U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–557 PDF 2015

MODERNIZING THE BUSINESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

REGULATION AND PROTECTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 23, 2014 

Serial No. 113–164 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 5 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 107 

WITNESSES

Henry Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ......... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

David Cash, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection .............................................................................................................. 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Teresa Marks, Director, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality ........ 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

William L. Kovacs, Senior Vice President, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce ........................................................ 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, National Resources Defense Council ....... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Matthew F. Wasson, Director of Programs, Appalachian Voices ......................... 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Article of February 2012, ‘‘Mortality Disparities in Appalachia: Reassessment 

of Major Risk Factors,’’ by Jonathan Borak, et al., Journal of Occupational 

and Environmental Medicine, submitted by Mr. McKinley ............................. 84 

Slide, Poverty Rate, Appalachian Regional Commission, March 2014, submitted by Mr. Murphy ......................................................................................... 97 

Slide, Unemployment Rate, Appalachian Regional Commission, March 2014, 

submitted by Mr. Murphy ................................................................................... 98 

Statement of July 23, 2014, ‘‘E-Enterprise for the Environmental Business 

Strategy,’’ Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ..... 108 

(1) 

MODERNIZING THE BUSINESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND PROTECTION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Murphy, Latta, 

McKinley, Bilirakis, Johnson, Tonko, Green, McNerney, 

Schakowsky, Barrow, Matsui, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative Yarmuth. 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte Baker, 

Deputy Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor; Brad 

Grantz, Policy Coordinator, Oversight and Investigations; David 

McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Tina 

Richards, Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Chris Sarley, 

Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Jacqueline 

Cohen, Democratic Senior Counsel; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic 

Policy Analyst; and Ryan Schmit, Democratic EPA Detailee. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would like to call the hearing to order, and first, 

I want to ask unanimous consent that all members’ opening statements can be submitted for the record. Without objection, so ordered. And I want to welcome the panel and I want to take a request, a personal request, to recognize one shadow and one intern. 

Alexa is from Taiwan. She has been interning in my office all summer. Wave, Alexa. And Reza is from Albania, Kosovo, and she just 

joined to shadow with me today. And I can’t pronounce the name, 

her last name. But it is a town. What is it? Gjakova. So, welcome, 

and this is her first chance to be in Washington and see the legislative process. And we are glad to have her with us. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Every day we hear about innovations in system communications 

and logistics that make businesses more productive. Some of this 

modernization is technological and some is just common sense. 

Today, we explore these system innovations in the context of enviVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:55 Jan 30, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-164 ENVIRO REGS AWAIT TAG LINE\113-164 ENVIRO REGS PDF MADE WAYNE
2 

ronmental regulation, modernizing environmental programs and 

making them more efficient. 

The States and EPA are partners in the business of working toward cleaner air, water, and soil because the States implement a 

significant percentage of the environmental laws, and EPA relies 

on the States for the implementation of its programs as Ranking 

Member Waxman will remind me almost every time we have a 

hearing. So I am learning. I have been listening, Mr. Waxman. In 

this age of declining budgets and workforce, States, EPA, the regulated community, and the public must work together to find ways 

to improve environmental protection while spending less resources. 

A great example of Congress working with the EPA and the regulated community to modernize and streamline the way an existing 

statute is carried out began with enactment of Public Law 112–195, 

the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act. Negotiations on this bill involved members from both parties, from 

several committees, and from House leadership, and from the Senate. Once a deal was reached, it passed the House and the Senate 

without a single dissenting vote. The President signed it into law 

on October 5, 2012. This Act authorizes EPA to employ a system 

that uses electronic manifests to track shipments of hazardous 

waste, under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, known as 

RCRA, Subtitle C, from its generation to its ultimate disposal. This 

streamlines the current process, which requires paper forms and 

replaces the millions of paper manifests produced each year. 

Today, we will hear from the Commissioners of three States who 

will share their stories about how their States analyze their programs to determine how they can boost efficiency while maintaining and improving environmental protection. Arizona applies a 

management principle used in the private sector called Lean which 

is centered on preserving or creating value using fewer resources. 

The process improvements made in Arizona as a result of the Lean 

analysis has resulted in a decrease in the average permitting 

timeline by more than 60 percent and reduced the average time for 

a facility to return to the compliance by more than 50 percent. 

That means greater and faster protection of the environment and 

shortening the wait time for the regulated entity to use the permit 

to carry out their business strategy. Government and permit holders both win. 

Arkansas will give us examples of its modernization efforts including how State site inspections are now using electronic tablets 

to record inspection data and allow the regulated community to 

sign the forms at the time and the place of the inspection. The permit holder obtains the inspection form on the spot which means 

they will know immediately what they need to fix and will allow 

them to return to compliance much more quickly. Again, most everybody is a winner. 

Massachusetts will tell how it plans to use geographic information systems and mapping software to provide easy access to site 

cleanup documents to enable realtors and investors to more easily 

identify sites that are available for redevelopment. This facilitates 

real estate redevelopment. Economic growth and environmental 

cleanup are both improved. 

3 

And finally, Bill Kovacs will give us the perspective of the regulated community. We expect Bill to discuss how these initiatives affect the bottom line of businesses across America and what further 

modernization steps could be taken. We welcome all our witnesses 

and look forward to their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Every day, we hear about innovations in system communications and logistics 

that make businesses more productive. Some of this modernization is technological 

and some is just common sense. Today, we explore these system innovations in the 

context of environmental regulation—modernizing environmental programs and 

making them more efficient. The States and EPA are partners in the business of 

working toward cleaner air, water, and soil because the States implement a significant percentage of the environmental laws and EPA relies on the States for the implementation of its programs. In this age of declining budgets and workforce, States, 

EPA, the regulated community, and the public must work together to find ways to 

improve environmental protection while spending less resources. 

A great example of Congress working with EPA and the regulated community to 

modernize and streamline the way an existing statute is carried out began with enactment of Public Law 112–195, the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act. Negotiations on this bill involved members from both parties, from 

several committees, from the House Leadership, and from the Senate. Once a deal 

was reached, it passed the House and Senate without a single dissenting vote. The 

president signed it into law on October 5, 2012. 

This Act authorizes EPA to employ a system that uses electronic manifests to 

track shipments of hazardous waste, under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) Subtitle C, from its generation to ultimate disposal. This streamlines the 

current process, which requires paper forms, and replaces the millions of paper 

manifests produced each year. 

Today, we’ll hear from the Commissioners of three States who will share their stories about how their States analyze their programs to determine how they can boost 

efficiency while maintainingor improving environmental protection. Arizona applies 

a management principle used in the private sector called ‘‘Lean,’’ which is centered 

on preserving or creating value using fewer resources. 

The process improvements made in Arizona as a result of the Lean analysis have 

resulted in a decrease in the average permitting timeline by more than 60 percent 

and reduced the average time for a facility to return to compliance by more than 

50 percent. That means greater and faster protection of the environment and shortening the wait time for the regulated entity to use the permit to carry out their 

business strategy. Government and permit holders both win. 

Arkansas will give us examples of its modernization efforts, including how State 

site inspectors are now using electronic tablets to record inspection data and allow 

the regulated community to sign the forms at the time and place of the inspection. 

The permit holder obtains the inspection form on the spot which means they will 

know immediately what they need to fix and will allow them to return to compliance 

much more quickly. Again, most everybody is a winner. 

Massachusetts will tell how it plans to use geographic information systems and 

mapping software to provide easy access to site cleanup documents to enable realtors and investors to more easily identify sites that are available for redevelopment. 

This facilitates real estate redevelopment. Economic growth and environmental 

cleanup are both improved. 

And finally, Bill Kovacs will give us the perspective of the regulated community. 

We expect Bill to discuss how these initiatives affect the bottom line of businesses 

across America and what further modernization steps could be taken. 

We welcome all our witnesses and look forward to their testimony. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield back the balance of my time and recognize 

the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to all of our 

panelists. Today’s hearing gives us an opportunity to examine innovative new tools to enable State and Federal environmental regulators to accomplish their mission of environmental and public 

health protection more efficiently and more effectively. Smart metering, advanced data management and mapping tools and advanced monitoring devices can provide State and local governments 

with the means to deliver significant benefits to the public. We are 

all aware that budgets are tight and that there are many demands 

placed upon State and local governments. We have been asking 

States to do more with less for far too long. New tools can be helpful, but they come at a price. Without funding to procure these new 

tools and to train people to use them, we are simply imposing another mandate. 

We should incentivize and support agencies’ use of innovative 

technologies to achieve greater environment and public health protection. I believe that the initial investment will pay for itself in 

a rather short period of time. For example, water leaking from 

mains represents significant loss of revenue and the loss of a resource that is growing scarce in some areas of our country. New 

monitoring technologies can identify leaks in water mains enabling 

municipalities to target maintenance and repairs of infrastructure 

to areas of greatest need. Advanced monitoring devices can identify 

spills or pollution problems when they first occur, enabling authorities to act quickly to mitigate the problem and avoid costly cleanups and risks to our public health. 

A clean environment is not a luxury. It is a necessity. We have 

years of experience to demonstrate that communities do not have 

to sacrifice public health and the environment for economic growth. 

And a clean environment is not achieved automatically as a byproduct of a growing GDP and expanding job base. Unfortunately, 

common essential resources—land, air and water—are often used 

as free disposal areas by industry when there are no standards to 

define and require pollution controls. We learned that lesson many 

years ago. China is learning it today. The impressive economic 

growth in job creation in China in the absence of enforceable environmental protection standards has led to serious air, water and 

land pollution in many of their industrialized areas. It is leading 

to health problems, resource shortages, and in some areas, it has 

led to companies offering hardship pay to attract skilled people. 

Modernizing environmental regulation implies that we will move 

forward, not backward, on environmental protection. The public relies on State and Federal environmental regulators to protect their 

interests. EPA and their partner agencies in the States are making 

decisions that will have impacts far into our future. Over the years 

we have seen industries come and go. That is the nature of a dynamic economy. But we have never lost our need for productive 

land, clean air and clean water. Tools to modernize environmental 

regulation should be evaluated to determine whether they indeed 

help agencies to achieve greater public health and environmental 

protection, and better recordkeeping. Web-based reporting of inaccurate or incomplete information achieves nothing. Fast permitting 

5 

may benefit the permit applicant, but without robust evaluation of 

a proposed project, there is no guarantee that a new business will 

be the type of good neighbor that truly benefits an entire community. 

