S. HRG. 113–754 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 26, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY’S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET 
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

97–797 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–754 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 26, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 26, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 20 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 135 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 136 

Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ..................... 137 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 138 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ........................ 140 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 143 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 497 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 499 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 577 

WITNESS 

McCarthy, Hon. Gina, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . 150 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 152 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 157 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 162 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 164 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 211 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 215 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S FISCAL 

YEAR 2015 BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Whitehouse, Booker, Inhofe, 

Barrasso, Sessions, Crapo, Wicker, Boozman, and Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The committee will come to order. 

We are on a fast track because we have votes. Could I ask members to take their seats, please? 

I welcome Administrator McCarthy to this oversight hearing on 

the 2015 EPA budget. 

EPA’s mission is to protect the public health and the environment through programs that address clean air, children’s health, 

safe drinking water, toxics, and water quality. Like other Federal 

agencies, EPA has been asked to do more with less. Five years ago 

their budget was $10.3 billion, and the 2015 budget request we are 

going to discuss today has been reduced to 7.9, a 23 percent cut; 

and I am particularly concerned about the proposed cuts to the 

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and the 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program. These programs are 

critical to protecting our public health. 

In addition to funding cuts, EPA has faced other challenges in 

recent years, including a rogue career employee, John Beale, who 

has been sentenced to prison for defrauding the American taxpayers. I appreciate the work the Office of Inspector General did 

to ferret out this employee, and I would like to commend Administrator McCarthy for bringing his outrageous actions to light. 

EPA has over 15,000 employees and, just like any organization, 

public, private, even the military, there are bound to be a few 

outliers who must be held accountable. But with thousands of dedicated employees, EPA has demonstrated repeated success at improving our families’ health by keeping the Nation’s air and water 

clean and safe. 
2 

For example, in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Standard and Program 

under the Clean Air Act prevented 13 million lost work days, prevented more than 160,000 deaths from air pollution, prevented 3.2 

million lost school days, prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks. 

Administrator McCarthy, I can’t find very many agencies that 

could say that. 

I wanted to show a picture of what happens when you don’t pay 

attention to the air. This is another photograph of China. We don’t 

need to have a theory on this; we see what happens when countries 

don’t value their people enough to protect them from dirty air. Actually, there was a new study that shows 3.7 million people worldwide have died prematurely from outdoor air pollution. 

We also know, over the last 40 years, while there were people 

railing against EPA, the economy has grown 212 percent, while air 

pollution has dropped 68 percent. A responsible budget must not 

lose sight of our top priorities, including protecting the health and 

safety of the people. 

What is at stake if we do not have adequate safeguards in place? 

Just look at West, Texas, where 15 people died in a chemical explosion, or look at West Virginia, where a chemical spill contaminated 

the water supply for 300,000 people. By taking preventive action, 

we can help communities avoid similar disasters. 

I intend, next week, to mark up a bill, the Manchin bill, that he 

wrote with Senator Rockefeller and myself, the Chemical Safety 

and Drinking Water Protection Act. I really do pray we can get 

that done next week here in a bipartisan way. We will get it done, 

but I am hoping for bipartisanship, because when you have chemicals that are not regulated and they are sitting on top of a drinking 

water supply, look what happened to that town economically when 

their drinking water was destroyed. I think we need to act. 

I also want to thank EPA for proposing a rule to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Many colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle, along with dozens of organizations, including Ducks Unlimited, the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Farm 

Bureau, the National Mining Association, the National Association 

of Homebuilders, have repeatedly called on EPA and the Corps to 

go through a formal rulemaking to clear up the uncertainty created 

by two confusing Supreme Court decisions. 

This proposed rule will now proceed through an open and transparent process where all views can be heard, including those whose 

views differ from yesterday’s proposal. The proposed rule ensures 

protections for the wetlands and small streams that can be a 

source of drinking water for over 117 million Americans. For the 

first time, EPA has listed bodies of water that are exempted from 

this regulation, including upland ditches, artificial lakes or ponds, 

reflecting pools, and swimming pools, and I ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record the full list of exemptions. Without objection. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Senator BOXER. EPA has a record that Americans be proud of, 

and I want to show you the support that EPA has in the public; 

we have it on a chart here. The American people know what you 

are doing and they appreciate what you are doing. Sixty-six percent 

of voters favor EPA updating air pollution standards by setting 

stricter limits. Seventy-two percent of voters support new standards for carbon pollution from power plants. 

So, Madam Administrator, I have to stop. I am holding myself 

to 5 minutes. I will hold everyone to that. Thank you for being 

here. 

With that, I would call on our ranking member, Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for 

being with us. 

This is a very important oversight hearing about EPA’s budget 

and overall what is going on at EPA, its management practices, 

how it is being run. This committee obviously has that fundamental oversight responsibility. The starkest example of concerns 

about how EPA is being run, what I would characterize as a longterm culture at EPA, is the case of the former senior EPA official, 

John Beale. Of course, he has turned out to be a manipulator and 

charlatan of renowned proportions. 

We now know that EPA dithered for years rather than take action against a fake CIA agent who stole over $1 million of taxpayer 

money. This and other failings are detailed in a series of memoranda issued by my committee staff, which I would like to enter 

into the record at this time. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced documents follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

This memorandum exposes an indisputable time line that raises 

questions not just about John Beale, about EPA. In January 2011, 

Ms. McCarthy was informed that Beale had been receiving erroneous bonus payments that actually elevated his salary above a 

statutory cap, and was advised by her human resources staff and 

legal counsel to cancel the bonus. Instead, she deferred to an EPA 

official equal to her in rank at the time, allegedly because of uncertainty over Beale’s CIA status. However, a senior EPA official directly informed Ms. McCarthy that there were no CIA employees 

at EPA. 

While it appears Ms. McCarthy believed the matter was closed 

when Beale announced his retirement in May 2011, she learned in 

March 2012 that Beale had not retired and in fact collected full pay 

plus the illegal retention bonus of $42,768. Ms. McCarthy took no 

action against Beale for nearly a year after this, finally canceling 

the illegal bonus in February 2013. And instead of firing Beale, Ms. 

McCarthy allowed him to retire 2 months later with full benefits. 

Now, it is now clear that Beale also led one of EPA’s most significant rulemakings prior to that, the 1997 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter. This effort 

codified EPA’s practice of using fine particulates to inflate alleged 

benefits of nearly all Clean Air Act regulations. Almost two decades 

later, the Agency still refuses to share all the scientific data underpinning these very costly regulations. 

Collectively, Beale and his best friend Robert Brenner’s work on 

the standards introduced a series of dubious actions that the Agency has continued to follow and comprised what my committee staff 

has referred to as EPA’s playbook, as detailed in a comprehensive 

staff report issued last week on this issue, and I would like to enter 

that into the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 

Senator VITTER. The Obama EPA has embraced the strategies of 

this playbook and pursued ideologically driven agendas in much 

the same way as Beale did in the 1990s, pushing through controversial regulations where the ends justify the means. This is 

done by assenting to sue and settle agreements, excluding public 

participation, employing heavy handed management of the interagency review process, inflating purported benefits, and, quite 

frankly, just hiding science. 

EPA’s continued use of the playbook has led to dire consequences 

for Americans. For example, on March 10th of this year, the New 

York Times reported on the story of 81-year-old Ernestine Cundiff 

of Columbus, Ohio, a diabetic with deteriorating health living on a 

fixed income. Ms. Cundiff now struggles to pay her energy bills as 

a direct result of EPA air regulations that have shut down electricity generation in her part of the country. 

To advance EPA’s extreme agenda, it is also clear that this EPA 

extends its regulatory arm with complete disregard for American 

taxpayer dollars, and we have many examples of that. 

These examples of waste and abuse make congressional oversight 

absolutely critical. That is why this hearing and follow up work is 

so enormously important to get at this concerning culture, of 

which, unfortunately, John Beale is just the poster child, not the 

full extent. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

I want to place in the record a counter to some of these things. 

An article in the Washington Post that says, outside of Gina 

McCarthy, there wasn’t ever, ever, in all the years under the Bush 

administration, Republican and Democratic administrations, no one 

ever stopped Beale except Gina McCarthy. We will put that in the 

record and we will call on Senator Whitehouse. 

[The referenced document follows:] 
132 
133 
134 
135 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for being here. You exercise one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal 

Government, to protect human health and the environment, and I 

applaud your service, and I am sorry that this issue has become 

so partisan. I have the seat of Senator John Chafee, who was both 

a Republican and an environmentalist, and I am sorry that that 

combination of features no longer seems possible in Washington. 

You have had to do more with less, and I appreciate that. There 

are people here who want you to do less with less. They don’t want 

EPA to be efficient; they want it to be wounded and to be unable 

to protect the American public. But I urge you to continue with 

your work. Your Tier 3 motor vehicle rule, for instance, will prevent as many as 2,000 premature deaths and 30,000 respiratory illnesses in children every year. 

