ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

June 22, 2016 

Serial No. 114–85 

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

( 
ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA 
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

20–914PDF 2017

ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

June 22, 2016 

Serial No. 114–85 

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 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

June 22, 2016 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 4 

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

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 8 

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

Witnesses: 

Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

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

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 18 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .. 66 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Letter submitted by Representative Mo Brooks, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 82 

Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 87 

Letter submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 101 

Letter submitted by Representative Lee Abraham, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 103 

Letter submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 108 

Letters submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 110 

Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 114 

(1) 

ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE AT EPA 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:07 p.m., in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

And welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Ensuring Sound 

Science at the EPA.’’ 

Before beginning our hearing, however, I’d like to welcome a new 

member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Warren 

Davidson from Ohio’s Eighth Congressional District. He won a special election two weeks ago to succeed John Boehner. 

Representative Davidson graduated from West Point and has an 

MBA from Notre Dame. He served in the Army in the 101st Airborne Division and as an Army Ranger. After his military service, 

he returned to Ohio and took a manufacturing company from 20 to 

200 employees. He will be a member of the Space and Oversight 

Subcommittees. As the only member of the Science Committee from 

Ohio, he will be popular with the aerospace and energy R&D companies in his state. Please welcome Warren Davidson to the 

Science Committee. 

I’ll now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement and then the Ranking Member. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has become an agency in 

pursuit of a purely political agenda rather than an agency that protects the environment. Little that the EPA has proposes would 

have any significant impact on the environment. But that hasn’t 

stopped the EPA from imposing some of the most expensive and expansive regulations in its history. 

These rules will cost billions of dollars, place a heavy burden on 

American families, and diminish the ability of American businesses 

to compete around the world. EPA’s political agenda is to rearrange 

the American economy, instituting ‘‘command and control’’ by the 

Obama Administration. 

This Committee’s investigations have revealed an EPA that intentionally chooses to ignore good science. EPA cherry-picks the 

science that fits its agenda and ignores the science that does not 

support its position. When the science falls short, the EPA resorts 

to a propaganda campaign designed to mislead the public. 

Today’s hearing will examine this unprecedented regulatory 

agenda and the manner in which the EPA has used suspect 

science, questionable legal interpretations, and flawed analysis to 

justify these regulations. A glaring example is the President’s socalled Clean Power Plan. This plan is nothing more than a ‘‘Power 

Grab’’ to give the government more control over Americans’ daily 

lives. 

This regulation stifles economic growth, destroys American jobs, 

and increases energy prices. That means costs will rise-from electricity to gasoline to food, disproportionately hurting low-income 

Americans. Even EPA data shows that this regulation would reduce sea level rise by only 1/100 of an inch, the thickness of three 

sheets of paper. The Clean Power Plan represents massive costs 

without significant benefits. In other words, it’s all pain and no 

gain. 

The President used this regulation as the cornerstone of his 

agenda at the Paris climate talks. The Paris agreement is a bad 

deal for the American people that will shrink our economy without 
5 

any recognized benefit. Even if all 177 countries meet their promised reductions of carbon emissions for the next 85 years, that will 

reduce temperatures by only one-sixth of one degree Celsius. That 

is incredible. 

For almost two years, the Committee requested to see the data 

EPA uses to justify Clean Air Act regulations. The EPA’s refusal 

to provide all the data led the Science Committee to issue its first 

subpoena in 21 years to retrieve that information, and we are still 

waiting. What is the Obama Administration hiding? 

The Committee’s investigation and oversight of the EPA’s development of the Waters of the U.S. rule has revealed troubling and 

illegal agency activities. During the course of our investigation, the 

Committee found that the EPA engaged in inappropriate tactics to 

generate grassroots lobbying in support of this rule. 

This past December, the Government Accountability Organization issued a legal opinion that found that EPA violated both the 

Anti-Lobbying and Anti-Deficiency Acts. 

The EPA’s relationship with activist environmental groups and 

use of questionable science does not end there. The Committee’s investigation of the Agency’s decision to embark on a premature and 

unprecedented decision to stop the Pebble Mine has shown that career EPA officials acted with blatant bias to determine the outcome. Also, these same officials intentionally used personal email 

to prevent the Committee and the EPA Inspector General from discovering the extent of their incriminating actions. This is just another unfortunate example of the EPA allowing politics rather than 

science to drive its agenda. 

Earlier this Congress, the House approved H.R. 1030, the Secret 

Science Reform Act. This legislation requires the EPA to base its 

regulations on publicly available data. Why would the EPA want 

to hide this data from the American people? Because either the 

data is science fiction or it doesn’t exist. 

During the last year, several of EPA’s major regulations have 

been halted by federal courts. These include the Agency’s efforts to 

stop the Pebble Mine, the controversial Waters of the U.S. rule, 

and the Clean Power Plan. Many of these regulations trample on 

the constitutional rights of individuals and rely on suspect legal interpretations of the law. 

I hope the Administrator will tell us today how she intends to 

follow the law in writing regulations and when she will provide the 

American people with the data and other information that this 

committee has requested. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice 

Johnson, is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And before 

I begin my remarks, let me also welcome our new member and to 

tell him that I’m a product of St. Mary’s and I graduated before you 

were born. 

And let me welcome Administrator McCarthy to today’s hearing 

and express my deep appreciation for her distinguished public service. I look forward to her testimony. 

And, Mr. Chairman, the reason I’m here by myself on this side 

is that every other Democrat is on the House Floor awaiting a bill, 

because without a bill, there will be no break, the bill concerning 

gun violence. 

Based on previous committee hearings with EPA, I have little 

doubt that some members will try to argue today that EPA is an 

overzealous, job-killing agency that needs to be reined in, namely, 

the rhetoric we have heard from our majority colleagues throughout this entire Congress. 

Of course, the reality is far different. Administrator McCarthy, 

you and your dedicated agency staff have the noble and unenviable 

task of trying to protect human health and the environment in 

which we live and work from harm arising from many different 

sources. As such, your job is never truly done, and the ongoing nature of your work makes it easy for critics to find fault, with some 

arguing you’re doing too much, some arguing you’re doing too little. 

Let us be clear. The issues you—that underlie achieving these 

goals are complex, necessitating equally complex rules and regulations that require commitments and sacrifice from all involved parties to achieve a common benefit, a healthy environment. I am 

pleased that EPA continues to rise to this challenge and has developed regulations that are balanced and progressive, further illustrating that economic prosperity and environmental protection can 

go hand-in-hand. They’re not mutually exclusive. 

Just in the last year, EPA has finalized the Clean Power Plan, 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and its first-ever 

standards to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. 

While protecting public health, these regulations have also helped 

advance our efforts to limit the harmful effects of climate change. 

Actions taken by EPA have demonstrated America’s intention to 

lead the world’s effort to address climate change and have led to 

such a positive result as last December’s Paris agreement. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that this committee will take the opportunity today to give serious attention to Administrator McCarthy’s 

testimony and examine what has actually been accomplished. It is 

an impressive record and one that this Congress should support. 

Unfortunately, that has not been this committee’s approach to 

EPA’s oversight in recent years. Instead, since the beginning of the 

current Congress alone, this committee has sent 28 oversight requests to EPA and has launched 12 separate EPA-related investigations. EPA has already delivered more than 15,000 documents 

consisting of 139,000 pages to the Science Committee. I don’t know 

where they’re getting all these grocery carts to wheel it over here, 

with more document demands still outstanding, and I don’t know 
9 

where we’re storing it once it gets here. And you can multiply these 

numbers by three to get the number of documents and pages provided to Congress as a whole over the same period. 

We’re imposing an incredible burden on the hardworking men 

and women of EPA and spending a lot of taxpayers’ dollars in the 

process to know—I don’t know to what end. Does anybody read it 

when it gets here? The sum total result of all this committee oversight can be measured more in press releases that in any concrete 

findings that could justify the time and resources EPA has had to 

expend in trying to satisfy the majority’s demands. 

I would hope that this committee will step back from the path 

it is on and not continue to engage in reflexive opposition to the 

efforts of an agency simply trying to carry out its statutory-mandated missions. While no agency is perfect, preventing EPA from 

doing its job at all is not good for the country and not a good use 

of time. Instead of trying to score political points through efforts to 

undercut EPA’s important work, we should work together in a productive way to advance our economy, a cleaner environment, and 

a healthier world for humanity. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
10 
11 
12 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Our witness today is the Honorable Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Prior to her appointment as Administrator, she was the Assistant Administrator 

for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. She also has served as the 

Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection. During her career, which spans over 30 years, she has 

worked at both the state and local levels on environmental issues 

and helped coordinate policies on energy, transportation, and the 

environment. 

Administrator McCarthy received a bachelor of arts degree in social anthropology from the University of Massachusetts and a master’s of science and environmental health, engineering, and planning from Tufts University. 

We welcome you, Administrator, and look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GINA MCCARTHY, 

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Johnson, for inviting me to testify today on EPA’s 

regulatory efforts. 

The mission of EPA is to protect public health and the environment, and the Agency’s regulatory efforts further those goals. We 

are guided in meeting these goals by science and by the law, which 

serves as the backbone of each of the Agency’s actions. I’ll focus my 

comments today on providing more detail for three rules, which we 

believe tremendously benefit public health, as well as the environment. 

Climate change is one of the greatest environmental and public 

health challenges that we all face. The most vulnerable among us— 

including children, older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and people living in poverty—may be the most at risk from 

the impacts of climate change. Fossil fuel-fired power plants are by 

far the largest source of U.S. CO2 emissions. To address these 

emissions, EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan August 3 of 2015. 

While the Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the Supreme 

Court, we are confident it will be upheld because it rests on a 

strong foundation of science and the law. Since the stay was issued, 

many States have begun to move forward voluntarily to cut carbon 

pollution from power plants. They’ve also asked EPA to continue 

our outreach and development of supporting information that will 

help guide States when the Clean Power Plan becomes effective, 

which we are doing while ensuring that we fully comply with the 

stay. 

For example, last week, we proposed design details for the optional Clean Energy Incentive Program to address States’ request 

for additional clarification as they consider options to reduce their 

carbon footprint. In May, EPA announced steps to further reduce 

methane and other harmful air pollutants from new and modified 

sources in the oil and gas industry, along with a critical first step 

in tackling methane emissions from existing sources. These steps 

will help combat climate change and reduce harmful air pollution. 
13 

These standards build on the Agency’s 2012 rules by adding requirements that the industry reduce emissions of greenhouse gases 

and by covering hydraulically fractured oil wells, along with additional equipment and activities that were not covered in the 2012 

rules. They also require owners and operators to find and repair 

leaks, which can be a significant source of emissions. 

These final standards reflect significant stakeholder input and in 

particular provide companies a pathway to demonstrate that requirements under a State rule comparable to requirements in the 

final rule. This would allow sources to comply with the specific 

final rule requirement by complying with the State regulation. 

As a first step in the regulation of existing sources of methane 

from the oil and gas sector, we have announced an information collection request that, when finalized, will require companies with 

existing operations to provide information on technologies and costs 

that are critical to the development of reasonable and effective regulations. In addition, EPA plans to seek voluntary information on 

innovative strategies that can accurately and cost-effectively locate, 

measure, and mitigate methane emissions. The draft ICR was published on June 3, 2016, and the first two public comments for—periods will last for 60 days. 

Finally, in October 2015 the Agency completed the periodic review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, 

for ground-level ozone. We have a primary standard directed at 

protecting public health and a secondary standard directed at protecting public welfare. Exposures to ground-level ozone can harm 

the respiratory system, aggravate asthma and lung disease, and is 

linked to premature death. These health impacts pose significant 

costs on Americans and can adversely affect their daily lives 

through missed school and work. 

The two-step process of a science-based NAAQS review, followed 

by implementation and a system that works, that is the process 

that we implement. That is the process the Congress outlined. EPA 

and State, local, and tribal co-regulators share a long history of 

successfully managing air quality. For ozone, existing and proposed 

federal measures like vehicle standards and power plant rules and 

reducing—are reducing and will continue to further reduce ozone 

pollution nationwide. We expect that the vast majority of counties 

outside of California will meet the 2015 ozone NAAQS by 2025 

without having to take additional steps beyond these federal measures. 

So I again thank the Committee for inviting me to give a statement, as well as to be here today, and I look forward to continuing 

to work with you and to answer your questions on these and other 

EPA actions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy. 

And I’ll recognize myself for questions. 

The first is this. The nonpartisan Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy has found that the Clean 

Power Plan will reduce economic growth, increase electricity costs, 

and result in almost 400,000 jobs lost over the next 15 years. And 

all this is with very little impact on climate change itself. So why 

has the Obama Administration imposed this regulation on the 

American people? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, let me just be clear if I could, Mr. Chairman. Our impact analysis that went with the rule indicated just 

the opposite of what you’re saying. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. So you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Let me answer the question—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. But—so you disagree with the Energy 

Information Administration of the Department of Energy? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, it depends on what you’re looking at, sir. 

I don’t have it—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —in front of me, but I will tell you that—— 

Chairman SMITH. —real quickly, let me repeat my question—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Chairman SMITH. —to make sure you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. 

Chairman SMITH. —address it. They said it would reduce economic growth, increase electricity cost, and cost almost 400,000 

jobs in the next 15 years. This is the Department of Energy. This 

is this Administration. This is the Energy Information Administration. So do you agree or disagree with their conclusions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I believe that we have designed this rule, 

and it’s showing out already that we are following the energy markets. We are not changing the direction in which the market is 

heading, and as a result, you’re going to see this being delivered 

well—with additional short—small reduction over a very short period of time. You’re going to see short reductions, but over the 

length of this rule, you are going to see significant reductions in 

greenhouse gases. But also, you’re going to see cost savings on the 

energy side. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. It’s clear you disagree with the Administration. I happen to think they’re probably less biased than the 

EPA, and I think their conclusions that were reached probably represent closer to the facts, but we’re going to have to agree—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I’m—— 

Chairman SMITH. —to disagree on that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —happy to take a look at it, Mr. Chairman. I 

don’t know what the context of their analysis was. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. You are not familiar with the Energy Information Administration or you are? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so but—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Have you read their—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But they do—— 

Chairman SMITH. —report on the Clean Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In the past. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. And you disagree with that? 
19 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what you just read, sir. I don’t 

know which one it is—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —so I’m happy to take a look. 