I look forward to hearing about the initiatives that are underway 

in the States from our distinguished panel of witnesses. I thank 

you all for being here this morning to share your experiences and 

ideas with the subcommittee. My bottom line, if it improves our environmental stewardship, so be it. Let us go forward. If haste 

makes waste, if it gives us a worse outcome and avoids the mission 

statement to which we are all assigned, no go. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague. I turn to the Republican side 

to see if anybody wishes time for an opening statement. Seeing 

none, the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 

committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Technology 

has an enormous potential to improve environmental protection. 

From the catalytic converter to smokestack scrubbers, technological 

advances have brought us cleaner cars and cleaner energy. Now 

mobile technology can empower citizens to monitor their environment and can help them access real-time information about chemical releases in their neighborhoods. It is important for regulators 

to embrace new technology, and EPA and the States have taken 

significant steps toward modernization. 

In 2011, the Government Accountability Office found serious 

problems with the State Drinking Water Information System. The 

EPA is now undertaking a significant effort to improve and modernize that system which will ensure that regulators and citizens 

have access to accurate drinking water quality information. 

Progress is also being made on hazardous substances. Consumers 

and researchers looking for information about the dangers of potentially toxic chemicals can now turn to the EPA’s ChemView Web 

portal. That new Web site brings together information from multiple programs and sources in a sortable and searchable format. As 

more testing is done under EPA’s chemical action plans, this resource will become more and more valuable. 

The environmental community is also using new technology to 

improve environmental protection. Just last week, an environmental group published the results of a partnership with Google 

that put sensors on Google’s Street View mapping cars to detect 

methane leaks from utility pipes under city streets. The maps they 

produced illustrate priorities for repair and replacement of aging 

lines, helping States and municipalities prioritize funding and reduce carbon pollution. 

We will hear from the panel today about similar projects bringing attention to the health impacts from coal mining and empowering people to participate in the protection of their local environment. 

6 

I welcome this opportunity to hear about some of these new tools 

and the strong partnership that has been created between EPA and 

the States to pursue E-Enterprise, a joint effort to maximize the 

use of advanced information technologies, optimize operations and 

increase transparency. 

I am supportive of efforts to improve the experience of regulated 

entities, but these initiatives should remain focused on enhancing 

environmental protection. The primary customers of environmental 

regulations, the people served by them, are the public, not the regulated entities. 

In North Carolina last year, the new Republican head of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shifted the agency’s focus from protecting the public to providing customer service 

to regulated entities. When staff resigned in protest, he penned an 

op-ed to proclaim his success in turning the department into ‘‘a 

customer-friendly juggernaut.’’ We saw the results of that customer 

service approach in the Dan River coal ash spill. The effects of that 

spill were visible across 70 miles of the Dan River, crossing from 

North Carolina into Virginia and affecting drinking water sources 

for the citizens of Danville and Virginia Beach. According to a recent estimate, the economic impacts of the spill could exceed $70 

million. 

So as we discuss this new technology and the potential for improving the process of environmental regulation, we must ensure 

that the role of regulators as protectors of the environment is not 

undermined. State and Federal regulators should remain focused 

on protecting human health in keeping the air and water clean. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and learning how new technologies can be adopted to achieve these goals. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. I want to 

thank him for his comments. And now I would like to recognize our 

panel. I will do that one at a time. Your full statement has been 

submitted for the record. You have 5 minutes to summarize. We 

will not be draconian if you get off for a few seconds. But if you 

go 5 minutes extra, then you might hear the gavel come down. So 

that way we can get to questions. It is a large first panel. We want 

to make sure everyone has access to your testimony and questioning. 

So with that, first, we have Mr. Henry Darwin who is the Director of Environmental Quality for the State of Arizona. Sir, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

7 

STATEMENTS OF HENRY DARWIN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; DAVID CASH, 

COMMISSIONER, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; TERESA MARKS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; WILLIAM L. KOVACS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT, 

TECHNOLOGY & REGULATORY AFFAIRS, U.S. CHAMBER OF 

COMMERCE; SCOTT SLESINGER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND MATTHEW 

F. WASSON, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS, APPALACHIAN 

VOICES 

STATEMENT OF HENRY DARWIN 

Mr. DARWIN. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko and distinguished members of the committee. I 

am Henry Darwin, Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. I have been director of ADEQ since February 2011, 

and prior to my appointment as director, I served approximately 15 

years in various staff level and management positions throughout 

the agency, including chief counsel and acting director of the Water 

Quality Division. I am the only director in the agency’s 27-year history to have worked in all three of ADEQ’s environmental programs, air, water and waste. 

As a trained hydrologist and environmental lawyer, as an enforcement officer who has worked to ensure regulated facilities 

comply with environmental laws, and as a former rank-and-file 

staff member who sat long hours inside a cubicle, I believe I bring 

a unique perspective to my role as the head of a State agency responsible for protecting and enhancing public health and the environment of Arizona. 

During my tenure as a State employee, I have heard many times 

the demand for increased privatization of Government services, as 

if all that ails Government could be fixed simply by turning over 

the keys to the private sector. Roughly 40 percent of ADEQ’s annual budget is already allocated to private, outside services. So we 

readily support privatization as being possible for an organization 

entrusted with the important responsibility of ensuring preservation of the delicate balance between the natural world and a society 

that depends on it for sustenance, prosperity and a rewarding quality of life. 

This does not mean, though, that we support entrusting the private sector with guarding the delicate balance between environmental protection and economic prosperity. To critics who complain 

about how poorly Government agencies perform, I say amen. Such 

critics are by and large correct. Most systems of Government are 

indeed a mess, but rather than having Government run by corporations, perhaps we might be better off encouraging agencies to operate more like corporations—the successful corporations, of course, 

because why would we emulate flops just because they operate in 

the private sector? 

Looking at successful businesses today, we see they have several 

things in common. First and foremost, they do a very good job listening to their customers. Second, they rapidly adapt their processes to fulfill customer expectations. They are also adept at using 

8 

technology to deliver faster, better, cheaper service and integrate 

technology the right way at the right time. We only have to look 

to the demise of Blockbuster video, who used to have stores on virtually every street corner, to see the consequence of not keeping up 

with the American public’s increasing expectation that quality 

products and services be delivered immediately and online. 

At ADEQ, we have made tremendous strides in the past 2 years 

to improve productivity and efficiency for the benefit of our customers and shareholders by looking to the private sector for lessons 

about how to improve our processes and use technology to speed 

customer transactions. In the written comments I leave you with 

today, I elaborate on what we are doing, especially to deploy Lean 

management as a core philosophy and use it to instill a culture of 

continuous improvement throughout our organization. I also touch 

on a key project we have undertaken, which we call myDEQ, to leverage e-technology to radically simplify and further speed up operational transactions with our customers. 

The point I want to leave you with is this. To be effective in 

meeting customer expectations, Government agencies have much to 

learn from successful private-sector businesses. What business 

knows, and what Government agencies are starting to learn, is that 

to be successful, organizations must both streamline processes to 

improve capacity for a value-added activity and integrate information technology solutions to accelerate delivery of products and 

services. But these steps must occur in the proper order. First Lean 

your systems then integrate e-solutions. Reverse this order and 

agencies may well lock-in existing burdensome bureaucracy. 

Before closing my remarks, I would like to mention my participation in and effort by EPA to bring Federal environmental protection into the 21st century. Their effort, known as E-Enterprise, represents an unprecedented level of partnership with the States. As 

a member of the leadership committee, I can tell you that EPA is 

not merely listening to States like Arizona, they are involving us 

deeply in developing a model for modern environmental protection, 

a model very close to what I have just described. Now, I am not 

usually one to say that EPA is heading in the right direction, but 

I can honestly say that I am happy to join them on this important 

journey and hope that we can count on your support. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Darwin follows:] 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Now, the Chair recognizes Commissioner David Cash from Massachusetts, the State of Massachusetts, and he is in charge of the Department of Environmental Protection. Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASH. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I was going to say Commonwealth, but I 

couldn’t get it out. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID W. CASH 

Mr. CASH. Thank you very much, Chairman Shimkus, and Ranking Member Tonko and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk about how the 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has been 

able to reach its two complementary goals of protecting public 

health and the environment and helping drive economic development. The agency, catalyzed by both significant reductions in resources and an evolving new economic development mission, devised a path forward that not only ensured the agency fulfilled its 

critical missions of protecting the environment, ensuring public 

health, and preserving the Commonwealth’s natural resources, but 

also supported the needs of the Commonwealth’s regulated community to facilitate growth and economic development. 

Between 2002 and 2011, MassDEP’s budget and staffing were reduced by more than 30 percent with no corresponding reduction in 

the agency’s statutory environmental mission. In response, 

MassDEP undertook initiatives to restore alignment between available agency resources and work requirements. Those initiatives included identification and implementation of alternative regulatory 

approaches to streamline MassDEP’s processes and procedures and 

pursuing major information management initiatives to increase automation and effectiveness of agency activities. 

MassDEP’s Regulatory Reform Initiative provided a mechanism 

for reviewing existing regulations to identify efficiency improvements which were required of all State agencies under Governor 

Deval Patrick’s Economic Development Reorganization Act of 2010. 

MassDEP solicited regulatory reform ideas from a wide array of external stakeholders as well as from agency staff in consultation 

with other agencies including our Economic Development Agency. 

This solicitation effort included establishing an external Regulatory 

Reform Working Group to serve as key advisors in addition to 

hosting discussion forums with a number of other external stakeholders, with representatives as diverse as the Massachusetts 

Health Officers Association, Boston Bar Association, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and a group of prominent environmental 

advocacy groups. Successful alternative approaches being used by 

other States across the Nation were also evaluated. 

As a result of its Regulatory Reform Initiative, MassDEP recommended changes that (1) streamlined environmental permitting 

requirements, (2) eliminated certain State permits that either were 

of low environmental protection value or duplicated local approvals, 

and (3) encouraged better environmental outcomes by reducing barriers to environmentally and economically beneficial projects such 

as renewable energy. The resulting programmatic changes will 

achieve substantial agency efficiencies without sacrificing environVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:55 Jan 30, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-164 ENVIRO REGS AWAIT TAG LINE\113-164 ENVIRO REGS PDF MADE WAYNE
15 

mental protection by allowing MassDEP to disinvest from lowvalue regulatory activities, rely upon local regulatory entities 

where redundant oversight currently exists, and utilize authorized 

and accredited third parties for selective environmental inspection 

and regulatory implementation services. These regulatory changes 

include improvements to the following MassDEP programs: the 

cleanup of oil and hazardous materials waste sites; public waterfront protection; wetlands protection; septic systems; solid waste 

transfer stations and landfills; and siting of clean energy projects. 

Promulgation of these regulations is complete, with the exception 

of wetlands and waterfront protection regulations which are due to 

be finished by the end of this year. 

