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

25–469PDF 2017

EXPANDING THE ROLE OF STATES 

IN EPA RULEMAKING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 23, 2017 

Serial No. 115–14 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Ranking 

Member 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

May 23, 2017 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamic, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Misael Cabrera, PE, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Ms. Becky Keogh, Director, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28 

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, Professor Emerita, Hubert H. Humphrey School 

of Public Affairs and Professor Emerita, Environmental Health Sciences, 

University of Minnesota 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 49 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, Professor Emerita, Hubert H. Humphrey School 

of Public Affairs and Professor Emerita, Environmental Health Sciences, 

University of Minnesota ...................................................................................... 70 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 80 
Page

IV 

Documents submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamic, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 84 
(1) 

EXPANDING THE ROLE OF STATES IN EPA 

RULEMAKING 

TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Biggs [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

LAMAAS.SM!TH, Texas 

CHAIRMAN 

(t:ongrcss of the 'llnitcd ~rates 

tf\ousc of 'JRcprcscntatiucs COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HouSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

www,science.housegov 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking 

Tuesday, May 23, 2017 

10:00 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. Texss 

RANKING MEMBER 

Mr. Misael Cabrera, PE, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Ms. Becky Keogh, Director, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Deborah L. Swackhamer, Ph.D., Professor Emerita, Hubert H. Humphrey School 

of Public Affairs and Professor Emerita, Environmental Health Sciences, 

University of Minnesota 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

Monday, May 22, 2017 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Environment 

FROM: Majority Staff, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

SUBJECT: Subcommittee Hearing: "Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking" 

The Subcommittee on Environment will hold a hearing titled Expanding the Role of 

States in EPA Rulemaking on Tuesday, May 23,2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2318 of the 

Rayburn House Office Building. 

Hearing Pnrpose: 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the relationship between federal and state 

government agencies and how they interact to address environmental regulations, such as 

regional haze, ozone, and cross-state air pollution. 

Witness List 

• Mr. Misael Cabrera, PE, director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

• Ms. Becky Keogh, director, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

• Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, professor emerita, Hubert H. Humphrey School of 

Public Affairs and professor emerita, Environmental Health Sciences, University of 

Minnesota 

Staff Contact 

For questions related to the hearing, please contact Majority Staff at 202-225-6371. 
4 

Chairman BIGGS. The Subcommittee on Environment will come 

to order. There we go. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to all of you, especially to our witnesses, to this hearing 

today, which is entitled, ‘‘Expanding the Role of States in EPA 

Rulemaking.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening 

statement. 

I’m grateful to have all of you here for this hearing entitled, ‘‘Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking.’’ 

The Tenth Amendment protects States from being bullied by the 

federal government. Instead of allowing complete and unchecked 

power at the federal level, the Constitution ensures that states retain their authority on issues not expressly defined. 

Unfortunately, the previous Administration must have skimmed 

over that part of the Constitution, deciding instead to impose complete control over states and their economies. This was certainly 

the case with the Environmental Protection Agency. Far too often, 

states found themselves forced to comply with costly and 

unachievable environmental standards, all for little or no benefit. 

As the EPA gains new leadership, the states must be given a 

larger role on environmental policy and not cede any more authority to unelected bureaucrats in Washington, DC. The EPA under 

Obama—under President Obama routinely overstepped its authority, promulgating unnecessarily stringent standards without regard 

to state abilities or local expertise. 

In implementing nationwide ozone standards, to use one significant example, the Agency chose an uninformed one-size-fits-all regulatory agenda without regard to the unique challenges each state 

may face. 

In October 2015, the EPA lowered the national ozone standard 

from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. Southwestern 

states like my home State of Arizona are unable to comply with 

this standard solely due to our geographic location, which the EPA 

conveniently ignores when issuing standards. 

Arizona experiences a slightly amount of naturally occurring 

ozone emissions—excuse me, a significant amount of naturally occurring ozone emissions, which contribute greatly to volatile organic compound emissions, or VOCs. Power plants, oil refineries, 

industrial sources, and other stationary sources account for one 

percent of Arizona’s VOC emissions, yet this is not something the 

EPA readily admits or acknowledges. 

Although the EPA’s shortcomings on setting ozone standards are 

reprehensible, the way this agency has dealt with the regional haze 

program is even more egregious. This rulemaking merely aims to 

increase the clarity and color the human eye can see when visiting 

national parks and other protecting—protected federal wilderness. 

You heard me correctly. The goal of this rule is not to improve 

human health in any way and does nothing to prevent environmental hazards. It is an ostensible aesthetic measure. And, 

shockingly, implementing this rule will cost individual states hundreds of millions of dollars. 

When Congress enacted haze regulations, the original intent was 

to have states dictate how to implement the program. The EPA 
5 

was tasked with giving guidance to states while at the same time 

granting them deference to decide how to implement the program. 

Congress envisioned a true partnership. Perhaps if the EPA had 

made an earnest effort to partner with states and truly listen to 

their feedback, Americans would not be paying the cost of hollow 

and ineffective regulations. 

Thankfully, the new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has expressed an intent to work with states in a cooperative manner to 

crate positive change. This hearing will help aid this endeavor by 

giving state officials the opportunity to voice their states’ needs. I 

hope this hearing will act as a step forward—excuse me, step forward and a step toward ensuring a true partnership between states 

and the federal government. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggs follows:] 
6 

COMMITTEE ON 

SCIENCE, SPACE, & TECHNOLOGY 

Lamar Smith. Chairman 

For Immediate Release 

May23.2017 

Media Contact: Kristina Baum 

(202) 225-6371 

Statement of Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) 

Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemoking 

Chairman Biggs: Welcome to today's hearing, entitled "Expanding the Role of States 

in EPA Rulemaking." 

The 1 Qth Amendment protects states from being bullied by the federal government. 

Instead of allowing complete and unchecked power at the federal level. the 

Constitution ensures that states retain their authority on issues not expressly defined. 

Unfortunately, the previous Administration must have skimmed over that part of the 

Constitution, deciding instead to impose complete control over states and their 

economies. This was certainly the case with the Environmental Protection Agency. Far 

too often, states found themselves forced to comply with costly and unachievable 

environmental standards. all for little or no benefit. 

As the EPA gains new leadership, the states must be given a larger role on 

environmental policy and not cede any more authority to unelected bureaucrats in 

Washington, D.C. The EPA under Obama routinely overstepped its authority, 

promulgating unnecessarily stringent standards without regard to state abilities or local 

expertise. 

In implementing notion-wide ozone standards, to use one significant example, the 

agency chose an uninformed "one-size-fits-all" regulatory agenda without regard to 

the unique challenges each state may face. 

In October 2015 the EPA lowered the national ozone standard from 75 parts per billion 

to 70 parts per billion. Southwestern states like my home state of Arizona are unable to 

comply with this standard solely due to our geographic location, which the EPA 

conveniently ignores when issuing standards. 

Arizona experiences a significant amount of naturally occurring ozone emissions, 

which contribute greatly to volatile organic compound emissions, or VOC's. Power 

plants, oil refineries, industrial sources, and other stationary sources account for 1 

percent of Arizona's VOC emissions. yet this is not something the EPA readily admits. 

Although the EPA's shortcomings on setting ozone standards are reprehensible, the 

way this agency has dealt with the regional haze program is even more egregious. 

This rulemaking merely aims to increase the clarity and color the human eye can see 

when visiting national parks and other protected federal wilderness. 
7 

Yes, you heard me correctly: the goal of this rule is not to improve human health in any 

way and does nothing to prevent environmental hazards. It is an aesthetic measure. 

And, shockingly, implementing this rule will cost individual states hundreds of millions of 

dollars. 

When Congress enacted haze regulations, the original intent was to have states 

dictate how to implement the program. The EPA was tasked with giving guidance to 

states while at the same time granting them deference to decide how to implement 

the program. Congress envisioned a true partnership. Perhaps if the EPA had made 

an earnest effort to partner with states and truly listen to their feedback, Americans 

would not be paying the cost of hollow regulations. 

Thankfully, the new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has expressed an intent to work with 

states in a cooperative manner to crate positive change. This hearing will help aid this 

endeavor by giving state officials the opportunity to voice their states' needs. 

I hope this hearing will act as a step toward ensuring a true partnership between states 

and the federal government. 

I yield back. 

### 
8 

Chairman BIGGS. Without objection, I’d like to enter into the 

record a written statement from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality discussing the important relationship of state 

environmental agencies in federal rulemaking. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman BIGGS. And I will yield back the balance of my time. 

And I now recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, the Ranking 

Member, Mrs. Bonamici, for an opening statement. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

of our witnesses for being here today. 

Before we talk about the topic that is the title of this hearing 

today, ‘‘Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking,’’ we need 

to discuss the basis of these rules themselves. The existence of the 

EPA and its core mission to protect human health and the environment stemmed from a failure of the states to safeguard their residents from pollution in the air, water, and soil. EPA’s role as a federal environmental regulatory body was meant to provide an even 

playing field for all Americans, regardless of geography because the 

health of our families is not something we can leave to chance. 

The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment, and the Agency’s purpose clearly states that its efforts to 

protect Americans from significant risks should be based on the 

best available scientific information. As Members of the Science 

Committee, it is important for us to focus on the oversight of the 

federal research undertaken by agencies in our jurisdiction. For the 

EPA, this means allowing the Office of Research and Development 

to continue its leading-edge scientific research that forms the basis 

of agency actions, including rulemaking. 

The back-to-basics agenda that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt 

has touted recently with the focus on environment economy and engagement appears to have little overlap with the Agency’s stated 

mission to protect human health and the environment. Further actions by both the EPA Administrator and the Trump Administration have shown an increased proclivity toward promoting industry 

interests over public health whether by refusing to renew the terms 

of eligible members of the Agency’s Board of Scientific Counselors 

or proposing to gut funding for the EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development, the office that conducts the research that forms the 

basis of environmental protections. 

This Administration and my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle in this committee are quick to forget the condition of our environment prior to the existence of the EPA when pollution was pervasive in our air, water, and soil. Let me be clear: Our work is not 

done. Just because we cannot see the pollution around us know 

that—now that our rivers no longer catch fire and our cities are not 

as choked by smog does not mean that the EPA can close up shop 

or retreat. In fact, we need the EPA now more than ever. 

The American people agree. During a recent call for comments 

on what EPA regulations to modify, repeal, or replace, thousands 

of Americans pleaded to keep in place environmental safeguards 

with some even warning that we would be doomed to repeat our 

history if we dismantled existing protections. 

Although I’m concerned by the Administration’s broad actions 

against science across the agencies, I’m especially troubled by the 
9 

specific EPA actions because the seriousness of the Agency’s mission, to protect the public from environmental risks. 

That’s why am pleased that we have Dr. Swackhamer here today 

to highlight the scientific foundation of these environmental safeguards and the importance of continuing to press forward on scientific research both internally at the EPA and additionally 

through grants. 

I look forward to a discussion starting today and I hope continuing into the future about the integral role that scientific inquiry plays in informing policy and risk at the EPA in order to 

keep our constituents safe and healthy in the communities we are 

also honored to represent. 

With that, I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 
10 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-TX) 

of the Subcommittee on Environment 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Environment 

"Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking" 

May 23,2017 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. 

Before we talk about the topic that is the title of this hearing today, expanding the role of states 

in EPA rulemaking, we need to discuss the basis of these rules themselves. The existence of the 

EPA, and its core mission to protect human health and the environment, stemmed from a failure 

of the states to safeguard their residents from pollution in the air, water, and soil. EPA's role as a 

federal environmental regulatory body was meant to provide an even playing field for all 

Americans, regardless of geography, because the health of our families is not something we can 

leave to chance. 

The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment, and the agency's 

purpose clearly states that its efforts to protect Americans from significant risks should be based 

on the best available scientific information. As members of the Science Committee, it is 

important for us to focus on oversight of the federal research undertaken by agencies in our 

jurisdiction. For the EPA, this means allowing the Office of Research and Development to 

continue its leading-edge scientific research that forms the basis of Agency actions, including 

rulemaking. 

The "Back to Basics" agenda that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has touted recently, with a 

focus on "environment, economy, and engagement," appears to have little overlap with the 

agency's stated mission to protect human health and the environment. 

Further actions by both the EPA Administrator and the Trump Administration have shown an 

increased proclivity toward promoting industry interests over public health, whether by refusing 

to renew the terms of eligible members of the Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors, or 
11 

proposing to gut the funding for the EPA's Office of Research and Development, the office that 

conducts the research that forms the basis of environmental protections. 

This Administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Committee are quick 

to forget the condition of our environment prior to the existence of the EPA. Pollution was 

pervasive in our air, water, and soil. Let me be clear: our work is not done. Just because we 

cannot see the pollution around us now that our rivers no longer catch fire and our cities are not 

as choked by smog, does not mean the EPA can close up shop or retreat. In fact we need the EPA 

now more than ever. 

The American people agree. During a recent call for comments on what EPA regulations to 

modify, repeal, or replace, thousands of Americans pleaded to keep in place environmental 

safeguards, with some even warning that we would be doomed to repeat our history if we 

dismantled existing protections. 

Although I am concerned by the Administration's broad actions against science across the 

agencies, I am especially troubled by the specific EPA actions because of the seriousness ofthe 

agency's mission to protect the public from environmental risks. That's why I am pleased that 

we have Dr. Swackhamer here today to highlight the scientific foundation of these environmental 

safeguards, and the importance of continuing to press forward on scientific research both 

internally at the EPA, and additionally through grants. 

I look forward to a discussion starting today and I hope continuing into the future about the 

integral role that scientific inquiry plays in informing policy and risk at the EPA in order to keep 

our constituents safe and healthy in the communities we're all so honored to represent. With that 

I would like to again thank the witnesses for being here today, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 
12 

Ms. BONAMICI. And, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask for 

unanimous consent that a letter be introduced into the record. This 

letter was sent to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last week requesting additional details surrounding the decision to not renew 

the terms of nine eligible members of the EPA’s Board of Scientific 

Counselors. It is signed by the Ranking Members of the full 

Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, as well as the Ranking Members of their respective Oversight and Environment Subcommittees. 

Chairman BIGGS. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with that I look 

forward to the testimony and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also thanks to 

the witnesses for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States Constitution asserts that state 

governments retain power when not directly superseded by the federal government. This is explicitly stated in the Tenth Amendment. 

Unfortunately, during the previous Administration, the relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and state governments eroded to the point that states were micromanaged by 

the federal government at every turn, often at great detriment to 

their local economies. 

The EPA sought control over state interests and routinely 

downplayed state concerns in order to enforce a costly partisan 

agenda that did little to better the environment. For instance, 

when EPA regulations mandated that states create plans to meet 

environmental standards, the EPA routinely usurped these plans 

and created far stricter plans for states with little or no negotiation. This isn’t the relationship our Founding Fathers envisioned 

when they created the Bill of Rights. This is the implementation 

of a unilateral environmental agenda. 

What’s also troubling is that the regulations EPA proposed, finalized, and forced onto states during the previous Administration 

were routinely shown to be based on suspect science. The EPA 

often cherry-picked what science to utilize, and amazingly didn’t 

even possess some of the data they supposedly used for regulations. 

Not surprisingly, the EPA has been broken for years. That’s why 

the Committee approved two important pieces of legislation this 

year: the HONEST Act, and the Science Advisory Board Reform 

Act. These bills, passed by the House and sent to the Senate, will 

promote scientific integrity and assure that scientific advice and 

counsel is no longer lopsided. 

I am encouraged that President Trump and Administrator Pruitt 

are working hard to return the EPA to its rightful place as an honest agency that isn’t plagued by a one-sided agenda. Unfortunately, 

this is a big task. Even now, staff at the Agency is working to undermine the President’s authority by continuing to conspire with 

environmental allies of the past Administration who want to impose costly, job-killing regulations on American taxpayers. 

Recently, science integrity officers at the EPA have scheduled a 

stakeholder meeting to discuss the Agency’s scientific integrity 
13 

practices. The stakeholders invited to this closed, invitation-only 

meeting reads like a ‘‘who’s who’’ of environmental activists with 

little diversity among viewpoints. 

It is clear that certain employees at the EPA continue to undermine the current Administration and are doing so in near-secret 

meetings. A meeting like this should not take place without balanced representation of all stakeholders. Or even better, the meeting should be open to all who wish to attend. 

Under the previous Administration, science advisory panels and 

boards at the EPA were packed with ‘‘experts’’ of the same 

mindset, acting as a rubberstamp of the Agency’s agenda. These 

same ‘‘experts’’ also were found to be double-dipping. They are routinely funded by EPA grant money but then advise the Agency on 

the same issues they were funded to examine. This is a clear conflict of interest. I am disappointed that some employees continue 

to push a secret, one-sided agenda instead of working with the Administration. 

This Administration is returning EPA to its rightful agenda of 

relying on good science, not cherry-picked or non-existent science. 

And I applaud the work of Administrator Pruitt and look forward 

to working with him to make sure regulations are providing the 

most benefit to our states and their citizens. 

With that, I again look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today, and yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
14 

COMMITTEE ON 

SCIENCE, SPACE, & TECHNOLOGY 

Lamar Smith, Chairman 

For Immediate Release 

May 23.2017 

Media Contact: Kristina Baum 

(202) 225-6371 

Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) 

Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking 

Chairman Smith: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for being here 

today. 

The United States Constitution asserts that state governments retain power when not 

directly superseded by the federal government. This is explicitly stated in the 1 Qth 

Amendment. 

Unfortunately, during the previous Administration, the relationship between the 

Environmental Protection Agency and state governments eroded to the point that 

states were micro-managed by the federal government at every turn. often times at 

great detriment to their local economies. 

The EPA sought complete control over state interests and routinely downplayed state 

concerns in order to enforce a costly partisan agenda that did little to better the 

environment. 

For instance, when EPA regulations mandated that states create plans to meet 

environmental standards, the EPA routinely usurped these plans and created far 

stricter plans for states with little or no negotiation. This isn't the relationship our 

founding fathers envisioned when they created the Bill of Rights. This is the 

implementation of a unilateral environmental agenda. 

What's more troubling is that the regulations EPA proposed, finalized, and forced onto 

states during the previous Administration were routinely shown to be based on suspect 

science. The EPA often cherry-picked what science to utilize, and amazingly didn't 

even possess some of the data they supposedly used for regulations. 

Not surprisingly, the EPA has been broken for years. It isn't just limited to senior 

management officials making the calls; it is evident throughout the agency. That's why 

the Committee approved two important pieces of legislation this year: the HONEST 

Act. and the Science Advisory Board Reform Act. These bills, passed by the House and 

sent to the Senate, will promote scientific integrity and assure that scientific advice 

and counsel is no longer lopsided. 

I am encouraged that President Trump and Administrator Pruitt are working hard to 

return the EPA to its rightful place as an honest agency that isn't plagued with a onesided agenda. 
15 

Unfortunately, this is a big task. Even now, staff at the agency is working to undermine 

the President's authority by continuing to work closely with environmental allies of the 

past Administration who want to impose costly, job-killing regulations on American 

taxpayers. 

