U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

74–567 PDF 2012

CUTTING EPA SPENDING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 12, 2011 

Serial No. 112–95 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 13 

Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 14 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 14 

WITNESSES

Barbara J. Bennett, Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 101 

Additional responses for the record ................................................................ 112 

Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, Environmental Protection Agency .... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Environmental Protection Agency 1 .........................................................................................................

David C. Trimble, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter, dated September 15, 2011, from Mr. Upton and Mr. Stearns to Lisa 

Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by 

Mr. Stearns ........................................................................................................... 78 

Letter, dated October 11, 2011, from Barbara J. Bennett, Chief Financial 

Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, to Mr. Stearns, submitted by 

Mr. Stearns ........................................................................................................... 85 

Report, ‘‘Audit of EPA’s Fiscal 2010 and 2009 Consolidated Financial Statements,’’ dated November 15, 2010, Office of Inspector General, Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Stearns ...................................... 91 

1Ms. Heist did not offer a statement for the record. 

(1) 

CUTTING EPA SPENDING 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Stearns, Terry, Sullivan, Burgess, Blackburn, Bilbray, Scalise, Gardner, Griffith, Barton, 

DeGette, Castor, Green, Christensen, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Carl Anderson, Counsel, Oversight; Mike Gruber, 

Senior Policy Advisor; Todd Harrison, Chief Counsel, Oversight/Investigations; Kirby Howard, Legislative Clerk; Andrew Powaleny, 

Press Assistant; Krista Rosenthall, Counsel to Chairman Emeritus; 

Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Sam Spector, 

Counsel, Oversight; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, 

Oversight; Kristin Amerling, Democratic Chief Counsel and Oversight Staff Director; Alvin Banks, Democratic Investigator; Phil 

Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Alison Cassady, Democratic 

Senior Professional Staff Member; Brian Cohen, Democratic Investigations Staff Director and Senior Policy Advisor; and Anne 

Tindall, Democratic Counsel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, everybody. 

And the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will convene. We welcome our witnesses. 

My colleagues, we convene this hearing, the second in our series 

of hearings on the line-by-line review of the Federal budget. 

Today we will examine how the Environmental Protection Agency has put into practice the President’s repeated commitment to 

conduct a line-by-line review of the Federal budget. The goal of this 

pledge is to eliminate unnecessary, duplicative, or wasteful government programs to cut costs and do more with less. This hearing 

aims to determine the results of EPA’s efforts to cut spending and 

to help EPA find more spending cuts and savings for all Americans. 

Less than a month ago, on September 22, EPA Administrator 

Lisa Jackson testified before this subcommittee on EPA’s regulatory planning, analysis, and major actions. We remain very concerned over the impact on jobs and our economy from new regulations that are issued and proposed every day by the EPA. 

2 

That said, the EPA is also an important public health regulatory 

agency which has contributed to the tremendous improvements in 

clean air, safe drinking water, and environmental quality over the 

past 40 years. However, over the past two decades, the Agency has 

become an $8 billion-plus agency with about 18,000 employees 

around this Nation. 

Yet with the size of the Federal deficit and long-term fiscal challenges, we must ensure that EPA meets its core mission at lower 

cost. Indeed, Congress has a constitutionally mandated responsibility to oversee the annual budgetary process affecting agencies 

under their jurisdiction. 

We recognize that executive branch agencies are not alone in 

their responsibility for having created many of the programs that 

have given rise to our ballooning deficit. For its part, this committee must remain deeply and regularly engaged with the agencies within its jurisdiction, including EPA, as they define their priorities, identify their needs, and set their goals for the years ahead. 

Today we look at the actual results of the EPA’s efforts thus far 

to meet the President’s pledge to comb through the Federal budget 

line by line cutting spending. We are aware of several initiatives 

related to that worthy goal, but what measurable results have been 

achieved? For example, the committee has learned from an OMB 

document that EPA responded to the President’s April 2009 instruction to Cabinet members to identify within 90 days at least 

$100 million in aggregate cuts to their administrative budgets by 

proposing the ‘‘energy efficient lighting project,’’ that is, changing 

light bulbs in EPA’s office buildings. EPA anticipated the annual 

savings of that pilot project to be de minimis, although it claims 

the initiative could lead to savings over the long run. 

Now, while EPA claims to have implemented additional cost-saving efforts since that time, they did not provide to the committee 

the specifics on what actions were taken or, indeed, how much 

money was actually saved. 

To learn more about EPA’s efforts, we will take testimony today 

from the Inspector General of EPA, Arthur Elkins; and the director 

of natural resources and environment at GAO, David Trimble. 

These individuals and their staffs have conducted rigorous oversight and audits of EPA for many years. 

The GAO and the EPA Inspector General have frequently identified areas where EPA can improve its internal controls, its management, and its performance measures, all to cut costs or get more 

bang for the buck. Their reports address concerns about how effectively and wisely EPA uses its resources to meet its mission. Their 

work, as we will hear this morning, identifies problems and recommends improvements in EPA’s reporting of spending, such as 

the money it obligates through grants, and EPA’s ability to track 

whether its employees are being used effectively to meet its core 

mission, and even in EPA’s knowledge about duplicative and unnecessary facilities around this country. 

As we will hear, there is still much room for improvement. For 

example, the EPA’s budget justification documents do not describe 

the amount of potentially millions of dollars of unspent money, 

known as deobligated and recertified funding, that is available for 

new obligations. We say the word million, but it is actually billions. 

3 

Such information could be useful to Congress because of the availability of recertified amounts that could partially offset the need for 

new funding. 

So, my colleagues, today I intend to inquire of them as to what 

the EPA has done thus far and what remains to be done. For that 

reason, the subcommittee also welcomes Barbara Bennett, the chief 

financial officer of EPA. We hope that she will be able to address 

the substance of the Inspector General’s and GAO’s outstanding 

concerns. The subcommittee, and the committee as a whole, is committed to working with the EPA to ensure that it has the tools it 

needs to realize these aims and ensure that it is a trustworthy custodian of hard-earned American taxpayer dollars. 

Today’s hearing can be a good start to help deal more effectively 

with the enormous challenge of getting Federal spending under 

control. I look forward to revisiting this subject with the EPA next 

year, following submission of the President’s budget. 

With that, my opening statement is done, and I recognize the 

ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stearns follows:] 

4 


74567.001
5 


74567.002
6 


74567.003
7 


74567.004
8 


74567.005
9 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ms. 

DeGette, for allowing me to go first with this opening statement. 

Today we are looking at EPA’s budget. It is a lean one for an 

agency with so many crucial responsibilities. Although I think if 

the Republicans get their way, there will be no reason for the 

Agency because we will have no environmental laws anymore. 

In February of this year, the President submitted his proposed 

budget for fiscal year 2012, requesting $8.9 billion for EPA. That 

is a 13 percent decrease over the fiscal year 2010 enacted levels. 

The President had to make some hard choices in this budget. The 

President proposed cutting almost $1 billion from the clean water 

and drinking water State revolving funds, which help States improve municipal wastewater and drinking water systems. He proposed cutting $125 million from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and $70 million from the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program. The administration also targeted several categories of administrative spending at EPA to achieve $40 million in additional 

savings. 

Now some of these cuts are excessive. The drinking water State 

revolving fund should be getting an increase because it makes investments in infrastructure that create jobs. Thus the notion that 

EPA is not sacrificing its fair share is false. 

Despite these painful cuts, EPA has set ambitious goals for this 

fiscal year, taking action on climate change—well, some people 

don’t think they ought to do that; improving air quality—well, a lot 

of Members don’t seem to think that’s a good idea; protecting 

American waters—well, the American people believe in that, but a 

lot of the Republicans don’t; ensuring the safety of chemicals; preventing pollution; and enforcing America’s environmental laws. 

Those are still the law, and they have continued to be the law. And 

therefore, EPA has a responsibility to enforce them and the American people support that. 

These are important objectives that benefit every American in 

every State across the country. Americans know that their families’ 

health and quality of life depend on a clean environment. They 

know we need a strong EPA to stop polluters from poisoning our 

land, our air, and our water. 

Today we’ll hear that EPA should be doing more to squeeze out 

extra savings. While I am sure EPA could find additional reductions and efficiencies along the margins, I am equally sure that the 

bill—that still won’t be enough for my Republican colleagues. Their 

goal is not a careful line-by-line review of the budget. Their goal 

is to prevent EPA from requiring dirty power plants, chemical 

plants, oil refineries, and other large industrial sources to stop polluting the air with toxic mercury and other dangerous emissions. 

That is what we have been fighting on the floor about over the last 

several weeks. 

The Republicans’ approach to EPA’s budget is less about targeted 

reductions and more about slash-and-burn politics. The Republican 

budgets we have seen this year are the most sweeping and reckless 

10 

assault on health and the environment that we have seen in decades. 

The fiscal year 2012 Interior appropriations bill that stalled in 

the House late this summer would slash EPA’s budget to $7.1 billion, which is 20 percent less than the President requested. This 

would deny the Agency the resources it needs to carry out the 

Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act 

and other critical public health protections. 

But that is not all. Every week we consider another bill on the 

House floor that stops EPA from doing its job to protect our environment. In fact, the House has voted 83 times this year to undermine the EPA. In total, the House has voted 159 times to undermine environmental protections. If the Republicans had their way, 

the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act would be gutted, and 

the EPA would be rendered powerless to keep our air clean enough 

to breathe and our water safe enough to drink. 

I am glad we have EPA’s chief financial officer here today, and 

I look forward to her testimony. She will be able to tell us what 

the impact of the Republicans’ approach to EPA’s budget would be 

on her agency and for public health and the environment. It is not 

a budget that is good for our environment, our health, or American 

families. And that is my comment on this hearing and the Republican agenda. 

And because I have 20 seconds and I used my time frugally, I 

yield that back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] 

11 


74567.006
12 


74567.007
13 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. I thank the chairman. 

Former Chairman Waxman and I live in different worlds. We are 

here to talk about EPA’s budget. That is a legitimate role of this 

subcommittee. We have a balance sheet that has been prepared. It 

shows their total liabilities and assets are about $23 billion. Between fiscal year 2009 and 2010, it shows a decrease of about $1 

billion, which would be about 4 percent. That is not draconian. 

My good friend from California would have you believe that we 

want to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency and eliminate all environmental laws. Nothing is further from the truth. I 

have voted for all the major environmental laws since I have been 

in Congress, and I voted to pass budgets to implement them and 

to enforce them. 

I have a sister who is an enforcement attorney at EPA in Dallas 

with close to 100 percent success rate in enforcing laws that some 

people try to get around. 

What we have a debate about, Mr. Chairman, is an EPA under 

the Obama administration that seems interested in pushing everything to the limit, that seems interested in issuing regulations that 

really don’t have a sound basis in science or in fact, that seem to 

be more for political purposes than they do for environmental protection purposes. 

My good friend from California apparently doesn’t believe that 

any of the laws that he and I have worked together to pass in the 

last almost 30 years have had any impact at all and that the only 

thing that is protecting the American people is pending additional 

EPA regulation. 

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, nothing could be further from the 

truth. And what Republicans in this Congress are attempting to do 

is actually shine the light of transparency on what is really happening at the EPA, where the money is going and perhaps, just 

perhaps, how it could be better spend. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields his 2 minutes. 

The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is recognized for 

2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have come to believe that this administration’s view of the 

economy can be summed up succinctly: If it moves, tax it; if keeps 

moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it. And those are 

timeless words from former President Reagan, and they couldn’t be 

more appropriate today, as we look at the tsunami of government 

spending and regulations, and much of that is coming from the 

EPA. 

14 

Many of the complaints we hear in our district are about the way 

EPA handles their rules, regulations, and spending. And today I 

hope that we can kind of uncover what Administrator Jackson has 

done to truly reform the budget process in the line by line. 

I had a quote she gave on February 27, 2009. It was in an interview and she stated, ‘‘As far as I understand the budget process, 

I can’t tell you what EPA’s budget will be from year to year.’’ That 

one concerned me. And I read it a few times and looked at it. And 

with that statement, I think that she clearly laid out why we need 

to practice appropriate oversight, why we need to go through this 

budget line by line to look for an opportunity to help EPA provide 

a level of certainty, reduce waste, and force the Agency to set priorities. 

So I thank all of our witnesses who are with us today. As you 

all are aware, we have another hearing. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman, Mr. Sullivan, is recognized for 1 minute. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Chairman Stearns, thank you for holding this important hearing today on cutting the EPA’s spending. 