One significant example of how MassDEP’s streamlining of the 

regulatory permitting process resulted in reducing barriers to environmentally beneficial projects is the use of closed and capped 

landfills to support renewable energy facilities, such as solar panels 

or wind turbines. Previously, MassDEP regulations prohibited the 

utilization of closed and capped landfills for any other purpose. By 

understanding the opportunity that renewable energy facilities 

could provide for closed landfills, MassDEP revised its regulations 

to allow renewable energy projects while maintaining environmental protection. Just in the last couple of years, 52 projects at 

about 100 megawatts of renewable energy have been proposed, and 

23 of those are already running. 

In addition to effectively revising its regulations, MassDEP is undertaking an agency-wide review of its business processes to 

achieve greater efficiency and consistency across the Agency. The 

effort was initiated in coordination with MassDEP’s proposed information system development effort, known as EIPAS, Energy and 

Environmental Information and Public Access System, and is intended to enable both MassDEP to perform timely, predictable and 

cost-effective permitting and implement data-driven strategies and 

policies, while responding effectively to environmental threats. 

In particular, EIPAS is designed to reduce uncertainty and time 

to businesses, improve stewardship of Massachusetts’ environmental resources, use data-driven strategies and policies, increase 

civic engagement, and enhance collaboration and data sharing. 

Massachusetts’ Brownfield programs also has incentives that are 

available to buyers and sometimes sellers of contaminated property, provided it is a commitment to environmental cleanup and 

property redevelopment. We have committed to this clean-up in 

such a way that we are coordinating data gathering for a variety 

of different criteria that the developing community is interested in 

accessing and coordinating this with our MassGIS system, so 

through a mapping and data program, we are able to provide information to municipalities and the development community on these 

sites that show great promise for both renewable energy development and development of more traditional economic development. 

Finally, by partnering with EPA on the E-Enterprise for the Environment Initiative, MassDEP and EPA can achieve additional 

governmental efficiencies while reducing administrative burden reduction. E-Enterprise for the Environment is an innovative 21st 

Century business strategy utilizing joint governance of States and 

EPA to improve the performance of our shared environmental enVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:55 Jan 30, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-164 ENVIRO REGS AWAIT TAG LINE\113-164 ENVIRO REGS PDF MADE WAYNE
16 

terprise by closely coordinating job program implementation and 

creating efficiencies for the regulated community and the public. 

Through continued support of the E-Enterprise, I believe that 

EPA, the States and regulated entities will all benefit from a more 

coordinated environmental enterprise. I also believe that the E-Enterprise Initiative will maximize governmental efficiencies and significantly reduce administrative burdens through streamlining regulations, optimizing processes and coordinating system development activities. 

Thank you for providing me this opportunity to provide testimony today. I am happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cash follows:] 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize Director 

Teresa Marks, Director of Environmental Quality from the State of 

Arkansas. 

STATEMENT OF TERESA MARKS 

Ms. MARKS. Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko and all 

the members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

speak today about my department’s ongoing efforts to modernize 

environmental regulations through electronic reporting. 

By way of disclaimer, let me just say initially that I am probably 

the least tech-savvy person in this room. I am one of those people 

that when I fire up my computer in the morning, I am still amazed 

by the miracle of email. But I am a very practical person, and I 

realize the tremendous benefits that can be achieved through the 

use of electronic reporting. 

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality strives to 

be responsive to members of the public, whether they are seeking 

water quality data, filling out a Title V air permit application or 

reporting an environmental concern. 

We all realize that electronic reporting doesn’t completely replace 

traditional ways of doing business. A citizen in Rose Bud wanting 

a speaker for the local Lion’s Club will probably still pick up the 

phone, and the owner of a small salvage yard in Romance will most 

likely mail in their storm water permit application. But electronic 

reporting puts a wealth of information and opportunity at a user’s 

fingertips and greatly benefits the department. Users save time 

and money, not to mention the sparing of a few trees. From the department’s standpoint, electronic reporting allows us to more quickly respond to complaints, review permits and upload data. In this 

day and age, the large majority of the businesses and residents we 

serve are tech savvy so it behooves the department to keep up. 

I would like to talk briefly about what ADEQ has done to modernize reporting and how we plan to improve and expand electronic 

offerings in the future. Since 2012, ADEQ has used the State and 

Local Emissions Inventory System, or SLEIS as it is referred to, to 

allow permitted facilities to submit point source emissions inventory data online. SLEIS is compliant with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation, commonly called CROMMER. ADEQ used an EPA grant to develop the 

system in partnership with environmental agencies in Arizona, 

Delaware, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Tennessee. The system has proven popular in our State with 90 to 95 percent of reporting facilities entering their data directly into the system. 

Hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage and disposal 

facilities in Arkansas can use a CROMMER-approved system to 

submit annual reports that detail how much hazardous waste a 

given facility generates or manages. Clean Water Act permit holders can submit discharge monitoring reports electronically using a 

NetDMR system developed by EPA and used nationally. Again, 

these reporting tools streamline the reporting process not only for 

the public, but for ADEQ’s employees as well, resulting in the saving of both public and private resources. 

An example of how modernized reporting has made the department more efficient is the use of electronic tablets in our Regulated 

25 

Storage Tanks Division. Each inspector at ADEQ in the Storage 

Tank Division carries such a tablet when performing facility inspections. The inspection forms are loaded onto the tablets, and the 

inspector is able to fill out the form on site while in the presence 

of the facility operator. Once the inspection is complete, the facility 

operator signs the inspection report, and with the use of secure 

software, the form is locked to ensure the signature can’t be copied 

or the form changed without the facility operator’s knowledge. The 

inspection report can be printed on site with the mobile printers 

they carry in their truck and given to the facility owner who can 

start addressing potential issues immediately instead of waiting for 

a copy of the report to arrive through traditional mail services. 

We are excited about the strides we have made to modernize reporting in recent years, but in many ways the best is yet to come. 

I often say that the citizens of Arkansas are our eyes and ears. 

Our inspectors insure that facilities across Arkansas comply with 

their permits, but they can’t be everywhere all the time. Currently 

citizens can submit complaints online 24 hours a day or call our offices directly when they see something they view as an environmental hazard. Our staff is developing a mobile application that 

would allow users to submit complaints, along with GPS coordinates and photos, from their phones. Those details will aid our inspectors in determining the severity of any violation as well as the 

exact location of the area of concern. This information will be invaluable in addressing violations in a timely and efficient manner. 

Finally, we are in the late stages of developing an ePortal system 

that will allow applicants to apply for permits, licenses and registrations online. The ePortal system, which we hope to roll out in 

the fall, was developed using CROMMER standards and is currently being reviewed by EPA. The first feature to go live will be 

the online permit applications submission process. The development of this system has involved an incredible amount of staff time 

and resources, a good bit of trial and error and a lot of testing. But 

we are confident the end result will be well worth the effort. 

Electronic reporting has allowed the department to be more efficient and more responsive. We hope to continue to improve and expand our offerings to meet the demands of the public in the most 

efficient and effective way possible. 

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Marks follows:] 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Bill Kovacs representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

Welcome, sir. Five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. KOVACS 

Mr. KOVACS. Good morning, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko and other members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss modernizing the business of environmental regulation and protection. 

The committee should really be commended for this very important issue dealing with the Federal-State relationship, especially in 

the implementation of environmental laws. The relationship between the States and EPA is very important because the States 

manage most of the implementation, permitting, enforcement, inspections and data collections for Federal environmental programs. 

According to ECOS, the Environmental Council of the States, the 

States manage approximately 96 percent of the Federal programs 

that are delegated to the States. And I think it is fair to say that 

without the States’ cooperation and willingness to assume these responsibilities, EPA would have a difficult time implementing Federal statutes. 

The Chamber is also pleased to learn that ECOS and EPA are 

partnering in the E-Enterprise Initiative. My understanding is that 

E-Enterprise Initiative aims to modernize environmental programs 

in order to reduce paperwork, enhance services to the regulated 

community and streamline operations. E-Enterprise is presently in 

a concept phase, so it is kind of hard for us to offer a blanket support for the program. But we do offer a general support because we 

think it is an excellent idea, and any way in which the business 

community can help, we would be glad to assist. 

It is important to note, however, that over the last—since really 

since the Carter administration, many of these efforts have been 

tried, and really, we have had somewhat of a mixed success. What 

seems to happen is the streamlining efforts literally get overwhelmed by a regulatory system that continuously becomes much 

more complex and much more costly. As a result, the States assume responsibility for managing more programs, implementing 

and enforcing more and newer regulations in shorter timeframes, 

and they have to do all of this with less money. In fact, the amount 

of money awarded to the States by the Federal Government has 

been reduced from $5 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $3.6 billion in 

fiscal year 2013. 

So the complexity and the cost of the mandates imposed on the 

States are significant, and they are really going to get worse as we 

cut the budgets. I think just this year, if you look at it, you are 

going to see three very complex and staff-intensive rule-makings 

that the States are going to have to pick up over the years: greenhouse gas regulations for existing power plants, ozone for which 

the States are going to do implementation plans and Waters of the 

United States. These are three huge programs that they are going 

to have to deal with. So we need to be conscious of how much we 

can impose upon the States and how much we can ask them to do 

with the resources that we are willing to give them. 

31 

So I have several suggestions. One is anything we can do to help 

on E-Enterprise, let us know. We will help. The Chamber has been 

very active in pursuing what we call permit streamlining. We believe it is one of the few efforts in the Federal Government that has 

really garnered an enormous amount of bipartisan support. The 

House passed a bill on permit streamlining, H.R. 2641 with bipartisan support. The Senate Federal Permitting and Improvement 

Act, sponsored by Senator Portman, has six Democrat cosponsors, 

and permit streamlining was one of the top recommendations of 

the President’s Jobs Council. It has been the subject of several 

presidential directives, and it has been the focus of the new infrastructure initiative released by the White House. I am not saying 

there is all agreement, but we are much closer on this issue than 

we are on most. 

Second, I think we can look at just some practical things. EPA 

promulgates, for example, National Ambient Air Standards. Every 

5 years it must be revised. By law they must at least review them. 

And every 5 years, EPA does revise them. This is very rushed because when you are a State, the States have to go back, and they 

have to, once they get the Federal mandate, they have to design 

it, they have to implement it and many times they have to litigate 

it. And we are saying that rather than doing something every 5 

years, there should be more discretion because what happens is if 

you do everything in a 5-year period, the States really never catch 

up. They just finish, and they are onto a new system. And it is so 

rushed, that we really never get a time even to find out what is 

working and what is not. I think Federal agencies should truly look 

at the Unfunded Mandates Act and so should Congress. They 

should look at regulatory alternatives. 