Recently, science integrity officers at the EPA have scheduled a stakeholder meeting 

to discuss the agency's scientific integrity practices. The stakeholders invited to this 

closed, invitation-only meeting reads like a "who's who" of environmental activists with 

little diversity among viewpoints. 

It is clear that certain employees at the EPA continue to undermine the current 

Administration, and are doing so in near-secret meetings. A meeting like this should 

not take place without balanced representation for all stakeholders. Or even better, 

the meeting should be open to all who wish to attend. 

Under the previous Administration. science advisory panels and boards at the EPA 

were packed with "experts" of one mindset, acting as a rubberstamp to the agency's 

agenda. These same "experts" were also found to be double-dipping. They are 

routinely funded by EPA grant money, but then are tasked to advise the agency on 

the same issues they were funded to examine. This is a clear conflict of interest, and I 

am disappointed that some employees are continuing to push a secret, one-sided 

agenda instead of working with the Administration. 

This Administration is returning EPA to its rightful agenda of relying on good science, 

not cherry-picked or non-existent science. I applaud the work of Administrator Pruitt, 

and look forward to working with him to make sure regulations are providing the most 

benefit to our states and their citizens. 

With that, !look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and yield back the 

balance of my time. 

### 
16 

Chairman BIGGS. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Full Committee for a statement, Representative Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and our distinguished Ranking Member and witnesses. 

Environmental protections that limit damage to the environment 

and protect the public from toxic exposure should be based on solid 

scientific evidence. Five decades ago, a Republican President established the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that this 

was the case. Some of us still remember that the EPA was created 

because the states were not doing a good job in regulating private 

industries and in safeguarding the health and safety of their residents. 

In the years and decades before EPA was established, rivers 

were literally causing—catching fire because of flammable chemicals dumped into them. Smog engulfed the air in certain cities exacerbating health ailments, and children played in urban areas immersed with toxic chemicals. 

Richard Nixon established the EPA to assist state environmental 

agencies by providing them with the scientific research necessary 

to successfully carry out their mission to protect the public. He believed a federal scientific agency was needed to help the nation address critical environmental issues because he knew they could not 

be successfully addressed with each State acting on their own. In 

his message to Congress in July of 1970, President Nixon said the 

EPA was needed to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants 

which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land 

we grow our food. 

Certainly, environmental problems still exist today. However, as 

a nation, together we have made steady progress in addressing 

them. These achievements have been made by relying on creditable 

environmental science that has helped to enlighten policymakers 

and politicians alike in order to help develop constructive policies 

and reasonable regulations to protect the public. But abandoning 

these or this responsibility will not help protect the environment or 

improve the public’s health. Rather, it will turn back the clock 

more than 50 years. 

Many of the proposed environmental policies and regulations 

coming from this Administration and the Science Committee majority have already put us on a road back to a time when industries 

polluted unimpeded. The public suffered and politicians stayed silent. I am concerned that, today, the Trump Administration is attempting to silence federal scientists and offer alternative facts 

rather than scientific evidence. 

The decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt earlier this 

month to not renew nine of the 18 members of the Agency’s Board 

of Scientific Counselors is just the latest example of this Administration’s effort to silence scientists. The EPA has also scrubbed references to climate change from its websites, and the Administrator 

recently ignored the research finding of EPA’s own scientists who 

recommended banning a toxic chemical and instead sided with the 

insecticides manufacturer. 

We are fortunate that, today, Dr. Deborah Swackhamer is here 

to provide us with her perspective on these unfortunate events. Dr. 

Swackhamer is a Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and 
17 

Public Policy, as well as a Professor Emerita of Environmental 

Health Science at the University of Minnesota, bringing a wealth 

of scientific expertise to the table. She is also the current Chair of 

EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors and the former Chair of EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board. 

Although she’s testifying today in her personal capacity as a scientist expert and not representing any of EPA’s Science Advisory 

Boards, I am glad she has decided not to stay silent. I look forward 

to hearing her perspective on how the federal government can rely 

on science to develop appropriate environmental policies and regulations. 

In closing, I’d like to remind my colleagues that the EPA was 

created by a Republican President to preserve environment—to 

preserve the environment and protect the public health, not the 

profits of private corporations. The EPA’s fundamental mission, 

however, appears to be under attack. The efforts to alter EPA’s 

mission, downgrade its legal authority, and silence its scientists 

will endanger the public and threaten the environment against the 

public’s will. 

However, science has proven repeatedly that science cannot be silenced. Scientific facts are supported by evidence, not opinions. Distorting or dismissing scientific facts do not alter scientific knowledge. I hope that this committee, this Congress, and this Administration can get back to the basic principles of good governance 

where science forms a solid bedrock that helps to educate policymakers and inform their public policy choices. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and I thank 

you, Mr. Biggs. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
18 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Environment 

"Expanding the Role a,{ States in EPA Rulemaking" 

May 23,2017 

Environmental protections that limit damage to the environment and protect the public from 

toxic exposures should be based on solid scientific evidence. Five decades ago a Republican 

President established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure this was the case. 

Some of us still remember that the EPA was created because the States were not doing a good 

job in regulating private industries and in safeguarding the health and safety of their residents. 

In the years and decades before the EPA was established, rivers were literally catching fire 

because of flammable chemicals dumped into them, smog engulfed the air in certain cities 

exacerbating health ailments, and children played in urban areas immersed with toxic chemicals. 

Richard Nixon established the EPA to assist State environmental agencies by providing them 

with the scientific research necessary to successfully carry out their mission to protect the public. 

He believed a federal scientific agency was needed to help the nation address critical 

environmental issues because he knew they could not be successfully addressed with each State 

acting alone. In his message to Congress in July 1970, President Nixon said the EPA was needed 

"to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we 

drink, and the land that grows our food. " 

Certainly, environmental problems still exist. However, as a nation- together- we have made 

steady progress in addressing them. These achievements have been made by relying on credible 

environmental science that has helped to enlighten policymakers and politicians alike in order to 

help develop constructive policies and reasonable regulations to protect the public. But 

abandoning this responsibility will not help protect the environment or improve the public's 

health. Rather, it will turn the clock back fifty years. 

Many of the proposed environmental policies and regulations coming from this Administration 

and the Science Committee M~ority have already put us on a road back to a time when 

industries polluted unimpeded, the public suffered and politicians stayed silent. I'm concerned 

that today, the Trump Administration is attempting to silence federal scientists and offer 

alternative facts rather than scientific evidence. 

The decision by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt earlier this month to not renew nine of the 18 

members of the Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is just the latest example of 

this Administration's efforts to silence scientists. The EPA has also scrubbed references to 

climate change from its websites and the Administrator recently ignored the research findings of 

EPA's own scientists who recommended banning a toxic chemical (Chlorpyrifos) and instead 

sided with the insecticide's manufacturer. 
19 

We are fortunate that Dr. Deborah Swackhamer is here today to provide us with her perspective 

on these unfortunate events. Dr. Swackhamer, a Professor Emerita of Science, Technology, and 

Public Policy as well as a Professor Emerita of Environmental Health Sciences at the University 

of Minnesota brings a wealth of scientific expertise to the table. She is also the current Chair of 

the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors and the former Chair of the EPA's Science Advisory 

Board. Although she is testifying today in her personal capacity as a scientific expert and not 

representing any of the EPA's science advisory boards, I am glad she has decided not to stay 

silent. I look forward to hearing her perspective on how the federal government can rely on 

science to develop appropriate environmental policies and regulations. 

In closing, I would remind my colleagues that the EPA was created by a Republican President to 

preserve the environment and protect the public's health, not the profits of private corporations. 

The EPA's fundamental mission, however, appears to be under attack. The efforts to alter the 

EPA's mission, downgrade its legal authority, and silence its scientists will endanger the public 

and threaten the environment. However, history has proven repeatedly that science cannot be 

silenced. Scientific facts are supported by evidence, not opinions. Distorting or dismissing 

scientific facts does not alter scientific knowledge. I hope that this Committee, this Congress, 

and this Administration can get back to basic principles of good governance where science forms 

a solid bedrock that helps to educate policymakers and inform their public policy choices. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. Thank you Chairman Biggs. I yield back. 
20 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

Let me introduce our witnesses today. We have a great panel 

here with us. And our first witness today is Mr. Misael Cabrera, 

Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Director Cabrera is a registered professional engineer. He received 

his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Arizona. 

Our next witness will be Ms. Becky Keogh, Director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Ms. Keogh received 

her bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from the University 

of Arkansas. 

And our final witness today is Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Professor Emeritus of the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs and Professor Emerita of Environmental Health—excuse me— 

Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Minnesota. Dr. 

Swackhamer received her bachelor’s degree from Grinnell College 

and her master’s and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin Madison. 

I now recognize Mr. Cabrera for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MISAEL CABRERA, PE, DIRECTOR, 

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am 

greatly appreciative of the opportunity to offer testimony today. 

As we discuss expanding the role of states in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking, we should also discuss its 

corollary: reducing the role of EPA in state rulemaking. Let me explain. The Clean Air Act calls for states to prepare implementation 

plans when national air quality standards are not being met. The 

state implementation plans contain state-specific rules, rules that 

are developed through extensive stakeholder involvement and designed for environmental protection and local effectiveness. 

When EPA rejects a state plan or when it issues its own federal 

implementation plan, it effectively coerces states to write state 

rules in the specific way that EPA sees fit. One example of this is 

what I’d like to call the ‘‘EPA regional haze maze.’’ 

In 1990, Congress established the regional haze program calling 

for states to develop plans for regional progress towards the national visibility goal set in 1977. Congress also established authority for Visibility Transport Commissions and mandated the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. 

In 1992, EPA established the Commission addressing specific 

parks and wilderness areas in a nine-state region made up of eight 

Governors, four tribal leaders, four ex-official federal organizations 

with the Arizona Governor serving as the Chair. Once established, 

the Commission formed working committees of over 200 experts in 

air quality, regulatory programs, and economics. 

In 1996, the Commission issued a final report with recommendations to EPA. At that point, EPA should have implemented the 

Commission’s recommendations. Instead, we were led further into 

the EPA regional haze maze. 

In 1997, EPA proposed regulations that totally ignored the Commission’s findings. 
21 

In 1998, upset Western Governors provided guidance to EPA on 

how to implement the Commission recommendations, and the Senate held oversight hearings. 

In 1999, EPA issued revised regulations with two programs: a 

general program for any State and an optional program for the 

Commission States. 

In 2004, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Oregon were the first 

states in the nation to submit regional haze plans. The next few 

years included court challenges to EPA rules and states trying to 

appease the desires of EPA. 

In 2009, EPA published a finding that 34 states had failed to 

submit state plans by the regulatory deadline and that three 

states, including Arizona, had failed to submit required elements of 

the plans. 

In 2011, Arizona determined that the—that implementing the regional haze requirements under the optional program would not be 

feasible and submitted a replacement plan under the general program. 

In 2011, Earth Justice sued EPA for failing to act on the plans. 

EPA and Earth Justice settled, requiring EPA to act on a submitted state plan or issue a federal plan. 

In 2012, EPA partially disapproved Arizona’s submittal and 

issued a federal plan for several facilities in Arizona. EPA’s plan 

had an estimated cost of over $500 million. 

The worst part of the EPA regional haze maze is that after 20 

years of extensive stakeholder meetings and negotiations, multiple 

commission reports, two state plans, four lawsuits, a federal plan 

that would cost over $500 million, after all that, the modeled improvement to visibility would not be perceivable to the human eye. 

Let me repeat that. EPA’s insistence on controls that cost over 

$500 million would not have created a perceivable visibility difference in the Grand Canyon State. 

Given that states now have mature regulatory programs, unlike 

40 years ago, and technical expertise, EPA should give deference 

to competent state regulators who develop state plans and statespecific rules. Only in rare instances where minimum criteria are 

not met should EPA reject state plans or issue a federal plan. In 

short, we should absolutely expand state involvement in EPA rulemaking, and we should reduce EPA involvement in state rulemaking via the state implementation planning process set forth in 

the Clean Air Act. 

In closing, I would like to mention that I am very encouraged by 

EPA Administrator Pruitt’s statements regarding a renewable of 

collaborative federalism and the Environmental Council of States’ 

work on the same issue. 

Thank you very much. I’ll open to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera follows:] 
22 

Testimony 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Tuesday, May 23, 2017 

by 

Misael Cabrera, Director 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Misael Cabrera, I am the Director of the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to offer 

testimony today. 

As we discuss expanding the role of States in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Rulemaking, we should also discuss its corollary: reducing the role of EPA in State rulemaking. 

Let me explain, the Clean Air Act (CAA) calls for states to prepare Implementation Plans when 

national air quality standards are not being met. These State Implementation Plans (state plan) 

contain state-specific rules; rules that are developed through extensive stakeholder 

involvement and designed for environmental protection and local effectiveness. When EPA 

rejects a state plan or when it issues its own Federal Implementation Plan (federal plan), it 

effectively coerces states to write state rules in the specific way that EPA sees fit. One example 

of this is what I like to call, 'The EPA Regional Haze Maze." 

• 1990- Congress established the regional haze program calling for states to develop plans 

for reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal set in 1977. Congress also 

established authority for visibility transport commissions and mandated the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission ("Commission"). 

1 
23 

• 1992- EPA established the Commission addressing specific parks and wilderness areas in a 

nine state region made up of eight Governors, four Tribal leaders, four Ex-Officio Federal 

organizations, with the Arizona Governor serving as the Chair. Once established, the 

Commission formed working committees of 200 experts in air quality, regulatory programs, 

and economics. 

• 1996- The Commission issued a final report with recommendations to EPA. 

At that point, EPA should have implemented the Commission's recommendations. Instead, we 

were led further into "The EPA Regional Haze Maze:" 

• 1997- EPA proposed regulations that totally ignored the Commission's findings. 

• 1998- Upset Western Governors provided guidance to EPA on how to implement the 

Commission recommendations and the Senate held oversight hearings. 

• 1999- EPA issued revised regulations with two programs: a general program for any state 

(40 CFR 51.308), and an optional program for the Commission states (51.309). 

• 2004- Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Oregon were the first states in the nation to submit 

regional haze plans. The next few years included court challenges to EPA rules, and states 

trying to appease the desires of EPA. 

• 2009- EPA published a finding that 34 states had failed to submit state plans by the 

regulatory deadline and that three states, including Arizona, had failed to submit required 

"elements" ofthe plans. 

• 2011- Arizona determined that implementing regional haze requirements under the 

optional program (CFR 51.309) would not be feasible, and submitted a replacement plan 

under the general program (CFR 51.308). 

• 2011- Earth Justice sued EPA for failing to act. EPA and Earth Justice settled requiring EPA 

to act on a submitted state plan or issue a federal plan. 

• 2012- EPA partially disapproved Arizona's submittal, and issued a federal plan for several 

facilities in Arizona. EPA's plan had an estimated cost of over $500 million. 

2 
24 

The worst part of "The EPA Regional Haze Maze" is that after 20 years of extensive stakeholder 

meetings and negotiations, multiple Commission reports, two state plans, four lawsuits, a 

federal plan that would cost over $500 million ... after all that ... the modeled improvement to 

visibility will not be perceivable to the human eye. Let me repeat that: EPA's insistence on 

controls that cost of over $500 million would not have created a perceivable visibility difference 

in the Grand Canyon State. 

Given that States now have mature regulatory programs and technical expertise, EPA should 

give deference to competent State regulators who develop state plans and state-specific rules; 

only in rare instances where minimum criteria are not met, should EPA reject state plans or 

issue a federal plan. In short, we should absolutely expand State involvement in EPA 

rulemaking and we should reduce EPA involvement in state rulemaking via the state 

implementation planning process set forth by the Clean Air Act. 

In closing, I would like to mention that I am very encouraged by EPA Administrator Pruitt's 

statements regarding a renewal of collaborative federalism. I am also encouraged by the 

ongoing work of the Environmental Council of States to partner with EPA towards that end. 

Together we can establish a new relationship where Congress establishes the laws, EPA sets the 

minimum standards, and the States are free to execute without unnecessary cost or waste. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony, and I am happy to answer any questions 

that you might have. 

3 
25 

Misael Cabrera, P.E. 

Governor Doug Ducey appointed Misael Cabrera as director of the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality on August 17, 2015. He previously 

served as the agency's deputy director since October 2011 under former 

ADEQ Director Henry Darwin, functioning as chief of staff and directly 

overseeing the agency's operations, including its budget and administrative 

support functions. With Director Darwin, Misael led ADEQ in an agencywide transformation to apply lean principles and techniques and deliver 

better, faster, cheaper environmental protection for the citizens of Arizona. 

Before joining ADEQ, Misael worked in a variety of project, managerial and operational 

leadership roles for both small and multi-national environmental consulting companies. His work 

experience includes projects in Mexico, Costa Rica, South Korea, and Italy where he managed to 

learn a bit of Italian. Misael is also fluent in Spanish. Misael has a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering 

and is a registered professional engineer. 
26 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

Director Keogh? 

TESTIMONY OF MS. BECKY KEOGH, DIRECTOR, 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Ms. KEOGH. Chairman Smith, Chairman Biggs, Ranking Members, and Members of the Committee, I am Becky Keogh. I hail 

from the great State of Arkansas and bring greetings from your 

former colleague and now my boss Governor Asa Hutchinson. 

Since taking on the humbling and exciting role of serving in Governor Hutchinson’s Cabinet as Director of the Department of Environmental Quality and now including our Office of Energy, I have 

been a vocal proponent of returning environmental rulemaking to 

its constitutional roots, something known as cooperative federalism. 

Unfortunately, over the past eight years, that once noble partnership that balanced state and federal responsibility and accountability has morphed into something better described as coercive 

federalism where the State is more pawn than partner. 

In Arkansas, we have been authorized to administer every program that the EPA makes eligible for state delegation, but despite 

that delegated authority and our status as a co-sovereign, the EPA 

treated us, and other similarly situated states, as petulant children 

with the EPA acting as a ‘‘helicopter mom’’ of the worst order. 

Only days before Administrator Pruitt took the reins of EPA, correspondence between EPA and the Department of Justice referred 

to Arkansas as a ‘‘recalcitrant’’ litigant. And at times we were. It 

was our only course left available to states that would not assimilate or accept the EPA overreach. 

However, I am pleased to report we are amidst a season of 

change. In short time Administrator Pruitt has been in place, we 

are seeing extraordinary change in the environmental landscape. 

The State’s struggle and promise of progress is well illustrated 

using a story frame penned by Steve Straessle, the Principal of 

Catholic High School for Boys in Little Rock, Arkansas. Some of 

you may have heard of the school where Congressman French 

Hill’s son attends when it entered the national spotlight this year 

for turning away helicopter parents. 

