate challenge, it will
be vital to have the Environmental Protection Agency play a key
role, I think, both in mitigation and in adaptation.
Therefore, I am particularly mistrustful of the proposal to
have a $40 carbon tax associated with a group of very
respectable people, progressive people concerned about the
environment, and a carbon tax, I think, is a positive thing. I
don't think $40 is anywhere near what it's going to have to be
to really transform behavior.
But the fine print says that EPA would be removed--its
regulatory authority--from any actions affecting climate if
that proposal were enacted.
By the same token, so would the courts. Well, the two
Federal institutions that have addressed the climate problem
are EPA and the courts, and to immunize major emitters for a
$40 tax is, in my view, very unwise, and I would keep a close
eye on the efforts to remove the authority--the regulatory
authority--from the Agency, the one Agency that has really
tried to address that problem.
Ms. DeGette. If you could sum up.
Mr. Reilly. I guess I've run out my clock, Madam Chair. I
appreciate your time. But I want to say how much I respect and
admire the attention that you are paying to oversight of EPA.
There has never been a time when it was more urgently needed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reilly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Administrator Reilly.
And now I am pleased to recognize you, Administrator
Thomas, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF LEE M. THOMAS
Mr. Thomas. Thank you. Chair DeGette, Ranking Member
Guthrie, and other members of the committee.
I appreciate the opportunity come and talk about the
mission of EPA, and particularly to talk about the role of this
committee as far as oversight is concerned.
You know, I was at EPA for 6 years, first as Assistant
Administrator, then Administrator, from '83 to '89. At that
time, I went into business after 20 years in government. I've
been in business for 30 years, and I have directed companies,
particularly in the natural resource area and industrial
manufacturing.
So I have seen regulation and environmental regulation as a
regulator, and I have seen it as a regulated. I can tell you in
both instances EPA, as the Agency who in fact has the charge
for protecting our environment, needs to be a strong, credible
agency. The public demands it. The public deserves it.
Business needs it. It needs a consistent, credible set of
rules to operate by, I would say, not only nationally but
internationally if possible. So the leadership of EPA at a
national level and international level is critical from
business's point of view just like it is from the public's
point of view.
So given this mission, you look at the law and what you
find is Congress has given EPA over the last 50 years
incredibly broad and deep set of authorities. Built into those
authorities are natural tensions.
It is the tension between the regulator and the regulated.
There's tensions between individual rights and the community's
rights. There's tension between cost of regulation and benefits
to the environment and the public.
Well, you have told EPA, ``Look, you're going to have to
make the tough decisions. You're going to have to come to grips
with these kind of tensions.'' Well, the only way they can do
that in an adequate way and a somewhat balanced way--and it's
balanced in the different laws in different ways--is if they
have the capacity to do it: scientific capacity, economic
analysis capacity. Have they got that kind of capacity in the
Agency?
Well, in fact, I am very concerned about do they have that
capacity. Very concerned about whether they in fact are tapping
into the kind of external scientific expertise that we always
used that's critical to the decisionmaking in the Agency.
I am very concerned about are they in fact doing the kind
of intergovernmental coordination that needs to be done. We
can't operate in this country from a business point of view if
we've got 50 different sets of standards trying to regulate how
we are going to operate.
I am very concerned about, are they taking a leadership
role as far as global issues are concerned? In many cases, I
think they're stepping back from the global issues as opposed
to taking on the global issues.
So, overall, I would say this committee as far as an
oversight committee has a critically important role to play in
looking at those kind of issues.
Now, let me just drop back and tell you how I got to EPA. I
was the deputy at FEMA. It was an independent agency at that
point in time.
EPA, in 1983, was in the middle of chaos and turmoil. There
were 6 different congressional committees that were
investigating what was going on at EPA. I was asked to come
over to EPA on a 90-day detail to help the Administrator as far
as management is concerned. I ended up staying 6 years, so I
must have liked it.
But in fact what I found was the Agency at that point in
time and the committees that were investigating the Agency,
there was a deregulatory agenda. It was an attack on science at
many levels as far as the Agency is concerned, and a debate
going on about how you get scientific input or should you have
scientific input.
There were major requests for budget cuts of EPA. It was a
division between political and career staff as far as the
allegations of inappropriate contacts by the regulated
industry. There was a lack of transparency in terms of how the
Agency was making its decisions.
Does all that sound familiar? Well, there's an awful lot of
that going on today. Well, I can tell you Congress played a
major role in highlighting those kinds of issues, bringing to
light those kind of issues. The media picked right up on it,
played a major role.
I remember being told how many days in a row the Washington
Post had a story about that on the front page every day. Well,
what happened?
The President said, that's not how I want this agency to
operate. The President made a major change. He brought Bill
Ruckelshaus back, who had been the first Administrator.
I had the opportunity then to work with Bill for the next 2
years, and then I became Administrator. I will tell you what
Bill did. He put a new management team in place. He said, ``We
are recommitted to the mission of EPA, protecting the
environment.
``We are recommitted to implementing the laws the way they
are. We are going to have the most transparent operation
possible. We are going to pull in as much scientific knowledge
as possible.
``We are going to make sure we've got capability within our
agency to make the kind--support to make the kind of decisions
that need to be made.''
So this committee, in my opinion, plays a vital role in
trying to correct what I see as some of the issues that are
going on in that agency today.
The other thing this committee plays a role in is looking
at and determining where is there ambiguity--where is there
lack of direction as far as existing law is concerned.
We worked on a bipartisan basis with Congress. We
reauthorized all the law related to hazardous waste. We
reauthorized Superfund. We reauthorized Clean Water.
We reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act. We did all of
that over that 6-year period of time I was there. In each case,
there was total----
Ms. DeGette. If you can sum up, please.
Mr. Thomas. There was total bipartisan support to get those
things done. That's what EPA is all about. It needs bipartisan
support and clear direction under the law.
And, in fact, it needs that because, in order to make the
tough calls it has to make, it needs broad support.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much.
Now it's time for the Members to ask you questions. I want
to thank all of you for your opening statements. The Chair will
now recognize for 5 minutes.
As I noted in my opening statement, I am deeply concerned
about the direction of the EPA and the Trump administration, as
are you as signatories of the letter.
I would like to draw on your wisdom this morning to hear
from each of you what you think the EPA and Congress can do to
better address the serious environmental issues we are facing.
I only have 5 minutes. Some of you probably heard John
Dingell say this, so I would like to channel that. So if you
can be brief, that would be great.
And I will start with you, Administrator McCarthy. Now,
during your tenure, the EPA set the first-ever national
standards for reducing carbon emissions from existing power
plants, and this really underscored the United States'
commitment to climate action and spurred international efforts.
I am assuming when you said that you had a lot of
frustrations with the Trump administration, the efforts to roll
back those standards are one of them. I am wondering if you can
talk about those standards and any others that you feel are at
risk and why you are concerned about this.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it is not just the ACE rule, which is
replacing the Clean Power Plan. It's not just the Mercury Air
Toxic Standard. It's not just the car rules.
It is basically the fact that I believe they're undermining
the science and the law in how they are trying to roll back
those rules.
I do not dispute any administration coming in with
different policies. But the challenge I think we are facing is
they are really changing the rules of the road.
Ms. DeGette. And why----
Ms. McCarthy. They are not using sound science. They're not
looking at cost/benefits. They're trying to inflate the cost
and lower the benefits in order to justify rules that simply
don't make sense under the law.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
And, Administrator Whitman, that kind of goes to what I was
going to ask you about. In your testimony today, you talked
about the importance of science, and just to let you know, when
I took over the chairmanship of this committee I announced that
our agenda this year was science. So perfect.
But I am wondering if you can tell us, with respect to the
rules that Administrator McCarthy was talking about with the
others, why is it important for the Agency to make rules from a
science-based perspective? It seems almost a given that we
should look at those standards. But I think it's important to
say why science is important, and not political impetus or
something else.
Ms. Whitman. Well, science underpins it all. Yes, there are
always political considerations. Yes, there needs to be cost/
benefit analysis. It's appropriate in some places under the
Clean Air Act.
In others you may use cost/benefit analysis. Some you must,
and others you cannot use cost/benefit analysis. That was part
of the enabling legislation that determined that.
But for the Agency--since the Agency's mission is to
protect public health and the environment, that's based on
science. That's not politics. That's not political. You do your
best advice, and then the political decision is made--is
layered on top of that.
But, really, if you don't have access to pure science, to
clear science--not science that is purely coming from one side
or the other, but balanced science that is based on the facts--
you're not going to get to the kind of position that's
protective of public health and the environment.