And finally, I really think that the States do a fabulous job. In 

the course of the year they end up doing hundreds of thousands of 

types of transactions and enforcements and inspections. But sometimes the EPA decides that it wants to over file them because it 

doesn’t like one particular way in which they are handling an 

issue. 

So anyway, with that I will quit, and thank you very much. I will 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kovacs follows:] 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 

Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director for the National Resources Defense Council. He has appeared before us many times. Welcome 

back, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT SLESINGER 

Mr. SLESINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Tonko, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Scott Slesinger, and I am the 

Legislative Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

NRDC is a nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the 

environment. 

Before becoming the legislative director, I spent a decade promoting the e-Manifest concept as a lobbyist for the hazardous 

waste disposal industry. My remarks reflect that experience as well 

as my years as a regulator at EPA and my current perspective at 

NRDC. 

The striking lesson trying to move towards electronic manifest 

was how new technologies gradually put to rest concerns over security and costs. There was plenty of resistance at the outset. The 

Justice Department had serious concerns about anything but a 

handwritten signature, based on hundreds of years of American 

and common law jurisprudence. This concern about new-fangled 

technology in some ways echoed a mortgage bankers’ magazine article from 1947 that talked about the signature problems spawned 

by a new technological invention that they said was made for counterfeiters: the ball point pen. 

When I left the industry in 2009, the major technology problem 

was how to allow waste haulers to confirm delivery by use of a 

landline. The idea that virtually everyone would have a 

smartphone was just not contemplated. Another problem was how 

and who should pay for the reduction of the paperwork burden on 

companies. This was finally compromised, and the bill authorizing 

electronic manifests passed this committee and was signed into 

law. 

A key lesson learned through this process is that technology 

keeps changing. The goal of finding a platform and using it over 

and over again, which is contemplated in the E-Enterprise principles, must be done with care and eyes wide open. Tomorrow’s 

technology may make today’s cloud tomorrow’s VCR. 

The other hurdle to get e-Manifest authorized was how hard it 

was to pass even what we thought was minor changes in basic environmental laws. Manifest changes at least 10 years. Many more 

of the advances in electronic reporting will regulatory changes. 

However, regulatory process because of executive orders and required impact statements is so convoluted it often takes the agency 

more than 6 years to do a simple regulatory change, enough time 

to make a rule dealing with new technologies obsolete before the 

rule is final. Proposals to expand these processes for guidance documents and adding on top of that something like the REINS Act 

places epic hostile artificial barriers in the path of EPA and State 

modernization. 

46 

Using new technologies is necessary as industry becomes wired 

and budget cuts make working the traditional way unsustainable. 

But these benefits come at a financial start-up cost to develop 

while this Congress continues to eviscerate the EPA budget. 

The E-Enterprise vision implies that improving environmental 

outcomes and dramatically enhancing services to the regulated 

community and public are equal principles. We believe the number 

one goal of E-Enterprise should and must be striving for better environmental outcomes. Reducing paperwork, as with the manifest, 

is a nice outcome. But EPA should not be investing its few dollars, 

now at a long-time low, for anything that does not advance EPA’s 

mission of improving the environment and public health. 

The movement towards E-Enterprise in enforcement is positive 

because it could lead to more and cheaper inspections and enforcement. However, because of the budget cuts E-Enterprise is helpful 

but insufficient. However, EPA’s strategic plan promises significantly less compliance and enforcement efforts going forward, even 

using new technologies. Cuts in environmental enforcement inevitably lead to less protection and unfair competitive disadvantage to 

responsible companies who play by the rules. EPA’s plan to use 

technology and aim its enforcement at the greatest threats in the 

largest companies lies a problem. How can they tell where these 

threats are with their acknowledged reduced capacity? Aiming at 

just the large companies doesn’t help, either. Actual experience 

shows that many times, such as the recent spill in West Virginia 

or the kepone spill that closed the James River, that very small 

companies can cause substantial harm. Recent amendments and 

proposals outlined in my footnotes in my testimony show that essentially taking low-profit-margin recyclers of toxic hazardous materials off the grid—companies under tremendous pressure to cut 

corners—worry the environmental community and these companies’ local communities, at least in those communities that even 

know what these companies are doing. High-tech monitoring only 

works with companies that have the technology and the States 

even know exist. 

Because of other priorities, the environmental community, and 

particularly the environmental justice communities, without a substantial outreach by the States and EPA, could be detached to the 

E-Enterprise effort. We believe the final products of E-Enterprise 

will be significantly improved if meaningful efforts are made to include these customers in the development of these programs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slesinger follows:] 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. And last but not least is 

Matt Wasson, a Director of Programs for the group Appalachian 

Voices. Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW F. WASSON 

Mr. WASSON. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Tonko and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to 

speak today. My name is Matt Wasson. I am the Director of Programs at Appalachian Voices. We are an organization dedicated to 

protecting the land, air, water and people of the Southern and Central Appalachian region. 

Appalachian Voices supports the committee’s goal of modernizing 

environmental regulation and protection. Certainly using technology and science to achieve better environmental outcomes at 

lower cost is a goal that we, and I think all Americans, share. But 

modernization doesn’t only mean finding technological solutions. 

Modernization means adapting to modern realities. 

And so in the context of today’s hearing, it is useful to ask, what 

has changed over the 40 or 50 years since Congress passed the Nation’s key environmental laws and our modern State and Federal 

regulatory apparatus that was put in place? Certainly the ability 

of private interests to influence the political process has skyrocketed in recent years, and that influence is even greater at the 

State level than it is at the Federal level. That means that the ability of regulated industries to influence the regulatory process at the 

State level is greater than it has ever been. Any genuine attempt 

to confront that threat requires a greater, not lesser, role for Federal agencies like the EPA. 

Another thing that has changed since the 1970s is the assumption underlying our key environmental laws, that industry can be 

trusted to self-report environmental violations to regulators. That 

now appears naive, at least as it applies to the coal industry in Appalachia. 

As I went into in depth in my written testimony, the biggest coal 

companies in Kentucky for years routinely failed to deliver discharge monitoring reports to State regulators in addition to filing 

false reports that regulators failed to detect until environmental 

groups like Appalachian Voices stepped in. Worst of all, companies 

appear to have manipulated water quality results in a manner that 

is virtually impossible to explain with an innocent explanation. For 

instance, the statistical likelihood that the conductivity values submitted by one of the biggest coal companies in Kentucky could have 

occurred through natural variation approaches one in a google. 

That is one with 100 zeroes after it. 

Modernizing environmental regulation protection in this context 

means confronting this reality and investing more resources and 

manpower in State and Federal regulatory agencies’ ability to review and independently verify the discharge monitoring reports 

provided by coal companies. Decreasing the funding and power of 

these agencies’ funding moves in the direct opposite direction of 

modernization. 

Most importantly of all, there was little scientific information 

linking mountaintop removal to elevated cancer and other disease 

among nearby residents back in the 1970s or even 10 years ago. 

55 

But as I discussed quite a bit in my written testimony, a trove of 

peer-reviewed scientific studies and multiple independent sources 

of information have emerged over the last 5 years that regulators 

should not continue to ignore. 

Here are the modern facts for people living near mountaintop removal mines in Appalachia. And if we can have that first slide? 

[Slide.] 

Mr. WASSON. People living near mountaintop removal mines in 

Appalachia—which are shown in red on the slide—are 50 percent 

more likely to die from cancer than other people in Appalachia. In 

addition, their children are 42 percent more likely to be born with 

birth defects. 

Next slide, please. Did you skip one? My apologies. 

[Slide.] 

We can continue on. People living near mountaintop removal or 

in counties with mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia have 

a life expectancy that is far behind the national average and is 

comparable to people living in developing countries like Iran, Syria, 

El Salvador, and Vietnam. And these negative trends are not just 

about health. They also include socioeconomic trends. For instance, 

the counties where mountaintop removal mining occurs are seeing 

some of the most rapid population loss of anywhere in the country, 

as the next slide shows. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. WASSON. Modernizing environmental regulation and protection in Appalachia means confronting these facts directly, and it 

happens that this subcommittee has unique ability to do just that. 

A bill called the Appalachian Community Health Emergency Act, 

or ACHE Act for short, was reported to this subcommittee. I am 

not in a position to speak substantively about the bill, but fortunately, Congressman Yarmuth, the lead sponsor, was able to join 

us today. I thank you, Congressman. 

What I can say is this. The voices of the Appalachian residents 

supporting the ACHE Act deserve to be heard, and this committee 

should hold hearings on that bill and the community health emergency in Appalachia that the bill addresses. 

One final thing that has changed dramatically in Appalachia 

since the 1970s is the simple geological reality that the highest 

quality and easiest to access coal seams have been mined out. In 

addition, the modern reality of energy markets is that Appalachian 

coal simply can no longer compete with inexpensive new sources of 

natural gas. What this means is that the market for Central Appalachian coal is going away, and it is not coming back. 

Appalachians are proud of the contribution their region has made 

in supplying affordable energy to power America’s rise to the greatest economy on Earth. But the word modernization in Appalachia 

means looking beyond the coal industry for a sustainable source of 

jobs and economic growth in the region. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasson follows:] 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, and now we will begin our opening 

statements. And just, Mr. Wasson, I would say you are correct in 

the market debate of what is going on in West Virginia and the 

coal, but I will tell you, thanks for the challenging of the lower coal 

seams, coal mining in Southern Illinois is increasing, and that 

helps our economy in Southern Illinois. So we understand the economic reality. We welcome these jobs in Southern Illinois. 

Director Darwin, I was curious. You mentioned the word customers. Who are your customers? 

Mr. DARWIN. Mr. Chairman, our customers really depend on the 

product or service that we are delivering. And we define customers 

as the end-user of the product or service. So an end-user could be 

the permitee that has applied for a permit and ultimately going to 

have to comply with the permit, understand the permit, implement 

the terms of the permit. If we are developing a Web service of some 

sort that is available to the public, the public being the end-user 

of that Web service would be the customer in that context. 

So customer doesn’t always mean the regulated community. It 

could also mean the general public so long as the service that we 

are providing or the part that we are delivering has them as the 

end-user. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Could it also mean public interest groups like the 

NRDC or the Sierra Club or Appalachian Voices if they were—if 

Appalachia were a part of your State, which it is not? I know that. 

Mr. DARWIN. Certainly, that would be the case. Like I said, so 

long as whatever we are delivering as a product or service has 

them being one of the end-users and because they are a member 

of the public and we serve the public, a lot of the things that we 

do have the end-user, the general public, in mind. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Cash, I also was very interested in your opening statement and also the phrase low environmental protection 

value. How did you make a determination—I mean, sometimes we 

have our debates here, and we never get to that point because anything mentioned environmentally is high. We can’t even classify 

that in our debate on chemicals sometimes. Obviously you did that. 