The health benefits of the rule can actually be quantified and have been quantified to between $6.7 billion and $19 billion in 

value to the American public every year. This is a particularly important public health victory in States like Rhode Island, where 

more than 1 in 10 of our citizens suffer from asthma. There may 

be people here who don’t care about that, but I do, and I think it 

is important that the public health side of the equation be recognized, as well. 

I also applaud your efforts to regulate the carbon emissions that 

are coming from, first, to be new power plants and then, shortly, 

the regulations we hope for on existing power plants. We hope that 

we can do some work on your funding. It is unfortunate that, because of cuts, funding for Clean Water and Drinking Water State 

revolving funds had to be reduced by 30 percent and 17 percent, 

respectively. Those are important programs for our home States. 

It is also unfortunate that lack of resources has required EPA to 

delay some of its work, at least in part due to the lack of resources. 

The coal ash standard that the Obama administration committed 

to in 2008 was the result of a dam collapse in Tennessee and a coal 

ash spill 100 times the size of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In the last 

few weeks, tens of thousands of tons of coal ash from Duke Energy 

facilities contaminated 70 miles of river in North Carolina and Virginia. 

Now, EPA has finally published the proposed rules in June 2010. 

There has not been action since. The Federal Court has finally instructed EPA to complete the rule this year. I hope the recent episodes with coal ash disaster have motivated you despite the cuts. 

But that is the price of putting EPA under the kind of financial 

pressure. When you want people not to do more with less, but to 

do less with less, then that is what you get, and I think it is very 

unfortunate for North Carolina and Virginia. 

So I look forward to working with you. We actually, at last, have 

a budget timeframe that will allow appropriators to work through 

budgets and get into some detail, rather than have mad dashes and 

brinksmanship at the end between the President and the Speaker, 

for instance, without Senators having an opportunity to participate. 

So I am looking forward to working on that process. 
136 

And please continue to go forward on climate change; it is way 

past denial, as the American Academy for the Advancement of 

Sciences recent report shows, as NASA scientists have repeatedly 

showed. I find it remarkable that people contend that NASA 

doesn’t know what it is doing when they have an SUV-sized vehicle 

drive around on the surface of Mars right now. That is a pretty 

good sign that these people know their science. 

So thank you for being here. You have fans and supporters, and 

we will have your back. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you for staying so well within 

your time. The reason I am going to do a tough gavel is we have 

votes. If we can get down to the floor about 11:20, I think we will 

just make it. 

So we will now turn to Senator Crapo, followed by Senator 

Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this 

important hearing on the EPA’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal. 

And thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for joining us today. 

To begin with, I would like to echo my colleague’s concerns regarding John Beale and his deep connections to regulatory decisions affecting all Americans. It seems difficult to conclude that 

any of Mr. Beale’s work on the many initiatives under his purview 

at EPA can be trusted at face value. As such, I would like to take 

this opportunity to urge for a robust review of all rulemakings and 

regulatory actions connected with Mr. Beale’s service at the EPA. 

Moving to the budget in particular, the Federal Government continues to face severe budget challenges, and further attention is 

needed by Congress in order to improve our long-term fiscal outlook, knowing the funding priorities of executive branch agency is 

an important resource as Congress prepares its own budget and fiscal measures. I understand that the EPA, like all Federal agencies, 

has been working to do its part in achieving deficit reduction. However, I am perplexed by some of what I see in the EPA’s budget 

proposals. 

In reviewing the EPA’s budget proposal, I am concerned that the 

Agency has proposed funding reductions for programs that enjoy 

strong bipartisan support and are critical programs, while increasing funding for programs on initiatives that remain controversial. 

Specifically, at a time when we have just heard about a new proposal for what I consider to be nothing more than a jurisdictional 

power grab over water with regard to our Clean Water Act and 

safe drinking water statutes, we also see in the budget proposal the 

proposed reduction of funding for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State revolving loan funds. That is a big concern to me. 

I think we all in America know that we are facing over $200 billion of infrastructure needs in these arenas, and we have been 

working for years to try to get adequate budgets to help our Nation 

deal with its aging water infrastructure. And to see over $580 million in reduction of that budget, when other parts of the EPA budget could have been looked to for the necessary savings, is disturbing. The small communities who need this assistance to ensure 
137 

that their water systems meet State and Federal environmental 

regulations are going to be badly harmed by this budget decision. 

Additionally, the proposed reduction in funding for the 

brownfields program is discouraging. Just last summer I co-chaired 

an EPW subcommittee hearing in which we heard about the positive impact this program has had in Idaho and across the Nation. 

Also, many of my colleagues and I continue to have serious concerns with the President’s climate action plan and the use of Executive authority to circumvent Congress. The EPA’s 2015 budget 

proposal clearly advocates the continuation of this alarming process. 

There are many other things I could say, but in terms of trying 

to pay attention to the chairman’s admonition to keep it brief, I 

will end with this. But, Administrator McCarthy, I encourage you 

to help find a way to correct the budget decisions that will shortfund our State revolving funds and to help us move forward in correcting that trend and, in fact, help us to get increased resources 

into this critical part of our Nation’s water infrastructure. Thank 

you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much. 

Senator Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Chairwoman, for this 

opportunity. I want to thank not only the Chairwoman, but Ranking Member Vitter for holding this hearing. 

Administrator McCarthy, I just want to welcome you. I am very 

excited about your leadership and the opportunity as a new Senator to serve with you because, for me, it is very obvious that the 

EPA’s mission to protect public health is severely urgent. In the 

State of New Jersey, we have more Superfund sites than any other 

State. It is appalling how we, in the past, have not stepped up to 

hold people accountable for the messes that they are making, and 

we are spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money, I believe unnecessarily, in costs that should have been internalized by industry. 

So I believe right now it is appropriate and important that the 

proposed EPA budget for 2015 needs to make addressing climate 

change as one of the Agency’s top objectives. We must address the 

threats posed by climate change before it is too late and that we 

are cleaning up the more expensive damage that it will do in the 

future. 

I am pleased to see in your budget proposed requests to allocate 

increased resources to climate change and air quality work, and to 

see funding specifically dedicated—and this gets me very excited— 

for preparing for the impacts of climate change. That includes technical assistance for adaptation, planning for risks associated with 

storm surges, a threat that we are very familiar with in New Jersey. 

New Jersey is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate 

change. Scientists at Rutgers recently estimated that the New Jersey shore will likely experience a sea level rise of 1.5 feet by 2050 

and 3.5 feet by 2100. The projections for the New Jersey coasts are 
138 

higher than the projections for average sea level rise globally. The 

projected sea level rise of 1.5 feet for 2050 for the New Jersey coast 

would mean places like Atlantic City, if there was a 10-year storm 

surge—not a 50-year storm or 100-year storm, but just the scale of 

storm that, on average, we see every 10 years—flood levels from 

that storm would be worse than any flooding that has ever been 

experienced in Atlantic City, and it would be far more routine. 

EPA’s budget justification also demonstrates the Agency’s continued commitment to addressing issues of environmental justice, an 

area I would like to work closely with you on as we move forward. 

Climate change does not impact everyone equally. Low income and 

minority communities will be disproportionately impacted by future 

extreme weather events. While natural disasters may seem like 

equal opportunity destroyers, they are not. In today’s economy, 

many people live in vulnerable communities and are one paycheck 

away from the devastating impact of poverty. In cities such as 

Newark and New Orleans, as we saw from Hurricanes Sandy and 

Katrina, one major storm can destroy fragile networks supporting 

families’ access to food, shelter, and medicine. We must be prepared for increasing climate change. 

Low income and minority communities are systematically more 

likely to lack parks and trees and green spaces, and have a higher 

concentration of pavement than wealthier communities. Newark, 

for example, where I was mayor, approximately 70 percent of its 

surface is impervious and only has 15 percent canopy coverage. The 

temperature of a paved surface absorbing summer heat can be 50 

to 90 degrees above the temperature of a green surface. This leads 

to significantly higher air temperatures, which then result in increased air pollution, spikes in asthma rates, and more cases of 

heat stroke and even death among the elderly. 

The EPA has taken important first steps toward reductions of 

carbon emissions by setting standards that will cut carbon pollution from automobiles and trucks nearly in half by 2025, but we 

know that the power plants make up at least a third of the Nation’s CO2 emissions; and I commend the Administration’s work to 

limit greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power 

plants. The EPA has both the authority and the responsibility 

under the Clean Air Act to reduce pollution from these plants. 

Administrator McCarthy, I look forward to working with you on 

these issues. I admire your courage in this overly partisan debate. 