Chairman SMITH. Well, again, reduce economic growth, increase 

electricity costs, and cost 400,000 jobs—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Is—— 

Chairman SMITH. —over the next 15 years. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is exactly opposite of what we believe will 

happen based on our—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —independent analysis. 

Chairman SMITH. It’s nice to have the Administration at war 

with itself. I’ll go to my—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No—— 

Chairman SMITH. —next question. If the Paris climate agreement involving 177 countries was completely implemented, okay, 

the entire climate agreement completely implemented, you have 

distinguished scientists including Bjorn Lomborg and 27 other top 

climate scientists, including three Nobel laureates, who have concluded that the reduction in global warming would only be onetwentieth of a degree Celsius by 2030, one-sixth of a degrees Celsius in the next 85 years. It sounds to me like if they’re anywhere 

close to being right, then this Paris Climate Agreement is almost 

all pain and no gain. Why is that not the case? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, no, sir. The Paris agreement was an incredible achievement that changed the direction of the world and 

is going to ultimately—— 

Chairman SMITH. Do you disagree that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —allow us to have a better climate—— 

Chairman SMITH. Do you think the Paris Climate Agreement will 

have a greater impact on climate change than I just said and that 

these 27 scientists said? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think it sets us on it course to work together 

on a planetary scale to address the biggest—— 

Chairman SMITH. Well, I understand—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —environmental challenge we face. 

Chairman SMITH. —as far as the actual impact on climate 

change, do you disagree with these 27 top—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I disagree with the way in which—— 

Chairman SMITH. —climate scientists? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —you’re characterizing it, Mr. Chairman. With 

all due respect, it is a tremendous step in the right direction. 

Chairman SMITH. No, no—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The numbers you’re talking about—— 

Chairman SMITH. Those are—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —are actually steps—— 

Chairman SMITH. I know those are wonderful words—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —to be taken by 2020. 

Chairman SMITH. I’m talking about quantifying the impact. The 

impact is one-sixth of a degree over the next 85 years if every country, all 177 countries—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There is not a single—— 

Chairman SMITH. —implement it—— 
20 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, there’s not a single country that signed that 

expecting that the 2020 goals would get us where we need to be. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is a step in that direction, and it should provide us an opportunity—— 

Chairman SMITH. But you don’t disagree with the conclusion—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —to get the necessary reductions. 

Chairman SMITH. —of these scientists as far as the climate 

agreement goes in Paris—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—— 

Chairman SMITH. —as it stands right now? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The agreement itself was designed as a step forward. 

Chairman SMITH. I understand. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It was not designed to produce all of the actions—— 

Chairman SMITH. I understand but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —that will be necessary to address—— 

Chairman SMITH. —as far as the step forward goes—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —the challenges. 

Chairman SMITH. —the step forward is as I described it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, you can’t make a marathon without 

getting across the starting line. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. It’s clear you don’t disagree with their 

conclusion. You may think it’s a beginning, but you can’t disagree—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t even know what—— 

Chairman SMITH. —with their conclusion? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —their—the context of their conclusion is. 

Chairman SMITH. Again—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. What I do know, sir, is that—— 

Chairman SMITH. —it’s reducing global warming one-sixth of a 

degrees Celsius over the next 85 years. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It’s better than we were before, and it’s only the 

first step. We’ve made a—— 

Chairman SMITH. One-sixth for all—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We’ve made a long-term commitment to get to 

the reductions that are necessary—— 

Chairman SMITH. It all sounds to me—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —to stabilize the—— 

Chairman SMITH. —like it’s all pain and no gain, and I think 

that’s—why punish the American people if we’re not going to have 

any significant impact on climate change? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually don’t think it’s punishment. I think 

it’s about leadership and I think it’s—— 

Chairman SMITH. Let me tell you, increase electricity costs, slow 

economic growth, and lost jobs is punishment—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Our analysis shows that—— 

Chairman SMITH. —for the American people. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —that is not the case with the Clean Power 

Plan. It provides—— 

Chairman SMITH. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —ultimate flexibility—— 
21 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. It’s you against all these other scientists—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and reduced energy. 

Chairman SMITH. —and that’s okay. My next question is this. 

With out major environmental regulations, we have seen reduction 

in carbon emissions in the United States through technological 

breakthroughs. For example, in the last 11 years there’s been a 12 

percent reduction in energy-related carbon emissions in the United 

States. 

Rather than impose costly government mandates and interfere 

with free market, why not encourage more technological advances 

that will reduce the cost of alternative fuels and so encourage their 

use? In other words, you’re not going to convince developing countries to go to alternative forms of energy if you don’t reduce the 

cost. It’s not good for them; it’s not good for their economy. So why 

not allow technology breakthroughs to solve the problem as they 

have throughout the history of the United States? Why engage in 

these government mandates to skew the market, cost jobs, and are 

burdensome to the American people? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, I don’t think we’re actually skewing 

the market; I think we’re following it. And what I think the Clean 

Power Plan—— 

Chairman SMITH. Government mandates don’t skew the market—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —is designed—— 

Chairman SMITH. —and subsidies don’t skew the market? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, actually, we’re following the direction of 

the market because renewable energy is actually becoming more 

and more cost-effective. 

Chairman SMITH. Well—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is competing—— 

Chairman SMITH. —why not let the market work? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —in the market itself. 

Chairman SMITH. Why not—why impose the regulation? Why not 

let market work? It’s going the right direction. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The idea is to look at this as a long-term venture 

out to 2030 so that those that want to invest in innovation will 

have certainty that their investments will pay off. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. I think we’re a democratic country, and 

the free market, if allowed to work, will work as it has been working. I’m just sorry that government wants to interfere with that. 

And that’s going beyond my time by a minute. And the Ranking 

Member from—is—the Ranking Member is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Administrator, it has been said that Congress is one of 

the few places where you can find the rhetoric of climate change 

denial alive and well. While that is disheartening, I’m reminded 

that these views are not representative of the majority of Americans. What kind of response have you seen from people as you 

travel the country discussing EPA’s work? And have you found 

more support and positive feedback than you do here in this room? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I do find that, as I travel, there is tremendous concern about the impacts that are already being felt by cli-
22 

mate change. People know it’s happening and they’re feeling it and 

they’re afraid it. They’re worried about the safety of their communities and they’re worried about the future of their children and 

they’re worried about the public health impacts that are so welldefined and well-understood. 

And so things are changing. They’re looking for us to take action, 

but they’re looking for us to take reasonable action, action that respects our energy system, that follows it, that doesn’t increase energy costs and that provides opportunities for the jobs of the future. 

That is what we are doing today. That’s what the Clean Power 

Plan is all about. It’s not trying to redesign the system. It’s trying 

to understand that right now today our energy system is in transition, and it’s moving towards a clean energy system. And we know 

internationally that the countries that lead in this transition are 

going to be the ones that come ahead. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Environmental challenges are often 

most severe among communities of color. The NAACP highlighted 

this fact stating that African-American children are twice as likely 

to die of asthma and three times more likely to be admitted to the 

hospital for asthma attack while African-American adults are more 

likely to die of lung disease while being less likely to smoke. 

The NAACP went on to applaud the EPA’s progress in setting a 

stronger standard but echoed the call of every major health organization by stating that our children, families, and communities deserve better than the new standard. 

The NAACP also criticized the National Black Chamber of Commerce for citing a widely debunked report to justify claims of economic harm to communities of color as a result of these regulations. 

What bearing do you at EPA and EPA’s activity have on the 

issue raised by the NAACP? And how can we prevent the most vulnerable among us from bearing a disproportionate economic and 

public health cost of environmental inaction? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Ranking Member, I’m glad that you mentioned it because I think we’ve done a wonderful job nationally in 

looking at these issues, and it’s one community and one vulnerable 

child at a time, and we have to be focusing our efforts in that direction. 

We know that our new ozone standard is a standard that was designed by law to be protective of public health with an adequate 

margin of safety. That means that ozone levels will be coming 

down, and those ozone levels reducing will mean less asthma attacks for our children. It will mean more protection for those that 

are most vulnerable. 

So we are following the science in providing the right standards 

and working with States to make sure that they continue to make 

progress moving down our air pollution, which they have for decades worked with us to achieve. And so it’s an exciting opportunity. 

Now, on the Clean Power Plan, we wanted to make sure that 

while we gave States ultimate flexibility that we provided incentives for investment in low-income communities that most need it 

for opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency. So we 

developed an incentive program in there. It’s voluntary, but that’s 

what our Clean Energy Incentive Program is. It’s to make sure 
23 

that every community and every vulnerable individual has an opportunity to invest in the technologies of the future that are going 

to keep our planet stable and also protect public health. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Opponents of the new ozone standard 

of 70 parts per billion often criticize EPA for setting it before all 

areas of the country have attained the new—the old standard of 75 

parts per billion, accusing EPA of shifting the goalpost. Why is it 

important that we build on existing improvements to air quality 

and not wait until the old standards of 75 parts per billion be attained by more parts of the country? And how does setting a new 

standard encourage additional action to achieve attainment? To 

those who claim attainment efforts will prove too costly, how would 

you characterize the cost of inaction to this issue? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the cost of inaction is borne out by health 

impacts for our kids and our elderly, and we can show that this is 

not—is an incredibly cost-effective step forward that will save thousands of lives. And so it’s important in and of itself. 

But the important thing to remember about air pollution is over 

the past 40 years we have been able to reduce air pollution 70 percent while the economy tripled. We are not raising our ability to 

protect public health on the backs of workers. We are growing jobs 

at the same time in this country, and we can do both. 

But one thing—and one statistic always sticks out at me is this 

is an incremental step forward. We work with States to incrementally reduce air pollution, and of all of the areas that were designated nonattainment in 1997 when we set a new standard, 95 

percent of them have achieved that standard already. So it is a 

steady march forward in which we work together with States and 

local communities for the benefits of our kids, for the benefits of 

public health, and we’ve been able to do that without a detriment 

to business or jobs. That’s how EPA does its job. That’s how it was 

designed to happen. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. My time is—my time really 

hasn’t expired. I’m going to give you back 20 seconds. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Well, yield to me? 

Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator McCarthy, 

the Cancer Assessment Review Committee report on glyphosate 

published on April 29 and then removed on May 2 came to the 

same conclusion as other global regulatory bodies about the safety 

of a vital agricultural tool. The report also addressed several deficiencies with the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s 

monogram from early 2015, which, as you know, came to a different conclusion on glyphosate than your agency’s report. 

I guess my first question, the Cancer Assessment Review Committee, they found that glyphosate is not a carcinogenic, is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That—not—say that again. Not likely. 

Mr. LUCAS. Found that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not likely is I think the term that we use—— 

Mr. LUCAS. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —but I understand your point. 
24 

Mr. LUCAS. Was this report marked final and signed by the scientists at the Cancer Assessment Review Committee who completed the report? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, my understanding of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee is they do a memo. They do about 40 of 

these registration reviews. It’s pretty mundane. It’s routine work 

for the Agency, although important work. So my understanding is 

that that memo was done. It was unfortunate that it was mistakenly released by a contractor because it is still in review in the 

Agency. And when we have an issue that’s important—as important as glyphosate is to the agricultural community, we want to 

make sure that we get the science right. 

Mr. LUCAS. But, Administrator, was the report dated October 1, 

2015? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t have exact date in front of me, sir, but 

that’s reasonable. 

Mr. LUCAS. My understanding is the document that was placed 

online—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —on the 29th—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —had been dated the October before, some months 

earlier, and I’m under the general impression that it was signed 

out to the—the memo was by the scientist—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —who participated in it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. So why did—and this begs the question, why did 

EPA wait several months to post the report marked final, then remove it from the Web site a few days later with no immediate explanation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, because it’s—— 

Mr. LUCAS. Could you expand on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. It’s just—it’s a step in the process towards 

the Agency’s decision, and we know that it will ultimately be made 

public. The question is we don’t want to confuse the public with interim decisions being made. 

And in this case—and I really want to be very clear here—the— 

what we call the CARC, which is our committee, is an internal 

committee. But very often, no less than 10 or 15 percent, maybe 

five percent at the least, there is—there’s an issue that’s large 

enough that it warrants larger agency review. And this was one of 

those occasions. 

It is a big deal, sir, to deal with glyphosate both in terms of its 

international context and the importance it has for U.S. agriculture, so we have expanded that—— 

Mr. LUCAS. So, Administrator—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and it’s one step in the process, but it’s not a 

final decision—— 

Mr. LUCAS. But, Administrator—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —for the Agency. 

Mr. LUCAS. —if it was not a final document, why was it marked 

final? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 
25 

Mr. LUCAS. Why was it signed out in the fashion it was? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, it was a final review from that that particular committee. It was not a final agency action, and if you look 

at it—— 

Mr. LUCAS. But you understand why those of us who follow—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, we do. 

Mr. LUCAS. —very carefully the actions that your agency 

takes—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —and all of the oversight work you have, the impact 

of these decisions is dramatic—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, it was—— 

Mr. LUCAS. —in certain areas. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —it was extremely unfortunate. It was released 

with a number of other documents that weren’t yet ready for public 

viewing. It will be ready, and I don’t want it to be—— 

Mr. LUCAS. But you would understand why there would be—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —any signal other than we’re still in the middle 

of a decision 

Mr. LUCAS. —some concern from those of us—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —who watch the process—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I get it. 