Ms. DeGette. And that's the bottom line.
Ms. Whitman. And that's why it's so critical.
Ms. DeGette. Yes.
Mr. Reilly, when you were Administrator, you really
solidified the EPA's reputation as an international leader by
working with international partners on environmental programs
like decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.
I am wondering if you can tell us briefly why it's so
important for the U.S. to be an active international partner.
Mr. Reilly. Well, first of all, we cannot alone, even as
large and powerful as we are, solve the climate problem. We are
the number 2 emitter in the world. China is number 1.
In my time we dealt with upper atmospheric ozone, which the
Chinese did not want to deal with and were planning to
introduce some hundred million refrigerators over the course of
the next 10 years, all containing CFCs, which would have blown
away everything that we had.
EPA was the key actor in dissuading them from doing that.
We were able to do that because of EPA's own reputation for
solid science and integrity, and I remember Secretary of State
Baker saying to me once when we had been active in China, he
said--and we were not allowed to go there because, at my level,
at least, because of Tiananmen Square--he said, ``I don't know
what you're doing with the Chinese, and I don't need to know.
Keep it up. They love you.''
I said, ``Well, what we are doing is addressing methane
reduction and cement kiln pollution control and very practical
engineering problems that are essential to their developing
economy.''
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
I apologize, but I have very little time and I do want to
get to Mr. Thomas, and what I want you to ask is you talked
about your role and Mr. Ruckelhaus's role in increasing the
professionalism of the EPA and building morale.
What have--why is that important and what have you seen in
the recent EPA that gives you pause?
Mr. Thomas. Well, it's critically important that the EPA
staff understand that there's an overall commitment to the
mission of the Agency: protection of public health and the
environment.
And in fact, you're going to work hard with them not only
to ensure that there are adequate resources but you're going to
work hard with them to ensure that their voices and the voices
of external particularly scientists are heard in the process of
decision making.
It's critical if the Agency is going to have the
credibility in its decisions that in fact will enable the
public, the regulated community, to have confidence in what
they're doing.
So morale basically flows from does the staff understand
that there is an overall commitment--are you working with the
staff to provide them with the tools and the resources they
need to do their job and do they in fact feel like this is an
open and transparent agency and our decisions--and in fact our
decisions will be supported by the public because the public
had sufficient input into us making those decisions.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for
being here.
And Mr. Reilly, in your testimony you mentioned rural
America is where EPA is mistrusted. I represent the 2nd
District of Kentucky--several rural areas, several counties. A
lot of us represent rural America. So I am interested in that
comment you made, and why do you think the EPA is mistrusted in
rural America?
Mr. Reilly. First of all, I think that the intrusiveness of
some of the regulatory priorities, particularly with regard to
ephemeral wetlands, impacts especially hard on farmers and
ranchers, and they encounter controls they don't fully
understand, and when they do they don't often agree with them
because these are areas that may not be wet for some part of
the year.
Many of the States we are talking about, though, have
already lost 90 percent of their wetlands, and wetlands, in
fact, have critical roles with respect to habitat and species
and the rest.
I think it may also be true that we've got to learn better
the lessons of things like total quality management in terms of
how to interface with people who are affected directly by
regulation.
Mr. Guthrie. So, what do you think EPA could do? I know
you're just--it sounds like you are starting to get that, but
what do you think EPA should do to become more trustworthy with
rural America?
Mr. Reilly. Well, I think it's got to do a better job of
communicating the validity of some of the priorities that they
have and particularly how they act to enforce them.
I know the kind of anger that I've encountered in some
parts of the country has surprised me, and it's not an accident
that the president can say the kinds of things he said about
wanting to break up EPA into little bits, because of the
existing anger.
Rural America has its own problems that go well beyond the
environment and far beyond EPA. But any regulatory agency that
affects farmers--I have a farm; I am on my way to my farm
tomorrow in Illinois--is particularly dealing with an
independent community of people who don't like to have their
use of their land interfered with.
That's a given, that it has to be to respect some of these
values and administer some of these laws. No net loss of
wetlands was a priority of my President, President George H. W.
Bush, whom I served. But it's not a popular one.
Mr. Guthrie. I need to get to a couple more questions. I
understand.
Mr. Reilly. Sure.
Mr. Guthrie. So you also mentioned frictions are evident
in State relations with EPA. What kind of frictions were you
referring to in your testimony, and you said frictions are
evident between State--in your testimony you said that--between
State and Federal.
Mr. Reilly. Oh. Well, the structure of our laws anticipates
the cooperative relationship between the Federal Government and
the States and particularly lays upon the States minimal
requirements that EPA is in charge of overseeing.
That is, obviously, a fraught relationship, in many cases,
with States having either different priorities or a different
sense of their own resources.
We all, I think--all four of us here who had to deal with
States that had a different opinion on the administration of
laws, perhaps, than we had, and sometimes they were successful
in preventing, sometimes we were. But that--I don't consider
that in any way----
Mr. Guthrie. You mentioned in your opening statement WOTUS
particularly, and I know that's where--from the rural area, and
in my rural areas a lot of people talk about the WOTUS rule
that was coming down.
Mr. Reilly. Yes.
Mr. Guthrie. And, you know, the statute clearly uses the
word ``navigable,'' and ``navigable'' means something. Does
navigable mean something in that law, or was it something--so
that's a friction where the Federal Government seems to be
encroaching on what Congress clearly wanted the States to do.
Or the word ``navigable'' means nothing.
Mr. Reilly. My sense is that ``navigable'' is part of the
Rivers and Harbors Act but not necessarily the authority that
they're drawing on here.
But I am very aware of those differences of opinion and
certainly aware that the agriculture community sees them very
differently from the environmental community but--and have the
sense myself, frankly, that a hierarchy of wetlands
characterization would probably make the administration of
wetlands regulation more popular, or at least less unpopular in
the rural areas.
Mr. Guthrie. And, Mr. Thomas, I know we have to clarify
this, and I appreciate you saying this is the committee that
needs to be looking at this. I think Congress does need to step
in.
And a question: Should EPA's role with regulated entities
be collaborative, adversarial, or impartial?
Mr. Thomas?
Mr. Thomas. You know, my own sense is it needs to be a very
disciplined process that EPA uses in terms of its
decisionmaking. There then----
Mr. Guthrie. I am almost out of time, so I was going to add
``and with environmental groups.'' So if you will throw that
together. I was going to ask you that next.
Mr. Thomas. I would like to see--I would like to see
special-interest groups as a part of that process, having their
input. I would also like to see a broader community having
their input, as far as the Agency is concerned.
And so you have got interest as far as the regulated
community. You have got interest as far as environmental
interests. All of that needs to have a process for input as
part of dialogue.
One of the things I did, by the way, is on a number of
rules I set up a regulatory negotiation process as opposed to
going through the typical process. We actually got stakeholders
around the table with a mediator and we actually tried to work
through a negotiation process.
And in some cases we were pretty successful. It eliminated
litigation down the road. It gave us a good rule that allowed
us actually to implement things more quickly.
So I think you can use different approaches. The one thing
you don't want to do because of credibility is you don't want
to have one side or the other side have unfettered access--
inappropriate access. It needs to be open and equal.
Mr. Guthrie. I absolutely agree with what you just said. So
thank you very much, and my time has expired, and I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to get Governor Whitman and Administrator McCarthy
to elaborate a little more on what they think needs to be done
by the EPA with regard to climate change and science.
So let me start with Governor Whitman. Do you believe that
the current administration is doing enough to combat climate
change, and if not, what is preventing them from playing a more
active role?
Ms. Whitman. Well, I think what we've seen from the
administration is actually the opposite. When they have told
scientists that they can't participate in various meetings that
have anything to do with climate change--that they're not
allowed to mention climate change in many of their reports.
It's a denial that doesn't make any sense. We need to be at
the table. It's understood and the American people understand
that the climate is changing.
We can debate over how much is human action or not, but we
certainly know that humans are having an impact on the climate
and a serious one.
We can't deny it. It won't go away because we are not
talking about it and, unfortunately, what we are seeing today
is there are a number of communications that have been put out
and things that have been made known to staff that they are not
to engage in climate change.
They are not to talk about it, and it's not just at EPA.
DOA, DOE--we've seen it at the Department of Interior.
Throughout the administration, there's the attitude that we
don't want to talk about climate change, and that's going to
hamper us in the long run from our ability to truly look at the
science and see what's underneath it, see what can we do.