The truth is we share one common destiny in this country. Whether you are a red State or blue State, Republican or Democrat, the 

threats to our climate are real and they are obvious, and we can 

do things to address them that actually increase economic opportunity for our Nation and uplift our higher aspirations to make this 

a country with liberty and justice for all, and for that I thank you 

for stepping forward to lead and I look forward, again, to working 

with you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 
139 

Ms. McCarthy, even though we have a good personal relationship, I am growing increasingly concerned about the EPA’s systematic distortion of the costs and benefits. We hear a lot about the 

benefits, but not the costs. While it is quick to turn over every 

stone to find every conceivable benefit that could come from a new 

rulemaking, the Agency exerts just as much effort to cut corners 

and ignore the reality so it can downplay the true economic costs 

of these regulations. This distortion enables the Agency to enact 

outlandish rules of obscene costs and harm to the economy and the 

American public without any respect to the cost-benefit balance enshrined in the foundation of our environmental laws. 

This topic has been one of focus to the committee, as evidenced 

by the recent report. We have already talked about John Beale and 

I won’t elaborate on that, but more damage than the money he 

stole from the taxpayers is that he and others wrote the playbook 

on how to get away with this distortion of costs and benefit. For 

the sake of the American public, it is time to aggressively rein in 

this practice. 

As one example, let me just consider utility MACT rule. The utility MACT is the rule that requires powerplants to reduce certain 

components of their missions. The Clean Air Act requires these 

rules to be updated periodically, but only as technology allows and 

to the extent that the benefits outweigh the rule’s full cost to the 

economy. In its cost estimate, the EPA stated the rule would create 

46,000 temporary construction jobs and 8,000 net permanent jobs. 

Now that this rule has set in, we are starting to see its real impact, and the facts reveal that the rule has not only had a devastating impact on coal production across the country, but it also 

resulted in dozens of power plants being shut down, which has 

caused significant increases in electricity prices around the country. 

The New York Times reported on these impacts on March 10th. 

They wrote, ‘‘Underlying the growing concern among the consumers 

and regulators is a second phenomenon that could lead to even bigger price increases: scores of old coal-fired power plants in the Midwest will close in the next year or so because of Federal pollution 

rules. Still others could close because of a separate rule,’’ we are 

talking about the water rule, ‘‘for utilities. Another frigid winter 

like this could lead to a squeeze in supply, making it even harder 

and much more expensive to supply power.’’ That is all a quote 

from the New York Times. 

But this is already happening. The article reported that in Rhode 

Island a utility received permission to raise prices 12 percent over 

the previous years. In Pennsylvania, utility bills have tripled in 

some places. What is shocking to me is the New York Times is connecting these increases back to the EPA’s regulation. So I have to 

wonder is it even remotely possible that the utility MACT rule created 8,000 net permanent jobs as EPA said it would. If this is causing electricity prices to triple in some areas, how is that possible? 

Before I came to Congress, I was in business, and when input 

costs go up, it doesn’t create jobs; it lowers profits, it puts strains 

on the margins of the business. The same is true with the whole 

economy. And when an input cost as significant as electricity begins to soar in cost or wobble in reliability, the impact is negative 
140 

and felt across the entire economy; it destroys jobs, it doesn’t create 

8,000 new jobs. That the Obama EPA can get away with this kind 

of distortion proves the Agency, in my opinion, is out of control, 

and this is something I am going to focus on for the rest of the 

year; it is simply too important for us not to. EPA’s impact may 

be coal now, but we know it is going to be natural gas next. Whether it is hydraulic fracturing or methane emissions, the EPA is intent to carry out what the Sierra Club has named its Beyond Natural Gas campaign, just as the EPA did with Sierra Club’s Beyond 

Coal campaign. 

We in the Senate are charged with stewarding this Nation, 

which includes watching out for those who are most vulnerable. 

The elderly and the poor are most at risk for losing their homes 

and health due to the skyrocketing electricity bills, which is exactly 

what will happen under the EPA’s war on fossil fuels. It is our job 

to watch out for them. These are the most vulnerable people, I suggest to my good friend from New Jersey. 

So I would only say, Madam Chairman, I am going to have to 

excuse myself for a while for an Armed Services obligation, but I 

am going to be coming right back. 

Senator BOXER. Sure. 

Senator INHOFE. And hopefully we will have a chance to respond 

to some of these comments made concerning climate change. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I am excited what you said about the 

elderly and the poor, so we will work together on that. 

Let me say what I am going to do, unless there is objection. We 

are going to hear from the two Senators who haven’t been heard 

from, and then I am going to shut down the comments here so that 

we can get to Gina McCarthy. Colleagues coming in can do their 

opening statement with their questions. Is that OK with everyone? 

OK, that is excellent. 

So we will hear from Senator Wicker, followed by Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. I think that is a very good solution, Madam 

Chair. 

Senator BOXER. All right. 

Senator WICKER. I would like to ask unanimous consent to place 

in the record at this point an op ed from WallStreetJournal.com entitled How Carbon Dioxide Became a ‘‘Pollutant.’’ 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced document follows:] 
141 
142 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. And I do it for this purpose, Madam 

Chair and Administrator McCarthy: We have had a lot of discussion already this morning in the form of opening statements about 

the proven dreaded results of particulate pollution and poisons put 

into our environment, an issue where everyone in this room agrees. 

We have heard discussion in statements about respiratory illnesses; we have heard endorsements by the American Lung Association; we have talked about asthma; particulate pollution in 

China, this awful picture that the chairman showed showing smog 

in China; discussions of coal ash; Superfund sites. 

And then without making any distinction at all between these 

poisons and particulate pollutants, my friends on the other side of 

the dais switch almost in the same sentence to climate change, 

where the target there is greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, 

making no distinction between the fact and making no mention of 

the fact that CO2 and greenhouse gases have nothing to do with 

respiratory illnesses or with lung disease or asthma or smog in 

China or coal ash or Superfund sites, something we all are very 

much interested in. 

And I would point out to my colleagues that toward the end of 

this op ed that is now part of the record, EPA acknowledged some 

positive impacts from higher CO2 concentrations. One is faster 

growing trees in tropical forests, which helps offset deforestation. 

EPA has acknowledged that. CO2 is good for the rainforest. Another is that marshes can grow more quickly above rising sea levels, providing an insurance policy of sorts for low-lying areas 

against the potential ravages of rising sea levels. 

So, at any rate, I would just point out that there are differences 

on this committee about the effect of CO2 on climate change, but 

no one is suggesting that CO2 causes lung disease, asthma, or the 

kind of smog that the chairman talked about. 

I will tell you what we do agree on, Administrator McCarthy. We 

agree that there are some mighty fine programs that the Administration is proposing cuts for. The 2015 budget process, the budget 

of the Administration proposes cutting $430 million from the Clean 

Water Revolving Loan Fund, $150 million from the Drinking Water 

Revolving Fund, and $5 million from the Brownfields Program. 

This is something we can all agree on: these are proven programs 

that are well received by State and local communities, encourage 

the EPA to work with communities in a cooperative manner rather 

than a confrontational one. 

These cuts are even more troubling considering that some estimate the amount needed to bring local water infrastructure into 

EPA regulations is over $2.5 trillion. We need to be helping local 

communities rather than putting unfunded mandates on them. 

All across the Federal Government, agencies are having to make 

tough decisions to rein in the country’s spending. I would rather we 

help communities with safe drinking water and with safe air, rather than putting some funding of dubious value into CO2 regulation 

in the name of climate change. 

I am also concerned that EPA addresses out-of-compliance communities often with subpoenas and civil action, when we should be 

coming to them with technical assistance and grants. EPA’s enforcement actions may help achieve compliance, but when small 
143 

and rural communities must funnel meager funds away from 

schools and hospitals, I question the efficacy of this approach. 

I raised many of these same issues in the record during Administrator McCarthy’s nomination hearing. I look forward to visiting 

with her about these in the future. 

Finally, I hope we can work together to strengthen the partnership between EPA and small rural communities in developing and 

complying with regulations to protect our environment and our citizens. This is an issue upon which Republicans and Democrats can 

agree. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

Finally, Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator Wicker, I thank you for saying what you said, it was 

very important. CO2 is an odorless, tasteless gas we emit when we 

breathe, and plants all breathe it in and grow faster when there 

is more CO2, a fact which cannot be denied. We need to differentiate that between the kinds of actual pollutants that make people 

sick, and we can do that. We have made a lot of progress in America to clean up the air, and we need to keep at it, but we need to 

be smart about it. It is a bit disingenuous when I hear people say 

carbon, carbon, carbon, and what they really mean is CO2. They 

use the word carbon and it makes people think of soot and particulates and things of that nature, and I think that really misrepresents the issue somewhat. 

Ms. McCarthy, I am concerned about spending. We are going to see interest on our debt grow from $211 billion last year, according 

to the Congressional Budget Office, to $880 billion in 1 year 10 

years from now. Every agency has to watch its spending, and Congress has a clear duty to monitor spending. 

The ozone standard that you sought or your department sought 

to advance early is an example, I believe, of wasted money. In 

2008, after a process that took 8 years, EPA tightened significantly 

the ozone standard. That was done in a proper way. And under the 

Clean Air Act the ozone standard was to be reviewed again in 5 

years. Yet almost immediately upon coming into office, the Obama 

EPA began a costly and premature process of reconsidering the 

ozone standard to make it even more stringent, and this reconsideration was recognized as one of the most expensive environmental 

regulations ever proposed, with some estimates reaching $90 billion 

in annual costs. I objected to that; 30 Senators wrote to object to 

that, and that decision was reversed. I simply asked how much did 

this cost in the 2 years that it was undertaken before it was abandoned; how much money was wasted; how much money was spent 

on that, and I have inquired on several different occasions. 