Mr. LUCAS. —that perhaps a decision made in regular order, in 

regular process by the people of responsibility who understand—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —the issues had been overruled—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —somewhere else on high and backed up—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 

Mr. LUCAS. —and that would be a grave concern—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, there’s two—— 

Mr. LUCAS. —if we were putting a—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —post-science decision that changed the outcome of 

the scientific work that had gone into the initial decision. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. This—— 

Mr. LUCAS. You can see the concern. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. There’s two things that are very unfortunate here. One is our Cancer Assessment Review Committee does 

great work. It is not an indication when we take their memo off 

the table that we don’t appreciate it and agree with it. It was a 

question of making sure that we had fully articulated that in the 

decision-making process. 

Mr. LUCAS. That—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s not the end of the line of the decision. 

That’s all. 

Mr. LUCAS. That said, Administrator, when will we see the final 

report? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We’re—given that it’s raised concerns, we’re 

going to try to get it out as soon as possible. I know we always try 

hard, but I’m—this fall should be the likely— 

Mr. LUCAS. Raised concerns within the scientific community 

doing the review or raised concerns from those that—— 
26 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, just—— 

Mr. LUCAS. —oversee the scientific community? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —from yourself who would interpret this as 

some kind of a backing up or not in agreement with a final agency 

action. The problem we have here is this was not a final agency 

action. It was a step in the process. And we appreciate the work 

of the Committee—— 

Mr. LUCAS. But these are the kind of things, Administrator—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —that causes such doubt and concern—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —in the public and in Congress and in the entities 

that are affected. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I don’t want it to send a signal—— 

Mr. LUCAS. This is not good for anyone—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —to do it this way. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You should not take it as a signal that the decision—that any decision has been made or what direction that decision will go. The committee offered us wonderful information. We 

just need to make sure that it’s as robust as it needs to be for a 

decision as big as this. 

Mr. LUCAS. And now the extra attention will be incredible when 

the final report—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m sure. 

Mr. LUCAS. —does come out. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think it was always—— 

Mr. LUCAS. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —very important, sir, and I appreciate it. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you for being with us today and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —we—you were aware that this was going to 

be a tough hearing, and thank you for being here and sharing your 

views with us—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’ll do my best. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —on this issue. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So now I’ll have my shot. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. First of all, let me ask you this. Do you 

expect that the public and the people of this country need to comply with the orders of the EPA where you are exercising your lawful authority? Do you expect them to do so in a timely manner? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. To the best of their ability. Often, that doesn’t 

happen—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and we discuss—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —what we need to do to work together. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But there are several cases in which people 

were not complying, and EPA was very tough on them in your ad-
27 

ministration. There are those cases as well. Let me just note that 

we have lawful authority on this side of the aisle to it—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Here we are. We have legislative authority to 

oversee what our federal tax dollars are using. Yet since August of 

2015, we have sent ten letters to you. The letters contained 35 total 

requests, and we got four replies back. And of those four replies, 

only one was fully responsive. The other seven were only partially 

responsive to the requests that were made. 

So we have 27 requests, more than 77 of all of our requests for 

information in pursuing our lawful authority to oversee what you’re 

doing and getting a good understanding and protecting the American people’s right to know these things, 77 percent were not answered, six out of ten letters have received no reply at all. Do you 

consider that compliance and—with the lawful authority, our lawful authority as a legislative oversight of your agency? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, I have tremendous respect for the job 

of this committee, and I will assure you that we are doing everything we can to respond to your request in a timely way. 

Now, I know that we have—we continue to do searches that are 

necessary. It is very challenging, the amount of requests that we 

receive from this committee and others. We do our best to make 

sure that everyone gets the—every gets the attention it needs, and 

will do our best to respond—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —to the outstanding letters—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —inasmuch as we can. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —that if this was just you and we had an established working relationship with you and saw the tough job that 

you have, that might—we might actually take a different approach 

to this and give benefit of the doubt, repeated benefit of the doubt 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —over the years of not getting the type of cooperation we need. But this seems to be a pattern throughout this 

Administration, the idea of cover-ups, of inadequate professionalism and the job that needs to be done. 

I mean, there’s an example here of this coal mine and several 

other cases like this where the EPA delayed in actually notifying 

people about toxic spills, and yet when we make requests for information, we don’t get replies back. We’re trying to protect the people 

and here you’re saying, well, we’re just doing our best. 

We see this in other agencies and departments throughout this 

Administration. I think it comes from the top where there’s an arrogant disregard for legislative authority. The President comes to 

give a State of the Union and says I’m going to do this on my own. 

If I don’t get my way, it’s the highway. 

And then we come across things where we don’t get even our request for information answered. I think that this does not speak 

well of the Administration, and I would hope that you could do better. I think that this is unacceptable. We need to make sure that 

if the EPA’s requests are going to be taken seriously by the American people because that’s your lawful authority, our lawful authority to oversee this and get the answers on why this—why we had 
28 

this spill—and by the way, there’s a judge actually backed this observation up where didn’t he recently say that the EPA may have 

lied in court to—and demonstrated a total lack of commitment to 

carrying out the law? This was your Administration now that a 

member of the judicial branch is pointing out is just unacceptable. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, I—no one would like to produce these 

documents more quickly than I would because I have great faith 

in the way in which EPA in this Administration has followed the 

science and the law. I want to be able to provide you information 

as quickly as I can. And, you know, we’ll do our best. The Gold 

King Mine incident was—unfortunate is probably too weak a word 

in this issue. It was a disaster. We have been doing our best to 

take full responsibility for that. I am full well aware that while we 

notified people in advance so that efforts could be taken to make 

sure that contaminated water didn’t get into farm fields, it does not 

excuse the fact—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —that our notice process wasn’t up to snuff. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —you can’t say you’re trying to protect farm 

fields by not letting the information out. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I understand that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And let me just say that this type of 

stonewalling of mistakes and things and we’re only trying to do our 

best, it just doesn’t cut it when we see this happen so often in this 

Administration. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. All right, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is recognized. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Administrator, for being here today. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You, too. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. As you know, as the Ranking Member pointed 

out, we’ve had numerous hearings about all the EPA regulations, 

both those proposed and finalized. And many of the witnesses that 

testified before this committee have consistently testified that 

EPA’s regulatory agenda will harm the American economy. And so 

I’m concerned about that regulatory agenda that will regulate the 

United States into some kind of economic irrelevance. 

Now, the Clean Power Plan is a good example of EPA’s command-and-control mentality. I don’t think this is environmental 

protection, but I think it’s unconstitutional usurpation of power in 

the name of environmental activism. Even President Obama’s constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe stated that ‘‘EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta, usurping the prerogatives of 

the states, Congress, and the federal courts all at once, but burning 

the Constitution of the United States, about which I deeply care, 

cannot be a part of national energy policy.’’ This is not necessarily 

a very conservative jurist. 

So the question I have, Administrator McCarthy, does the Constitution give the EPA the right to ignore the will and intent of 

Congress and carry out its own agenda? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, it requires us to actually follow the law and 

follow science. 
29 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, numerous states, including my home 

state of Texas, for example, disagree with your analysis. In fact, 

the Supreme Court has placed a stay on the rule until it’s examined whether it’s constitutional or not—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s correct. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. —is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yes. So citizens and businesses in my home 

state are very concerned about the increase in electricity prices 

that will occur when the Clean Power Plan goes into effect. And I 

think you said a while ago that you believe that the cost of electricity—did I hear you say you think the cost of electricity is going 

down with the Clean Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—by 2030 our estimate is that it will be—an 

average family will actually reduce their energy bill annually by 

$80. Yes, I—yes, that’s what you heard me say. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I don’t believe that and I would yield to 

the Chairman, but, Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe that anybody has 

testified before this committee that that the cost of electricity is 

going down, have they? 

Chairman SMITH. That’s correct/ 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yes. So I think we’ve got EPA with one perspective and we’ve got the entire utility industry with another perspective, and not just the utility industry but other outside groups 

that disagree with that. So the question is can you furnish this 

committee with a cost-benefit analysis that you did that shows that 

the cost would go down? And have you shown that report to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. —others to validate your finding? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Our regulatory impact analysis is part of the 

final rule, and I’m happy to forward that if the Committee does not 

have it. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So the question is sometimes I think folks on 

our side of the aisle get painted with the perspective we don’t care 

about the environment. We care very much about the environment. 

But we care very much about making sure, as the gentleman from 

California said, being good stewards of the taxpayers’ money and 

making sure that the policies that are implemented in the Administration are policies that are in the best interest of the country. 

And I think one of the things that—and as the Chairman was 

pointing out, even if you employ all of these certain practices that 

are put in place, we’re talking about making an infinitesimal 

change in the environment. 

And so I think when you look at—and I haven’t done a cost-benefit analysis, but when you say it’s almost as thin as a sheet of 

paper and you’re going to cost billions and billions of dollars, I 

don’t know how that’s in the best interest of the American people. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, that issue has been directly addressed by 

the Agency and backed up by the Supreme Court in its decisions. 

It was very clear that climate change requires a multiple of actions 

to be taken in order to address the changing climate and the challenge that that poses to the future of our communities, our kids, 

and our planet. No one action is going to resolve it, but inaction 
30 

is going to preclude us from taking care of this very real and imminent danger. And in the—— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I’m going to stop you there. I mean, 

here—I think what we have to kind of put this down in perspective, you know—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. —we can talk about numbers and billions and 

stuff. You know who I think about? I think about that little single 

mom—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. —that’s raising two kids that’s working two 

jobs and she’s worried about whether she’s going to be able to pay 

her electric bill or she’s going to be able to buy gasoline to get to 

work to support her family and to make sure if those kids need to 

go to the doctor that they’re able to do that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And what we’re saying is we’re willing to sacrifice those people for some long-term goal that we don’t even have 

a clear picture of whether it’s actually achievable, number one, and 

secondly, whether it’s beneficial. And what do you say to her? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think we’re both looking at protecting the very 

same people from the very same concerns that you articulated. 

There is nothing in the rules that we have done on the Clean 

Power Plan that is going to threaten that woman. What’s going to 

threaten her and her family is no action on climate and other efforts that we can take to reduce pollution that will allow them to 

have a healthy and viable future. 

And we can do this. It is already happening, sir. The very transition that we are looking at in every State and every region that 

said let’s look at how we tackle this problem together, every State 

and every region is seeing a shift to clean power. Texas is perhaps 

the largest producer of renewable energy in the country. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. My district is. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They are not—well, you’re not doing it because 

of the Clean Power Plan. You’re doing it because the market demands it. Likewise, the Clean Power Plan is underpinning that to 

ensure that those investments continue and that market continues 

to move in the right direction—— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But I don’t think we need the EPA—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —for those kids. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. As the Chairman said, why don’t we let the 

market determine it? The reason that I have more wind in my district than any place in the country, one is because of some very attractive tax credits—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. —quite honestly, but the other is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. —you know, obviously, we’ve got a little wind 

out there. But I think the perspective that I’m saying is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. —that the mandates—I don’t have very many 

calls of people say, boy, the air sure is dirty here today. Would you 

do something about it? But I do have a lot of calls in my office with 
31 

people calling and saying, you know, I can’t afford my electricity 

bill, I can’t afford the gasoline. I mean, those—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I—— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. —are the calls that I get. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m happy to share—— 

Chairman SMITH. Thank—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —with you some of the calls that—the information and the communication we get from some of the communities 

in Texas and other places. But I appreciate your point of view, sir, 

and I want you to know that we are thinking about those kids, 

we’re thinking about jobs, we’re thinking more than about climate 

change when we design our rules. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. 

And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On August 31, 2015, I along with 17 other members of this committee sent you a letter regarding concerns about the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards that were in the process of 

being finalized. The final ozone rule was issued in October of last 

year. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to enter into the record our letter 

dated August 31, 2015. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix] 

Mr. BROOKS. Several committee hearings in 2015 raised serious 

doubts about the underlying science used to justify the proposed 

ozone rule. You acknowledged two distinct sets of scientific studies 

used during the rulemaking process. The first set contains large 

population studies which you yourself acknowledged as being unreliable. The second set are human exposure studies of which there 

are only four such studies that the EPA and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee both reviewed. 

In particular, the committee’s letter raised concerns that the proposed ozone rule was based on a single study by Schelegle of just 

31 individuals, 31 individuals, a remarkably small and unreliable 

sample size. More disconcerting was the inability of the Schelegle 

study to replicate key results from two other studies, as we clearly 

stated in this August 25 letter. In other words, your entire rule depends on one study. Administrator McCarthy, do you agree that 

the basis for the ozone rule relies heavily on this one study by 

Schelegle? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, actually, sir, I believe it’s part of a weightof-evidence approach where we have thousands of studies that have 

been generated over decades. Ozone is perhaps the—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Okay. That’s not answering my question. Please 

just answer my question. Do you agree that the ozone rule relies 

heavily on this one study by Schelegle, yes or no? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir, I don’t think in an extraordinary way. 

I think it relies on the entire weight of the evidence before us. 

There are a thousand new studies that were considered in the latest ozone standard. 

Mr. BROOKS. As a party of this committee’s oversight and investigations, we requested documents concerning the ozone role from 

the Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency has produced 
32 

documents to the Committee with massive amounts of redactions. 

Administrator McCarthy, these are apparently PowerPoint presentations titled ‘‘Ozone NAAQS Option Selection Briefing and Ozone 

NAAQS Information Briefing.’’ Almost the entirety of it is redacted 

as nonresponsive to the committee requests. 

So let me just show you some of the stuff that we got. We’ve got 

65 pages of responses, nonresponsive, nonresponsive, nonresponsive, nonresponsive, 65 pages. I would submit to you that these 

redactions are unacceptable, and I’ll ask you today if you will agree 

to provide all of these documents to the Committee without any 

redactions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, we have provided this committee and in the 

docket of our ozone standard deliberations, it is—probably would 

stand this tall if I brought it in. You’ve got an integrated—— 

Mr. BROOKS. That’s fine. I’m asking are you going to send to this 

committee the documents we have requested? I’m not concerned 

about documents you have sent. I’m concerned about documents 

that have not been sent. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. As far as I know, we—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Will you commit to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. As far as I know we have provided you full response, but I will go back and make sure that we have done that. 