We are not going to stop it. It's a natural phenomenon. We
are not going to stop climate change. But we need to know what
we can do to slow it down and how do we prepare for it because
it has very significant implications for us, New Jersey
particularly, being a coastal State.
But it's a national security issue, and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff have agreed that it's a national security issue, and
actually it was Ronald Reagan, as I understand it, who put it
on the National Security Council agenda for the first time.
Not that he fully believed that humans were the cause, but
he knew it was something coming at us, it was important, and we
needed to keep our eye on it, and I am afraid we are taking our
eye off that ball.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy, what are your concerns about how this
administration is using or not using science to guide its
climate change policies at EPA?
Ms. McCarthy. You know, I am concerned that they are
limiting science to disallow the Agency from looking at some of
the best science available.
I am worried that they are dismantling expert panels at a
time when their expertise is needed most. I am worried that
they're looking at programs like New Source Review, which is a
significant permitting program to ensure that excess pollution
isn't unfettered, and they're under the radar screen doing
memos about this and letters to industry without any potential
for public input.
I am worried about many things at EPA now about
transparency as well as the science. I am worried that they
won't let academic scientists on the Science Advisory Board or
expert panels, if they've taken any resources in terms of
grants from the Agency while they're not applying that same
standard in terms of looking at all at industry scientists and
whether they have potential conflicts of interest.
I am worried about the fact that there seems to be, you
know, industry communications in a way that's not made public.
Decisions are being made by letters, by policies, by memo that
normally would have had public participation, and should.
And I am worried about the fact that all of the ways in
which the Agency has traditionally since the Reagan
administration looked at cost/benefit is being tossed on its
head.
We are throwing out the rules of the road that have given
stability, that have taught the industry that they can rely on
how we implement and enforce. I am worried about enforcement.
You know, enforcement now is the weakest it's been in 20 years.
It's the lowest number ever in terms of civil penalties.
That matters. It sends signals to the industry, and it upsets
them. I am really concerned about--one more thing, if I may,
because I know I am taking probably too long.
Mr. Pallone. No, go ahead.
Ms. McCarthy. But one other thing is that you have three
rules: the Mercury and Air Toxics rule, you have the clean-car
rules, and you have a decision to not actually move forward to
regular hydrofluorocarbons, where the industries themselves
differ.
The regulated industry differs from the Agency outlook, and
they're actually--look at the automakers. They're saying this
is absolutely tremendously bad for them--for their profits, for
their stability.
I have never seen an administration come in and, instead of
having new policies, their sole goal seems to reverse
everything that has ever been done.
The instability in industry is palpable right now. The
signal it sends is don't worry about anything, but you also
can't have the guarantee of a level playing field.
Those things are important.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank you
all for being here and for your service to the American people
in the cause of better health and cleaner air and water.
I agree with many of the statements you made regarding the
importance of sound science. I believe we can not only support
the use of good science or public input when it guarantees our
preferred policy solutions. We should always support that
science.
I also believe it should be transparent to the public.
We've had fights in this committee and in this Congress over
that. I think it ought to be peer reviewed so we know it's not
politically biased.
I fought for that when it came to listings in ESA. Usually
got push back by my friends on the other side of the aisle. But
I think we are better served, whether we agree or disagree with
the outcome, when it's actually science we can believe in and
trust and that it's publicly available.
And so you will always find me on that side of it. Do you
think--I am going to ask you each kind of a yes or no--this
isn't a gotcha, by the way. It's just a yes or no.
Should Congress substitute its own judgment on a matter of
scientific concern or truncate the time EPA has to review a
matter, therefore shortcutting consideration of solid
scientific data needed to inform policy and regulatory
decisions before the scientific research is complete? Because
we have those debates here.
Should we step in before EPA and the professionals you have
all talked about have finished their work? Can you just--I know
it's a wide-ranging question, but maybe just right to left.
Mr. Thomas? Yes or no.
Mr. Thomas. There's such a thing as a precautionary
principle, which I think underlies a lot of the decisions at
EPA. You won't reach a point where all the uncertainty has been
defined.
Mr. Walden. Correct.
Mr. Thomas. You have to begin. I did that.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Thomas. Hopefully we did that with the stratospheric
ozone approach when we negotiated the Montreal Protocol. There
was debate on that. But we used a precautionary principle and,
fortunately, we were absolutely right.
Mr. Walden. All right. So, but should Congress truncate
EPA's scientific efforts? That's the question here.
Mr. Thomas. No.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Reilly?
Mr. Reilly. My answer is to say that what you want is an
Environmental Protection Agency or any agency working on a
problem that's doing so vigorously, seriously, with an end to
getting an answer.
And if you have that kind of agency, then Congress should
not substitute itself.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Ms. Whitman?
Ms. Whitman. If Congress is confident in the quality of the
science, they shouldn't step in before that's completed to the
extent it can be completed.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, I am with the rest. Yes, I believe that
Congress's job is to charge the Agency, give it authority it
believes----
Mr. Walden. And let them finish their work.
Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. And let the scientists make the
science decisions. Keep politics out of it.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Clean Air Act
was last updated in 1990, nearly 30 years ago. Included in the
Clean Air Act is a requirement that the EPA complete a review
of criteria air pollutants--including ozone, particulate
matter, carbon monoxide, and others--at the 5-year intervals.
Yet, EPA has regularly missed those deadlines, as you all
know. For example, the last review for carbon monoxide took
place in 2011, 8 years ago.
The last review for the primary standard for nitrogen
dioxide took place in 2010, 9 years ago, and at one point the
secondary standard for sulfur dioxide was not updated for 39
years, a period that included the tenures of 3 of you.
By our count, you all missed multiple NAAQS deadlines
during your tenures as Administrator. I think, Ms. McCarthy,
you're on the hook for three of those, Ms. Whitman six, Mr.
Reilly four, Mr. Thomas two.
So my question is, because the Agency falls so far behind
on these deadlines, by the time one criteria air pollutant
standard is complete, EPA has to start the process over again
or risk missing the next deadline, which you have all proved
capable of doing.
And the States are struggling to keep up, as they are the
ones that subsequently have to create and enact implementation
plans to come into attainment with those standards.
So, having laid the predicate here, this all begs the
question. Is the process envisioned by the Clean Air Act--
should we keep the 5-year standard and the resulting failures
of compliance we've seen at EPA for decades, or should we
lengthen the time period for review to 10 years or another
appropriate length of time?
We'll go left to right, and I've only got a minute 22. So
Ms. McCarthy?
Ms. McCarthy. What I would suggest is that you be careful
doing either. You want their science to be correct. The Agency
moves to the extent that it can as quickly as it can and----
Mr. Walden. If the law says 5 years----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. You missed it a couple times.
Ms. Whitman, let's go to you.
Ms. Whitman. If the Agency has the staffing that it needs,
if it has the scientists it needs, it should be held to that
standard and move as quickly as it can.
Mr. Walden. So, given the number you missed----
Ms. Whitman. But it's frustrating----
Mr. Walden [continuing]. You're telling me you didn't have
the staffing or what you needed then under the Bush
administration?
Ms. Whitman. No, it's frustrating because it is a tight
time frame, and there are a lot of complicated things.
Mr. Walden. That's why I am asking the question. Is it too
tight? Because it seems like nobody's able to meet it
regularly, and yet all this spills out to the States----
Ms. Whitman. Clearly, too tight.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. And you are chasing an old
standard, right? So----
Ms. Whitman. Clearly, too tight.
Mr. Walden. All right. Mr. Reilly?
Mr. Reilly. Mr. Walden, I think that's a smart question
and----
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Mr. Reilly [continuing]. And I think there are many reasons
why we missed deadlines and, frankly, some of them are
political. Sometimes the Office of Management and Budget
intervenes to prevent that.
Other times, many of the deadlines that are missed by EPA
are missed because this Congress doesn't appropriate enough
money or makes too many unreasonable demands with respect to
the Agency.
I think of the number of reports that we were supposed to
file in the course of a year.
Mr. Walden. I couldn't agree more.
Mr. Reilly. So my answer to that question is, I would not
alter the years requirements--the 5-year rules. I would keep
the heat on from Congress, which you're in the best position
here on this committee to do.
Mr. Walden. Well, look. You have had Republican--Madam
Chair, everybody went over by at least a minute and a half. If
I could----
Ms. DeGette. The Chair will give you 20 more seconds.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
I guess what I would say is Republicans and Democrats have
chaired this committee, this Congress, you had Republican and
Democrat Presidents, we have Republican and Democrat EPA
Administrators, and nobody has been able to meet the deadline
the statute requires. So I am just trying to find out what the
best one is.