In September 2009, the Obama administration announced plans 

to implement a line-by-line, page-by-page review of the Federal 

budget. And he tasked his Cabinet members to find savings. Here 

we are, 2 years later, and the President has still not done what he 

promised with the budget. The simple fact is, the Federal Government is broke, and we are in a fiscal crisis. We must make extraordinary efforts to cut spending, eliminate waste, and find savings, 

which is why this oversight hearing is so important. EPA has cut 

some spending as part of a routine annual budget and appropriations process but has not taken any real extraordinary steps to cut 

spending. We know that EPA has upwards of $13.3 billion in unexpended appropriations and both the GAO and the Inspector General say that EPA lacks basic internal controls and data on employee workloads and how it spends on its payroll. Thanks in advance to our panel before us, and it is my hope that our discussion 

here today sheds light on the EPA’s budget situation. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. The chairman recognizes the ranking member, the gentlelady from Colorado, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. 

This is the second in a hearing that the subcommittee launched 

last week about the administration’s budget review process. When 

I went home to my district over the weekend, I was telling people 

about the hearing last week, and they really couldn’t believe it beVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:51 Jun 18, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\115159~1\112-95~1 WAYNE
15 

cause it was really one of the silly—with all due respect, it was one 

of the silliest hearings that I have seen in my 15 years in Congress. 

It started out with the majority playing a video of the President 

promising a line—put little clips showing him promising a line-byline budget review, which then I thought maybe that was figurative, but in fact, literally then members of this subcommittee 

spent the whole time talking about, did the President actually personally review the budget line by line? 

I don’t really think that is what we need to be looking at, and 

I would hope the majority doesn’t think so either. Because what we 

really need to look at is the budget process of these various agencies and whether or not they have conducted an efficient and effective budget review and whether improvements can be made in this 

process. I think that that is an important oversight responsibility 

for this subcommittee for every agency, not just the EPA. And so 

I think that those are important questions that should be asked of 

all of these witnesses. 

And so to that end, let’s look at a few key facts about the EPA 

budget review process as I understand it. Right here—this large 

notebook—is what is known as the Agency budget justifications, 

which the EPA prepares and provides to the Appropriations Committee each year. This mammoth set of documents reflects the detailed process in which the EPA engages to produce a budget proposal. In this document, the Agency provides a detailed explanation 

of the funding levels requested for each EPA program area. 

The EPA justifications document results from a multistep review 

process, as I understand it, in which the EPA program staff develop a budget proposal; the EPA chief financial officer reviews the 

proposal; EPA senior leadership meets to discuss overall funding 

level requests; EPA submits a proposal to OMB; EPA negotiates 

with OMB over the proposal; and OMB sends back an approved 

budget. 

And as in previous years of the Obama administration, the review process at the EPA has resulted in an administration budget 

proposal for the EPA that requests increases in funding for some 

programs and decreases funding for others. And that is as it should 

be. And I would assume that that involves a line-by-line review of 

these budget requests by the people in the Agency who are responsible for those parts of those budgets. 

But you can understand our concern about cuts to the EPA budget because if you just look and see what Congress has already 

voted to do, we are not just talking about, should we have new regulations; in H.R. 1 and in other votes in this Congress, we have 

seen substantial cuts to enforcement for existing environmental review programs. In fact, they are some of the most anti-environmental votes that I have seen. In the first 10 months of this Congress, we have had 159 floor votes to undermine protection of the 

environment; EPA programs to reduce toxic mercury pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make our Nation’s vehicles 

more efficient and reduce gas costs for consumers, and on and on. 

I have asked the Democratic staff to prepare a list of the existing 

EPA agencies and regulations which Mr. Barton and others say 

they support which have had drastic proposals slashed budgets for 

16 

enforcement in previous votes of this Congress which I don’t think 

are probably born out by the evidence. 

And so here is the thing, I think that the public values clean 

water and clean air. I think they value strong environmental enforcement, and furthermore, I think these environmental laws 

produce health, economic, and environmental benefits that actually 

increase our budget. In fact, some estimates have shown $1.3 trillion in 2010. By 2020, the benefits are projected to reach $2 trillion 

annually, outweighing estimated costs by more than 30 to one. 

Overall, in the three decade period from 1990 to 2020, the Clean 

Air Act is estimated to deliver $12 trillion worth of benefits, plus 

a host of additional health and welfare benefits that cannot be 

monetized. And so if you look at the EPA spending compared to the 

enormous impact on public health, EPA’s proposed 2012 budget is 

just 0.06 percent of the Federal Government’s total debt, 0.26 percent of total spending, and 0.69 percent of the Federal deficit. If 

you eliminated the EPA altogether, it wouldn’t even be a blip in 

our Nation’s budget. But the costs that we would pay in health and 

in other types of spending would be astronomical. I think we need 

to have savings in the EPA just like every other agency, but I think 

that this fixation we have is wrong, and we have got to stop it. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady completes her opening statement. 

And let me introduce our witnesses before we put them under 

oath. We have the Honorable Barbara J. Bennett, chief financial officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the Honorable Arthur 

A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, who is accompanied by Melissa 

Heist, assistant inspector general for audit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; and we have Mr. David C Trimble, director of 

natural resources and environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Welcome to you folks. 

STATEMENTS OF BARBARA J. BENNETT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ARTHUR A. 

ELKINS, JR., INSPECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY MELISSA HEIST, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND DAVID C. TRIMBLE, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. STEARNS. You folks are aware that the committee is holding 

an investigative hearing. And when doing so, it has had the practice of taking testimony under oath. 

Do you have any objection to testifying under oath? 

No. The chair then advises you that under the Rules of the 

House and rules of the committee, you are entitled to be advised 

by counsel. 

Do you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony 

today? 

Mr. ELKINS. No. 

Mr. STEARNS. No. In that case, please rise and raise your right 

hand. I will swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

17 

Mr. STEARNS. You are now under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in Title XVIII, Section 1001, of the United States 

Code. 

You may now each give a 5-minute summary of your written 

statement. 

Ms. Bennett, you shall start. And just turn your mike on. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA J. BENNETT 

Ms. BENNETT. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member DeGette, 

and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here to discuss with you the important issue of ensuring the most effective 

and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. 

As you mentioned in your letter to Administrator Jackson, President Obama has stated several times his intent that his administration would review the Federal budget page by page, line by line, 

and eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that 

those we do operate in a sensible and cost-effective way. 

While we have always worked diligently with regard to our budget formulation process at EPA, the President’s directive has given 

us an opportunity to look even more closely at our budget process 

to ensure that we are achieving maximum efficiencies. 

To address how we have, in fact, been pursuing this close scrutiny of our budget, I would like to take a moment to discuss EPA’s 

budget over the last decade or so. Apart from the targeted increases to the State revolving funds and for programs funded under 

the Recovery Act of 2009, EPA’s budget has not grown significantly 

over the last decade. Even including the increase to the SRS in fiscal year 2010, between fiscal year 2000 and the fiscal year 2012 

President’s budget request, the Agency has experienced a compound annual growth rate of just 1.4 percent, a rate less than that 

of inflation. 

During this 10-year time frame, our responsibilities have grown, 

as did our costs for such necessities as rent, utilities, security, and 

payroll. For more than a decade, we at EPA have needed to make 

cuts to existing programs to find resources to fund emerging priorities. 

The work of the Agency is reviewed at the appropriation, program project and, where established, the subprogram project levels. 

This is the budget structure developed in concert with OMB and 

with Congress. Within this framework, the Agency considers the 

progress made towards its annual and long-term goals and priorities as articulated in our strategic plan and emerging needs. 

Meeting existing commitments and planning for future needs 

cannot be done without considering opportunities to redirect resources to higher priorities and reduce overall budget levels, as required. In making these reductions, we have carefully considered 

guidance from the administration and Congress by looking first to 

less effective, potentially overlapping activities for reductions or 

eliminations. However, the need to find reductions and fund higher 

priorities also means that at times worthy projects get cut. 

During this administration, we have had to make some difficult 

decisions to eliminate or reduce programs. In our fiscal year 2010 

budget request, we included a $10 million cut to the U.S.-Mexico 

18 

border program. In fiscal year 2011, we proposed over $30 million 

in reductions to homeland security programs. We also reduced our 

travel budget by nearly 40 percent over the prior year. In fiscal 

year 2012, in our request, we have included a reduction of over $6 

million from indoor air and radiation programs as well as approximately $10 million in efficiencies in our agency-wide IT programs. 

Over the past several years, we have also had success in finding 

efficiencies that enable us to maximize the resources available to 

core programs. Some examples include efforts to find savings in 

rent and utilities through space consolidation. Between fiscal year 

2006 and 2011, we have released approximately 375,000 square 

feet of space at headquarters and facilities nationwide, resulting in 

cumulative annual rent avoidance of over $12 million. These are 

just a few examples of some of the choices we have made and efficiencies we have achieved as we reviewed our programs in developing EPA’s budgets to ensure wise use of resource dollars and as 

we seek to do our part to reduce the deficit while maintaining effective protections for human health and the environment. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for inviting me 

to testify about the Agency’s effort to apply close scrutiny to our 

budget, and I hope I have conveyed to you the seriousness with 

which we at EPA take our responsibility to ensure that all funds 

are used prudently so that we can continue to effectively fulfill our 

mission of protecting human health and the environment, especially during these times of tight fiscal constraint. And with that, 

I look forward to responding to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bennett follows:] 

19 


74567.008
20 


74567.009
21 


74567.010
22 


74567.011
23 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Elkins, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR A. ELKINS 

Mr. ELKINS. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Stearns, 

Ranking Member DeGette and members of the subcommittee. I am 

Arthur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. I also serve as the Inspector General of the U.S. 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I am accompanied by Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General for Audit. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss recent work 

we have done that identifies opportunities for cost savings and 

greater efficiencies within the Agency. I submitted a statement for 

the record which details this work. This morning, I want to focus 

my remarks on two areas: Management of the Agency’s human 

capital and EPA facilities. Over the last 5 years, EPA has averaged 

a little over 18,000 positions with annual payroll costs of approximately $2 billion. For an organization to operate efficiently and effectively, it must know what its workload is. The main objectives 

of assessing and predicting workload are to achieve an evenly distributed, manageable workload and to accurately determine the resource levels needed to carry out the work. 

We have issued three reports since 2010 examining how the 

Agency manages its workload and workforce levels. We have found 

that it has not collected comprehensive workload data or conducted 

workload analyses across EPA in about 20 years. The Agency does 

not require program offices to collect and maintain workload data. 

Without sufficient workload data, program offices are limited in 

their ability to analyze their workloads and accurately estimate resource needs. Therefore, the Agency must base budget decisions 

primarily on subjective justifications at a time when budgets continue to tighten and data-driven decisions are needed. 

We also found that the Agency’s policies and procedures do not 

include a process for determining resource levels based on workload, as prescribed by OMB. As a result, the Agency cannot demonstrate that it has the right number of resources to accomplish its 

mission. 

Finally, we have found that the Agency does not have a coherent 

program of position management to assure the efficient and effective use of its workforce. Position management provides the operational link between human capital goals and the placement of 

qualified individuals into authorized positions. Without an agencywide position management program, EPA leadership lacks reasonable assurance that it is using personnel in an effective and efficient manner to achieve mission results. 

We have made several recommendations to address these findings. While the Agency has taken action to study workforce issues 

and update their budget guidance, most of our recommendations 

remain unresolved and resolution efforts are in progress. 

Regarding EPA’s space and facilities, in fiscal year 2009, we collected data on staffing levels and total costs for EPA facilities in 

response to a request from the House Appropriations Committee. 

Based on EPA data, we reported at the time that EPA had more 

than 18,000 employees in 140 locations across the country. These 

24 

locations cost approximately $300 million annually, which included 

rent or leases, utilities, and security costs. EPA headquarters accounted for $100 million, the largest portion of those costs. We also 

reported that EPA had 86 locations with five or fewer employees, 

at a cost of $2.25 million. Many of these offices were actually 

staffed by only one or two people. 

We made no recommendations because the request was limited 

to data collection. However, we do believe EPA should examine its 

real estate portfolio for possible cost savings. Facilities data like we 

collected would assist EPA in determining whether it should shrink 

its footprint either through consolidating or eliminating facilities. 

We will soon begin a project this fiscal year that will assess EPA 

facility occupancy to determine whether EPA is maintaining optimal utilization of existing space in its location and whether opportunities exist to reduce facility costs, which will also assist EPA in 

its decision making. 