Redactions are common when it’s deliberative material. It protects 

our ability to work inside to make sure we do our jobs. 

Mr. BROOKS. And so to the extent then that there are materials 

that have not been submitted, you’re telling this committee today 

that you will submit them? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Only if they’re—if they’re available to me and 

they’re appropriate to submit, I will submit them. That is not a 

blanket statement that I’m going to provide the Committee with information that’s inappropriate to provide and—or that’s not responsive. 

Mr. BROOKS. And it seems that a lot of your argument for these 

regulations is based on global warming or climate change, which 

seems to be the term that’s used, but aren’t you really talking 

about global warming? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not the ozone one, sir. That’s—— 

Mr. BROOKS. I know not the ozone. I’m going to the broader 

brush now—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we tend not to—— 

Mr. BROOKS. —carbon by way of example. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —call it global coming because it—that is not 

particularly an accurate term. It’s a changing climate, which can 

result in many different types of impacts and—— 

Mr. BROOKS. And is sea rise one of the concerns? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sea level rise, yes. 

Mr. BROOKS. What is the largest body of ice on the planet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know that, sir. I’m not—I’m not a scientist. I don’t want to answer that. 

Mr. BROOKS. I’m sorry, you don’t know—we’re talking about 

melting ice that you are arguing is going to increase sea levels. 

That in turn is going to cost the American people billions of dollars 

to try to rectify it based on these standards that you’re pushing 
33 

down on them without Congressional approval, and you’re telling 

me you don’t know—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir—— 

Mr. BROOKS. —what the largest body of freshwater ice is on the 

planet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, I don’t agree with the way in which you’ve 

characterized this, but I hesitate to go down the lines of speaking 

like a scientist. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You’ve had the President’s scientists here—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Wait, I’ve got—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —that you’ve been talking with—— 

Mr. BROOKS. —limited time. You don’t know that the Antarctic—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, well—— 

Mr. BROOKS. —continent—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —I’m aware of the Antarctic, and I’m aware of 

the—— 

Mr. BROOKS. —comprises about 70 to 90 percent—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —yes. 

Mr. BROOKS. —of the freshwater ice on the planet? I mean, that’s 

a rather remarkable amount. That’s not like there’s a close second 

place that you have to worry about. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Is there a question? 

Mr. BROOKS. Now, have I refreshed your recollection with respect 

to the Antarctic being the largest body of freshwater ice on the 

planet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m aware of that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Now you’re aware of that? Okay. That’s good. 

Now—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BROOKS. What a bummer, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. But thank you, Mr. Brooks, for those great 

questions. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Administrator. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. How are you? 

Mr. BERA. I’m doing fine. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking 

Member. 

I grew up in California, in southern California in the Los Angeles 

area in the 1960s, and I recall as a kid there were days where my 

mom would not let us go outside because if we did sneak outside, 

as kids are known to do sometimes, we’d get out there playing— 

we could see the air that we were breathing sometimes. And when 

you came in after playing, you could actually feel the burning in 

your lungs. 

And it was through understanding the damage that was causing 

to our population, our people, through enacting laws either through 

legislation or companies doing the right thing and understanding 

that they had a responsibility that we were able to clean up the 

air in Southern California so that we still have a ways to go. But 

we were protecting the public. It was a public health measure 
34 

through acts like the Clean Air Act, through acts like the Clean 

Water Act to impact our public health. 

Now, fast forward. You know, I decided to become a doctor, went 

to medical school, went into internal medicine. To this day we’re 

seeing dramatic increases in asthma rates. We’re seeing impacts 

that are disproportionately affecting, you know, urban areas, lowerincome communities, communities that don’t have the benefits of 

some of the rules and regulations that we have in California, and 

we’ve still got a long ways to go. And that does have a net cost. 

It has an impact. It has an impact on individuals; it has an impact 

on their health. 

You know, Administrator, if you could just share from your perspective some of the public health benefits of, you know, Clean— 

the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, some of the things that—and 

then some of the negative consequences of trying to roll back some 

of the legislation that really in many ways has helped save and impact hundreds and thousands of lives. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think probably if you’re returning to Los 

Angeles, you will see the benefits as well as feel it. We’ve been 

talking a lot about this to try to understand what we’re going to 

do to educate people about what the world looked like before these 

environmental statutes actually came into being and Congress was 

wise enough to challenge us to limit the amount of pollution in the 

air we breathe and the water that we drink. 

I think you know as well as I do that these rules, when they reduce pollution, it’s not an abstract concept; it’s a real-life issue. You 

know, it has helped to save—and we can show you certainly our 

impact assessments. We have showed you that we are saving millions of lives. We are protecting kids from exacerbated asthma attacks, from trips to the hospital, many of which are African-American and Hispanic kids because that’s the ones that have much 

higher prevalence of asthma. 

We are now understanding the cardiovascular challenge that it 

poses. If you have, you know, obstructive—what is the word—pulmonary disease, you are in a lot of trouble on a high ozone day. 

So part of the challenge we have with providing these NAAQS 

standards is to try to make sure that people have sound information to protect their own lives while we work with States to reduce 

that actual pollution. 

And we have had so much success. We have reduced by 70 percent the amount of air pollution. We are where every other country 

wants to be on air pollution. But the more we learn, we more we 

know that there continues to be extreme challenges that we all 

have to face. We can see it in our drinking water. With lack of investment in our infrastructure, you are going to see more and more 

cities putting their hands up in the air and saying I cannot deliver 

drinking—clean drinking water because nobody’s invested in my 

system for 20 years. 

So we are—have to really regroup and remember that we—our 

country has had our economic engine roaring ahead because we 

have a place where people want to live, where they want to grow 

their families, and that’s all about making sure that environmentally we can be safe and healthy. 
35 

Mr. BERA. And it’s a shame that this body, which historically has 

been able to come together as Democrats and Republicans on issues 

of public health, on issues of public safety, is not doing that. And 

there is an urgency of now. There is an urgency to prevent the next 

Flint, to invest in our public health and our infrastructure because 

it’s not just about us, it’s about our kids, and I don’t want my 

daughter or my grandchildren eventually to go out and be able to 

see the air that they’re breathing. I want that air to be cleaner and 

healthier. 

So thank you for what you’re doing, and then let’s buy it for the 

next generation. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bera. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Administrator 

McCarthy, good to see you again. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You, too. 

Mr. POSEY. And let me just follow up what the last speaker was 

saying. I believe everybody on both sides of the aisle on this committee most certainly wants clean air in the most honest, efficient 

way possible and transparent way possible. 

Last year, EPA proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of 

vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would have made the sale of certain products for use on such 

vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a 

non-related proposal entitled ‘‘greenhouse gas emissions and fuel 

efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles, phase 2.’’ 

In response to the behavior, members of both the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the U.S. Senate introduced legislation with bipartisan support, I might add, that would clarify the Clean Air Act 

to explain that it has always been illegal to modify a street vehicle 

into a racecar. 

It appears that three EPA employees, Mr. Brooks, a Ms. Werner, 

and a Mr. Belser, were involved with placing the provision in the 

rulemaking process. When those EPA officials briefed our committee staff on this issue, they readily admitted to conducting no 

scientific analysis on the impacts of the regulation whatsoever and 

with no scientific underpinnings. Your staff was questioned on the 

secretive nature of notifying the proposed regulation. 

Again, your staff confessed that YouTube videos of diesel trucks 

co-rolling hybrid vehicles was the primary motivation for the proposed regulation. They even brought pictures of the YouTube videos to illustrate their concerns. That reasoning, frankly, is embarrassing. I hope it is to you, too, and a clear overreach by your staff 

and the EPA who is charged with rulemaking based on sound 

science, as you say often, not of unsubstantiated videos posted on 

the Internet. In fact, your agency was forced to drop the controversial language from the heavy- and medium-duty truck rule, and 

thank you for that. 

The question is do you agree now with sneaking a provision into 

an unrelated rule without conducting any scientific analysis whatsoever and based on YouTube videos is not the proper way to do 

rulemaking? 
36 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, let me begin by saying that EPA supports 

the motorsports industry and it contributes tremendously to our 

economy and our contributions. 

I will have to say that this turned out to be a very misunderstood 

and misinterpreted step to try to clarify existing law. It was never 

intended to change the playing field—— 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. I read those reports—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —so they—— 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. I’m going to go to the next question here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. POSEY. Have any steps been taken to reprimand or discipline 

the officials involved in sneaking this provision into the rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I disagree with the characterization that it was 

sneaking. They were intending to put clarification in in a heavyduty vehicle rule about vehicles. Was—did it turn out to be a surprise and something we certainly should have discussed before? I 

think we should have discussed it. I don’t like surprises any more 

than you do. I don’t think they intended it to be nefarious in any 

way. They were clarifying for the benefit of what they believed to 

be the racing industry. 

Mr. POSEY. I’m still concerned that EPA wants to regulate the 

amateur racing community and those who use non-road vehicles for 

racing. It is my understanding that the Clean Air Act never had 

the intent to regulate these vehicles, as you’ve indicated, and that 

subsequent report you’ve heard. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Dedicated racing vehicles have never been a 

focus of our attention, and the question was could the—could we 

be clearer about that. And I think that’s what the intent of the language was, but I understand your concern. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. So can you assure the American people beyond 

any shadow of doubt that non-road vehicles modified specifically for 

the purpose of racing will be exempt from the Clean Air Act in the 

future? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. My understanding is that we have considered 

them to be exempt since day one as long as you have dedicated racing vehicles. Our concern is just with companies that may be selling these sort of defeat devices for on-road vehicles. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, and the racing community wants you to chomp 

down on those people. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s exactly right. 

Mr. POSEY. You know, but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is true. That is true. 

Mr. POSEY. We would just like to have your personal assurance 

that, you know, you say they’re exempt now, but there will be no 

future efforts to change that exemption. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If we—in the future—when I’m here, if we want 

to resolve this issue and clarify it, we will work with the industry 

and stakeholders to make sure that we do it in a way that they 

understand it and we all agree that it’s written as intended. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. So you—are you giving me the assurance and 

the American people that non-road vehicles modified specifically for 

the purpose of racing will be exempt from the Clean Air Act? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. As long as they are dedicated racing vehicles, 

they are exempt, and as far as I know—— 
37 

Mr. POSEY. Is that a yes?—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —they will be. 

Mr. POSEY. Can I just take that as a yes? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. As long as it’s phrased the way I said it, absolutely. 

Mr. POSEY. All right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But I—you know, I do want to apologize because 

I know this raised a lot of issues, and frankly, it came out of conversations with the racing industry. It wasn’t done well, not the 

way we generally do it, which is to road-test—sorry the pun—— 

Mr. POSEY. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —but to talk to people about it, and we will 

make sure that that doesn’t happen again. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director McCarthy, thank you for being here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. In your discussion with Randy Neugebauer, you said 

that Texas probably was the leading clean energy producer in the 

country—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. —and I can tell you from being from Texas, having 

worked on the Environmental Reg Committee, that it is, wind industry. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, it’s amazing. 

Mr. WEBER. And then you also said that you’re not doing it because the Clean Power Plan requires it but because the market demands it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. So Texas—the Texas Legislature, the Texas energy 

industry if you will was a little foresightful in that regard, wouldn’t 

you say? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that they—obviously, they were very forward-leaning—— 

Mr. WEBER. They were—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and they took advantage of a lot of investment—— 

Mr. WEBER. Very foresightful. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —for your state. 

Mr. WEBER. And Texans are benefiting from that now, wouldn’t 

you say? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would hope so. 

Mr. WEBER. Right, absolutely. So you would argue that—you 

would say—agree that the Texas Legislature had a legitimate purview and did the right thing for Texas constituents, and their constituents are benefiting from it? The reason I ask is because of the 

Clean Power Plan. Now 26 states, including Texas, which took the 

lead, by the way, filed a suit against the Clean Power Plan citing 

it as overreach—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. —and the Supreme Court seems to have, at least for 

the interim, agreed. Would you agree—— 
38 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, they’ve stayed it. 

Mr. WEBER. They’ve—until they can look at it further. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s correct. 

Mr. WEBER. So in staying it, what they’ve said is that apparently 

there’s some merit here, we better take a look at it and not just 

remand it to the lower court decision? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, they certainly stayed it—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. So—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —that’s right. 

Mr. WEBER. So, in essence, if the Texas Legislature has that kind 

of overview, purview, shouldn’t Congress have the same kind of 

overview on the Clean Power Plan in those actions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the Supreme Court will certainly get their 

eyes on this again. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, I’m glad you recognize that. I appreciate that. 

What I want to ask is that, last month, EPA released its proposed renewable fuel standard, the RFS rule, setting the renewable 

fuel volumes for 2017. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Now, under the proposed rule, the EPA requires 

18.8 billion gallons of renewable fuels be blended into the fuel supply by 2017, which is actually an increase from the EPA’s 2016 

rule. The proposed rule increases biofuel volumes in every category, 

even though the United States is currently not on track to meet the 

2016 targets. So here’s my—right? You understand that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. So here’s my question. Do you believe that the proposed RFS rule for 2017 is achievable? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We proposed it because we believe so, but it is 

in a comment period, and we’re certainly welcoming those comments—— 

Mr. WEBER. I’m happy to hear you say that. The EPA’s proposing 

to increase cellulosic biofuel volumes—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. —by 82 million RINs even though the United States 

is on track to produce only less than half of the 2016 mandate. So 

if you’ve looked at it and you’ve proposed it because you think it 

can be done, you’re proposing to increase the advanced biofuel volumes even though the trend suggests that on the current path 

we’re on we’re going to see a 380 million RIN shortfall in 2016. The 

reality is the EPA has proposed an increase in the RINs with no 

demonstrable way to meet that mandate. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. Well, again, we’re welcoming comments, 

but in the packet itself—— 

Mr. WEBER. Well, if we can’t meet 2016 and you’re increasing in 

2017, how do you propose that to happen? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, you know, we are taking a look at 

what we know is happening in 2016, what’s available to us because 

it’s a long year. It’s not quite over. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, let me just argue in the last minute that I’ve 

got—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. WEBER. —that I would say just as the Texas Legislature 

demonstrated its foresightfulness in helping be the wind-producing 
39 

state that it is, how about Congress being given credit for having 

some foresightfulness, too, when we think the EPA has overstepped 

its bounds and is promulgating rules that are unrealistic? It ought 

to be up to us to point that out so that our constituents benefit as 

well, and I just want to make that point. 