On the first day of school, stop signs were placed on the school’s 

entrance that read, ‘‘If you are dropping off your son’s forgotten 

lunch, books, homework, equipment, et cetera, please turn around 

and exit the building. Your son will learn to problem-solve in your 

absence.’’ It is not accidental that I have chosen this frame to—for 

my testimony with the story of Principal Straessle’s year-end letter. 

In this letter, he also recalled a hike he took with his children 

along Tennessee’s Fiery Gizzard Trail where he noticed a phenomenon that occurred again and again: trees growing out of boulders along the creek. He noticed these were not twigs but rather 

instead were 3-foot-diameter-thick trees that reached several stories into the sky. He noted it was curious that boulder trees were 

as tall as the others further into the bank, but the root systems 

were wrapped around rocks that served as foundation. Fate had deposited seeds on top of the rocks, and these seeds had grown over 

the decades. 
27 

He continued, ‘‘You can’t help but think those trees, as they 

grew, looked longingly at the comrades on fertile ground that had 

no visible problems as they sprouted. The other trees were on solid 

soil, and their root depth was uninhibited. But boulder trees had 

to figure a way around obstacles. They had to wrap their roots 

around the boulder, envelop it, and work painstakingly to reach the 

soil.’’ Impressively, these trees must have struggled as they leaned 

far over the creek and into the sunlight that otherwise blocked by 

better-fed vegetation. 

‘‘Boulder trees have an unfair life. They start in thin dirt on top 

of a rock. But those trees persevered. Instead of cursing the rock, 

they made those rocks into the firmest foundations and reached evermore for sunlight that would nourish them, that would help them 

grow. Reaching for the light is important.’’ 

And that is why I am testifying to you today. We states have 

wrapped our roots around rocks, reached over the creek and into 

the sun. Over the past decade, we withstood sparse soil and overcast skies. We, like boulder trees, wrapped ourselves around what 

held us back, ‘‘enveloped it, smothered it with strength, and used 

it as pedestal for engagement and a rallying cry for perseverance.’’ 

Often with limited resources, we states sought ways to be efficient in affecting environmental outcomes and to be flexible with 

the ability to flourish with less. While the bank trees flourished in 

the regulated growth and uniformity, we learned that progress and 

process were not synonymous. A prolonged permit yields protracted 

protection. We observed firsthand the futility of attempting to turn 

a boulder tree into a bank tree. State and federal differences 

should define us, not divide us. 

As we move forward into the light, know that we boulder trees, 

while unique in our appearance en route to soil and sun, are no 

less mighty than the bank trees. In fact, the State’s struggle to 

grow has enhanced our strength. The country’s landscape is enriched when we can recognize the beauty of forest and trees. We 

look forward to working with our federal partners as we reach for 

the light together. 

Several specific paths have been offered in my written comments 

that will return us to our constitutional roots where states and 

EPA are partners in planting of progress and harvesting of success. 

And I offer a final optimistic prologue. In a personal meeting 

with Administrator Pruitt, he assured me that EPA will seek new 

paths of partnership, promising that ‘‘the future ain’t what it used 

to be.’’ I am encouraged that we states will be allowed to implement and execute legally sound and scientifically informed environmental policy from our firmly rooted, rock-solid foundation as opposed to shifting federal sands of late. If given the opportunity to 

lean toward the light together, we can achieve success of biblical 

proportion. 

Thank you so much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Keogh follows:] 
28 

Testimony of Becky W. Keogh 

Director, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

to the 

Congress of the United States 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Chairman Lamar S. Smith ofthe 21st Congressional District of Texas 

"Expanding Roles of States in EPA Rulemaking" 

March 23,2017 

Washington, D. C. 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, Subcommittee on 

Environment Chairman Biggs, and Members of the Committee, my 

name is Becky Keogh, and I hail from the great state of Arkansas, and 

bring greetings from your former colleague, and now my boss, Governor 

Asa Hutchinson. In 2015, Governor Hutchinson appointed me to serve 

in his cabinet as the Director of the Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality and the Arkansas Energy Office. Since taking on 

this humbling and exciting role, I have been a vocal proponent of 

returning environmental rulemaking to its constitutional roots, 

something known as cooperative federalism. Unfortunately, over the 

past eight years that once noble partnership that balanced state and 

federal responsibility and accountability had morphed into something 
29 

better described as coercive federalism, where the state was more pawn 

than partner. 

In Arkansas, we have been authorized to administer every program that 

the EPA makes eligible for state delegation. But, despite that delegated 

authority and our status as a co-sovereign, the EPA treated us (and other 

similarly situated states) as petulant children, with the EPA taking on the 

role of "helicopter mom" of the worst order. In fact, only days before 

Administrator Scott Pruitt took the reins of the EPA, my lawyers were 

unintentionally copied on an email chain between the EPA and the DOJ 

that referred to Arkansas as a "recalcitrant" litigant. And, at times, we 

were. It was the only course left available to states that would not 

assimilate and accept the EPA overreach. 

However, I am pleased to report that we are amidst a season of change. 

In the short time Administrator Pruitt has been in place, we are seeing 

extraordinary change in the environmental landscape. I believe our 

state's struggle and the promise of progress can best be illustrated using 

a metaphor I first read in a year-end letter from Steve Streassle, the 

Principal of Catholic High for Boys in Little Rock, Arkansas. Some of 

you may have heard of this school (where Congressman French Hill's 

son attends) when it was placed in the national spotlight for turning 

away helicopter parents. On the first day of school, "STOP" signs were 

placed on each entrance that stated: "If you are dropping off your son's 

forgotten lunch, books, homework, equipment, etc., please TURN 

AROUND and exit the building. Your son will learn to problem-solve in 

your absence." It is not accidental that I have chosen to frame my 

testimony with the story from Principal Streassle's year-end letter. 

Principal Straessle's address recalled a hike he took with his children 

over Easter break along the Fiery Gizzard Trail in south central 

Tennessee where he "noticed a phenomenon that occurred again and 

2 
30 

again: trees growing out of boulders along the creek." He noted that 

these were not twigs of the Charlie Brown Christmas tree variety, but 

instead "were three-foot diameter thick trees that reached several stories 

into the sky." He noted that it was curious that the "boulder trees were as 

tall as the others further into the bank, but their root systems were 

wrapped around rocks that served as foundation. Fate had deposited 

seeds on top of rocks and those seeds had grown over the decades." 

Principal Straessle continued: 

You can't help but think that those trees, as they grew, 

looked longingly at their comrades on fertile ground that had 

no visible problems as they sprouted. The other trees were on 

solid soil and their root depth was uninhibited. But the 

boulder trees had to figure a way around their obstacle. They 

had to wrap their roots around the boulder, envelop it, and 

work painstakingly to reach the soil. It was impressive to see 

how they must have struggled as they leaned far over the 

creek and into the sunlight that was otherwise blocked by the 

better fed vegetation. 

Boulder trees have an unfair life. They started in thin dirt on 

top of a rock. But those trees persevered. Instead of cursing 

the rock on which they perched, they made those rocks into 

the firmest foundations and reached ever more for the 

sunlight that would nourish them, that would help them grow. 

Reaching for the light is important. 

That is why I am testifying today. We states have wrapped our roots 

around the rocks and reached over the creek into the sun. Over the past 

decade we withstood sparse soil and overcast skies. We, like boulder 

trees, wrapped ourselves around what held us back, "enveloped it, 

3 
31 

smothered it with strength, and used it as our pedestal for engagement 

and a rallying cry for perseverance." 

Often with limited resources, we the states sought ways to be efficient in 

effecting environmental outcomes and to be flexible with the ability to 

flourish with less. While the bank trees were flourishing in their 

regulated growth and uniformity, we learned that progress and process 

are not synonymous. A prolonged permit process yields protracted 

protection power. We observed firsthand the futility of trying to turn a 

boulder tree into a bank tree. Our differences should define us not divide 

us. So, as we move forward into the light, know that we boulder trees, 

while unique in our appearance and route to soil and sun, are no less 

mighty than the bank trees. In fact, our struggle to grow has enhanced 

our strength. The country's landscape is enhanced when we can 

recognize the beauty of both the forest and the trees. We look forward to 

working with our federal partners as we reach for the light together. 

I offer more specific paths to light and fertile soil below. I hope these 

technical remarks will be useful as we begin to till the soil into finer bits 

for planting seeds that return us to our constitutional roots, where states 

and the EPA are partners in the planting of progress and the harvesting 

of success. 

so2 designations 

Pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA was 

required to designate areas as either "unclassifiable," "attainment," or 

"nonattainment" for the 2010 one-hour sulfur dioxide (S02) Primary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). On June 3, 2010, 

EPA revised the primary health based S02 NAAQS by establishing a 

new one-hour standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb ), which is 

met on an air quality monitoring site when the three-year average of the 

4 
32 

99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations do not 

exceed 75 ppb. On August 5, 2013, EPA published a final rule 

establishing air quality designations for twenty-nine areas in the United 

States for the 2010 S02 NAAQS, including two areas in Arkansas. 

Typically, when EPA establishes a new national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) or revises an existing standard for each criteria air 

pollutant, it sets in motion a series of actions aimed at ensuring that air 

quality throughout the country meets those standards. It is the job of 

states and tribes to submit NAAQS designation recommendations to 

the EPA, not third party non-governmental organizations, except during 

a comment period, as to whether or not an area is attaining the national 

ambient air quality standards for a criteria pollutant. After working with 

the states and tribes, EPA will "designate" an area as attainment or 

nonattainment for the standard. EPA is required to promulgate 

designations for all areas of the country within two years of 

promulgation of the revised NAAQS. 

After EPA published initial S02 designations, three lawsuits were filed 

alleging that EPA had not met the deadlines to designate counties around 

the country. On March 2, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of California accepted a proposed settlement agreement among 

the EPA, Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council to 

resolve this litigation concerning the deadlines for completing S02 

designations. The court-approved order directed EPA to complete 

designations for all remaining areas in the country in up to three 

additional rounds: 

On August 21, 2015, EPA issued its Data Requirements Rule, which 

required modeling or actual monitoring for categories of sources based 

on annual S02 emission rates. The Data Requirements rule directs state 

and tribal air agencies to characterize current air quality. At the time of 

5 
33 

the EPA settlement, the timelines seemed reasonable for completing 

designations. There were some different protocols for the states to 

choose from to determine within the timelines whether areas that were 

initially designated unclassifiable or unclassifiable/attainment due to 

lack of available information were actually in attainment and could be 

classified by the state and EPA as in attainment. In the event ambient 

monitoring was chosen by the state, monitors had to be operational by 

January 1, 2017; then the first three years of data would be collected for 

calendar years 2017-2019; and then the intended designation process for 

the such area would be completed in 2020. 

For those states that chose modeling for such areas, the modeling needed 

to conform to EPA modeling guidelines. The accepted near-field refined 

dispersion modeling protocol, for example, is AERMOD, which is listed 

in Appendix W, 40 CFR Part 51, and is one of the EPA modeling 

protocols required to be used for State Implementation Plan revisions for 

existing sources and for New Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs. For those states that chose to model 

sources under the rule, the affected areas were to be designated by EPA 

by December 31, 2017, based on the results from the modeling. 

However, the guidelines and deadlines ultimately were not appropriate 

or fair due to unanticipated delays by EPA in determining the final 

AERMOD modeling protocol. As a result, and very unfortunately, some 

accepted AERMOD modeling protocols/calculations were modified 

twenty months into the process of the states undertaking to perform so2 

designations. The AERMOD Revision Rule did not become effective 

until May 22, 2017. Arkansas is currently in the midst of uncertainty as 

to information that has been submitted to comply with the S02 Data 

Requirements Rule. At every step, Arkansas has timely complied with 

the requirements of the rule. 

6 
34 

Despite our timely compliance, EPA Region 6 has inappropriately 

allowed third-party modeling to derail the approval process. EPA first 

allowed our Round 2 submission to be stalled by faulty Sierra Club 

modeling. The modeling was basic, unrefined, and did not adhere to the 

Data Requirements Rule, and incorrectly combined emissions in a 

cumulative fashion resulting in concentrations above the NAAQS. EPA 

would not have allowed this submittal by a state and confirmed in 

correspondence to the state that the third party modeling was premised 

on several factors that are inconsistent with the modeling protocol. Now, 

EPA has delayed its approval of our Round 3 submission, again 

referencing the fact that 3rd party modeling could be an important 

consideration. 

In addition, states are being forced to aim for a moving target in regards 

to the modeling EPA will accept. EPA's modifications in the published 

final AERMOD regulation rendered the originally-proposed AERMOD 

models unacceptable in many cases. States, including Arkansas, had 

relied upon these models to determine whether the affected areas in their 

states met the 75 ppb S02 one-hour standard. Some states found 

themselves in a situation in which the model they had relied upon is no 

longer applicable and their counties no longer meet the one-hour S02 

standard due to no fault of affected sources or the affected states. The 

AERMOD Revision Rule was published in the Federal Register as final 

fifteen days after the deadline of January 1, 2017 for states to have air 

monitors installed and operational. This delay rendered the option for an 

affected state to install S02 air monitors untimely under the above 

described deadlines. The delayed modifications to the AERMOD model 

are extremely unfair to those sources, and states that relied on the 

original model, and have wasted the time, money and resources of the 

affected sources and states, also creating confusion and more delays for 

those states to obtain the proper designation. We believe it is reasonable 

7 
35 

for EPA to take action to extend compliance dates for affected states to 

reassess the methods used to properly determine attainment designation 

and to allow them time to institute such methods. These deadlines 

should be extended at least twenty months from the final effective date 

of the AERMOD Revision Rule. 

ADEQ is currently working with its contractor on updated modeling in 

response to EPA's letter of March 8, 2017. We have now spent twentyone months and $75,000 to provide modeling to address concerns by 

EPA Region 6 in response to 3rd party modeling and will be forced to 

continue to spend funds to if EPA's current policy is continued. These 

funds are being expended to reach the same result that could have been 

achieved ifEPA had merely accepted the initial model. 

We request that the imposed deadlines to determine compliance with the 

S02 standard by affected sources and states should be extended due to 

the unanticipated delayed modifications to EPA's air modeling protocol. 

We also request that Arkansas and other affected states be allowed to 

reassess and choose alternative methods, including monitoring, to 

demonstrate compliance. 

Regional Haze 

In late 2016, Arkansas achieved unprecedented progress improving 

visibility in the Buffalo River National Park and Caney Creek 

Wilderness Area according to IMPROVE monitoring data. Despite this 

improvement, Arkansas was not celebrating the improved scenic beauty 

at these areas because Arkansas could have made even greater 

improvement at Buffalo River National Park and Caney Creek 

Wilderness Areas if EPA had approved the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) that Arkansas submitted eight years before. Instead, the state was 

8 
36 

grappling with EPA final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 

Regional Haze for this planning period. 

On September 27, 2016, EPA's final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

was published in the Federal Register. The Final FIP will require 

installation of more than $2 billion in control technology at the White 

Bluff, Flint Creek, and Independence power plants. EPA is requiring this 

burdensome and expensive control technology even though monitoring 

data showed that Arkansas has surpassed its reasonable progress goals 

for this planning period is improving visibility at a greater rate than that 

needed to achieve the goal of the program: natural visibility conditions 

by 2064. 

EPA took several shortcuts to reach its conclusion that more than two $2 

billion in control technology should be required to achieve visibility 

improvement that has already occurred. To save time, EPA relied upon 

modeling that it admitted was "unrefined" compared to the modeling it 

relied upon in Texas. EPA did not consider significant reductions in 

emissions by the facilities that had been achieved through the use of 

low-sulfur coal. In addition, EPA ignored the fact that visibility 

improvements to be gained from the installation of this equipment are 

virtually nil in this planning period. Even though Regional Haze sets a 

"visibility standard," the improvement cannot be seen with the naked 

eye. 

Arkansas is one of the least wealthy states in the nation, and the electric 

rate increases that will result from these expensive controls will 

disproportionately impact some of the nation's poorest communities 

without any need for these controls to meet the goals of this program. 

No visibility improvement from these requirements will be seen in the 

first implementation period, which ends next year, because of the time 

required to order and install these controls. Not only could all of this 

9 
37 

have been avoided, but Arkansas could have made even greater progress 

had EPA relied upon the expertise of the states and simply approved the 

Arkansas SIP when it was submitted in 2008. 

Arkansas urges EPA to return the Regional Haze program to the states 

and allow Arkansas to submit a SIP that addresses appropriate controls 

based on accurate and up-to-date visibility trends while considering the 

cost of controls and the remaining useful life of affected facilities. Any 

resolution must provide the State of Arkansas with the opportunity to 

revise its state plan, thereby vesting the state with rightful control over 

the fate of its own environment. 

It is only fitting that these technical comments contain an optimistic 

prologue. In a personal meeting with Administrator Pruitt, he assured me 

that the EPA will seek new paths of partnership, noting that "the future 

ain't what it used to be." I am encouraged that we states will be allowed 

to implement and execute legally sound and scientifically informed 

environmental policy from our firmly rooted, rock-solid foundation 

rather than the shifting sands of late. If given the opportunity to lean 

toward the light together, we can achieve success of Biblical proportion. 

10 
38 

Becky W. Keogh, Director 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

Becky Keogh has served as the Director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) since 2015. She has been engaged in a unique range of technical and managerial roles across 

government. private industry, and environmental consulting throughout her career. Director Keogh 

previously held positions as a Vice President and Senior Consultant for an international environmental 

and engineering firm. She served as Deputy Director of ADEQ from 1996-·2006. She was 

subsequently appointed to serve on the Arkansas Geological Commission from 2006-2009. 

Immediately prior to her appointment by Governor Asa Hutchinson as ADEQ Director, she was 

employed in an environmental and regulatory management role for an international resources 

corporation. 

Director Keogh has been an active member and alumni member of the Environmental Council of the 

States (ECOS) since 1997. A well~respccted leader among her counterparts in other states, she was 

elected by her peers as one of only four officers for ECOS. Additionally. as Director, she testified on 

behalf of the rights of states before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 

2016 -·specifically noting the atmosphere of coercive tederalism at the time between states and the 

EPA. 

An Arkansas native, Director Keogh has a degree in chemical engineering from the University of 

Arkansas. She is married. has three children. and has four grandchildren. 
39 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

Dr. Swackhamer for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DEBORAH L. SWACKHAMER, 

PROFESSOR EMERITA, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY 

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND PROFESSOR EMERITA, 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES, 

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Good morning, Chairman Biggs, Ranking 

Member Bonamici, and distinguish Committee Members. My name 

is Deb Swackhamer, and I’m a former Professor from the University of Minnesota where I held appointments in the Humphrey 

School of Public Affairs and in the School of Public Health. I’m 

trained as an environmental chemist, and I have worked on environmental policy for the State of Minnesota. I have served as Chair 

of the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, and I currently serve as 

Chair of EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors. 

That said, I speak to you today as an environmental science and 

policy expert and not on behalf of the U.S. EPA or the State of 

Minnesota. My perspectives and statements are mine alone. 