Talk me through how you did that, and did you have public involvement? Did you have the private sector? Did you have the, you 

know, obviously the nongovernmental organizations? Did you have 

the public as a whole? How did you do that, make that determination. 

Mr. CASH. Thank you very much, Chairman. It is a great question. And when we were faced with the declining budgets, it became very clear that there were multiple interested parties that 

were concerned about steps forward. Certainly you had the environmental community that was concerned that environmental protection would become more relaxed, and that was of grave concerned to our agency as well. And then you had the regulated community that was concerned that permitting times would take 

longer, it would become a more complex kind of endeavor moving 

forward. And so I think the real answer to your question is that 

we had a very robust stakeholder process and an advisory group 

that was formed that wasn’t just an ad hoc, one-time meeting. This 

was—these were people from the regulated community, environmental communities, municipalities, other State agencies who are 

76 

engaged in this long-term discussion about, how do we do more in 

a more budget-constrained environment? How do we continue to 

protect the environment? How do we continue to allow the regulated community to have the certainty and timeliness that it 

needs? 

And so we had very difficult conversations about where there 

might be places that we could reduce the efforts that we did. Now, 

some of these were relatively easy where we found places where 

there were multiple redundant permits, State and local permits 

that regulated the same kind of wetlands but forms had to be filled 

out for all three, et cetera. That was relatively easy. But an example of what you are talking about those kinds of environmental values that we felt like in a real budget-constrained environment, 

what could we focus on less. One, for example, was docks and piers, 

small docks and piers, which underwent basically the same kind of 

resources for large coastal or wetlands projects, and here in agreement in this advisory committee we said, you know what? We could 

put a little less resources into the evaluation of these kinds of permits. 

So the real answer is that it was through these conversations 

that we had collectively, and there was not consensus everywhere, 

of course, but everybody had a stake at the table. And as we 

changed our regulations, each of those regulations then went 

through another, the official public process with public hearing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And if I can, I want to follow up with 

you on that, and maybe there is a process by which we can adapt 

here to help us move forward. 

Mr. CASH. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And Ms. Marks, also since I am from a large rural 

area—I represent 33 counties. There are 102 counties in the State 

of Illinois—your debate on your tablet issue, I want you to highlight it again. Based upon from my understanding, the travel time 

of the investigators using technology, explain how that is especially 

in a rural area where the investigators have to go out and travel 

long distances. 

Ms. MARKS. Well, I certainly think that the time saved, resources 

saved for both the regulated community and the department have 

been great with the use of the tablets, particularly as you said in 

the rural areas. We have nine field offices across the State, but before we began the use of the tablets, our tank inspectors used to 

go out and they would have a clipboard, and they would make 

notes on their clipboard. And they would come back to the field office, and they would enter the information into the computer, and 

it would go into the main system. And then a letter would be sent 

to the owner-operator telling them the results of the inspection and 

what needed to be fixed, and then we would go from there on seeing how those repairs were done. It was just a time-consuming 

process. 

Now when our inspectors go out, they have a portable printer in 

their trucks. They have their tablets that have the forms loaded 

onto them for the inspections. They walk around with the owneroperator who is right there beside them, and they do the inspection 

with them present. They tell them, you know, what they see. They 

will point out to them where the problems are exactly. And then 

77 

once they go over the report with them after the inspection is over, 

the owner-operator signs the report, which seals the report. It cannot be changed after that. And then they print it out there and give 

them a hard copy, or they will email to them, whichever they prefer. And that has made compliance much more rapid with those 

types of issues because the owner-operator for one thing is aware 

of what the report is going to say immediately, and it increases our 

credibility with the regulated community because they know we 

can’t change that report when we get back. 

Now, indeed if the main office looks at the report and finds out 

there is some problem, there might be some mistake, something 

that was done wrong, we have to do an addendum. We can’t change 

that report. 

So it begins with the regulated community knowing immediately 

what is going on and what they need to improve so they can get 

started on that immediately. And oftentimes it is taken care of 

within a few days. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. My time has well expired. The Chair 

now recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, but I am going to yield to the 

gentleman from California who has a conflict, another hearing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Tonko, for allowing me to ask my questions. Dr. Wasson, your testimony covers 

a number of important environmental problems including disturbing health trends in communities around mountaintop removal 

sites. But I would like to ask about your work to address coal ash 

contamination, an issue that has been a major focus of this subcommittee. 

What are some of the problems you have seen from unsafe coal 

ash disposal? 

Mr. WASSON. Thank you, Congressman Waxman, for that question. The Appalachian Voices, my organization, does work—a lot of 

our time is spent trying to address the problem of unsafe coal ash 

practices in North Carolina and other States around the Northeast, 

or the Southeast. And certainly the most dramatic problem we 

have seen recently was the Dan River coal ash spill when 40,000 

gallons of toxic coal ash spilled into the Dan River, an entirely 

avoidable accident. 

In North Carolina we have 14 sites where coal ash is stored. In 

every site, these are being stored in unlined impoundments that 

have been shown to be leaking, leeching toxic and heavy metals 

into groundwater as well as seeping contaminants into nearby surface waters. These are all built directly adjacent to large waterways, many of which provide drinking water for millions for North 

Carolinians. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, we have heard repeatedly people on this 

committee tell us that the States are doing a good job of regulating 

coal ash, but your testimony tells a different story. 

Mr. WASSON. That is right. I don’t think that many people in 

North Carolina, certainly many elected officials of both parties, and 

the media have complained very loudly about the poor state of regulation of coal ash in the State. The fact that these impoundments 

78 

were leaking and leeching into the nearby surface waters was not 

discovered by the State, by any of the State regulators until environmental groups went out and actually did the monitoring and 

discovered some of these problems and filed suit. And then eventually the State stepped in, but as you probably know, the State is 

actually under a criminal investigation around how the State agencies have handled—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Which State is that? 

Mr. WASSON. North Carolina. 

Mr. WAXMAN. North Carolina. So if we rely on the States to do 

this without Federal backup of any sort, there is a lack of transparency, a lack of enforcement, a lack of necessary safeguards. It 

seems like a lack of even trying to understand what is happening 

with the coal ash. How are your organizations and others using 

technology to fill in some of the gaps in Federal and State efforts 

to ensure safe disposal? 

Mr. WASSON. So we work with a coalition of groups led by the 

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy based out of Knoxville that has 

provided online tools so that people can understand where these 

coal ash impoundments are, if they are living next to them and actually obtain information about what—the ground water testing 

that is happening there so that they have a sense of what is going 

into their groundwater. Again, in a State like North Carolina, 50 

percent of the residents rely on wells for their drinking water. So 

this is a very big concern. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, if you are monitoring data and other information and it becomes accessible on the Internet or through cell 

phones, how do we make sure that those who don’t have access to 

that technology get the information they need? 

Mr. WASSON. And that is the excellent question and is why I 

think technology is very limited in its ability to help with some of 

these problems. Certainly in coal mining regions in Appalachia, access to high-speed Internet like DSL or cable or even cell phone reception seems like a distant dream in many of these communities. 

It requires very resource-intensive, boots-on-the-ground kind of efforts in order to engage folks who are living with the greatest 

threat. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I had argued for the last several years that strong 

Federal coal ash regulations are needed to protect public health 

and the environment from toxic elements, including arsenic, lead, 

mercury and selenium. Will State action be enough or do you think 

we need a strong Federal regulation for coal ash? And EPA is finalizing their coal ash rule. Can citizen participation play an important role in highlighting the need for strong enforceable Federal 

standards? 

Mr. WASSON. I think the situation in North Carolina is one of the 

best arguments I can provide for why we do need, we absolutely 

do need, a strong Federal rule in coal ash regulation. It is going 

to be a disaster I think if we leave most of that up to the States. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thanks very much to our panel for being with us today. I really apVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:55 Jan 30, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-164 ENVIRO REGS AWAIT TAG LINE\113-164 ENVIRO REGS PDF MADE WAYNE
79 

preciate your testimony. A little background. I know the members 

of this subcommittee have already heard me say this, but I represent a district with 60,000 manufacturing jobs, and right along 

the same line I also represent the largest agriculture district in the 

State of Ohio. So dealing with regulations and complying with 

them are one of the things that I hear from my constituents the 

most. And a couple of years ago the SBA had come out and said 

that we have $1.7 trillion of regulations here in this country, and 

unfortunately, it was updated this year to $1.9 trillion. 

So interesting enough, when I spend time out in my district, 

going through hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of different 

plants and businesses across my district, the number one issue I 

always hear about is regulations. 

And if I could start with Mr. Kovacs, I found it interesting, your 

testimony, because I think that it is also always interesting to remember these things. On page 5 of your testimony you state that 

the Hoover Dam was built in 5 years, the Empire State Building 

took 1 year and 45 days, the Pentagon less than 18 months, the 

New Jersey Turnpike 4 years from inception to completion. Then 

you fast forward to 2014. The Cape Wind needed over a decade just 

to receive the necessary permits to build an off-shore wind farm. 

And it is interesting that you point these things out because as you 

look at where we have gone from start to finish and how fast these 

regulations have kicked in, you know, it is like I hear from the 

businesses, but I have never heard any of my businesses ever out 

there ever say this, that they are not for clean air or clean water. 

They want to make sure that is happening. But it is really the 

over-burdensome regulations that they have to comply with. 

But if I could, you also show on page 5 of your testimony on the 

time required for processing your permit to drill on Federal versus 

State lands, and you point out that the Institute for Energy Research testified that it currently takes more than 300 days to process a permit to drill for oil and gas on Federal lands on shore while 

it takes less than 1 month to process a permit for the same drilling 

activities on State and private lands. And also you point out in 

your graph on page 5 that Ohio in particular is one of the fastest 

permit-processing States. Would you agree that Ohio’s efficiency 

does not make them less environmentally protected? 

Mr. KOVACS. I would agree with that, certainly. 

Mr. LATTA. Now, why would you agree with that? 

Mr. KOVACS. Well, when you understand the permitting system, 

to just even start a permit you have to do a whole series of things. 

You have to do engineering drawings. You have to do testing of the 

air, the water. You have to do site plans. All of that must be done 

in order even to file for a permit. And so when they review it, the 

agency reviews the technical data, and the technical data is going 

to be almost virtually the same in Ohio or with the Federal. The 

difference between the two programs is that in the Federal program, if there is any Federal nexus at all, the program moves into 

an area where there is no coordination. By that I mean there is 

really no one running the show. There are no time limits on when 

the permit has to be reviewed. And anyone can jump into the permitting process at any time, and you can go into a conflict between 

80 

State, the environmental impact statements, and Federal, even if 

they have the same laws. 