I do want to segue to a little bit different topic. It’s come out that 

some EPA employees were using their personal emails for official 

business in an apparent effort to evade Congressional oversight. 

Now, in our estimation, this is a violation of the Federal Records 

Act. What do you intend to do about it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what issue you’re referring to, sir. 

We’ve certainly had many discussions about the use of private 

emails. We’ve had an OIG investigation into that issue, and I am 

unaware of any evidence to suggest that we’re trying to subvert the 

normal process or not complying at this point with all of the rules 

and regulations that govern—— 

Mr. WEBER. So you’re unaware of any violations in that regard? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am unaware that anyone has indicated that we 

have a systemic problem with using emails to subvert the process 

and subvert—— 

Mr. WEBER. Well, I didn’t say systemic; I said any. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You—I’m sorry, sir. You’re going to have to show 

me that because all the times that I’ve been here, you know, we 

certainly had an IG. They did not verify that there was—that this 

was a practice in EPA, so I feel pretty good about where we are. 

And if there’s information that you want to provide me, I’m happy 

to look at that. 

Mr. WEBER. You’re going on record today saying that you don’t 

have any evidence of that in any of the Agency at all? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I’m not suggesting that there hasn’t been, 

you know, an email that—a specific incidence, but to suggest that 

we’re doing it to subvert a—the public process is what I am objecting to. You know, you will get oftentimes people sending—receiving 

something on their email. We have a direct policy that speaks to 

how you enter that in, if it’s work-related, into the public process 

and to meet all of our federal obligations—— 

Mr. WEBER. Does that also apply to the Pebble Mine investigation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The Pebble Mine investigation is multifaceted. 

Folks have been—— 

Mr. WEBER. I’m talking about them using personal emails and 

corresponding. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There have been—I do know that there was a 

gap when a person left the agency where we had trouble locating 

their emails and we’ve been trying to fill that gap—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. So you are aware. That kind of contradicts 

what you said earlier, you weren’t aware. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, you asked me if someone was using their 

private system to subvert the public process. I am—— 

Mr. WEBER. So you know that they potentially did it in the Pebble Mine incident but you haven’t been able to find those emails? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If there a potential, I would like to be able to 

address the situation. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
40 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar, is recognized. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator 

McCarthy—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. How are you? 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —thanks for being here with us. 

First of all, I want to commend you. You apologized for the rule, 

the racing vehicle rule. You heard the feedback from stakeholders. 

You withdrew the rule, and you responded very promptly, and I 

want to—you know, I actually have a business in my district that 

really—that would have basically put them out of business, and so 

I want to thank you for that, first of all. 

Now, I want to tell you about another rule that has people in my 

district very concerned, farmers, property owners, home builders. 

That’s the Waters of the U.S. Rule, and I would say that the EPA’s 

approach, that has been very different when you consider that 32 

states are suing the federal government over this, where the goal 

was to offer clarity and clearly that has not happened. I feel that 

the stakeholders involved in that are still very concerned about it, 

and I’m sure you hear from them, although I am also concerned 

about some of the, you know, social media efforts to promote the 

rule, lobby for the rule, if you will, that didn’t give you really very 

accurate feedback, and I know your goal has been to clarify aspects 

of the Clean Water Act but I would suggest that rather than what 

happened before where I commended you, this has been just the 

opposite, and it has added further confusion. And are you hearing 

that from people? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am certainly hearing that people continue to 

both be for and against the Clean Water Rule but it is a final rule, 

and it is in court and we’ll see where that litigation proceeds. Do 

I wish I could have had one moment where everybody would understand and agree? I wish I had it. I don’t have it on this rule. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Well, I think it’s pretty strong indication when 

a majority of Congress has voted to disapprove of the rule and 32 

states are suing over that rule so I don’t know if there’s anything 

you can do to rescind it or modify it at this point but I would encourage you to reach out to the stakeholders to do something new 

on that because it’s still more confusion and more concern throughout Michigan. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I appreciate that, and I’ll do the best I can 

to reach out. I mean, it’s primarily the agricultural industry that’s 

worried about it and our farmers, and you know, I think what I’m 

most concerned about is that I paid very close attention to their 

comments and concerns, and in finalizing the rule, I went above 

and beyond the exemptions and exclusions in that rule. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Well, I don’tMs. MCCARTHY. I did everything I could not just to protect it but 

go beyond it. That’s what confuses me and concerns me. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Well, I would just encourage you to reach 

back out and see what—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I appreciate that. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. —can be done. I know there’s a company, and 

you may have heard about this, that has been working for 30 years 
41 

to get a 404 CWA permit. Are you familiar with the ESG companies? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I don’t believe so. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. They recently testified in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the vice president 

stated that the EPA is working to change the rules again with the 

regulation, WOTUS, that would redefine the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. They are trying to accomplish 

this by adding new terms, definitions and interpretations of federal 

authority over private property that are more subjective and provide them with greater discretionary latitude, and you know, I’m 

just concerned that that may be an indication of what other companies are experiencing, and I think you know that Justice Kennedy 

stated that the region’s systemic consequences of the Clean Water 

Act remain a cause of concern. So I would just again encourage you 

to revisit this. 

I’ve only got a minute left, but I also want to talk to you about 

Flint because—and I had hoped that there might be some Democrats here who would want to, you know—because I know there 

was significant interest a while back from the Democrats on what 

happened in Flint, and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And there still remains a lot of concern. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Well, and you know, is the water in Flint safe 

to drink? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, right now we’re using filters and bottled 

water but we’re making progress and we’re hoping that there’ll be 

some new testing done actually this month and available to us 

early next to tell us whether we’ve now got the system where it 

needs to be. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And then do you—I mean, in hindsight, do you 

wish you would have listened to Miguel del Toral, who kind of 

raised this issue almost a year in advance before the EPA took action to address the problem? I mean, he’s an EPA employee, and 

at some point people weren’t listening to him. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I’m not sure whether he would characterize it that way so I don’t want to speak for him, but had I 

known earlier the situation that was happening in Flint, I absolutely would have raised a red flag from the highest mountaintop. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And do you feel—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And the fact is, I did not. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. A while back you told me that you believed the 

EPA Region 5 Administrator, Susan Hedman, was a hero. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s right. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. My sense is that she should have been the one 

on point listening to the employee who was raising these concerns 

and taking action. I don’t consider that heroic, and I guess I’m 

wondering if in hindsight that should have been addressed at the 

region level. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, as you know, she did resign her position 

because I think she felt that she should have known and wanted 

to make sure that wasn’t distraction on us focusing on the people 

in Flint, and I think it resulted in that. 

You know, I think there are a lot of failures in the system. We’re 

trying to address those and the way in which we work and do over-
42 

sight, but it was an extraordinarily challenging circumstance that 

in hindsight, if we could have addressed it earlier, it would have 

been all the better. So I can—I’m not defending the agency or anybody on Flint. The only thing I’m doing is trying to fix the situation 

and learn from it as best I can and make sure that there are no 

other Flints out there, and we’ll do the best from this point forward. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for being here, 

Administrator McCarthy. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BABIN. On April 28th, this Committee heard testimony from 

Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLaren about the EPA’s efforts 

to limit the potential Pebble Mine project by using Section 402(c) 

of the Clean Water Act before the project had even applied for a 

permit. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s correct. 

Mr. BABIN. The Committee demonstrated to Mr. McLaren that it 

has uncovered that EPA employees used non-official email accounts 

to discuss the Pebble Mine matter with mine opponents and determined that EPA employee Phil North provided edits and suggestions to a petition letter, which EPA claims is the impetus for 

starting the preemptive 404(c) process. The EPA Office of Inspector 

General found in agreement with your agency that this official may 

have misused his position as a federal government employee, and 

according to documents and deposition testimony received by this 

Committee prove that the petition from Alaska Native tribes the 

stated impetus for Region 10’s Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment 

was in fact drafted with the help of at least one EPA employee. 

Doesn’t this fact along with other EPA briefing materials and 

communications prove that the assessment was done solely to provide the political cover for an eventual Pebble veto? Doesn’t this in 

fact prove that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, I don’t want to speak to anybody’s motivations and we’ll certainly address the issues that you’ve raised, but 

the motivation for taking action under 404(c) was multifaceted, the 

first and foremost being the value of Bristol Bay and the amount 

of jobs that Bristol Bay provides—— 

Mr. BABIN. But they had not had a chance to even file their plan 

yet, so how would you know that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, they have had ample years prior to us 

using—initiating this process, and they continue to have opportunities to submit a permit. The simple issue is that they were disrupting that area in a way that made us worry about our—— 

Mr. BABIN. Well, it just seems—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —ability to—— 

Mr. BABIN. It seems very, very specious that one of your employees would be helping to draft this type of a document. 

Next question. The Committee has uncovered documents that 

show that EPA employee Richard Parkin stressed the following before a group supportive of EPA’s action to stop the Pebble Mine: 
43 

‘‘While a 404(c) determination would be based on science, politics 

are as big or a bigger factor.’’ Does this concern you that this was 

the sentiment of a career employee or employees at the EPA with 

regard to the agency’s determination regarding the Pebble Mine? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, again—— 

Mr. BABIN. Does that not raise a red flag with you? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, again, I have no idea what he was referring 

to or talking about. I know what—— 

Mr. BABIN. What he was referring to is that politics—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —actually happened at the agency. 

Mr. BABIN. —would be as important or more important than the 

science. That doesn’t concern you? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what politics he’s talking about. I 

know the reality of decision-making in the agency. I know why we 

moved down this road, and I know what we were trying to protect, 

and you know, one of the missing pieces that I just want to make 

sure you are aware of is that in the history of the EPA and its relationship with the Corps on 404(c), the Corps has done two million 

permits. We have only 13 times ever used this, and it’s because of 

the uniqueness of that resource—— 

Mr. BABIN. This—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and the challenge that the tribes had that rely 

on that salmon fishery. 

Mr. BABIN. All right. Peer reviewers repeatedly warned EPA that 

the assessment was insufficient as a basis for a regulatory decision, 

a claim that the EPA publicly agreed with. Why did the agency 

then rely exclusively on the assessment when it launched the 

404(c) determination? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It didn’t, sir. The assessment wasn’t part of the 

404(c). The assessment was looking at the value of the watershed. 

The documentation that was produced in the 404(c) process by the 

region was actually the policy and regulatory action. Did it consider 

the science? Absolutely, but that science document was not a policy 

document or a regulatory document. 

Mr. BABIN. It sounds like the politics trumped the science to 

begin with. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t consider policy to be politics or regulations to be. They’re entirely different vehicles and I think appropriate to use for the agency. 

Mr. BABIN. All right. Thank you. 

Isn’t it true and hasn’t your agency openly acknowledged that a 

preemptive veto of this kind had never been done before in the history of the Clean Water Act? Wasn’t this the first of its kind? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t—I’m not—I don’t know. I don’t—I can’t 

answer with certainly. I’m happy to get back to you on it. 

Mr. BABIN. I hope so. 

Well, anyway, my time’s expired, Mr. Chairman, so I thank you 

very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Babin. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Administrator, welcome. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 
44 

Mr. TONKO. You always do your job with great forcefulness and 

intellect, so we thank you for that. 

Today’s hearing appears to be a revival of hearings we’ve held 

before, proposals that strengthen standards to protect public health 

and to protect our environment, an environment that we’re going 

to then extend to the next generations, and claims that meeting 

these standards will be too costly, possibly not achievable, and in 

general a serious drag on our economy. So, you know, here we go 

again. So I have a few questions for you. 

Let me start where you just ended. Proponents of the Pebble 

Mine accuse EPA, particularly Phil North, of inappropriately 

colluding with tribal groups. Region 10, I’m informed, according to 

the EPA website, includes some 271 Native tribes in its jurisdiction. Can you speak to EPA’s special responsibility to tribal governments, and if you could, Administrator, compare that with EPA’s 

relationship with the given states and outside interest groups? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, with the tribes, we have, I think you 

know, a very special relationship because we treat them as government entities. We have a trust responsibility in our work with the 

tribes, and I think we paid very strong attention to the tribes as 

well as states that had concerns about protecting what is one of our 

most precious resources, Bristol Bay and its salmon fisheries, and 

we worked very closely with both the states but most importantly, 

there are tribes there whose culture depends on salmon. It is their 

livelihood as well as the focus of their lives and their community, 

and I think we were very cognizant of that when the region was 

looking at whether or not 404(c) was an appropriate step to take. 

For states, work with states and local communities, in general, we 

have a partnership relationship with them. They are co-regulators 

for many of the work we do. We delegate responsibilities to them 

and we try to be a good partner in terms of providing the kind of 

web of protection that Congress intended. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, we appreciate that, and again, thank you for 

the leadership that you provide the agency and the country. 

Let me switch to CASAC, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. I believe it was created in 1977 with the Clean Air Act 

Amendments. Their first report on ozone came out in the mid1980s, and there have been a number of subsequent reviews over 

the past 35 years with much new research since the original report. 

Has CASAC found that ozone is less of a health risk than 1980s 

science determined that it was? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. They actually on the basis of much more robust science understand just how damaging ozone is to our public 

health. 

Mr. TONKO. And does it contribute less to other environmental 

problems—damage to plants, to visibility and other effects? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. We understand it’s more than we had anticipated then. 