The hearing today is to explore the tension between states and 

EPA regarding environmental regulation. My comments today are 

to underscore the critically important role of science in environmental decision-making, regardless of whether it takes place at the 

state or the federal level. 

Our federal environmental statutes from the 1970s set up a national regulatory framework that honors and empowers the roles of 

states. The federal role is to ensure consistency across multijurisdictional watersheds and airsheds and to establish a minimum bar 

of environmental quality that allows our citizens to safely drink 

our water, eat our fish, and breathe our air. The states’ role is to 

implement this framework because they know their states better 

than Washington, D.C. 

This framework works for a number of reasons. First, we are 

well aware that air and water do not respect or follow geopolitical 

boundaries. Second, this framework works because of the inclusion 

of robust science. The essence of environmental protection is the 

protection of our citizens’ health. To protect public health, you 

must have clean air and safe drinking water. In other words, you 

must have a clean environment. 

To achieve this, one must establish acceptable exposures of pollutants using the best scientific evidence available. Thus, science is 

the bedrock, the foundation of human health and environmental 

protection. This scientific foundation must be independent of politics and must be robust. Our federal EPA and our state environmental agencies must have the best available science or they will 

not be protecting public health. Without science supporting environmental decision-making at any level, public health loses. 

Environmental issues are complex, and thus the science to address them requires many disciplines and perspectives. Much of the 

scientific evidence that is needed to protect public health can be 

done more efficiently and effectively at the federal level where they 

can take advantage of national laboratories, multidisciplinary sci-
40 

entific capacity, and access to national and international scientific 

communities. 

However, the President’s proposed 2018 budget reduces investment in EPA’s science programs, an ominous indication that the 

foundation of science to support policy is being marginalized by the 

current Administration. If not EPA, then who will provide the 

needed scientific evidence? There is no indication of how the scientific capacity would be replaced. In fact, pass-through programmatic dollars to the states are also cut in the proposed budget. 

Cutting environmental protection funds to the states will further 

decrease science-based policy and the states’ capacity to produce 

sound policy. States will not be able to make up the difference. 

This results in a double lose-lose situation for public health. 

EPA’s job is not finished. The proposed cuts in science budgets 

and the marginalization of science in environmental protection 

have been justified by some that we have done enough, that these 

investments are no longer necessary. Nothing could be further from 

the truth. We’ve made tremendous progress in the improvement of 

our environment and in reducing illness, but it is a myth that we 

can coast on these successes. 

Four out of 10 of our nation’s lakes and rivers do not meet basic 

water quality standards. It is estimated that more than 200,000 

people die prematurely each year in the United States as a result 

of air pollution exposures. These exposures cost the U.S. economy 

over $100 million per year in health costs. Marginalizing science 

will make these numbers worse. The majority of U.S. citizens do 

not want to go backward. 

What is at stake if there’s a decline in support of science at the 

federal and state levels? Should we follow this path that will lead 

to a decline in public health, a decline in our community’s health, 

and put our country at a competitive disadvantage? It erodes the 

future health and well-being of our children and our grandchildren. 

Investing in and maintaining our preeminence in environmental 

science and ensuring its use in sound environmental policy will put 

us on a much better path. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Swackhamer follows:] 
41 

House Subcommittee on the Environment 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives 

"Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking" 

Room 2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

May23,2017 

Written Testimony submitted by Deborah L. Swackhamer, Ph.D. 

Professor Emerita, University of Minnesota 

My name is Deborah Swackhamer, and I am a Professor Emerita from the University 

of Minnesota where I held appointments in Science, Technology, and Public Policy in 

the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, and also in Environmental Health Sciences in 

the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. I also co-directed the 

Water Resources Center in Minnesota. I am trained as an environmental chemist, 

with an emphasis on understanding exposures of toxic chemicals in the 

environment. I also have worked on developing water resources policy for the State 

of Minnesota. I served as Chair of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Science Advisory Board from 2008-2012, and currently serve as Chair of the EPA's 

Board of Scientific Counselors. I speak to you today as an environmental sciences 

and policy expert, and not on behalf of the U.S. EPA or the State of Minnesota. My 

perspectives and statements are mine alone. 

Key Points. 

• 

• 

• 

Environmental protection must address the fact that pollution does not recognize 

political boundaries - there is a role for both States and the Federal government. 

Environmental protection is fundamentally about protecting the health of citizens, 

which requires protecting the quality of our air and water. 

Robust science, not politics, should form the bedrock upon which decision makers 

develop environmental regulations and policies. 

In general, the capacity to produce and collate robust scientific evidence is found 

at the federal level, and not at the state level. 

Progress in environmental protection has been achieved, but there is still much to 

be done to protect public health. Continued investment in EPA science is needed 

to achieve the protection of public health. 

The future health and well-being of our communities, and of our children and 

grandchildren, is at stake. 

1 
42 

States vs. EPA in Rulemaking. The hearing today is to explore the tension between 

States and EPA regarding environmental regulation. My statements to this 

Subcommittee are to underscore the critically important role of science in 

environmental decision-making, regardless of whether it takes place at the State or 

the Federal level. 

There is a reason and rich history as to why environmental protection is structured 

the way it is in our country. Our Federal statutes, passed with overwhelming 

bipartisan support by the Congress in the 1970s, set up a regulatory framework that 

also honors and empowers the role of States. The Federal role is to ensure 

consistency across multijurisdictional watersheds and airsheds, and to establish a 

minimum bar of environmental quality that allows our citizens to safely drink our 

water, eat our fish, and breathe our air. The States' role is to implement the 

framework to meet those minimum criteria, because they know their states better 

than Washington DC does. This framework is a robust and balanced one, and has 

worked well over the last 4 7 years for a number of reasons: scale of the problems, 

involvement of science, and cost efficiencies. 

Geographic Scale of Pollution. We all are well aware that air and water do not 

respect or follow political boundaries. In fact, many state boundaries were 

established along shared river courses, setting up the need to manage air and water 

in a multijurisdictional, regional manner. EPA delegates the responsibility of 

implementing the federal statutes to the States, but maintains some control over 

setting the national standards. Having 50 states set 50 different standards for a 

given water pollutant would be highly disruptive, chaotic, and exceedingly 

expensive to the regulated community, to say nothing of being ineffective. 

Role of Science. Environmental protection is at its essence the protection of our 

citizens' health. To protect public health, you must have clean air and safe drinking 

water- in other words, you must have a clean environment. To achieve this, one 

2 
43 

must establish acceptable exposures of pollutants- to lower the risk of adverse 

health outcomes - using the best scientific evidence available. Thus science is the 

bedrock, the foundation, of human health and environmental protection. 

Science-based evidence informs but does not dictate policy in the United States. 

Policy emerges through consideration of many factors including economic factors, 

technical feasibility, and social and political acceptability. However, all good 

environmental policy has a firm scientific foundation. The scientific foundation must 

be independent of politics, and must be robust. In environmental science, this means 

it must be based on a collection of evidence, which is then reviewed and critiqued by 

other independent scientists. When it comes to environmental regulations, given 

our litigious society, the regulation that survives a court challenge is one that is 

based on the best available science. So: our Federal EPA and our state 

environmental agencies must be able to have the best science available to them, or 

they will not be protecting public health. Without science supporting environmental 

policy making, public health loses. 

Regulatory Science Must Be Robust The science that is used to support 

environmental regulations is a compilation of evidence from many sources. Dozens 

if not hundreds of publications from federal and international agency research 

programs, academic publications, and private sector studies are reviewed to 

produce a consensus regarding a hazard, a source of a pollutant, or the type and 

degree of an adverse outcome. In EPA, these assessments are usually reviewed by 

the Science Advisory Board or in some cases the National Academy of Sciences, 

where an independent assessment of the science and conclusions is conducted. 

The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducts research that others 

do not, to fill in gaps in our understanding of environment and health. Their 

research is directed by the needs and requests made from the Program Offices 

within EPA (such as the Office of Water and Wastewater, the Office of Air and 

Radiation) and from the Regional Offices. The requests from the Regions are 

3 
44 

because the states within those regions have identified certain needs and do not 

have the scientific capacity to address them. This research conducted in ORD is 

reviewed for its quality and integrity by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), 

which is an independent check on whether the science being done at EPA is 

consistent with its strategic plan and mission, and is state-of-the-art. This thirdparty advice provides critical feedback and guidance to the Assistant Administrator 

ofORD. 

A fundamental principle of robust science is that it is reviewed by an independent 

set of peer scientists, who have no personal or professional stake in the outcome of 

the review. All research that is published in top scientific journals is peer-reviewed. 

EPA has wholeheartedly embraced this principle for the science that it conductsongoing research is reviewed by BOSC (and others when published) and 

constructive criticism and recommendations are provided to the Assistant 

Administrator. EPA Administrator Pruitt has recently not renewed half of the 18 

BOSC Executive Committee members for a second term, stating through a 

spokesman that more representation from the regulated community is needed on 

the committee. This may lead to the perception that science is being politicized and 

marginalized within EPA. BOSC does not review regulations or the scientific 

evidence that is compiled to support regulations, it reviews science that is filling in 

information gaps that may or may not be used in regulations. Thus BOSC members 

appointed from the regulated community must be esteemed scientists with no 

conflict of interest, or the independence and objective review the BOSC offers may 

become biased by special interests. 

The Nature of Environmental Science. Environmental issues are complex, and 

thus the science to address them requires approaches that are interdisciplinary (for 

instance a cell biologist and a genetic biologist), multidisciplinary (for instance, a 

pathogen microbiologist and a water treatment engineer), and transdisciplinary (for 

instance, natural science experts working with economists and behavioral 

scientists). This involvement of many disciplines and perspectives makes it 

4 
45 

expensive, both in terms of human resources and research costs. Simply put, State 

agencies have limited capacity to do this breadth or quality of science. In addition, it 

makes no sense to decentralize the science -that would be inefficient and create 

redundancies - something that is wasteful and the Congress generally does not like. 

Much of the scientific evidence that is needed to protect public health is best done at 

the Federal level, where they can take full advantage of capital resources such as 

laboratories, scientific capacity to attack large problems (such as the Cancer Moon 

Shot), and collate scientific evidence from across the national and international 

scientific communities. States have excellent scientific resources, but these are 

appropriately focused on using science to implement policy through risk 

assessments or permit calculations. 

It should also be noted that when a city or a state has an environmental crisis, the 

states often turn to EPA for the science needed to address the issue. EPA serves as 

the backstop for the states when there is an emergency, and as you know, crises are 

non-partisan. Examples where EPA scientists stepped in and responded to large 

scale science crises include the rapid assessment of the oil dispersant that was used 

after the Deep Water Horizon spill; the clean up levels of soils in the yards of homes 

inundated by Hurricane Katrina; and more recently, the challenge of preventing 

toxic algae blooms from shutting down drinking water supplies for Toledo and other 

Lake Erie cities. 

Who Will Provide the Needed Science? The President's proposed FY2018 budget 

reduces investment in EPA's science programs, an ominous indication that the 

foundation of science to support policy is being marginalized and less valued by the 

current administration. If not EPA, then who? There is no indication of how this 

scientific capacity would be replaced - in fact, pass-through programmatic dollars to 

the states are also cut in the proposed budget. Cutting environmental protection 

funds to the states will further decrease science-based policy and states' capacity to 

produce sound policy. My own state of Minnesota is well-regarded for its 

progressive stance on environmental protection. But even there, the Legislature has 

5 
46 

proposed significant cuts to the budget of the state environmental protection 

agency. Thus the Federal cuts would be compounded by state cuts- a double loselose for the health and environment of Minnesota citizens. States will not be able to 

make up the difference in Federal cuts. 

Federal Science Works. An example of the need for science in regulatory decision 

making is the National Center for Computational Toxicology. This research 

collaborative is part of the EPA Office of Research and Development, and has spent 

the last several years producing computerized models and high capacity cell-based 

approaches to predicting whether a chemical is potentially toxic. This precludes the 

enormous expense of animal based toxicity studies, and allows many more 

chemicals to be assessed in far less time. In collaboration with other federal 

agencies, they have assessed over 9000 chemicals, allowing policy makers to focus 

on the chemicals of higher risk and eliminate the focus on those with little or no risk. 

This research, seen by many as the world-wide gold-standard, could not be done at 

the state level - it required the scale of federal investment and resources. Without it, 

we would be regulating the wrong chemicals or not regulating the right ones well -

again, imperiling public health. 

EPA's Job is Not Finished. The proposed cuts in science support and the 

marginalization of science in environmental protection has been justified by some in 

part by statements that we have done enough, these investments are no longer as 

necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have made tremendous 

progress in the improvement of our environment and in reducing illness and 

premature deaths through our environmental regulation, but it is a myth that we 

can coast on these successes. Four out of ten of our nation's lakes and rivers still do 

not meet basic water quality standards. Even in the great state of Minnesota, Land of 

10,000 Lakes, over 4000 water bodies are listed as not meeting water quality 

standards. It is estimated that more than 200,000 people die prematurely each year 

in the U.S. as a result of air pollution exposures. These premature deaths, and 

hospital illnesses caused by air pollution, cost the US economy over $100 Million 

6 
47 

dollars per year. Marginalizing science will reverse the trend in improvements to 

these numbers, and cause them to worsen again. 

What is at Stake? The path laid out portends a decline in support of science at the 

federal and state levels. Should we follow this path, it will lead to a decline in public 

health, a decline in our communities' health, and put our country at a competitive 

disadvantage. It erodes the future health and well-being of our children and our 

grandchildren. Investing in and maintaining our pre-eminence in environmental 

science, and ensuring its use in sound environmental policy, will put us on a much 

better path. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. 

7 
48 

Deborah L. Swackhamer, PhD 

Professor Emerita, University of Minnesota 

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer is Professor Emerita at the University of Minnesota of Science, 

Technology, and Public Policy in the Humphrey School of Public Affairs and Environmental 

Health Sciences in the School of Public Health. She also directed the Water Resources Center 

from 2002 until2014. She received a BA in Chemistry from Grinnell College, IA and an MS and 

PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in Water Chemistry and Limnology & 

Oceanography, respectively. After two years post-doctoral research in Chemistry and Public & 

Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, she joined the Minnesota faculty in 1987. She 

officially retired from the University in 2015, and continues to work informally with researchers 

and decision makers on water resource policy. 

In 2012 Dr. Swackhamer completed a 4 year term as Chair of the Science Advisory Board of the 

US Environmental Protection Agency, and served as a member of the Science Advisory Board of 

the International Joint Commission of the US and Canada from 2000-2013. She currently serves 

as Chair of the US EPA Board of Scientific Counselors. She is a member of the National 

Academy of Sciences Board of Environmental Science and Toxicology. She served as President 

of the National Institutes of Water Resources in 2011-2012. 

Dr. Swackhamer received the prestigious Founders Award from the Society of Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry for lifetime achievement in environmental sciences in 2009. She is a 

lifetime Fellow in the Royal Society of Chemistry in the UK. In November, 2014 she was named 

an Inaugural Fellow of the international Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 

She received the Warren A. Hall Medal from the Universities Council on Water Resources in 

2017 for her lifetime achievements in water resources research and education. 
49 

Chairman BIGGS. I thank each of the witnesses for their testimony. I appreciate it. 

Members are reminded that committee rules limit questioning to 

five minutes, and I recognize myself for five minutes. 

Director Cabrera, can you tell me how much work do states put 

into creating their SIPs and whether you think there might be a 

disincentive for states to use their resources to create these plans 

when the EPA tends to replace them easily with federal implementation plans? And we have up the regional haze allusion—the modeling that you alluded to in your statement. 

Mr. CABRERA. I can tell you that in the states we look forward 

to developing the state implementation plans because we feel that 

state implementation plans are better than federal implementation 

plans 100 percent of the time. 

I can also say that it is a bit disheartening when we develop 

these plans through extensive modeling, extensive scientific study 

and calculation only to have EPA officials from our region nitpick 

and really question all of our analysis. 

In the end, we’re put in a position where we have to comply with 

EPA’s demands because they always have the ability to reject our 

plans and then issue a federal plan. So it puts the states in a very 

awkward position of we have to comply or else we’re faced with the 

threat of a federal implementation plan. 

Chairman BIGGS. You know, Arizona’s ability to comply with 

ozone standards is often hindered by naturally occurring weather 

events such as dust storms. These dust storms, for instance, blow 

dust from rural areas to cities, which result in those areas exceeding the national ambient air quality standards. EPA has an exceptional events exemption to this to discount for such naturally occurring events. In your opinion, does the exceptional events exemption 

work in practice, and what are the problems with the execution of 

this exemption? 

Mr. CABRERA. So for dust exceptional events, the State of Arizona was a leader across the nation in developing a streamlined 

approach to making those demonstrations. In other words, when 

there is a major wind event that creates a lot of dust in the air, 

it is inappropriate to regulate businesses for something that nature 

did. As a leader in that area, we shared our process with the EPA. 

They then implemented an exceptional events rule. 

Unfortunately, they added to our streamlined process what’s 

called mitigation measures. So according to those rules, which were 

modeled on Arizona’s initial efforts, we now have to figure out a 

way to mitigate for nature. And that is a very difficult thing to do, 

and I would state that it’s not really scientifically possible. 

Chairman BIGGS. In particular with these dust storms that we 

get to see in the Phoenix area, can you describe how big they are 

and how the local news seems to be able to understand it but the 

federal administrators don’t? 

Mr. CABRERA. One of the things that’s a bit disappointing is 

when all the major news media pick up on what is called a haboob, 

which is a 100-plus-foot-high wall of dust that looks a lot like the 

movie from The Mummy. And everybody understands that it’s a 

natural event to have EPA then require us to spend tens of thousands of dollars producing a document to explain what everybody 
50 

else saw and documented through the news media. So in that respect it’s a bit wasteful to have to explain an exceptional event that 

everybody considers obvious. 

Chairman BIGGS. Can you speak to the impact of downwind 

ozone on Arizona areas that are currently in nonattainment? Particularly, what’s the greatest contributor to ozone in Arizona and 

do the current EPA standards account for that? 

Mr. CABRERA. EPA’s own emissions calculations suggest that in 

certain areas of the State, especially in Yuma, Arizona, which will 

be found to be in nonattainment for the new ozone standard, the 

overall proportion of ozone comes from either California, Mexico, or 

other international sources. And so it puts us in a very awkward 

spot of applying regulation on a community that did not create the 

pollution. And it’s a community in Yuma County that already has 

a very high unemployment rate. And so what we’re doing in effect 

is rewarding upwind states like California with longer compliance 

time frames because they are in extreme nonattainment, and then 

imposing more restrictive regulation on counties that did not create 

the pollution in the first place. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. And I’m just about out of time so 

I am going to go to Ranking Member Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Swackhamer, nine of the 18 members of the EPA’s Board of 

Scientific Counselors had their terms expire on April 27, and all 

nine of those members were previously told that their names would 

be submitted to the EPA management for renewal to serve a second three-year term on the board. And that had been the normal 

practice in the past. But a week later, all nine board members were 

told that their terms would not be renewed, and apparently, an 

EPA spokesman said that Administrator Pruitt wanted more industry representatives to serve on the board. 