So when you go under State law, you are getting a much faster 

process because you just don’t have as many ways in which to stop 

the problem, and it is managed closer to a business which I believe 

someone had talked about. And the approach that we have been arguing and the House has been forward on and the Senate is, put 

someone in charge of the program. We are not telling them what 

to do. Give them a role as a lead agency and to coordinate. Give 

everyone time limits in which to participate. If they don’t want to 

participate in the time limits, then they don’t have to, but then 

they are out of the program, and make a decision. And that is really what the key—we are not talking substance here. We are talking 

process. 

Mr. LATTA. So is this how—when you, in your testimony, also 

state about improving and streamlining the process—is that how 

you go about it, or other ways you see it? 

Mr. KOVACS. No, that is how we would go about it. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very interested in today’s testimony about ways to improve our environmental monitoring through better technology at the State level and through 

greater public participation. Obviously the sooner pollution is detected, the faster it can be contained and remediated. For example, 

an inspection of the tank that leaked in West Virginia could have 

prevented widespread harm, but inspections require resources, 

both from the regulatory agency and the regulated entity. 

With that being said, Mr. Slesinger, you testified that EPA is 

planning to reduce the number and frequency of inspections it conducts. Is that correct? Did I hear that correctly? 

Mr. SLESINGER. Yes, in their strategic plan there is a substantial 

reduction in the amount of enforcement action, civil actions, inspections going forward, mainly because of the reduction in budget. 

Mr. TONKO. Do you have concerns about the impact that that 

shift would have on compliance? 

Mr. SLESINGER. We are very concerned. As Ms. Marks mentioned, the key to compliance in her State was walking around. It 

is with a new, high-tech gadget that makes it much more efficient, 

but the key is getting someone to do the walking around. And as 

you mentioned in the spill in West Virginia, it had been I think 

decades before someone from the State had been on that site. 

So if you are going—yes, if you use these high-tech technology, 

you can probably do more with less, but when the less is so much 

less that you are doing significantly less, feet on the ground, going 

to sites, helping people get in compliance, you are going to have 

more problems. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, I had served in our State Legislature in New 

York for 25 years, and I know that we have a sound track record 

with the environment. But I would have to agree that all States 

81 

do not play the same degree of intense role in enforcing many environmental regulations. 

Dr. Wasson, can you briefly describe some of the problems you 

have seen in State enforcement of environmental regulations? I 

know you mentioned some, but can you share some other scenarios 

with us, please? 

Mr. WASSON. Sure. I think what it boils down to time and again 

is it takes us filing a lawsuit or entering in some sort of proceeding 

to get the States to act. They are not doing it on their own. That 

is true in North Carolina. That is true in Kentucky in the examples 

I gave in my written testimony. It is true in other States that we 

worked in. 

And so I think you have a lot of hard-working and very well-intentioned State regulators that are strapped for the resources to do 

their jobs effectively. And that is, you know, what it really boils 

down to. In the State of North Carolina, we just cut the funding 

by as much as I think 25 and then on top—more than 25 percent 

for our State agency. They just can’t do the job that we mandate 

them to do with the resources that are available to them, and I 

really think that that is the underlying problem. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. I know that a number of States and organizations have indicated that doing more with less has now become 

doing less—— 

Mr. WASSON. That is exactly right. 

Mr. TONKO [continuing]. With less. What role can informed citizens play in your view in informing environmental regulation? 

Mr. WASSON. Well, it is informed citizens, you know, in the cases 

that I gave of, you know, fraudulent water quality monitoring in 

Kentucky or the leaking coal ash impoundments in North Carolina. 

It is engaged citizens that are entirely responsible for why we have 

any enforcement actions at all. 

So it is our job as environmental advocates to get more citizens 

engaged. I liked very much what Ms. Marks had to say, citizens 

being the eyes and ears of the State agencies. We also very much 

see it that way, and I think that there is a role to play for citizens 

when the State agencies just are not able to fulfill their mandate. 

Mr. TONKO. And what are some of the steps that your organization has taken to empower citizens to monitor and enforce environmental laws? 

Mr. WASSON. The Appalachian Citizens Enforcement Project that 

I spoke about in my written testimony is one example where we 

are actually going out and we are training people to monitor the 

water quality in streams near their homes. We are providing them 

with the equipment to do that as well as some expert consulting 

to help answer questions and help them do something with that information. It is one thing to find that the water across the, you 

know, road from your house is polluted. It is another to actually 

take action on that and get that problem corrected. 

And so, you know, it takes a lot of hand-holding, honestly, for 

regular citizens to be able to engage at that level, but it is possible, 

and we are proving it is possible. We are working with groups all 

across Appalachia that are every day proving that it is possible to 

get people engaged in this. 

82 

Mr. TONKO. And I know my 5 minutes have expired, so I will 

yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. And the Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of some of 

the testimony that has been given, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent that this article by Dr. Borak be included in the file. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me—I am sure we will accept it, but let me 

make sure the minority has taken a look at it. And you can go 

ahead, and we will make that request. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I think what Dr. Borak says in light of some of 

the comments that have been made here is that I think we have 

heard once again there seems to be an attack on the coal industry 

on West Virginia. I thought we were having a panel on modernization and how we work, but this has turned into a little bit on the 

part of some of the folks one more attack on our coal miners in the 

industry. And what Borak goes on—his report says coal mining is 

not per se an independent risk factor for increased mortality in Appalachia. Appalachians suffer disproportionately poor health and 

significantly higher mortality rates than the rest of the nation. The 

Appalachian counties with the poorest health are also the most economically depressed, least educated and those with limited access 

to social and medical services. 

So to try to connect that to mountaintop mining is a stretch. 

There may be a connection. I am not going to dispute that. But I 

think we have to take other things into consideration. Smokeless 

tobacco or tobacco use. I didn’t see that on the chart to see whether 

or not that. I didn’t see a chart about diabetes. Could that be affecting health and cancer issues with that? 

So I think we have to be fair when we are doing these kinds of 

reports that we have an—try to be more unbiased than what I 

have heard in this testimony so far. 

Also Dr. Wasson, in your report you talked about how the sports 

fishing industry creates more jobs than the surface coal mining. 

And maybe it does. Maybe it does. But I tell you, the coal mining 

jobs that are being paid $50,000 and $70,000 a year are far better 

than the sports fisherman that may be in the $25,000 job. If we 

are trying to get these people out of poverty, we need to have goodpaying jobs, and once more, an attack on the coal industry because 

we have got counties in West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky that 

just simply don’t have other alternatives. That is what they say. 

They are economically depressed, and to take away something that 

is a good-paying job is really a threat to their livelihood. 

So I think we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. 

I wish one of the proponents that were here today to continue on 

with this discussion instead of skipping out. But you also raise a 

good point, Dr. Wasson, about Yarmuth. Yarmuth’s bill is interesting, and I hope it does get a hearing. I think we need to have 

those kind of—we can’t be afraid in Congress to talk about tough 

subjects. But at the same time it was announced earlier today that 

we have 321 bills sitting over in the Senate, not being acted on. 

So I would say that perhaps maybe that is a good trade. If we 

are going to take up Yarmuth’s bill, then maybe other body ought 

83 

to take up some of the bills that we have sitting over there that 

have to do with jobs, healthcare, coal mining and the like. 

Let me touch just closing again with your issue about the fly ash 

because I think your group and some of the groups that you represent were opposed to the fly ash bill as passed out of the House 

four times. It is one of those bills that is sitting over—the 321 that 

is sitting over there in the Senate without action. It would have addressed all of the problems that you have talked about, all the 

leakage. The fly ash bill, the legislation of the coal ash bill took 

care of impoundments. It took care of dam safety. It took care of 

water leakage. All those issues were taken—but yet groups that 

you are engaged with opposed the legislation. I think it is hypocritical that you are coming here and telling us that we need to do 

it when we have done that. We have passed that, but the Senate, 

the other body, won’t take those bills up. 

I hope that you can be more fair in your assessment in the future, all of you, as we address these issues of modernization. Let 

us stay to the subject matter. 

So are you telling me that Randy Hoffman, the DEP, is incapable 

of handling issues in West Virginia on DEP? 

Mr. WASSON. I do not in any way mean to impugn Mr. Hoffman 

and—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But you have used the—— 

Mr. WASSON [continuing]. And his ability to do his job. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Freedom Industry’s tank. You have 

talked about the surface mining. All of those issues come under his 

purview, and you are denigrating him. You are running him down. 

Is that fair? 

Mr. WASSON. I am saying the facts on the ground show that the 

goal, the environmental outcomes that we would expect, are not 

being achieved. The health of people—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Should he be fired? 

Mr. WASSON [continuing]. In those counties—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Should he lose his job? 

Mr. WASSON. That is—I do not have a position on whether or not 

Mr. Hoffman should have his job. I am simply observing that if we 

look at just the science, just the environmental outcomes that we 

see on the ground in West Virginia, they are not being achieved, 

what we should expect. When people in Southern West Virginia 

counties have the same life expectancy of somebody in Iran or 

Syria or Vietnam, there is something—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I have run over my time, but I would sure like 

to see it because I think that who has in Vietnam—is age 36, 37 

in Vietnam? I think the life expectancy is very much greater than 

36 and 37 in Southern West Virginia. And I am sorry that I have 

run over my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. I did consult 

with the minority, and without objection, I would ask for the article 

authored by Jonathan Borak be accepted into the record. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. I would like to thank you, Chairman, and our Ranking Member Tonko for holding today’s hearing and welcome our 

distinguished panelists for joining us. 

I want to turn to a law that this subcommittee passed in 2012 

with strong bipartisan support, the Hazardous Waste Electronic 

Manifest Establishment Act finally gave the EPA the authority and 

the resources it needed to develop an e-Manifest system for hazardous waste shipping. This law is a prime example of how technology can improve environmental protection outcomes while providing measurable burden reductions for the States in the regulated community. Although still in the works, the States and industry are expected to save $75 million under this new electronic system for waste shipment manifest. 

Ms. Marks, do you expect your department and the regulated entities in your States to benefit from the new e-Manifest system? 

Ms. MARKS. Yes, sir. I think certainly that that is something that 

will benefit the States in our attempts to regulate. There are always instances where you need to know if there are things that are 

on the regs in your States that you need to be mindful of. It certainly helps to have that transparency for the public, too. It is just 

reassuring to the public to know that there is nothing that anybody 

is trying to cover up in that regard. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Cash, what about Massachusetts? 

Mr. CASH. Yes, we approach this in the same kind of way as Ms. 

Marks. We are all on board with this. We think it creates the kind 

of transparency and tracking of these kinds of materials. It is critically important. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Darwin, Arizona is kind of like Texas. We have 

a lot of cross border. Do you expect benefits in reduce burdens in 

Arizona? 