I would offer for the record a letter that I wrote on a letter that 

you wrote to me, a letter that was written by the Republican members of this committee to you asking about an analysis of what you 

spent, and, in effect, you responded this way, or at least your Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe: ‘‘It is difficult for EPA to estimate with any meaningful precision the expenses and full-time 
144 

equivalent employees used for the reconsideration of the 2008 

ozone standard specifically.’’ 

Well, it is not difficult for you to answer that question. I think 

that is a direct refusal to answer. And you said at the hearing, 

when I asked you about it, that you would do that. I asked you to 

provide a response, if you would respond to the question for the 

record, and you answered, I absolutely will. You were specifically 

asked, did EPA incur significant costs as part of the ozone reconsideration? If so, how much? And you ignored that question. 

Can you not provide us the information that we asked? That will 

be a question I will be asking you. I think it is a responsible action 

for us to ask about and we will continue to press it. 

Madam Chairman, I will wrap up. Thank you for the opportunity 

to ask these questions. And I will share Roger Wicker, Senator 

Wicker’s concern that we are moving money from State programs 

for clean water and water treatment to the bureaucracy at EPA. 

I think that is the wrong path to take. 

[The referenced letters follow:] 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much for keeping it under 

the time limit. 

Yes, Administrator McCarthy, this is your time. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed 

fiscal year 2015 budget. I am joined by the Agency’s Acting Chief 

Financial Officer, Maryann Froehlich. EPA’s budget request is $7.980 billion for the 2015 fiscal year 

starting October 1, 2014. This budget meets the challenges of domestic spending constraints while still fulfilling our mission to protect public health and the environment. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects EPA’s plans to take advantage of new technologies and new regulatory and non-regulatory 

approaches; it recognizes that EPA is part of a larger network of 

environmental partners and States, tribes, and communities. 

This budget will provide the support for a smaller work force by 

focusing on real progress in priority areas in communities about climate change and air quality, toxics and chemical safety, as well as 

clean water. 

And we are asking for $7.5 million and 64 staff in fiscal year 

2015 to help provide green infrastructure technical assistance for 

up to 100 communities to provide cost-effective approaches for 

water management. 

In addition, the budget requests continues our environmental 

justice efforts. We will do more to partner with States, tribes, and 

local governments and other Federal agencies. Funding for State 

and tribal assistance grants, or STAG, dollars is once again the 

largest percentage of EPA’s budget. 

Addressing the threat from a changing climate is one of the 

greatest challenges of this and future generations. The request designates $199.5 million specifically for this work. 

The Agency has added $10 million in 24 FTEs in fiscal year 2015 

to support the President’s Climate Action Plan, with $2 million designated for adaptation planning. 

The Agency will also focus resources on the development of common sense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power 

plants, the single largest source of carbon pollution. When it comes 

to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the President’s budget provides support for the States to help them implement the Clean Air 

Act. 

The EPA budget requests almost $673 million to support work to 

improve chemical safety for all Americans, and especially our children. 

We are requesting $23 million and 24 FTEs in 2015 to support 

activities under the President’s Executive Order on chemical safety, 

as well as Agency efforts on chemical prioritization, air toxics, 

radon, and volatile organic compounds in drinking water. 

The Nation’s water resources are the lifeblood of our communities. We are requesting $1.775 billion for the Clean Water and 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. 
151 

The Agency is also directing $8 million and 10 FTEs to advance 

clean water infrastructure and sustainable design like the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Program for technical support 

to communities. 

E-Enterprise is a major joint initiative between EPA and the 

States to modernize our business practices, to get us into the 21st 

century, to develop a new business model that looks toward the future. The benefits of implementing the E-Enterprise initiative can 

be seen in the budget. Just the E-Enterprise initiative of E-Manifest alone includes annual savings estimated at $75 million for over 

160,000 waste handlers. 

In fiscal year 2015, the Agency is requesting $1.33 billion to continue to apply effective approaches for clean up of RCRA, Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank, and other authorities. 

This strategy will ensure land is returned to beneficial use. $1.16 

billion is requested for Superfund, which includes a $43.4 million 

increase for remedial work and an increase of $9.2 million for 

emergency response and removal. The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a total of $1.13 billion in categorical grants. Within that total is over $96 million for tribal 

general assistance program grants, an $18 million increase for pollution control, a $16 million increase for environmental information 

grants, and a $15 million increase for State and local air quality 

management. 

Science is at the foundation of our work at EPA, and science is 

supported by the President’s budget request of $537.3 million. 

Last, across the Administration we recognize the importance of 

the 2-year budget agreement Congress reached in December, but 

the resulting funding levels are not sufficient to expand opportunities to all Americans or to really drive the growth of our economy 

in the way that is needed. 

For that reason, across the Federal Government, the budget also includes a separate, fully paid $56 billion initiative that is supporting climate resilience. EPA would be the beneficiary of approximately $15 million. 

Chairman Boxer, I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and 

I will take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 
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 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I am sorry I kind of rushed you at 

the end. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is all right. 

Senator BOXER. So I am so taken by some of my colleagues’ comments, and I have such great relationships across the aisle, personal relationships, but this idea that the Republicans support 

cracking down on ozone and smog and particulate matter just isn’t 

true. All you had to do is listen to these comments. They are opposed to everything EPA does, not just climate. 

And I want to point out and put in the record the endangerment 

findings started under the Bush administration from too much carbon pollution. We know you need a certain amount in the air, but 

too much is dangerous. This is what it says. And it started with 

Bush and it was completed under Obama: Climate change threatens human health and well being in many ways, including impacts 

from increased extreme weather events: wildfire decreased air 

quality, diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water. Some of 

these impacts are already underway, and there are cases of kids, 

for example, swimming in lakes that used to be much colder; now 

they are warmer and there are different kinds of bacteria and 

amoebas, and one child got a brain disease swimming in a lake in 

Ohio. And we will put all that into the record. 

[The referenced documents follows:] 
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 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 

Senator BOXER. So there is an endangerment finding, so for people to sit here and say it is no danger is simply contradicted by the 

facts and by science. 

I also want to ask you a couple things here. There is an attempt 

now to blame all the clean air regulations, blame them on this 

rogue employee who is now in jail. Is it not true that any kind of 

proposed rule goes through public comment, peer review, interagency review, and is subjected to judicial review? Is that not so? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. OK. And that is the case with all of these rules. 

I also want to show you what has happened in California, Administrator McCarthy. I think you know this, but I want to show 

you what happened in the clean air with the dirty air days. In our 

State, in Southern California, colleagues, we used to have days 

where there were health advisories and people could not go out; 

and every time I hear Senator Inhofe and others complain about 

these rules and say this is baloney, there were no benefits, excuse 

me. Open your eyes. Look at what happened in L.A. and Southern 

California. In 1976 we had 166 advisories. People were warned not 

to go out. Everyone says they care here about the elderly, and we 

all do. This was huge for the elderly population, to be able to go 

out and breathe the air. And now, in 2010, guess what? We had 

zero health advisories. 

So I would say, Administrator McCarthy, are you aware of this 

in Southern California, and are there other places where you can 

find similar results in the country? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I also wanted to share something else with 

you, which is, again, a poll, the poll numbers on all of this. And 

this is about climate change, where my colleagues are railing 

against it; and that is a fact, they are. We had an all-nighter that 

was organized by Senators Whitehouse and Schatz, and we did 

hear from Senator Inhofe, for which I was very grateful he came 

down; and he railed against what we were doing and said, in other 

words, it is a hoax and all the rest, and we respect him and his 

view. 

But no one came down here. This is where people are. People are 

not with the Republicans on this. Let’s just be clear. I am sorry to 

have to say this in partisan terms, because I served with the great 

John Chafee. I served with the great John Warner, and I saw bipartisan support to move; and I see none of it now. It is sad. It is 

sad. And the reasons I don’t even want to go into, because I think 

I know why. But the bottom line is 81 percent of Americans think 

climate change will be a serious problem if nothing is done to reduce it. 

So thank you for doing what you do despite all the pressure, despite all the insults. 

Seventy-five percent of Americans say the U.S. should take action on climate change even if other nations do less, because they 

are smart. We don’t wait for China to decide how to treat our people and our economy and human rights and religious freedom. We 

are America, we lead. So the American people get it. 
488 

And I guess I don’t have a lot of questions for you, because you 

are going to get plenty. I just want to say keep going. Keep doing 

what you are doing based on science. 

And I would ask Senator Vitter now. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you, 

Madam Administrator. I am going to use my very limited time to 

ask some questions about the John Beale case, because I do think 

this case reflects a deeply broken bureaucracy long-term; that it is 

not an isolated incident and that John Beale, with his good friend 

Robert Brenner, were instrumental in developing key EPA regulations. 