So I know you’re the Chair of the board and—but I know you’re 

here in your private capacity, but will you please answer a couple 

of questions briefly from your perspective? And then I have another 

question. 

First, were you surprised about the decision to not renew the 

terms of those nine members, and were you given any explanation 

about it? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Chairwoman Bonamici, we were all a little 

surprised, those of us who sit on the committee. I was surprised 

simply because it is—it was expected that those terms would be renewed. Typically, terms are renewed unless there is some reason 

such as the expertise is no longer needed or the person chooses to 

stay, not—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Were you given an explanation? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. No, other than the—what we all saw in the 

press and what came out from the—from Administrator Pruitt 

spokesman, who said that they wanted to not just renew a previous 

Administration’s appointments and that they wanted to broaden 

the—more of a regulatory—the regulated community involvement 

in the committee. 

Ms. BONAMICI. So now it’s my understanding that two board 

members resigned in protest after the dismissal, so now instead of 
51 

18 members, there’s only five, including you. Are you concerned 

about the future of the board in light of that? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Let me just clarify those numbers. So nine 

members of the 18 had served one term and were expected to be 

renewed. All nine had requested renewal. The four members had 

rotated off because they finished a second term, so they were done 

with their term limit and they were rotated off. The two members 

that you more recently may have heard about were members of a 

subcommittee. So the nine plus the four left us with five members 

left on the Board of Scientific Counselors. 

I’m obviously concerned. My committee is no longer populated, so 

I’m anxious to make sure that it gets repopulated as quickly as 

possible. And my understanding is that that’s part of what the Administration is planning to do is to repopulate this committee. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And my second question is changing 

topics a bit. I fear that the Trump Administration’s actions to date 

and planned policies will lead to some public-health tragedies in individuals states and across the nation. The committee majority’s 

focus on expanding the role of states while limiting the EPA’s role 

in developing science-based safeguards is also troubling. For example, the Administration is proposing to cut the EPA’s budget by 

more than 30 percent, but they also want to cut grants to states. 

Five state environmental agencies depend on the federal government for more than half their budgets, and more than half of all 

state environmental agencies rely on the federal government for at 

least a quarter of their budgets. 

These cuts will have devastating consequences across the United 

States. Attempts to increase the burden on states to hold steady or 

improve their commitment to public health and environmental protections will simply not be possible. Many of us came from State 

Legislatures, and we know the budget challenges already. The end 

result will be less federal oversight, fewer scientific studies on environmental hazards, and more damage to the environment and public health. 

You mentioned in your testimony also air and water know no 

state boundaries. So can—from a—can you from a scientific perspective, do you agree that turning over more regulatory authority 

to states while scaling back the role of the EPA puts public health 

at greater risk? And if so, can you tell us how and why? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. My concern is that the science that’s needed 

to develop good environmental policy, whether it’s done at the state 

or federal level, will simply not be available if the path that we’re 

going down currently continues to be followed. I am not going to 

comment whether states or the federal government should be making these standards or regulations, with all respect to my two colleagues here. It’s more that I want to make sure the science is used 

it to make sure that the states have the adequate science that they 

need and that the federal government has the adequate science 

that they need to move forward and to protect human health. If we 

don’t have the science, we’re not going to protect public health. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I appreciate that. I do want to note it’s my understanding that in his confirmation hearing Administrator Pruitt had 

suggested that he may disallow or at least review a waiver to allow 
52 

states to issue more stringent rules like California with their auto 

emissions, which I find to be blatantly inconsistent. 

And before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask for unanimous consent that a bipartisan letter be introduced into the record. 

This is a letter to Administrator Pruitt expressing concern about 

the dismissal of several members of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the EPA. 

Chairman BIGGS. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’ve never met anyone who wants to have dirty air or dirty water 

for themselves, their family, or future generations. And I’ve always 

pretty much taken the position that the government closest to the 

people works best, is usually the most efficient. I’m a strong believer in the idea that people who actually live and work in an area 

are best positioned to lead efforts to protect their environment. 

Local leaders have firsthand knowledge of the unique challenges 

their environment faces and are invested in the health and sustainability of their surroundings in a way that bureaucrats in far-off 

government offices never could be. 

Unfortunately, there are those who think Washington has a monopoly on both good ideas and compassion in stewardship for the 

environment and who would think—seek to displace the state and 

local role in environmental policymaking. To me, I think that 

would be a mistake. Of course, I understand the need for cooperation at all levels of government for maximally effective government 

stewardship and environmental stewardship. However, I’m concerned that during the past Administration we moved from federal 

cooperation to coercion. It’s essential that we get back to common 

ground I believe. 

Ms. Keogh, can you please describe what cooperative federalism 

means and how this model may have been undermined? 

Ms. KEOGH. Thank you. We at the State of Arkansas have seen 

a number of programs where the cooperation that was helpful to 

the State to result in an efficient program was undermined through 

federal intervention and federal plans similar to what our—my colleague from Arizona has experienced in that regional haze maze. 

We’ve also seen areas where we’ve been second-guessed on our 

science similarly in SO2 designations that we’re recently going 

through, as well as even in our water-quality programs where duplication results in redundancy and use of data that’s not even vetted through peer review. 

So we are concerned that we do not have the right relationship 

with EPA, and we’re working strongly with this Administration 

and we appreciate their support to work with us to find a more efficient, effective delivery not only with states but also with our local 

partners. I’d like to say local governments, private business, and 

citizens can be meaningful partners and not considered polluters. 

Thank you. 
53 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. How do you think we get back to this cooperative federalism approach? 

Ms. KEOGH. Well, I think it’s important to have the conversation 

we’re having today, let states inform science policy early, and work 

to streamline decision-making. We at the states collectively and individually have been working on a blueprint to give specific recommendations to the Administrator, and we hope that that will 

benefit them. We want to build science into the process. We understand there’s an important role for EPA to play, and we want to 

talk about those roles and responsibilities not only of government 

but of those outside government to affect positive solutions in what 

is now a 45-year-old program. 

I’m ready to let my children grow up and leave the house. I think 

they can do as well or even improve on what I’ve accomplished in 

government, and so I’m looking forward to this new day in environmental progress. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cabrera, could you give us an example from your experience 

where a likely well-intentioned federal regulation has actually 

caused more harm or difficulty for state environmental management than any benefit it might have helped? 

Mr. CABRERA. So I think that—Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I believe that the regional haze program is a perfect example. The regional haze program is well-intentioned, and we do not 

disagree with it. President Grant first established Yellowstone National Park for everybody to be able to enjoy it, and we believe that 

having clear visibility is important. 

Having said that, when EPA completely ignored the Grand Canyon Transport Commission’s recommendations, what it did is it put 

us on a lengthy 20-year process that resulted in no visible improvement to the Grand Canyon. So after 20 years, four lawsuits, lots 

of activity, lots of waste by both the State and the federal government and lots of stakeholders, the result is no visible improvement. 

And so we think that EPA’s engagement in that arena has not produced the desired result. 

Mr. POSEY. Could you once again state the cost of that project? 

Mr. CABRERA. The estimated cost was over $500 million for controls put on power plants in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Crist. 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr.—am I saying it right—Swackhamer? Thank you. So you 

taught at the University of Minnesota? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Yes, I did, for almost 30 years. 

Mr. CRIST. Wonderful. I represent Florida’s 13th Congressional 

District. It includes St. Petersburg, Clearwater. It is a peninsula, 

literally on the peninsula of Florida. So our shorelines are impacted 

by severe storms and constant coastal erosion, and as a result, 

there are real concerns by my constituents about tourism, which is 

how many of us make a living in that part of the State, and we 

are worried that the erosion may wash it away bit by bit by bit. 
54 

So my question would be how important is a federal agency such 

as the EPA in giving aid to states to understand the science of climate change and helping them to cope with realities of climate 

change that are already there? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. That’s a great question. It’s really clearly up 

to the states to be acting on their own catastrophes, their own 

issues, whether they’re slow-moving or fast-moving emergencies. 

However, it’s unusual for one State to have the scientific expertise 

to address a crisis or to address something that is a complicated 

problem, how that erosion occurs, what the impacts are to the 

coastal zones in Florida, combine that with the nutrient problems 

that are carried with the soil that erodes, you end up with a problem that is very, very complex. And it’s—it does require a large 

multidisciplinary effort of science to understand that. Then, you 

can actually mitigate it or implement some change, and that definitely happens at the State level. 

But to do the science, to understand the issue, to come up with 

mitigation strategies, to come up with policies that may alter the 

insult that’s occurring, that requires robust science that for the 

most part—I’m not saying all science has to be done at the federal 

level by any means—but the basic science that leads to an understanding of these issues is largely done at the federal level. And 

the reason is is that the federal level has access to resources. It has 

access to many more laboratories, access to many more people from 

many more disciplines, and it has access to the international community, which also does some pretty good science. 

So it’s that play between understanding the issue at the—using 

federal resources and then working with states to actually fix it. 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you. You know, I come from a State where my 

successor as Governor is reported to have not wanted people in his 

administration to use the term climate change. So I think there’s 

an extra overlay as it relates to my constituents to be able to have 

another agency that can be brought to bear to help protect us and 

for future generations of Floridians, let alone Americans. 

In your opinion, would expanding the role of the states in the 

EPA rulemaking enhance or hurt our ability to respond to climate 

change? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. I’m not sure I’m going to directly answer that 

question as you would—as you might want. I—— 

Mr. CRIST. You have that right. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. I think that as long as the science is behind 

the actions taken, whether it occurs at a state or federal level, is 

the most important thing. But if you take something like climate 

change, which is larger than any State, the impact on coastal zones 

goes all up and down the eastern seaboard, the Atlantic coastal 

areas, up and down the other coasts, including the Great Lakes, we 

can’t view this as a single-State issue. And so the more the states 

cooperate with the federal government on understanding these 

broad issues and these bigger threats, that’s where the federal government role really shines. 

If it’s a smaller issue that really just is held within a State, 

that’s a different issue. Then, the State can deal with it. But many 

of our environmental problems are—don’t follow State boundaries. 

They’re bigger than states. They—there’s airsheds involved, there’s 
55 

watersheds involved, there’s in some cases international boundaries involved. And so it—there’s not a set answer that states 

should do more or the feds should do more. It’s really that these 

problems are very big and complex, and they need—you need to 

harness the best possible science you possibly can to address them. 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you. I must confess that my past brings a bit 

of a bias to how I look at these issues. When I was both Attorney 

General of Florida and then Governor of Florida, we dealt with 

some significant environmental issues, hurricanes among them, 

like a ton of them while I was Attorney General, and then while 

I was Governor, the BP oil spill. So I was delighted to be able to 

have the federal government, my American Government, come to 

the aid of my State of Florida in both of those circumstances, without which we would have been in a bad place. 

So thank you for your testimony, Doctor. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to tell all the witnesses we appreciate you being 

here. Thank you. 

There was something—I just wanted to get some stuff straight 

in my mind on the Board of Scientific Counselors. There’s been 

some controversy and discussion on this, and I’d like to ask Dr. 

Swackhamer if you don’t mind. At the end of April—excuse me, at 

the end of April, nine members of the BOSC finished three-year 

terms, right? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. One three-year term. 

Mr. BABIN. One three-year term. Did the EPA solicit nominees 

to fill positions on the BOSC before these members finished their 

three-year terms? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. I really can’t speak to that other than I know 

there was not a public call because I would have seen the Federal 

Register notice. So I don’t really know what was the intention of 

EPA inside EPA at that time. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, I think the answer was yes, EPA solicited nominees for these positions and received hundreds of recommendations. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. If I could correct that, that wasn’t based on a 

new call for solicitations. That’s based on the fact that when they 

populate any of their advisory boards, they take nominations, and 

those nominations stay in place over time. And then they can rely 

on those nominations also when they go to fill new positions. But 

that wasn’t based on a recent call. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, as I understand it, EPA’s Office of Research and Development officials recommended the renewal of the 

nine members of the BOSC without reviewing hundreds of nominations that they had received. Is that—are you aware of that? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. My understanding is that the Office of Research and Development recommended that those nine members 

that were already members of BOSC—— 

Mr. BABIN. Be reappointed. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. —be renewed. 
56 

Mr. BABIN. That’s right. But there were hundreds of nominations 

that were recommended. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. There were—— 

Mr. BABIN. And—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. —nominations—they were nominations that 

have been received by the Agency over a period of time, and I can’t 

speak to when those nominations came in, but they would have 

been solicited some time ago. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, I think Administrator Pruitt had asked for 

nominations, and they came in from various sectors of the industries around—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. He’s not official—he’s not issued an official request for nominations to my knowledge. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, if I’m not mistaken, they have hundreds of recommendations and applications. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. And they would have come in before he was 

Administrator just to be clear. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, let me just understand this. Instead of 

rubberstamping the renewal of members of the BOSC, a decision 

was made to review the credentials of hundreds of individuals nominated to be on the board, including members up for renewal and 

then choose who would serve a three-year term, whether it’d be a 

new term or whether it would be someone who was reappointed on 

the BOSC. Why would such an open and honest process be an issue 

to you? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. So let me clarify also, I think that the process 

of selecting members to serve on any of the advisory boards at EPA 

is an open and competitive process. 

Mr. BABIN. I would hope so. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. It absolutely in my experience has been. I’m 

not part of—as Chair of either of the committees that I’ve served 

on, I’ve not participated in the selection process, but I do know how 

the nomination process works, and it’s very transparent and it’s 

very fair. I believe that Administrator Pruitt’s intention is to continue to do that process, and we will repopulate this committee. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, I think as far as a time, let me ask you 

this. The next BOSC meeting is scheduled for August. Is that not 

correct? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. That’s a subcommittee meeting. That is indeed—— 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. —scheduled for August. 

Mr. BABIN. So is there enough time—there seems to be enough 

time for the BOSC to be fully staffed up based on a large pool of 

these nominees. Isn’t that correct as well? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. I believe that EPA staff will have to work very 

diligently to get enough members to fill out the rest of the vacancies. But yes, it’s quite possible. 

Mr. BABIN. Three months—you don’t think three months is 

enough time to get this done then? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Typically, there’s quite a vetting process. Once 

nominations are received, then there is a lot of vetting and a lot 

of review of conflict-of-interest issues, financial issues, obviously expertise. They want to get a committee that has the correct balance 
57 

of expertise, broad expertise, and so there’s a lot of review that 

goes into play looking at the scientific background of the scientists, 

looking at their publications, looking to see if they have an esteemed record, looking to see if their expertise matches what is 

needed for EPA. So there’s a whole lot of vetting that takes place 

in between the nomination process and the request to join the committee process. 

Mr. BABIN. But there’s no rule that says we have to rubberstamp 

the—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Absolutely not. 

Mr. BABIN. —a second term for everybody that sits on it, right? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Absolutely not. And I didn’t mean to imply 

that there is—— 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. —a rubberstamp that goes on. Again, if a 

member is not contributing or if a member is—their expertise is no 

longer needed, then often they are asked not to ask for renewal or 

not to agree to renewal. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Swackhamer. 

And I yield back the balance of my time, which is zero. 

Chairman BIGGS. That is correct, sir. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Swackhamer, you said there are—200,000 people die each 

year from air pollution. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Die prematurely. 

Mr. PALMER. But still, it’s 200,000 people die from air pollution? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. That’s correct. 

Mr. PALMER. I’ve got the top-10 leading causes of death in the 

United States, and it’s not listed among any of them. The closest 

thing that I can come to that might be pneumonia, and there’s 

50,000 something people. I don’t think you can attribute—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Air pollution is the exposure. Actually, the illnesses that cause the death are what you’re probably looking at 

so—— 

Mr. PALMER. Well, you said air pollution causes—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. —heart disease and lung disease, respiratory 

disease are those that are caused by air pollution. 

Mr. PALMER. You’re quoting one study from 2013 from MIT. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. No, I—actually, I’m quoting the World Health 

Organization that just completed a very large study—— 

Mr. PALMER. I saw that, too. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Okay. That’s what I’m quoting. 

Mr. PALMER. I think it calls into question, though, the use of 

data. And I also wonder, do you feel like you’re entitled to another 

term on the—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Entitled? No, I don’t think anyone on the—— 

Mr. PALMER. Do you think—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. No, I do not think entitled—— 

Mr. PALMER. You don’t think it makes sense for Administrator 

Pruitt to have the opportunity to populate his committees and his 

advisory boards with the people that he wants to put through a 

vetting process to see if he can improve the quality of the boards 

or advisory groups that he wants to work with? 
58 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. He absolutely has that authority. 

Mr. PALMER. Then this shouldn’t be an issue. I’m going to 

ask—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. I would say that it just was an unusual—— 

Mr. PALMER. —Mr. Cabrera a question. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. —an unusual selection. That’s all. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, maybe in the last eight years, but I think that 

he has every right to make a decision on who he wants to have advising the EPA. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. He absolutely does. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cabrera, I’ve watched what’s gone on the last few years of 

the EPA when the EPA was created. It was created with the understanding of cooperative federalism in that Congress would pass 

the law, the EPA would write the rule, and then the states would 

do the implementation with broad latitude as long as they achieve 

the objectives. Did you believe that that is still the operational dynamic that exists today? 

Mr. CABRERA. I believe—Mr. Chair, members of the committee, 

I believe that early in the history of environmental protection it is 

true that in—that the states sometimes lacked the expertise to implement well, but that was 40 years ago. And in the—today, we can 

implement well. We can write rules. We can do the science. We can 

estimate emissions. We can protect our water, our soil, and our air. 

And I think that EPA perhaps has not caught up with the times 

and understood that in the—today, states are well-equipped. We 

have mature programs that are technically competent, and I don’t 

think that EPA has recognized in every case that the states can 

implement environmental laws well, and in fact in many cases better. 

Mr. PALMER. I think you might have added that they usurp state 

authority in many cases to implement the laws. And I will give you 

a case in point is the ozone rule, which is a bigger issue in Arkansas I think perhaps than in Arizona. It’s a certainly a big issue in 

Alabama—is that—and we had Administrator McCarthy I think 

before this committee, and I asked her point blank about the new 

ozone rule, which will be arguably the most expensive environmental regulation ever imposed on the U.S. economy. 

And it was interesting to note this is probably I think in the 

spring of 2015 that they had just sent the implementation guidelines to the states for the 2008 rule, yet they were introducing a 

new rule, which they also admitted the technology didn’t exist to 

achieve that standard. And there was an internal memo in the 

EPA that indicated that if we didn’t do anything, we would achieve 

that standard in ten years. How does that impact your economic 

planning, Ms. Keogh, in Arkansas? And then you can respond, Mr. 

Cabrera, afterwards. 