In closing, EPA must find ways to better manage and utilize its 

resources and improve its operational efficiencies in this tight 

budget environment. I believe the OIG has added value by making 

numerous specific recommendations to the Agency over the years 

to help address these issues, many of which it has agreed to implement. Going forward, the Agency will need to intensify its efforts 

to control the cost of, and maximize the benefits from, the resources entrusted to it. We will continue to work with the Agency 

to further identify areas needing attention. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elkins follows:] 

25 


74567.012
26 


74567.013
27 


74567.014
28 


74567.015
29 


74567.016
30 


74567.017
31 


74567.018
32 


74567.019
33 


74567.020
34 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Trimble, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. TRIMBLE 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member DeGette, and 

members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO’s work on management challenges facing EPA as well as 

observations on the Agency’s budget. 

As you know, EPA operates in a highly complex and controversial regulatory arena and its policies and programs affect virtually 

all segments of the economy, society, and the government. 

My testimony draws on prior GAO work and focuses on three 

areas: The management of EPA’s workload, workforce, and real 

property; coordination with other agencies to more effectively leverage limited resources; and observations on the Agency’s annual requests for new budget authority. 

First, in 2010, we reported that the EPA had not comprehensively analyzed its workload and workforce since the 1980s to determine the optimal numbers and distribution of staff across the 

Agency. Rather than establishing a process for budgeting and allocating human resources based on the Agency’s workload, EPA requested funding and staffing through incremental adjustments 

based on historical precedent. 

We recommended that EPA link its workforce plan to its strategic plan and establish mechanisms to monitor and evaluate its 

workforce planning efforts. Such efforts could enhance the Agency’s 

ability to strategically allocate scarce resources. 

Earlier this year, GAO reported on challenges that EPA faces in 

managing its laboratories, both from a workforce and a real property perspective. We reported that EPA operated a laboratory system comprised of 37 labs housed in 170 buildings and facilities in 

30 cities across the Nation. We reported that EPA’s laboratory activities were managed by 15 different senior managers, were largely uncoordinated, and that the Agency did not have a comprehensive process for managing its laboratory workforce. For example, 

EPA did not have basic information on its laboratory workload or 

workforce, such as data on the number of Federal and contract employees working in its labs. 

This report also identified challenges related to the Agency’s 

management of its real property, a government-wide challenge that 

is part of GAO’s high-risk series. In 2010, the administration directed agencies to speed up efforts to identify and eliminate excess 

properties to help achieve $3 billion in cost savings by 2012. In 

July 2010, the EPA told the Office of Management and Budget that 

it did not anticipate disposing of any of its laboratories in the near 

future because the facilities were fully used and considered critical 

to the Agency. However, we found that EPA did not have accurate 

and reliable information called for by OMB on the need for the facilities, property used, facility condition, and facility operating efficiency to inform its determination. 

Second, the nature of EPA’s work requires it to coordinate and 

collaborate with other Federal agencies as well as State, local, and 

tribal partners. Our recent work on the Chesapeake Bay cleanup 

and pharmaceuticals in drinking water has shown that EPA could 

do a better job collaborating with these partners and in turn better 

35 

leverage limited resources. In 2009, we reported that the efforts of 

EPA and six Federal agencies to support drinking water and 

wastewater projects on the U.S.-Mexico border region were ineffective because only one of the agencies involved has comprehensively 

assessed the region’s needs or had coordinated policies for selecting 

and building projects. We included this issue in our March 2011 report to Congress concerning Federal programs with duplicative 

goals or activities. 

Third and finally, with respect to the Agency’s budget and annual requests for budget authority, our past reviews of the Agency’s budget justification documents have led to two recurring observations: First, regarding proposals for new or expanded funding, 

the Agency has not consistently provided clear justification for the 

funds requested or what steps the Agency would take to ensure the 

effective use of the funding. 

Second, over the years, we have focused on the Agency’s efforts 

to make use of unliquidated balances or funds that were appropriate and obligated but never actually spent. This occurs when 

contracts, grants, or interagency agreements expire with some level 

of funding remaining unspent. We have encouraged EPA to quickly 

identify and recover these funds for other uses, as it could decrease 

the need for new budget authority. While the EPA has made 

progress in recovering these funds, we have observed that EPA 

does not include this information in its budget justification documents. We believe that information on the reuse of such funds 

could help Congress in its budget deliberations. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trimble follows:] 

36 


74567.021
37 


74567.022
38 


74567.023
39 


74567.024
40 


74567.025
41 


74567.026
42 


74567.027
43 


74567.028
44 


74567.029
45 


74567.030
46 


74567.031
47 


74567.032
48 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Trimble, thank you very much. 

I will start with my questions. 

Ms. Bennett, you heard Mr. Trimble from the GAO. Were you 

aware of his report? Yes or no. 

Ms. BENNETT. I am aware of most of the reports, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. And has your staff been working on answers 

to some of the items he has talked about and particularly the one 

dealing with unexpended appropriations? 

Ms. BENNETT. Yes. In fact, we have been working hard on most 

of what are called the unliquidated obligations. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. You said in your opening statement, you also 

said in your prepared statement, that the President had a directive 

to you to look at item by item, line by line in the budget. So, just 

to be clear, the President asked you to review the budget page by 

page, line by line. Was this a directive that you understood? 

Ms. BENNETT. This is a directive that we have heard from the 

President and by OMB. We have heard that, although there hasn’t 

been an explicit order or explicit guidance. But I am familiar with 

that, obviously, from—— 

Mr. STEARNS. So you have no written document from anybody on 

what this means to you? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, I have a very good understanding of what 

line by line and page by page means in terms of—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Would you say that it was a figure of speech? Or 

did it actually mean—the President actually said, ‘‘line by line, 

item by item, page by page, program by program’’? He was pretty 

specific. Do you understand that to be literal, or do you think that 

is a figure of speech? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, I wouldn’t suppose what the President says, 

but I certainly took it to heart in terms of how we approached it. 

Mr. STEARNS. Would it be fair to say that you have taken it at 

its literal meaning? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, what we have done is we have had a process 

that goes through—— 

Mr. STEARNS. So you have actually, procedure-wise. have gone 

item by item, line by line, page by page, program by program? 

Ms. BENNETT. We have a process that goes through the programs 

and looks at all of our programs in terms of the program project 

level and what we have identified and work with both—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Could I construe that to mean that you are actually looking at every page and every line and every item? 

Ms. BENNETT. In terms of how the Agency is concerned—— 

Mr. STEARNS. That is true? 

Ms. BENNETT [continuing]. We have staff that goes through all 

aspects of the budget and is able to identify programs and the like. 

So we have worked—as I mentioned, we have worked with both 

OMB and with Congress on what we have—— 

Mr. STEARNS. You could do that by just going in a broad sense. 

You would have to get into a detailed sense. So your prepared 

statement and your opening statement has confirmed in my mind 

that you didn’t consider this a figure of speech, but you considered 

it something that you had to get into the details and follow the directive from the President. 

49 

So maybe EPA’s look at financial records, such as the ledger 

sheet that I mentioned earlier, page 26 from the EPA Inspector 

General’s report on financial statements—and I want to give a copy 

to Ms. Bennett. Did the staff give a copy? 

Ms. BENNETT. I have got it. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. If you look at the highlighted line for unex- pended appropriations, it says $3.3 billion. Do you see that one? It 

is in the bottom there. 

Ms. BENNETT. I do. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Now, EPA’s budget is around $8 billion. So to 

see unexpended money that is not obligated, that is just sitting 

there—that amount of money, almost twice, not quite twice of your 

overall budget, to us, obviously that is a very large number. So 

what does that $13.3 billion in unexpended appropriations mean in 

this document that I showed you? 

Ms. BENNETT. Mr. Stearns, Mr. Chairman, this is a balance 

sheet from 2010 as compared to 2009. And in 2010, EPA’s budget 

was $10.3 billion as well as it had received over $7 billion in Recovery Act funding. So the combination of those two, of $17 billion that 

would have come through in 2009, in 2010 would be reflected here, 

not the $8 billion that you referenced for this year. 

Mr. STEARNS. So, you are saying that you got so much money 

that you couldn’t spend it all? 

Ms. BENNETT. No, that is not what I said at all. What I am say- ing is that it is not reflective of the $8 billion that you mentioned. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, the $8 billion is your annual budget. 

Ms. BENNETT. For 2010, we are at $8.7. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. So when I look and you have got this budget— but you are still not explaining to me how you could have $13.3 billion of funds that have not been spent. Where is this money—is it 

money that is in a bank account? Money that you can get from the 

Treasury? What is this money doing? Why can’t you just give it 

back to the Treasury and reduce the deficit? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, actually, most of our funds go to the States 

and tribal assistance grants, and many of those projects are multiyear—— 

Mr. STEARNS. So you are saying this is all—$13.3 billion is obligated funds that you haven’t spent yet? 

Ms. BENNETT. Most of the funds have been obligated and have 

not been spent. 

Mr. STEARNS. How do you know that? Do you have a report that 

you could give us to show how that $13.3 billion is detailed in obligations to Indian tribes to—to who else? 

Ms. BENNETT. States. 

Mr. STEARNS. States, OK. 

Ms. BENNETT. States and communities. And for, both for water 

infrastructure—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I mean, is it obligated from 5 years ago, 2 years 

ago, 90 days? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, a lot of them are all obligations. So some of 

them—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Over what period of time? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, this is a balance sheet which reflects cumulative. 

50 

Mr. STEARNS. Could it be more than 5 years? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, at the particular time of this balance sheet, 

it could have been, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Could it be more than 10 years? 

Ms. BENNETT. For instance, in 2011, the budget that we re- ceived—that encompasses the $8.7 billion that I referred to—called 

for a rescission of unobligated—of unobligated—— 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. I understand. I am going to close. 

I will just ask Mr. Trimble, do you understand what she is saying? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. I believe so. There is always a lag time between when money is appropriated and obligated and actually 

spent. So there is a lag through this process. We have not looked, 

or I have not had a chance to look over the balance sheet. 

Mr. STEARNS. I will close. 

Ms. Bennett, I think for the record we would like to get where 

this obligated fund is in a time-duration milestone so we can see 

if it is money that can be returned to the Treasury or that actually 

you have obligations. So, with that, my questions are complete. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Going back to this balance sheet, a balance sheet is a snapshot 

in time, as of, in this case, the end of the fiscal year for 2010 and 

2009. 

Correct, Ms. Bennett? 

Ms. BENNETT. Yes, that is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So I think we are mixing apples and oranges a little bit because, as of September 30 of each of those years, you have 

got unexpended appropriations there on that balance sheet. But 

what you are saying is that is—most of that—it is not just money 

that is sitting there from an appropriation that could be given 

back. It is obligated for something, correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And so what Mr. Stearns and I would like you to 

do is to go back and for each of those fiscal years to make a breakdown of that, how much of that was obligated and where it was obligated. And for each of those programs, how many—because it is 

not the same for every program. It is a different time period for 

which those funds are obligated, correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. Right. Correct. Some programs spend the funds 

faster. For instance, the worker infrastructure projects—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. So if you could just supplement your testimony with that information, I think that would help us to figure 

out exactly what that number means in terms of funds. 

Ms. BENNETT. We would be happy to do that. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. 

Now my second question to you is, there have been some suggestions made by both of the other agencies represented here today. 

Have you reviewed those recommendations? 

Ms. BENNETT. Just about all of them, yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. One recommendation that both the IG and 

the GAO had made was that the EPA review its personnel policies 

and its management policies to make sure that the human resources are actually working to achieve the Agency’s mission. I 

51 

hate to put words into your mouths, but that’s essentially it. Have 

you reviewed those types of recommendations? 

Ms. BENNETT. Yes. And I have spoken with both the Inspector 

General and—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. And what is the EPA doing to address those recommendations? 

Ms. BENNETT. So the workforce and the workload issues are two 

separate issues. They may sound very similar, but they’re actually 

different issues. The workload is the amount of work that the 

Agency has to do, and the workforce reflects more like skills that 

are needed. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Ms. BENNETT. And might be needed in the future. So what my 

office has done, has led the workload planning. And so we have 

taken into consideration the recommendations from both the Inspector General and from GAO, and my office is leading an analysis that is really three-pronged in nature. One is benchmarking 

line managers in terms of—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. If you could just shorten up a little because 

I have got a lot more questions and not much time left. 

Ms. BENNETT. Sure. We are taking a look to see where we can 

address the recommendations. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And when are you going to be finished with that 

review so that you can—and having made your own internal relations? 

Ms. BENNETT. We’re finished with one part of it, and we should 

be finished with the second step some time shortly. 

Ms. DEGETTE. If you can provide the committee with that information, that would be helpful as well. 