But we are out of time, so thank you.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ruiz for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
As you all know better than anybody, EPA is truly a public
health agency, and by setting limits on air and water
contaminants, supervising cleanup at Superfund sites, and
restricting harmful chemicals from being sprayed on crops, EPA
plays a vital role in keeping our communities and families
safe.
Governor Whitman, you have previously written that, quote,
``Toxic waste allowed into streams, methane needlessly leaking
into the air, power plant and tailpipe emissions unleashed,
restricting the use of widely accepted public health research,
these policies hurt all Americans, regardless of party,''
unquote.
So, Governor Whitman, do you believe the current EPA is
doing enough to protect the public health? If not, what message
do you think they are sending by rolling back vital human
health protections?
Ms. Whitman. I think, as I've stated before, that the
administration currently--the EPA currently on the track that
it's on is endangering public health and the health of the
environment.
I think it's critical that we continue to be protective. I
am all for looking at regulations, to go over them from time to
time to make sure they are relevant, that they are still
meeting the needs, that there isn't new technology or we
haven't found out new things, need to set another standard.
But we have to remember that this is about protecting
public health and the environment, and to the extent that we
roll back regulations without a thorough scientific basis for
those rollbacks and setting new standards, it concerns me
greatly about what that means for the mission of the Agency.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Administrator McCarthy, since leaving the administration
you have continued to advocate for public health, and now you
are a professor at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public
Health, of which I am a graduate in 2007.
Ms. McCarthy. Want to make a donation?
[Laughter.]
Ms. McCarthy. Just kidding. Just kidding.
Mr. Ruiz. Ms. McCarthy, what is the Agency not doing right
now that, in your opinion, it must do to fulfill its public
health mission?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it's not making evidence-based
decisions. It's not following standard practice throughout the
Federal Government on how you look at science, what science is
acceptable, how do you do a peer review process, and it's
certainly not following the cost/benefit rules.
And I think that, clearly, there is an end point they're
trying to get to that common and standard practice for how you
do evidence-based decisions won't get them there.
And so it's--and they are also not being transparent, which
I think if we are dealing with public health, I want to know
the impacts of decisions. I want to know what they mean for me
and my family, and I think every other person in the United
States should know what you're doing, what you're
contemplating, and be able to weigh in.
Mr. Ruiz. Same question to you, Governor Whitman. What is
the Agency not doing right now that, in your opinion, is
critical to fulfilling its public health mission?
Ms. Whitman. Well, I agree with Administrator McCarthy. The
real problem is the availability and the transparency of the
science underlying the decisions that are currently being made,
and I don't think we are seeing that.
I don't think we are seeing the kind of evidence base that
we need to see in order for the public to have confidence in
the decisions that are being made or the regulations that are
being rolled back. That is what we are missing, and that is
what we need.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Governor Whitman, in your testimony you state EPA's mission
of protecting the public health and protecting the environment
are, quote, ``inextricably linked.''
I find that this is particularly true with respect to low-
wealth and minority communities who are often
disproportionately impacted by polluting industries in their
neighborhoods.
How important is it for EPA to support the cutting-edge
research into the health effects of pollution, and do you
believe the current EPA should be doing a better job in this
area?
Ms. Whitman. The answer is very important, and yes, to keep
you within your time frame.
But no, it is absolutely critical that we have the kind of
cutting edge. That's what the Agency is about. The Agency can
do things that the States can't. The Agency should have the
resources to be able to have the depth of science that a State
or an entity--a smaller entity, a community--can't do it.
That's what the Agency is there for, to set those
standards, to provide that kind of in-depth, scientific-based
research and decisionmaking so that people can feel confident
in what's being proposed and why it's being proposed.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
It is troubling when EPA's own leadership appears to be
undercutting the Agency's important public health mission. To
take just one example, the American Thoracic Society wrote a
letter to this subcommittee in advance of this hearing on
behalf of its 16,000 physicians and scientists to express
concerns about EPA efforts to dismiss key air pollution health
benefits that occur from reductions in particular matter below
current regulatory standards, and I would like to enter their
June 10th, 2019, letter into the record for this hearing.
Ms. DeGette. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burgess for 5
minutes.
Mr. Burgess. And thank you. Thanks for the recognition.
Administrator Thomas, you were not given the opportunity to
answer Mr. Walden's question about the 5 years being too tight
a time line. Would you care to respond to that?
Mr. Thomas. I reviewed four of those standards while I was
Administrator and actually set a new standard for particulate
matter. Initiated additional scientific work on ozone,
reaffirmed the sulfur dioxide standard, and reaffirmed the
carbon monoxide standard.
I guess I would say there's extensive work that needs to be
done before a standard is either reaffirmed or modified, and I
think a 5-year time frame is pretty arbitrary.
I would say that it probably takes longer than that to do
the kind of work that needs to be done. So unless you----
Mr. Burgess. So that would be a yes to, ``Is the time line
too tight?''
Mr. Thomas. That would be a yes. That would be yes.
Mr. Burgess. OK. In the interests of time, I am going to
move on.
Administrator Reilly, you talked about the ephemeral
wetlands issue. Mr. Guthrie had asked a question about somehow
the erosion of trust in rural communities, and you referenced
the ephemeral wetlands as being perhaps one of the reasons for
that erosion of trust. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Reilly. That's correct.
Mr. Burgess. And, you know, I am just reminded that in a
previous Congress or two that--not in this committee but in the
Science Committee, there was concern about the derivation of
the Waters of the United States rule, and Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma
had asked whether the Agency had made the data that was used to
craft the Waters of the United States rule public.
He was told the information was available. But the
statement that the information--the data requested in Mr.
Lucas's question was publicly available in the APA docket was
in fact false and misleading, because it was not.
So, based on a memorandum from the United States Army Corps
of Engineers, it's apparent those figures outlined in the EPA's
final Waters of the U.S. rule were completely arbitrary and not
based on science.
So do you begin to see why the distrust in the rural
community might exist? Mr. Lucas represents a very rural
portion of the State of Oklahoma, and I think it's pretty easy
to draw the nexus between those two events.
Mr. Reilly. I am not familiar with that particular
chronology. I just have to say that there was a time, and
Administrator Thomas referred to it, when he established a
stakeholders meeting on wetlands, which I ran at the
Conservation Foundation, and everybody was present there. The
agriculture community was well represented, the building
community, the development community.
And we came to a support of no net loss of wetlands, and we
had a definition of wetlands that was acceptable to that group
at that time, and that became the basis for the President's
proposal and policy of having no net loss of wetlands.
I thought that was a constructive community conversation
that Lee initiated. I was central to it. Governor Kean of New
Jersey was the chair, and I would encourage a similar kind of
convocation to try to deal with what I think is quite a serious
problem.
Mr. Burgess. I am going to reclaim my time because I am
running short, and they're very quick with the gavel here.
But do you understand why, when there is a discrepancy
between what people were told in the Committee on Science and
what was in fact available in the public record, that it builds
that mistrust that people have?
And you acknowledge that inherently there was a lot of
mistrust on the ephemeral wetlands. You know, you have talked
about--I think Mr. Guthrie or one of the other Members also
asked you whether it should be an adversarial role, and you
recommended a disciplined process.
I know in my area of north Texas, a previous Regional
Administrator was quite aggressive in his attempts to regulate
oil and gas production and even referenced perhaps there needed
to be pretty harsh treatment of operators, and I think that
earned him a quick exit from the Region 6 Administrator
position.
Now, his follow-on was someone with whom I got along very
well, and we had multiple meaningful discussions, and it was a
disciplined process.
So, again, we are trying to put a lot on this
administration, saying they don't follow a disciplined process.
Unfortunately, that has been some of the track record of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
And I know my time has expired, so I will yield back.
Mr. Reilly. If I could respond briefly.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
I will allow the gentleman to respond briefly.
Mr. Reilly. Some of the issues in Texas I am very familiar
with. I've been on the board of what was Energy Future
Holdings, Texas Utilities, for a number of years and I--as you
raise an issue on the environment there, one that really
deserves attention is the methane rule.