Ms. KEOGH. Thank you for the question. We happen to be one 

of the few states that now attain all the standards and even the 

proposed standard, but we did suffer greatly, particularly a low—— 

Mr. PALMER. Let me interrupt you there. You’ve already achieved 

the standard without the technology even though there’s no technology that really exists that would allow other states to achieve 

that? You’ve already achieved it? 
59 

Ms. KEOGH. That’s correct. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. Go ahead. 

Ms. KEOGH. We had a small community, a rural community that 

was being impacted, who models showed that in 10 years—and this 

was ten years ago—that the area would re-attain, yet they were 

held under federal mandates to—under nonattainment for ten 

years, held hostage to the local economic development interests 

until those standards and those technologies became fully— 

across—available across transportation and other sectors. And so 

now that area does attain, and that shows that the local area— 

even though everyone knew ten years ago that this was the solution, the local area was harmed in that ten-year period. The rules 

and the laws that undermine that—or underpin that decision need 

to be changed to let local communities thrive while problems are 

being solved. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I’d just like to follow up 

on that. When you talk about public health—— 

Chairman BIGGS. The gentleman’s time is expired but you may 

follow up. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you for your indulgence, sir. 

We’ve had a lot of discussion about the role of science in the EPA 

and improving public health. I’d just like to point out that some of 

things that the EPA has done has cost thousands and thousands 

of jobs and perhaps some—the best thing we can do for an individual or a family’s health is a good-paying job. And Ms. Keogh just 

gave an example of how heavy-handed EPA—even though they 

were achieving compliance—impacted their local economy in a very 

negative way. I thank her—I thank the witness for her testimony. 

Chairman BIGGS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to have a statement that I want to read into the record, and I hope I have time 

for a question at the end of it. 

When I was in the Texas House, I was on the Environmental Reg 

Committee. Our colleagues across the aisle said you can’t trust industry because all they care about is the almighty dollar and their 

bottom line. They don’t care about people or their workers. So my 

response to them was and still is if you even wanted to assume for 

a minute they operated under the idea that the officers and the 

managers of a company don’t give a hoot about their coworkers, 

which is such a salacious, ridiculous assumption, consider this: 

Were there to be a release, a fire, a spill or any other such calamity 

that hurt people, their lives, and the environment, no one wanted 

that. It stops production, it costs lots of money in lawsuits, and it 

hurts people. Conclusion: Of course the businesses, at least the 

overwhelming majority, are good actors. 

As for the bad actors, the states, particularly Texas—Texas has 

the TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which I 

understand is the second-largest regulatory agency in the world, 

second only to the—behind the EPA. That agency will ferret out 

the bad actors and do everything we can to keep our neighborhoods 

clean and our people safe. To do anything less would be unthinkable. 
60 

States should not be handcuffed by the expenses and the burdens 

put on them by the EPA. So this idea somehow that states won’t 

take care of their people and their environment is a bogus one. If 

you’ll pardon the analogy, it doesn’t pass the smell test. But I guess 

that those on the other side need a strawman. Then the big, bad 

businesses will serve their purpose of a strawman, as long as that 

straw was grown with environmentally friendly fertilizer if you’ll 

pardon the pun. 

So that’s the statement I want to get in the record because it’s 

crazy that we somehow think industry should be held accountable; 

they don’t really—aren’t intent on protecting people and keeping 

the environment clean. 

My question is for you, Ms. Keogh. In what ways would you point 

out that show the EPA has been either—has ignored Congress or 

the Constitution when it comes to the states’ roles in implementing 

environmental regulations? In other words, the states have a role. 

Has the EPA ignored the Congress or the Constitution when it— 

in my opinion, it usurps its authority and seeks to direct states to 

act outside their constitutional purview? 

Ms. KEOGH. Thank you for that very thoughtful question. We in 

Arkansas have seen that in real life in the example of our regional 

haze plan where we’ve been unable to affect a strong scientific and 

legal-based document that was meeting all the requirements, and 

yet we find ourselves ten years later with no advance in pollution 

control but many dollars invested in legal discussions—— 

Mr. WEBER. That could have been used better off in the very reason it was needed, not—instead of fighting the legal battles. 

Ms. KEOGH. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. 

Ms. KEOGH. And we understand it’s important that our programs 

conform and comply with law, and yet we work with EPA often and 

we find that the programs that we are focusing on are well beyond 

the legal requirements set forth in the either enacted law or constitutional basis. 

Mr. WEBER. Let me point out how out of control the EPA has 

been in some instances. When I was in the Texas House, we had 

a Region 6 EPA Director there in the north part of Texas who had 

to resign because video was uncovered of him, I don’t know, a year 

or two before he became Regional Director—this had been going 

back five, six years now. 

In the video—they had a video of him saying that companies— 

industry needed to be treated like the Roman gladiators did when 

they invaded a country. He literally said in the video the Roman 

gladiators would come into account and crucify the first five men 

they found and make an example of them. And he said that’s the 

way the EPA needs to do industry. 

Now, how does one justify that kind of mindset? It’s gotten that 

prevalent in a regulatory agency that in my opinion is out of control. It needs to be regulated by the states. I so appreciate—I think 

it was Mr. Cabrera’s statement that 40 years ago that was the 

case, states weren’t there, but we’ve caught up. Did I mention that 

Texas has the second-largest environmental regulatory agency in 

the world, second only to the, quote/unquote, vaunted EPA? 
61 

So I think it’s time that we assume that people and agencies and 

states want to be good actors. They want to clean up their environment. They want to keep things safe for their people. And we ought 

to let them do just that. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m going to yield you back six seconds. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for five minutes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I represent south Louisiana, the heartbeat of the oil and gas and petrochemical industry for the entire 

country, perhaps the world. Everything around us, the varnish on 

the table before you, the threads of your clothing are products of 

the petrochemical industry and the oil and gas industry. No State 

I don’t believe has been more injured by EPA regulatory overreach 

than the great State of Louisiana and the citizens that I represent. 

EPA overreach has been incredibly injurious to the hardworking 

men and women, real Americans, man, with lives, with mortgages, 

with car notes, with children in school. The impact of the EPA over 

the last eight years has been quite significant in the real world outside of the bubble of Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Cabrera, it’s been noted here regarding the replacement of 

nonscientists at the EPA. According to my research, there are 

94,600 environmental science jobs. That’s from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, 94,600 environmental scientists in our country. Do you 

think perhaps they might be considered for those jobs or just the 

nine? 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I believe in 

competition; I believe in diversity of ideas. I think that with competition and diversity of ideas we get to the best solutions. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I concur. There are 7,500, 8,000 graduates every 

year on average with environmental science degrees. You think 

perhaps they might be considered for those nine slots? 

Mr. CABRERA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. Let’s move on. During the—since the 

inception of the EPA, there have been many Presidents from—in 

political, ideological stances. I think that’s certainly a statement 

beyond debate. Do you believe that President Trump’s decisions regarding the EPA are politically motivated from your perspective? 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I would 

hesitate to try to understand Mr. Trump’s—President Trump’s motivations. I can tell you that Administrator Pruitt’s statements are 

in line with what the State of Arizona and many, many states 

would like. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. I bring this up because it would seem 

quite glaring that President Obama’s Administration of the EPA 

was certainly politically motivated. Any reasonable man would 

agree. The—under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can issue a federal 

implementation plan when a State fails to develop an adequate 

plan. A FIP is the most drastic and aggressive action the EPA can 

take against a state government. President Obama, through his 

EPA, authored 56 federal implementation plans. The previous 

three Presidential Administrations issued five. 
62 

So if we’re going to talk about politics with candor and honesty 

amongst my colleagues, let us consider the fact that certainly as 

Presidents change, administrative endeavors change, the nature of 

federal regulatory agencies will also change, but there’s been no 

more glaring example of political overreach and regulatory—very 

destructive policies than under the last President. 

And I ask Ms. Keogh—am I pronouncing your name right? My 

sister Bliss was the valedictorian of her class in college with a degree in geology. She went on to serve Louisiana DEQ and retired. 

She’s a brilliant woman. And I certainly respect the work of the 

states. I observed from the inside the extreme dedication from DEQ 

employees, dedicated scientists that certainly were committed to 

protecting the environment. I remind the Committee and those 

present that we are a union of 50 sovereign states, and that the 

Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states, ‘‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by 

it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the 

people.’’ 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. The Chair recognizes the Vice Chairman of the 

Subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Banks. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to each of you for being here today. Just a couple of follow-up questions. Dr. Swackhamer, do you believe that there is a 

valuable level of diversity currently on the BOSC? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. So in—yes, I do believe that there is and that 

that diversity is expressed mostly in terms of the expertise that’s 

on there, as well as the experience of the members of the BOSC. 

So we have members from—expertise in water, engineering, toxicology, atmospheric sciences, land sciences, children’s health. So it’s 

that breadth and diversity of expertise that is highly valued in any 

of these scientific committees but particularly on BOSC right now. 

Mr. BANKS. And just so I’m clear, the nine members who were— 

whose terms recently expired, who—which Administration appointed those nine members? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Because they were there for three years, they 

were appointed under the Obama Administration. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. However, I really want to say that we don’t 

serve as if we’re loyal to who appointed us. There’s no loyalty to 

how we give science advice. It’s not about who was appointed—— 

Mr. BANKS. Understood. Mr. Cabrera, in your experience of dealing—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. I served under three Presidents—— 

Mr. BANKS. —with the BOSC and you—— 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. —and four Administrators—— 

Mr. BANKS. Excuse me. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. —over my time. There is no—it doesn’t matter—— 

Mr. BANKS. Excuse me. 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. —whose Administration—— 

Mr. BANKS. Mr. Cabrera, in your experience of dealing with the 

BOSC, do you believe that there’s been a healthy level of diversity 
63 

of thought, of ideology, of opinion on the BOSC from your point of 

view? 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I have to 

admit that I have precious little experience dealing directly with 

the BOSC. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. What about you, Ms. Keogh? 

Ms. KEOGH. I believe that we do need more diversity on that 

panel. In my 30-some-odd years working in environmental policy, 

I have seen that diversity aids the better decision-making. So we 

have actually offered our own Chief Technical Officer several times 

to be considered for that position, and I believe that as we broaden 

that audience of scientists, we get better input and better decisionmaking and better policy out of our agencies. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you. You just answered my follow-up question. I don’t want to date either one of you, but you have 30-something years of experience in the field, Ms. Keogh? 

Ms. KEOGH. That’s correct. 

Mr. BANKS. Mr. Cabrera, how many years of experience do you 

have in your field? 

Mr. CABRERA. Over 20. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. As a former state lawmaker—many of my colleagues on the committee also served in State Legislatures as 

well—I’m intrigued by much of your testimony already, Mr. 

Cabrera, about the change over the 47 years since the inception of 

the EPA and the relationship between the states and the federal 

government. 

But in your 20-something years, Ms. Keogh, in your 30-something years of experience, was there a point—was there a period 

during that time that you watched a quick change, maybe a tipping 

point? Was there a point in time where you saw an ideological shift 

between the balance of the states and the federal government, Mr. 

Cabrera? 

Mr. CABRERA. In my experience, the attitude of collaborative federalism never really took hold the way it should have. I believe 

that there has always been a parent-child kind of relationship with 

EPA. Now, let me say that I believe that EPA has a role, and doing 

science for the nation is one of them. However, I do not think that 

the idea of collaborative federalism has ever been fully developed, 

and I’m excited about what I hear Administrator Pruitt talking 

about because I think he can actually get us there. 

Mr. BANKS. So never a sharp decline in that relationship, more 

of a slippery slope over time of—or do you believe it goes back to 

the inception, that cooperative federalism wasn’t fully implemented 

in the beginning of the birth of the EPA? 

Mr. CABRERA. I think the approach has been consistent. The velocity at which decisions got made certainly accelerated during the 

last eight years. So the approach has always been parent-child, but 

the velocity at which decisions got made and imposed on the states 

certainly increased over the last eight years. 

Mr. BANKS. Ms. Keogh, in your 30-something years of experience, 

would you—did the last eight years stand out as something that 

was different, more conflict perhaps over the past 8 years? 

Ms. KEOGH. Absolutely. I believe, as Congressman mentioned 

and I previously testified to the Senate about the fact that we saw 
64 

10 times over the actions of federal plans over state plans in this 

last Administration was telling and that we were being secondguessed by this Administration more than ever. And so I look forward to the opportunity to be not a pawn but a partner, again. And 

I do believe that previous Administrations did work to—with the 

states where—and to build a competency so that there could be a 

strong cooperative federalism, and I think we’re ready for that, as 

others have mentioned, and we’re—we stand ready to support environmental progress in a new day. Thank you. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

And the Chair recognizes the long-patient gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I just want to address a couple of comments that I’ve heard here 

in exchanges. The membership balance plan of the EPA acknowledges in its own document that it’s about 8 months’ worth of vetting and review that’s required. And I heard earlier that perhaps 

we could do that in 3 months, but they indicate 8. 

And with the Constitution, I just want to cite that article 1, section 8, the commerce clause, provides for a great opportunity, provides the given responsibility of broad powers to Congress in areas 

of environment and public health. 

So, again, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Dr. 

Swackhamer, for sharing your critical perspective today and for 

continuing to deliver the resounding message that rigorous, credible science matters. I find your testimony to be refreshing. 

Like you, I am alarmed by the recent dismissal of Science Advisory Board members at the EPA and especially with the stated intention of packing the board with industry experts. In a panel 

whose most significant responsibility is to evaluate science and 

public policy, independent scientists literally will not have a seat 

at that table. This dismissal of scientists and of science signals a 

dramatic shift toward federal policies that would put well-funded 

political and special interests ahead of the facts. The science that 

informs our national defense, health, economic, and other public 

policies that impact millions of Americans is under threat, and by 

troubling action, officially on notice. 

A few weeks ago, I spoke before a crowd of thousands in my district at the March for Science in Albany. I mentioned H.R. 1358, 

the Scientific Integrity Act. This bill would require science watchdogs in every federal agency involved in scientific research. As 

threats to independent federally funded scientific research continue 

to grow, so must our ability to protect against them. 

The issue of scientific independence is not partisan. We have 

seen Presidents and political leaders from both major parties attempt to influence government-backed scientific findings. The result is often the same: public policy that may not reflect to the best 

interests of the American people. If we want our publicly funded 

science to be free, independent, and reliable, federal science must 

be able to protect itself from political and industry pressures. 

World leaders have started to appeal to America’s scientists and 

engineers by arguing that other nations value their work more 

than the United states does. This is a sign that America’s global 
65 

leadership in science and innovation may be weakening. This is not 

the first time science has been marginalized in America, but each 

time it finds a way to return and flourish as conditions improve, 

and it is not too late, nor too hard for us to stand up now and safeguard our public science. 

So, Dr. Swackhamer, you are not just a former Professor of Environmental Health Sciences but are a Professor Emerita of Science, 

Technology, and Public Policy. It seems that the recent actions 

taken against the EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors to reduce 

the number of scientists on the board are not the only efforts taken 

by this Administration to diminish the role of expert scientific advice that may interfere with their policy objectives. The Department of Interior has suspended its Science Advisory Committees. 

The Secretary of Energy’s senior-most Scientific Advisory Board 

has not been reconstituted since President Trump’s inauguration, 

and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 

or PCAST, can no longer be found on the White House’s webpage. 

Our country has been built on a foundation of innovative science 

and technology so, Doctor, do these actions concern you, and should 

they concern us? 

Dr. SWACKHAMER. Well, I do think that there is a pattern here 

that certainly, as an individual, it causes me some—I’m troubled 

by the pattern that I see, the marginalization of science both within the top of the Administration, as well as within other agencies 

across the federal government, but I’m more familiar with EPA. I’m 

troubled by the fact that there is a—there’s kind of a—there’s an 

intent to politicize and marginalize the science. 

And, you know, policy is by nature political. It is the culmination 

of—if it’s good policy, it starts with science and it gets influenced 

by many other things and often can end up being a political-motivated policy. I understand that. But the science should never be politicized. And the science should never be marginalized. And my 

fear—my personal fear is that the actions taken at the federal government are in fact diminishing the role of science. Certainly, 

they’re not celebrating the role of science. 

All of the science offices in every major agency are unfilled. The 

folks that have been put forward or floated, the names that have 

been floated for—for instance, the Chief Science Officer at the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture has never—he has no degree or training 

in science, and yet he would be the Chief Scientist for USDA. 

These are the kinds of things that are part of a pattern that appear 

to be consistent with marginalizing the role of science in policy. 

Again, policy is—it’s a mixture of things and it’s influenced by 

many factors, but it should start with the bedrock of science. And 

I am a little fearful of that. 

Chairman BIGGS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Loudermilk. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity. 

And everyone that’s here today—and as I was listening to the 

previous testimony, I can tell you that from my experience, science 

is pretty absolute. The problem is it’s our interpretation of that 
66 

science to meet political ends, which has been happening since the 

dawn of man, and I believe it’s going to happen. 

Our concern is are we using the science as fact or are we using 

that science to achieve a goal? As someone who grew up during the 

Apollo space race, I remember many scientists saying it was impossible with the data that we have to get to the moon. It wasn’t the 

science that was wrong; it was our interpretation of that science. 

And we need to keep that in mind as we go forward and we deal 

with a lot of these issues because I would agree; we have politicized 

especially the environmental aspect of science a lot of times to our 

own detriment. 

Mr. Cabrera, I’m a little—still amazed a little bit or trying to get 

my hands wrapped around the regional haze rule, which seems to 

be a major topic that we hear about from the states. And why 

would EPA impose billions of dollars in environmental controls to 

achieve improvements that you can’t even recognize with the naked 

eye? 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, many would 

speculate that regional haze, along with clean power, along with 

several other rules, were a bureaucratic approach to deal with climate change. So many would speculate that while unable to pass 

any type of climate legislation through Congress that the previous 

Administration set out to use whatever tools were available and 

used them in such a way that would alleviate climate change. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So what’s the effect been—your State is Arizona, correct? What has been the effect? Have you seen any improvements? What’s the impact it’s had on you as a State and you 

as an official? 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, after 20 

years, two commission reports, four lawsuits, two state plans, a 

federal plan, and an estimated cost of $500 million, we will not see 

a perceivable improvement in visibility in the Grand Canyon State. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Five hundred million dollars? That’s State 

funds? 

Mr. CABRERA. That’s private industry installing controls on their 

facilities to eliminate pollutants that then create haze. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So who ultimately pays for these controls? Is 

it the industry? 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, it’s likely 

going to be ratepayers. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Which really is the most vulnerable of 

us when you look at those that are on fixed income—and this is 

one of the issues I’ve had with politicizing the environment is ultimately, it is the ratepayer that pays, and the ones that hurt the 

most are the ones that already are trying to balance their checkbooks at the end of the month. And they cannot afford another increase in their rates. 

And what ultimately happens—in Georgia we do have some cold 

months, and what will happen is people will shut their heat off to 

save electricity and they’ll burn their fireplace, which everyone 

knows is—creates more pollution than the footprint of the coalfired plant that’s in our community. 