Mr. DARWIN. Yes, sir, I do. I think any time you can transfer resources from shuffling paper to analyzing data, it benefits everyone. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Do you think that the experience with e-Manifest can serve as an example for other E-Enterprise projects? 

Mr. DARWIN. Mr. Green, I think that the only thing that I would 

suggest be different between what EPA has done with the e-Manifesting system and what they are doing with the E-Enterprise system is involving States in the design of the system. I think EPA 

has recognized—and I applaud them for recognizing—the role the 

States play in implementing environmental regulations throughout 

this country. And I am hopeful that in implementing their E-Enterprise system—and the proof is that they have been doing that so 

far—is that they will involve the States more heavily in the development of future systems. 

Mr. GREEN. Obviously I agree because I joke in Texas it must be 

in our DNA that we disagree with the EPA generationally. But 

again, the partnership makes it much more easier. 

Mr. Slesinger, you worked closely on e-Manifest for many years 

and continue to follow its implementations. What lessons should we 

in Congress and regulators at the State level learn from e-Manifest 

for other E-Enterprise initiatives? 

96 

Mr. SLESINGER. I think there are quite a few lessons I think that 

can be learned, but I think the most important one and I think EEnterprise has taken that on and that is to work very closely with 

the States. When you try to uniform a system, like manifest reporting, you already may have a lot of different programs already 

under way in the different States. So getting the States to work 

with the Federal Government together and everyone agreeing to 

compromise because it is really hard for Connecticut to say, well, 

we need a uniform system that looks exactly like Connecticut, and 

Tennessee and Arkansas have a somewhat similar view about how 

there has to be uniform—so keeping the States involved early and 

consistently and everyone compromising a little is really key. 

Mr. GREEN. For each of your States, would it be better for— 

would you be better served if the US EPA had greater resources 

to work with that, with each State, to make sure it is coordinated? 

Mr. DARWIN. The basic answer is yes. The more resources and 

assistance that we get from EPA at this point, the better. As was 

seen in my testimony, we have had cuts in the order of 30 percent 

over the last 8 to 10 years, and it becomes increasingly difficult to 

do the kinds of compliance, permitting and enforcement that we 

need to, and assistance from EPA, particularly on these issues in 

which there is cross-State transfer of, in this case, hazardous 

waste, it is something that we would like to partner with EPA on. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I am almost out of time. It seems 

that we have a lot of opportunities to build on the success of our 

e-Manifest and improve the process of regulated entities and get 

better outcomes, and I would like to thank you and the ranking 

member holding the hearing. I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. I have got a 

question for the gentleman. Do you remember who were the sponsors of the e-Manifest legislation? Do you remember who moved 

that through the House? I think it was a Mr. Green and a Mr. 

Shimkus who were the original authors, but my memory doesn’t 

serve me well. It didn’t end up that way. It ended up a John Thune 

bill in the Senate after they mashed it up. But I thought you were 

being very humble in those questions. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Murphy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have you all 

with us today. I first want to bring to the attention of Mr. Slesinger 

and Dr. Wasson, when I was in college in West Virginia, I spent 

a lot of time in Appalachian areas that were affected by a lot of 

poverty and a lot of coal problems out there. And I have spent my 

time also in doing everything from the Buffalo Creek gob pile disaster I believe before you were born, sir. But it was brutal, the 

things that happened down there. 

But one of my concerns we have sometimes with environmental 

groups is misleading data. I want to—you showed us a couple maps 

of lifespan and cancer, and I think you were trying to relate that 

to mountaintop mining. Let me show you a map here first of—I believe this is poverty rates in Appalachia. 

[The information follows:] 

97 

98 

Mr. MURPHY. It is the same. Now let me show you the next map, 

unemployment. 

[The information follows:] 

99 

Mr. MURPHY. The problem is people don’t have jobs, and when 

you have issues of people unemployment and don’t have jobs, you 

have a number of health effects, increased asthma, increased cancer, depression, mental health problems, shorter life expectancy associated with that. It is when people aren’t working. And much of 

that not working is we have a lot of closed mines, abandoned 

mines, closed coal-fired power plants. I really hope that the environmental groups can work with us in finding solutions and 

unleashing the vast brilliance of American technology to find solutions for this different from shutting it down. And I welcome any 

opportunity to discuss that with you folks there because the poverty in those parts of the country, particularly Eastern Kentucky 

where you have some of the—and parts of Western Virginia, we 

have a 40-percent unemployment rate. Forty percent and eight 

times the national rate of substance abuse. It is brutal. 

And parts of my district, however, are saved even though in 

Green County, something like 30 percent of their income is dependent upon coal. Thank goodness they have Marcellus shale because 

that is something they can have for some income there. To which 

case I then turn my attention to Ms. Marks and talk about Arkansas a little bit which my family is from. You may have heard of 

Murphy Oil? 

Ms. MARKS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MURPHY. I am not from that side of the family. 

Ms. MARKS. I am sorry. 

Mr. MURPHY. We went into healthcare, but from the El Dorado 

Murphys and the Springdale Murphys out there and part of that 

Fayetteville shale is out there, but we went to healthcare. 

But I want to ask about the role of the Department of Environmental Quality. How does that—what is their role in the regulation 

of natural gas exploration in Arkansas? 

Ms. MARKS. We actually share that role with the Oil and Gas 

Commission. We would like to say that we deal with the service facilities, and they deal with the drilling facilities. 

We have a memorandum of understanding with them that they 

deal with the actual drilling process itself, the construction of the 

wells, those kinds of things. They permit those. We deal with the 

ponds on site, the water issues, all of those types of things. 

Mr. MURPHY. And how many State regulators do you have that 

monitor all these in the State? 

Ms. MARKS. I can’t speak for the Oil and Gas Commission. They 

have a number of inspectors that go out on site. We have in our 

water division, which is where we are involved most closely with 

Oil and Gas, we have 17 inspectors, and we also have four inspectors that are dedicated solely to natural gas issues. We were able 

to partner with the Oil and Gas Commission and get money from 

them through a memorandum of agreement that allows us to do 

joint inspections with them. 

Mr. MURPHY. And how many regulators does EPA have in Arkansas to deal with the same thing? 

Ms. MARKS. They don’t have any regulators actually located in 

Arkansas. Dallas is the closest one. 

100 

Mr. MURPHY. Now, you have moved toward electronic reporting 

in Arkansas. So how has this affected the speed of time in moving 

forward in the thoroughness of reviewing permitting? 

Ms. MARKS. It has been a great help, and it will be much more 

of a help when we actually get it fully implemented. But the fact 

that we don’t have to deal with paper copies and uploading information into a database that then goes to EPA has saved a tremendous amount of time for both us and the regulated community. 

Mr. MURPHY. Do you also maintain records of chemicals used for 

fracking in natural gas—— 

Ms. MARKS. The Oil and Gas Commission does. That is on their 

Web site, and it is open to the public. 

Ms. MARKS. And it is required they have to file full disclosure in 

Arkansas? 

Mr. MURPHY. They have to file disclosure. I am not sure of the 

actual specifics of that law, but they do have to disclose the materials in fracking fluids in Arkansas. 

Mr. MURPHY. Also with regard to ponds there, do you maintain 

public records with regard to content in those ponds and any leaks 

in them or any environmental hazards associated with them so the 

public can also review those? 

Ms. MARKS. Yes, sir. We have certain requirements. Our ponds 

are permitted on the basis of a permit by rule, and those ponds 

have to have a certain—they have to have below a certain level to 

be able to be put in those outside ponds and they have to be lined 

a certain way, constructed a certain way. 

Mr. MURPHY. EPA has told us that there are not necessarily 

problems with those. Have you found problems with regard to any 

leaks or problems with groundwater contamination of any kind 

with those? 

Ms. MARKS. Not so much with groundwater contamination. Surface water contamination we have. You know, you have sometimes 

ponds are going to fail, and sometimes you have people that don’t 

follow the right construction process. And we will have contamination with adjacent waterways but nothing that has been, I would 

say, completely horrible. I mean, we have had leaks that we have 

had to address. We have had some minor fish kills, but that is 

about—that is rare, but it has happened. 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Just to let people know, the committee rules are that the committee and the subcommittee get to ask questions first and then guests, like Mr. 

Yarmuth, will get a chance at the end once all the committee members have asked their questions. And so with that, I will turn to 

Congressman Johnson from Ohio. He is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Director Darwin, in your review of processes that required improvement, what activities constituted the places most in need of reform 

or elimination in your view? 

Mr. DARWIN. Thank you, Congressman Johnson. It is a great 

question, and the fact of the matter is that what we have found is 

that there is no process that couldn’t use some sort of improvement. Studies have shown that whenever you review a process, 

about 80 percent of the process is wasteful from a document sitting 

101 

on someone’s desk from a document transferring from one desk to 

another, from errors that have occurred within the document. 

So as an agency, we have been reviewing every single one of our 

processes for whether or not it warrants improvement or not. We 

have done everything from the long lead-time permits that we 

issue, those permits that take the longest. I think the chairman 

mentioned that we have seen a 60 percent reduction in that timeframe. We have reduced the time it takes for a public records request by 80 percent, for us to respond public records request by 80 

percent over the past 2 years as well. The time we see from us 

identifying a violation from it being corrected, that period of time 

is reduced by over 50 percent over the same period of time. 

So as an agency, we have been reviewing every single one of our 

processes, acknowledging that every process can be improved and 

prioritizing them based upon their impact to the environment. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, you indicated in your written testimony 

that there is a, and I quote, ‘‘a lot of wasted effort imbedded in the 

current process and that it invites error and delay in evaluating 

adherence to environmental requirements. Can you give us some 

examples, specific examples? 

Mr. DARWIN. Absolutely. You know, most environmental protection programs rely heavily on self-monitoring reporting. We heard 

a lot about that today. This means that the entity must collect data 

and report the data to the responsible Government entity, and they 

largely do this via paper. This is despite the fact that the rest of 

the business world is reporting on the things that they do, even we 

do, electronically. Think of our online bank accounts that we have 

and how we have demanded as a public that we have access to the 

information that our banks have electronically. 

If we choose to follow a pure paper operation, it results in slow 

transactions and they are wrought with human error. Electronic reporting, on the other hand, is much quicker. It contains less error 

and allows for almost immediate feedback about whether or not 

there is a need for corrective action. When we receive electronic information from those who we regulate, we can give immediate feedback of whether or not they are complying with environmental requirements, and they can take corrective action to resolve those 

issues. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you see similar issues at the Federal level? 