So, Madam Administrator, isn’t it true that you received a memo 

on January 12th, 2011, informing you that Beale’s salary was illegal, it exceeded the statutory cap, and recommending that that 

bonus be terminated? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is true that I became aware of the bonus, yes. 

Senator VITTER. And isn’t it true that you did not cancel that illegal bonus until over 2 years later, February 2013? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, Senator, what is true is I did pursue 

that issue effectively, and I think the Agency was addressing it effectively. 

Senator VITTER. But the illegal bonus, you knew it was illegal 

January 12th, 2011, was canceled February 2013. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. I went ahead and I reported that—— 

Senator VITTER. So that 2-year rapid response you consider effective? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. Actually, it took a while to get to the bottom 

of the John Beale issue because he was a criminal that had systemically intended to fraud the Agency. But the good news is that he 

is in Federal prison right now, having paid back—— 

Senator VITTER. But you knew the bonus was illegal and it went 

on for 2 years. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I understood that it was being investigated, and I had sent it to the correct people to investigate it. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Why, in early 2011, were you reluctant to 

finalize, to not cancel the bonus? Why were you reluctant to take 

action? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I understood that the issue was going 

to be referred to the Office of the Inspector General. When that 

happens, you need to give them the opportunity to investigate it 

and see if it is going to be managed criminally. And I would never 

want to interfere with an investigation of the Office of the Inspector General. 

Senator VITTER. Now, Susan Smith, at OARM, has stated, ‘‘Gina 

is reluctant to finalize cancellation of the bonus unless OARM gives 

her the OK that the White House is aware and there will not be 

any political fallout.’’ Was that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what you are reading, sir, but I 

don’t think I have had a conversation—— 

Senator VITTER. That was an e-mail from Susan Smith. That was 

a direct quote from her. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have never had a conversation with her, so I 

don’t want to speak to her e-mails. 
489 

Senator VITTER. Were you concerned to act until the White 

House looked into it and made sure there would not be any political fallout? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I had no interaction with the White House on 

this issue whatsoever, to the best of my recollection. 

Senator VITTER. That wasn’t the question. Were you concerned 

that the White House look at this regarding political fallout? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That was never a concern of mine, Senator, no. 

Senator VITTER. Did you ever talk to Scott Monroe about that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Many times. 

Senator VITTER. OK. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I am sorry, not about the White House. I 

spoke to him about Mr. Beale and his bonus. 

Senator VITTER. Well, the same Susan Smith e-mail says that 

Scott Monroe told her that you had those concerns. Is that just not 

true? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I never had concerns about the White House’s 

interference or knowledge that—— 

Senator VITTER. So if Scott Monroe said that, he is not speaking 

correctly? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not based on any conversation he had with me, 

no. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Fundamentally, why did it take 2 years to 

cancel this bonus that was just flat out illegal? The number is 

above the cap. Why did it take 2 years to cancel that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I referred this to the appropriate authorities and we did get to the bottom of it, and we did it. And 

while it might have taken longer than any of us would have liked, 

he didn’t go into the sunshine of retirement. 

Senator VITTER. Well, he did, actually. He was allowed to retire. 

He did go out in the sunshine of retirement. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I don’t know how much sunshine he is 

seeing right now, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. He was allowed to retire, right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. He was allowed to go to Federal prison. 

Senator VITTER. First he was allowed to retire, having gotten $90,000 of bonus illegally after you knew it was above the cap. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, every employee has their right to retirement, and I am sure he exercised that right. 

Senator VITTER. Now, Madam Administrator, you told OIG that 

you relied on Craig Hooks for advice and that you were advised by 

Craig Hooks to stand down on the matter, since it was a criminal 

matter. Is that accurate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That was my recollection, yes. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Are you aware that on Monday Craig Hooks 

told Chairman Issa’s staff that he absolutely never told you to 

stand down? Are you aware of that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not aware of that, no. 

Senator VITTER. OK. You stand by your previous statement that 

he told you to stand down because it was a criminal matter? 

Senator BOXER. I am sorry, we have to move on. 

Senator VITTER. Can she answer that final question? 

Do you stand by that previous statement of yours? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sure. 
490 

Senator BOXER. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

It looks like we are going to hear a lot more about a convicted 

former EPA employee than we are going to hear about EPA’s budget in this hearing, so let me ask you. You have had long experience 

with EPA. Is this Mr. Beale character representative of the employees at EPA in terms of work ethic, integrity, or any other feature? 

Should the misconduct that he engaged in find attribution by association to the rest of the employees of EPA? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am so glad you ask that question. He is in no 

way indicative of employees at EPA. They are hardworking professional, dedicated public servants. I have 16,000 people who in no 

way represent him or anything having to do with him. In fact, the 

most devastating part of all this is that any indication that that 

is the case. I am proud of the people that work at that Agency and 

I am extraordinarily honored to be in the position I am in with 

them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me say for the record that I know EPA 

employees and I have known EPA employees over the years, and 

the effort to tar all EPA employees with the misconduct of one 

criminal I think is reprehensible. 

Let me further ask you, let’s go to the merits of all this, of the 

EPA’s work. Where are you guys on methane leakage? If methane 

is burned, it is a dramatic improvement over burning coal from a 

point of view of polluting our environment and oceans with excess 

carbon dioxide. But if it is not burned, if it just leaks, it is actually 

worse than carbon dioxide. So getting after the leaks and making 

sure that it is not leaking is important, because with that natural 

gas industry can’t make its argument that it is actually an improved fossil fuel; it actually loses the battle and suddenly becomes 

just as bad, perhaps even worse than coal. So that question of 

methane leakage becomes really vital to the reputation of this industry and to our success at battling climate change. Can you let 

us know where you are on that? And we have about two and a half 

minutes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure, Senator. It is a big issue and one that we 

have begun to tackle. You know that EPA has already issued rules 

that are driving the recapture of methane and natural gas wells. 

We are also working with the larger Administration to look at all 

of the challenges that the Administration sees and potential solutions for reducing methane across a number of industry sectors. 

The President’s Climate Action Plan indicated that the Administration would be putting out a methane strategy. You will be seeing 

that shortly. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Very well. I appreciate it, and I will yield 

back my time. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to ask 

three questions real quick, and we will talk fast here. 

Ms. McCarthy, on January 10th of 2014, you sent a letter to 

Frances Beinecke, the President of the Natural Resources Defense 

Council, in which you detailed several regulatory initiatives EPA is 

undertaking related to shale gas development. In this letter you 
491 

state that EPA is continuing to work on its national research study 

on the potential, potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing or drinking water sources. As you know, we can call as many things up as 

potential impacts as we want. 

Would you commit to me that, to the extent the study evaluates 

potential impacts, that EPA will work with industry to determine 

the probability of these potential actions occurring and feature 

those together with the potential impacts of the report? This is 

very similar to what you and I actually did successfully not too 

long ago. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. You will do that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I always have and I will make that 

commitment to work with industry on these. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good. I appreciate it. 

In the same letter you state the EPA is working closely with the 

BLM in supporting their efforts on onshore oil and gas order, which 

is the proposed guidelines for venting and flaring natural gas. Can 

you provide the committee with any data or summaries? The procedure there is that the EPA sent the BLM the data. My concern is 

I would like to have industry, and we could talk about how to set 

this up, evaluate that data that would be going out. Would you be 

willing to do that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I am quite sure that BLM is doing their 

outreach to industry. We are just providing comment to BLM. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, but you have data that you are giving. I 

would like to see the data and have an evaluation of that data. In 

fact, I could do that myself. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It would be data that is already readily available 

that we would be provided. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fair enough. Fair enough. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And it is data that we are trying to make better 

every day. 

Senator INHOFE. Ms. McCarthy, the reason I am introducing, and 

I think we did it yesterday, or maybe it was today, the 321 legislation is because I know that the EPA isn’t looking at the cascading 

impacts of the rules to determine the costs that it will have on the 

economy. You look every way for the benefits, but not for the costs, 

and I want to ask you do you think that the regulations have a cost 

on the economy beyond the regulated entity. Now, you know what 

I am talking about here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I do. 

Senator INHOFE. You can confine it to the regulated entity, but 

looking down the road at what it is going to be costing all these 

people. You agree with that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we do the best we can to evaluate all 

costs and benefits. You will be happy to know that Senator Vitter, 

this is an issue that he raised with us, this whole economy modeling, and we are pursuing that with a new science advisory board 

panel. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Well, CASAC is going to be meeting in 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, to debate the EPA’s latest policy assessments. This will be on the ozone standard. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 
492 

Senator INHOFE. It is my understanding that EPA staff has recommended they review a standard as low as 60 parts per billion. 