My experience with the oil industry and the--actually the
mercury rule as well--is that both of those rules had been
accommodated by Texas industries. They were not in need of
revisiting. They had tens of millions of dollars been laid out
to accommodate them and----
Mr. Burgess. But if I may, though, the Supreme Court
recommended a cost/benefit analysis must include information on
cost in the mercury rule. That was their opinion.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you. I will yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very excited
that you're here, all of you, with this really crucial
perspective on the EPA and, obviously, as you know, one of the
most important parts of the EPA's mission is to protect public
health and the environment, ensure that our air is safe to
breathe, and I would like to better understand what EPA can do
to protect our communities from the dangers of air pollution.
Governor Whitman, you described the administration's
rollback of environmental protections as, quote, ``an
unprecedented attack on science-based regulations designed to
protect the environment and public health, which represents the
gravest threat to the effectiveness of the EPA and to the
Federal Government's overall ability to do the same in the
Nation's history,'' unquote.
Can you just talk a little bit about how the rollbacks
threaten the overall effectiveness of the EPA?
Ms. Whitman. Well, to start with, it undermines its
authority. It undermines its credibility. When you start to
remove people from scientific panels that are the peer
scientists and replace them with those who represent industry
to a degree that it is an unbalanced advisory board, you're
starting to undermine the credibility and the confidence that
the public will have in the decisions and recommendations that
come from that.
We see this happening again and again as the Agency is
starved for money, as was mentioned before by one of my
compatriots here, that the fact that we are not having
enforcement.
It's not that you want to have penalties. It's not that you
want to just have the big stick. But if industry doesn't know
that in fact there will be penalties if they are bad actors,
they will go ahead and do what they've been doing that might
hurt public health. It is hurting public health, if that's what
is determined.
Those things send messages, and if those messages aren't
clear, if those messages don't reflect a real commitment to
protecting public health and the environment, then the Agency
is being undermined, and public confidence in the Agency is
undermined and our public health, bottom line, is being
undermined.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Administrator McCarthy, prior to serving as EPA
Administrator, you ran the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA,
which has been very busy in the current administration, as you
know, proposing to roll back or undermine protections on
methane, carbon, mercury, pollution, and automobile efficiency
standards.
Can you talk about how those rollbacks are going to affect
public health?
Ms. McCarthy. I would indicate to you that they are going
to have a significant impact on public health if they are
successful, which in many ways I question.
We all know that carbon pollution comes part and parcel
with other conventional pollutants, and that those pollutants
hit--that really hurt us. They impact children. They impact the
elderly.
We all know that mercury is a neurotoxin, and if you roll
back the mercury rule it makes no sense because it's already in
place. The industry is not complaining. The science is huge to
indicate that it is a tremendously cost-effective rule.
The clean-car rules offer tremendous opportunities, not
just to get cleaner cars that are cheaper for people and better
to drive, but we also have an opportunity to significantly
reduce ozone pollution, significantly reduce particulate
matter. That is one of the most dangerous kind of exposures
that we have.
So this is a missed opportunity to both keep in place rules
that are already effective and in the case of MATS done, but
also to make sure that you work with industry that it actually
promotes the kind of products that consumers want to buy and
advances their interests as well.
There is no reason to believe that you can't have a strong
auto industry and continue to push it towards cleaner cars. We
have been doing it for a decade or more. We have to keep doing
it.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
And something that I find insidious is you--obviously, an
agency can benefit from bringing in as much input from key
stakeholders as possible--important, responsible input--and, as
I understand it, the administration is relaxing protections
against air pollution through memos and guidance without
getting the input of key stakeholders, including States.
So speak to that, why that is structurally really a problem
in terms of landing in the right place on this regulatory
oversight.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the EPA and States are in a partnership
in order to work together to make sure that we are meeting the
mission of the Agency, and part of the challenge that I face is
that I know that much of the changes are being done with the
idea that we are in some kind of cooperative federalism here.
I don't consider it to be cooperative federalism if you
propose consistently to stop funding States. If you propose to
reduce the kind of laboratories and expertise that EPA has that
no State can possibly move forward and produce.
And so it's extremely important, I think, for States to be
involved in these decisions. It's equally important for the
regulated industry to be at the table, and it's equally
important for people that care about the environment and
advocate for it to be at the table.
If someone asked me what I thought about the relationship,
I think the collaborative process is OK. There is no reason why
you can't come to an understanding of how to meet our needs in
terms of public health and the environment while at the same
growing the economy.
Mr. Sarbanes. And the public takes----
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Sarbanes. And the public takes great comfort in that
partnership, I will add.
I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes Mr. McKinley for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
We can all agree that we want a cleaner environment, and we
have--I think we have made tremendous strides in air and water
and the environment over the years.
However, the recent EPA has had a history of overreach and
been misleading Congress and the American people in the
process.
Past Administrators promulgated rules and rulemaking that
were in many ways aspirational and not based on science. So as
a result, as you all know, many have been overturned in court.
Listen, I can't relate to you. The three of you--I didn't
serve under you. But under Gina McCarthy, I do have firsthand
knowledge, and thank you for coming here. And so we've had
these exchanges in the committee before, because I want to
focus on that--the most recent.
So under her leadership I think the EPA went rogue and it
deviated from these historic missions that you all were talking
about, how the EPA rose to a different level with it, and as a
result of that we now have uncertainty and a decreased
reliability of our electric grid.
For example, under McCarthy's tenure, with the EPA we were
told that policies regarding the electric grid would have
little effect on the terms of the costs and capacity
requirements.
That has been proven to be untrue. On the very comment that
she talked about was the mercury neurotoxic rule. We were told
in this committee that the EPA rule would only cost--about 4.7
gigawatts of power would be lost across our grid. But the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation--NAERC--has found
that 54 gigawatts of power have been lost, 11 times more than
we were told by the EPA.
And the impact on the ratepayers, it would be very small
was the quote that was given in testimony. But yet, in Ohio the
rates went up 183 percent to the ratepayers.
And on this board there was an example given by the EPA
back in 2014 that said this would be the impact--only 10
gigawatts of power would be lost under this rule. But yet, at
the end of the day it was 172 gigawatts of power were lost as a
result of this--a third of the capacity for our electric
generation.
We were told that the EPA takes into consideration, as you
all did, the ramifications of the proposals on the impact on
communities. But across America, under the Obama administration
83,000 coal miners lost their job across America.
These regulations that were put into effect based on
ideology, not science, they were--I think they caused
uncertainty. The Sammis plant is another example, in Ohio. They
met all the rules, $1.8 billion was invested, and then under
this recent EPA another rule was promulgated as soon as that
was done. They said they're done. They're retiring their plant,
after all that money was invested with it, and the taxpayers
are going to have to take care of it.
Plants in Virginia and California were fine by the EPA for
operating at the direction of FERC. FERC says you have to
operate, and they did. Then they got turned around under the
recent administration of the EPA. They were fined.
So, look, if they had just--in your words, if the EPA had
just done its job, the power grid would not be at risk today in
America and therefore President Trump and Rick Perry would not
have to be putting forth their efforts to try to restore that
balance with it, because the Department of Energy, the
Institute for Energy Research, ISO New England, all have
concluded our power grid is at risk.
It is unreliable. Therefore, continue--I think Congress
needs to have dependable, credible data coming from the EPA
from which we can do it, not ideologically driven, and we need
to keep focusing on carbon capture.
But I understand today that many of you are unhappy with
the direction of the President's EPA. I think we are entitled
to have credible, reliable information from which to make a
conclusion, and I would hope--Mr. Reilly, if I could start with
you. Would you agree that we should have credible, dependable
information from which we can make set policy?
Mr. Reilly. Yes, sir. I think all of us have said today
that we believe in more transparency.
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Thomas, would you say--is there a way--
when you were there at the administration, did you find--what
magic did you have to be able to work collaboratively with DOE
so we didn't have--because back then we didn't have grid
insecurity. How did you work with the DOE to make sure that our
grid was reliable?
Mr. Thomas. You know, we didn't spend much time working
with DOE back in those days. I will tell you what we did,
though, across all the Cabinet agencies. The way the President
operated is, you had a lot of interaction in the Cabinet
process. He operated like I would if I was chairman of a
company and was having my board of directors. That's the way he
did.
So there was an awful lot of communication back and forth
about issues. I don't recall the grid and the reliability of
the grid coming forward as an issue that we were trying to deal
with.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Administrator McCarthy, do you want to take some time to
just respond before I move on with my questions?
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you. Just very quickly. You know, the
Mercury and Air Toxic Standard was put in place because mercury
is a neurotoxin to our kids, and it's found almost in every
lake and stream in the United States of America where we have
fish advisories.
And we took a look at it. We estimated costs. We estimated
benefits, and years later, now that it's done we totally
overestimated the cost and by orders of magnitude
underestimated the benefits.