Mr. DARWIN. Absolutely, and I think that it is imperative that 

we understand that the Federal Government has acknowledged 

that as well through the e-Manifesting system they have developed, 

through the eDMR system under the Clean Water Act that they 

are also looking into, and then this E-Enterprise program that they 

have been partnering with the States is really their acknowledgment that they are dealing with the same issues the States are on 

needing to transfer their operations into the 21st century. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Please explain for us how confidential business information will still be protected with information technology 

sharing like—and I hope I am pronouncing this right—MyDEQ? Is 

that how you say that? 

Mr. DARWIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are developed and used. 

102 

Mr. DARWIN. Yes, sir. This is a concern that we have heard from 

our business community in Arizona, and what I respond to them 

and I will respond to you in the same way is that there are certain 

laws within Arizona that protect confidential business information, 

and those laws remain unchanged regardless of how we receive the 

information. The fact of the matter is though that the information 

that we are receiving, even if it is not confidential business information, still may be subject to public records laws. And so as we 

are receiving this electronic information, our—disseminating that 

information and making that information publically available is 

something that we have to work with our regulated community to 

make sure that we are fulfilling their expectations and also our obligations in our public records laws. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Final question for you. How does the fee-forservice model and having a significant portion of Arizona’s DEQ’s 

budget from fees and other revenue from the regulative community 

improve compliance and environmental protection in Arizona? 

Mr. DARWIN. Congressman Johnson, I am sure you are referring 

to the fact that my agency was taken off the general fund 3 years 

ago. That means that our budget is made up of 85 percent fees 

from our regulated community and 15 percent from the Federal 

Government through grants from EPA. What this has caused us to 

do is to become much more responsive to our regulated community. 

It only makes sense. They are paying for 85 percent of our budget. 

They deserve some additional attention from us. And the fact of the 

matter is when I was going before our legislature and asking for 

the ability to increase fees to fund my agency, I had to make commitments to the regulated community to get their support. And the 

commitment that I made to them was that I would issue permits 

to them quicker so they could do the business that they were asking to perform in Arizona quicker as well. 

So I fulfilled that commitment by becoming more responsive to 

them because of the fact that they are now 85 percent of my budget. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. And the Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I have 

one question for Mr. Kovacs. Arizona removed the budget for the 

Department of Environmental Quality, and I know you referred to 

it just now, another witness did, from the general fund in favor of 

fee-for-service model. Does the Chamber support such a move like 

that for the States? 

Mr. KOVACS. Well, it is certainly an interesting concept, and I 

would like to see more data about it. But I think—I am sorry. No, 

I think it is on. And I would like to see more data, but—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just pull it a little bit closer and I think that will 

be—make the—— 

Mr. KOVACS. You know, it is a fascinating concept. The States 

overall receive roughly about 60 percent of their budget I think, 45 

to 60 percent, from fees anyway. And on the fee issue, in some 

States, I believe even like California for an example, for an environmental impact statement, the developer actually pays. 

103 

I don’t think anyone is asking—because they pay, that doesn’t 

mean they get any special treatment. What it means is is that they 

have paid for a service. If you buy a book on Amazon, you expect 

the book. If you pay for a filing fee for a hazardous waste facility 

or solid waste facility, you expect that the State will review it. You 

still have to comply with all the same tests. You still have to comply with the engineering drawings, the zoning requirements, all of 

the—anyone who wants to sue can still sue. All of that is still in 

place, and if the State makes a mistake or there is a violation, the 

State has enforcement authority or they deny the permit. But what 

the business community never asks for is special treatment. They 

ask for the service that they would be paying for, and I think that 

on States like Arizona, I think that you have got a, you know, a 

good laboratory. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. Anyone else wish to comment on the 

fee-for-service model? 

Mr. SLESINGER. I would, Congressman. We believe it is not the 

best way for the Government to operate is that the regulated control the budget of the regulator. The example though as just mentioned, that the State had to agree to be faster with approving permits as a prerequisite to get the needed fees to run I think is a 

bad precedent. Shouldn’t the priority be possibly something else 

that is more protective of the general public and protecting the environment and public health as opposed to speeding up the processes for a permit. 

As I said in my testimony, the propriety of environmental agencies should be enforcing the environmental laws. Making the paperwork system work better is a very nice secondary. But when 

that secondary group is essentially controlling and having the impact to say what the budget and priorities are going to be is a very 

bad way to go. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Bilirakis? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, I will. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would just point out that the NRDC in the pesticide regulation obviously endorsed obviously the stakeholders 

paying into the system for identifying and then application and approval process. 

I would also say that we do that a lot in the drugs and devices 

world that we deal with all the time. The user-fee system has been 

very successful in trying to force the bureaucracy to move rapidly 

to—in a timely manner to get a decision. It could be a yes, it could 

be a no. But at least when you have a period of time where you 

don’t know when a final decision will be made, that is problematic. 

Mr. SLESINGER. That— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Actually I want to ask my colleague from Florida 

if I can finish up and ask another question. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I need to go to Mr. Cash just for this issue. 

Can you provide more details on why the E-Enterprise for Environment Initiative between the States and the EPA is important for 

Massachusetts? 

Mr. CASH. Yes. As I had mentioned before, implied before, there 

are many different programs that we have that overlap with EPA 

that we do in collaboration with EPA, and we don’t want to be in 

104 

a situation as we move to an electronic system, as we are in Massachusetts, as many other States are, in which we replicate the kind 

of different layers of regulation that we have on a paper system. 

We don’t want to do a similar kind of system electronically. We 

don’t want to be in a situation where our permittees are applying 

online in Massachusetts and then have to do a similar thing on a 

different system for EPA. 

And so it is really important that we coordinate these things 

across the different levels, and that is one of the reasons we have 

been so engaged in this. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair? Can I ask Mr. Slesinger to respond to 

that? I believe he—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is the gentleman from Florida’s time. Mr. Bilirakis, do you want to yield the remainder of your time to—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. Yes, I will. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Then yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. One second. 

Mr. SLESINGER. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. I think the difference 

with pesticides in the funding of that program and approval, was 

that was an additional delta. It did not come as it did in the other 

case that was mentioned out of the base budget. You are not going 

to get your base budget unless you took care of this priority first, 

whereas a pesticide add-on, which is a fee, is a delta on top of the 

normal EPA budget. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I would just say, that is a credible debate, but 

it is also a credible point to be made that the user fees have been 

successful throughout the Government operations as far as streamlining and getting accountability. 

I would like to now recognize a very patient gentleman from 

Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courtesy of the subcommittee. Thanks to all the witnesses. Thank you 

for your service. 

Dr. Wasson, I was pleased that in your testimony you said it is 

important that we eliminate duplication and streamline our regulatory processes. That makes total sense. But that the foundation 

of any effective and efficient regulatory process is scientific evidence and knowledge of how certain practices impact the health 

and well-being of our citizens. 

We hear a lot about the economic burden of regulation on coal 

operators, but we also know there is a personal cost paid by those 

families who live near coal mining sites. As you have mentioned, 

a number of peer-reviewed studies have shown that there are higher rates of cancer and mortality of those living near mountaintop 

removal sites. I think there are more than 20 of those studies. So 

would you kind of elaborate in light of Mr. McKinley and Mr. Murphy’s statements about other factors what you are talking about 

when you are talking about higher rates of cancer and mortality 

and the evidence of them? 

Mr. WASSON. Sure. I am very familiar with the study that Mr. 

McKinley entered into the record, and there is one study they used 

different statistical methods to come to their conclusions. I think 

what is so impressive about the literature that shows health issues 

105 

near mountaintop removal mines just the sheer number of different 

independent sources of data that point in that direction. 

So, you know, maybe there is some debate over some statistical 

methods over some of those studies, but taken as a whole, if you 

look at the entire body of evidence, it is really pretty stunning. And 

again, it is independent. There are almost 40 different researchers 

that have published on these—you know, among these 21 different 

studies. And so I think that that is really the biggest factor. 

And again, the tools that I talked about in my written testimony 

where we provide information about, you know, these maps that I 

showed, we also have the poverty information. That could have 

been in our maps as well. And the scientists control for those factors. And so when they do a study, they are looking at smoking 

rates and poverty rates and education rates and factoring those 

into their analysis. 

And so yes, many of the things that other members have said are 

true, but that does not in any way discredit the studies we are 

talking about. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Right. Now, you spend a lot of time in Appalachia 

and I have spent some time there. I am sure you have seen this 

before. That is water that came from the drinking well of the Urias 

family in Eastern Kentucky. That is U-r-i-a-s for the recorder. 

Those of you who think that is not dramatic, there is a contrast 

with normal water. And you know, I think they don’t need a Web 

site in their neighborhood, in their community, to know that there 

is a health problem associated with that water. If that were the 

drinking water here in Congress, we not only wouldn’t drink it, we 

would not stand for it. And yet, people in Appalachia, for those people, the Federal Government has yet to conduct a single study examining the health impact of coal mining on the communities that 

it inhabits. And that is exactly the point that I think all of us agree 

on, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Murphy. We need that kind of information, 

scientific information, to determine what the impact on the health 

of these citizens is, and the ACHE Act, which you mentioned and 

Mr. McKinley may want to co-sponsor, if you want to ask him, basically does that. It says we have to—the Federal Government has 

to conduct a study on the health impact of mountaintop removal 

before it issues anymore permits. 

So can you tell me what the impact of such a law would be, if 

it passed, on the health of the citizens of Appalachia? 

Mr. WASSON. Well, the study itself, it is a great start, and it is 

long overdue. There is just no question about it. There is too much 

information showing health problems to continue to ignore. The 

other obvious impact is—a moratorium on issuing the mountaintop 

removal permits is an excellent idea, and I don’t think that we 

need any more studies. The health studies aside, just the water 

quality impacts, the rich scientific literature about the water quality impacts of mountaintop removal, would justify such a moratorium right now, today. And so, you know, I think that that study 

as well as the moratorium would be an excellent start. 

Mr. YARMUTH. I thank you very much. Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your courtesy. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. And seeing no 

other members present wishing to ask questions, we really want to 

106 

thank you. I think it was very—a little broader on some of the 

issues, but I think as the chairman of the subcommittee in trying 

to deal and reconcile and really talking to a lot of Environmental 

Council of the States which you all are kind of memberships and 

understanding the good work that they are doing, understanding 

Federal role and setting standards as the ranking member of the 

full committee keeps reminding me. How can we continue to work 

together? 

And the last point I will just make is that we have a budgetary 

crisis, and we are always going to have that. And our problem is 

mandatory spending, which keeps eating away at the discretionary 

budget, and the discretionary budget eats away at the EPA’s budget. So until we do Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest payments on our debt—and I would encourage people, if they want the 

Federal Government to do more, they need to help, engage, start 

talking about reforming the entitlement programs. 

So with that I would like to adjourn. Thank you again, and adjourn the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

Æ