I can remember during the Bush administration it was 80 parts, 

and then we actually went down to some 60 parts. Behind me you 

will see a map on what would happen if the United States standard were lowered to that level. We are talking about 60 parts per 

billion. Nearly every county would be out of attainment, certainly 

all the counties in my State of Oklahoma; and, if you will notice 

down here, even the Grand Canyon area. If this happened, businesses would not be able to expand, it would essentially close the 

whole Nation for business and result in millions of job losses. 

Do you think lowering the NEC standard would impose costs on 

the economy that are just not acceptable? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we are in the middle of the science 

process. I would rather not speak about any outcome of the ozone 

standard. 

Senator INHOFE. But I will give you a hypothetical. We all deal 

in those nowadays. If it should come to 60, I don’t think you can 

refute the accuracy of these charts. Would you find that to be unacceptable, economically? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I think, as you know, the NEC standard is established based on the science, not on costs. We look at 

costs on the implementation. 

Senator INHOFE. And this is the problem. Do you think that is 

wise? I mean, I have lived with this now for several years, and they 

said, no, we can’t talk about the costs of these things. Why not? 

You know, people out there are hurting. The Senator from New 

Jersey was talking about something before. I disagreed with him 

because I think all these standards and these new regulations are 

going to cost the poor more than the more affluent people because 

they spend a higher percentage of their income on heating their 

homes and this type of thing. 

Do you think it is right that we do that? Maybe that ought to 

be looked at and ought to be changed. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think it is absolutely right that a science question that asks what is healthy air for all Americans should be answered by the science. 

Senator INHOFE. And it should, but we are talking about how to 

the exclusion of looking at it in terms of the cost to the public. 

Senator BOXER. It has started and we are going to move on. The 

vote has started; we have to move on. 

Senator Booker, please keep it to your 5 minutes. 

Senator BOOKER. I certainly will. 

Just real quickly, because I am new to the U.S. Senate and my 

colleagues were talking about my possibly mistaking the impact of 

CO2 in the air being good for forests and stuff like that. But please 

help me understand, as just a new guy on this committee. CO2 in 

the air causes warming, correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. So if you have a preponderance of CO2

in the air and a preponderance of warming, it has effects on our 

climate, correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It does. 
493 

Senator BOOKER. And so if you have effects on the climate, it affects everything from the health of our oceans, from coral reefs to 

the fishing patterns that, frankly, affect the industries of a State 

like mine in New Jersey, correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator BOOKER. And, in fact, when you were talking about 

issues of respiratory health, when the air gets warmer, I have seen 

it. Again, I am just a guy who is new on this committee, but I have 

a lot of experience in public schools. And when temperatures warm, 

you have a lot more cases respiratory problems, including things 

like asthma, right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The scientists would agree with you. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. So there is a direct correlation to too 

much CO2 and respiratory problems and disruptions of fisheries 

and disruptions of economies and sea levels rising. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. 

The other thing I would like to ask is when EPA issues proposed 

carbon pollution standards for existing power plants later this year, 

do you contemplate that States that are not participating in 

REGIs, regional greenhouse gas initiatives, will be able to use that 

program to meet their new obligations? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We think that regional approaches could be 

quite preferable, and we are going to make sure that the standard 

is flexible enough for States to consider those choices. 

Senator BOOKER. I think, actually, the REGIs are phenomenal 

things, and I guess my point and question is if New Jersey fails 

to rejoin the REGI, the regional work on this, what types of actions 

will New Jersey likely need to take in order to comply with the 

new regulations? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we haven’t put out the new regulations, 

but they will have to look at other opportunities for greenhouse gas 

reductions that are as cost-effective as they can be. Having participated in the REGI process, it is a pretty cost-effective program to 

achieve significant reductions. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. So, in other words, it is an easy way for 

New Jersey to meet these new regulations by being a part of our 

surrounding States; and we have a lot more burden if we are not 

part of that and a lot more level to hit in order to comply. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Based on the information that I have, it certainly would be a good choice. 

Senator BOOKER. Then, last, I know that you and the EPA have 

a tremendous amount on your plate right now, but 30 years is simply too long to wait. Can I have your commitment that finalizing 

and releasing for public comment the pending FFS and proposed 

remedy for the lower eight miles of the Passaic River will be a priority? Because the Passaic River, as you know, is another thing my 

colleague, who is rightfully concerned about poor and disadvantaged people, in a city, when you see what happens when we allow 

pollutants to enter rivers like that, poor people suffer because now 

folks who, 100 years ago, when they couldn’t get food, they would 

go to the river and fish and enjoy the fruit and the bounty of the 

rivers. That has been taken away by corporations that polluted our 
494 

rivers, so this is a big priority for our whole region running 

through the Passaic River. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. As it should be, Senator, and you should rest assured that I have already had two briefings because of my great 

regional administrator, Judith Enck, who, if I don’t put it out soon, 

she will drive me crazy; and that is official. And I look forward to 

talking to you about it, and we will get that done. 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate that. And you should give her a 

raise, but obviously keep it under the cap, or you will be back here 

talking about it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t make that my commitment. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. 

Senator BOXER. Is that it for you, Senator? 

Senator BOOKER. That is it for me. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you. 

Senator BOOKER. I yield the rest of my time. 

Senator BOXER. For the people who just joined us, we are going 

to have to end this when there are 4 minutes left to vote, so I think 

we can hear from two of our Senators. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Madam Chair, I would be happy to preside over 

this hearing, if you would like to go. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for the offer. I will take it under advisement. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you so much. 

Senator BOXER. Don’t you want to vote? 

Senator WICKER. I am going to vote when the Chair votes. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Senator WICKER. Somehow I believe the president of the Senate 

is going to wait for Senator Boxer to vote. 

Administrator McCarthy, Senator Booker is from Newark, New 

Jersey. Sometimes it is 10 degrees in Newark, sometimes it is 85 

or 90 degrees. A wide range of temperatures in Newark. Is it your 

testimony, let’s say temperatures have risen by 1.5 degrees. Let’s 

just stipulate that the average temperature in Newark, New Jersey 

has risen by 1.5 degrees over the last two decades because of climate change. Are you telling me that there is scientific evidence 

that that fact causes more lung disease among children? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, to really properly look at climate 

change, we look generally at three decades or longer. 

Senator WICKER. OK, three decades. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The information that we know is that climate 

change is happening. One of the lines of evidence of that is increased temperature; it is rising—— 

Senator WICKER. Well, no. In the brief—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Ozone. 

Senator WICKER. In the brief time you have to answer the question, my question is the Senator’s line of questioning is that increases in the average temperature cause more lung disease among 

children. Is that supported by the science? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. What the science tells us is when the temperature gets warmer it increases a level of ozone, and that ozone pollution actually has an impact on respiratory health, as well as cardiac health. 
495 

Senator WICKER. OK, well, I would be interested in your supplying to the committee any scientific basis for the statement that 

increased average temperatures actually increase respiratory disease among children. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OK. I am happy to do that. 

Senator WICKER. If you would supply that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You can actually find it on our Web page and 

the climate change page. 

Senator WICKER. OK, fine. If you will get that to me, that is 

great. 

Let me just ask you briefly, then, Madam Administrator, if I can 

talk about air grant money. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator WICKER. And, again, this is something we ought to be 

able to agree on. Maybe you ought to go where the problem is. 

There is a decades-old EPA allocation formula that gives the 

Southeast region 12 percent, when actually we have 20 percent of 

the Nation’s population. How can EPA continue to develop 

strengthening rules and standards while at the same time limiting 

access to resources for the States to get their fair share? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, we have actually been proposing 

to change that formula and to allocate resources differently given 

the changes that have happened over the past decade on population. We certainly feel that there is a need for change. We are 

looking to do that over a period of time. Congress has actually provided language in our budget that does not allow us to do that last 

year. We will see what happens in fiscal year 2015. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Was this a rider to an appropriation bill 

or was this a statute? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is a congressional report act language that 

has prohibited EPA from implementing the revised allocation 

methodology. They have done that since fiscal year 2011, when we 

first proposed it. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Finally, I would like to work with you on 

that problem, Madam Administrator. Let’s talk about helping local 

governments implement the upgrades required to wastewater 

treatment facilities and more stringent water regulations. A significant and basic problem has been that many of these towns don’t 

have the tax base. And you and I have talked about this. They 

don’t have the tax base to meet the cost of upgrading their wastewater systems. 

However, not acting results in harsh fines imposed by the EPA. 

In your nomination hearing I asked several questions regarding the 

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and you 

said you would work with me on that. I am just concerned that we 

don’t have a proposal going forward and, as a matter of fact, we 

are now seeing a proposal from EPA and from the Administration 

to cut this by $581 million to the State revolving funds. 

Senator BOXER. I am sorry. We have to move on if we are going 

to hear from your two colleagues, so we will go next to Senator 

Fischer for 4 minutes and then Senator Boozman. 

Senator WICKER. Does the witness get to answer the question? 

Senator BOXER. She does not at this point; she can do it for the 

record. 
496 

Senator WICKER. Could you supply that answer on the record, 

please? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Certainly. 