Now Mr. Elkins, you made a number of observations and recommendations. These issues have been systemic in the EPA for 

some number of years, correct? 

Mr. ELKINS. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. These didn’t just rise up in the past couple of 

years, right? 

Mr. ELKINS. Based on our findings, that’s correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Based on your findings, how long have these 

issues been present at the EPA? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, we have looked at this issue at least over the 

last 3 or 4 years or so. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Last 3 or 4 years. And you are working with 

Ms. Bennett and her staff to try to address those recommendations. 

Mr. ELKINS. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. And do you believe that they are going to address them? 

Mr. ELKINS. We have been told that they are actively seeking to 

address them, that is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And Mr. Trimble, what about you? The issues that 

you identified in your excellent report, how long have they been 

going on in the EPA? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, in regards to the workforce planning, we 

know that the last time a comprehensive plan was done was in the 

1980s. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So it is over 20 years that this has been going on? 

52 

Mr. TRIMBLE. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And what about the other issues? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Workload is probably also a longstanding issue 

that crops up also when we do more programmatic focused work as 

well. 

Ms. DEGETTE. What about the facilities issues? I thought that 

was an interesting issue and one that I think would take time to 

address. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, facilities is a little bit different in that GAO 

has put government-wide facility management and Federal real 

property management on its high-risk list, so a government-wide 

issue in that regard. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And how long has it been? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. That I believe it is the 2003–2004 time frame. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. And the issue I site in the report just came out of 

the work we did this year concerning the laboratories. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, has GAO been working with the EPA to address the GAO recommendations? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. We have made recommendations. We have discussed those. I know, in regards to workforce, they have—a contractor has just completed a study. Booz Allen, I believe, is finishing a study. We have not looked at the scope or sort of the findings of that work. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Do you intend to do that? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I imagine we will end up having follow-on work, 

but nothing is planned at this point. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Bennett, how many employees are currently employed at the 

EPA? 

Ms. BENNETT. We requested in the 2012 budget just over 17,200. 

Mr. BARTON. 17,200. You mentioned in your prepared testimony 

that the travel budget was reduced by 40 percent last year, is that 

correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. Close to it, yes. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Do you know how much was actually spent on 

travel last year? 

Ms. BENNETT. In 2011, I don’t off the top of my head. I will be 

happy to get back to you. 

Mr. BARTON. Do you know how much was—— 

Ms. BENNETT. I do know what we did with the budget. 

Mr. BARTON. Well you have said that you reduced it. It was reduced 40 percent. So 40 percent from what? 

Ms. BENNETT. In 2010, we had a budget of approximately $60 

million, and so we had reduced it to less than $50, and then we 

have it reduced again to less than $40 million. 

Mr. BARTON. So that is in your budget. You don’t know what was actually spent. But you have gone from $60 million to $40 million. 

Ms. BENNETT. We took a significant cut in 2011. 

Mr. BARTON. Do you know what that would be per employee? 

53 

Ms. BENNETT. I haven’t done the math on a per employee. Not 

everybody travels. 

Mr. BARTON. Just roughly, that would be either $2,000 or $20,000. It is either $2,000 or $20,000 per employee. That is just 

back-of-the-envelope numbers. Do you know how many employees 

at EPA of these 17,000 have an EPA credit card? 

Ms. BENNETT. Have a credit card, an EPA credit card? 

Mr. BARTON. Yes. 

Ms. BENNETT. I don’t know the number of how many. 

Mr. BARTON. Do you have an estimate? 

Ms. BENNETT. I would have to get back to you on. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Elkins, do you happen to know that number? 

Mr. ELKINS. No, I don’t. 

Mr. BARTON. Could each of you attempt to get that number, the 

number of employees that have EPA credit cards and the credit 

limit on those credit cards and the amount spent on those credit 

cards in the most recent fiscal year, can y’all do that? 

Mr. ELKINS. I would be glad to. 

Ms. BENNETT. I would be glad to get back to you. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BARTON. Do you happen to know, either one of you, whether 

EPA has ever done an audit of the EPA employees that have credit 

cards? 

Ms. BENNETT. I know that we have a process in place within the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer that makes sure that those 

travel vouchers are looked at and reviewed for appropriateness. 

Mr. BARTON. Ms. Heist, you look like you want to say something. 

Ms. HEIST. Thank you, sir. We have done some work. We have 

not to this date identified—— 

Mr. BARTON. Pull the microphone close to you. 

Ms. HEIST. We have done some minimal work in that area. We 

haven’t found significant problems. We have looked at all the controls in place, and we have found them to be generally working 

well. 

Mr. BARTON. When I was subcommittee chairman of this subcommittee, we did an audit of the FDA and the number of employees that had credit cards. And we found out that there were thousands, and we found out that there were no real controls, and we 

found out that one FDA employee purchased a Ford Mustang on 

an FDA credit card. So it might be worthy of some investigation 

because people being people, my guess is that lots of folks at EPA 

have credit cards—and not all, but some of them, probably abuse 

them. 

Ms. Bennett, are you aware of a title 42 program at EPA? 

Ms. BENNETT. I am aware of the program. 

Mr. BARTON. Do you support that program? 

Ms. BENNETT. We have used the program for our highly trained 

and highly skilled scientists that we have primarily in our Office 

of Research and Development. 

Mr. BARTON. Are you aware that the EPA union for the Washington region is opposing that program? 

Ms. BENNETT. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. BARTON. They are. 

Do you know what the compliance budget is at EPA? 

54 

Ms. BENNETT. The overall—— 

Mr. BARTON. For enforcement of existing regulations. 

Ms. BENNETT. I can certainly access it, sure. 

Mr. BARTON. Could either you or Mr. Elkins give us a ballpark 

figure what the compliance enforcement budget is? I mean, after 

all, that is really where the rubber meets the road in terms of protecting the environment. We know what the general budget is. Do 

you know, either one of you, what the compliance budget or enforcement budget is? 

Ms. BENNETT. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance has a 

budget of over $600 million. 

Mr. BARTON. $600 million. Is that up or down from the last year? 

Ms. BENNETT. It is slightly up. 

Mr. BARTON. Slightly up. In spite of all these mean-spirited Republicans who want to, according to my friends on the Democratic 

side, gut the EPA, the real heart of the EPA, enforcement and compliance, is up. Is that right? 

Ms. BENNETT. We have proposed it to have an increase largely 

due to an initiative that we were redirecting funds toward in order 

to transition from paper reporting to electronic reporting in order 

to reduce burdens. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you for an honest answer. My last 

question, and I know my time has expired. I would like for the 

record, Ms. Bennett, to provide the number of enforcement actions 

that EPA has initiated in the last several years and the percentage 

of those enforcement actions that have resulted in fines being collected or criminal sentences being applied. 

Ms. BENNETT. I would be happy to follow up with you. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BARTON. And if the Inspector General has information, we 

would like for you to provide that also. 

Mr. ELKINS. I would be happy to. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I ask my question, I just wanted to say that I can see that 

from Ms. Bennett’s testimony, that despite everything, EPA is 

making a good attempt to respond to the recommendations, and 

they are in the process of addressing issues that have been around 

for a very long time. And I really think you could probably do more 

of that if we didn’t keep calling EPA up to the Hill every day and 

asking for report after report. I realize we have to do oversight, but 

I think we are overdoing it a bit. 

My questions are around the cuts to the EPA budget. The President has proposed a budget for EPA for 2012 that is $8.97 billion. 

And it sounds like a lot of money. But when you put it in perspective, it is really just 0.06 percent of the total government debt, 0.26 

percent of total government spending, and 0.69 percent of the 

budget deficit. So we could really close down EPA and shudder the 

building and not make a dent in our overall budget deficit. But the 

55 

ramifications for public health and the environment would be truly 

profound. 

This summer, the House appropriators proposed cutting EPA’s 

budget by 20 percent below what the President requested for 2012, 

and the President’s request was low to begin with because it was 

already 13 percent below 2010 levels. 

Ms. Bennett, could you describe what impact these proposed Republican budget cuts would have on EPA’s ability to implement 

and enforce the Clean Air Act? 

Ms. BENNETT. Certainly that level of cut would make things very 

difficult. And in terms of our overall responsibilities, not just for 

the Clean Air Act but overall responsibilities, in particular there is 

a proposal of another $1 billion cut to the SRF budget as well as 

another I believe $100 million to State categorical grants and over 

another $100 million to the Great Lakes Initiative. So there would 

be a significant impact from that level of cut. And that budget 

would be lower than what we saw in 1998. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So you might not be able to—you might have 

to reduce their quality monitoring also and might not be able to update your air quality standards in a timely manner? 

Ms. BENNETT. We would certainly have to look at what we would 

have to be able to discontinue or what we would be able to afford 

at that time. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And what impact would these proposed budget cuts have on EPA’s ability to implement and enforce the Safe 

Drinking Water Act? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, again, I believe that the proposal would be 

to reduce the SRF by a combined billion dollars, and therefore, it 

would be reduced dramatically if it were on a pro rata basis. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I want to note that the Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund helps utilities deal with costs of meeting drinking 

water standards and repairing or replacing aging infrastructure, 

much of which is approaching the end of their useful life. 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that this spending is 

an economic win-win because it creates jobs and spurs the economy 

while ensuring healthy drinking water. 

These budget cuts would also affect the pace of toxic waste cleanups in communities across the country. 

Ms. Bennett, could you describe what these proposed budget cuts 

would have on EPA’s ability to clean up the Nation’s worst toxic 

waste sites? 

Ms. BENNETT. There would be, again, as I understand how—you 

know, what has been proposed on that particular bill, is there 

would be an additional cut to Superfund, and there would be additional cuts to others, making it very difficult to continue the work 

that has been done. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And you know, since it has been reported 

that maybe around 60 percent of some of these toxic waste sites are 

adjacent to minority communities, we would be extremely concerned about that. 

But EPA’s budget is a drop in the Federal budget bucket. I am 

sure EPA could identify additional efficiencies and trim the budget 

along the margins, but overall, EPA is trying to accomplish big 

goals with limited funds, protecting America’s water supply and air 

56 

quality, taking action on climate change and protecting all Americans from dangerous toxic chemicals. 

So we shouldn’t be fooled by Republican rhetoric about the budget here. This is the most anti-environmental Congress in history 

any way you look at it. It shows that in their effort to pass legislation that would weaken the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water 

Act, and it shows in the massive and damaging budget cuts that 

they have proposed to the EPA. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a little personal experience in the State of Nebraska regarding the State Revolving Fund. For example, a battle that we 

had with some of the EPA folks in rural Nebraska just a few years 

ago were on copper pipes. And what happens is the groundwater 

is a little higher acidic, and so when it sits in the pipe, it draws 

out some of the copper. 

The mandate from the EPA was to put in a water treatment facility. It would have been a fraction of the cost for one of these 

small times—some of these small towns to just go out and rip out 

on city dollar or little town dollars all copper pipes and replace 

them, but those weren’t options. We put those on the table, and 

they were rejected by the EPA. 

So sometimes a water treatment facility is the least efficient, 

most expensive but yet the one that was mandated. Those are the 

type of lack of commonsense over-zealousness that we are looking 

at here. So perhaps at least from Nebraska, the revolving fund for 

the drinking water is not exactly the example to use to show how 

mean and anti-environmental the Republicans are. 

Now, reading through these reports, especially GAO, it talks 

about many areas where there are redundancies, divided responsibilities. And what we are trying to figure out, is there a way to 

make you, the EPA, leaner. 

So when you, Ms. Bennett, Honorable Bennett, mentioned that 

there were worthy projects that have been cut, you mentioned 

drinking water along the U.S.-Mexican border. Mr. Trimble also 

mentioned a drinking water project along the Mexican border 

which they felt was inefficient. Is that the same one that you said 

was cut? 

Ms. BENNETT. It is the same program. I believe, if I—I think it 

is the same program because I am only aware of one. 

Mr. TERRY. You probably should put it in full context that that 

was also one that was declared by GAO as one that was inefficient. 

Could you do the subcommittee here a favor as we are trying to 

make you a leaner, more efficient agency to accomplish your legislative goals, or goals that Congress has set out for you, could you 

provide us an itemization of all projects that have been cut or 

eliminated in the last 2 fiscal years? 

Ms. BENNETT. In the—— 

Mr. TERRY. Could you provide that? That is a yes or no. 

57 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, in the budgets that we have submitted to 

Congress, there is a list—— 

Mr. TERRY. OK. 