Mr. TONKO. So, if anything, research over the years has confirmed that ozone is a health risk and an environmental problem. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. That was the basis of recent decisions that were made, yes. 
45 

Mr. TONKO. And have past standards been criticized on the basis 

of their projected costs and/or benefits? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, most, if not all, yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, it’s interesting because I believe that it’s clear 

that we have been able to achieve cleaner air and grow the economy as we have strengthened the standards. Is that now not indeed the outcome? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s very accurate, yes. 

Mr. TONKO. And is there any reason to believe we cannot keep 

that record going? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Mr. TONKO. You know, will the states have flexibility and discretion to determine how they might meet new standards in the most 

cost-effective manner? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In the wisdom of Congress, that’s how it was defined and designed, yes. 

Mr. TONKO. And as I understand it, EPA and others have estimated the benefits achieved by lowering the ozone standard. Can 

you please elaborate on what those benefits are about? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. Give me one second to pull it up. The ben- efits—the health benefits are estimated to be $2.9 to $5.96 billion. 

That relates to issues relative to our kids in reducing asthma attacks and visits to the hospital. It has to do with cardiovascular improvements for adults and especially the elderly. So it’s direct public health benefits, which considerably outweigh the costs, which 

are estimated to be $1.4 billion. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. You know, I’ve exhausted my time, but 

I do want to thank you for leading the fight for clean air, clean 

water, response to climate change, a legacy that will imprint itself 

not only for this given political generation but for generations to 

follow. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. TONKO. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. 

And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to take this discussion a little different direction, if I may. I have a video I’d like for Administrator McCarthy to watch along with everyone in the room. 

[Video playback]. 

Mr. PALMER. You know, it’s very easy to sit here and have this 

discussion about all these regulations and try to deny that they 

have an impact on people but, you know, you are having an impact 

on people and unnecessarily so. You’ve destroyed thousands of jobs. 

You’ve impacted thousands of families, not just Alabama families 

but families all over the country, and I don’t look at them as collateral damage. I mean, here’s a guy who one of those families sat 

there and he cried through the interview. You got another guy 

whose wife’s diagnosed with cancer right after he lost his job, two 

daughters having to drop out of college. You know, there’s a price 

to pay for this, and you know, you may deny that this is impacting 

things. 

You know, the Energy Information Administration projects EPA’s 

Clean Power Plan is going to kill 376,000 jobs in 2030, reduce GDP 
46 

by about $58 billion. You’ve got a room full of young people here 

that all they’re hearing is this climate change agenda. You talk 

about asthma. Asthma rates have gone up even though air quality 

has dramatically improved. You’re not getting the whole story here, 

and I think the American public needs to get the whole story. 

You talk about it impacts people. I just want to read you some 

highlights from a recent report by Mr. Oren Cass, who testified before our Committee this past December, and I’m submitting this report, Mr. Chairman, for the record. ‘‘President Obama’s policies for 

tackling climate change would impose heavy costs borne disproportionately by lower income U.S. households.’’ There’s been a lot of 

talk today about how important is to take care of lower income people. His Clean Power Plan and proposal for a $10.25-per-barrel oil 

tax or equivalent of a 25 to 30 per-ton carbon tax would cost American’s poorest families tens of billions of dollars per year. For 

households in the lowest quintile, such policies are equivalent to 

more than 160 percent of federal income tax. 

I just want to share something with you. Again, the National Energy Assistance Survey shows that because of the difficulty they 

face in paying utility bills, these households are forced to make 

choices that carry serious health risk. As many as thirty-seven percent went without medical or dental care. Thirty-four percent did 

not fill a prescription or took less than their full dose of prescribed 

medications. In addition, twenty-four percent went without food at 

least one day, and nineteen percent became sick because the home 

was too cold. These were decisions that low-income people made because their energy costs went up because of the EPA’s policies, and 

we’re talking again hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been 

lost. 

Administrator McCarthy, if you don’t remember anything else 

out of this hearing today, I want you to remember the faces and 

the voices of the people who have had their lives absolutely destroyed by the EPA’s policies. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. 

And the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here today. 

I would like to go back to the line of questioning that Representative Lucas brought up, the glyphosate studies that were done, and 

for the benefit of those who haven’t been following this and those 

who may be watching on television, let me just go back to review. 

This is a herbicide that is widely used both commercially and residentially. I’ve used a particular product to kill weeds. It does a 

very good job at it. In 1986, the EPA ruled or classified this as a 

group B chemical, which in layman’s terms says there’s no evidence 

that it causes concern. We are determining that there’s no evidence 

that it does. And then in 1991, it was classified by the EPA as a 

group E, which says there is evidence that it does not cause cancer. 

So it sounds like we’re finding out that this is actually a safer product than what we actually envisioned it to be. 

Then there was a term, because in March of 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer did a study saying that it 
47 

probably is carcinogenic, it probably does cause cancer, which from 

what it appears as it prompted the EPA to do another study, which 

I can understand. Somebody else says that it probably does cause 

cancer, then we’re going to study it for ourself. But in September 

16th of 2015, the Cancer Assessment Review Committee of the 

EPA basically countered what the international study and said it’s 

not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. 

So with that, my question to you is, did any EPA officials work 

on IARC’s glyphosate review? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, let me just clarify one thing if I might, and 

then I’ll answer your question. It wasn’t what prompted the review. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. This was a standard regulatory—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So it was just a regular review? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. But here we got an international committee 

that says something different than what our team of scientists 

have determined. So—but we came up with something different. 

Was anyone at the EPA actually working with IARC or participating in that review? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, nobody was involved in the question of 

the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. We had three EPA employees. 

One was actually there as an observer. He participated—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. But did not—who was that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Hang on one second and I will—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Was that Peter Egeghy? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Hang on. We had—while I’m looking, I’ll give 

you the names. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. We have limited time so—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. One was—participated in information relative to 

exposure. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It was not relative to the carcinogenicity. None 

of them had any—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. No one participated in the work? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And one had to do with some of the tox information and how we helped them categorize it. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Your staff did indicate to us that Matthew Martin participated in the IARC conference but did not participate in the glyphosate review. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, and I have a Mr. Egeghy. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Egeghy? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And he did do some limited participation. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. He actually just—he helped to draft and review 

portions of the human exposure. There were a number of pesticides 

being looked at at the same time. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It really had nothing to do with its carcinogenicity. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. He looked at how it was used and that kind of 

thing. 
48 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And this was all in Lyon, France, with the 

112—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know where he was when he was—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Can we bring up the slide? I have an email, 

if you could bring that slide up, and this email—obviously it was 

Frank is responding to—or Matt is responding to Frank, who is 

part of the IARC, and if you notice on the first line of the original 

email, it says ‘‘First, may I repeat it was a real pleasure to meet 

and work with you for IARC monograph volume 112,’’ which is the 

subject that we’re talking about. And of course, the subject of the 

email is ‘‘DZN and GLY’’ which is indicating that glyphosate is 

what they’re talking about. If Mr. Martin was not involved in 

glyphosate review, why is on the email chain with the team that 

was working on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can go back and look but I am—I have asked 

a number of times, and my understanding is that none of these individuals were there in the EPA capacity to participate in the issue 

of carcinogenicity. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Clearly, we have understanding of glyphosate 

and the other pesticides that were being looked at. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Can we pull up the next slide as well? 

[Slide] 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. In our second slide here—excuse me, let me 

make sure I get my proper slides up—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. My glasses are good but not that good. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, this is again an email that’s to a distribution list of those who were working on the glyphosate review, 

and Mr. Martin is also included on this, which this happens to be 

a list of talking points of how to answer the questions on 

glyphosate. So again, my question is, if he didn’t participate in the 

glyphosate review—here’s what I’m getting at. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. He—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. I’m concerned that there is some interference 

between EPA and the IARC, and let me jump to one other—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Could I just clarify on Mr. Martin? He apparently was involved in the review for glyphosate but he didn’t participate in the issues relative to its carcinogenicity. So I just wanted to make that clear. That was an entirely separate part of 

the—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, Mr. Jess Rowland was the lead—he was 

the chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee that did the 

actual report that was contrary to what the IARC—and we would 

like to be very interested in interviewing Mr. Rowland but I understand that he is retired from the EPA. Do you know when he retired? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. May of 2016. He went there as an observer. As 

far I know, he did not participate in the IARC process. Can I clarify? Because I made a mistake. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Very quickly. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It says Mr. Martin was a computational toxicologist. He wasn’t involved in the IARC review for glyphosate but 

he did participate in the IARC conference on other matters, and we 
49 

have no toxicological data on glyphosate so he couldn’t have contributed to the carcinogenicity issue. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, one of the lines in the email thanked him 

for his work but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —let me move forward because I’m really interested in Mr. Rowland and his retirement. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Does his retirement have anything to do with 

the controversy over the CARC report? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not that I am aware of. He worked for the agency for many years is my understanding. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Have you investigated whether or not these 

circumstances are linked? It’s just interesting, right after this report comes out that is contrary to what the international agency 

has determined that—now—and I have the report here if we can 

bring it up. It is stamped as a final report—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It’s a final memo. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —which—well, it actually says ‘‘final report,’’ 

not memo on the page, which indicates to me this is final, it’s done, 

but you can understand the concern we have here is that it’s a 

final report but maybe it didn’t turn out the way that you anticipated it would so now we need to study it a little bit more. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know that the mistake that was made by the 

contractor to post this has caused all kinds of conspiracy theories 

to erupt but there’s nothing that’s unusual about the process we’re 

following with this and we’ll do it on the basis of the science—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and I don’t want you to think that anyone, including me, is prejudging what our scientists say about this. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, Mr. 

Loudermilk. 

And the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Davidson, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCarthy, thank you. I was pleased earlier that 

you were personally familiar with the Waters of the U.S. Rule as 

you discussed with my colleague from Michigan, and my understanding is that this rule was a joint rule between the EPA and 

the Army Corps of Engineers. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Were you aware that the Army Corps of Engineers raised some technical concerns? Were they in the end supportive of your rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s my—that certainly is my understanding 

in my communication with the Assistant Secretary who oversees 

the Corps, yes. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Are you familiar with concerns that they raised 

during the rulemaking process? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not each of them because that was handled at 

the career staff level. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Are you familiar with a series of memos known 

as Peabody memos from Major General Peabody? 
50 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am now aware of them, yes. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Okay. Are you aware that in a 27 April 2015 

memo, General Peabody says ‘‘The just-completed review reveals 

that the draft final rule continues to depart significantly from the 

version provided for public comment.’’ 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am aware that a few memos were written. I 

was not aware of them at the time but that’s an internal Army 

Corps issue that I assume was raised and resolved during—— 

Mr. DAVIDSON. They weren’t talking about what they shared 

with the public. They were talking about what you shared with the 

public. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, they actually issued the proposal with us 

and issued the final as well. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. It seems to me that they raised the concern that 

what was being shared with the public is what’s different than 

what was in the final rule, what was in the rulemaking process. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, my belief is that you listen to public comment and you make changes that you think are reasonable after 

deliberating on that. That was the process that we followed. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Did you listen to the Army Corps? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We certainly did. They were a partner in this. 

They had to sign off on it. They issued the rule with us. It was 

jointly done. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Do you know why in a May 15th, 2015, concluding statement to a memo, General Peabody would conclude 

‘‘We stand ready to assist the EPA in improving the technical analysis and to develop logically supportable conclusions for these documents if and when requested.’’? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It sounds like a collaborative partnership. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. It sounds like he’s got concerns that the documents are not logically supportable and that perhaps they were not 

previously requested, therefore, they were ready, to me. 

Earlier in this memo, he provides the support for his conclusion. 

He says, ‘‘To briefly summarize, our technical review of both documents indicate that the core data provided the EPA has been selectively applied out of context and mixes terminology and disparate 

data sets. In the Corps’ judgments, the documents contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with no connection to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical deficiencies and logical inconsistencies. As a result, the Corps’ review could not find a justifiable 

basis in the analysis for many of the document’s conclusions. The 

Corps would be happy to undertake a comprehensive review with 

the EPA to help improve these supporting documents, which we 

recognize are critical to the rulemaking.’’ Have you read that before? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I may have, sir, but that was an internal Army 

Corps issue, and again, the Army Corps signed off on this so those 

issues had to have been internally resolved between them and us 

and certainly internally at the Corps. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Don’t those concerns fit with the pattern that the 

Chairman of this Committee has raised with you, that in fact, the 

EPA has been selective in applying this? This is not just some pernicious claim, this is supported by what’s actually happening by 

our uniformed officers. This is a general in our Army. Would you 
51 

recognize the Army Corps as an authoritative body with respect to 

rulemaking on the Waters of the United States? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Which is why I was satisfied by them signing off 

on the rule itself. There is much deliberation that goes on among 

the staff. I think that’s healthy. I think we should challenge one 

another so our rule is legally sound and based on science. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. It seems to me that the Army Corps’ advice was 

ignored and by a political appointee, the Administrator, disregarded what the sound science of the Army Corps was doing. I 

don’t want to jump to conclusions, but there’s enough concerns that 

there’s a stay thankfully blocking the implementation of this rule. 

Earlier you spoke with one of our colleagues, and in fact, the 

Chairman, about saying that the EPA does not distort the market 

and in fact follows the market. Is that your view of what the EPA 

does? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe in the Clean Power Plan, we recognized 

a market—the market transition in the energy world, and we did 

our best to follow it knowing full well that that was the least and 

most cost-effective way to do it. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. If you don’t distort the market, then what is it 

that you’re actually accomplishing if you’re not actually steering 

the market in some way? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we’re doing our—under the law what we’re 

required to do, which is follow the Clean Air Act, which actually 

requires us to address pollution that endangers public health. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Are you attempting to steer the market with respect to your pending 4,000-page rule on medium-duty diesel engines? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m not—we are not attempting to steer the market. In this issue, we are attempting to reduce pollution. What we 

try to do is understand where the market is heading so that we can 

get the most cost-effective, flexible way to achieve the reductions 

while letting the market drive how to get there. That is exactly 

what we did with the Clean Power Plan, and we do it every opportunity we can get. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. My time is expired. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Davidson. 