We are in great shape in terms of mercury emissions. They
have dropped 85 percent. And so I am proud of that rule. I
think we did it right. I don't think it has anything to do with
any instability in the grid that I certainly have read out.
But it should be something we celebrate because we have
healthier kids today. We have fewer fish advisories, and we
made a difference with that rule.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you.
Environmental protection is fundamentally about how to use
good science to understand and reduce threats to public health.
As we have, unfortunately, seen, the Trump EPA has actively
worked to weaken science at the Agency by blocking reports from
being published, ignoring Agency scientists, eliminating key
expertise on science boards, and proposing a rule which would
restrict data available in the regulatory process.
So I would like to ask some questions to better understand
the implications of this administration's treatment of science.
Governor Whitman, I will start with you. You state in your
testimony that this attack on science at EPA is, and I quote,
``unprecedented and represents the gravest threat to the
effectiveness of EPA.'' You also fault this administration for,
and I again quote, ``using ideology to drive environmental
policy instead of letting science drive policy.''
So, Governor, from what you have observed, is EPA's current
culture allowing scientists to speak up on issues like
scientific integrity without pressure or fear of retaliation at
the Agency?
Ms. Whitman. No. From what I have heard from members of the
EPA who are still there, the best thing is to keep your head
down. If you have something that you believe is contrary to
where you think the administration wants to see the Agency go,
then you have to be very careful about how you come forward
with it, if you do at all.
And so that is not, I don't--I believe that is not healthy.
It's not good for the environment at the Agency itself, and it
is not good for us in getting transparency and understanding
what really is behind some of the issues that we face today.
Mr. Tonko. I would say it's tragic for the American public.
Administrator McCarthy, EPA's scientific integrity policy
states that it is, and I quote, ``essential that political or
other officials not suppress or alter scientific findings.''
What do you think are the most fundamental flaws in how the
current EPA is handling science, particularly as it relates to
issues such as climate change?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think that one of the--this is an
area where I would really ask the attention of the committee in
terms of oversight.
From what I can understand from outside, not only is the
Agency trying to add doubt and fuel doubt on climate change,
but even some of the actions they're doing, for example,
actions that they're taking to squish together the
decisionmaking under national ambient air quality standards and
decide that we are going to shortcut the process by including
cost in the analysis on what's healthy air, that is just
abominable.
It's not the process under the law, and it shouldn't be
tolerated, and I think that right now you see political
appointees that are reviewing on grants these days.
One of the things that political appointee reportedly said
is, he going to look for phrases like ``climate change,'' so
you see the entrance of political interests into decisionmaking
in the Agency. That cannot happen.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Reilly, you actively engaged EPA's science apparatus as
Administrator and recently urged Administrator Wheeler to
reconstitute a credible science advisory committee.
Mr. Reilly, what can EPA do to establish the Agency's
scientific credibility?
Mr. Reilly. Sir, you start, I think, by filling some of the
positions that are currently empty and have been from the
beginning of the administration, such as the Assistant
Administrator for Research and Science.
That is a key role, and it ordinarily is the chief staff
person who serves within the Agency for the composition of the
Science Advisory Board, for convening them, for organizing
their material, and so forth.
The quality and distinction of scientists is absolutely
crucial to the trust that people have and the recommendations
they make relative to priorities. That has to be established by
making clear that the people are predominantly independent,
that they are respected in their fields, that they have
distinguished themselves very significantly, typically in each
of their fields.
It is not encouraged by taking a predominant number of them
from roles where they have previously advocated for business
interests rather than environmental or health-related reasons
or ecological reasons.
It is, I think, a profound mistake----
Ms. DeGette. Excuse me. The chairman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for being here.
I think Mr. Thomas is from the great State of South Carolina.
Welcome.
Governor Whitman, you mentioned in your testimony that,
over the past 37 years, the United States GDP grew by 165
percent while total emissions of the 6 major pollutants dropped
by 67 percent.
You alluded to the fact the United States alone cannot
reduce the contributions human beings around the world are
making to the growing threat of climate change.
Between the years 2005 and 2017, the United States'
electricity sector had CO2 emissions drop by 3.9
billion metric tons. During that same period of time, China's
carbon emissions increased by 4 billion metric tons per year.
Per year.
And we can't adopt all of these policies that drive up the
cost of electricity while countries like China do absolutely
nothing. According to the International Energy Agency, Germans,
which have moved toward more renewables, Germans pay, roughly,
three times the amount that Americans pay for electricity due
to government restrictions on carbon emissions.
So if we move toward these policies, then average American
families' electrical rates will go up. If we follow the
policies of Germany, which the Paris Climate Accord was pushing
us toward, we would see the average electrical bill for the
average American family triple.
Are you OK with that? It's a yes or no question.
Ms. McCarthy, are you OK with the average American
electrical bill tripling? That would be a yes or no.
Ms. McCarthy. I am not at all aware that moving to clean
energy consistent with climate change----
Mr. Duncan. Ms. Whitman?
Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. Needs is increasing----
Mr. Duncan. Yes or no.
Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. Electricity prices.
Ms. Whitman. I don't believe it's a yes or no question,
sir, because I don't think that that's going to be the outcome
if we go to clean energy or utilize our nuclear energy that we
have today.
Mr. Duncan. Look, these aren't my numbers. This is the
International Energy Agency saying that Germans pay, roughly,
three times. If we move--it's been proven. We've had testimony
in this committee that----
Ms. Whitman. We are not Germany, and I have more faith in
our ability to improvise.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. The rates will go up. So, no, we
are not Germany but bottom line is electrical rates will go up
and, as a percentage of income, lower-income families will pay
more as a percentage of their income for electrical rates.
We just need to be careful as we continue this push towards
more expensive electricity, which wind and solar truly is. And,
look, I am an all-of-the-above guy.
But let me tell you what will lower the carbon emissions
for this country. That's nuclear power, because right now in
this country 56 percent of our carbon-free emissions come from
nuclear power. In South Carolina, my home State, 96 percent of
our carbon-free emissions come from nuclear power.
Would you all agree, as the Governor of Connecticut
recently admitted, that if they want to meet their attainment
goals for carbon-free emissions and lower their carbon
footprint, they need to keep their nuclear power plants that
they were thinking about decommissioning--they need to keep
those online and have them--license renewed.
So would you all agree with me nuclear power ought to be a
part of the mix? I see all the heads shaking. OK.
Ms. Whitman. Absolutely, and small modular reactors offer a
great deal of promise for our nuclear force, going forward.
Mr. Duncan. OK. So I agree, nuclear power, I think small
modular reactors, molten salt reactors, new technology, Gen 5,
Gen 6, all these things that are being talked about should come
online.
But nuclear waste sits at 121 nondefense sites around this
country--121 commercial reactors. Two on the shores of Lake
Erie in Ohio. There are six in Illinois. There's one sitting in
my district on the shores of Lake Keowee, a beautiful clear-
water lake.
So we know there is a byproduct of nuclear waste. Let me
ask you this: Should the Nation have a long-term repository,
Ms. McCarthy, for nuclear waste? Or should it sit at 121 sites
around the country?
Ms. McCarthy. I am really not prepared to answer that
question. I believe that the repositories need to be safe
wherever we keep them. I've helped with the decommissioning of
two----
Mr. Duncan. Should it sit at 121 sites on the shores of
Lake Erie and places like that, or should it be in a long-term
repository?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, that's what the law indicates, is it
should go to a central repository.
Mr. Duncan. Ms. Whitman?
Ms. Whitman. The law calls for it, and we have a site.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Reilly?
Mr. Reilly. I think the--there are ample opportunities to
store that waste. I've always seen it as a technical problem.
It's not an insurmountable one.
We've made too much of it, and I think the--would that the
repository in Nevada had more room, but it ought to be filled
up before we go anywhere else. But then I think we ought to if
we have to.
Mr. Duncan. About out of time.
Mr. Thomas?
Mr. Thomas. I really agree with you on nuclear power, and
yes, I think there ought to be a central repository.
Mr. Duncan. So the committee will understand that these
folks agree with us that nuclear power ought to be a part to
lower our carbon emissions. It plays a big part of that.
There is a byproduct, and we need a long-term repository
for that nuclear waste or it will sit in our home States, in
our districts, with the possibility of problems. We ought to
send it to Yucca Mountain.
I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Schakowsky for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the chairwoman.