Ms. BENNETT (continuing). Of terminations that already exist. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Well, that is looking—what I am trying to 

figure out is, you gave me an example of two that were cut. As I 

understand from this whisper in my ear, that the budget gives us 

the proposed ones. I am looking backwards to see which ones were 

actually cut or eliminated. Could you provide ones that were actually in the last 2 fiscal years cut or eliminated? 

Ms. BENNETT. I will be happy to get back to you on that. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you very much. Now, in the—very bland. We 

get it; this is just a balance sheet, and because it is so bland, it 

lacks a lot of data. Of course, the data is in a 6-inch spiral notebook, but on the unexpended appropriations/other funds in note 17, 

can you itemize for us what programs where they have the leftover 

unspent funds? 

Ms. BENNETT. The unliquidated obligations, yes. What we—— 

Mr. TERRY. Tomato-tomato, yes. 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, the reason I state that is because there is 

a difference between unobligated funds and unliquidated obligations. And I just want to make sure that we are talking about the 

same thing. And this line reflects the unliquidated obligations or 

the unspent funds that have been obligated. This year my office instituted a tool for the Agency to be able to—— 

Mr. TERRY. OK. My time is up, so would you, could you, provide 

a list of those unliquidated, which we call unexpended? And also 

the next line, cumulative results of operation earmark funds, I am 

kind of curious about that. Could you give us a list of the earmarks 

of which there are unspent, unliquidated funds? 

Ms. BENNETT. We will be happy to get back to you. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. That is the perfect answer. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. 

Bennett be able to finish the answer she was trying to give about 

the tool of her office. 

Mr. STEARNS. Sure. Go ahead. 

Mr. TERRY. Can the gentlelady yield to me? I wasn’t trying to be 

rude. I just had no time left. 

Ms. DEGETTE. No problem. 

Mr. STEARNS. Ms. Bennett, go ahead and answer the question. 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, I think it is important to note that the unliquidated obligations has been not only mentioned by the Inspector 

General and GAO, but I know that when I came on board wanted 

to tackle it myself. So my office this year, I know I have put a real 

renewed focus on looking at unliquidated obligations. We instituted 

a new tool and provided new guidance to the Agency so that every 

unliquidated obligation was reviewed on at least an annual basis, 

and they have to send assurances to me that they have done so. 

And by virtue of that tool, we have been able to reduce the unliquidated obligations by over 50 percent in 1 year alone. So we recognize that this is an issue. We recognize this is an important budget 

item. And it is important for me as CFO to make sure that funds 

58 

are not only used properly, but they are expended in the most efficient and effective way. 

Mr. STEARNS. All right. 

The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you very much. I am very concerned that a lot of 

these cuts are going to harm jobs and the ability of communities 

across the country to improve the environmental conditions. And it 

is interesting that we just had this conversation on the unliquidated obligations. 

The mayor of Tampa on October 6th received a letter from the 

EPA, from Stanley Meiburg, the deputy regional administrator, 

that says, we regret to inform you that the U.S. EPA will not be 

able to award the City of Tampa $1.25 million for the project regarding sediment removal from estuaries, the headwaters of the 

canal that are at issue. This is a matter that the city, the residents, 

the EPA and the State has been working on for years. It is a grant 

the city received some years ago. Sometimes these initiatives do 

take time. There are some issues here with State permits. 

I don’t understand how the EPA, understanding all of the actions 

that have gone on, on an issue like this, all of the reliance on the 

grant funds, the moneys expended—I mean, we have got an engineering firm that has already expended about $600,000. We have 

another contractor that has expended about $22,000. And EPA said 

that they are not going to live up to their end of the bargain—they 

are on the hook, or the deal was that they would pay 55 percent 

of this clean water initiative and the City of Tampa would pay 45 

percent. This has been an understanding for many years. 

Will you explain to me how this could happen, how the EPA 

could just after all the years of work on this, how the EPA could 

renege on the deal and take back the money that we have relied 

on? 

Ms. BENNETT. Ms. Castor, that is a very good example of very 

worthy projects that end up having to be cut. In the 2011 budget 

that we received in appropriations, we were directed by Congress 

to rescind $140 million of unobligated funds in a particular account, and that particular account was the State and tribal assistance grant. We did not have a choice as to which appropriation account. And we were also further directed that it must come from 

unobligated funds. 

So we attempted to try to be as fair as possible, recognizing that 

there are so many good projects on those lists. But we went back 

and went to the oldest unobligated funds that we had in that category and came up with the $140 million of unobligated funds that 

were 2008 or earlier. And it sounds like, I am afraid, that that particular one was one of them. 

Ms. CASTOR. But we have relied on it. The city has expended 

money. People have been hired. They are ready to begin the project 

next year. Doesn’t EPA owe us at least the portion of the funds 

that have been expended to date? And I would argue all of it. 

Ms. BENNETT. We were left with very little latitude in terms of 

how we had to take the cut to the budget. 

Ms. CASTOR. So these jobs are just going to go away. 

59 

See, now this is a real world example of how when you do things 

irrationally, it really hurts jobs, and it hurts the environmental 

quality of our community. We have been working on this for years 

and years and years. 

And it is just, it is unconscionable that these kind of cuts would 

have an impact on jobs and the environmental quality in my community. 

And I am going to leave these materials with you and want to 

talk to you all at greater length about at least covering the portion 

of the moneys that have been expended to date. 

Explain that discrepancy. How come EPA doesn’t recognize that, OK, to date, we have spent over $600,000 on this and at least that 

portion should be covered? 

Ms. BENNETT. Again, my—I had very little latitude in terms of 

how we were to cover the cut. We looked at the funds that had not 

been obligated. These were unobligated earmarks from many years 

ago. And so we tried to apply them as fairly as possible, recognizing when you cut funds, real projects get hurt. 

Ms. CASTOR. Real projects, real jobs, the expectations of a community for many years. 

Ms. BENNETT. Yes. And there was a $140 million recision across 

that had to be taken, and it was taken across the country. And I 

appreciate your concern on that. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Bennett, let me just ask you a question. And I appreciate 

these problems that we are talking about at the EPA are longstanding and long in degeneration. And your tenure there began 

when? 

Ms. BENNETT. The end of 2009, so I am coming up on 2 years. 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. My deepest sympathy. 

But you were a CFO in the real world at one time, is that not 

correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. Indeed, I was. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I appreciate the problem that the representative from Florida just articulated. That is very difficult at home. 

But on the other hand, as a CFO, I mean, you understand when you see the net position unexpended appropriations $13.5 billion in 

an agency that has an $8 billion-a-year budget, and that is one and 

a half times your annual budget, I mean, that becomes an attractive target, especially in a time when budget cuts are happening 

all over the place. So you see the problem there; with your CFO 

eyes, you see that problem, correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. And that is why I put a real renewed focus on it 

this year. My staff will tell you that it is what I talk about an 

awful lot in terms of making sure that the funds are used effectively and efficiently and most expeditiously. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, and I would just second Mr. Terry’s request 

that we get the details of that and the details of the next line, the 

earmarked funds, because I think that is going to be very important in helping us foster an understanding of just what is going on 

here. 

60 

Mr. Barton’s request that the credit card statements be reviewed 

I think is rational. If someone is buying automobiles, we at least 

want to make sure they are buying hybrids, not mustangs, because 

we all know the EPA rating for a mustang on miles per gallon is 

pretty high. 

You know, on the GAO report, and again, I am asking you to 

look at this with your CFO eyes, here I am looking at the management of EPA’s workload, workforce and real property, and the 

paragraph begins, with respect to workload and workforce, EPA 

has struggled for years to identify its human resource needs and 

deploy the staff throughout the Agency in a manner that would do 

the most good. OK. Fair enough. You have only been there for 2 

years. This is a problem that is longstanding. 

But, I mean, this is the stuff that really gets you. EPA requested 

funding and staffing through incremental adjustments based largely on historical precedent. That means our budget was X last year 

for this, and it is going to be X-plus for this year. And instead of 

going back and evaluating what you really need to do the job to do 

the most good for the most people, you simply take what happened 

last time and add to it. Is that what is going on here? Is that what 

the GAO is referencing? 

Ms. BENNETT. The approach that I take to the budget process is 

not on an incremental basis. 

The direction that we give is to look at the programs and to use 

subject matter experts to determine the level of funding. 

That said, I also recognize that the reports that GAO has come 

forward with, with the workload, and that it has been a long time 

in coming. I will tell you that when I asked about the reports and 

what they referenced, what I was trying to balance was a prior report on workload had indicated that we might need as many as 

3,000 additional people. And I didn’t feel that that was going to be 

an effective way—— 

Mr. BURGESS. No, it was not. I am going to interrupt you, only 

because of the interest of time. But the problem is the reports we 

have in front of us, the Inspector General’s report, the GAO report, 

I mean, this same theme repeats itself over and over again. In the 

IG report, the comments about the information technology, that it 

has taken a long time and a lot of extra money to get that right, 

and no one even knows how many work stations and how many 

computers. You are a CFO. 

I mean, that is pretty basic. I am just a simple country doctor, 

but that seems to me to be CFO 101 stuff. Is that a correct interpretation? 

Ms. BENNETT. It is definitely something that a CFO, including 

myself, takes very seriously, and why I am working with both the 

Inspector General and the GAO to make sure that we are addressing those recommendations. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, in the last Congress, we heard from the Office of Water, and the IG’s report at that time brought up that the 

Office of Water had more un- implemented recommendations by 

the IG’s office than any other branch. And I looked at the result 

as of March 31, 2011, and it is the same thing, Office of Water 

stands out as having more unimplemented obligations. 

61 

Let me just ask you this, Lisa Jackson, Administrator Jackson, 

last summer convened a group of folks and said we got to get ready 

for the budget cuts; is that correct? I have a news report here 

somewhere that references that from I think July 19. 

Ms. BENNETT. We need to get—we were preparing to go through 

the budget process. 

Mr. BURGESS. Could you get us a list of the programs that were 

identified as most essential from that meeting? Did the meeting 

take place? I assume it did. 

Ms. BENNETT. We had a discussion at the meeting. 

Mr. BURGESS. Did you generate a list of the programs that were 

most essential or least essential? 

Ms. BENNETT. We provided a lot of analysis during that time in 

terms of how we go about in making decisions in terms—you know, 

predecisional type of—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Would you be willing to share with this committee 

the results of that meeting? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, predecisional meetings—excuse me, 

predecisional materials are typically not provided. 

Mr. BURGESS. But you had a meeting. And were there no action 

items then coming out of this meeting last July? 

Ms. BENNETT. The action items that are in reference to the meeting in July and conversations since then were for the presentation 

of the 2013 budget, which is still not complete. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, I think this committee probably does have 

the ability to see the predecisional material, the right to see the 

predecisional material. And I would ask you when you go back to 

see if you cannot make that information available to the committee. 

Because just like you, we are faced with tough choices, too. The 

water quality things on the Texas-Mexico border, I mean, that is 

far away from my district, but I have visited the Colonias; I know 

the problem that they have. And if the problem was that you guys 

didn’t study what you actually needed before you started pumping 

money in and now you feel that it is being wasted, that is a huge 

problem, and we need to get to the bottom of it. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I would ask 

that the predecisional materials be made available to the committee and committee staff. And I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank our panel for being here today. And if you don’t mind let 

me go over, I know what you all have to do on the executive branch 

budgeting, but we also have some responsibilities on our congressional budgeting process that I think needs to be concerned. In fact, 

I served many years in the legislature, and our Governor sent us 

a budget, but we immediately threw it in the trash can and drew 

our own, which is typically what Congress will do. If you like the 

President’s budget, you talk about it. If you don’t, you go ahead and 

draft your own. 

The focus today is on the budgeting of the executive branch, but 

Congress plays a role. In fact, as Democrats on this subcommittee 

62 

and a bipartisan witness made clear at last week’s hearing, the 

Constitution vests primary responsibility in Congress. In carrying 

out that constitutional duty and responding to requirements of the 

Budget Act, once a President submits its budget to Congress in 

February, we are supposed to hold hearings on it, authorizing committees are supposed to pass their views and estimates and send 

them to the budget committees. And then Budget Committees are 

supposed to produce a budget resolution. Once we have a budget 

resolution, the Appropriations Committee should begin work on appropriation bills; the authorizing committee begin work on reconciliation instructions contained in the budget resolution. 

Before the fiscal year begins on October 1, 12 separate appropriations bills are supposed to be considered, debated and passed by 

both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. But that has 

not happened—I am trying to think of how many years it has been 

since we have had it happen. To the contrary, over the last year, 

Congress has funded the government through a series of continuing 

resolutions, most recently one that lasted only a few days. And I 

can’t imagine that this approach to budgeting enhances the efficiency of our Federal Government. 