Dealing with ozone—now, we kind of segued into ozone—what— 

I understand there are exceptional events that the EPA considers 
67 

with states. How would you—could you explain briefly exceptional 

events and what is—how do you—how would you rate EPA’s ability 

to identify exceptional events? 

Mr. CABRERA. EPA has done some work associated with the exceptional events for dust, and that work is solid. In fact, the State 

of Arizona was a leader in that arena. For ozone, the problem is 

much more difficult. You are now dealing with some very complex 

photochemical models, and EPA has not established clear guidelines on how exceptional events for ozone would be demonstrated. 

An exceptional event by definition is something that is not created 

by industry or the lack of controls; it is created by something that 

is exceptional in nature. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. A volcano or, in the case of Arizona, a dust 

storm? 

Mr. CABRERA. An ozone inversion due to weather conditions, yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Does—so if the EPA doesn’t record—do they do 

a good job of recording the events or do they not record them and 

how—what’s the effect it has on your State? 

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is up 

to the states to make the demonstration, and then EPA has the 

ability to approve or reject the demonstration. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So basically, you have to go and prove that 

there was an exceptional event even if that exceptional event may 

have been a major incident that most Americans know about? Then 

you have to go present that—— 

Mr. CABRERA. That’s correct. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —your case? 

Mr. CABRERA. That’s correct. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. All right. 

Chairman BIGGS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

I thank each of the witnesses today for being here with us and 

taking your time to be with us and your very valuable and interesting testimony. 

I’d also—this is the way it works. It’s down to the Ranking Member, myself, and Mr. Loudermilk. This is consistent, so I appreciate 

all the Members and their questions as well. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(69) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
70 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer 
71 

from EPA, which is needed to augment state fonding to implement certain programs, One 

example is the Non Point Source program (known as the 319 program). This program transfers 

funds to the states to conduct regulatory and non-regulatory programs, technical assistance, 

financial assistance, education, training, technology transfers, and demonstration projects. 

Other EPA-supported state programs include fundv and grants for Brownfields remediation and 

redevelopment, National Clean Diesel Campaign, Small Business Innovation Research grants, 

and Pollution Prevention grants among many others. 

• As a scientist and researcher in academia, can you comment on the types of! imitations 

states might face in having adequate scientific expertise and evidence to evaluate 

potential environmental hazards and risks to the public if the EPA's resources were 

drastically cut or if the EPA's interactions with states were dramatically reduced? 

Most states do not have sufficient scientific research expertise in their environmental protection 

agencies. And even fewer have the depth and diversity of expertise needed to assess the 

complexity of hazards in our environment. With declining state environmental budgets, the 

efficient and highly professional assistance from EPA becomes even more important. However, 

the Trump administration has proposed more than a 30% cut in EPA 's budget. These cuts 

include the pass-through fonds mentioned above that support a number of programs, such as the 

3!9 Non-Point Pollution program, Water Quality Research and Support Grants, Targeted Air 

Shed Grants, Underground Storage Tank state grants, and state Radon grants, to mention just a 

jiM. States rely on these federal pass-through funds to set up state-specific programs, technical 

transfer of knowledge from the federal agency to the state agencies, demonstration programs, 

etc. 

2. The EPA has been a global leader in environmental protection by developing landmark 

environmental legislation that is underpinned by cutting-edge science. Recently, however the 

basis of these regulations, the science itself, has been called into question with researchers 

and methods being demonized by some Majority members of this committee. By second 

guessing the science, we put ourselves at a disadvantage when it comes to developing the 

most up-to-date and protective environmental policies. 

• You stated in your testimony that "good" environmental policy must be based on 

"robust science". What is your definition of"good" environmental policy, and what is 

"robust" science? 

Science truly is the bedrock of all that EPA does. It is to be first-rate, cutting edge science to 

withstand the review and scrutiny that scientific evidence undergoes to craft effective 

environmental policy. Environmental policy consists of a number of components, including a 

clear articulation of the problem that the policy is addressing, and what the projected outcomes 

of the policy will be. "Good" environmental policy must have high likelihood of solving the 

primary problem, with measurable objectives to demonstrate its success. The Clean Air Act is a 

classic "good" policy, with the o~jective to reduce the problem of air pollution using emissions 

controls. The reductions have been successful and measurable, with a 70% reduction in air 

pollution since the Act was passed. 

Page 2 of8 
72 

Robust science is needed in regulatory policy, given the intense legal scrutiny and potential 

implementation costs. To draw conclusions that inform regulatory policy, usually a large 

collection of scientific evidencefrom a variety of sources (published literature from respected 

journals, studies from national or international government labs, research conducted within 

ORD, or research funded by ORD STAR grants) is evaluated and synthesized. These conclusions, 

and the scientific evidence that underpins them, are then reviewed by an independent third-party, 

i.e. a review by a group of outside scientists, to substantiate the findings and the reasoning that 

led to them. Thus "robust" science in this context consists of a significant body of scientific 

evidence from multiple sources that has been assessed and results in findings that inform policy, 

and which has undergone thorough peer-review. 

• You stated in your testimony that marginalization of science in environmental policymaking would lead to our country's "competitive disadvantage". Can you expand on 

what you mean? 

Right now, the United States is considered a world leader in environmental protection and 

regulation. We have strong laws that regulate air and water quality, and these laws have been 

shown to be highly effective at protecting public health. We have some of the safest drinking 

water and cleanest air of most developed countries in the world. We were leaders in enacting 

environmental legislation, and our regulations have served as a model for many other countries. 

The reason for this is that our regulations are based on rock-solid science, and a science-based 

risk reductionframework -they are not arbitrary. They were designed to be updated and 

improved as our scient[fic knowledge expands to further protect public health over time. 

The statements and actions being taken by the EPA Administrator are marginalizing the role of 

science and crippling the ability for EPA to continue to produce needed research. This is 

evidenced by the proposal to reduce the ORD budget by nearly half, reduce the research staff by 

nearly half, eliminate the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program that funds a competitive 

extramural grants program directed at specific needed knowledge gaps, and to reduce the 

Science Advisory Board budget by more than 80%. Without the ongoing science to update and 

improve regulations, combined with the move towards deregulation, our air and water quality 

will decrease. The additional pollution will result in less public health protections, and lead to 

greater premature deaths rates, more respiratory related hospital visits, more drinking water 

contamination issues, more lakes and rivers that cannot be safely used for swimming and fishing. 

Our country's health, and environment, will degrade. With this degradation comes less desire to 

invest or reside in the United States, leading to declines in our global standing. We will lose our 

competitive edge to other countries who continue to offer a clean environment and produce 

healthy children. 

Furthermore, we will lose our competitive edge in science and technology development. EPA 

scientists are currently world leaders in the study of human and animal toxicology, in drinking 

water treatments, and in risk assessment as well as other areas. They are leaders in innovation, 

and in public-private partnerships and interactions. With the drastic cuts to the E'P A science 

programs we will lose this edge, and our place and perception in the world as environmental 

science leaders. 

Page 3 of8 
73 

II. The Politicization of Science 

3. Congressman Loudermilk stated during the hearing that "science is pretty absolute ... Our 

concern is, are we using that science as fact or are we using that science to achieve a goal?" 

Chairman Smith said that EPA science is "cherry-picked" to support a political agenda, and 

then "rubber-stamped" by biased science advisors. How do you respond to these statements? 

Representative Loudermilk's statement suggests that he is confused about the role of science and 

policy. Chairman Smith's claims are utterly false, not substantiated, and.fi'ankly ojftnsive to me 

as a scientist who has served in several capacities as an outside science advisor to US EPA. 

Science generates facts andfindings that lead to an understanding of an issue, such as how toxic 

a chemical might be, how successfitl a water treatment might be, or the development of a 

computer program that can be used to improve a state's ability to manage their air and water. 

Good science is objective and without bias, and yes, apolitical. Policy is designed to fix a 

problem, and to use all relevant science to construct policy options, which are evaluated for 

efficiency, effectiveness, technical feasibility, costs and benefits, etc. Regardless of the final 

policy alternative selected (which is based on all these other factors in addition to the science), it 

should be underpinned by science. Science informs policy, it does not dictate policy. 

EPA does not systematically cherry-pick the science that it uses. As explained above, regulations 

and rules are crqfied using all of the relevant, best science available to reach its findings. There 

can be hundreds of articles, papers, studies, and reports that are combed through, synthesized, 

and used to draw their conclusions. Exclusion of data or evidence is explained. Many staff 

experts are involved in this, and in then using these findings in updating or improving a rule, a 

standard, and the like. And following this thorough process, the resulting document and 

supporting scientific evidence is reviewed by an external, objective third party- often it is the 

SAB (that is why they were created by Congress, to provide such reviews) or in some cases by 

the National Academies of Science (NAS). These reviews are no rubber stamp- having chaired 

the SAB for 4 years, and sat on numerous NAS review committees, these kind of peer reviews are 

anything but a _tree ride for EPA. The scientists that sit on these review committees are highly 

independent, and proud of who they are and what they bring to the table. The reviews take 

several days of meetings, spread over several months, to review and digest the materials, and to 

discuss their assessment of the materials. The discussions are lively, spirited, with differing views 

brought to the discussion and reconciled. There is no pressure brought to bear .from EPA staff to 

reach a certain finding. Often, the reviews end up being highly critical of the document under 

review. The review committee writes their review up in detail, and any recommendation or 

criticism must be addressed in writing by EPA staff and the Administrator. All of this, including 

the discussions of the SAB, are in the public record (SAB is a FACA committee and thus all 

deliberations are public; the National Research Council committees of the NAS are not governed 

by FACA and the discussions are private). Finally, the review of any subcommittee of the SAB is 

reviewed for consistency and completeness by the entire SAB (essentially a review of the review). 

Additional changes to the review are made at this time, and then it is finalized and sent to the 

Administrator. The NAS also has their reports reviewed by many individual reviewers, and the 

NAS must respond in writing to each comment. These review processes are earnest, intense, 

thorough processes that are of the highest integrity, and they result in reports and 

Page 4 of8 
74 

recommendations from EPA that have been vetted to an extreme. The two step,process ensures 

that there is not cherry picking, and there is no rubber stamping. 

4. The President has submitted his proposed FY20 18 Budget Request which seeks to reduce the 

EPA's overall budget by 30%. The Administration has provided minimal explanation of how 

these across-the-board cuts in every program office at the EPA will not negatively impact the 

Agency's ability to carry out its duties to safeguard the environment and public health. 

• How will these proposed budget cuts impact the science and technology research 

programs at the EPA? 

The proposed budget for EPA includes a 31% overall cut to the Agency. However, this enormous 

cut is not equal to programs across the board- the Science and Technology (S&T) budget is 

targeted for approximately a 38% cut, and the research programs within the Office of Research 

and Development (part of the S&T budget) are targetedfor approximately a 48% cut. Because 

much of the budget goes to compensation, this means a significant cut in the ORD scientific staff 

The cuts are specifically heavy to the air research program (-66%), the water research program 

(-40%), and Safe and Sustainable Communities (-60%). I believe that this degree of reduction 

will cripple the ability of ORD to support the EPA mission, and will certainly lead to the erosion 

of our nation's leadership in environmental science. And because the EPA administrator will 

focus on retirements and buyouts of senior staff to reduce the workforce, it means that the 

collective brain trust of environmental research will be lost at EPA. 

• How does the proposed budget impact scientific advisory committees at the EPA? 

The proposed cuts to the Science Advisory Board have been reported to be 84%. Obviously this 

would decimate the SAB 's ability to function. The financial implications of the proposed budget 

on other advisory committees at EPA are not clear at this time, but it is a safe assumption that 

reductions in ORD and science activity in general will lead to reduced support of science 

advisory committees. 

• What impacts would reduced support for scientific advisory committees at EPA have 

on the agency's overall mission? 

The overall mission of EPA is to protect public health, and protect the environment. This is 

accomplished by controlling emissions and concentrations o_f pollutants, and reducing risksfrom 

exposure to pollutants in our air, land, and water. Reduced external reviews by external science 

advisory committees leads to less rigorous science, which leads to weaker regulatory scientific 

evidence, which leads to compromised environmental policy, which leads to less protection of 

public health and the environment. Thus these huge cuts to the scientific advisory committees 

can lead to significant erosion of the progress we have made in protecting our environment, and 

to deteriorating public health over time. It would not happen immediately, it would be slow loss 

ofscientific credibility and trust without scientific peer review as part of the regulatory process, 

and a slower lag on the impacts to our environment and nation's health. 

Page 5 of8 
75 

III. Federal Advisory Committees 

5. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has recently said that he wants to balance scientific advisory 

committees and panels at EPA by adding more members from the regulated community, 

particularly on the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) where half the members' terms 

were not renewed. Industry representatives can provide an important and unique perspective 

on these boards, however, achieving a proper balance on these boards does not mean that 

they should be stocked with industry representatives from the very industries the EPA 

regulates. 

• How in your mind should EPA or other federal science agencies balance the interests of 

industry vs. the interests of the public? How large a factor should scientific ex~ertise be 

in determining membership federal advisory committees? Does balance require a 50/50 

split between industry representatives and other experts? 

The most important aspect of federal science advisory committees is to have a balanced mix <!f 

expertise appropriate to the issues coming before the committee. The committee must consist of 

independent, top-notch scientists. Given that most environmental issues are highly complex, 

scientific advice must be reached from consultation and synthesis across many perspectives from 

many different disciplines. The different perspectives of scientists.from industry, the public 

sector, or from academia are all needed- the key issue is to ensure that there is no conflict of 

interest p~esented by members of the committee, and that individuals can give scientific advice 

without restriction or censure by their employer. That is the reason that there are fewer industry 

scientists on committees than academics or public sector scientists scientists working for EPAregulated industries often have a conflict of interest. Putting quotas on membership categories 

will lead to an imbalance and ineffective committee, as the pool of qualified scientists is not 

equal across all sectors, and the wide variety of experts needed is not found across all sectors. 

• What qualities and credentials are used to detennine a good fit for an advisory 

committee position? Are applicants for these committee positions automatically 

disqualified by not being academics? In what ways do industry representatives bring a 

unique perspective to the table in these advisory committees? 

The US EPA conducts the selection process for external science advisors internally. However, in 

my experience, there is always a mix of perspectives as well as expertise on the committees I 

have served on, including private industry, private business, academia, state and federal 

government, and non-government organizations. Industry scientists bring knowledge of specific 

industrial processes (such as plastics manufacture), ofsuch processes being done at a 

production scale (compared to the laboratory scale), and of goal driven research (.mch as 

synthesizing a new pesticide to perform a certain function). 

• How do committee members ensure they do not function as political appointments who 

simply 'rubber stamp' the Administrator or the current Administration's policies? 

Individual committee members who feel that the integrity of the process is threatened can bring 

their concerns to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the committee. The DFO is required 

Page 6 of8 
76 

by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FAC'A) and is a federal employee who manages the dayto-day operations of the committee. The DFO would raise concerns with their supervisor, and 

the committee's designated ethics officer- also a federal employee, and who makes 

determinations of conflicts of interest, compliance with the Hatch Act, and the like. Members of 

EPA FACA committees are required to undergo ethics training on a yearly basis, and to 

maintain frequent contact with the DFO so as to avoid any conflicts of interest on a given matter 

before the committee. Alternatively, a member could resign if they feel that their advice is not 

being considered adequately and in the spirit of the independence of the advisory committee. 

6. Congressman Babin stated at the hearing that EPA Administrator Pruitt had asked for 

nominations regarding potential new members of the BOSC, and Mr. Babin suggested that 

the EPA had already received hundreds of proposed nominations for new BOSC members. 

This does not appear to be an accurate reflection ofwbat actually transpired in regard to 

Administrator Pruitt's actions regarding new BOSC members. 

• Can you respond to Congressman Babin's comments and detail what you know about 

when a decision was made to not renew the membership of the nine BOSC members? 

Congressman Babin is misinformed, and likely due to the misleading statements made by the 

Administrator's office to the media. In response to questions as to why 9 members of BOSC were 

not renewed for a second term, Administrator Pruitt's office stated "EPA received hundreds of 

nominations to serve on the board, and instead of reappointing nine people who have already 

served their three-year term, we want to ensure fair consideration of the other nominees and a 

carry-out a competitive nomination process," This is very misleading, as it sounds as if hundreds 

of people are lined up, hoping to get on this board. In fact, nominations are only received when 

there is a call for nominations made in the Federal Register, and the "hundred.v of nominations" 

referred to in this statement in fact were from an FRN notice in 2013 (.~o nominations on this list 

are more than 4 years old). It is unclear if this older list of nominees will be considered at all, 

given that the Administration has just issued a new FRN notice soliciting nominations for BOSC. 

The BOSC members who were not renewed were informed in an email sent by the Acting 

Assistant Administrator ofORD on May 5, 2017. Their terms had expired on Apri/28, 2017. I do 

not know when the decision was made, but based on conversations with the BOSC DFO, it is my 

understanding that the decision was communicated to the Acting Assistant Administrator ofORD 

from the Administrator's Office in the first week of May. 

• How many members remain on the BOSC at this time? What is the current status of 

naming new members? 

There are currently 4 members remaining on the BOSC Executive Committee, which had 18 

members until April 30. Four members rotated off the BOSC as they had served 2 terms of 3 

years each. Nine members completed their first term of 3 years, and were not renewed for a 

second term by the Administrator's office. One additional member resigned after this, fearing 

that the BOSC was now politicized and could no longer be effective. 

Page 7 of8 
77 

The foil BOSC consists of an Executive Committee, and 5 subcommittees (Air, Climate and 

Energy; Safe and Sustainable Water Resources; Sqfe and Healthy Communities; Homeland 

Security; Chemical Safety for Sustainability). The Subcommittee chairs and vice chairs sit on the 

Executive Committee, As of a memo from EPA on June 19th, 38 of the 49 subcommittee members 

will not be renewed at the end of August, So as of September 1, 2017, there will be a total of 11 

remaining subcommittee members; the subcommittees now have only 1-2 remaining members 

(except Chemical Safety for Sustainability subcommittee that still has 5); none have a chair or a 

vice chair. The Executive Committee will have only 3 remaining members- the Chair (me) and 

two others, who are also members of the subcommittees, So the total BOSC membership, 

including its subcommittees, will be only 12 (usually about 70) effective September pt 

• When did the EPA first seek nominations for new BOSC members to replace the open 

positions? At the time of the hearing, Congressman Babin mentioned that there were 

hundreds of applications waiting to be considered for the open positions on the BOSC, 

Is that typical for this process? 

The notice to solicit new nominations for BOSC was published in the Federal Register on May 

25, 2017, This was two days afier this hearing, so at the time of the hearing there were not 

"hundreds of applicants waiting to be considered". As stated above, the list of applicants being 

referred to was more than 4 years old When openings occur on FACA advisory committees, an 

FRN is issued, and nominations are open for a specified period of time. Then the internal vetting 

process takes place. It is not unusual to have many more applicants than openings for a given 

committee. This ensures a wide pool of expertise from which to construct the most effective 

committee. 