Senator BOXER. We have votes. We have 5 minutes left to vote. 

Four minutes, please. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Administrator. It is nice to see you again. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Nice to see you, too. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you for being here. I am sorry that we 

are all rushing here at the end now. I can tell you that I have some 

concerns maybe that we are seeing our coal-fired electric plants in 

Nebraska, our utilities, they are spending a lot of time, they are 

spending a lot of resources on keeping their units in compliance 

with regulations; and I don’t think they are then able to spend that 

time in resources on the innovations that could possibly lessen our 

dependence on coal. 

We have an example here for you regarding regional haze. We 

have a Nebraska utility, which is LES, the city of Lincoln. It owns 

a little more than 10 percent of the coal-fired power plant in Wyoming, the Laramie River Station. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality proposed a plan to address regional haze that 

would require technology costing approximately $100 million, and 

so the Nebraska utility share sent about $10 million. The EPA rejected the Wyoming DEQ plan and substituted its own plan that 

requires technology at a cost of $800 million, which then is about 

$80 million for the city of Lincoln, the LES utility that would have 

to provide that. 

There would be a very small improvement in visibility. But this 

difference is going to deprive this Nebraska utility of moving forward on their investments in wind, which they have, and in solar, 

in energy efficiency. You know, we are talking a fairly small city, 

the city of Lincoln. It is large for Nebraska; small nationally. 

That is just one example. So I believe that that is replicated 

across the country, though. You know, LES is a leader in looking 

at renewables. The citizens and the city of Lincoln want to move 

forward in that direction, but polls have shown they are not willing 

to pay for it, and I think that is also replicated across the country, 

the costs that are incurred sometimes, especially when they have 

to meet requirements from the EPA. 

What are your feelings on that? Do you see that policy moving 

forward with EPA? Are you going to try and reach out more to help 

utilities be responsible in their coal-fired plants, but also to move 

forward? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we are doing the best we cannot just 

to reach out to the utilities to understand what their business 

plans are moving forward and how we can keep the lights on and 

keep it reliable, but we are also working very closely with the 

States on these regional haze issues. We understand that they are 

important environmental benefits, but they have to be looked at in 

the context of how much they cost and what they do in terms of 

moving the clean energy system forward. So if we need to work 

more closely together, we are more than willing to do that. 

Senator FISCHER. OK, thank you. You know, we hear about the 

war on coal and you hear about that as well. 
497 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator FISCHER. Is there a war on coal? You know, a lot of people in Nebraska think there is because we have those coal-fired 

plants. Do you think it is fair to say maybe the EPA has somewhat 

of a war on coal so that we can lessen our dependence upon coal 

in this country? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I don’t think that that is fair to say. 

What we are trying to do is our job to protect public health by reducing pollution from some of the largest sources of that pollution. 

Senator FISCHER. And I have a few seconds left. I am very concerned about the water rules that are coming out from EPA. Water 

is a State resource in Nebraska. I believe we manage it in a very 

responsible way. I hope that you will have a long period there. 

Would you commit to a long period for comments, 180 days? 

Senator BOXER. We will have to do that answer for the record. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Fischer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, thank you for holding this hearing 

today to review EPA’s budget. I want to welcome Administrator McCarthy. Thank 

you for being here. 

Budget hearings are a fundamental responsibility of this committee. It is important for Congress to continue its oversight of the programs it has authorized and 

examine whether taxpayers’ money is being used appropriately, effectively, and efficiently to fulfill EPA’s core mission to protect human health and the environment. 

A clean and healthy environment is important to us all. Over the past several decades, we have made great strides in improving our air and water quality and protecting our natural resources—while growing our economy. In Nebraska, farmers 

and ranchers are growing more food and fiber in an increasingly responsible and 

sustainable manner. Our public power utilities are serving more customers while reducing emissions. Businesses are achieving innovations to provide better goods and 

services to enhance quality of life, as they maximize efficiencies and reduce their 

environmental footprint. 

We must work together to pursue a path forward that continues both these environmental and economic achievements, one that encourages meaningful environmental improvements without stifling economic growth. 

As the EPA proposes a budget that shifts significant resources in support of the 

President’s Climate Action Plan and aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 

we must continue to scrutinize the costs and benefits of proposed actions. 

Because these issues are global in nature, we must examine what benefit we are 

seeking by limiting American utilities’ choice of power-generation technologies that 

we know will drive up electricity costs and customers’ monthly bills and jeopardize 

energy reliability. 

While EPA routinely claims regulatory benefits in excess of the costs, the benefit 

estimates are speculative at best. We simply must have more transparency and accountability when it comes to the underlying scientific justifications for these rules. 

EPA is seeking to expand its regulatory control in many new ways—including an 

alarming Federal takeover of water—all at a time when EPA’s out-of-control ‘‘playbook’’ is being unveiled. The deceitful schemes of John Beale and his leadership in 

the creation of costly air regulations should give us all pause and even greater reason to carefully examine the process, science, and priorities of the agency. 

Today’s hearing is an important step in providing this needed oversight. We must 

work to ensure EPA is operating transparently and pursuing a positive course for 

our environment and our economy. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Also, Senator Boozman, we will put your questions and get those into the record as well. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 
498 

And with the last 4 minutes, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I ask unanimous consent my entire statement be put in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. Absolutely. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. McCarthy, I would just highlight the 

Casper Star Tribune last week, Andy v. EPA, a gentleman in Uinta 

County. Uinta County resident faces $75,000 in daily fines for his 

pond. 

So I want to ask about the EPA’s specific Web site for the new 

proposed waters of the U.S. rule. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. The EPA has a section entitled Fact Sheet: 

How the Proposed Waters of the U.S. Rules Benefits Agriculture. 

The site states that, under the proposed rule, the Army Corps will 

exempt 53 farming practices as established by the Natural Resource Conservation Services, which means that any farmer or 

rancher who used those 53 practices in a newly expanded, federally 

covered water would be exempt. This list, however, of 53 does not 

cover all existing agriculture practices. There are a number of 

farming and ranching practices that aren’t covered on the list that 

occur every day without penalty. Under the new proposed rule will 

those farmers and ranchers need to get a permit or find that they 

are penalized if they continue to use those non-covered 53 practices 

and newly federally covered waters under this proposed new rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, Senator, it is not taking away any of 

the agriculture exemptions. What it is trying to do is provide clarity so you don’t have to go and ask. That is what this rule does. 

It actually worked with the agriculture community to identify those 

practices that we could highlight. It even set up a really good process to expand on that. But it didn’t take away a single agriculture 

exemption that currently exists. 

Senator BARRASSO. So what about the farmers and ranchers who 

use these 53 new covered practices, but the farmers and ranchers 

don’t specifically follow the Natural Resource Conservation Services 

Federal definition of these farming practices, you know, perfectly to 

a tee, in the newly expanded Federal waters? Would they need to 

get new Clean Water Act permit or be penalized? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Nobody needs to get a permit today or under 

this rule, should it go forward as proposed, that didn’t need it 

today. 

Senator BARRASSO. We heard the previous Senator ask a question specifically about would you expand to 180 days the comment 

period and her time ran out. Would you like to comment on that 

or respond to that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I can certainly respond to the Senator. 

I don’t believe that that is what we are currently proposing, but, 

as always, if people comment and want to request it, we will respond to that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, I would request it as well, as another 

Senator. 

And, Senator Boozman, I am on the last minute and a half if you 

have a specific question that you would like to ask. Go right ahead, 

please. 
499 

[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Ms. McCarthy, I am from what I consider to be the most beautiful State in the 

country. Folks in my State believe we can balance our energy needs with our environmental needs. People in my State watch what you and the EPA are doing, and 

they think this agency is extreme. 

Here are some of the examples of what we are seeing. We have seen that when 

the EPA cannot get their way in Congress, they go around Congress, and try to 

issue regulations or guidance to accomplish policies that the American people soundly rejected. 

The American people rejected cap and trade, and the EPA produced climate 

change regulations instead. 

The American people rejected legislation to remove the word navigable from the 

definition of waters of the United States, and the EPA proposed guidance to do it 

anyway. 

We learned about e-mails that were sent for years under a false identity to circumvent recordkeeping laws so the EPA could keep the public in the dark. If the 

business of the EPA is transparent, and in the best interest of the American people, 

why does the EPA leadership circumvent the law using a false identity? 

We learned of the ‘‘crucify them’’ mentality, where small business owners and 

ranchers are bullied into submission by arrogant and unaccountable bureaucrats. 

Former EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz had to resign after comparing 

EPA’s approach to enforcement as similar to a Roman crucifixion. 

This ‘‘crucify them’’ approach has been most recently on display in the treatment 

by the EPA of my constituent, Mr. Andrew Johnson. He is facing thousands of dollars in penalties from the EPA for constructing a stock reservoir on the Six Mile 

Creek. 