Ms. Bennett, what impact do these short-term continuing resolutions have on your agency’s ability to carry out its mission, whether 

it be contracting, grant writing, hiring, delay in projects or, particularly, cleaning up the environment? 

Ms. BENNETT. Short-term CRs make it very difficult to implement programs, especially when they are multiple and very short 

in nature. It makes it very difficult to decide what to do because 

you are not sure how much money you are going to have. And I 

know certainly from my experience in the private sector, it would 

make it very difficult to operate a business. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, it seems like, I mean, EPA is a smaller agency 

compared to GAO and even DOD. Twice in the last 6 months, our 

majority in the House has brought the government to a brink of a 

shutdown, once threatening a default on the Nation’s loan obligations. What impact do these shutdown threats have on efficient and 

effective agency operations? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, certainly when the workforce is looking at a 

possible shutdown, we—you know, a lot of work is just put on hold 

to determine what we can do. 

Mr. GREEN. If you will be there the next day, in some cases. 

Ms. BENNETT. Exactly. And a very anxious workforce, as well as 

trying to determine what we are actually legally able to do in 

terms of a shutdown. 

Mr. GREEN. In your agency, would your agency be better able to 

act efficiently and effectively if Congress fulfilled its statutory duties under the Budget Act and passed not only all of the appropriations but maybe just a few on time? 

Ms. BENNETT. It would certainly—to have a budget that is approved on time would certainly be helpful. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I know a lot of us came out of the business 

sector, and it is amazing how we couldn’t run a small business 

where I was at not knowing what we may be able to do. Congress 

certainly has an oversight to play with respect to the federal budget, but it also has a constitutional duty to respond to the PresiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:51 Jun 18, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\115159~1\112-95~1 WAYNE
63 

dent’s budget proposals in good faith and ensure that the budget 

emerges from Congress in a manner that promotes administrative 

efficiency and programmatic effectiveness. I think maybe Congress 

ought to be looking at our responsibility on doing that, whether it 

is this committee or any other committee, particularly Appropriations and Budget Committee. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to yield my time to 

our ranking member if she has any other questions. 

No? 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I noted with some interest that you indicated, Ms. Bennett, that 

the $13 billion in unexpended appropriations, I think your words 

were, may be more than 5 years in implementation; some of these 

commitments may have been made more than 5 years ago. And I 

am curious about that, because I guess what I am hearing is, and 

I need you to tell me if I am incorrect, is that sometimes to get 

complicated projects done and to do things in the right way and to 

make sure that you are doing them in the most efficient way possible, it takes more than 5 years to get some of these projects done. 

Would that be an accurate statement? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, I think that many projects can take more 

than a few years. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And so I guess what I am trying to figure out, and 

I know it is not really your role, so I will make it more of a rhetorical question is, why would the EPA oppose H.R. 2250, which 

would give businesses 5 years in order to comply with new regulations from the EPA? I leave that as a rhetorical question. But I do 

note with some interest that the EPA is not able to follow the rules 

that they oppose for businesses. 

And I would then point out to you that I also have heard a lot 

of talk about wastewater and safe drinking water programs and so 

forth and that a lot of those may be in here. And I will tell you 

of an incident, because this may be part of the problem, that has 

been brought to my attention recently where without having the cooperation that we heard is not going on, various agencies of the 

State and Federal, including the EPA, came up with different 

rules, and some areas were trying to work on these very issues, 

safe drinking water and wastewater, and the big impediment to 

getting them done in a timely fashion and what ended up costing 

more money were not having the flexibility, like Mr. Terry pointed 

out, not the exact same situation, but not having flexibility from 

the EPA and others, and different people coming in and telling 

folks different things. And so they had the construction crews there 

ready to go, and then all of a sudden somebody comes in and says, 

wait a minute, you haven’t done X. And not looking at practical solutions to the problem and just to note you have got to follow this 

strict rule, that project was then delayed and cost the community 

additional moneys. And it may very well be one of your 13 billion 

programs because they are trying hard to both bring safe drinking 

water and wastewater programs into my district, but also to comVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:51 Jun 18, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\115159~1\112-95~1 WAYNE
64 

ply with the regulations put on them trying to get those projects 

completed by the EPA. 

And so I would ask that you do work very hard to make sure 

that you get that cooperation going. Because when you don’t have 

the cooperation, folks actually have let the contracts and have the 

bulldozers sitting there, that equipment costs money to have sitting 

there while they try then to comply with something new that was 

thrown at them at the last minute. 

So I encourage you to encourage the EPA to do that. I also would 

have to ask, in regard to figuring out the staffing, and I guess I 

am going to switch to Mr. Elkins, would I be correct that when you 

are saying that you need to know what kind of staffing needs you 

have and that there hadn’t been a study and you really need to 

have a study be akin to trying to run a McDonalds and not know 

when your peak periods were for that particular community and 

neighborhood and how many employees you needed to have and so 

then maybe you over staff all the time to make sure you can meet 

the peak demands? If you don’t have the accurate information, how 

many people it takes to get lunch served in that particular community, isn’t it true you are libel to have more employees than you 

need in order to meet the peak periods? 

Mr. ELKINS. That would be a fair conclusion, yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And is that the same kind of situation, not that 

EPA is trying to meet the lunch crowd, but the similar type of 

thing that they may not have the right number of people in the 

right locations and they may actually be over staffing? 

Mr. ELKINS. That is a fair conclusion, yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. Thank you very much. 

And in regard to the rent, is it possible that EPA could look for 

cheaper accommodations? I have noticed they have some of the 

nicest buildings as I come into Washington every week. Is it possible they could move to cheaper accommodations? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, I would assume anything is possible. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. If I indicated to you that we have lots 

of empty space in the Ninth Congressional District of Virginia and 

that that is actually close to an area that EPA seems to be focused 

a lot of attention on, the coal mining region of the Central Appalachians, it would seem to make sense—and we might not want 

them close, but they might understand some of the issues better. 

If I told you the rent down there is a whole lot cheaper than Washington, they could save some money that way, couldn’t they? 

Mr. ELKINS. You know, that may be a little bit—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. It would have to be studied I assume? 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. In regard to the 37 labs, I heard something that 

I don’t understand, and there was 37 labs, but it was like 115 

buildings. Can you explain that to me, Mr. Trimble? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes, 37 labs, but they have 170 buildings or facilities. So some of those may not be full office buildings or lab facilities but smaller operations as well. So it is about 170 located in 30 

cities, all operating under 15 different managers. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I think the conclusion that you have made, 

and I think most people would make, is that there ought to be 

65 

some room for consolidation; you might not need 15, but you might 

need 7 or 8 managers—— 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, I think we are agnostic on whether you need 

consolidation as much as that it is you need the information to 

know whether you have the right number and in the right place 

and the right skill sets. And if you are doing workforce planning, 

you need to manage entire portfolios and integrated portfolios as 

opposed to sort of stovepiped. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I appreciate that. And I see that my 

time is up, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Mr. Scalise is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the panelists coming to talk about the budget. I 

know one of my colleagues on the other side was lamenting the 

failure to pass a budget, and I would share that concern. I know 

right, not 3 months after this Republican majority came into Congress, we passed a budget over to the Senate. It has been nearly 

3 years since the Senate has passed a budget of any kind. They 

took up our budget, voted it down. They took up the President’s 

budget and didn’t even get one vote, not one vote in the United 

States Senate for the President’s budget. 

So hopefully our friends over in the Senate will finally start 

doing their job that we have already done over here. And if they 

don’t like our budget, pass one of their own that they can pass. But 

it has been almost 3 years, so I would imagine you almost have 

some frustrations with that as well. 

When we are talking about—you know, you have mentioned cuts. 

When I look at your budget, when President Obama took office, it 

was around $7.5 billion. Is that correct? Is that a ballpark? 

Ms. BENNETT. In 2009, it was $7.6 billion. 

Mr. SCALISE. And today, what is your budget? 

Ms. BENNETT. In 2011, it was just under $8.7 billion. 

Mr. SCALISE. So your budget has actually gone up over $1 billion. 

How is that a cut? 

Ms. BENNETT. From 2009, it was not a cut. 

Mr. SCALISE. So you had a $7.5 billion budget 2 years ago. Every 

State, I know in my State, pretty much every State that I have 

been following, they are actually cutting the size of their budget. 

You talk to families who are struggling in these tough times, 

most families have been cutting back over the last 2 years. And yet 

you have got over $1 billion increase in your budget over the last 

2 years, and you are complaining that you are cut somehow. I 

mean, maybe in Washington that is a cut. But when you look at 

your budget 2 years ago, you look at what States have dealt with, 

what families have dealt with, you have actually got more than $1 

billion increase over that time, and you are somehow calling that 

a cut that is hurting health. 

Ms. BENNETT. Actually, in terms of the overall budget, from 2000 

to 2009, there was no increase in EPA’s budget from those 2 

years—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, we are looking at the 2 and a half years going 

back to when President Obama took office. 

66 

Ms. BENNETT. And in 2010, there was a large increase in two 

particular areas in particular. 

Mr. SCALISE. And I hope you would understand that we are living in the real world. And you know you talk to families; when we 

go back home and meet with our small business owners, they are 

cutting back. They want to reinvest in their business and create 

jobs. And frankly, EPA has been the main source of job losses when 

you talk to a lot of our small businesses. They say it is the things 

that you all are doing, some of these new regulations that are coming out, that are making it impossible for them to create jobs in 

the real world. And I hope you would understand that it is kind 

of hard for a lot of those businesses and families that are struggling, and they are cutting back. They want to create jobs, but they 

can’t because of the some of the rules you are sending out. You actually had an increase of $1 billion compared to 2 years ago, and 

you are trying to complain to us that you got a cut. And so I just 

want to put that on the record because clearly, you go from $7.5 

billion 2 years ago to over $8.5 billion today; that is not a cut. I 

mean, are those numbers correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. And the increase of the SRFs and to the Great 

Lakes are for the most part straight passthroughs to the States 

and to the communities. 

Mr. SCALISE. And so again, like I said, a lot of people struggling 

out there. They would be more than happy to have that kind of increase, more than a 10 percent increase, over a 2-year period. 

When we look at some of the things that are in this report, when 

you go to the properties, in your testimony, let’s see right here, Ms. 

Bennett, your testimony on page 3, you said that you all have released approximately 375,000 square feet of facilities, resulting in 

cumulative annual rent avoidance of over $12.5 million. By rent 

avoidance, you mean—— 

Ms. BENNETT. We are not incurring it. 

Mr. SCALISE (continuing). You reduced the amount of space. But 

then when I look at the Inspector General’s report, it says you are 

spending probably somewhere around $300 million a year. In some 

cases, you have got buildings where you have one or two EPA employees for that whole building. Have you seen that in the Inspector General’s report? 

Ms. BENNETT. I have. We do have a number of facilities. We have 

not only a number of office facilities, we have, as Mr. Trimble has 

mentioned, we have a number of labs, and we have a number of 

warehouses. The field offices that have one or two people, I have 

recently directed that we have a review of all offices that have less 

than 10 people, in order to make sure that we continue to need 

them, and with the new technology that is available, that perhaps 

we have more—— 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. And you go on to say you plan to further reduce energy utilization. Maybe you can get some of those extra 

Solyndra solar panels to put on the roof and maybe we can get 

something to show for that $535 million we might be on the hook 

for. 

Going to the audited report, the EPA audited report, and I know 

I am running low on time, so I am just going to ask these quick 

questions and see if you can give me the details. On page 33, unVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:51 Jun 18, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\115159~1\112-95~1 WAYNE
67 

paid obligations looks like $13.8 billion. If you can get me a breakdown or get the committee a breakdown of what that really means, 

because we don’t have anything beyond just one line that says unpaid obligations, $13.8 billion. Undelivered orders, $12.8 billion, if 

you can get the committee a breakdown of that. And finally, unexpired, on page 71, unexpired unobligated balance, $4.4 billion, if 

you could get the committee details about what that really is, because it doesn’t give it to us in this audit. Thank you. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. [presiding.] Thank you. 

And the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you as well for the witnesses their time to join us 

today. 

And so just to follow up on Mr. Scalise’s questions, the EPA 

funding has increased then over the last 2 years. 

Ms. BENNETT. Since 2009, it has increased. 

Mr. GARDNER. It has increased. OK. Thank you for that. And you 

had mentioned earlier there is about 17,200 employees at the EPA, 

or at least that was in the request. 