EPA has since notified the members of the BOSC Subcommittees that anyone with a term ending 

in August of2017 will not be renewed (the previous action taken to not renew BOSC members 

applied to the Executive Committee). This affects 37 of the 49 Subcommittee members, thus 

stripping BOSC of nearly all previous members effective September 1. They have been given 10 

days to reapply through the nomination process, should they wish to do so. 

Page 8 of8 

(79) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
80 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ANDY BIGGS

if~~~\ ccct(Lf/0"41 

}v~ ~~~ ~~ 

CMJL ~{~ riC:JJLCJc ~ Moll M~ 

fV !-Md t I(~/ -t\Quk,~ey -klm oJtk ~ . D 

d J o JA~, 

ex;r1

_ruJU ()sho fZ ~ 

U-Jj, DE_ Q 

~O(-IF7- 551'3 

~nn \e.osborf\.e .. Aywyo 'ff 0

V 
81 

May22,2017 

Department of Environmental Quality 

To protect conserve and enhance the quality of Wyoming's 

environment for the benefit of current and future generations. 

Congressman Lamar Smith, Chairman 

Science, Space and Technology Committee 

2409 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Congressman Andy Biggs, Chairman 

Environment Subcommittee 

1626 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Smith and Chairman Biggs: 

Todd Parfitt, Director 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Science, Space and Technology, Environment 

Subcommittee Hearing "Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking" as you deliberate the 

process of recalibrating state and federal roles in environmental protection and enhancement 

Initiating rulemaking reforms focused on the importance of cooperation and recognizing states as a 

key partner will result in more effective, efficient environmental management We have been very 

encouraged by the direction of and discussions with Secretary Zinke and Administrator Pruitt and 

look forward to working in a true partnership with the federal government to ensure effective 

public health and environmental protections. 

One of the original foundational concepts established to ensure effective public health and 

environmental outcomes is cooperative federalism. Under this arrangement congress establishes 

the Jaw. federal agencies implement the law by establishing national minimum standards, and the 

states obtain the authority, develop, and implement the programs necessary to achieve or surpass 

these standards. 

State environmental agencies play a crucial role in the application and enforcement of 

environmental protection laws. We interact frequently with the regulated community through 

permitting. compliance and outreach actions. It is this "on the ground" local knowledge that allows 

states to build upon the baseline federal requirements and effectively and efficiently achieve 

additional environmental benefits. Wyoming has achieved and looks forward to achieving 

additional public health and environmental outcomes under a balanced cooperative federalism 

arrangement. 

200 West 17th Street Cheyenne, WY 82002 http:lldeq.wyoming.gov · Fax (307)635-1784 

ADMIN/OUTREACH ABANDONED MINES AIR QUAUTY INDUSTRIAl SJnNG LAND QUAUTY SOUO & HAZ. WASTE WATER QUAUTY 

(307)777-7937 (307)m-6145 (307)m-7391 (307)777-7369 {307)777-7756 (307)777-7752 {307}777-7781 
82 

Congressman Lamar Smith, Chairman 

Congressman Andy Biggs, Chairman 

May22,2017 

RE: Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking 

Page 2 of3 

Notwithstanding Congress' original intent, the cooperative relationship shifted over time towards 

the federal government and away from the states. This shift resulted in the development of onesize-fits-all laws, regulations, policies, and guidance that overrode legitimate state authority and 

failed to consider the unique geophysical, ecological, social, and economic conditions of each state. 

Mandates, directives, and increasingly prescriptive regulations limited state flexibility in 

identifying priorities, implementing innovative solutions tailored to local conditions, and achieving 

operational efficiencies. This meant that states were left to enforce national policies developed 

without the benefit of any local understanding. 

Wyoming DEQ appreciates the opportunity to share a few examples of failed outcomes resulting 

from the absence of cooperative federalism. These examples highlight the costly and resource 

intensive results when a federal agency fails to engage early or meaningfully with the states. 

Wyomin&'s Reaiona! Haze State Implementation Plan (State Plan) 

The Federal Regional Haze Implementation Plan (Federal Plan) will cause utility rate increases. 

Wyoming developed a sensible plan that fully complies with the Clean Air Act's Regional Haze 

requirements. Instead of approving the state's plan, the EPA disapproved and replaced part of it 

with a Federal Plan requiring new and different emission controls. The cost of the Federal Plan is 

several hundreds of millions of dollars more than the cost of Wyoming's plan, but will not result in 

any perceptible visibility improvement These more restrictive and costly controls will cost 

ratepayers millions of dollars, for no good or justifiable reason. 

Stream Protection Rule 

The Office of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Enforcement (OSMRE) decided to develop a 

new stream protection rule. In 2010, OSMRE and Wyoming DEQ entered into a MOU establishing 

DEQ's relationship as a cooperating agency in thatrulemaking effort OSMRE limited the ability of 

cooperating agencies to provide meaningful input by failing to provide sufficient time to review 

preliminary draft documents, and by failing to engage or specifically excluding states from the 

process, directly in conflict with a written commitment to Western Governors by then Secretary of 

Interior, Ken Salazar. The outcome of this process was a one-size fits all rule that failed to recognize 

regional and local differences and consequently was unworkable in Wyoming. 

Office of Inspector General Evaluation ofOSMRE and Certified AML States Promms 

The OIG initiated an evaluation ofOSMRE's oversight of the certified state AML programs, including 

Wyoming's Program. As part of OIG's evaluation, Wyoming provided information about its program 

to OIG. OIG's evaluation culminated in the release of a March 2017 report OIG failed to provide 

Wyoming with any opportunity to review a draft report to correct factual errors. Because of OIG's 

failure, the Report was released with inaccurate data. Further compounding the matter, OSRME 

released the Report to the press before it released the report to Wyoming. Under the principles of 

effective cooperative federalism, it would seem appropriate for OSMRE to have provided Wyoming 

with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft and to notify the state before it notified 

the press that the report was complete and available. 
83 

Congressman lamar Smith, Chairman 

Congressman Andy Biggs, Chairman 

May22, 2017 

RE: Expanding the Role of States in EPA Rulemaking 

Page 3 of3 

All of the above federal actions would have had much different outcomes if effective cooperative 

federalism principles had been utilized. Wyoming believes that effective cooperative federalism 

starts with federal engagement of the State as a key partner. Wyoming has experience with 

identifying and understanding emerging environmental challenges. A recent example of one such 

challenge is wintertime ozone in the Upper Green River Basin of Wyoming. Wyoming devoted time 

and resources to advance the scientific understanding of this phenomena and develop and 

implemented effective strategies to address that environmental challenge. As a result, ozone levels 

have decreased. Where a federal agency provides a state with the flexibility to take into account the 

unique local geophysical, ecological, social, and economic conditions, the state will determine the 

best approach for it to achieve federal standards. That is how we view effective cooperative 

federalism. 

Wyoming is committed to a strong federal-state relationship and looks forward to working with its 

federal partners in an effective and balanced cooperative federalism approach that provides 

effective environmental and public health outcomes. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input on this important topic. I would welcome the 

opportunity to provide further input on and support for recalibrating the implementation of 

cooperative federalism principles. 

Sincerely, 

Todd Parfitt 

Director 

cc: Governor Matt Mead 

Senator John Barrasso 

Senator Mike Enzi 

Congressman Liz Cheney 
84 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER SUZANNE BONAMICI

ctrnngress nf tile lltttife~ j;tates 

1!111ualriugtnn, :OC!t 20515 

Scott Pruitt, Administrator 

Envirorunental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator Pruitt, 

May 18,2017 

We write to express our concerns over recent repmts that several members of the Board of 

Scientific Counselors at the Envirorunental Protection Agency (EPA) have been dismissed. We 

are alarmed at the signal this sends about both the priorities of the EPA and about its willingness 

to protect the environment. 

As the body tasked with advising ·on the technical issues of the EPA's research programs, the 

Board of Scientific Counselors should be comprised of highly qualified, knowledgeable experts 

whose views are grounded in scientific research. Removing qualified, respected members of the 

board to make room for more input from the industries being regulated would not only create 

conflicts of interest, it is also unnecessary as the EPA's larger Scientific Advisory Board already 

includes credible scientists from industry. 

We urge you to maintain the rigorous standards and technical expertise of the Board of Scientific 

Counselors. It is in our country's best interest to ensure that the EPA's regulations have a sound 

scientific basis which requires scientific advisors who ate committed to rigorous scientific 

review for its own sake. 

Sincerely, 

Bill Foster 

Member of Congress 

~'!}.~~ Elise M. Stefanik 

Member of Congress 

PRINT€0 ON RECYClED PAPER 
85 

ltl.gt~ Wm.LacyC 

Member of C ngress 

Member of Congress 

~~-~.IS.u---. SUZl1111Bene 

Member of Congress 

2 

Daniel 

~ W. Lipinski 

Member of Congress 

d7or~sffi~ Doris Matsui 

Member ?fCongress 

'llt~-j[Jfft,/ ~~Congress {/ 

d!!Jzh~- Keith Elhson 

Member of Congress 
86 

~J.~ David N. Cicilhne 

Member of Congress 

~ Member of Congress 

4ri£~ Member of Congress 

~ Member of Congress 

Awd;:~ Gerald E. Connolly 

Member of Congr: 

~ Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 

Member of Congress 

"6~ Marcy Kaptur 

Member of Congress 

t&t~ttt. H. /VJ.i,~ Eleanor Hohnes Norton 

Member of Congress 
87 

~An Member 

NikiSO~~ of Congress 

Member ~ of Congress 

~J). . Nanette 

Member 

Diaz 

of Congress 

~agan ~ 

t 

Lift .. ..._ 

.Earl Blumenauer 

Member of Congress 

4 

Carol Shea-Porter 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Member 

k~.!fe:~=~ of Congress 

t!~/.15+ Brendan F. Boyle 

Member of Congress 
88 

J ~~ eRaskm 

Member of Congress 

A. Dunrud M~eh •n 

A. Donald McEachin 

Member of Congress 

Mike 

~· Thompson 

Member of Congress 

~~· Member of Congress 

5 

~.~ Member of Congress 

{; .Q.cJ. 'W. ?t.u:J 

Ted. Lieu 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

AJO.Cll 

Salud 0. Carbajal 

Member of Congress 
89 

Theodore E. Deutch 

Member of Congress 

~ Darren Soto 

Member of Congress 

~ ember of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Member 

D~¥ of Congress 

Alan Lowenthal 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 
90 

~ongrt!)£5 of tbt ~nitt'b ~tates 

;i1oulie of l\tprelientatibeli 

mJatjblnglon, 18.«:. 20515 

The Honorable Scott Pruitt 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Administrator Pruitt: 

May 18,2017 

We write regarding your decision to dismiss nine members of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Board of Scientific Counselors ("Board"). We have serious concerns 

about this action that has prematurely removed qualified experts from EPA's Board and deprives 

EPA of critical scientific and technical expertise needed to support the Agency's mission to 

protect human health and the environment. We are also seriously concerned that you now intend 

to fill these newly opened positions with members who will serve as advocates for specific 

policies rather than as unbiased experts. 

These members were eligible to have their appointments renewed for a second term as 

indicated in EPA's own documents.' The decision not to renew their membership, which 

appears to have come directly from your office, was reportedly a complete surprise to the 

terminated Board members2 and contradicts information EPA officials provided to these Board 

members just one week prior to this decision. 3 This policy reversal very likely means the 

Board's activities will be curtailed for a substantial period of time. EPA's own documents 

indicate it takes approximately eight months to identify, vet and appoint new Board members.4 

This action already is having a chilling effect on the Board and on the broader scientific 

community. The May 12, 2017, resignation of two scientists from the Sustainable and Healthy 

Communities Subcommittee of the Board in protest over the removal of Board members 

underscores this concern. In their resignation letter, the scientists explained "the effective 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Board of Scientific Counselors, Membership Balance Plan 

( www. fucadatabase.gov/download.aspx?fn~Charters/5132 _ 2016.05.18 _EPA o/o20BOSC%202016%20Mernbership 

%20Balance%20Pian (20 16-05-18-0 l-38-57).pdt). 

2 Email from Robert J. Kavlock, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to nine Board of Scientific Counselors members whose first tenns expired 

on April27, 2017 (May 5, 2017). 

3 Email from Thomas Tracy, Designated Federal Officer for the Board of Scientific Counselors, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, to nine Board of Scientific Counselors members whose first tenns expired on 

April27, 2017 (Apri128, 2017). 

4 See note l. 
91 

The Honorable Scott Pruitt 

May 18,2017 

Page2 

removal of our subcommittee's co-chairs suggests that our collective knowledge is not valued by 

the current EPA administrator" and "we cannot in good conscience be complicit in our co-chairs 

removal, or in the watering down of credible science, engineering, and methodological rigor that 

is at the heart of that decision."5 

On Friday, April28, 2017, EPA staff sent nine Board members whose first term expired 

on April 27, 2017 an e-mail stating their names had been submitted to EPA management with a 

recommendation that they be appointed for a second term. 6 However, one week later, on Friday, 

May 5, 2017, Robert Kavlock, the Acting Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and 

Development (ORD), said that he had been infmmed, apparently by your office, that none of the 

appointments would be renewcd. 7 According to a report in the Washington Post, members 

anticipated that their tenus would be renewed in accordance with long-standing Agency practice, 

and because they had been told a renewal was expected. 8 

According to the Post, an EPA spokesperson stated the Agency is "making a clean break 

with the last administration's approach" and may consider industry scientific experts for some of 

the board positions.9 In addition, the New York Times reported that an EPA spokesman said the 

EPA Administrator wanted more people on the Board from the regulated community. 10 

However, industry representatives have always been considered for Board membership. Our 

concern is that the balance on the Board will now be tilted in favor of industry, to the detriment 

of unbiased scientific expertise. 

The Board was established in 1996 at ORD's request to provide the Assistant 

Administrator with expe11 advice on EPA's research and development enterprise, including work 

at EPA's laboratories.ll While the research and technology efforts of ORD are undertaken to 

support the work ofEP A's program offices, this Board operates consistent with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (F ACA), and has limited input into specific EPA regulations. In 

addition, the Board has routinely commented on EPA's strategic research plans, laboratory 

management, budget, and staffing issues. For instance, at its recent April2017 meeting, the 

5 Letter from Carlos Martin, PhD, Board of Scientific Counselors, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and Peter B. Meyer, PhD, Board of Scientific Counselors, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Deborah 

Swackhamer, Chair of the Board of Scientific Cotmselors, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency {May 12, 2017). 

6 See note 3. 

7 See note 2. 

8 EPA Dismisses Half of Its Scientific Advisers on Key Board, Citing 'Clean Break' with Obama 

Administration, Washington Post (May 8, 20 17). 

'/d. 

10 E.P.A. Dismisses Members of Major Scientific Review Board, New York Times (May 7, 20 17). 

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Board of Scientific Counselors Charter (May 9, 20!6) 

( www.epa.gov/sites/production/filcs/20 17 -02/documents/bosc _ 20 16 _renewal_ charter. pdf). 
92 

The Honorable Scott Pruitt 

May 18,2017 

Page 3 

Board discussed reports on homeland security, nitrogen, children's environmental health, and 

climate change. 12 

The experts serving on the Board all serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) 

and arc subject to conflict of interest screening and regulations. 13 This is to ensure the Board 

provides expert and unbiased scientific advice to the Assistant Administrator of ORD. FACA 

requires, for example, that the EPA select Board members that will represent a balanced set of 

views, expertise, and other relevant factors. 14 Accordingly, experts from industry cannot be 

excluded as Board members solely because their perspectives and experience align with 

regulated industries. Further, the Membership Balance Plan for the Board indicates that EPA 

considers candidates from a variety of scientific and technical organizations, including public 

and private research institutes and industry. 15 

To maintain the scientific integrity of the Board's work, we expect you to adhere to the 

requirements ofF ACA for transparency and balance in making new appointments to the Board. 

We further expect you will appoint new members as SGEs who are bound by conflicts of interest 

regulations. 

To assist us in our oversight responsibilities, and to ensure the Agency is moving forward 

to fill the many new vacancies on the Board in accordance with applicable F ACA requirements 

and related regulations, 16 we request the records identified below and responses to the following: 

1. Please provide all communications, records, and analysis related to EPA's determination 

not to renew the appointments of Board members whose first terms ended on April27, 

2017. This should include, but not be limited to, any drafts of the email sent by the 

EPA's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) to the Board to members on April28, 2017 and 

the emails or drafts of the emails sent by Robert Kavlock, Acting Assistant Administrator 

ofORD to (current or former) Board members on May 5, 2017. It should also include, 

but not be limited to, any communications between officials in ORD and the EPA 

Administrator's office regarding the decision not to renew the tenus of the Board 

members. 

2. Pursuant to the current Board Membership Balance Plan, 17 approximately eight months 

before the expiration of Committee members' terms, a plan for conducting outreach to 

new members must be developed and approved. Please provide the Committees a copy 

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Meeting materials for the BOSC F..xecutive Committee April 11, 

2017 Teleconference (www .epa.gov/bosc/meetingRmatcrialsRbosc-cxecutive-committee-april-11-20 17-

teleconference ). 

13 See note 1. 

14 !d. 

1.5 /d. 

" 5 U.S.C. Appx. § 2. 

17 See note 1. 
93 

The Honorable Scott Pruitt 

May 18,2017 

Page4 

of the outreach plan prepared by the EPA's DFO for the Board as well as the draft grid of 

potential nominees also prepared by the DFO. This should also include all 

communications between the DFO and the EPA's Federal Advisory Committee 

Management staff regarding the selection of Board members. 

3. Members of the Board serve as SGEs as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 20218 and are, therefore, 

government employees for purposes of conflict of interest laws. 19 Please explain what 

systems and processes EPA intends to implement in order to ensure that any new Board 

members are in compliance with all applicable ethics regulations and free of any conflicts 

of interest or appearances of being unable to provide impartial advice. 

We appreciate your prompt attention to this issue and look forward to your response by 

no later than Wednesday, May 31, 2017. Should you have any questions, please contact Jon 

Monger with the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff at (202) 225-3641 or 

Doug Pasternak with the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Democratic Staff at 

(202) 225-6375. 

1~£~k Ranking Me~ • 

Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

Diana 

(J-~ DeGette 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations 

~ Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Environment 

"Jd. 

Sincerely, 

c0~~.....-­ Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

CMis~ Donald S. Beyer, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversi 

~ci Ranking 

Subcommittee 

Member 

on 

~ 

Environment 

19 Office of Government Ethics, Conflict of Interest and I he Special Government Employee (Feb. 2000) 

(www.oge.gov/Web/OGE.nsf/OIDDABAE34F0273E5F85257E96005FBDDE/$FILE/00xl.pdf). 
94 

The Honorable Scott Pruitt 

May 18,2017 

Page 5 

Cc: The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Lamar Smith 

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
95 

Æ 

Regional Haze at the Grand Canyon: 

No visible benefits with EPA controls. 

APS State Controls EPA Controls