So there's been some discussion about making sure that the
facts are right and that things are reported correctly, and I
have been very troubled by what we've seen in regard to what
the President said when he was running for office, that he
would break the EPA into little tidbits and that he had no
respect, essentially, for the work of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and I think one of the ways that we've seen
that evidenced is some of the language that has been taken off
of the websites.
And if we are talking about truth, we heard Mr. McKinley
talking about facts and truth or whatever on the--that it
wasn't there.
But it seems to me that what we've seen is a scrubbing of
any mentions of climate change, and this is from an article in
Time magazine--actually, Administrator Whitman, you have been
quoted in that article--and some of the language that's been
scrubbed definitely has to do primarily with climate change.
Let's see, some of the things--the EPA site is now riddled
with missing links, redirecting pages and buried information.
Over the past year terms like ``fossil fuels,'' ``greenhouse
gases,'' and ``global warming'' have been excised, even the
term, quote, ```science' is no longer safe.''
I know you were interviewed for this article, which
happened last year, and I just wondered if you wanted to
comment on how--let's say you're a student and you want to find
out more about these issues. Is this a reliable website to go
to?
Ms. Whitman. There are a variety of websites. That's one of
the things the internet gives us. But, unfortunately, we find
that people don't go to multiple sites. They want to go to one
site, and with the way that----
Ms. Schakowsky. No, but I am concerned about the official--
--
Ms. Whitman. Right. I was going to say and the way,
unfortunately, that the site seems to be being managed now at
the Environmental Protection Agency, it doesn't give them the
confidence that that presents the whole story and that they're
getting everything.
Ms. Schakowsky. Very concerned about that. Just even more
recently, and I was just putting together some information,
there was a scientist who--Dr. Rod Schoonover, a senior analyst
for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research Department, who was
giving testimony to the Intelligence Committee. This is
unclassified information, but there are all these tracked
changes that wanted to take out things like in the word
``climate change''--take out the word ``change.''
And according to a New York Times article--and I want to
put all these things in the record--that the White House tried
to stop State Department senior intelligence analysts from
discussing climate science in the congressional testimony this
week.
He was able to give the testimony--this is new. But if you
look at--and that's why I want to put it in the record, Madam
Chairman, both the statement that he wrote and then the one
with the tracked changes that they wanted, to put that into--
these are public statements.
These are public statements. I have to say that because it
was for the Intelligence Committee. And this--oh, no. Time goes
so fast. I am concerned about the number of people that are
leaving the Environmental Protection Agency, and I am
wondering, Administrator McCarthy, if you could comment on
that.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. There has been a significant number,
probably a couple of thousand at this point that have left the
Agency. I am confident, however, that many of the great career
staff are sticking it out as best they can.
But they're in an uncomfortable situation of not being
respected, of being under threat of being moved if they don't
do what the political leadership wants.
I think they're worried not just about what they can and
can't say or what you can and can't find on their website.
They're concerned that you have a repeal of the clean power
plan and a reproposal that literally will increase greenhouse
gas emissions. If you don't have it, either one, you will be
better off.
Ms. Schakowsky. If I could just make one final comment that
the greenhouse gas emissions increased in 2018 in the United
States and at the highest level around the world as well. We
are going in the wrong direction.
Ms. DeGette. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair--without objection, the documents--the New York
Times article dated June 8th, 2019, and the two statements for
the record by Dr. Rod Schoonover are introduced into the
record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5
minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
What I am hearing from all of you today--and thank you all
for your service to protect our environment--on the domestic
front, we see an antiscience, propolluter EPA that fosters a
culture of silence and has a Green Inquisition going on. So
thank you for that testimony. I hope Americans across the
Nation understand that.
On the world stage, we see a retreat from international
leadership since we are the only country in the entire world
not in the Paris Climate Accord, or at least there's been a
notice to withdraw us, and, of course, we've passed our bill
out to get back in.
But I want to talk a little bit about ceding international
leadership from the EPA. We are seeing consequences of global
warming, including through more extreme weather, rising seas,
and diminishing Arctic ice.
And last week, the State of Global Air 2019 Report was
released, which found that air pollution is the fifth-leading
risk factor for mortality, responsible for more global deaths
than malnutrition, alcohol use, traffic accidents, or malaria.
Mr. Reilly, as Administrator you established the EPA's
international office. During your tenure, EPA made great
progress working with other countries on environmental
priorities, and you recently stated, however, that, quote,
``American leadership that was essential to the commitments of
China and so vital to the success of the Paris Climate Accord
have been effectively repudiated during the Trump
administration.''
In your opinion, is there a risk if the U.S. lowers
environmental standards that other countries could follow suit
and lower their standards?
Mr. Reilly. Thank you, Mr. Soto.
I cannot count the number of times that ministers from
other countries--I specifically remember Mexico, Brazil making
these points--that, were the United States to reduce its NOx
standard, for example, they would do likewise.
They already had a significantly less onerous, less
restrictive NOx standard than we, but that would even be more
reduced.
That is the kind of beacon that the United States has been
on the environment. I mentioned a little earlier that we had a
role with China--a very effective role that finally caused them
to decide they could forego all their 100 million new
refrigerators with CFCs and use the substitutes.
That happened because they saw American leadership. They
saw what it had produced in our country. They saw that we were
serious and we knew the issues and we were genuinely trying to
help them do the same.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Reilly.
Since I am from Florida and knowing that you serve as
cochair of the bipartisan National Commission for the BP
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and offshore drilling and are
familiar with a lot of the health, environmental, and regional
economy threats, what should EPA be doing to ensure that we
prepare for future oil spills?
Mr. Reilly. Well, EPA has a critical role with respect to
oil spills. I can recall a decision that we made after the
Exxon Valdez to not allow dispersants to kind of--to control
the pollution, and I was told by some--it was a disputed
issue--that the fish--if there were no dispersants and the oil
was on the surface that the new fish, and they were just about
to swim down from their fisheries hatcheries, would swim under
the spill.
That's a kind of decision that EPA went against the other
Agencies of the Government and against the oil company, and it
turned out to be correct, and we saved the fish harvest that
year as a result.
EPA has that role. It's not the central role. The Interior
Department has the significant role on offshore drilling. But
the EPA has an essential one.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Reilly.
Ms. McCarthy, during the Obama administration you all had
an ambitious set of standards to protect air quality--probably
just what was needed, but we call it ambitious nowadays.
Based upon your experience, how important is EPA's
leadership encouraging other countries to act on climate?
Ms. McCarthy. EPA has been, at least in my experience,
viewed internationally as the gold standard. You know, frankly,
right now, I am a little bit embarrassed when I talk to
colleagues in other countries, because they don't understand
what's going on.
They see EPA as not making decisions consistent with the
mission. They see EPA as backing off the rule of law or in
terms of enforcement. They don't see us using our example to
advance international interests.
So we are in a little bit of trouble in terms of the
confidence that we are providing to the rest of the world and
the fact that our challenges today are international
challenges.
We can't fix climate change ourselves, and we have to have
leadership that is ethical, leadership that focuses on the
mission of the Agency, and I think those are issues that I
would love to see this committee look into more closely.
Mr. Soto. Thank you. My time has expired.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes for
the questioning.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding
today's hearing to reflect on the direction of the
Environmental Protection Agency with witnesses who know the
Agency best and the Agency's important role to American
citizens' health.
As many of you know, Arizona's 1st Congressional District
is unlike any other. It is home to not only the Grand Canyon
but also many Tribal communities such as the Navajo Nation.
In all my district's beauty, I would like to highlight an
ongoing health and contamination issue that has plagued my
district since 1944, 75 years, and that is uranium mining.
During the Cold War, over 4 million tons of uranium ore
were mined on Navajo lands. Today, over 520 of these uranium
mines remain, abandoned and still unremediated. The EPA has
indicated clearly that none of them are safe.
I believe the Federal Government has an obligation to take
swift action to right these wrongs. It is within EPA's mission.
Since coming to Congress, I've made addressing the
abandoned uranium mines in my district a top priority, and I
have worked closely with EPA's region 9 office to hold the
Agency accountable and our Government accountable.
I will continue to do so until every mine site is fully
remediated. Beyond the environmental impacts to local
communities and watersheds, cancer rates have skyrocketed due
to unsafe levels of uranium exposure from these mines.
The public health effects from uranium mining is dangerous,
which has led the Centers for Disease Control and the
University of New Mexico to study the birth outcomes from
uranium exposure within the Navajo Nation.
Without the EPA, I don't know how we'd address this problem
at all. I know that there is a mother that has lost eight
children a quarter mile away from one of these mines, her
husband, and her sister-in-law, who all lived there.