And the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is recognized. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Administrator 

McCarthy, I believe that you desire to see the United States lead 

the world in environmental protection. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Certainly to the extent that Congress gives me 

that charge. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Are there other countries or regions of the 

world that are doing good things for the environment such as Western Europe, U.K., or the Netherlands? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m sure that every country is doing the best 

they can and some have very interesting programs that they’ve initiated. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So any of those in particular that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Nothing that I want to highlight, no. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Okay. Secretary Vilsack sent a letter to the 

U.K. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in which 
52 

he wrote, ‘‘The U.S. wood pellet industry increases our forested 

area, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and improves U.S. forest 

management practice.’’ He went on to state, ‘‘Demand for wood pellets also delivers compelling carbon and societal benefits to the 

United States. Independent analysis undertaken has consistently 

shown that demand for wood pellets promotes U.S. forest growth 

and reduces risk to U.S. forests.’’ And without objection, I’m going 

to submit this letter for the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix] 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Given this stated position of the Secretary of 

Agriculture, how will EPA take into account these comments in the 

scientific analysis on which it is based? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are in the middle of looking at different 

types of biomass for its use and how we can account for the greenhouse gas benefits. We are in a science process with our Science 

Advisory Board to develop an appropriate accounting process for 

that. So we’re excited to be able to make progress in that because 

we do believe that there are many types of biomass that really will 

provide us an opportunity to move forward with—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Do you disagree—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —reductions in greenhouse gases. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. —with the Secretary’s position, what he stated 

about wood pellets and the use of biomass and wood pellets? Is 

there still science to be determined on that or the science that he 

based his analysis on correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m happy to talk to him and see what is the 

basis of his letter. I don’t think that we’re in disagreement. I think 

he knows that we’re in a process to try to better account for those 

emissions. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Okay. And I was jotting down a few of the 

things you were saying earlier about people are expecting us to 

take reasonable actions, that you’re following the science. I hope 

that you would continue to do that. 

You also said that the, switching gears a little bit, the Gold King 

Mine is a disaster. You said you’re doing your best to hold people 

accountable. I want to talk a little bit about the Gold King Mine 

spill that took place last August. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Given the gravity of the situation, is it fair to 

say that you took that spill very seriously? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And you’ve conducted your own internal EPA 

investigation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have for the most part relied on independent 

investigations by both internally with our Office of Inspector General as well as externally. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So what EPA employees did you find to be responsible for the Gold King Mine spill? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We did not find that anyone was derelict in their 

duties but we continue to have investigations and we’re going to 

wait to see what they say. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So you didn’t find anybody to be at fault in this 

mine spill? 
53 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So far, the reports that I have read that were 

independent continue to show that we were there working with the 

state and those communities to try to prevent the tragedy, that 

preliminary site work did cause a problem there and we’ve done 

our best to try to make sure that we take responsibility for that 

and work with those states and communities and tribes to resolve 

this. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So given your commitment and expertise on the 

issue, who was the EPA on site coordinator the day of the Gold 

King Mine spill? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t recall his name. I’m sorry. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I believe his name is Mr. Griswold, Hayes Griswold. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah, that was it. Sure. Thank you. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So is Mr. Griswold responsible for the Gold 

King Mine spill? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think the actions of EPA certainly caused the 

spill. It depends on what you think of ‘‘responsible.’’ If that indicates that he did something wrong, I’m certainly not willing to say 

that. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So is he to blame for the Gold King Mine spill? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think what’s to blame is a history of those 

mines being left and abandoned where we knew there was a problem and EPA came in to try to help fix it. Did we fix it? No. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So who’s to blame for the spill? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the spill happened. The spill happened because we were doing preliminary—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Because somebody—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —work to try to resolve—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. —failed in their execution of the project. Has 

Mr. Griswold been reprimanded or received training or a suspension for his role as onsite coordinator? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not believe so. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. As head of the EPA, do you take responsibility 

for the spill? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I take responsibility for the agency’s role, certainly I do. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So you take responsibility of the agency’s role, 

which was to the on-scene coordinator, so I’m trying to connect the 

dots here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So we have many responsibilities here, and we 

have a responsibility not just to explain ourselves why we’re there, 

what we were doing, what we thought contributed to the problem. 

We have a responsibility to look at how we long-term monitor that 

situation. We have a responsibility to look at whether or not we 

can help effect a solution, which will be hopefully looking at whether or not it’s appropriate for listing as a Superfund site. We have 

responsibilities to take a look at whether our notification was good 

and how to make it better. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Do you have a responsibility to hold somebody 

accountable? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If somebody did something that was incorrect 

and inappropriate—— 
54 

Mr. WESTERMAN. That was last August. Has anybody been held 

accountable for the spill? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are all held accountable for the spill. If you 

ask me whether I—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Has anyone been reprimanded or faced any 

consequences for their role—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not that I’m aware of. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I’ve exceeded my time, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. 

And the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Administrator, for being here today. 

Just a couple notes to clarify the record. Yes, Texas does have 

the most wind. There is no doubt about that, but California leads 

in solar by a huge, huge margin, and I think it’s absolutely laughable that we think that 1.78 percent over the last year is great 

growth, but that is what we have. 

You’re aware that this Committee has been very active in attempting to understand the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. This Congress alone, we have held three hearings and sent numerous letters to EPA on the topic. Democrat Senator Michael Bennett stated that this ozone regulation is a perfect 

example of applying the law but doing it in a way that doesn’t 

make sense on the ground. State air regulators from Texas, California, Arizona, and Utah have testified before Congress calling for 

a delay in implementation because EPA is unprepared to take 

background ozone into account when implementing the standard. 

Now, I come from California, and it is very, very clear that ambient is a problem, that—that air standards that we do not have an 

effect on, that we did not create is a problem in California. The 

problem is, if we didn’t create it and yet we are responsible for it 

because of standards, it makes it very, very difficult for us to be 

in compliance. In fact, we’ll be out of compliance and we will be at 

a problem with these types of standards. The background ozone 

issue is one that is very important. Do you think that the EPA has 

adequately addressed the concerns of the states that have identified background ozone as an issue for compliance, much like California? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think we have made great progress. Areas like 

California have actually a considerable amount of local and regional ozone that is being emitted by manmade activities, which 

falls well outside the boundaries of background. So we’ve held a 

conference. We’ve developed a white paper. We have put together, 

one a rulemaking, one a guidance that’s been proposed and will be 

finalized to try to make it understandable and easier for states to 

take a look at wildfires that cause these types of exceedances. If 

we can document anything that’s coming into nationally, we certainly recognize that that’s not something that the state will be responsible for. So we think we’ve made a lot of progress, but as you 

know, we continue to work with states on the implementation. 

Mr. KNIGHT. But you also understand that at certain states, and 

I won’t be too over-the-top about California, but certain states do 
55 

have certain issues that other states just do not have. In fact today, 

we have major wildfires that are affecting the air that we breathe, 

and that is something that happens in California every summer 

without a doubt. We wish it didn’t happen but it does happen, 

and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, that’s why we’re putting out a guidance document. We are well aware, and in fact, with the changing climate, 

we’re concerned that those wildfires are going to be more expansive 

and more frequent. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Well, we’re afraid of those wildfires when certain 

people go out and start those fires, but one witness told the Committee that due to background ozone, EPA’s new ozone standard 

will unfairly punish communities due to air pollution they did not 

create and that the state cannot regulate. The National Association 

of Counties stated, ‘‘Additionally, a more stringent ozone standard 

challenges local governments’ ability to increase economic development within their regions because areas designated as nonattainment can have a more difficult time attracting industry to their 

counties due to concerns that permits and other approvals will be 

too expensive or even impossible to obtain.’’ Many areas in California today, you basically cannot do any more activity there because they have gone to the limit. That means the credits are no 

longer there or the credits have been taken by other areas that are 

ports in the southern California are almost to the very limit of 

what they can do because of the credit situation. 

Now, that’s not EPA but that is exactly where I’m going with 

this with the standards that the EPA is setting, and that local or 

state areas are being the regulators for, much like in California because—and I’m sure in every state of this—of the diesel regulations 

that are coming that the EPA will or probably already is looking 

at regulations to change the diesel standards to have the states be 

in compliance. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, sir, I recognize that California has incredible challenges, and a lot of that is related to geography and the 

weather there, and I perfectly well understand it, but what we 

know about this ozone standard is that the vast majority of counties that aren’t achieving the standard now will be achieving it just 

as a result of national rulemakings that are moving forward, ones 

that are already on the books and in place and that you well know 

of. So we’re working hard with the states to get there. 

But California’s made tremendous progress, and they continue to 

look at every opportunity, and we’ll keep working with them on it, 

but I don’t think background is really the issue there. I think we’ve 

well documented the inventories that are contributing to the ozone 

problem and working hard with the state to see if we can figure 

that out. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Well, I would agree that we have made many 

strides and I would agree that we have many challenges but I 

would disagree that background is an effort—or is a problem in 

California that basically we have to adhere to, just the West Coast, 

and it does affect all the way over to Arizona. It does come all the 

way over to states on the West that have to do that that other 

states do not have to, and I would appreciate looking into that a 
56 

lot harder, and making sure that this is not something that’s just 

discriminatory toward the West Coast. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Knight. 

And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood, is recognized. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here. I know you’ve been here for over 

two hours, and appreciate your testimony here today. 

I know a couple of my colleagues have asked about the proposed 

Waters of the U.S. Rule, and in my district in Illinois, I represent 

a fairly heavy ag district, and I think the frustrating part for me 

is, when I travel around my district and I talk to people, you know, 

they ask all the time, well, you know, Darrin, how did this law get 

passed, what happened, how did this law get implemented, and I 

explain to them that this isn’t in fact a law, this is a rule implemented by EPA that really circumvents Congress and circumvents 

the Constitution in a lot of ways and that really unelected people 

are putting in this rule, and they also couple that with the realworld effect that this rule’s going to have on agriculture, whether 

that’s a puddle or it’s a stream or it’s a creek on a farmer’s land. 

And when I travel around my district, I can’t find anybody that 

thinks this is a good idea, and you look at a rule or a law or a statute as fixing a problem. No one in my district thinks that there’s 

a problem that needs to be fixed. 

And I would also point to you that back on October 9th of 2015, 

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, second highest court in our 

country, issued a stay on implementation of the rule on the Waters 

of the U.S. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And that decision, written decision, stayed, that 

said this rule cannot go forward. In there, they specifically cite a 

significant legal question as to whether certain parts of this rule 

are supported by science. Now, that’s not Republicans saying that 

on Capitol Hill. These are two independent judges, second highest 

court in the country saying this. 

So when I look at that, I guess my question to you is, do you disagree with the court on the basis that this rule lacks science? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, far be it from me to disagree with the 

court. We are going and hopefully with the full information available that we have that the court will have through oral arguments 

and our briefings in the record that the court will agree with us 

that it is well documented why we came to the decisions we made 

on the basis of science, on the basis of history of ours and Army 

Corps’ experience here. 

You know, one of the biggest frustrations I have is that—is the 

fact that I think the agriculture community really—we would benefit from further discussions on this because we have actually expanded the exemptions for agriculture. We have provided clarifications that should allow them to produce the food, fuel and fibre 

that we rely on. We did everything we could to make sure that it 

wouldn’t add any permitting issues or responsibilities to the agriculture community. We did everything we could not just to protect 
57 

their interests but to make their interests clearer and more sustainable. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I appreciate that, but I mean, again, that’s 

not what the Farm Bureau says, that’s not what the Illinois State 

Farm Bureau, the American Bureau says. I don’t think you’re going 

to get that from anybody in agriculture thinks the way you’re doing 

it. 

And I think the other thing is, there was lots of talk and rhetoric 

from the EPA and the Corps is, we’re going to listen to your comments, give us all your comments, we’re going to listen to them, 

we’re going to take them into account, and I’ve seen the detailed 

merit-based comments that were given to you and your department 

and the Corps, and all of them in my estimation fell on deaf ears. 

None of them were taken into account when you look at the rule 

and how it’s implemented and the effect that it has on them, and 

it’s consistent in the agriculture community that people are absolutely opposed to this rule and the way that it’s being put forth. 

The other thing that I would mention, you know, this—as you 

implemented this rule, you abided by the Administrative Procedure 

Act, the APA, in doing that, and you testified back on March 4th, 

2015, in the Senate, and Senator Sullivan from Alaska had asked 

you about the WOTUS rule, and you—concerning the APA Act and 

following that, and you said there have been—‘‘There have been individuals represent various constituencies in the states that have 

commented but we have received over one million comments and 

87 percent of those comments we have counted thus far are supportive of the rule.′′ I find that absolutely hard to believe. Is that 

still your statement today? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is my understanding when folks looked at 

the record. That’s correct. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Eighty-seven percent is supportive of this rule 

across the country? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The comments, yes. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And has that changed since then? That was your 

testimony on March 4th. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what—I haven’t surveyed folks 

throughout the United States at this point to see whether or not 

they still would feel the same way. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And can you name for me any agriculture groups 

that are supportive of this rule today? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I probably can’t go down that road, sir. I know 

there’s a lot of concern among the agriculture community. I think 

we’ve received certain letters and support from individuals. Whether or not there’s any association, agriculture association, I can identify, I don’t think I can. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And my time is almost up. And you’re also aware 

there’s another Federal District Court in the Dakotas that has also 

issued a stay here for many of the same reasons that were done 

in the Sixth Circuit. I think that was at the federal district level. 