Ms. BENNETT. That we requested in 2012. 

Mr. GARDNER. What percentage or what number of those are actually involved in writing regulations? 

Ms. BENNETT. Off the top of my head, I am not sure, but I would 

be happy to get back to you on that. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. GARDNER. If you can get back to me and let us know how 

many of those are involved in writing regulations, I would appreciate it. And do you anticipate a budget being passed by the Senate 

this year, and if so, what would that number be? 

Ms. BENNETT. I don’t think I will answer that one. 

Mr. GARDNER. Is that because you don’t think they will pass one? 

Ms. BENNETT. No, because I think that is not my decision. 

Mr. GARDNER. And if you could ballpark the number of mandates 

that are coming out of the EPA on various drinking water regulations, on various municipal treatment, sewage treatment regulations, excuse me, regulations that are going out to local municipalities when it comes to drinking water treatment and sewer treatment, do you have an idea of the unfunded mandate, the level of 

unfunded mandates right now? 

Ms. BENNETT. My responsibility as CFO is to ensure the financial integrity of the EPA’s budget. And so—— 

Mr. GARDNER. You are not involved in those, OK. 

Ms. BENNETT. I am not involved. 

Mr. GARDNER. Then going back to that question, of this $13.3 billion that has been discussed at length today, that is not in the 

budget justification submitted to Congress, is that correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. No. And that is a figure that is a year old. 

Mr. GARDNER. And so what would that figure be today? 

Ms. BENNETT. We are still closing the books. I don’t have the 

number for you. 

68 

Mr. GARDNER. But surely you know what has been spent out of 

that as the year goes. I mean, you keep a running tally of how 

much money you spend out of that. 

Ms. BENNETT. I would have to get back to you on that. Off the 

top of my head, I don’t know the figure. But we have looked at the 

unliquidated obligations, which is the same thing as the unexpended obligations, and have done and implemented a tool that allows for us to be able to review all of the unliquidated obligations 

and see what we might be able to de-obligate and either recertify 

or return back. 

Mr. GARDNER. And that has been implemented now? 

Ms. BENNETT. My office implemented it this year in 2011. 

Mr. GARDNER. But you still don’t not know how much of the 

$13.3 billion is left? 

Ms. BENNETT. Off the top of my head, I do not. 

Mr. GARDNER. Even though that tool has been implemented? 

Ms. BENNETT. I don’t have the tool in front of me at this particular moment. 

Mr. GARDNER. So it is still something that you don’t know about 

$13.3 billion where it is or how it is being spent or how much is 

being left? 

Ms. BENNETT. I would have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Trimble, does EPA have access to that $13.3 

billion for other program use? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I have not—we have not looked at the balance 

sheet, so I really couldn’t speak to that. I could probably come back 

to you with something—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Ms. Bennett, where is that $13.3 billion today? 

Ms. BENNETT. We have already agreed that we would get back 

to you on the information in regards to that particular amount. 

But it reflects obligations that the Agency has made and for 

projects that are ongoing. And so we will be happy to get back with 

you on any more details. 

Mr. GARDNER. And Mr. Elkins, do you know where that money— 

can they use that money, have access to that $13.3 billion for other 

programs? 

Mr. ELKINS. Let me defer to Melissa Heist on that question. 

Ms. HEIST. It varies by appropriation. Some can be made available and some would have to be returned, so it depends. 

Mr. GARDNER. And when you say returned, who is that returned 

to? 

Ms. HEIST. Well, the money hasn’t actually been drawn down 

from the Treasury and has been sitting in EPA, so it would be 

available to be reappropriated, I guess. 

Ms. BENNETT. Only if they are not—— 

Ms. HEIST. Some of it. 

Ms. BENNETT [continuing]. Valid obligations. 

Ms. HEIST. Exactly. 

Ms. BENNETT. So if they haven’t been drawn down and they 

would be—let’s say there is some left over on a particular project, 

then they would be returned. If there is still time left in terms of 

the amount of money, excuse me, on the amount of time that could 

be used, they could be recertified and redeployed; otherwise, they 

would be returned to the Treasury. 

69 

Mr. GARDNER. And so recertified and redeployed, by that are you 

talking about on a new program, re-obligated for what it was initially offered for? 

Ms. BENNETT. Re-obligated. 

Mr. GARDNER. And so there is no way then for EPA to use that 

for other purposes within EPA? 

Ms. HEIST. Some of it could be reused at EPA. 

Mr. GARDNER. For different purposes than what they had originally? 

Ms. HEIST. Well, it would have to be used for the purpose of 

which it was appropriated. So if it was for water projects, it would 

have to be used for water projects. 

Mr. GARDNER. But maybe on a different water project? 

Ms. HEIST. Yes. 

Mr. GARDNER. And you will get information back to us on where 

that money is and how it is used? 

Ms. BENNETT. We have agreed to follow up with you on it. 

Mr. GARDNER. And can you give us some kind of a guarantee 

that you will put that into the budget justifications so that we have 

that information before us so we don’t have to have a congressional 

hearing to find out what is happening with this money? 

Ms. BENNETT. I will be happy to get back to you on it. 

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. If we will pause for a second, I will have the real 

chairman resume his position. Thank you. 

Mr. STEARNS [presiding]. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

Ms. Bennett, my colleague, Dr. Burgess, requested the 

predecisional materials resulting from the July meeting called by 

Administrator Jackson. Can you please confirm for the record that 

the EPA will provide these materials to the committee? 

Ms. BENNETT. It is not my decision as to the provision of 

predecisional meetings, but I will be happy to confer with OMB 

and inside the Agency. I certainly appreciate your interest in the 

issue and be happy to get back to you on it. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Trimble, does the EPA have access to funds 

that it does not report to Congress in its budget proposal? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, I think if this is in reference to monies that 

they have de-obligated and have recertified for other programs, yes. 

So, for example, if they have a grant or an interagency agreement 

that it has been closed and there are funds that have been left 

over, EPA, during the course of the year, can use those funds for 

other purposes within certain constraints. 

Mr. STEARNS. How much money are we talking about? Has the 

amount of unexpended appropriations remained relatively constant? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I don’t have a trend that I could give you. I know 

when we first started tracking this issue over 10 years ago, this 

was an area where the Agency was not doing a good job. They have 

done much better recently. I believe the last year I remember looking at this they had, the number they had repurposed was about 

$160 million. 

Mr. STEARNS. Considering the large amounts of unexpended appropriation raises a question: Why isn’t the EPA spending the 

money provided by Congress? 

70 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, in the moneys that we are talking about that 

we have looked at as part of our review of the budget justification 

requests, typically the moneys we are talking about are for programs where they did spend some of the money just not all of the 

money, for example a grant or an interagency agreement or a contract. They have carried out some of the work, or the contract was 

terminated earlier; it didn’t cost as much, so there is money left 

over, so the contract is closed. And what our past work had shown 

is that they had done—been doing a good job of monitoring that 

and sweeping those moneys up to be used for other purposes. So 

over the years, the GAO plus the IG has been pressing the EPA 

on this. They have improved their tracking. What we have recommended or suggested is that when they have repurposed this 

money, it be transparent to the Hill so that you can consider that 

in your budget deliberations. 

Mr. STEARNS. If the EPA is not spending the money, even you 

mentioned that they might cancel a contract and they had leftover 

funds. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, it could be that the reason they have the leftover money was the contract was cancelled. So, for example, a 

project is terminated or it is finished early, so they thought it was 

going to cost $10 million; it cost $5 million. They complete the contract. You still have the money that was obligated, but they never 

spent it. 

Mr. STEARNS. So what happens to that $5 million? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, it sits, unless they flag it and then deobligate 

it and then put it to another purpose. And those were the issues 

that we have been flagging over the past 10 years. 

Mr. STEARNS. Could they use that for next year’s budget? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I think, depending, I defer to EPA on this, but I 

think you could, depending on some of your moneys, no, your 

money; some money may have a time limit on it. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Trimble, is it correct that GAO issued a report 

just this past July that identified challenges relating to EPA’s management of its real property, namely property management identifying excess and underused property as an area where there may 

be budget savings for our Supercommittee? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I am not familiar with the work we have done for 

the supercommittee, but I believe that is—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I mean, just in general. You are stating there are 

areas where there is underused property, that we could save 

money, isn’t that true? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes, I believe. And that is an area of high risk that 

we have identified for a long time for the Federal Government. 

Mr. STEARNS. Isn’t it also true that GAO found that the EPA did 

not have accurate and reliable information on the need of its facilities, property use, facility conditions and operating efficiencies? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. Specifically that is in relation to its laboratory 

facilities. 

Mr. STEARNS. Ms. Bennett, do you agree with what Mr. Trimble 

indicated that the GAO findings concerning the completeness and 

reliability of operating costs and other data needed to manage EPA 

properties are not there? 

71 

Ms. BENNETT. We certainly respect the findings of the GAO, and 

we are working toward addressing the issues and being able to improve on those issues. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Trimble, you referenced in your—let’s see here, 

June 2010 Presidential memorandum that directed agencies to accelerate efforts to identify and eliminate excess properties to help 

achieve $3 billion in cost savings by 2012, is that correct? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. That is correct. 

Mr. STEARNS. Did EPA eliminate any of its laboratories or major 

assets as a result of that directive? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. No. EPA told OMB that they needed all their lab 

facilities. 

Mr. STEARNS. Let me see if I understand this. EPA tells the 

White House it doesn’t have excess property, but GAO’s own work, 

and EPA concurs, shows the Agency doesn’t have accurate or reliable information to make this determination. Is that an accurate 

statement, Mr. Trimble? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, I don’t know about the EPA concurring. At 

the time, the key factors that they needed to factor into the decision concerned need, usage, efficiency, cost, those are all the things 

called for by OMB for the analysis, and our review found that 

EPA’s data in those areas was either incomplete or the accuracy 

was questionable. 

Mr. STEARNS. Ms. Bennett, so the question for you is, how can 

EPA justify its response to the White House that it doesn’t have 

duplicative or excess property when it doesn’t have the data to support even their determination? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, in terms of the labs, for 2012, we have included in our President’s budget request some funds in order to 

make sure that we properly look at the use and the skills that are 

necessary for the labs to see where we might be able to have additional efficiencies and where we might be able to save costs. 

Mr. STEARNS. You see what I am saying, though. I mean, EPA 

is making this decision, and yet it is clear you don’t even have the 

reliable information to make this decision, yet you are telling 

them—— 

Ms. BENNETT. And we are working on getting better information 

to make the decisions that are necessary. 

Mr. STEARNS. How long is that going to take you? 

Ms. BENNETT. The lab study that we hope to be undertaking 

pending appropriation would be done in 2012. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. My time is expired. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Trimble, I completely agree with the recommendation that for unexpended appropriations, which are actually going to go to a project and they are repurposed by the Agency, 

that needs to be transparent. 

And I am assuming, Ms. Bennett, you would agree with that as 

well. 

Ms. BENNETT. Indeed. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And just so we can be clear for the record, Mr. 

Trimble, Ms. Bennett told us a little while ago that of this unexpended appropriation line, some of that is for projects that are coming down the pike. GAO doesn’t object to any of that, right? 

72 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. You know, I am not an accountant, so full disclosure here. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Me neither. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. The numbers that GAO has been talking about are 

not the unexpended appropriations on this balance sheet. I believe, 

my understanding, and limited as it is, is that the balance sheet 

numbers may include, there may be obligations behind those numbers so it is just a matter of a timing issue in the spending. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. And the other thing is, for some of the appropriations, they might be appropriations that couldn’t be redirected, depending on how broad or narrow they are, right? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. And again, I would defer to—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. You know, if it is an—I will ask Ms. Bennett. If 

it is an appropriation for like water projects and you didn’t need 

it for this one, but for that one, you could repurpose that, right? 

Ms. BENNETT. If it was within the same appropriation. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. But that is what we should know if you are 

doing that, right? 

Ms. BENNETT. Exactly. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. And then you might have an appropriation, 

though, for something else. You might not have, you may not be 

able to repurpose that because of the nature of the appropriation. 

That would revert to the Treasury, right? 

Ms. BENNETT. If we cannot recertify, if we cannot find another 

project of a suitable nature—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Ms. BENNETT [continuing]. Then my understanding is it would go 

back to the Treasury. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. And does that happen? 

Ms. BENNETT. It does. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. I think that is part of what the chairman is 

wanting to know, how much that happens. But just to be clear, this 

money that is on this balance sheet, or any other money that—it 

looks like a lot of money sitting there, $13 billion or $14 billion, but 

that is not actually just a whole bunch of cash just sitting around 

that could be used to offset against next year’s EPA appropriation. 