According to a March 18th Ron Arnold column in the Washington Examiner, 

‘‘EPA regional bureaucrat Andrew M. Graydosh issued a compliance order requiring 

Johnson to return the creek to its original condition in 60 days. Graydosh threatened Johnson with fines of $75,000 per day per violation—which could reach 

$187,500 per day, or over $5.5 million in a month—if he didn’t comply. Johnson had 

10 days to reply.’’ 

The Casper Star Tribune stated on March 19th that such a penalty was ‘‘a penalty often reserved for companies that emit toxic hazards.’’ 

This treatment by EPA is draconian and unacceptable. 

Most recently, Ranking Member Vitter has done a thorough job in highlighting 

the activities of one John Beale. Beale was the senior lieutenant to the current EPA 

Administrator when she was in charge of the Air and Radiation Office, and he was 

also the highest paid on staff. Beale not only masqueraded for years as a pretend 

CIA agent, but also as a pretend environmental rulemaker. 

As the Washington Times summed up in a March 19th article entitled ‘‘Fake CIA 

agent helped craft sweeping environmental rules while at EPA,’’ the article described Beale as ‘‘a former high-ranking EPA staffer convicted of stealing nearly 

$900,000 by pretending to be a CIA spy, had virtually no experience, got his job 

with help from a college buddy, and went on to play a key role in sweeping environmental regulations.’’ They also note, as does Senator Vitter’s report, that ‘‘Those regulations remain in place despite John C. Beale’s lack of environmental expertise.’’ 

We now know that EPA has allowed this fraud’s work to stand. In fact, the underlying data, the basis for numerous job crushing EPA rules has not been shared with 

Congress, or with the public, despite repeated requests. This is despite the sweeping 

impact of these rules on the economy. The EPA’s response to Congress and the public is always to say ‘‘just trust us.’’ I would put as much trust in this EPA as I would 

in Beale being a real spy. It defies logic that his work will be allowed to stand, or 

why data underlying EPA’s long list of job crushing rules cannot be released. 

It is clear that the EPA is broken. What we should be discussing is what are the 

best ways to manage our air and water while trying to get our economy moving 

again. The only way to do that is to have an agency that can work with us to chart 

a bipartisan path of consensus, sound science, transparency and accountability. 

Today it is clear we do not have such an agency. 

I thank the Chair and look forward to the testimony. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The only thing that I would like to do, Madam 

Chair, is I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter 

to the Administrator that is signed by every minority member, re-
500 

questing that the Agency provide all documents relating to EPA’s 

proposal to cut funding for the Clean Water and Drinking State Revolving Funds. 

Senator BOXER. Sure. Without objection. 

[The referenced document follows:] 
501 
502 
503 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. I want to thank both Senators for 

your cooperation. 

I am going to put in the record the statement by the Academy 

of Pediatrics, American Academy: ‘‘Heat caused by climate disruption is especially harmful to children.’’ I think, Administrator, if 

you could send that to Senator Wicker. 

Last, I must put in the record, in response to Senator Vitter’s attack on you, Administrator McCarthy, on Beale, page 22 and page 

26 of the committee’s briefing, where the IG said you were the first 

person and the only senior person to call attention to this rogue 

employee, and I want to again thank you. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534 
535 
536 
537 
538 
539 
540 
541 
542 
543 
544 
545 
546 
547 
548 
549 
550 
551 
552 
553 
554 
555 
556 
557 
558 
559 
560 
561 
562 
563 
564 
565 
566 
567 
568 
569 
570 
571 
572 
573 
574 
575 
576 
577 

Senator BOXER. I am really sorry that you have been vilified by 

certain members; you should be lauded, as the IG lauded you, and 

also to point out that, you know, in an organization of 15,000, 

16,000 people, whether it is public, private, the military, you are 

going to have some outliers, you are going to have some bad actors. 

But the vast majority of all these people in the private sector, in 

the public sector, in the EPA, in the military are fantastic. So let’s 

just try not to brush everybody with the ugliness of a John Beale. 

And I thank you for doing what you did to call attention to him. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Senator. I am incredibly proud of the 

folks that work at EPA. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Vitter, thank you for holding today’s 

hearing on the President’s proposed fiscal year 2015 budget for the Environmental 

Protection Agency. Administrator McCarthy, it is always a pleasure to see you, and 

thank you for being here today. 

EPA’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2015 outlines a fiscal plan that will enable 

the Agency to continue to its important work of keeping the health of citizens and 

the communities we live in healthy and safe. 

It would be an understatement to say that EPA faces challenges in fulfilling its 

mission to protect the environment from factions within Congress and from the supporters of polluting industries that resent being regulated. 

I want to commend the President and the Agency for its proposed budget for the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. I will work hard with the chairman of the Appropriations 

Committee to see that the request is met. Ensuring that EPA and its Federal partners that cooperate in the administration of the Chesapeake Bay Program is critical 

to fulfilling the goals established by the President’s May 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order. The President’s recognition of the value of this national treasure has 

been a critical catalyst to improve the health of the Bay. 

In addition to the soon to be 5-year-old executive order, on January 29th, the 

Chesapeake Bay Program issued its revised Chesapeake Bay Agreement establishing new conservation goals for the watershed as determined through a collaborative process involving Federal agencies, the six States and DC, local governments 

and non-governmental organizations across the region. This budget is critical to supporting the goals of the agreement. 

More specifically, the funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program will allow Maryland and other Bay States to focus on: 

• Total Maximum Daily Load implementation, 

• Implementing Phase II of watershed planning and increasing accountability, 

and 

• Making progress to address toxic contaminants in the Bay. 

I am also pleased to see the budget’s prioritization of programs to combat and 

adapt to the effects of climate change. Maryland faces tremendous challenges from 

the effects of climate change. With 70 percent of my State’s population living in a 

coastal zone, sea level rise and increased intensity of extreme weather events pose 

a serious risk to the safety and economy of my State. 

I do want to express concerns that for the second year in a row the Administration’s budget is recommending cuts to both the Drinking Water and Clean Water 

State Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs). These cuts are being recommended despite ever 

growing, multi-billion dollar, backlogs of maintenance and repair needs for water infrastructure across the country. 

We should be mindful of the need to invest in our Nation’s own crumbling water 

infrastructure. The President’s EPA budget makes deep cuts to the Clean Water and 

Safe Drinking Water SRFs, despite the established need for increased water infrastructure investment and the significant economic growth that would result from 

such investment. We take for granted the ability to turn on the tap and pour a clean 

glass of water. We take for granted the ability to go to our outdoor spaces and fish 
578 

and swim safely. The work of the EPA is central to this sense of safety, and robust 

funding for these programs benefits all Americans. 

Cuts to the State Revolving Loan Funds, however, are extremely deep and will 

significantly impact States that are already struggling to maintain their drinking 

water and wastewater systems. 

The reductions in the SRF funding levels will impact Maryland as well as every 

other State. Our Nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure is aging 

and overburdened. A number of densely populated cities are served by pipes that 

are at least 100 years old. These funding cuts will affect the States and municipalities that are already struggling to deal with the increased costs associated with 

drinking water and wastewater treatment plant upgrades. At the same time, Federal investments in water and wastewater infrastructure can yield hundreds of 

thousands of jobs and help grow our economy. 

This year, as in years past, Senator Crapo and I are leading a letter to the Senate 

Appropriations Committee calling for robust funding for the SRFs to make sure that 

this program continues to provide adequate resources for drinking water and wastewater service providers to keep their systems working effectively. I would encourage 

all members of this committee to sign our letter. 

Last, I want to talk about how persistent cuts to EPA’s budget are contributing 

to the biggest decline in employee job and workplace satisfaction among large Federal agencies in 2013, sinking five spots in the Best Places to Work in the Federal 

Government rankings. The EPA’s overall Best Places to Work score stands at 59.3 

out of 100, a drop of 8.3 points, for a 10th place ranking out of 19 large agencies. 

Last year it ranked 5th out of 19 agencies. 

Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe said EPA employees have a strong sense 

of mission, believe in the importance of their work, and will rebound from what 

turned out to be a difficult year. He pointed out that EPA was forced to furlough 

an extremely high number of employees because of the across-the-board budget cuts 

mandated by Congress, and reduce cash awards for high performers. He noted that 

the unpaid furloughs began to occur at the same time employees were taking the 

Federal survey that is used to compile the Best Places to Work rankings. As he put 

it, ‘‘The EPA’s budget was constrained perhaps more than other agencies’, and I do 

believe the furloughs were a problem at that time.’’ 

This is shameful. Our country and political leaders of both parties once held our 

Nation’s civil servants in the highest regard. These days, in some circles, it’s become 

politically popular to vilify Federal workers. It is the middle class families of hardworking civil servants that have shouldered a disproportionate burden of the hollow 

efforts to balance the budget. 

Madam Chairman, I know that you understand the tremendous amount of work 

we have ahead of us to make the United States Government an environmental leader both at home and abroad. I also believe that this administration understands the 

significant role EPA plays in this effort. I look forward to working together to 

achieve our goals, and to hearing from Administrator McCarthy. 

Æ