Are you aware of that also? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. LaHood. 
58 

And the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Abraham, is recognized. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCarthy, let’s you and I pick up a discussion that we left 

off on a previous hearing. In one of your previous appearances, you 

testified that ozone exacerbates asthma. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yet you went on to specifically state, and I’m 

quoting here, that ‘‘the scientists actually have not made any connection between the levels of ozone and the prevalence of asthma,’’ 

and Mr. Chairman, I’ll ask to submit for the record a letter signed 

by many, many Members of the House and Senate that questions 

EPA’s anticipated health benefits. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Without objection, that will be made a 

part of the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix] 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Ms. McCarthy, are you familiar with some of the 

other factors that can exacerbate asthma other than ozone as the 

EPA claims? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Would you elaborate, please? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, certainly. There are—we have an entire 

asthma portion of our agency that works with local communities to 

identify triggers for asthma attacks. That can have everything to 

do with dust in individuals’ homes, so indoor air contributes significantly. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And what is the role of indoor pollution in asthma, in your opinion? What role that does that indoor pollution 

play? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mold and dust can certainly be triggers for asthma attacks. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. So they can exacerbate it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They certainly can. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. I mean, you know, I’m a doc and I’ve treated children with asthma for 20-plus years, and you know, I’ll just read a 

partial list from the CDC and from medical textbooks that are 

exacerbaters of asthma: plant pollen, pet dander, dust, dust mite 

feces, cockroach feces, insect bites, mold, eggs, peanuts, soy, wheat, 

fish, shrimp, salads, fruits, respiratory infections, cold air, exercise, 

certain medications including aspirin, ibuprofen and naproxen, sulfites and preservatives in foods, and the list goes on and on. 

I guess the question that this leads to, you were having a discussion with Mr. Tonko about the benefits of cardiovascular disease 

with possibly ozone. I guess you believe it maybe exacerbates that. 

Did the EPA’s final ozone NAAQS regulation take into consideration all these additional factors in its analysis to determine if a 

new standard needs to be implemented at this time? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, my understanding is that during the 

development of our Integrated Science Assessment, the look at all 

of the health and exposure information would have looked to determine whether or not outside ozone levels contributed to additional 

attacks or hospital visits and other things. So they would have 

factored those issues into those considerations. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And you know, let me remind you that, again, we 

had this back and forth last year, that the ozone levels have de-
59 

creased dramatically over the last three decades yet asthma has 

gone up, and after all these years, you or your advisors have never 

really managed to connect those dots and look into the indoor air 

pollution aspect of it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, you just indicated how many factors go into 

asthma attacks. The issue—the point I’m making is that it seems 

very clear from the science that outdoor ozone levels cause problems for kids who have asthma. That seems pretty clear to me. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And again, I could probably debate that on another day on an issue as far as, you know, I’ve seen some of your 

data that you rely on but I’ve seen other data that would refute 

that most mightily, let me say. 

What did your advisors say specifically about the issues of indoor 

air pollution and asthma? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not believe that the information provided to 

me in terms of the science spent a great deal of time talking about 

indoor asthma. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. So I mean—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It talked about outdoor asthma, which is what 

we were looking at—— 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And I guess that’s my point. You know, how can 

the EPA’s analysis, how can you say it’s complete if, you know, 

your advisors have really failed to address this issue—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. —and failed to understand the importance of indoor air pollution on these poor children. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Because their reports to me looked at thousands 

of studies that actually did factor in different considerations that 

concluded based on the weight of evidence that ozone contributes 

to exacerbating asthma attacks. I don’t know how much clearer I 

can get. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Well, I can be much clearer myself because I’ve 

seen thousands of studies also that would refute your scientific 

basis, and that’s where we, I think, diametrically oppose each other 

is on your, what I will put in quotes, objective scientific data. I 

think it’s flawed, and I think we can refute it on every level and 

turn. And again, nobody here wants to see a child’s asthma get 

worse. We don’t even want a child ever to have asthma. But I think 

we have to be honest and fair with the child and the family as to 

what’s causing it, and again, I don’t think we’re addressing that 

fully. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think we’ve established that causal relationship. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Abraham. 

And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator. 

I’d like to first submit for the record the following bipartisan letter from members of the Illinois delegation, both Republicans and 

Democrats, regarding the proposed closure of two nuclear power 

plants. A state report found—and I’d ask to submit that to the 

record. 
60 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information appears in Appendix] 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. A state report found that Illinois would lose 4,200 jobs and $1.2 

billion in annual economic activity as well as significant increases 

in electricity rates and carbon emissions if these two plants closed 

their doors. Such a result would be bad for the State of Illinois and 

devastating for the communities in which they operate. 

The premature closure of these plants would also significantly 

impede the ability of the state to submit a viable implementation 

plan for the Clean Power Plan should the Supreme Court stay be 

lifted and the rule remain. As a matter of fact, even if the stay of 

the Clean Power Plan is lifted, I’m concerned that Illinois will fail 

to meet the plan even though the state may do everything possible 

in its power to meet it. 

Does this news concern you, Administrator? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It certainly is an issue that we’d like and be 

open to working with the state at any time on. I think we well 

knew that there are many older nuclear power plants that right 

now are not called upon regularly to generate, so the closure of 

those facilities will have to be considered by the states, and we 

made that pretty clear. But I do not think that we have made the 

Clean Power Plan standards so challenging that states cannot address the changing circumstances. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That’s not what we’re hearing from Illinois, but 

let me ask you, how did EPA take into account existing nuclear 

power when designing the mandates you’re sending to the states 

for carbon emission reduction? Seems like we’re being penalized for 

being ahead of the curve. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. Actually—well, I don’t believe we considered 

it to be penalized, but we were looking for were reductions that 

were achievable on a baseline of 2012. If those were producing electricity, we included those in the baseline. If they were new facilities, which there are some new nuclears being constructed, those 

would certainly go as counting towards reductions that would be 

achievable under the law that would be included or compliance 

purposes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. It seems like the goal again of what you’ve stated 

of, you know, reducing carbon emission, exactly the opposite is 

going to be happening with potential closure of these Illinois plants 

plus certainly the loss of a significant number of jobs. And again, 

this is bipartisan. This isn’t a Republican issue, it’s not a Democratic issue. It was split exactly 50/50, Members from Illinois on 

both sides of the aisle concerned about that. 

Are you concerned what’s happening in Illinois may happen in 

other states, making it more difficult to comply with the plan? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, again, we made the plan to be extraordinarily flexible to deal with things on an individual state basis, regionally, nationally—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, let’s—can you get into specifics on that? 

What flexibilities specifically will states have in this specific kind 

of incident? So these two plants in Illinois, what specific flexibility 

will they have to be able to remain and continue to provide great 
61 

service? Illinois is again one of the leaders in this field, very successfully so. What flexibility is in the plan? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t say I know all of the circumstances here, 

sir, but I do know that—my understanding is, there was a lot of 

concern about nuclear facilities potentially being closed. There was 

a lot of discussion about individual states taking action to keep 

them open, to support upgrades and needed construction at those 

facilities to allow them to stay open for certain longer periods. But 

those are all individual state decisions that get made in the individual market. I don’t think we should suggest that the Clean 

Power Plan is going to solve those problems prematurely because 

there’s no compliance window until beginning in 2022—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, you mentioned there is flexibility there. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There is. 

Mr. HULTGREN. We’re just not seeing it, and there’s great concern. Again, both sides of the aisle have grave concern of negative 

impacts, exactly the opposite of what you’re trying to accomplish. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Can I just—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. I only have one minute left. Let me—have you 

requested any legal analysis to ensure that the agency has the 

legal authority to pursue and expend resources on regulatory actions and implementation of the Clean Power Plan while a stay has 

been issued? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have certainly been consulting in close coordination with the Department of Justice to make sure that we 

fully comply with the stay, and we are fully complying with the 

stay. 

Mr. HULTGREN. The question was, have you received any legal 

analysis to ensure that the agency has the legal authority to pursue and expend resources on regulatory actions and implementation while the stay is in? So it’s not complying with the stay, 

it’s—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are not implementing the rule or spending 

resources to implement the rule. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Are you moving forward with model trading 

rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There’s no decision that’s been made. We’re looking at—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. When will that decision be made? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —what’s appropriate and what path needs to be 

moved forward. 

Let me provide a little bit of clarity, sir, and that is that we are 

not implementing the rule. That does not mean that we cannot continue to support states that voluntarily want to keep moving forward and ask us to develop tools that would allow them to hit the 

ground running when the stay decision is made. 

Mr. HULTGREN. As far as the model trading rule goes, doesn’t 

this deprive states and other stakeholders the benefits of the stay 

by compelling participation on a matter that is still pending before 

the courts? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We’re not compelling anything. There is no implementation of the Clean Power Plan. 

Mr. HULTGREN. So the model trading rules are not moving forward? 
62 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know whether we’re going to move forward with the model trading rule. The model trading rule is a tool. 

It is not a requirement. Whether or not we move forward with that 

tool is something we’ll discuss with DOJ but we will not risk anything that would show the court that we are doing anything other 

than fully complying with the stay. 

Mr. HULTGREN. My time’s expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren, and the gentlewoman from Virginia, Mrs. Comstock, is recognized for her questions. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for 

convening this hearing, and it’s been very interesting for me to 

hear some of the highlights from my other colleagues. 

I wanted to call attention to a decision by the EPA a few years 

ago that would have had a detrimental impact on Fairfax County, 

which is a significant part of my district. In 2011, the EPA attempted to regulate water by considering the stormwater runoff 

from a local creek as a pollutant, so the EPA was—you’re going to 

regulate the stormwater runoff, and when this new regulation was 

first released, officials from Virginia Department of Transportation 

estimated the cost of compliance would have been $70 million for 

the commonwealth. It would have had to do a lot of structural purchases and new management structures. In addition, Fairfax County officials said they would have to adopt costly and impractical 

new standards to reduce stormwater runoff, which would have at 

least cost the county $300 million and up to $500 million according 

to our county officials. So I can imagine $500 million is a pretty 

huge budget in a county budget. Just to give you an idea, our 

school budget in 2012 around this time frame was $2.2 billion, so 

that would have been almost a quarter of the school budget that 

would have been required to divert to these regulations. 

In this instance, and I would like to highlight, it was a Democrat-controlled county. I think only a couple of supervisors who are 

even Republican there. But they teamed up with our then-Republican, an arch conservative attorney general, and you know, at the 

time, the Democrat chairman said, you know, a lot of people were 

scratching their heads over that but she said we’re willing to spend 

money to protect our watersheds, our drinking water and the 

Chesapeake Bay but we want to make sure the money is well 

spent. In this case, she said the EPA’s rule would’ve done nothing 

to help the environment because they were already doing things 

that were going to work better than the rules that were going to 

cost us up to $500 million. 

Fortunately in that lawsuit, we did prevail. Fairfax County prevailed, the state prevailed, and I appreciate that the EPA did not 

decide to appeal that case. But, you know, in sitting and listening 

here today, we’re hearing so many times where this is costing our 

local communities. I mean, while I appreciate my county didn’t 

have to spend $300 to $500 million and cut into budget and muscle 

and firefighters and police and all those other things, they certainly 

did have to cut into their budgets to take those lawsuits as did the 

state, certainly a lot less than $300 to $500 million. 
63 

But when you have things like this, and fortunately, it was Fairfax County who did this, who had the resources to bring that lawsuit. You know, another county might not have those kind of resources. I mean, do you look at that kind of impact and the economic impact when you’re doing this, and what would you tell a 

county when it was going to cost them $500 million but didn’t have 

the resources to sue the EPA and prevail the way they did? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Congresswoman, I don’t know the exact 

rules that you’re talking about or a decision that was in dispute. 

You know, we do our best to make sure that we are considering the 

individual circumstances of states and communities. We actually 

have policies in place which guide us in doing that when we’re 

dealing with—— 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Well, in this case, the judge said you are overreaching your authority, and I think the fact that EPA did not appeal probably was a recognition of that, but unfortunately, not everyone can take those actions. So this kind of overreaching, you 

know, what does the county that can’t afford to deal with your 

overreaching to do? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I don’t know the circumstances. I apologize 

for that, but I’m not aware of the circumstances that you’re talking 

about so I can’t really speak to it directly. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Well, I certainly think these kind of costs, and 

I think all of my colleagues have highlighted these very well, have 

a dramatic impact on local budgets and oftentimes local budgets— 

and we’re talking schools. When you’re talking a county and you 

come in and do that, you’re talking about cutting our schools, unless you have any ideas. I mean, when half of a county’s budget, 

sometimes more—you know, in Loudoun County, it’s higher than 

half. So if you’d gone in and done the same in that county, it would 

have cut even more. 

So I’d like you to, when you’re looking at these things, understand the limited budgets you’re dealing with. It’s asking our firefighters, our teachers, our local officials to say we’re going to cut 

you for something that our local Democrat chairman of the board 

of supervisors said did nothing to help the environment. Nothing. 

That’s a big cost to do nothing to help the environment when we 

already had some very good practices in place. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mrs. Comstock. 

And I believe that is all the members who are present and they 

have asked their questions, so that takes us to the end of our hearing today. 

And Administrator McCarthy, you have reassured several members today that you will produce the documents and data that we 

have requested. I hope you meant that because we have a lot of requests that are still outstanding. So I look forward to your responsiveness in that regard. 

Thank you for being here today. I appreciate your taking the 

time to testify, and we will be following up with some of our questions as well. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you for being here. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman? 
64 

Chairman SMITH. And the gentlewoman from Texas has request 

that some items be made a part of the record. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Chairman SMITH. And she is recognized for that purpose. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I ask unanimous consent to make the NAACP letter a part of the 

record, and simply want to thank the Administrator for being here 

today and being questioned for two and a half hours. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, those letters will be made a 

part of the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix] 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(65) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
66 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Hon. Gina McCarthy 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
(81) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
82 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE MO BROOKS
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE GARY PALMER
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WESTERMAN
102 
103 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE LEE ABRAHAM
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE RANDY HULTGREN
109 
110 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHSNON
111 
112 
113 
114 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 

Æ