Much of that money is obligated, correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. That money is obligated, so the government has 

an obligation to meet its contracts. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And when we just cut those funds of previously 

obligated money, what Congresswoman Castor was talking about, 

that is exactly the kind of thing that happens, is projects have to 

be eliminated, even sometimes projects that are underway, right? 

Ms. BENNETT. Well, in her case, it was for projects that had not 

actually been obligated. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Oh, OK. 

Ms. BENNETT. So those were those particular funds. So a contract 

had not been entered into. A grant had not been entered into her 

case. However, it still affected real work and real jobs, according 

to what she said. 

Ms. DEGETTE. They were counting on that money, even though 

it wasn’t obligated, and then it got cut, right? 

Ms. BENNETT. It was a very, very difficult decision. 

73 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all of these witnesses for coming. I think 

it is a really useful review. 

And as I mentioned in my—oh, well, as I mentioned in a side bar 

to you, Mr. Chairman, I think once the EPA completes this analysis of what they are going to do based on the IG’s recommendations, that we should have a follow-up hearing, I think would be 

useful. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Griffith from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The EPA has various initiatives like the American Great Outdoors Initiative, Green Power Partnership, the AgStar Program 

and the Energy Star, just to name a few. I was wondering if you 

can tell me, do you know how many voluntary programs there are 

at the EPA? 

Ms. BENNETT. I know we have quite a few voluntary programs. 

The exact number I would have to follow back up with you on that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And do you have an idea how much the Agency 

spends on the voluntary programs versus statutorily required programs? 

Ms. BENNETT. Most of the funds go to statutorily required programs, but I don’t know the exact—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. If you could give me the answers to both 

of those questions later, that would be greatly appreciated. Can you 

do that for us? 

Ms. BENNETT. I believe I can. I will certainly follow up with you 

on it. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. And in its 2012 request, EPA proposed a $36 million reduction from nonpoint source pollution grants. 

However, at the same time, it proposed increases in other programs 

with a focus on nonpoint pollution, the Mississippi River Basin Initiative, Chesapeake Bay Program, et cetera. After review, it appears the EPA may be proposing to just move money from one account to another. Are these cuts real cuts, or is the EPA simply 

shifting the money from one of its programs to another? 

Ms. BENNETT. I think you are referring to what we call the categorical grants in the STAG account. And indeed, the nonpoint 

source did sustain that—we are proposing a $36 million cut. We 

had—part of our budget process is consultation with the States, 

with ECOS, and with the tribes. And based on that consultation, 

although the 319 program is a very important one, we also recognize that there were other categorical grants that they had indicated might be more important to them, and so we were trying to 

accommodate those requests. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Now, as a part of that cooperation that we heard 

about today from other witnesses, is it possible, do you think that 

the—because it looks like the USDA is doing the same work on 

nonpoint source that you all are doing, is there some way you all 

can get together and perhaps reduce the cost of working on the 

problem? I am not saying you shouldn’t work on the problem, but 

reduce the cost of working on the problem by not duplicating that 

74 

particular information, and have you all talked to the USDA about 

what they are doing so you can coordinate? 

Ms. BENNETT. That was actually a factor in when we were making the decision in terms of how we would make trade-offs within 

those categorical grants working closely with USDA and seeing if 

we might be able to leverage our collective resources better. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Sir, if I may, just so you know, we have an ongoing 

review of the 319 program. And part of the scope of the review is 

to look at coordination with the USDA. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Let me ask you, in regards to this cooperation 

with the States, is that a real cooperation? Can any of you all answer that question for me? Because I just left the State legislature 

about a year ago, and it didn’t feel much like cooperation when representatives of the EPA came down and told us what we were 

going to do and that we couldn’t look for—again, as Mr. Terry said 

earlier and as I pointed out earlier, we couldn’t look for more costeffective ways to try to achieve the same purpose. We were going 

to have to follow one of two models that the EPA approved. Can 

anybody answer whether or not there is actual cooperation with 

the States? Or is it just being dictated to? Because that is the way 

I felt in Virginia. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, yes. I couldn’t answer that, but broadly, I 

think in the 319 program, part of the review will look at its implementation and its structure throughout the State. So it may indirectly get at your question. 

Ms. BENNETT. Mr. Griffith, strengthening the partnerships and 

the relationship with the States and the tribes is one of the administrator’s seven priorities and one of our aspects in our strategic 

plan, one of the cross-cutting fundamental strategies that we have. 

So we are taking the relationship with the States very importantly. 

I know I have had several conversations with the State leadership and ECOS, in particular, on these unliquidated obligations 

and how we can move the money faster. So I know as the CFO, 

I am trying to take it very seriously, and the Agency has set a very 

high priority. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate that very much. I appreciate you all’s 

time today. It has been very helpful. I appreciate the chairman 

having this hearing because I am learning lots, and I am new and 

a lot of these things I haven’t heard before, so I appreciate it. 

And I yield back my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have a couple follow-up questions on the Title 42 provisions. Now, Mr. Inspector General, have you studied the Title 42 

provisions and the number of positions that the EPA is now employing under Title 42 guidelines? 

Ms. HEIST. No, we have not looked at those. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, and you know Mr. Barton referenced that 

one of the unions was concerned. It is the National Treasury Employees Union. In fact, the data I have was supplied to them under 

a Freedom of Information Act request. It is not directly from the 

EPA, though it was the EPA’s response to the Freedom of InformaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:51 Jun 18, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\115159~1\112-95~1 WAYNE
75 

tion Act request filed National Treasury Employees Union. Well, 

just for an example, on the—and Ms. Bennett, you may not be able 

to tell us. But the starting salary or the salary that would be required to hire someone with a title of ‘‘research microbiologist,’’ 

what would the typical salary range for that be? 

Ms. BENNETT. I am not able to say that. I do know that in any 

Title 42 hiring, a very rigorous process is undergone to ensure that 

those individuals are pertinent for that kind of a salary. If it is 

over and above the regular GS or SES schedule—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Did you try? I mean, we are in a recession. Everyone talks about, nobody can find a job. Did you try to fill it with 

someone who might be able to accept the normal GS scale for that 

position? Was it necessary to go to a Title 42? 

Ms. BENNETT. As you suggested, I am not familiar with each individual one. But typically, as I understand, the Title 42s are used 

when other, you know, other avenues have been exhausted, and 

they can’t be hired. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, again, I am having difficulty believing in this 

environment, where all the time we hear when people cannot find 

jobs, people are looking and they can’t find them, I find it hard to 

believe that the position couldn’t even be filled with an American 

citizen. That is troubling. 

Ms. BENNETT. I am not familiar—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, I will provide you with some of this information, and I would like some of your feedback on that because I have 

been trying to get information on this program for quite some time. 

I recognize that it is occasionally necessary to go out and get someone with particular expertise. But you know, since your tenure 

started, it has been what, seven people that you have hired under 

Title 42 provisions, essentially doubling the number—almost doubling the number of hires under that provision from previous years. 

So I, again, in the worst recession the country has ever known, I 

would just ask the question, can we not find anyone suitably qualified who doesn’t require the additional payment under Title 42 provisions? And I will get you that information, and I would appreciate your attention to that. 

One other thing has come up, are there dollars that the EPA is 

spending in grants that are delivered to concerns overseas? 

Ms. BENNETT. There has been a longstanding practice in the 

Agency and in the administration and several administrations to 

provide grants to some foreign entities. 

Mr. BURGESS. But in this budgetary environment, does it make 

sense that we provide millions of dollars in grants to the Chinese 

Government—I mean, they can certainly afford their own research—supporting projects related to coal mine methane utilization. I mean, it seems like that is something they would want to 

do on their own, and they have got the cash to do it, right? 

Ms. BENNETT. I won’t speak to what the Chinese can and can’t 

do. However, I do know that in terms of a longstanding practice, 

that this is—that foreign entities have received grants—— 

Mr. BURGESS. How is that—— 

Ms. BENNETT. And as well as to help deliver and build capacity 

in order to have a more level playing field for U.S. products and 

services. 

76 

Mr. BURGESS. Still, though, it is a stretch to think that is helping our constituents directly. The EPA providing $150,000 to the International Criminal Police Organization in Lyon, France, to promote 

and strengthen international environment enforcement through capacity building. We’re supposed to be helping them enforce their 

cap-and-trade law? Is that what we are to be doing? 

Ms. BENNETT. I am not familiar with the individual grants. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, how about the taxpayer benefit from the 

EPA’s hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding Breathe Easy 

Jakarta, a partnership with the government of Jakarta to improve 

their quality management? 

Ms. BENNETT. Again, I am not familiar with individual grants. 

Mr. BURGESS. Sure and we will—— 

Ms. BENNETT [continuing]. A longstanding practice of many administrations. 

Mr. BURGESS. Sure. And we will provide you the direct things 

that we are concerned about. We would like responses to these because, again, these are questions that we get. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

You know, I go home and have a town hall and 300 or 400 people 

show up and someone sees one of these stories. These are the questions they ask. How can we justify spending—wouldn’t we be better 

to make that investment in our air quality here at home as opposed to Jakarta, Indonesia? 

Ms. BENNETT. It has been a longstanding practice of all—many 

administrations to do this kind of funding. I understand—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Well you are the CFO and your recommendation 

to your administrator may be that it is time to concentrate—what 

moneys we can spend, it is time to concentrate them here at home 

and not Breathe Easy Jakarta. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. 

And I think we have completed our second round. 

Before I close, I just want to make a comment. 

Ms. Bennett, my understanding is that you have testified that 

with respect to the excess lab issue, the EPA is requesting more 

money in the President’s budget to study issues concerning the 

EPA’s labs; is that correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. In terms of how we should approach the labs in 

terms of the usage and how we best structure them. 

Mr. STEARNS. This is even though GAO has already performed 

an audit and issued recommendations to EPA already, isn’t that 

correct? 

Ms. BENNETT. That is correct. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you are saying that the EPA needs to spend— 

needs to ask for more money in order to achieve savings from the 

GAO audit in which they specifically outline ways that you could 

save money, so you are saying this morning, you need more money 

to save money? 

Ms. BENNETT. What we are trying to do is make sure that we 

keep in mind science that is being done in each one of those labs 

and that anywhere we might be able to consolidate, if that is an 

appropriate avenue, that we do so with the science in mind. 

77 

Mr. STEARNS. So, the GAO, though, has already issued recommendations, and they have been specific on how to save money, 

and they have done an audit. I would think lots of those you could 

implement, couldn’t you implement any of them? 

Ms. BENNETT. There are some recommendations that we can implement. 

Mr. STEARNS. You would need more money under the President’s 

budget to do that, that is what you said. 

Ms. BENNETT. The money that we are asking for in the 2012 

budget would be a study that is done by the—and reviewed by the 

National Academy of Science to make sure that the science that is 

done in those labs continues to be of the caliber and it is not impacted at all. 

Mr. STEARNS. It seems to me that you could just run with the 

GAO’s recommendation and do a lot of them and save money today, 

but you are not willing to commit to that. You just want to say you 

need more money to save money. So I am a little puzzled. 

I ask unanimous consent that the committee’s September 15, 

2011, letter to EPA Administrator Jackson on line-by-line budget 

review as well as EPA’s October 11, 2011, letter response be introduced into the record. 

Without objection, the documents will be so entered. 

[The information follows:] 

78 


74567.033
79 


74567.034
80 


74567.035
81 


74567.036
82 


74567.037
83 


74567.038
84 


74567.039
85 


74567.040
86 


74567.041
87 


74567.042
88 


74567.043
89 


74567.044
90 

Mr. STEARNS. And also to put into the record the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s consolidated balance sheet that we have talked 

about all morning. 

By unanimous consent, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

91 


74567.045
92 


74567.046
93 


74567.047
94 


74567.048
95 


74567.049
96 


74567.050
97 


74567.051
98 


74567.052
99 


74567.053
100 

Mr. STEARNS. I want to thank the witnesses for coming, for staying, and their testimony and for the members staying for the second round. 

The committee rules provide that members have 10 days to submit additional questions for the record to the witnesses. 

And with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

101 


74567.054
102 


74567.055
103 


74567.056
104 


74567.057
105 


74567.058
106 


74567.059
107 


74567.060
108 


74567.061
109 


74567.062
110 


74567.063
111 


74567.064
112 


74567.065
113 


74567.066
114 


74567.067
115 


74567.068
116 


74567.069
117 


74567.070
118 


74567.071
119 


74567.072
120 

Æ 


74567.073