Administrator McCarthy, I appreciate you coming before us
today as you have most recently served as head of the Agency,
until 2017. Under the interagency 5-year plan addressing this
issue starting in 2014, under the EPA plan have you seen the
Agency take the proper steps to address public health from
toxic chemicals and other threats?
Ms. McCarthy. I have seen the Agency utilize its resources
as best it can to do that, but, frankly, the money isn't there.
Frankly, we need to continue to push. You know, this issue is
not unlike many of the issues plaguing Native Americans in this
country.
We simply haven't met our responsibilities, and I would
agree with you that more money, more resources, and more action
at EPA is necessary.
I would just also point out that uranium mining continues
to happen. Right now, there's a lot of in situ mining going on,
and EPA had actually proposed a rule to try to bring some
semblance of order to that to ensure that it was done safely.
That rule is now sitting on the sidelines. So we not only
have to look at what we've already contaminated but continue to
work forward to make sure that we are not continuing to plague
those among us with the least ability to care for themselves.
Mr. O'Halleran. And Administrator McCarthy, we have
Superfund sites all over America.
Ms. McCarthy. We do.
Mr. O'Halleran. How important is the Superfund program to
cleaning up contaminated sites, and what can the Agency be
doing to fully support this program and to fully ask the
Congress for the appropriate amount of funding to do so?
Ms. McCarthy. I think that the Superfund is extremely
important. We know contaminated sites continue to pose threats
to those who live around them and folks that are exposed to
contaminants that exit those sites.
The Superfund program is overloaded with things in the
pipeline, not sufficiently resourced, and as of late there's
been a lot of inclination to sort of get those ready to be
cleaned out for economic development, which is a very good idea
but it takes away from securing the sites that are as yet
secured from access for individuals that would threaten their
health and well-being.
So it is a delicate balance about how to use the money.
But, clearly, we are nowhere near the kind of money we need to
get that list down, and every year we keep adding and adding
and adding.
Mr. O'Halleran. And have you seen any attempts by this
administration to address those issues?
Ms. McCarthy. They have made Superfund one of the issues
that they talk about. But, again, I think they're talking about
it as an economic opportunity at the end of the game instead of
looking at how we manage exposures today to the contaminated
sites that already exist.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair. I
yield.
Ms. DeGette. I thank the gentleman.
The ranking member and I will each ask one round of
questions to wrap up, and I now recognize Mr. Guthrie for 5
minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. I appreciate you all
being here. It's been informative. But all of you, as former
Administrators of a Federal Agency, each of you more than most
understands the importance of the rulemaking process under the
Administrative Procedures Act.
The APA provides the roadmap for Federal regulatory
process, and one of the cornerstones of that process is public
notice and comment. Members of Congress make the laws, and
Agencies write implementing regulations.
But that is not the complete picture. Input from the public
is another critical piece. I am going to read three questions
and get you all to comment, if you would.
One, do you agree that it is important that Federal
Agencies provide the opportunity for public comment?
Do you agree that the opportunity should be afforded to all
stakeholders--States, Tribes, regulated community,
environmental groups?
So is public comment important--all stakeholders--and do
you agree that different stakeholders can provide unique and
needed expertise when it comes to proposed rules?
Start with Mr. Thomas and go to the left.
Mr. Thomas. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Reilly. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Whitman. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. That's simple. That was quick.
I would just ask Mr. Thomas, you talked about the
collaborative, and it really sounds like you put together and
tried to effort a really--work together, work through these
issues, and tried to come to the balance that we need to make
sure we have clean water and clean air and clean soil, as we've
talked about, but also do it in a way that's responsible and
sustainable.
And so, given that the same office of the EPA handles both
compliance and enforcement, how should those two be balanced
within that office?
Mr. Thomas. Well, you know, I think they really go
together, and the approach you take I think is really good
communication.
First you have got to have credible rules and credible
regulations. You got to make sure the regulated community
understands that. You got to have a really good
intergovernmental process to work with the States.
Then I think enforcement is a very important part of it. So
you're educating, but you're also saying, ``If you don't follow
the rules, there are consequences,'' and you make sure those
consequences are felt, whether it's at a Federal level or a
State level.
If a State doesn't have the ability to go forward or the
commitment to go forward, the Federal Government steps in. So I
think it is both. Collaboration and communication, but
ultimately accountability.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
In the couple minutes, so Mr. Reilly, I have a question. In
a 2009 report, the bipartisan Policy Center on Improving the
Use of Science in Regulatory Policy recommended that regulatory
policies differentiate between questions of science and
questions of other matters of policy.
The question is, do you see value in having a section of an
EPA Federal Register notice for any proposed guidance or rule
when that action is informed by scientific studies describe the
primary scientific questions and the primary policy questions
that needed to be answered in drafting the rule or guidance?
It's a long question but----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Reilly. And I think I lost it, actually.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Yes. So do you see--do you see the value--
maybe all of you can answer it. Do you see the value of EPA
Federal Register notice for any proposed guidance or rule when
that action is informed by scientific studies?
Do you think that the notice should describe the primary
scientific questions and the primary policy questions?
Mr. Reilly. I would generally say yes. Yes.
Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Thomas, I guess.
Mr. Thomas. Yes, I agree with that.
Mr. Guthrie. Governor?
Ms. Whitman. You're going to get another yes.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Ms. McCarthy?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, I will be a little bit more
qualified----
Mr. Guthrie. OK.
Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. Because there are processes
within the Agency that are fairly exclusively science driven--
risk assessments, those types of issues. They are often
separately managed, and where there's a public process within
that where all of the affected parties get an opportunity to
participate.
But it may not be subject to public--everybody advancing
their interests outside. So that there are times, I believe,
when it's less fruitful to go to the general public than it is
to rely on scientists themselves to make decisions, as long as
that process is open and deliberate and has all the necessary
parties.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you, and my time is close to
expiring, so I will yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much.
In Governor Whitman's testimony, you said, quote, ``Today,
as never before, the mission of EPA is being seriously
undermined by the very people who have been entrusted with
carrying that mission out,'' and that sentiment was echoed in
some form today by all four of the witnesses.
So I just want to ask each witness very briefly if they can
say for the record if you have one message for this
administration, what would it be.
Mr. Thomas, we'll start with you.
Mr. Thomas. I think it starts from the top with a
commitment to the mission of EPA. I don't think that is there,
and I think a lot of what we are talking about as far as the
Agency's concerned are symptomatic of that.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Thomas. So the one message is commit to the mission as
it is defined in the laws.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Reilly?
Mr. Reilly. Mr. Thomas has characterized that very well, I
think. In my own meeting with the Administrator when he was
still Acting Administrator--no, I guess he had just been
confirmed--I recommended beginning with science, reasserting
the primary role of science in all of the regulatory decisions
he was making, consulting science and making that clear and
reconstituting the Science Advisory Board with very
distinguished members.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you.
Governor?
Ms. Whitman. I think it's incumbent on the administration
to commit to the mission of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the importance of it--to recommit and restate the
importance of it and the importance of science as being the
underpinning of the decisions being made.
Ms. DeGette. Administrator McCarthy?
Ms. McCarthy. Just to add, not subtract, because I agree
with everything that's been said. I do think that it is
incredibly important for signals for the Agency to send that,
when they make decisions, they talk about the public health and
environmental implications of those decisions.
I am tired of hearing decisions being made where we solely
talk about how much it has reduced manufacturers' costs. That's
not the mission of the Agency.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
I want to thank all of the witnesses, because it's really
extraordinary and not very frequent where we have four former
Cabinet officials--well, they should be Cabinet officials--
Administrators of one agency spanning Ronald Reagan to Barack
Obama, and they all agree on what the mission should be for
this very important agency to protect public health, and they
also agree that the Agency really needs to redouble its effort
and redouble its commitment to science.
So this was a really powerful and important hearing. I hope
the administration was watching, because all of you were really
important voices, and I want to thank you.
The first thing is we have several documents that have been
submitted, and without objection the February 13th letter from
Mr. Walden and Mr. Shimkus to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Tonko is
entered into the record, and also the April 8, 2019, letter and
the June 10th letter to me and to Ranking Member Guthrie from
the American Thoracic Society is entered into the record. Those
are all entered into the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. And I would remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record to be answered by
witnesses.
I hope that all of you can answer them promptly, and not to
editorialize, but in a fashion much more prompt than the
current EPA is responding to this committee's questions.
And with that, this subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]